Words! Just Words! The Hokum and Blow from Olympus: Raise Taxes and Live with High Oil Prices.

 Words are cheap. So are freak shows on Coney Island. Obama will cut taxes, end the war and solve our energy crisis while accepting the notion that illegal immigration is a case where “passions fly on immigration.” Does he still promise to give driver’s licenses[1] to illegal aliens? Can Joe Biden answer the question from one of is constituents if stealing social security numbers is a crime or not? [2] Obama will restore the promise. Bush and Cheney are responsible for all evils and Obama will end the war in Iraq, Afghanistan and, absent from this particular speech “rebuild our military.” [Emphasis is mine in all quotes.]

 We can all wonder who wrote this speech. Speeches are cheap and this one covers the entire leftist political countryside with promises for all, tax relief for all except the evil corporations and jobs for all. All this is acted out in the setting of a Greek Tragedy with pomp, lights and song and lofty colonnades. All that was missing from this theatre was the feathers and drums.

The Convention Speech must remind us of a corn jibe minstrelry gig with half a dozen whistle-toot Three-card Monte games in progress all tossing chum to the suckers. The game here is a classic short confidence game “…in which the outside man pretends to conspire with the mark to cheat the inside man, while in fact conspiring with the inside man to cheat the mark.”[3]

This is the ultimate ‘promise everything scam’ where the suckers [marks] are offered jobs, an implied free education, tax relief and ‘affordable’  medical treatment system while accomodating illegal aliens. He cannot present a budget for all these phony gifts because there is no way to pay for all this. Raising taxes will just elimiate jobs—not create them.

Hawking his tax mantra[the inside man] from the glittering  backdrop of his peristyle, he gives us empty fluff like this:

[1] “We may not agree on abortion, but surely we can agree on reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies in this country.”

This is a tacit endorsement of abortion and al l that follows this disgusting Rite of Passage of the far left.  His allies are performing 1900 abortions a day.

[2] “The reality of gun ownership may be different for hunters in rural Ohio than for those plagued by gang-violence in Cleveland…”

Why not just enforce the Rule of Law and prosecute those criminals in Cleveland [mostly black] who use—not AK 47s, but cheap Saturday Night Specials, an essential business item in the drug trade.  He is anti gun ownership.

[3] “They claim that our insistence on something larger, something firmer and more honest in our public life is just a Trojan Horse for higher taxes and the abandonment of traditional values.”

Condemned outta his own mouth and aptly scripted as a cheap trap for suckers [the marks or tax payers].  For “traditional values.” we can include his “…our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters [who] deserve to visit the person they love in the hospital and to live lives free of discrimination. Want to see discrimination? Go to San Francisco[4] and look at the gay lifestyle with the drugs, sloth and leftist politics and look for a lack of discrimination if you are straight. We spend more money on AIDS research than for heat disease since Clinton? That is politics.

[4] “But I stand before you tonight because all across America something is stirring. What the nay-sayers don’t understand is that this election has never been about me. It’s been about you.”

We can agree on that one. This is about tax whoring, Marxism and the celebration of degeneracy with tax money.[5] You are just the outside man. We are your intended marks.

This speech is a ‘promise you anything and everything’ but is just a simple con game where the marks will pay higher taxes and higher gas prices to satisfy the elitist politics of the far left. He is the outside man who sets up the tables and encourages the suckers to Follow the Lady and win.

This is a joke.  This is liberalism at its finest.

rycK [ Chairman, Democrats against Biden]

Comments to: ryckki@gmail.com

The Obama Leninists try to Suppress Free Speech and the Facts of Stanley Kurtz

Criticism is not acceptable to the rabid left as their conduct, theories, mantras, deeds and activists can not handle either the facts or the truth. Most of the far-leftist’s precepts are based on Marxism, sloth, sodomy, drug addiction and political agitation so any exposure of actual events by the politicos are anathema to the leftists elites who pretend to be interested in openness and fairness and free speech.  Given a list of their candidates of late, we can look at John Kerry, Al Gore, and Bill Clinton and wonder who the best Communist was[1]. Jimmy Carter was a later convert, but does manage to celebrate Marxism when his feeble neurons are aligned. Marxist criminals were dangling from the Clinton’s skirts and still are:

A review of Clinton Communism and Corruption.

We can recall that Tom McLarty [Clinton Chief of Staff] organized some meeting between the Lippo Group, a law partner of Hillary Clinton [C Joseph Giroir] and John Huang. [2]

Hillary is praised by Fidel Castro[3], endorsed by Osama bin Laden[4] , and other Marxist dirt bags.

Hillary was impressed by a known Communist Saul Alinsky, [5] and wrote a wonderful thesis on him entitled “There is only the fight…….”

Hillary consorted with Red Bone [Robert L. "Red" Bone.]. “She traded the account under the guidance of James Blair. Blair was then an attorney working as outside counsel to Tyson Foods Inc” This was a crooked ‘sweet heart deal[6]’ and a very pretty neat cattle futures ‘investment’ that made 1000$ for each 1$ invested. [7]

As for Kerry:

The officers and men at  Swift Vets and POWs for Truth [8] have detailed Kerry [Vinegar John [9]] and his lies [10] 

There are no lies in all this—just ‘inconvenient’ facts that the left howls about.

All three of these traitors conspired with Marxists, took favors and bribes or lied about their past. They are tainted and the tainting mechanism now threatens Obama by association He is, apparently, just another Commie on the Prowl. He has had a close association with William Ayers of the SDS, a bomber.

The current attempt is to smother the history of the close arrangements between Barack Obama and the disgusting terrorist William Ayers.

It matters not that much of this is well documented—it is important to avoid a ‘swift boating’ of Obama as such actions were credited for sinking John Kerry’s ship.

The lefties are howling since Jerome Corsi’s new book flew to the pinnacle of the New York Times best-selling lest as co-author of the book “The Obama Nation.” The term ‘swift boating’ is now a gerund or a ubiquitous verb form that haunts the little minds of those who would control the press.  Certain other names have been formed into political lexicon such as shrumming [for Bob Shrum] or Clintoonery for the actions of the pair of crooked Arkies who slithered into the White House at the behest of H. Ross Perot.

In the current act of political book burning fever, we read about a vicious tirade about Stanley Kurtz:

“"WGN radio is giving right-wing hatchet man Stanley Kurtz a forum to air his baseless, fear-mongering terrorist smears," Obama's campaign wrote in an e-mail to supporters."He's currently scheduled to spend a solid two-hour block from 9:00 to 11:00 p.m. pushing lies, distortions, and manipulations about Barack and University of Illinois professor William Ayers."[11]

We, firstly, wonder just what Kurz said about Obama, a known Marxist with Saul Alinsky views and mentored by the Communist Frank Marshall Davis?

What did Kurtz do other than discuss the insignificant matter that the current Democratic Party Candidate or President might be a drooling Marxist stooge and in sticky cahoots with known SDS radicals an bombers?

 Here is all they have: bluster and hate:

“"Tell WGN that by providing Kurtz with airtime, they are legitimizing baseless attacks from a smear-merchant and lowering the standards of political discourse," the note said.

"It is absolutely unacceptable that WGN would give a slimy character assassin like Kurtz time for his divisive, destructive ranting on our public airwaves," the note continued. "At the very least, they should offer sane, honest rebuttal to every one of Kurtz's lies."[12]

Okay, give us some rebuttle on what Kurtz is talking about!

Let us discuss the ‘lies’ and baseless attacks against the association of Obama and Ayers.

 Where is it?????????

Start here:

“Sol Stern explains that Acorn is the key modern successor of the radical 1960’s “New Left,” with a “1960’s-bred agenda of anti-capitalism” to match. Acorn, says Stern, grew out of “one of the New Left’s silliest and most destructive groups, the National Welfare Rights Organization.” In the 1960’s, NWRO launched a campaign of sit-ins and disruptions at welfare offices. The goal was to remove eligibility restrictions, and thus effectively flood welfare rolls with so many clients that the system would burst. The theory, explains Stern, was that an impossibly overburdened welfare system would force “a radical reconstruction of America’s unjust capitalist economy.” Instead of a socialist utopia, however, we got the culture of dependency and family breakdown that ate away at America’s inner cities — until welfare reform began to turn the tide.”[13]

 Wasn’t Obama a ‘director’ or something for this group? Any criticism of these words.

What is the specific criticism??

The liberals cannot handle the truth.

??

The Glitter is Off the California Gold! Prepare for Bankruptcy. Your Taxes are Urgently Needed!

California used to be part of America. There was a time when the social parasites were living in the fetid slums of New York, Chicago and Baltimore and the state was relatively pristine with respect to those who sought the good life.  There was a work ethic and a pioneering spirit. No more.[1] The state was infected by bus loads of hippies and other criminals in the 60s.  The people who were elected from this cluster of losers to run the GoldenState are swimming in a latrine of political correctness, drugs, illegal aliens, sexually transmitted diseases, imperialistic teachers, plummeting SAT scores and sloth. The schools are a joke. California is a basket case of wanton and unrepentant criminals, a semi-secure containment facility for the clinically insane and a mass of maudlin, screeching union slugs who have no future without incessant grubbing for money from the state. Baltimore has a better society at this juncture.

If the Marxists, who have swamped this state and made it unacceptable to be a component of the union, made a definable error it was allowing the law to restrict their spending and barrowing. Here is a brief explanation of exactly how the far left are temporarily restricted in their ability to run the system into bankruptcy and fall upon the federal government for more money to waste:

“The State Constitution requires super majority (2/3rds) votes to approve a State budget, which means, with the current levels of membership of Democrats and Republicans, that Republican votes are also needed to pass it.”

“In the State Senate, with a total of 40 members (25 Democrats and 15 Republicans), 27 votes are needed to approve a budget - meaning if all 25 Senate Democrats vote for it, at least 2 Republicans are also needed.”

