Pelosi Lies to the Public and Encourages Her Toadies to Lie to Get Elected.

We know that liberals are liars and worse so the Pelosi Mandate [No Drilling Anywhere] is only firm if there is any risk of any of her toadies losing the election. He thinking here is: Lie about drilling now and we can fix it after the election.

“But what looks like intraparty tension on the surface is part of an intentional strategy in which Pelosi takes the heat on energy policy, while behind the scenes she’s encouraging vulnerable Democrats to express their independence if it helps them politically, according to Democratic aides on and off Capitol Hill.”[1] [Emphasis is mine in all quotes. This link references all quotes in this essay unless otherwise noted. ]

We know that liberals are liars and sleaze bags that have a rabid hunger for new taxes and a psychotic lust for power so this is not expected.

““The reality is we will have a new president in three months, and what Bush and the Republicans are trying to do amounts to a land grab for the oil companies,” said one senior House Democratic aide involved with party strategy. “I don’t think we have to give in at all pre-election — we have many more options postelection.”

Lie now, grunt and grab later.

That fits the average Democrat.

“Indeed, Congress must vote before Sept. 30 to renew the annual [Offshore Oil Drilling] moratorium; otherwise, it will lapse on its own, giving states the right to decide whether private companies can search for potential drilling sites three miles offshore. ”

““There is no crisis on our side of the aisle,” a top House Democratic leadership aide said. “We have a plan, and we will stick to it.”

Sure, if the economy goes down because of cost-push oil costs you can always blame Bush.

Typical liberalism.

rycK

Comments: ryckki@gmail.com

The Babbling Brooks of the NYT Babbles about Obama and his Failure to Have a Clear Lead Over McCain.

As we read the NYT—aka the Walter Duranty Papers[1]-- we must be alert for new visions and slants on the political activities of our times. Problems must be solved by government as we are always instructed. Always replete with noisy praise and grand salutations for some misguided person’s replastered precept of socialism or Marxism  that must be summarily incorporated into our society with great alacrity and song, we must follow the clarion calls, hear the trumpets ring and scrounge for suitable social solutions for problems.  Taxes are the only way. Higher taxes can only heighten our glory as a nation.  Such comments and conclusions are supplied daily by the New York Times. There is always some pressing grave threat to society than can be handily solved with a good stiff tax increase. We are recurrently offered detailed analyses of: how we were steered into this swamp by capitalism, how the tax increase opportunity that will hoist us from the communal latrines, and, how we learn, anew, about the basics and root causes of our societal problems. Liberalism always provides a solution.  Capitalism and private property are always the culprits. Such is the mission and mantra of the Times and, today, our Babbling Brooks[2] examines the bizarre lack of support for Obama in the polls.

We are now treated to a swampy raft of ‘not of’’ clichés that beg that the word tautological be expanded in form and breadth.

“Why isn’t Barack Obama doing better? Why, after all that has happened, does he have only a slim two- or three-point lead over John McCain, according to an average of the recent polls? Why is he basically tied with his opponent when his party is so far ahead?” [3] Where’s the Landslide? By David Brooks [Emphasis is mine in all quotes.]This link references all quotes in this essay unless otherwise stated.

Are we to believe that this metaphorical question will not be summarily answered?

Brooks probes the political landscape and cannot seem to place Senator Obama in any precise category. That is strange. Everybody else can.

Here some extracts from his current NYT essay, the details are not important as the mechanism applied here could be used to examine the drying habits of paint, mysterious spots on the rug or the origin of wiggling foreign materials in your soup.

“He was in the law school, but not of it.”

“His childhood was a peripatetic journey through Kansas, Indonesia, Hawaii and beyond. He absorbed things from those diverse places but was not fully of them.”

“He was in TrinityUnitedChurch of Christ, but not of it, not sharing the liberation theology that energized Jeremiah Wright Jr.”

“And so it goes. He is a liberal, but not fully liberal.”

“When we’re judging candidates (or friends), we don’t just judge the individuals but the milieus that produced them.”

“It is hard to plant Obama.”

“So, cautiously, the country watches. This should be a Democratic wipeout. But voters seem to be slow to trust a sojourner they cannot place.”

We can search the literature for examples of incoherency and sophomoric mumblings but this one from David Brooks today is truly a prize.

Obama is clearly a far-left radical Democrat with a 100% left-liberal voting record.

