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.

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.

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.

Start the Clock!

It's been about half an hour since this began. Has anyone on the Left blamed Rush Limbaugh yet?

ROCHESTER, N.H. - A man claiming to have a bomb walked into Hillary Rodham Clinton's storefront campaign office Friday and took at least two hostages, police and witnesses said.

The Mote in Her Eye

Steve Sack's Aug. 31 cartoon of Fred Thompson "testing the waters" makes me wonder how the ex-senator would govern if he became president. Although it became obvious to everyone that Thompson has been running for president, he refused for months to declare his candidacy so he could maintain secrecy about contributions and not have to abide by the rules that govern declared candidates. Secrecy and disregard for the rule of law have been hallmarks of the Bush administration. The last thing this country needs is more of the same.
- MARY VRABEL, MINNEAPOLIS

How much do you want to bet that this dolt voted for Bill Clinton - twice! - in the 1990's? And how much do you want to bet that, if Hillary is nominated by the Democrat Party, Mary will vote for her, too?

It can't be conscious hypocrisy. It has to be just plain stupidity.

Welcome to the world of the Minneapolis Star-Tribune's Letters to the Editor page. If you're ever out of material for your blog, it's a goldmine.

UPDATE: After a brief search, Mary Vrabel's name just happens to turn up on Peacemakersite.org's list of grant recipients. She's apparently (surprise!) a public school teacher in Minneapolis. It's no wonder that she's blinded by ideology when she's getting financial help from a group who gives out money for things like "Restorative Circles", "Bullying prevention", "Respect", "Anger management" and every other left-wing, feel-good fad out there.

Is it any wonder that inner-city schools are crap?

It's Already Started

26 days ago, I put up a post about Hillary Clinton's probable Presidency and the inevitable scandals that would ensue:

To make a long story short, if she is elected President, the first Clinton Presidency is probably going to look tame compared to hers. Hillary's arrogance, paranoia, greed and hatred will drive her to do things that will result in an unending series of scandals that the Right will be only too happy to go after her for.

I should have known that it wouldn't take that long for a Clinton to be caught breaking the law:

DALY CITY, Calif. -- One of the biggest sources of political donations to Hillary Rodham Clinton is a tiny, lime-green bungalow that lies under the flight path from San Francisco International Airport.

Six members of the Paw family, each listing the house at 41 Shelbourne Ave. as their residence, have donated a combined $45,000 to the Democratic senator from New York since 2005, for her presidential campaign, her Senate re-election last year and her political action committee. In all, the six Paws have donated a total of $200,000 to Democratic candidates since 2005, election records show.

A word of warning to the Democrat Party: If you elect a woman who believes that her "vision" for America trumps the law (i.e. the end justifies the means), she will be impeached, and she will be convicted. She truly believes that she is above the law. Anyone who is that arrogant will inevitably leave evidence of their wrongdoing, because they will be incapable of seeing it as wrong. The Constitution is meaningless to someone like her, because she knows what is best.

It's pathological narcissism.

The Score

Number of convictions related to the “most corrupt ever” Bush Administration: 1 (Scooter Libby).

Number of convictions related to “the most ethical administration ever” Clinton Administration: 47

And that number doesn't even begin to tell the tale. Here are some amazing and, apparently, memory-holed facts from that Progressive (i.e. Liberal) website:

- Number of congressional witnesses who have pleaded the Fifth Amendment, fled the country to avoid testifying, or (in the case of foreign witnesses) refused to be interviewed: 122

- According to the House Committee on Government Reform in September 2000, 79 House and Senate witnesses asserted the Fifth Amendment in the course of investigations into Gore's last fundraising campaign (odd, how Pope Al's record of scumbaggery has been completely forgotten - even by most Conservatives - The Exile).

- Total cost of the Starr investigation (3/00) $52 million
- Total cost of the Iran-Contra investigation: $48.5 million

(I seem to remember about a million Liberals complaining about the cost of the Starr investigations - even to this day. - The Exile)

That website (The Progressive Review) is an absolute goldmine of information about the Clinton scandals. It is really interesting because it was put together by a bunch of Left-wing Liberals. If that's any indication of how the Left really feels about the Clintons, Hillary is toast.