“In the Assembly, with a total of 80 members (48 Democrats and 32 Republicans), 54 votes are needed to approve a budget - meaning if all 48 Democrats vote for it, at least 6 Assembly Republican votes are also needed.”[2]

If a (2/3rds) vote was not required to pass a budget then the financial damns would burst and the socialists would fall prostrate upon the ground and bet their Communist allies in the federal government and courts for money. All they need is more money and what the average person in California has to pay in taxes in not enough. They need to expand their revenues across state lines. They need federal funds.

 So, what do the leftists do?

They now bawl, take more drugs and are crawling, moaning, to the courts for relief.

Now, for the rest of us whose wealth is, at least in part, in jeopardy in terms of taxes to bail out the drug-crazed Californians who presume to define a society, the need for them to crash in a very public manner with song and drugs and dancing in the streets is mandatory. The world has to see how this leftist love-fest has ruined the state of California. The leftist social and political movements must be viewed as a disease, a tumor on society, and that metastatic disease must be prevented from infecting the rest of the union. Of course, New Jersey and New York[3] are following closely behind Cal9ifronia in their trek down the slimy bankruptcy ditch, but California has the best opportunity to educate the rest of the nation on how this mess happened. A lesson must be learned here before the pandemic expands.

The drug-crazed hippies who were offering oral sex and passing around LSD sugar cube samples in the alleyways of San Francisco during the 60s are now in charge and can make new law in the assembly and also in the courts. They have managed to recreate a third world society that mirrors the splendor of Shanghai during the Great Leap Backward. The Thought Police are ready and willing to put you in the same jail cell that was occupied by some pervert if you criticize their edicts. They prefer degeneracy to criticism. It is okay to sodomize children in the Mission District but it is not acceptable to make a negative comment about a ‘person’ who performs such a disgusting act. Violent criminals are protected and whisked by the elected officials in the cities back to their homelands to avoid jail terms in the City by the Bay and Los Angeles.  Members of violent gangs like MS-13 have more rights than you do.

Of course, ‘compromise’ is the talk of the town:

“The San Jose Silicon Valley Chamber of Commerce and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger share an aversion to new tax measures, but we are willing to join the compromise to accept a temporary tax increase, if it paves the way for true budget reform for California and ends the state's financial roller-coaster ride.”[4]

This sentence contains more in-depth madness than a passage from the tortured pen of Donation Alphonse François de Sade.[5] There is a repulsive and reflexive despair   that attacks the intellect when using the words temporary tax increase are suggested  in a place where tax levels  and  strict standards that characterize a society are politically defined by the far left. The conditional “IF” is included here as caveat and is as silly as a fairy tale. Dorothy cannot even find Kansas during her psychedelic acid trip. The word temporary may be used in the sense that malaria is ‘temporary.’

The liberal activist courts will demand that spending cuts cannot be implemented and that taxes and/or more barrowing are mandated to protect the ‘rights’ of the citizens. Salaries will not be cut. More people must be hired to solve the problems and protect the rights of drug addicts and illegal aliens.

The timing is critical here. CA must crash or disintegrate before the general election in November and pass off some of the infection onto the Democrats. O’Bozo [6]and his lackeys will be ‘concerned’ and seek a ‘solution’ to the financial problems in the TarnishedState. Raise taxes! They will promise to bail out the LostState in speeches and song and the rest of must then realize that we will have to subsidize the Californian Drug Culture.

The notion of ‘true budget reform’ means federal funds.

Watch your wallets, the Commies are Hungry.

Losers deserve to lose. "Life is tough, tougher if you're stupid."
-John Wayne

Losers deserve to lose. "Life is tough, tougher if you’re a leftist or one of their victims."--rycK

rycK

Comments to: ryckki@gmail.com

As the Dog Returns to its Vomit, the Liberals Return to Their Marxist Roots with Balloons and Song

Here is a blatant rehash of the old stale Marxist view that was extracted from the radical rants of Saul Alinsky, a known gutter-grade social agitator and Communist and incorporated into Michelle Obama’s speech last night. This alert and analysis was given by Mark Levine last night and previously in the reference  posted by the  Gateway Pundit.[1]

What to make of Michelle Obama's use the terms, “The world as it is” and “The world as it should be?” From whence do they originate? Try Chapter 2 of Saul Alinsky’s book, Rules for Radicals. In last night's speech, Michelle Obama said something that peeked my curiousity. She said:

"Barack stood up that day," talking about a visit to Chicago neighborhoods, "and spoke words that have stayed with me ever since. He talked about “The world as it is” and “The world as it should be..."

And, "All of us driven by a simple belief that the world as it is just won’t do – that we have an obligation to fight for the world as it should be."

Here’s an excerpt from Chapter 2 of Saul Alinsky’s book, Rules for Radicals:

"The means-and-ends moralists, constantly obsessed with the ethics of the means used by the Have-Nots against the Haves, should search themselves as to their real political position. In fact, they are passive — but real — allies of the Haves…The most unethical of all means is the non-use of any means... The standards of judgment must be rooted in the whys and wherefores of life as it is lived, the world as it is, not our wished-for fantasy of the world as it should be."[2]

This is plagarism in the best traditions of the blowhard Joe Biden[3] the Awful Offal Chucker from Delaware, the one who recurrently makes himself look like some low-class chum chucker for the mob with his emotional outbreaks and shrieks.[4] He has a history that includes rough and sophomoric plagiarism and bragidocious conduct as well. Joe cheated his way through law school using other people’s ideas. The astronishing  observation here is two fold:

[1] The liberals must have used this with the knowledge that it was from a Marxist source and plagiarized it as Joe Biden does with impunity and…

[2] The liberals don’t care if they signal their fellow travellers in public and trumpet their Marxist themes.

It is not clear if Michelle knows about this linkage as speech writers are given much power and she may not have the cognitive skills [despite her Ivy League leftist training as an affirmative action wonk] to realize what happened. She is not the brightest bulb on the Marxist Freak Show stage in Denver.

We do know that there is a concerted effort to muzzle offensive elements such as Jesse Jackson, Al Shaprton and other rabble rousing activists who would alarm those who proclaim to be ‘undecided.’

Sometimes, we have to wonder if the liberals have anything other than emotion to use for logic and planning. Liberals return to Marxist teachings as the dog returns to its vomit.

HuffyPuffy[5] jumps in with these theme to clarify Michelle’s position on gays and such with this:

“Last night, in a passionate address to the Democratic National Committee's Gay and Lesbian Leadership Council, Mrs. Obama delivered a rousing call-to-equality and put her husband on record as a fighter for the full equality of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americans. "Barack believes," she said, "that we must fight for the world as it should be, a world where we work together to reverse discriminatory laws."[6]

“"A world that recognizes that equality in relationship, family, and adoption rights is not some abstract principle," she declared, "it's about whether millions of LGBT Americans can finally live lives marked by dignity and freedom. "”—M. Obama Speech Aug 27, 2008.

This is ambiguous. The message is clearly Marxist, but the revolutionary tone would appeal to the LGBT community. They need special laws to protect them from prosecution for their degeneracies as we see in San Francisco.

I have sometimes attempted to describe liberalism in the following terms:

Liberalism is like probing a baboon’s sphincter for diamonds. There is little chance for success, but there several opportunities for anger and frustration. [7][8]

I need to expand this simile to include Jeremiah Wright, Jesse Jackson, Howard Dean, Bill Clinton and Saul Alinsky.

And we should vote for even some of these psychotics?

It should be clear that these liberal Democrats are still stuck in the soggy latrine of Marxism and will not budge on even the smallest tenet. They have nothing but your money and they will attempt to tax away as much as they can because they hate people with success and wealth. Your money drives them into a fit.

Losers deserve to lose. "Life is tough, tougher if you're stupid."
-John Wayne

Losers deserve to lose. "Life is tough, tougher if you’re a leftist or one of their victims."--rycK

rycK

Comments to: ryckki@gmail.com

 The Bumpless Bump from Joe Biden. Down Go The Dems.

Joe Biden[1] enters the race with much foam and froth and we get this:

Since 8/23 we find Obama’s lead has vanished and now McCain is ahead +2 in Gallup and tied in two others, including the highly biased CNN poll.

Biden was a mistake.

Stay tuned.

rycK [ Chairman, Democrats against Biden]

Comments to: ryckki@gmail.com

The Liberal Quest for a Syncretic Theological Solution to Sin [and more votes]

Liberalism is based, primarily, on sloth, sodomy and drug addiction all financed by the wealth of others using tax policy and begging.  They have nothing else and California is the proof.[1] Their social and political messages and whines do not, however, attract many of the  true religions from the center and right. The leftists are usually 5-8 percentage points short of guaranteeing a given political contest conclusion that would wax forever in their favor. Syncretism_[2]is a social and political and, considered by some, even an intellectual process where by old beliefs and customs although supported by reams of proof documents and screiptures can be modified and certain precpets reversed. This is a cheap way to get votes by pandering to sinners for votes and financial contributions.

The liberals, despite their celebration of sodomy, abortion, crime, abuse of the law, civil disobedience and more clearly need to attract more members. One way is to convince their potential new victims that certain religions laws customs are out of date. Thus, sin may be abrogated.

 One the case of Christianity, the syncretic process has been in force for probably 25 centuries if you count the Jewish scriptures and other noncanonical works. Certainly St. Augustine merged Manichean Dualism with Christianity and Thomas Aquinas switched from one Greek philosophy to another by moving from Plato to Aristotle.

Syncretic movements in the literature must include a long list of activists:

Fascism

Libertarianism

Marxism

National Bolshevism

Islamism

Producerism

The Mujahedin of Iran

Libertarianism.[3]

In all cases, the intent is to modify existing religious laws and tenets in an attempt to attract new conversions from those who accept these changes. Each movement seems to begin with an attack or explanation or redaction of some precept that the syncretic view as extreme.