Look at some of these:

“(AP) London, March 2, 1867: Karl Marx, a rising star among centrist economists, announced today the publication of the first volume of his treatise, 'Das Kapital'.”[4]

 And, from the same link:

Obama fits the liberal profile to a 'T.' Examples:

• Planned Parenthood 100% in 2006.
• National Right to Life Committee 0% in 2005-2006.
• Americans for Tax Reform 0% in 2005.
• NAACP 100% in 2005.
• American Conservative Union 8 percent in 2005.
• Illinois Environmental Council 100% in 2003 .
• Children's Defense Fund [Hillary's old beat] 100% in 2005.
• National Organization For Women 100% in 2005.
• NRA, 'F' in 2004.
• Federation for American Immigration Reform 0% in 2005.
• 2005 AFL-CIO 92%.
• Americans for Democratic Action [old-style liberal organization] 100% in 2005[5]

Here are a few more for your entertainment: [6] [7] [8] [9]

Can Brooks refute any of this? His comment above about a person being associated with his “milieus that produced them” flies in the face of logic, history and fact. B. Hussein Obama is the product of the far left and the proof lies in his praise, errant slobberings and song from the entire group of far-lefts clusters listed above.  He is one of their darlings just like Castro, Ortega, Stalin and McGovern.

To essay that Obama is not a far-left liberal, a racist and a racist enabler, a liar and flip-flopper is uncanny even for the sausage-machine brats known as Pinch Pustules [10] that routinely smear their opponents and then redact the ugly parts of recorded history to whitewash one of their icons. They won’t publish McCain’s op-ed. That is how they bias the news and commentary.

The political problem here and being addressed in standard leftist wimpish and shifty form is that the public has now learned that Obama is a Tax Whore. [11]

We already have proof of this.

The duty of the NYT is, of course, to ‘show’ that O’Bozo is a ‘centrist’ or a person who is unique and unbiased and ‘thinks’ for himself. The facts refute this. Obama is a stuffed suit with his pockets stuffed with standard, stale left-liberal crap. There is NOTHNG unique about this artificial construct and all the fluff and foam from the Times and their familiars cannot alter the facts. He is a leftist stooge. He will lie and parry and flip-flop and say anything to get elected and the public has caught on. His polls cannot get him above 49% and that is alarming for the left who think Obama is running against Bush and Cheney. He will probably lose and the season is still young. McCain is gaining on this phony.

Obama is the most far-left politician every to run for office in this country.

rycK

Comments: ryckki@gmail.com

Krugman Predicts Doom for the Economy and the Election of Obama II

We are so anxious to study and digest the facts presented by Paul Krugman as we examine the egalitarian minutiae from the latest political proclamations from the New York Time. Today we acquire an essay on fear-based economics. We recently were privileged to read about his bubble mania economics and new tax hikes.[1]  Of course, politics is  never based on truth and a gaggle of slobbering economists cannot even get a 50% record of predictions of market directions, so we have to sift out the politics and whines from the economic realities when we read the krugmaniacal one. Frequently, there is nothing but politics in these articles. We expect little other than crude propaganda and leftist narcotic pipe dreams from essays of the NYT—aka the Walter Duranty Papers[2]. Today, the ultimate doom of the economy is reiterated in slow motion. Will we learn about new exciting spending or more taxes or both?

“The good news, I guess, is that we’ve been experiencing a sort of slow-motion meltdown, lacking in dramatic Black Fridays and such.”[3] A Slow-Mo Meltdown By Paul Krugman Op-Ed Columnist Published: August 4, 2008. [Emphasis is mine in all quotes. This link references all quotes in this essay unless otherwise noted. ]

Any negative change in a capitalist economy is good news for the drooling left, I guess. Let us all guess.

“Home prices are down about 16 percent over the past year, and show no sign of stabilizing. The pain from this bust is widely spread: there are millions of American families who didn’t buy mortgage-backed securities and haven’t lost their houses, but have nonetheless been impoverished by the destruction of much or all of their home equity.”

From a previous Op-ed we read:

““But here’s a question rarely asked, at least in Washington: Why should ever-increasing homeownership be a policy goal? How many people should own homes, anyway?” [4]--By Paul Krugman Published: June 23, 2008 [Emphasis is mine in all quotes.]

In this reference, Krugman blathers on about the negatives of home ownership as a good socialist would do. He dreams of the high rise cement-filled ‘apartments’ in Moscow where everybody can be conveniently monitored by the Cheka and other concerned groups. The far left does not like private property[5].

