Who's black?

Hil-liar states:"I don't think this election is about gender, and I sure hope that it is not about race." WRONG. Hil-liar, you despicable, dissembling cretin, you have made it precisely about those two issues, at least with respect to the primaries. And the media, by and large, will not write, speak or disclose this fundamental lie.

Obama's black ... at least if you are Hil-liar, that all he is. Black.

Black, black, black. MLK. Louis Farrakhan. The worst kind of black that can scare your miserable cracker rear-end. OOOoopps. I am sorry, Hil-liar does not say Osama is black, her husband does. But you'd have to be a complete fool to assume there is a difference between the two of them.

You see, Barack Osama won in South Carolina ... because of the black vote. Interesting dynamic, that: Bill goes out and alienates the blacks, who in turn vote in droves for Obama, their only black choice. Hil-liar then points out to all the frightened white mice out there, that Obama is a black candidate and she is just a woman trying to help their middle class white selves. So vote for her, or you will be voting for the Black Panthers. Curiously, she represented radical black groups while at Yale and thereafter.

But this puts Obama in a difficult position: by winning the black vote, he appears more black to the moron whites out there. And this marginalizes him even more: it is a simple mathematical decision for the Clin-liars ... there are more frightened whites out there willing to vote for Hil-liar than there are black votes to lose in the primary. AND, when the general election comes and Hil-liar is the nominee, blacks will vote -- as they have always done -- 95%+ for the democrats. That is, she can afford to lose their vote for the primary knowing that she will pick it up for the general election: blacks are expendable to the Clintons.

And who is really most afraid of the hypothetical black bogeyman? The white suburban woman, or single white urban female. This is a cynical re-cycling of fears from years past. Thanks, Hil-liar, you are managing to set back racial integration back 20 years, something even Boosh couldn't do.

The day of the living dead ... is upon us

What does this mean for conservatives? Check these folks out.

The media has hoodwinked the American public again: McCain can beat Hillary. Two things relate to this, the first being the desire of the media to create the perception that McCain can win against Hil-liar. He can't and he won't. And second, it really does not matter who wins between the two: a liberal Democrat has won.

The media have every reason to have McCain ascend to the throne of the Rebooblican party -- it effectively kills off conservatism in the U.S. McAmnesty is a Democrat dream -- his positions are theirs, he supports legislation to prevent freedom of speech, he supports wholesale amnesty, he supports higher taxes, he supports a heavier hand of government in health care, he stands for a Democrat view of torture and handling of foreign combatants. He is pro-abortion, he is pro activist judges (even siding with Teddy Blowbag), he ASKED to run with Kerry, and Lieberman even had to have a news conference to state that he would not run with McTraitor.

Is he in fact the Manchurian Candidate?

But for Huckaboob, Romney would have taken Florida. Instead he plays the spoiler, taking conservative votes away from Romney, hoping no doubt that he might slip into the Vice-Presidential role, or perhaps a nice ambassadorship to Looney Land.

Sure this is politics, but it is getting dirty. And Juan McClinton had lied about Romney's stands, statements and voting history. Flat-out lied. Just like the Clintons do. And the Media does not call him on it. Just like the Clintons. You want a vast conspiracy theory? Here's one for you: do anything to shut out the real conservatives and the liberals win by default. It simply does not matter if Obama, Hil-liar or McCornhole get into office.

McTraitor is willing to play along because he wants it so bad -- he actually believes that the media might support him once he gets the Rebooblican nod. But you can bet that the moment he assembles ther requisite number of delegates, the press will swing around on him full force pointing out all the things that they are currently sweeping under the rug. You can set your clock by it.

This is a terrible day in politics.

It figures....

Did you ever wonder about:

* That kid in your third grade class that drooled?
* The klutz on your baseball team that could drop a ball being handed to him?
* The girl in sixth grade who developed a passion for makeup and wouldn't talk about anything else?
* The Goths in your high school?
* The jocks who seemed coordinated but with room temperature intelligence?
* The nerds with coke-bottle glasses and muscle tone of linguine?
* The stoner waste-oids with bloodshot eyes ... at 7:30am accounting?
* The queen bees all through school -- lots of gossip, not a lot of thought?
* The kids who can't keep still?
* The kids who change their minds every three seconds?
* The kids that would do whatever someone told them to do?
* The chronically gullible?
* The kids who never seemed to be present even when their bodies were?
* The boys and girls who lived in their own fantasy worlds?
* The kids who would rather lie than tell the truth?
* The teens who would rather steal or cheat than work for their needs?
* The aggressive kids who would fight/argue at the drop of a hat?