In practical political terms, we can view the two major political parties in the US has being divided, in part, by several precepts and teachings that are considered extreme by both parties. The game here, and it is merely a game, is to show that the other side is unreasonable and extreme in their views and that their laws, rule and edicts need to be reformed to accommodate these views into the modern society.

Homosexuality is an interesting case[4] of a social practice that is considered a sin by most main stream religions. Islam considers the practice a sin worthy of capital punishment[5] The Bible is also quite specific on this particular sin. In Leviticus 18:22 the compulsory death penalty applies to both [or probably more] participants. The Catholic Church appears to deem such conduct a forgivable sin when practiced by priests.

Abortion in contrast is not mentioned in the scriptures of either the Bible or the Koran (Quran) [6] but seems to have been practiced in the ancient world with certain restrictions including early termination and tolerated if there was some threat to the mother or her reputation.

The Death Penalty is well known in all societies and is specified in the Bible, Koran (Quran) and other writings and the American Constitution. 

So, the question arises: What can political activists do or say to convince people to switch their religions views to their side.

The answer: anything they can!

Here is an example from Nancy Pelosi:[7]

This was soundly refuted by Catholic Bishops in a matter of days or hours.[8]

“In the course of a "Meet the Press" interview on abortion and other public issues on August 24, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi misrepresented the history and nature of the authentic teaching of the Catholic Church against abortion.”

The MTP question and answer was this:

MR. BROKAW: Senator Obama saying the question of when life begins is above his pay grade, whether you're looking at it scientifically or theologically. If he were to come to you and say, "Help me out here, Madame Speaker. When does life begin?" what would you tell him?

REP. PELOSI: I would say that as an ardent, practicing Catholic, this is an issue that I have studied for a long time. And what I know is, over the centuries, the doctors of the church have not been able to make that definition. And Senator--St. Augustine said at three months. We don't know. The point is, is that it shouldn't have an impact on the woman's right to choose. Roe v. Wade talks about very clear definitions of when the child--first trimester, certain considerations; second trimester; not so third trimester. There's very clear distinctions. This isn't about abortion on demand, it's about a careful, careful consideration of all factors and--to--that a woman has to make with her doctor and her god. And so I don't think anybody can tell you when life begins, human life begins."[9]

Here, the authority of the Church to make policy on sins and conduct is abrogated by some politician trolling for votes. She invokes civil law that stems from not legislation but form some liberal legal activism that overrides the tenets of the Catholic Church. This is heresy.

There is every reason to suspect that Nancy Pelosi is a liar, atheist, and worse given her disgusting conduct in the last few years and especially as Speaker.

In the cancerous quest for power, the Speaker with all the attributes and countenance of a Repulsive Reptile [10] will undermine any honorable precept, tell any lie, sell anybody into slavery, corrupt any religions position, condemn the souls of any person to the Hot Floors of Hell or peddle the sexual favors of any child on the Streets of San Francisco. 

This is heresy of the worst sort. This fiend now instructs the Holy See on how to interpret their own history and teachings.

She needs to be excommunicated.

The dogs shall eat Jezebel …[11]

I will pay for the candles that need to be broken.

rycK [ Chairman, Democrats against Biden]

Comments to: ryckki@gmail.com

We Read of ‘Hope’ for Obama from the New York Times. The Liberals don’t want hope—they want your money.

The New York Times—aka the Walter Duranty Papers [1] has a 90+ year history of apologizing for Communism, World Wars started by leftists, the USSR, Cuba and their interminable endorsement of far left political types would run for high office in the United States. They always have praise for any left-liberal tax whore who wants to raise taxes and will condemn any politician that is even moderately to the right.

Today, the NYT offers a winning agenda:

“Senator Barack Obama goes into the Democratic convention in Denver with a clear challenge: to match the soaring oratory that brought him to this moment in history with a strong and detailed explanation of how he will address the country’s many dire problems.

”[2]NYT Aug 25, 2008 [All quotes references this link in this blog unless otherwise noted. [Emphasis is mine in all quotes.]

There are two problems here:

[1] Obama is an empty suit when the teleprompter shuts off and he resorts to stuttering, waffling and making flip-flop blunders.

[2] His only stated solutions to our ‘dire problems’ is tax hikes and more government spending.

That is the end of the list.

“Americans need to hear how he plans to halt the economy’s frightening downward spiral and help millions who have lost their jobs, homes and hopes while also preparing our children to compete in a globalized world. That will mean putting some flesh on the position statements that fill his Web site, and setting priorities.”

By flesh, we must presume the NYT asks for details like a budget we can all look at. The usual method of getting out of economic problems with tax cuts to spur growth are out of the question in any leftist—neo-Marxist’s cranial vault so that won’t be on the platform.

 Obama’s website has a plan in pdf form that talks a lot about tax credits for the middle class and just mumbles about revenues. Any strong language on tax hikes is missing.

How can he pay for all this??

Worse that this, the ultimate objective of any leftist movement is to tank the economy so Obama has to be very careful not to propose a plan that might bring more prosperity to the US. The left feeds on depression, inflation, war, unrest and racism and that is all evident from even a perfunctory examination of leftist political history and government.

High gas prices, encouraged by the left and their European losers in one way to sink the economy.

They do not want us to use our own oil. They like high gas prices. Obama said so.

“One part of Mr. Obama’s task will be easy: showing how much damage the Bush administration has done to Americans’ lives and their country’s reputation.”

That will be Buffoon Biden’s job. Let’s all get mad and emotional and howl for hope.

They want Bush to be  cast as another Hoover so Obama, in FDR’s image, can put in all kinds of phony social programs and devalue the currency again. That worked for FDR. It was fine for FDR to force  a year’s debt in GDP terms  for World War 2[17 bln in current dollars accounting for growth] and kill off 400,000 US soldiers in the European cesspool squabble we have nothing to do with. He was able to agitate the Japanese until the reacted. Where was the diplomacy we hear about then? Do they know Bush is not running?

We cannot trust leftists and their Marxist overseers like Pelosi and Obama. They are not patriots and only Americans by an accident of birth. Their hearts and souls belong to Marxism.

“What we know is that many Americans are deeply suspicious of their political leadership — the approval ratings of Congress, now controlled by Mr. Obama’s own party, are even lower than those of President Bush — and they are only now turning their attention to the election.”

Leftist tax whores are not popular with very many. And Nancy does not want us to drill—she wants to give citizenship to illegal aliens so as to stuff the ballot box.

“More than any candidate we have seen in years, Mr. Obama has an ability to inspire hope and a sense of unlimited possibility. To lead, especially in such hard times, a president needs to offer the country both. To win the presidency, he will first have to make clear where he wants to take that nation.”

The latrine is the only place a true Marxist wants to take a capitalist economy.

Hope and liberalism and Marxism do not make sense in the same sentence. They do not want any hope for capitalism--they want to hope for socialism and totalitarianism and compleat control of anything they can get their slimy paws on. They have ruined education, put up offensive racist policies like affirmative action, busing, HUD, and other giant economic failure such as the Great Society, War on Poverty.

So, in their quest for HOPE they get some mechanical chum chucker from Delaware who could only have been chosen as a mud slinger [he has no other attributes other than the failure in Kosovo] to chuck feces at McCain.

We could HOPE for a reasonable plan to help the economy and end the War on Terrorism but that will not spring forth from the cesspool in Denver.

They are hopeless.

rycK [ Chairman, Democrats against Biden]

Comments to: ryckki@gmail.com

Krugman of the NYT Advocates a Hard Attack  [Accentuate the Negative] against McCain.

Political Ideas are frequently derived from a constricted redaction of isolated historical events and then intercalating the extract with some current observation or urgent need. Using this ‘synthesis’ theorem, the basis of Marxism, any necessary changes in political vectors may be hastily hatched and justified by merely citing the numerous examples and bawling.  In today’s screed about non-economics the noisy non-economist from New York Times—aka the Walter Duranty Papers. [1] launches a personal attack on John McCain in an attempt to swift boat Old John in the manner that Vinegar John Kerry [2] was defeated. Here, the political apology is two fold: [1] the attack on the Kerrys were untrue and unfair and [2] the methods were a form of attack that should not have been launched against a war veteran. This is fair.

Obama has missed his two  winning choices for VP [both are women] and has chosen Joe Biden[3]  the Awful Offal Chucker from Delaware, the one who recurrently makes himself look like some low-class chum chucker for the mob with his emotional outbreaks and  shrieks.[4] He has a history that includes rough and sophomoric plagiarism and bragidocious conduct as well.

The Attack begins with self-justification:

“So the Obama campaign has turned to the politics of personal destruction, attempting to make a campaign issue out of John McCain’s inability to remember how many houses he has. And the turn comes not a moment too soon.”[5] Accentuate the Negative By Paul Krugman Op-Ed Columnist Published: August 24, 2008. [All quotes references this link in this blog unless otherwise noted. [Emphasis is mine in all quotes.]

This is a major issue that makes the Jeremiah Wright and William Ayers issues pale. What a disgrace! McCain should resign after this.

“Mr. Obama’s waning advantage brought back bad memories of the 2004 campaign, whose key lesson was that there are no limits to the form G.O.P. character attacks can take.”

Ah, the history lesson and basis for the vendetta. Let’s go get ‘em good.

“..back in 2004 the Swift-boat lies were enthusiastically embraced by Republican activists, and helped neutralize the advantage John Kerry was supposed to get from his biography.”

There were no lies here.[6] Rush Limbaugh was correct when he referred to Vinegar John.  Rush Limbaugh described repeatedly as a “gigolo” with a “sugar daddy wife.” Where did Kerry get his money? Where did his gold digger wife get her stash?  Kerry told lies before Congress about his own soldiers. He somehow got three purple hearts from three drops of blood and then left the scene after a few months. I spend several months in those same brown waters In Viet Nam[7], was shot at, skinned  up my knees in one incident when I was fired upon with a heavy machine gun from the jungle but the thought of a purple heart for me did not enter my mind until 2004. Kerry is a liar, a communist stooge and antimilitary. He deserved to first carry the gangrenous waters of a liberal Democrat and second to lose with dishonor. His ‘reporting for duty’ announcement made me sick. We need to read his fitness reports from the war to learn how he got away from the Mekong so fast. Political influence? Cowardice?

