Any Day Now...

In view of the recent reports showing that the earth may actually be cooling, how long do you think it will be (or how much money amassed) before Al Gore claims that his initiative solved global warming and averted catastrophe?

I'm thinking that Al "It's All ABout Me" Gore is chafing at Barack Obama taking up all of the lovely, lovely limelight and will have to do something drastic to refocus the spotlight on himself.

He could also use that as an excuse for his ever-expanding carbon footprint:

NASHVILLE - In the year since Al Gore took steps to make his home more energy-efficient, the former Vice President’s home energy use surged more than 10%, according to the Tennessee Center for Policy Research.

“A man’s commitment to his beliefs is best measured by what he does behind the closed doors of his own home,” said Drew Johnson, President of the Tennessee Center for Policy Research. “Al Gore is a hypocrite and a fraud when it comes to his commitment to the environment, judging by his home energy consumption.”

Does anyone need any more proof that Democrats and those on the Left are absolute fools and uninformed morons? After all, this guy is credible in their eyes.

When the Levee Breaks - Or Did It?

OK - who did it?

While the Cedar River ebbed in hard-hit Cedar Rapids, a levee breach in the state capital of Des Moines flooded a neighborhood of more than 200 homes, a high school and about three dozen businesses.

I think that Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson blew up the levees and destroyed the neighborhood to get rid of all of the white people in Des Moines so that the Democrats could move their people in there and have a reliable voting bloc for themselves.

In fact, it's quite possible that Al Gore engineered the weather to give them cover for their nefarious plan! After all, for a man who invented the internet, a weather machine should be a piece of cake. That would also explain all of this global warming stuff.

Or could it be that when levees fail in black neighborhoods it's a Republican plot, but when they fail in snow-white Des Moines - well - that's just nature taking it's course. Other than the fact that Americans caused the climate to change, I mean.

Question:

Will the Democrat Party ever be able to nominate a white male for President of the United States again?

NRCC Gets Shelled!

If the Republican Party doesn't understand the level of discontent in their base after this shellacking, there is no hope of them ever hitting rock-bottom (see post below) and changing course to save themselves.

The comment section on this RNCC blog post is an amazing look at just how upset Conservatives are. If the Republican bigwigs can read this and still think that they have a prayer of winning in November, they are even more deluded than I thought possible.

(Tip o' The Hat to Michelle Malkin)

Time to Stop the Enabling

When dealing with addicts of any type, there is a term that is often heard: Enabling.

When you help an addict or a drunk solve the problems that result from their bad behavior (i.e. bailing them out of jail, "loaning" them money, etc.) you are doing nothing more than prolonging their suffering. You are "enabling" them to continue their destructive behavior. If it's done long enough, it often results in that persons death.

Since 1988, when Ronald Reagan left office, most of us have "held our noses" and voted for people who were not Conservatives. And, not coincidentally, the Republican Party has slid farther and farther to the Left. To the point where the Republican Party is on the verge of officially nominating a man who has again and again and again betrayed the principles that were the hallmarks of the Republican party.

When the Republicans were given power in 1994 they started off well, but slowly-but-surely they became addicted to the lure of money and power until the year 2000 when many of us, with some trepidation, voted for George W. Bush. After that, with absolute power, their death-spiral of addictive behavior accelerated - as it always does with addicts. And, also as with addicts, their behavior became more and more destructive; not just to themselves (via their morals and integrity), but to others - in this case the entire country.

In other words, those of us who have "held our noses" and voted for Bush I, Bob Dole, and Bush II (not to mention many other Senators and Congressmen) have been enabling the destructive behavior of these liberal Republicans. To the point where there is a very real danger to the very country that we live in.

There is another term in the treatment of addicts that comes in handy here: Rock-bottom.

Most addicts will only get help when they have hit rock-bottom. When they have lost everything that they care about and their lives are an absolute disaster.

And when you enable an addict you never let them get to that rock bottom. You keep them from hitting that place where they have to decide whether they want to change their behavior or die.

It's always very, very hard to do, but the most loving thing that you can do for someone in that situation is to take away all of the support that you've been giving them and let them crash and burn - praying that the fall doesn't kill them.