Well, consider that not all these kids/teens/college aged people grew out of those traits and habits. And also consider that:

* They can drive.

That sort of explains that, doesn't it? What the hell is "normal" when the road is filled with the products of those pasts? Or present habits?

* They can vote.

A vote for Huckabee seems logical -- when you believe in the tooth fairy, why not Huckabee? For that matter, if you always cheated, how or why should you feel that Hil-liar is undeserving of the Presidency? If you were not "present" for class (even though your sorry ass was physically there), how could you be expected to know who actually stands for what? If a bitter feminist in college -- maybe because you look like a goat and can't get a date -- why not vote for a woman, even though she is a congenital liar? If you change you mind every day and are as gullible as PT Barnum suspected, why not vote for someone who flips their positions to fit the polling stats?

You see, it all makes sense.

She's a woman ... so what?

Time and again, I hear (or see or read) that someone is voting for Hil-liar because she is a woman. So what? In which way does that matter at all in terms of electing the most qualified candidate to become the President of the United States? Seriously, if you buy that argument, then because we have not elected any eskimos recently to anything we ought to consider Nanuuk of the North.

No sane and rational person elects a President because of a quality that is a non-quality, but more of a statement of fact ... Hil-liar as two "x" chromosomes. Barack is black. Should we vote for him solely because of his pigmentation? Or is it that women "want to get their own back" on the rest of society -- men and their lackey women -- for all the grief women have gone through over the ages? Is that a REASON to elect a President? What? We deserve a turn?

The President is the most powerful person on Earth. Full stop. And the reasons outlined above are simply not enough to elect a dogcatcher. The person must be singularly qualified and most importantly -- of character. Good character. We have seen mean-spirited for the last 8 years. For the 8 before that, we saw a man who could not keep his pecker in his pants: a liar. And his wife who supported and aided the lies. That wife now wants to be President and her husband -- who should have been removed from office as well as simply impeached (he was) -- wants desperately to get back to being "someone."

Duh? Are we stupid? Hil-liar is simply in appropriate. Not necessarily unqualified, just completely wrong. There will be -- in time -- a woman candidate that is both right and qualified. Just not now. America is ready for a woman President, now even, but not Hil-liar. Not to mention her jack-ass husband.

Should we insure someone's gamble?

That is the the key question in the continuing saga of foreclosures on mortgages that should never have been written. Here is Boston there is a group called "City Life." They are organizing protests to hinder or prevent evictions by the constable(s) of persons who have had their properties foreclosed on.

Sadly, the persons now being foreclosed on are largely those who are on the bottom rung of the financial ladder, trying to get ahead. These people took mortgages out on properties they simply could not afford, essentially betting on continued appreciation of property values to allow them to jump on that property train and "get theirs."Laudable of the risk taker in some way ... and irresponsible of the persons who actually made the loans.

But was it a "scam" being perpetrated on the borrowers? No. They got their money and they got the risk that went with it. For these people now to stand up and state that they were damaged by their choice to take out a loan they couldn't afford to pay is ridiculous. Simply asinine.

Should the lenders have been permitted to make the loans? Arguably, "no." But then if there is no legislation to the contrary, we have no violation of the law, and get this: there was no duty owned by the lender to say to the borrower, "no lady, you are too stupid to see the risk you are placing yourself in ... no money for you." There was a contract. If the borrower can't figure out how it works, it is not the fault of the lender. The borrower should have had an independent lawyer explain it or even go to a pro bono legal clinic. But largely, with the prospect of mucho dinero in their eyes, the borrowers took the money and jumped right in. The "no"at the beginning of this paragraph relates to the idiocy of accepting paper from someone who cannot possibly pay it back -- someone who was bound to default given the slightest economic bump.