So, should everybody have a private home or not? The left thinks not, but will use any negative effects of supply and demand variations to emphasize the ‘pain.’ Should we review the ‘pain’ of 100,000,000 souls being murdered by those who thought they could improve on capitalism with Marxism in the last century?

The Magical Number Massage is next:

“Meanwhile, the job market has deteriorated even more than you’d guess from the jump in the headline unemployment rate. The broadest measure of unemployment[6], which takes into account the rapidly rising number of workers forced to take cuts in paid hours and wages, has risen from 8.3 percent to 10.3 percent over the past year, roughly matching its high point five years ago.”

Arithmetic gone berserk.

Why not include the illegal aliens who were deported in this number? Wouldn’t that logical inclusion boost the number to %15. We could include all those illegals who WANT to get in here and maybe we could hit %25—depression numbers. Oh, woe is us.

Here the krugmaniacal one has to pick and choose numbers so as to make our unemployment look as bad as possible. He lies here  almost seamlessly with his praiseworthy phony number shuffling. According to the New York Times [Does Krugman read this?] the rate is 5.7% [7] Krugman is famous for ‘mixing data’ [8] to make some political point. The facts have little to do with his economics. This is crude politics devoid of any hint of economic theory.

 When Krugman talks of the Clinton Era he does not use numbers like this. Fair?

“And there’s no end to the pain in sight.”

And, that makes for great politics does it not!! Vote for Obama!! Hike taxes.

So, what is the solution to this pain?? Taxes?? Spending??

It is fear quoth the krugmaniacal one:

“The problem is fear: private-sector finance has dried up because investors, burned by their losses on securities that were supposed to be safe, are now reluctant to buy anything that isn’t guaranteed by the U.S. government. And the proliferation of special rescue packages — the TAF, the TSLF, the Bear Stearns deal, the Fannie-Freddie thing — may have staved off blind panic[9], but has fallen far short of restoring confidence.”

“What more can policy do? The Fed has pretty much used up its ammunition: nobody thinks that additional interest-rate cuts would accomplish much (and there’s a faction at the Fed that wants to raise rates to fight inflation).”

“There is, however, a case for another, more serious fiscal stimulus package, as a way to sustain employment while the markets work off the aftereffects of the housing bubble. The “emergency economic plan” Barack Obama announced last week is a move in the right direction, although I wish it had been bigger and bolder.”

Oh, let us do some more spending! We can unburst the bubble with more spending! Tax and spend?  Does Krugman criticize Bush for the current $480 bln deficit when the Demoncraps are duly bound to spend and spend and spend and attempt to hike taxes?  What shall we add to that? How about $300 bln so the deficit will rise to $780 bln. Can we blame that on Bush?? Does anybody know that only Congress can authorize spending and raise the debt limit? Are we paying attention here?

“Anyway, back to the economy. I titled that column about the early stages of the financial crisis “Very Scary Things.” A year later, with the crisis still rolling, it’s clear that I was right to be afraid.”

A billion dollars is about 8$ in taxes for each worker given there are about 130 million workers. This works out differently since the top half pays 97% of the taxes. So, the number is closer to $14 per bln, How much is 780 x 8? Well it is $6240 in taxes for this year alone or more than $500 per month per worker. At $14 it works out to almost $11,000 or nearly $1000 per month!! Does anybody want to ADD in the 9 trillion in debt Congress authorized.

Gee, thank Congress for this and we can hope that they halt drilling in North American or N.O.P.E [Not on Planet Earth].

But, Obama offers change! Let’s trash our economy and then learn how change can change our economic status!

So, as usual, the only solution to our economic problems is more spending and higher taxes?? The sordid liberals hoped for a sour economy and a humiliating loss in Iraq and they think they got half a loaf.

The big political issue of the moment is the price of gasoline so where is that figgered in here? Congress went on vacation?

Do the liberals really think that taxing Exxon will lower gas prices? Do the liberals really think that subsidizing the mortgages of people who should never have bought a home will solve anything What happens when the same home owner messes up and cannot make mortgage payments the second time. Do we continue to bail them out for their votes? Is that what is going on in the little minds of the left?? Is this like drug rehabilitation? Just saunter through the turnstile and they will forgive your debt again and again and again if you vote Demoncrap.

When does the crap from the Demoncraps stop?

The liberals will say and do anything to get more political power and grab more wealth. Anything at all.

Get ready to pay $1000 a month to pay this off, or , if we barrow, about $200 plus inflation.

O’BozoMania!! Raise Taxes!!

rycK

Comments to: ryckki@gmail.com