Here's a nice little list that they put together:

OTHER MATTERS INVESTIGATED BY SPECIAL PROSECUTORS AND CONGRESS, OR REPORTED IN THE MEDIA

Bank and mail fraud, violations of campaign finance laws, illegal foreign campaign funding, improper exports of sensitive technology, physical violence and threats of violence, solicitation of perjury, intimidation of witnesses, bribery of witnesses, attempted intimidation of prosecutors, perjury before congressional committees, lying in statements to federal investigators and regulatory officials, flight of witnesses, obstruction of justice, bribery of cabinet members, real estate fraud, tax fraud, drug trafficking, failure to investigate drug trafficking, bribery of state officials, use of state police for personal purposes, exchange of promotions or benefits for sexual favors, using state police to provide false court testimony, laundering of drug money through a state agency, false reports by medical examiners and others investigating suspicious deaths, the firing of the RTC and FBI director when these agencies were investigating Clinton and his associates, failure to conduct autopsies in suspicious deaths, providing jobs in return for silence by witnesses, drug abuse, improper acquisition and use of 900 FBI files, improper futures trading, murder, sexual abuse of employees, false testimony before a federal judge, shredding of documents, withholding and concealment of subpoenaed documents, fabricated charges against (and improper firing of) White House employees, inviting drug traffickers, foreign agents and participants in organized crime to the White House.

And, the next time they whine about Alberto Gonzales (or anyone else) not remembering something during an investigation, there's a really great list of Clinton and Co.'s sudden memory lapses there, too.

It just amazes (but doesn't surprise) me how those on the Left can so brazenly assert that the Bush administration is so corrupt, while completely ignoring the fact that the current front runner for their party's Presidential nomination was neck-deep in an administration that had a record that looked like something from a Mafia criminal indictment.

I've got some serious problems with the Bush administration, but corruption isn't one of them. The Left can howl at the moon all they want, but if you present the facts to them, this administration probably is the "most ethical" in a long time, if not ever. Ronald Reagan's administration had an even worse track-record than Bush does.

But none of that matters. It's propaganda. The Left knows that if they repeat it often enough, the fools who will follow them will believe it. It doesn't have to be true. It just has to fit their neuroses.

She's Like, You Know, Smart!

For almost ten years now, the Left has delighted in disparaging George Bush for his inarticulateness. But what about Hillary?

Granted, she may be marginally more articulate than Cindy Sheehan but they both sound like old Valley Girls.

A couple of weeks back, Amanda Carpenter had a column over at Townhall.com that transcribed the speech that Hillary gave to one of the "breakout sessions" at YearlyKos. By my count, she used the phrase, "you know" 43 times in what may have been a half-hour speech.

Here's a sampling:

So, therefore, you know, having people who share our overall goals even if we disagree on tactics or strategy, but understanding where we are trying to take our country is really helpful because then it’s not just one voice or a couple of voices, it’s millions of voices -- and you know I doubt you know that we can’t go back and rewrite history certainly, you know (ouch! -ed.), -- but I think about what if we had the blogosphere in ‘93, ‘94 when I was working on healthcare and you know being hammered and they were raising $300 million dollars and distorting everything we were trying to do and we made our own mistakes but a lot of it was you know, trying to do something that was worth doing which we will get done when I am President finally.

Did I mention the flawless grammar?

Yeah. She's, like, totally brilliant. And so, you know, well-spoken.

Campaign Reform

If there's anything about current campaigns that needs reforming, it's this ridiculous schedule that we've begun since the last election. If we keep it up at this rate, the election is going to be held before the primaries.

What I want to know is, who thought that this was a good idea...and why?

The current Presidential campaign started, literally, the day after the last election in November '06. Why?

The campaigns used to start about 18 months before the election, giving us 6 months to nominate a candidate in the primaries and a full year for them to get their message out to the "undecided" voter...who didn't pay attention to the campaign until about the last month of the campaign anyway!

Is this really necessary? In today's political climate especially, most people know who they're going to end up voting for. If the rest of them need 2 years to decide whether they're for or against higher taxes, abortion, gay marriage or any of the other issues that separate the parties, maybe they shouldn't be voting. If they're that completely ignorant of the issues, do we really want them to be deciding who's running this country?

There was a minor brouhaha last week because somebody suggested that we have a very basic test regarding the issues before letting somebody vote. Many people were horrified at the thought. I, for one, would be all for it. Especially when you consider the Demobratz' tactics of scaring people into voting for them.

Demobratz never have any ideas...they don't need to have any. They just tell the "undecided voters" that Republicans want to take everything away from them and kill them and their families. And the genius in the "undecided voter" category, who pays absolutely no attention to what's going on in this country other than the "American Idol" standings, and who pays no attention to politics until the last month of the campaign, when Demobratz turn into Conservatives, believe every word of what they hear in the MSM and vote Democrat.

I've never seen a poll on the subject, but I'd bet that the vast majority of "Independent" voters vote for Demobratz. You have one part of that category who are too embarrassed to associate themselves with the "liberal" label of the Democrat Party, and the rest are people whose TV's don't often stray from the broadcast TV (i.e. MSM) channels and who believe what they read in the newspapers.

The only thing that a two-year campaign does is to give the Demobratz more time to spin their lies into something that your typical uninformed "Independent" voter will find palatable. It just gives them more time to find a way to demonize the Conservative message (such as it is) being put out by the Republican Party.