But that is another story and different parties involved -- the borrower can have nothing to say about some moron packaging the securities created by their loan and some other idiot buying it. The borrower is not damaged by transactions whereby an Australian bank buys this paper for its yield based on wishful credit ratings: the owner of the paper owes the borrower nothing ... it is the other way around.

So instead we have Obama and Worthless Patrick (a Masshole governor) trying to prevent the foreclosures, re-package them, give more room to the borrowers, wait for unnamed third party charities to buy the houses to rent as low income housing (right) and generally screwing up responsibility for the choices people make: this is why the UK will flow shortly down the poop-chute of socialism -- where people are relieved of their responsibility to themselves and sanity, the situation rapidly spirals out of control into even greater debt crises.

If properties are not allowed to be foreclosed on, then we have placed a put option on them for the benefit of the reckless and greedy (or stupid). This floor prevents others -- probably in similar financial capacities -- from buying into these units at costs that truly reflect their worth to society. These same would-be buyers are prevented from receiving the benefit of their financial prudence. In essence, why be prudent if the government will bail you out?

This is a bad idea. So is the idea of our tax dollars buying these houses and the government running them as landlords "until they can be profitably sold on." That would be ... never. It is the creation of vast new sink-holes for our taxes and swathes of property consigned to become wastelands of what actually is the income-assisted. No hope for re-investment and appreciation when that paradigm sets in and a slammed-shut door in the face of aspiring local financially prudent investors.

Our country is founded on self-responsibility. Europe is not. Where would you rather live if you have even a shred of ambition. Think about it.

NPR ... No Purpose, Really.

NPR (also known as "crap") should stand for "No Purpose, Really." Because it has no purpose, at least none that I can rationally see (or hear). It is the in-house P.A. system for whacko liberals across the country and does not even make an attempt at unbiased reporting. Even though in journalism school (which is filled with hypocrites and liars, students and professors), students are "taught" to report clearly and concisely without bias, making all efforts to inform, NPR sounds like something broadcast out of Pyongyang.

In the "news" this morning (I could only stand to listen to 1/2 an hour of it, otherwise I might have infarcted) the audio clips on what Congress is trying to do to alleviate the potential economic slowdown consisted of: (1) Nancy "the Vampire" Pelosi; (2) Harry Reid; (3) Ted Kennedy ("Senator Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts" as opposed to "Fat Blowhard Windbag Hypocrite"); and some never heard of Rebooblican Congressman from Idaho.

Pelosi talked about "finally getting something done" as though Rebooblicans had been stalling her good deeds -- ignoring that it is her party that controls the House of Representatives and the Senate. But it sounded good on radio and filled the listener with wrath for the fat-cat Rebooblicans who are dragging our country into this mess. Reid said ... I am not exactly sure what.

Blowbag stated that we needed to increase the food stamps and financial assistance to the welfare rolls and the other needy and that would get the money spent locally to small businesses ... a direct boost to the economy. The Rebooblican Conrgressman stated in a shrill whine that he thought that this sort of stimulus would not work because the typical expenditures of those recipients would largely go to buying Chinese and other foreign goods -- as the low end producers in almost every category of consumer goods. Ted looks like a champion of the masses and the Rebooblican a villain supporter of the Evil Conglomerates. The trouble is, the Rebooblican may be at least partially correct -- "we might be stimulating the Chinese economy, not ours." But that takes more than surface thought, it takes a basic understanding of economics -- something the Democrats and NPR wish to avoid having the public consider ... better for them to emote.

The next "news" item was the situation in New Orleans and the efforts to provide housing for those displaced by Katrina. The subtext was the failure of the Federal Government to make everything better. A homeless person interviewed by NPR stated that he had been robbed in broad daylight by youths of his cigarettes, lighter and wallet. Subtext is the lawlessness that is allowed to reign in New Orleans (the responsibility for which is Boosh's and not local corrupt government and law enforcement -- in a Democrat controlled state and city -- because Boosh caused the Katrina disaster). Obama might point out that it was black on black crime allowed to exist by white controlled law enforcement and court systems. But ultimately, the electorate controls all of this, at least on the State level. And they voted Sugar Ray Nagin back into office. Go figure ... but don't blame society, or me.