“But in the world we actually live in, pro-corporate, inequality-increasing Republicans argue that you should vote for them because they’re regular guys you’d like to have a beer with, while Democrats who want to raise taxes on top earners, expand health care and raise the minimum wage are snooty elitists.”

Here are Obama’s own snooty elitist words:

"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."[8]—Barack Obama off camera in what he thought was a safe environment to express his views.[9]

It is difficult to argue around these words and Rush Limbaugh did not create this prose, it came from the Obama heart. This was an explanation of a political problem: the unwashed white Reagan Democrats might not vote for Obama.

This is the kind of low- level tactic we expect from the New York Times--aka the Walter Duranty Papers[10] --where, in this case, pure emotion and revenge drives the clarion call to get out the vote.  We will win on for Kerry! Raise the taxes.

The plan revealed:

“The Obama campaign, on the other hand, doesn’t need to convince voters either that he’s the awesomest candidate ever or that Mr. McCain is a villain. All it has to do is tarnish Mr. McCain’s image enough so that voters see this as a race between a Democrat and a Republican. And that’s a race the Democrat will easily win.”

No politics of personal destruction here!

I think the Walter Duranty Memorial Paper missed a few salient points here. All we had to do with both Al Gore and John Kerry is showcase their history as tax whores and communist bool lickers. Obama has the same slimy connections to Marxism that wows the Democrats in their unending quest for other people’s money. He has a trillion dollar spending agenda where he promises everything to the low classes and there is no way to pay for any of it if he raises the taxes. The economy and inflation both prevent anybody from elevated tax hikes and the urgent need to increase federal interest rates to fight this monster will cost a million jobs.  Raising taxes cuts revenues and growth.

The leftists want your money and you really do not have enough. They want more.

Obama is an awesome and slick Marxist, elitist and gifted orator when the prompter is running. When the switches are switched off on his electronic aids, he mumbles, stutters and makes flip-flop pronouncements like a butterfly on a budlea bush. [11] But, he is really a pedestrian-level Marxist and ideological racist and everybody can see that. He runs on hating whitey and most middle class whites now know that. He is Jeremiah Wright’s best student.

Attacking McCain is expected from the left and this  will do nothing to tarnish him image. The looming counter attacks on Obama on issues such as illegal immigration, taxes, budgets, spending and all that will show Americans that we cannot afford some tax-whoring bozo who wants reparations and more for his homies.  He supports the international Carbon Cap Follies[12] with taxes that will crush the world economies as they are doing now in Europe.  Joe Biden will embarrass him self, if that is possible using his own standards,  and his party and will look like a fool trying to support a tax-whoring racist from the slums of Detroit.

Good luck.

rycK

Comments to: ryckki@gmail.com

Frank [the Crank] of the NYT Reslogans the Slogans.  A new story that Obama must tell!

We are always privileged to study and digest the frantic political theorizing that poses as thinking at theNew York Times —aka the Walter Duranty Papers. [1]When the polls shift against their for eternity leftist candidates, new political measures are required to be implemented so that the public can be reeducated and vote accordingly for whatever tricks and potions  the socialists need at the time.We are usually educated on the new plan by Frank [the Crank] Rich[2][3][4]or one of his shills. Frank Rich is well known for his supernatural ability to crank out sophomoric dogmatic far-left literary brats with sausage-machine tedium even when they apply to nothing in particular. He can sometimes identify a pratfall, even when it happens to a Clinton.[5] He has identified a new pratfall in the Obama political theory, but there is time to recover from  this blunder with Frank’s  expertsuggestions. The New York Times will save humanity from capitalism if only the ignorant masses with incomes above $80,000 will read his screeds and believe.

So, let us have some fun with the latest Crankling:

 “AS the real campaign at last begins in Denver this week, this much is certain: It’s time for Barack Obama to dispatch “Change We Can Believe In” to a dignified death.”[6]-- Last Call for Change We Can Believe In by Frank Rich [All quotes references this link in this blog unless otherwise noted. [Emphasis is mine in all quotes.]

I think he has already dispatched the belief part, but we should read on for our amusement.

Okay, how about:

Change We Cannot Believe In!

Too negative it seems. That means that there must have been some blunder in the original slogan. Let us have it all explained by Frank.

“This isn’t because — OMG! — Obama’s narrow three- to four-percentage-point lead of recent weeks dropped to a statistically indistinguishable one- to three-point margin during his week of vacation. It’s because zero hour is here. As the presidential race finally gains the country’s full attention, the strategy that vanquished Hillary Clinton must be rebooted to take out John McCain.”

Now, all this makes sense to a dedicated reader of the Times I suspect. To me it sounds like fluff. Hillary was pushed off the scene when her counter measures against the Obama racist countermeasures against her husband failed and she failed to get the right left slogan into place to dump Obama. This is war, and it is not over.

Here was her chance:

These dummies are portrayed thusly:

"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."[7]—Barack Obama off camera in what he thought was a safe environment to express his views.[8]

She should have hopped up on her podium and denounced Obama and his tools of overt racism, bigotry, sleaze, stealth and worse. She was essentially silent. Michele Obama, the Angry Black Woman[9] and racist, was on a trash-talking tear[10] against whites when she was suddenly muzzled and another opportunity was lost to the Clinton Machine or Clintoonery for short.

Besides snubbing Hillary, Obama now selects as his running matey some emotional plagiarist blow hard from a small state with only 3 electoral votes. Joe Biden [11] as a choice was in insult to Hillary and all women and Indians who own 7-11 stores. No wonder the Times freaks out—Obama has blown the unblowable.

““Change We Can Believe In” was brilliantly calculated for a Democratic familial brawl where every candidate was promising nearly identical change from George Bush.””

So, this was just a sexist and anti-Hillary tactic. Sleazy or standard politics from the left.

“What Obama also should have learned by now is that the press is not his friend.”

I just got lost on this one. Is the Times the ‘press?’  Is this an admission?

“What should Obama do now?”

Okay, Frank, tell us……….

“As David Leonhardt observes in his New York Times Magazine cover article on “Obamanomics” today, Obama’s real problem is not a lack of detail but his inability to sell policy with “an effective story.”

So, Frank parrots somebody else! Where is the leading-edge leftist original thinking at the Walter Duranty Papers?[12]Have they gone sterile? What ‘story?’

“So while Obama can continue to try to reassure resistant Clinton loyalists in Appalachia that he’s not a bogeyman from Madrassaland, he must also move on to the bigger picture for everyone else. He must rekindle the “fierce urgency of now” — but not, as he did in the primaries, merely to evoke uplifting echoes of the civil-rights struggle or the need for withdrawal from Iraq.”

Does that mean more flip-flopping?

“Economic anxiety is the new terrorism. This is why the most relevant snapshot of voters’ concerns was not to be found at SaddlebackChurch but at the Olympics last Saturday.”

The ignorant voters must be forced to believe that drilling cannot increase the oil supply even by one barrel of oil. Drilling is an illusion. That oil is not real even if Red China drills and pumps it out and sells some for Castro. That is not an increase in supply.

The ignorant voters must be forced to believe that increasing taxes on everything will bring untold splendor and prosperity to the US. Taxes are good. You can save the ‘cost’ of tax cuts from the Evil Bush types with more and more tax hikes. That will cancel out the bad from the tax cuts. Tax cuts do not stimulate economic growth—the government does that.

How about a clarion call to double all our taxes!! That would be ‘urgent.’ Obama could call for Nancy Pelosi to get her droolers back and vote to put an inst ant 4$ tax on gasoline.  We have time before November. That would calm the electorate. Why not get Al Gore[13] on the stage to argue for a new comprehensive Carbon Cap for the US so we can save humanity from the boiling oceans.

“How we dig out of this quagmire is the American story that Obama must tell. It is not a story of endless conflicts abroad but a potentially inspiring tale of serious economic, educational, energy and health-care mobilization at home.”

How about a fat and fast Carbon Tax on everything!  Sex, food, laundry, shoes, bubble gum and movies? That worked in Europe. The frogs and Brits love 8$ gas! We can beat that! We can make Cost-Push Inflation a great ‘story!’

Why not tax all cars that are not electric, but keep mum about the fact that 80% of the electricity that would into all electric cars comes from coal-fired electricity facility now.  No more nukes! No more drilling! Let cars be fixed up with windmills and solar cells.

The lefties are frantic cuz Obama screwed up in his ‘pick’ for VP. He could have picked his noise and gotten more applause from the Times. He picked Blowhard Joe.

If the Obama polls dip during the convention, panic will launch a new set of ‘stories’ from the Times and other non press sites.  We should be prepared to drool and accept their little ‘stories.’ Reality shows us that zero hour passed with Hillary.

rycK

Comments to: ryckki@gmail.com

Krugman Remumbles and Massages the Numbers on Socialized Medicine: Raise Taxes, as usual.  