And now it's time to quit holding our noses and voting for the lesser of two evils. When we have reached the point of nominating a Republican who has voted like a Liberal Democrat for years and stabbed the very people who supported him in the back time and time again (another hallmark of addictive behavior), it's obvious that we're no longer helping the Republican party by enabling their bad behavior. It's time to let them hit bottom.

I will not vote for John McCain. Not for so much as dog-catcher. He is a symptom of the disease of Liberalism which has infected the Republican party. Like alcoholism, it's a chronic, progressive (heh) disease and it will only get worse if allowed to do so.

Nor will I vote for Senator Norm Coleman. In his run against the presumed Democrat nominee, Al Franken, the two have become almost indistinguishable (except that, as far as I know, Coleman pays his taxes before he advocates raising them on the rest of us).

For now, at least, I wash my hands of the Republican Party. It's time to let them sink or swim. If we continue to support them, they will never hit bottom and be forced to decide on a new course.

Let's See How This Flies...

Since it was the Democrats* who relentlessly fought for slavery, Jim Crow laws and against civil rights for blacks, why don't we have everyone who has consistently voted Democrat in this country pay "reparations" to the "black community"?

After all, blacks argue that they deserve reparations because of the suffering that they endured and the free labor that they did, right? Well, the people who caused that suffering and kept them in slavery were Democrats. Hence, the people who caused the suffering should be the ones to pay.

That would be one issue that we'd never hear about again.

* If you've never been to Stop the Republicans, it is a MUST read! It is a detailed timeline of the despicable lengths that the Democrat Party went to keep blacks in this country enslaved from 1854 until the present. And it shows without any doubt that it was always the Republican Party that was fighting for freedom for black people. The fact that most people have little or no idea of this history shows the Orwellian twist that only Leftists can put on an issue.

It is an incredibly valuable resource any time you hear the word "Republican" being equated with "racist".

Here's a sample:

November 18, 1872
Susan B. Anthony arrested for voting, after boasting to Elizabeth Cady Stanton that she voted for “the Republican ticket, straight”

January 17, 1874
Armed Democrats seize Texas state government, ending Republican efforts to racially integrate government

September 14, 1874
Democrat white supremacists seize Louisiana statehouse in attempt to overthrow racially-integrated administration of Republican Governor William Kellogg; 27 killed

March 1, 1875
Civil Rights Act of 1875, guaranteeing access to public accommodations without regard to race, signed by Republican President U.S. Grant; passed with 92% Republican support over 100% Democrat opposition

"Progress" Doesn't Mean What You Think It Does

I hear a lot of Conservatives ridiculing "Progressives" for seeming to be against progress. After all, everything that they do seems to go against any real progress as you and I define the term. In fact, their entire philosophy is rooted in the long-dead mind of a Leftist misfit who lived over 100 years ago. How's that for progress?

But to understand how a Leftist defines progress you only need to remember one thing: Socialism was an imperfect but necessary step in progressing to the "perfection" of real Communism.

In the old Soviet Union, where the population was constantly inundated with short, propagandistic slogans (now, who has the "bumper sticker" ideology?), one of the most prevalent consisted of the word 'Progress!'

In fact, during the Soyuz space station days, the space vehicle used to resupply the station was even named Progress.

Their entire system was designed to create the conditions necessary to progress towards International Socialism first and, eventually, to real Communism where every person was exactly the equal of (i.e. the same as) the next. Little robots that the State could use (and destroy) however it saw fit.

And so, when you hear anyone calling themselves a "progressive", trying to see in their ideology what any sane person would call progress is utterly futile. It's apples and oranges. We're not speaking of the same thing.

We're speaking of the betterment of mankind in terms of liberty, freedom, science, etc.

They're speaking in terms of the progression of mankind to be servants of the State.

Could It Be?

Is it possible that the "Man-made Global Warming" hysteria has peaked and we're finally getting a little common sense out there? If this decision by the EPA is any indication, maybe so.

From The Heritage Foundation:

Liberals in Congress and environmentalists are predictably apoplectic over the Environmental Protection Agency’s decision to seek public comment before issuing regulations under the Clean Air Act on carbon emissions. House Energy Independence and Global Warming Chairman Ed Markey (D-Mass.) accused the Bush administration of “running out the clock” on global warming, and Senate Environment and Public Works Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) said the EPA has had nearly year since the Supreme Court directed the agency to act on carbon emissions but, “now, instead of action, we get more foot-dragging.”