But what we didn't hear was how foreign stock markets are actually doing. We didn't hear about the Gazans demolishing the wall -- to EGYPT -- and running amok. We didn't hear about the UN pressure being stepped up on Ahmadinejad. We didn't hear about Obama's growing support in South Carolina -- major papers there endorsed him. Maybe they would get to it. Maybe. But if you only listened to NPR, with their very cool acoustic guitar riffs, mellow voices, support from our listeners, I doubt you could have any realistic view of the world or politics at all. I wonder what the actual dollar amounts given by corporations are - as opposed to NPR using the corporate names to appear that NPR represents their views too. Remember corporations employ people whose sole job is to dispense the 501(c)(3) manna and a desire to look less rapacious that they really are -- so it is sort of a symbiotic lie and relationship: but just try and tell me that United Technologies "supports" NPR's political skew ... UT makes military parts, engines, electronics, etc. That is just smoke and mirrors and breathtakingly hypocritical as is NPR's use of UT's name.

Poop in the bed already?

The Nikkei is falling out of bed. Down to an almost 2 and 1/2 year low -- and enough percentage points to indicate a bear market. The Yen is strong, but ... that depends on what you are measuring it against. The rest of Asia is showing little in the way of vitality.

The UK FTSE is also taking a hit. And why shouldn't it? What is going right there? The government stumbles from crisis to crisis, each step taken by Gordon Brown a seemingly greater poop-heap that the last. Did you hear that in the UK you will shortly have little to no control over your dead body? Seriously!! Unless you make specific provisions in a living will with detailed medical instructions, the government will be able to harvest your organs from your dead body -- without your permission. Friends, it just a small step from there to eugenics. They are better "socialists" than the Soviet Union or East Germany. Gordon Brown and his cadre of leftist loonies appear to have won in the UK. Though in this instance, it may just be because the English have become more mindless that the Americans.

And US housing starts is the worst in 28 years. And shows the third worst period past since records have been assembled in 1959. And there is hope at the end of the tunnel? Where? The economy has ground to a screeching halt and nobody seems to have realized it quite yet. And not only the US economy, but the global economy. The trigger to start the accounting for 8 years -- no, 16 years of excess? The subprime mess without doubt. But before the world points to the US as the villain ... consider that someone had to buy the junk in the first place. And those buyers seem to have come from all over -- greed is not solely and American vice. Although, we seem to be particularly good at disseminating greed as a concept.

So where does it all end? It ends with markedly lower property prices, a healthier balance of payments situation in the US and some reality check in Europe. The U.S. has been consuming way above its ability to support such consumption: the recent capital injections to US investment banks is similar to the bail-out of the sovereign US by foreign bond holders. But we learn ... the U.S. is a dynamic society and economy. The EU, by contrast, is not. Beware.

Re boob lican Debate, featuring Ru Paul

Or should I say, "what the f@@@?"

Most of these guys are intelligent and rooted in the real world ... but to see Congressman Ron Paul up there ... huh?

This guy reminds me of an evil little leprechaun. Weird, spiteful and wildly out of touch. I can't believe that this whacko is on the public stage. And that there are so many supporters of this twerp out there. Makes Dennis UFO look sane.

Did you watch his body language? His facial expressions? Are his meds working? Is he trying to channel Saruman in the Lord of the Rings? Gandalf on acid? Did you even begin to understand his tirade on the incident in Hormuz? Can't hear you -- speak up? Hey, RuPaul ... try answering the questions posed to you. Nut-job.

Peace out.

Gag me

So it turns out -- forensic polling -- that Hil-liar received 57% of the votes that women cast versus 43% to Obama. And why? This will absolutely make you poop your trousers ... it appears that the crying jag, that pathetic "glimpse" of her "humanity" and "frailty" was the deciding factor in an overwhelming number of "undecided" cases. And it persuaded prior Obama identified voters to switch to Hil-liar. In effect, the women's solidarity vote.