Our famous non-economist, Paul Krugman[1] of the New York Times--aka the Walter Duranty Papers[2] --has a history of number shuffling where he advances the counterfeit theory of mixing apples, oranges and other fruits. He is an ardent tax hike artist and cannot manage to offer a coherent discussion on growth and taxation in his many articles and books. He is frequently excitable.[3] He may be the Tax Hike Zombie, a mirror image of what he thinks about the capitalists. [4]

In today’s episode from the Old Gray Lady, we read the following:

“Last weekend, Pastor Rick Warren asked both presidential candidates to define the income at which “you move from middle class to rich.” The context of the question was, of course, the difference in the candidates’ tax policies. Barack Obama  wants to put tax rates on higher-income Americans more or less back to what they were under Bill Clinton; John McCain, who was against the Bush tax cuts before he was for them, says that means raising taxes on the middle class. ”[5] --Now That’s Rich By Paul Krugman Op-Ed Columnist Published: August 22, 2008-- [Emphasis is mine in all quotes. This link references all quotes in this essay unless otherwise noted. ]

This is a politically and emotionally loaded paragraph where the notions of rich, middle class and even taxation need to be defined. We must also note that Social Security is ‘off-budget’ a FDR euphemism that allowed the tax burden to remain somewhat undefined. We shall see if any firm numbers are present in this screed. The Devil is in the Details and an analysis of the numbers always embarrasses and undermines the tax agenda of the left. Let us search for reality in this tautological essay on high taxes.

“Mr. Obama answered the question seriously, defining middle class as meaning an income below $150,000. Mr. McCain, at first, made it into a joke, saying “how about $5 million?” Then he declared that it didn’t matter because he wouldn’t raise anyone’s taxes. That wasn’t just an evasion, it was a falsehood: Mr. McCain’s health care plan, by limiting the deductibility of employer-paid insurance premiums, would effectively raise taxes on a number of people.”

Here, the word tax starts to lose its definition. The numbers float around as Hillary and company seemed to want to tax those, firstly, with incomes above $250,000 and then dropped this to $200,000. We now wonder what middle class income might be.

As long as we are on socialized medicine, it is important to share some numbers with the readers here: If there are 47,000,000 people who ‘cannot afford health care insurance’ or have no coverage, a misnomer because everybody in the US, illegal or not, has access to health care whether they can pay for it or not.   Let us take this a step at a time so Krugman can keep up:

[1] 47,000,000 people who cannot pay for HC means a ‘tax bill’ for somebody in the Western Hemisphere of 47 bln if we spend only $1000 per person per year.

[2] If we must spend $10,000 on each person, the tax rises to 10x this number or the huge number of 470 billion dollars.  

[3] Now, we know the druggies, felons, illegal aliens, loafers and such will not pay anything since they can trade their votes [yes even illegal aliens in Californian and other third world ensembles] so, strangely, this burden must be paid by somebody.

[4] “Total spending was $2.3 TRILLION in 2007, or $7600 per person.1 Total health care spending represented 16 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP).”[6]

[5] We might just look at who pays what in terms of taxes. The latest from 2006 is this:

For Tax Year 2006

[6] The Federal budget for 2007 was $2730 billion. [7] The current deficit is 480 bln dollars.

[7] There are about 130 million workers. The debt is 10 bln and the debt service is 406 billion.[8]

 So, where does all this go?

We currently spend about $7600 per person [item 4] so 47 million [from item 1]   x $7600 works out to new taxes of $357 billion. This is $633 per month.

We cannot stop there as this will be a federal program [like the Great Society, HUD, War on Poverty, Amtrak, DOD, Social Security and other failures] so it will cost 20% more just because of the incompetents they must hire to run this wreckage. That means almost $500 billion dollars in extra taxes.  Each new billion in taxes and or spending is about 8$ per worker.

Now, let us see what Krugman gives us:

“Mr. McCain wants to preserve almost all the Bush tax cuts, and add to them by cutting taxes on corporations. Mr. Obama wants to roll back the high-end Bush tax cuts — the cuts in tax rates on the top two income brackets and the cuts in tax rates on income from dividends and capital gains — and use some of that money to reduce taxes lower down the scale.

According to estimates prepared by the nonpartisan TaxPolicyCenter, those Obama tax increases would fall overwhelmingly on people with incomes of more than $200,000 a year. Are such people rich? Well, maybe not: some of those Mr. Obama proposes taxing are only denizens of lower Richistan, although the really big tax increases would fall on upper Richistan. But one thing’s for sure: Mr. Obama isn’t planning to raise taxes on the middle class, by any reasonable definition — even that of the Bush administration.”

This is a political answer. Where are the numbers, growth, energy costs and other factors? What is the effect of high gas prices on the ‘poor’ and those others who are not ‘rich?’ Krugman will not concede that tax cuts produce economic growth. It they did, their socialist themes would rot in place for all to see.

From the table in Item [5] above we find that that top 5% have an income cutoff of about $150, 000. Many of these are small business types who provide the new jobs in our economy.

“Of course, all the evidence in the world won’t stop Republicans from claiming, as they always do, that Democrats are going to impose a crippling tax burden on ordinary hard-working Americans. But it just ain’t so.”

Here are the facts as I see them:

[a] We are looking at higher taxes and a call to tax those who invest in our future. Somebody has to put up nearly $500 bln in new health care costs paid for by new taxes.

[b] We are asked to pay much higher prices for gasoline and electricity and gas along with the taxes on that commodity.

[c] The liberals and their Marxist allies are against growth. [9] They want the cost of energy to soar because of some phony Global Warming ah……….Climate Change nostrum that is a world wide tax. [10]They prevent nuclear power plants, off shore drilling and new refineries from being built. Growt means higher tax revenues al ala Reagan. Is it true that the left do not want growth? I think so if we read stuff by Kenneth Rogoff. [11]

Now, it is arithmetically possible to just shift the entire tax burden to the top 2% and force them to pay for everything in the US with money to spare. The difficulty with this Marxist nostrum is that they are the ones who can just pick up their wealth and transfer it to Dubai or Singapore or elsewhere. They can also just stop earnings and put their money in tax free bonds and other investments.

The lefties forget the Jimmy Carter era where high taxes caused malaise, stagflation and worse. Overspending by liberals in such economic latrines as California[12], New York, New Jersey and Michigan has brought these Blue States to the edge of the Financial Snake Pit and bankruptcy is certain for half of these within the next two years.

There is no useful information in this NYT article. The op-eddies of the Old Gray Lady labor under the banner of Marxism and have only a psychotic dread of capitalism. This is justified as the capitalist juggernaut crushed the far left and their phony economics.  I often advise people to hug a Commie and thank him for being so stupid. [13]The low and middle class are expected, in this phony article, to escape the new and higher taxes because they are convinced that only ‘the rich’ will pay for their new goodies. What is missing is:

The rich will pass down higher taxes as costs of doing business and the ‘poor’ and middle class will pay for that PLUS an  inefficiency factor caused by the government. That tax hike goes directly to the middle class. Those ‘rich’ who must shift priorities to get around the oppressive tax hikes will lay off the middle class people and search for new business adventures while avoiding,  unions and other government taxes and fees and regulations, which means a net loss of jobs. That will then lower the tax revenues. What do we do then? OH! Raise taxes.

The folk at the NYT are left-liberal tax whores who can think of nothing other than defeating capitalism. The people who mistakenly vote for their leftist political choices will suffer higher prices, higher unemployment and will pay the higher taxes imbedded in the higher prices of their corporate goods and services.

Yes, the voters really are that stupid. They are almost as stupid as the Europeans. [14]The NYT takes advantage of the mentally disnimble and will screw them with the dual phony notions  of fairness and taxing the rich.

Wanna vote dumb? Vote Democrat.  

Wanna pay higher prices in stead of higher ‘taxes?’ Vote Democrat.  

Take a peek at what California has become under the influence of drugs, sloth, sodomy and higher taxes. That is what the liberals offer. Ich bin ein ex-Kalifornikan.

rycK

Comments to: ryckki@gmail.com

Hot Dog Biden and Obama: Two Leftist Lawyers at the Helm? Go for it!

Politics is a chaos system, a fact that cannot be questioned given even a cursory analysis of the political antics and outcomes of our last century or so. In a random-walk mathematical model certain candidates appear to unconsciously collide with random events and then some ‘analyst’ or ‘sage’ convinces the sleeping electorate that they suddenly have a new leader with a new vision. This process actually did work with Hitler, Arnold Schwarzenegger, FDR and Fidel Castro. There was ‘hope,’ the last resort of the losers and those who are forced to live on the left tail of the Bell Curve. Churchill had such attributes and was able to direct hundreds of thousands of Brits into strategically unsound battles with enormous loses in two massive wars with his peculiar theories on war. Wilson was reelected on the phony notion that ‘he kept us out or war’ and promptly sentenced 160,000 US soldiers to death in the mud in France in 1917. FDR, not to be bested, ignored the Neutrality Act and forced us into the next world war with a mere 400,000 dead and a entire year’s worth of national debt. In sterling acts of diplomacy, two world wars produced 51,000,000 dead in WW1 and, improving, only 31,000,000 in WW2. These people were natural ‘leaders’ with a vision. It takes a lot of bodies to make a great statesman.

Each new era in politics is to be brand new, a shining social advance in government for all humanity and the new programs will ‘solve’ most or all or our problems. Such nostrums frequently call for doubling your taxes, but what is the price peace and justice? Your government knows best.

In our current political hysteria, the promises of free healthcare [for those who cannot pay], ‘help’ for deadbeat mortgage holders who never make  their payments, saving the planet from boiling away and other follies abound with bells and song. Now we are faced with a 10 bln dollar debt, a 480 bln dollar deficit, new punitive tax hikes and a myriad of ways to squelch our oil supply from the left. Social Security languishes a mere 5-8 years from going broke and some economists call for a recession[1]. We can solve all this with higher taxes especially on oil companies.

 So, what might we be offered as ‘leaders’ from the Party of Democrats? Two lawyers?

One has a strong Communist background and training and the other is a plagiarist[2] and blowhard with the shortest fuse in the Senate at least when Ted Kennedy dives into bottle and gives other losers a microphone break. The thinking here is that Obama needs ‘experience’ in foreign affairs and that the mercurial senator[3] from Delaware can form some kind of ‘balanced’ ticket that will cover the oozing sore spots.