Al Gore may want to reconsider that bid for the White House. If the word's finally getting out that all of this is based on junk science and is nothing more than a Socialist power-grab, he may need a new job soon.

The State of Conservatism

I think that Mr. Buckley died just so that he could roll over in his grave at what "Conservatism" has become.

Two Questions

1) Will Hillary cry in public when she has to admit that her lifelong dream has been snatched away from her at the last minute?

2) Who will she blame it on? We know for a fact that she'll take no responsibility for it.

Global Warming?

As far as I'm concerned, Al Gore can come up here and lick my flagpole!

"Believing" - Until You Don't Need To

What ever happened to John Ashcroft who was, once upon a time, the most hated and evil man in the world? At least by Democrats.

Or Karl Rove, for that matter?

These two (and many others) were the subject of thousands of screeching, daily rants warning the American people of how they were going to (literally, in Ashcroft's case) bring Armageddon down upon the world.

Funny, but you hardly ever hear about either of them any more. You only hear about Rove because he writes a column for Newsweak magazine. John Ashcroft may as well have gone on to his reward for as much as the Left mentions him anymore.

Could it be that maybe the Left didn't really believe that these guys were as bad as they said they were? I doubt it. At least during the time that they were shuddering in fear over these "evil, warmongering, Christian haters", they believed every word that spewed from their spittle-flecked lips.

It's just another sign of the Orwellian insanity of being a Leftist that they truly believed that John Ashcroft was the Antichrist - until he no longer threatened their power or policies. Once he no longer threatened them, he became just another human being, no longer imbued with the power to destroy the earth.

And I'd bet that not one of them made the connection between their irrational hatred, their political ideology and the fact that John Ashcroft abruptly disappeared from their radar screen. Once Ashcroft stepped down, he became a non-person. He disappeared - just like mommy does, in an infant's mind, when she leaves the room.

When a Leftist hates someone, it is always in a self-righteous, "I'm going to personally help save the world from this person" point of view. They use the worst epithets that they can possibly think of to describe them, and they believe every word that they are saying at the time.

And then, when this evil person goes off and retires, the Leftists apparently lose the belief that something needs to be done about them. Karl Rove apparently chose being a columnist over world domination.

To be a Liberal is to be completely deranged.

X Ray Spex - Germfree Adolescent

3-Ring Circus

Appearances and Ann Coulter's joke about him notwithstanding, its really too bad that John Edwards isn't gay. Think about it: they'd have all three of their biggest victims groups represented - women, blacks and gays.

Watching Hillary (via her subordinates, of course) try to call Barack Obama a "nigger" and still maintain her elitist liberal image is absolutely fascinating. Especially when you consider that Obama has, as far as I know, never once tried to use the race card. In this day and age, when blacks go ballistic over things that have nothing to do with race (i.e. "niggardly") that's unheard of. I give him all the credit in the world for that.

It's not that Obama doesn't actually believe that blacks are a horribly oppressed minority in this country, as evidenced by the racist church to which he belongs. Hell, he wouldn't be a liberal if he didn't believe in the supposed inherent racism in this country. But he has managed to restrain himself on the campaign trail at least.

And then you have Hillary and her fellow man-hating feminist travelers whining about the boys picking on her and not giving her a level playing field to play on. At least when she isn't crying like a little girl.

(I, for one, believe that her tears were completely real: after 35 years of plotting to become the first female President, her dream looked as if it were crumbling within 11 months of achieving it.)

If only John Edwards really was gay, we could have the pleasure of watching him whine about getting the shaft (sorry, couldn't resist) because of his sexual orientation and attacking Obama for being a man. And attacking Hillary for being even more of a man (except when she's crying).

The Democrats are showing their true colors in this race: after decades of preaching to us about how tolerant they are towards others, their power-at-all-costs mentality comes shining through in their attacks on one another regarding the very things which they'd like us to think they are tolerant of.

We on the Right always knew that they were a bunch of lying hypocrites. Now the rest of the country gets to see it, too.