This "reason" is, in effect, a post-feminist chance to "get back" at men for all the times that a woman was demeaned and asked to make coffee, slighted, commented on about her big butt. "Hil-liar will take it to those good-for-nothing men." Ladies: I have news for you ... Hil-liar would ask you to make the coffee too, only couching it in feminist terms. But her disdain for you, particularly any of you that are homemakers, is total and complete. Don't fool yourself in this regard, her record is replete with instances and examples where she has done so, not the least of which is her atrocious behavior with regards to the actions her pustule of a husband. Want demeaning? Look at her "wounded Hil-liar" persona after the Monica affair became public. The only wound she sustained there was that they didn't control the damage and shut her up early enough. In the Clinton Whitehouse, Hil-liar had a team in place whose sole function was to ensure that Bill did not get up to his usual crap. But during the lock-out, when government employees couldn't come to work, unpaid interns were allowed complete access and to pick up the slack. In this case, more than "slack" was picked up.

Even during that moment of "humanity" she managed to slag off Obama and state that "I" have opportunities for America ... not that America has opportunities, but she Marie Antoinette Clinton has the keys to the future. Meaning? You are idiots -- I am not, so vote for me.

Most appalling? The gullibility of the American public and women in particular. It is no surprise that the overwhelming bulk of magazines are bought by women, and the overwhelming bulk of magazines are advertisements -- selling to those that can be emotionally swayed to accept that which reason dictates is hogwash. You want to stand up for women and equality? Judge candidates on a gender and racially neutral basis. Don't fall for the sympathy gig: our future is too important to sacrifice on a "Cosmo" moment. Remember there is absolutely NOTHING that the Clintons won't do to reoccupy 1700 Pennsylvania Ave. Nothing.

I am beside myself with fear and loathing. Consider the Witch trying that poop with foreign leaders -- actually, would Maggie Thatcher have done such a thing ... ever? Under any circumstances? I have heard of tears for the defeated, tears of remorse, tears of sorrow for others unfairly treated, injured ... but tears because you are getting beaten in the polls? Even Maureen Dowd -- Hil-liar kool-aide drinker extraordinaire has shown shock and disgust. One day after tears to the question of how she keep going, Hil-liar was gloating and exultant on the stage.

The "Comeback Kid." Indeed. Comeback from what? For the last two years she has been the "inevitable" victor, the President presumptive, the shoo-in for coronation. What this shows is that she is a terrible loser -- a bad quality in a President. Mean, spiteful and vindictive and anyone that has crossed her has found that out to their detriment, even journalists who tried to simply tell facts, unadorned with political spin. Donors to her campaign knew that a dollar to Obama meant a life sentence to Hil-liar. Tears? From her? Are you stupid?

Bill is far more likely, especially when he gets caught. Speaking of which, do you really want 4 or even 8 more years of the Bill circus at the Whitehouse? Many respondents in the polls admitted that they were really voting for "the package" believing that a vote for Hi-liar was a vote for Bill. It is not. Hil-liar will cage Bill, muzzle him and apply electrical leads to ... to control him. Count on it. If there will be a female within arm's reach of Bill, you can bet that they will adhere to "alternative lifestyles," thereby putting them and Bill out of harm's way. Hil-liar's staff during her 8 years of attempted meddling in the Whitehouse was heavily skewed in towards that orientation: Hil-liar trusts "them," which is fine except, as with all things, it is to the exclusion of other, more qualified candidates.

Yes, I was wrong

Wrong, wrong, wrong. What was it that screwed up my calculations? It turns out that the 18% or so undecided largely pulled the lever for Hil-liar when it came to the crunch. And of those voters, the single women were overwhelmingly for Hil-liar.

Which makes me wonder ... why? We know that statistically single women are far more likely to vote Democrat than not. That changes as soon as they have children and actually have to run a house, feed the kids and pay attention to things like schools and what the children will learn. But why Hil-liar? Because she is a woman and they also seek to become empowered, or at least until they have a family? Because they emote a response and don't necessarily think rationally of long term consequences (I know that this sounds sexist, but it has also been found to be largely true -- at least with respect to consumer affairs, and what is an election but branding and hollow promises?).