If Obama survives the wrath of Hillary Clinton, The Queen of Clintoonery, at the convention, he may select Biden as his co-loser. Biden is a self-professed plagiarist who, when confronted with the accusation that he incorporated somebody else’s written work into his stuff at law school and sophomorically replied with this phony excuse:

“Mr. Biden insisted, however, that he had done nothing ''malevolent,'' that he had simply misunderstood the need to cite sources carefully. And he asserted that another controversy, concerning recent reports of his using material from others' speeches without attribution, was ''much ado about nothing.''—New York Times, September 18, 1987

So, are we to understand that a law student does not understand the need to cite references? What do they teach at SyracuseLawSchool?

“To buttress his assertions of sincerity and openness, Mr. Biden released a 65-page file, obtained by the Senator from the SyracuseUniversityCollege of Law, that he said contained all the records of his years there. It disclosed relatively poor grades in college and law school, mixed evaluations from teachers and details of the plagiarism.”

One of his constituents queried him on the simple question about whether it was a crime, or not, for illegal aliens to steal Social Security numbers and he refused to reply even after repeated queries.[4]

Biden’s Short Fuse Ailment is exemplified by the following:

“I refuse to sit back like we did in 2000 and 2004. This administration is the worst administration in American foreign policy in modern history — maybe ever. The idea that they are competent to continue to conduct our foreign policy, to make us more secure and make Israel secure, is preposterous. ... Every single thing they’ve touched has been a near-disaster.” [Emphasis is mine in all quotes.][5]—Joe Biden.

“An exasperated Biden skewered Bush over that in a conference call with reporters, calling the comments “pure politics,” “blatant,” “beneath the presidency,” “truly disgraceful,” “outrageous,” “disturbing,” “ridiculous hypocrisy” and “long-distance Swiftboating.” He even said Bush “oughta get a life.” [6] Joe Biden. May 15, 2008  [Emphasis is mine in all quotes.]

““For this president to go on the attack against Barack Obama,” Biden said. “It cannot go unanswered.” [this is a Possible veep audition?]”[7]

Interestingly, this is an attack against attacks on political persons. He seems to be some self-anointed expert in international affairs but also seems to make up numbers, such as  his ”…boastful exaggerations of his academic record at a New Hampshire campaign event.” The attacker was attacked by Michael Dukakis’s with an 'Attack Video'[8]

If we synthesize this caricature of Joe Biden and blend it in with the erratic rants and history of leftist icons like William Ayers, Jeremiah Wright and Nancy Pelosi and then add in some hard core communism from Obama’s mentor “Frank” (who was Frank Marshal Davis, CPUSA or dedicated communist.[9]) we get a grand mélange of hysteria, emotion, narrow Marxist economics, mindless stooges for EcoNazism that would impress Lysenko and some silly putty. We can then highlight this pair as two of the potential ultimate bunglers and tax whores in North America. 

With the help of illegal aliens, heavy taxes and a soft spot for Islamo-Fascism the Party of Democrats might have, again, propped up the worst pair of yoyos to ever run for office.

One theory of competition essays that if your opponents are lunatics or losers then you can benefit from their defects. You have an easy job. We think about this in terms like the answer to the question of why you should hug a commie today[10] The answer to that is obvious. We must offer heaps of praise for the works of George McGovern, HHH, Michael Dukakis, Vinegar John Kerry and Al Gore the Communist stooge. They are fantastic! They act is if they are paid moles from some Republican slush fund sent to destroy the opposition. I still think Monica was a Newt Gingrich mole.

I think selecting Joe Biden for VP is an outstanding choice for both Delaware and the nation. By joining to Obama at the left-liberal hip, the far left can craft a colossal two-headed monster whose revulsions and offensive attributes will alienate 53% of the voters and give the Republicans a change to teach McCain some basics in conservative economics and ecology. The only better choices would be Cynthia McKinney[11] or Kamau Kambon [12] This job is well below Biden’s pay grade so he could wax swimmingly in this job.

Go Joe!! One lawyer is not enough!

Third best is a high mark for the liberal Democrats. Good luck Joe! Hopefully this is ''much ado about nothing.''

rycK [ Chairman, Delaware Democrats against Biden][13]

Comments to: ryckki@gmail.com

We are always anxious to study and digest the facts as presented (and frequently misrepresented) by Frank [the Crank] Rich[1] [2]. Frank Rich is well known for his supernatural ability to crank out sophomoric dogmatic leftist literary brats with sausage-machine precision even when they apply to nothing in particular. He can sometimes identify a pratfall when it happens to a Clinton.[3]

The reading of the New York Times —aka the Walter Duranty Papers[4], is always exciting because the object of the daily game is to look for new forms of propaganda and fluff from their various authors and to then  analyze how they were spun into the current web. In today’s episode we unexpectedly learn that nobody knows anything about McCain. This stunning revelation throws the election into chaos and shines a dark brown light on the efficacy of the summer polls. The voters must be ignorant and need to be educated.

So, let us have some fun with the latest Crankling:

“AS I went on vacation at the end of July, Barack Obama was leading John McCain by three to four percentage points in national polls. When I returned last week he still was. But lo and behold, a whole new plot twist had rolled off the bloviation assembly line in those intervening two weeks: Obama had lost the election!”-- The Candidate We Still Don’t Know[5] by Frank Rich Op-Ed Columnist. Published: August 16, 2008 [Emphasis] is mine in all quotes.]This link references all quotes in this essay unless otherwise stated.

A nonsensical piece of theatre that will amuse even the politically adept. He even uses an O’Reilly word [bloviation] in this comedy. What Frank is putting forth is that O’bama has not broached 49% in any of the polls—so he must be losing. He probably is. It is freak-out time at the Times.

The premise now  mandates a search and grand exposition of  things we do not know about McCain. These unknowns must be comes knowns and used to brainwash the electorate in the usual NYT manner, or at least try. Thus, ignorance can be transmutated into political victory in the fevered minds of the far left.

“He [Obama] should be passing the 50 percent mark in polls, and he’s not.”

News Flash! McCain is ahead 5%in the polls. [6]

The times do change!

Circular logic alert: if he is losing then he might not be running greater than 50%. Why is that not a possibility here. Numbers and their arithmetical manipulation are the pratfall of Times Propagandists as they frequently prove such non-facts  as how Al Gore won the 2000 election with the popular vote, and lost all the recounts and also the Electoral College, so he must have been cheated out of his win.

“Obama has also been defeated by racism (again). He can’t connect and “close the deal” with ordinary Americans too doltish to comprehend a multicultural biography that includes what Cokie Roberts of ABC News has damned as the “foreign, exotic place” of Hawaii. As The Economist sums up the received wisdom, “lunch-pail Ohio Democrats” find Obama’s ideas of change “airy-fairy”[7] and are all asking, “Who on earth is this guy?”

Racism is, of course, the celebrated political pinnacle of the Party of Democrats as they must either grovel and drool at the feet of people like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharption or Malik Shabazz [8] or lose the election. As such the Times becomes not only an historical rubber stamp for the Communists it also must incorporate racism at every turn of the worm. The result is an “airy-fairy”  caraciture like Obama: The Elegant left-liberal Afro-Leninist.[9]  Many call him The Messiah. This ignorance essay  is a perfect political concoction for all liberals to drink and tastes better than Kool-Aid.  The liberals know the truth about Obama. Why not publish any lie or characer assination piece to get this guy elected? That is not lying in leftist terms.

The problem is that the unwashed white retards in contested states still remain bitter and cling to their guns and religion thus publically professing and beligerantly displaying their economic and social ignorance for all to see:

These dummies are portrayed thusly:

"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."[10]—Barack Obama off camera in what he thought was a safe environment to express his views.[11]

Such attitudes on the part of letist apologists and stooge-aping comentators  are examples of the collective mental disorder called cryptomisoxeny.[12] Where is the educational piece from the Times on why Obama stuck with his racist pastor Jeremiah Wright for 20 years? Maybe he is hard of hearing? That might have already cost him the election. Do we really live in KKK Amerika? In the progression of this social disease the crusade to stamp out racism by the left employs the identical racist and bigoted language, unsavory manuevers and other attributes that they nosily identify in their so-called racist enemies. Thus the notion of hypocrisy is expediently concealed and the political benefits of racial polarization can be exploited while remaining aloof and immune from accusations of overt, functional  racism. This is a neat, but slimy trick used by propagandists.  The NYT excels in such racism.

The reflexive rebound of this theme is now to be examined:

What do we really know about Obama?

Here is a tidy list of unanswered/and or suppressed questions about The Messiah:

[1] Where are his medical records? McCain submitted hundreds of pages of his records.

[2] Where are the Illinois state records of Obama for his first few years? Missing?

[3] Was he really a ‘professor’ or law at U. Chicago or was he just an adjunct lecturer? Where are his Law Review articles and court cases?

[4] Why did he become so friendly with William Ayers, a known terrorist? Was his mentor ‘Frank” a known CPUSA operative?

[5] How did Obama really vote on the issue of killing fetuses after an unsuccessful abortion?[13] Did he really vote to murder a child after a successful birth? Maybe the Times can explain this to the unwashed.

[6] What are Obama’s connections to Marxism and his real views on capitalism?[14]

[7] How could he possibly pay for all his ‘promises’ without doubling taxes?

Using the humdrum tactic of juxtapositioning the facts, the Walter Duranty Papers attempts to throw the uncertainty of knowledge upon Obama’s opponent. It is O’Bozo[15] that we need to hear more about. We all know about John McCain and still wonder how he was selected as the Republican candidate after digesting all the negative and highly-detailed information we already have about him. This artificial propaganda mechanism used by Frank Rich would have been spit out with the customary sausage machine elegance he employs no matter who ran against Obama. This is turnstile political polemics from the Times, as usual.

They have nothing left but a blend of hate, rabid anti-capitalism and exoteric racism to put on their op-ed pages. This in one of them. We can learn a lot about the far left by reading screeds like this.

rycK

Comments to: ryckki@gmail.com

Kenneth Rogoff: The Prophet of Doom: Down Goes a Big Bank.  