But in Hil-liar's case, the truth is so close to the surface, easily understandable by anyone who cares to take more than a cursory look: she does not care for families, she does not care for law and order, she wants to redistribute your wealth (that you work hard for) to those who do not work, she wants to tell you what your children should learn -- a political agenda, she does not want health care choices to be available to you, but rather wants to control your access and choices. I could go on an on. And that is just on the issues, let alone her personal conduct and the hypocrisy of her positions on what it is to be a woman. She is big government -- which may make the single woman feel safe, a net below her to protect her -- but will be more impenetrable and out-of-touch than ever before: the Clintonistas don't really care at all, it is about power, pure and simple, an overarching compulsive greed for it.

I can only hope that the scales fall away from the eyes of the electorate before too long. If anyone believed that shameful display of crocodile tears in New Hampshire ... I'd be disgusted. And I am afraid that I need to be disgusted.

AS to the Republicans ... McCain was always strong in New Hampshire and I was thinking wishfully with regards to Rom-bot. Silly me. I should have predicted a close victory for Rom-bot, but got greedy. In the even, it was a solid McCain victory ... something that is entirely in line with a Hil-liar victory: their policies are similar (McCain is a liberal, make no mistake about it because of the inconvenient GOP label), their style is similar and they are both running on the basis of credentials that really don't amount to a hill of beans with regards to running the country. War hero ... so what? Sleeping with the old President (actually, she didn't and it was probably with her staffers she slept) and living in the White House for 8 years ... so what? Neither has a particularly distinguished Senate record, McCain has served at least several terms and Hil-Liar has done nothing at all.

So the two most competent persons are both running second. What did Barnun say?

Eating Crow

Eating crow ... not exactly my favorite dish. I guess I got sort of carried away -- a tad too gleeful at the prospect of the witch riding off into the sunset. Obama is second at this juncture in the NH race. IT seems as if every old fart liberal went to the polls to vote for the faded and discredited Clinton hogwash. A pity.

And Romney is getting whupped by McCain. No matter. He won in NH before, only to lose the big show on super Tuesday. I have faith that he will suck wind in the South and elsewhere.

We'll see.

Its been a while ...

Happy New Year to all.

And you might have noticed that my man Barack is kicking some serious heine. And quite a large target it is, too. But on this day before the all-important New Hampshire primary, Barack looks set to hand Hil-liar her walking papers. I sure hope so. And not only because I'd prefer to see Osama as our President to Hil-liar, but also for what this vote might represent: the dawn of a new American political age.

You see, Hil-liar's greatest political flaw is that she offers nothing new. It is the same-old, same-old democratic party from the 1960's. The post great-age rebellion produced no real viable ideas: Hil-liar still rants about the great right wing conspiracies (while anyone with a brain must realize that the "Right" are so pathetic, they couldn't organize a piss-up in a brewery), social reform and income redistribution, welfare programs that only serve to increase social division, and not unify our society.

The fact that Huckabee won the Iowa clambake shows that people want to elect a "good person," someone that they might feel comfortable with. And Barack is that man for the Democrats. Heck, they elected Dubbya twice because he seemed to be someone that they would like to have a beer with. Trouble is, he is also a functioning moron. In Barack, they have the same feel-good element, coupled with someone that does not take the old class politics road -- someone that actually seems to want to think things out first before trotting out stale old hocus pocus.

As to Huckabee ... well the party is over. The people of New Hampshire are possessed of a little more savy than the corn-pone inhabitants of Iowa: they do not believe in the tooth fairy in New Hampshire. Sadly for Huckabee, the very element that makes him so attractive to the evangelical right in the Midwest will make him completely unacceptable to the rest of the country ... uh ... like ... uh ... his rejection of Darwinism, and any other form of scientific or logical rigor?

So on to Romney and Rudy. Rudy looked stale last night on the televised Republican forum. Stale with fuzzy mold growing on him. And despite the concerted attacks on Romney, he seemed only to get stronger. Weird contrast: Romney's belief structure serves somehow to reinforce his stature, but Huckabee looks ridiculous.

McCain ... lose the comb-over. You ARE as old as dirt and also a liberal for all intents and purposes. Seriously, you have to have a real idea about what you are going to do about ilelgal immigration. You can't just say that "we will have to sit down and talk about it" ... that is NOT a solution that is going to fly in this election, at least not with conservative voters. And Hil-liar fails in the same context. Ever see Hil-liar and McCain in the same room together? Thought not.

So on towards tomorrow: Barack by 15%. Romney by 10%.