We are ways curious about the workings of the bureaucratic world. We seem to elect the least talented people who, in turn, identify or appoint other examples of the least talented people to run our federal and state agencies and we can expect the very worst performance from them. We get exactly that. There are several mentionables in this list including the bunglers at Freddie Mac and its inbred sister. Apparently the anti-capitalists are in the majority in the US and certain international agencies. We could mention former FM Chief executive Franklin D. Raines when we discuss bunglers. [1]

Now, we were recently informed [by the NYT] that a big investment bank will go down and Fannie and Freddie will be nationalized. That is nice.

“And now we’ve reached the next stage of our seemingly never-ending financial crisis. This time Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are in the headlines, with dire warnings of imminent collapse. How worried should we be?”[2]-- By Paul Krugman Published: July 14, 2008. [Emphasis is mine in all quotes.] 

Today, a remnant of the IMF [Idiot Monetary Flubbers] signals more disaster.

“The deepening toll from the global financial crisis could trigger the failure of a large US bank within months, a respected former chief economist of the International Monetary Fund claimed today, fuelling another battering for banking shares.”[3]-- Kenneth Rogoff Credit crunch may take out large US bank warns former IMF chief. From Times Online. August 19, 2008. [Emphasis is mine in all quotes. This link references all quotes in this essay unless otherwise noted.]

The bad news was presented by Harvard’s Professor Kenneth Rogoff, formerly the chief economist of the IMF. The IMF does not exactly posses a legacy that  we might hail as a success record in handling the finaincial affairs of third world countries who often go broke even after money is shoveled their way.[4] The IMF types  appear to be more adept  in the meddling business than financial assistance as they impose “conditionality” upon their victims that are frequently an unworkable snarl of political objectives.[5] The loans are based upon certain Structural Adjustment Programs (SAPs) , aptly knows as saps, that freqeuntly work against the economic progress of the country involved if we look at the results of such loans. Rogoff is probably more famous for providing the theorectical economic basis for ruining the financial underpinning of certain poor  coutries than solving problmes. He aparently now looks at the US as the next to fall. He is the one who recommends recession for our problems.[6] He says we cannot grow out of this. Growth, of course, is the enemy of the far left as growth allows entrepeneurs to spring up and create new jobs and gadgets. This process interfers with socialism.

Growth is the ONLY way out of debt.

“In an ominous warning, he added: “We’re not just going to see mid-sized banks go under in the next few months, we’re going to see a whopper, we’re going to see a big one — one of the big investment banks or big banks,” he said.”

Is this a prediction or a wish?? Lots of leftists want our system to crumble and the low-class senator Chuck Schumer from New York tried to stir up excitement and disable our credit system when he released information about the financial status of Indy Mac in Pasadena prompting some legal action by California’s AG Jerry Brown, the offspring of the criminal Pat Brown.[7]

“The letter, signed mostly by former staffers at IndyMac's now-shuttered mortgage operation, asks Brown to investigate Schumer and to prosecute him under a state law making it a misdemeanor to spread false and damaging statements or rumors about a bank.

Through a spokesman, Schumer denied that any of his statements were false and said IndyMac's downfall was inevitable after years of high-risk lending. The spokesman added that the information Schumer cited about the savings bank's financial troubles was taken from regulatory filings that are publicly available on the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. website.”

But, is this damaging and what was Schumer’s point? Does he want to torpedo lenders in the US? Is Chuckles ready to shake the financial foundation of the US or California in order to make some political points? It appears so. We can apply the same reasoning to Nancy Pelosi’s ultimatum NOT TO DRILL in the US. Who needs cheap energy except those who would grow the economy? I think we need 9-10$ gasoline so we can beat Europe as the Green Game. [8]

What are these people doing? Do they want us to slog through another depression? That worked out well for the Fascists, FDR and Communists in the 30s. Maybe the Russians can bail us out for a fee.

“The professor also sounded a warning over rising US inflation, which rose last month to its highest since 1991, and criticised the Federal Reserve for having cut American interest rates too drastically. “Cutting interest rates is going to lead to a lot of inflation in the next few years in the United States,” he said.”[9]

But gold is falling from its high near $1000 per Troy oz. I have to agree that the lower interest rates were a mistake, but where did this idea come from?  Goldman Sachs?

The Japanese wonder too:

“Although the [Japan’s] central bank’s downbeat economic report included vague predictions of a return to growth over time, traders said that the comments had shattered any last hope that Asia’s export-led economy might somehow “decouple” from the woes in the US.”[10]

I thought this was a global economy. We can decouple the Japanese by canceling payment on their US Treasury bonds. Perhaps they can only grow if we shrink.

We must wonder just what our enemies on the left are working on. We must wonder if there is some collective exercise in place that has the goal destroying our financial structure.

We know the Europeans are on the economic skids.[11] We know California will default soon.[12] Maybe we should all go down. Let us all be losers.

I guess we need to elect Obama, double our taxes, raise the price of gasoline to 9$ a gallon and achieve economic nirvana in leftist terms. Sure.

Stay tuned………..

rycK

Comments to: ryckki@gmail.com

Krugman Flies into a Stupor over the Economy and Wants Passion.

Political Ideas are frequently derived by a narrow redaction of isolated historical events and then intercalating the extract with some current observation or fanciful wish. Using this ‘synthesis’ theorem, the basis of Marxism, any necessary prediction may be hastily hatched and justified by merely citing the numerous examples.  After perusing a shrewd assortment of events and numbers the new idea may have perfection as an attribute while conveniently avoiding the truth or any other complications. Today we are treated to such a pedestrian-level tactic from the New York Times--aka the Walter Duranty Papers[1] --where, in this case, pure emotion drives the clarion calls to get out the vote.

Let’s all smoke some political crack.

We begin our journey into the particulars of polemics and manufactured hysteria with this opening salvo in the War against Capitalism from Paul Krugman[2]:

“By rights[sic], John McCain should be getting hammered on economics.” It’s the Economy Stupor [sic] By PAUL KRUGMAN[3]-- [Emphasis is mine in all quotes. This link references all quotes in this essay unless otherwise noted. ]

Krugman means, of course ‘lefts’ in this slur.  Alerted by his warping of the Clintoonery Slogan of the past, the lefties are caught in some sticky form of stupid stupor if they don’t mobilize the drug addicts, illegal aliens, hookers and other losers to stuff ballots. No poll has ever had Obama over 49% and now he is in the mid 40s or so.

The liberals have hoped for a sinking economy and a major loss in the War on Terrorism and they harp on these two themes like two metastatic tumors search for their target organs. We must look carefully at the taxes and spending the leftists offer the voters to show that they cannot possibly have growth, retire any of the debt or even collect the necessary  tax revenues at our current levels. Tax hikes generally return fewer dollars and people just make the proper adjustments to investments, costs and income. These socialist fruit cakes offer only promises and goodies and freebies with no way to pay for them except higher and even higher taxes. That alone will sink the economy.

Here is the way I see things:

[1] We have a massive 10 trillion debt. We have a 400 billion dollar debt service.

[2] There is no intent to pay back the debt by any national party or any state.

[3] We have massive spending and enormous deficits that add to the debt.

[4] We have too many phony employees working for the government. The more crime we have the more workers we need to ‘reeducate’ them into society.

[5] The tax whores are hungry. The left has no future without your money.  They need your money and you probably do not have enough to satisfy them.

So, with higher spending and higher taxes the tax revenues will drop and the debt load will increase. The only way out of this is INFLATION. With some good Jimmy Carter economics [10-20% per year inflation] we can we can retire our debt or render it insignificant.  
 

Stagflation and unemployment naturally follows.

So, Krugman ignores the numbers and goes for personalities and emotion:

“After all, Mr. McCain proposes continuing the policies of a president who’s had a truly dismal economic record — job growth under the current administration has been the slowest in 60 years, even slower than job growth under the first President Bush. And the public blames the White House, giving Mr. Bush spectacularly low ratings on his handling of the economy.”

Congress had a 9% approval rating lately. Where is that figgered in here? We have had about 3.5-4% unemployment in his first 7 years and excellent growth so Krugman has ‘fixed’ his numbers. Has he forgotten Jimmy Carter? It is best that Krugman cherry-pick his facts so as to make his maudlin theater appeal to the losers and low class who must vote for Obama soon. He cannot put up a realistic plan to balance the budget, reduce our debt and maintain our economy. Such a plan if fully implemented would sink the left and ruin the careers of most politicians.

“But while polls continue to show that the public, by a large margin, trusts Democrats more than Republicans to handle the economy, recent polling shows that Barack Obama has at best a small edge over Mr. McCain on the issue — four points in a recent Time magazine poll, and he is one point behind according to Rasmussen Reports, which does automated polling. And Mr. Obama’s failure to achieve a decisive edge on economic policy is central to his failure to open up a big lead in overall polling.”

Now, Krugman approaches the snake pit. Senator Obama [not mister] cannot give a speech where he talks about paying for socialized medicine, illegal aliens, rebuilding our bridges and other infrastructure, raising new taxes and targeting oil companies with excess profits taxes.  He mujst avoid the Social Security problem as well. The reason is that the numbers don’t work out. He has a trillion dollars in promised new spending spread over the first 2-3 years of his impending administration and the taxes and/or debt necessary to implement this socialism will sink the economy. Add that to our 3 trillion dollar ‘budget’ and 10 trillion debts and you cannot make this work.

Here is reality talking:

“In Fiscal Year 2006, the U. S. Government spent $406 Billion of your money on interest payments* to the holders of the National Debt.”[4]

“This National Debt is the third largest expense in the federal budget.”

Krugman must cover over this ulcer lest those with average or higher cognitive skills [e.g. Bell Curve[5]] might do some calculations and get a serious financial shock. These ‘people’ who want to talk about the economy are the same ones who want high gas prices, a cost push inflation vector that will make all commodity prices soar by cutting or stalling supply from  drilling and exploration.

So, the krugmaniacal one must slither around the facts and post some slobbering lament based on personalities to help the current left-liberal Afro-Leninist[6] who would wreck our economy and impose socialism upon us.

“Why isn’t the Obama campaign getting more traction on economic issues?”

“It’s not the Republican offensive on offshore drilling. It’s true that many Americans have apparently been misled by bogus claims about gas price relief. But as I’ve already pointed out, Democrats in general retain a large edge on economic issues.”

Yes and no, as the liberals are getting stuffed on the gas issue. Some plastic-faced massage parlor queen[7] flitters away from Congress on some failed book signing tour and fails to act on an energy bill. The idiot liberals have no regard for a sound economy and would like to see a depression like the wonderful chance FDR got.

“Nor is there any valid basis for the complaints, highlighted in Sunday’s Times, that Mr. Obama isn’t offering enough policy specifics. Delve into the Obama campaign Web site and you’ll find plenty of policy detail. And the campaign’s ads reel off lots of specific policy proposals — too many, if you ask me.”

Not true. He mumbles and includes no coherent discussion of the costs. His numbers are way too low and phony. He conjures up phony hat tricks like that notion that we can just pump up our tyres [tires][8] and save all the oil we might get from new drilling off shore.[9]

“I was astonished at the flatness of the big economy speech he gave in St. Petersburg at the beginning of this month —…”

So were the rest of us. He cannot showcase his Afro-Leninism/Marxism/Black Liberation Theology precepts too far out in front or he will confirm for us what he really is.

“Obama surrogates have shown a similar inclination to go for the capillaries rather than the jugular.”

Hillary would not have made this mistake.

“Of course, Mr. Obama hasn’t given his own acceptance speech yet. Al Gore found a new populist fervor in August 2000, and surged in the polls. A comparable surge by Mr. Obama would give him a landslide victory this year.

But it’s up to him. If Mr. Obama can’t find the passion on economic matters that has been lacking in his campaign so far, he may yet lose this election.”

August is mostly gone. Obama, or O’Bozo[10] the Marxist Clown as I prefer to say, cannot put his tax-whoring, EcoNazi[11] precepts into words in front of the cameras because the voters will suddenly notice that he is just another Commie Pig [Like Dukakis, Gore and Kerry]grunting for the White House.

What O’Bozo needs is to have Joe Biden as VP. That would add in a bunch more psychotic emotion, a bit of sleaze and ‘balance’ his ticket. That would also give us two lawyers for one. One would obviously be an affirmative action advocate and street panhandling expert and the second a slick academic cheater. This blend is a winner for the far left.

Let us all get emotional here.

rycK

Comments to: ryckki@gmail.com

Krugman Instructs the World, Again, on War, Globalization and Sensibilities

Political Ideas are frequently derived by a narrow redaction of isolated historical events and then intercalating the extract with some current observation. Using this ‘synthesis’ theorem, the basis of Marxism, any necessary prediction may be hatched.  Today we are treated to such a propagandistic construction from the NYT—aka the Walter Duranty Papers[1]. We do not expect a rational essay or even competent research or accurate comments on history or even a balanced essay fundamental economics from this author. What we observe is an unswerving quest to highlight any and all leftist social programs whether they are destructive or not using the premise that socialism must be the only solution to the problems of society.  History, thusly, becomes the wobbly crutch and dim-sighted wanton hand-maiden upon which exciting new propositions for tax hikes are based. A stipulation that must be broached in circular essays of this ilk is that although capitalism has crushed the brutal efforts of Marxism, progressive socialism is predicted, justified and holds the only solution for the future of mankind. Since it is easily shown that capitalism is the death of liberalism and Marxism and all of their slimy variants, then capitalism must be defeated using any and all political  mechanisms including lies, Bolshevik propaganda, slogans, phony science[2], alliances with terrorists and worse. These are the allies of the left and those who would attack capitalism can wander through the latrines in search of the proper butt nuggets to polish and show to the world. Today we witness a characteristic propaganda piece that incorporates all of this political fluff.  

We begin our journey into the particulars of polemics and elementary propaganda with this opening salvo in the War against Capitalism from Paul Krugman:

“So far, the international economic consequences of the war in the Caucasus have been fairly minor, despite Georgia’s role as a major corridor for oil shipments. But as I was reading the latest bad news, I found myself wondering whether this war is an omen — a sign that the second great age of globalization may share the fate of the first.”[3]-- The Great Illusion By Paul Krugman [Emphasis is mine in all quotes. This link references all quotes in this essay unless otherwise noted. ]

It is characteristic of circular logical constructions that one states the conclusion first and then wanders around in the mystical waters of polemics and political slogans to dredge up enough material to justify the premise. This is elementary propaganda and we have seen this many times[4] from the New York Times. The game here is to watch this comedy unfold:

“If you’re wondering what I’m talking about, here’s what you need to know: our grandfathers lived in a world of largely self-sufficient, inward-looking national economies — but our great-great grandfathers lived, as we do, in a world of large-scale international trade and investment, a world destroyed by nationalism.”

This is half a thought, at best. Only the leftist world and its sick dreams of a Golden Age were destroyed, mostly by Ronald Reagan, conservatism and simple business methods. The idiot communists never had any chance. Their economic system is a joke. As such, we need to rewrite much of history to show that we can avoid all those profits, inventions, the good life and lots of private property if we simply seek out the left-liberal leaders and beg them to tax us into prosperity.  This worked out for the kulaks very well in a process known as Dekulakization [5].

If you need power or money just bash somebody’s brains in and take what you need. –Paraphrase of Lenin.

We now must defer to an ‘expert’ on economics who caught the attention of FDR, Churchill, Lenin, Stalin and others by his phony notion that government spending would solve some social problems. The details of this review are omitted as they show nothing but failure.

“Writing in 1919, the great British economist John Maynard Keynes described the world economy as it was on the eve of World War I….”

He refers to capitalism and its rewards.

“But then came three decades of war, revolution, political instability, depression and more war. By the end of World War II, the world was fragmented economically as well as politically. And it took a couple of generations to put it back together.

So, can things fall apart again? Yes, they can.”

Nothing was put back together. Remember the Cold War and the Great Leap Forward?

This is an example of using a sweeping generalization [translated as a sophomoric lie for the Ivy League types who are True Believers] to justify some urgent rectification of past methods so as to avoid the next catastrophe. The problem with this analysis is that the far left [6]caused the problem with their grunting and grabbing of power and created the swamp that became Europe for decades. Only after the Evil Empire was crushed did we see prosperity [read capitalism here] emerge as the only reasonable solution to social progress.

So, here comes the punch line[s]:

Krugman identifies several problems:

[1] The food crisis.

[2] Militarism and imperialism.”

[3] The end of the Pax Americana.

[4] Europe’s dependence on Russian energy.

He then rakes the muck of failed political theorems with citing some Brit “...Norman Angell, published a famous book titled “The Great Illusion,”[7] in which he argued that war had become obsolete...”

Angell’s theme [before WW1]  was: “The thesis of the book was that the integration of the economies of European countries had grown to such a degree that war between them would be entirely futile, making militarism obsolete.”[8]

Gee, that worked out swell. I guess we didn’t have two world wars. What a joke. It is surprising that war is obsolete. Are the Russians obsolete?

Krugman now fumbles and fails to find a solution:

“Angell was right to describe the belief that conquest pays as a great illusion. But the belief that economic rationality always prevents war is an equally great illusion. And today’s high degree of global economic interdependence, which can be sustained only if all major governments act sensibly, is more fragile than we imagine.”

 Krugman said exactly nothing in this essay. We expect to make something of the words “economic rationality” and sensibility in terms of the Russians grabbing more loot as they have done for several centuries? The Spanish got nothing from crushing the savages in the New World? The Romans wasted their time conquering Egypt and Greece and Palestine? It is an illusion that the Russians are getting rich from selling oil to the Europeans?

Missing in this truncated view of history and reality are:

[a] The impact of Russian energy sales on Global Warming.

[b] A first-class plan to impose a huge energy tax on the Russians.

[c] The role of world government [UN Follies] on this action.

[d] At least circumstantial evidence that Dick Cheney and his oil patch buddies benefit from this.

[e] That Obama has the recipe for peace in this conflict.

[f] The effect on racism by the Georgians and Russians in their current squabble over territory.

[g] The role of NATO here.

[h] The possibility that the Islamo-Fascisti in Europe would be offended and encourage the old Islamic satellites from the shrunken USSR to rebel.

The facts are that the Russians can only gain from forcing their victims to use their energy. This is an old plan. It was very clear in 1880 that countries with vast natural resources would be superpowers in the modern age. Conveniently for the West, the idiot Russians bungled the job for 120 years. In 2007, the EU was the world’s largest importer of oil and gas.[9]  Thus, the silly notions of Angell and his head-banging peaceniks are again shown to be worthless in predictability currency.  Those with power crush those with less power.

Also, while giving out suggestions we wonder where the development of ‘alternative’ fuels and battery-powered cars and such went as the Europeans certainly knew that the Russians could not be trusted. What happned to the Greens here? The French did plan ahead with nuclear power, a nation where little cachet is owed.  Where is the criticism of European energy planning? It is apparent that the NYT is loath to criticize their ideological masters in Moscow. Maybe if the Soviets turn off the gas lines to the supplicants that crawl in their shadow the result will be a lowering of the carbon dioxide levels. That would save the world from destruction.

Where is the criticism of placing missiles in Poland? Where are the Ukrainians in this mess? Where are NATO and the UN?

Krugman is an illusion. There never was any peace or sensibility in this world. The Germans and others will just have to learn new songs and praise as they grovel and lick Russian boots. They are stupid. [10]  They now lick Islamic boots as well.

rycK

Comments to: ryckki@gmail.com