The first rule of propaganda is that endless repetition will make your point into the truth in the eyes of those who don't know what's really going on. This endless campaign works right into the hands of the spin-monsters of the Left who need to convince those who don't know better into believing that Socialism will solve all of their problems.

We need to reform the campaign process. I have no hope of eliminating the uninformed from the process. That would just be too easy for the Demobratz to get those very same uninformed voters up-in-arms. "You have a right to be ignorant and vote for us! In fact, we count on it!" If we were to eliminate the uninformed voter, the Demobratz could never win again, and they know it.

However, we need to convince some courageous person in Congress to bring a bill that will limit campaigning to a 1-year period. That would give the candidates a few months to get their message out to the primary voters, and 9 months for them to state their positions to the general public.

If the candidates can't get their message out in that time, perhaps they shouldn't be running.

And, if the "undecideds" can't figure out what they stand for in that time, perhaps they shouldn't be voting.

Hillary's Presidency

I don't have a crystal ball, but my gut-feeling is that, come January 2009, we will be calling Hillary Clinton "Madame President" (although, given her sensibilities, she may insist on Ms. President).

Will that be a disaster for this country? Most assuredly. But think about what will happen when this woman, who once assured us that her husband's administration would be the "most ethical administration in history" obtains the ultimate power.

Bill Clinton wanted power for power's sake. Once he got it, he really didn't care to do much with it. He just wanted the jet-setting lifestyle, the hobnobbing with rich, important people, the money and, of course, to get laid. I always got the sense that Hillary was more angry at him for not instituting a bloodless, Leftist "revolution" than she was about him screwing every woman who got within groping distance.

Bill Clinton was a slacker party-boy. Hillary is a true believer in the Socialist dream.

Hillary has all of the marks of your Leftist dictator: the unquenchable thirst for more and more power, the paranoia, the greed, the narcissism, the naked hatred of her opponents, the unflinching willingness to go to any length to destroy people who stand in her way, the arrogance to believe that her way is the only way and that she can completely change 40,000 years of human nature in a few, short years.

If you look at the years of Bill Clinton's Presidency, other than the sexual escapades, you can see Hillary's fingerprints on all of the scandals. From the Rose Law Firm billing records, to the gathering of FBI files relating to their opponents, to the firing of the White House travel office staff, to Whitewater, to the illegal fundraising, to the last-minute pardons, to the theft of White House belongings...she seems to be the one who was pushing all of this stuff while Bill seemed to be pliant and willing to just go along with it as long as nobody interfered with his fun. In fact, I've often wondered whether that was one of the things that Hillary liked about Bill: his willingness to let her play politics while he just played.

Yes, Hillary caught a lot of flack for all of the above, and more. But it was all filtered through Bill because he was the one who had been elected. She could have been indicted in a criminal court for a lot of that stuff, but going after the First Lady of the United States would have been political suicide for the Republican Party.

Now flash forward to 2009. Hillary is now the elected President of the United States. The Republicans...no...the "Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy" is now doing all that they can to stop her from implementing her Socialist dream on this country. They are criticizing her relentlessly. They are questioning her motives and catching her in her lies. They are threatening to take away her power base. What does she do?

She does what she's always done.

She first tries to destroy her enemies. And, as we've seen before, there's a very good chance that not all of her methods will be legal.

She will be desperate to get her policies pushed through. Even more than Bill, I think, she is the one obsessed with the Clinton legacy. In addition, she actually believes that her policies are what's best for the future of the Democrat Party...err... America. And she has already shown that she's willing to use unethical and/or "extra-legal" means to do that.

While she'll tell herself that she's doing it for the good of her party...nay, the good of the country, she will be in a never-ending fundraising mode just as she was in the 1990's. It will be nothing more than greed and lust for power, but she will justify it to herself. And, again, we've seen what lengths she and her cronies are willing to go to for a few dollars more.

To make a long story short, if she is elected President, the first Clinton Presidency is probably going to look tame compared to hers. Hillary's arrogance, paranoia, greed and hatred will drive her to do things that will result in an unending series of scandals that the Right will be only too happy to go after her for.

As opposed to the Left's caterwauling about President Bush's supposed "illegal" activities, Hillary Clinton's activities truly will be illegal. You can bet on it. It's who she is. To her and her Communist cronies, "the end justifies the means", which is nothing more than a different way of saying that "we are above the law".

Girly-girls Talk War

It’s so cute when the girls in the Democrat Party try to act tough. It's like watching four-year-olds make pancakes: they always make a mess and screw it up, but it's funny to watch.

It's odd, but I have yet to hear a single Liberal call Obama a “warmonger”, a “chickenhawk” or even an “imperialist”.

I guess declaring war on our allies is OK…if you’re a Democrat; but declaring war on our enemies is not OK if you’re a Republican.

But they don’t have double standards. Nor are they hypocrites. If you doubt it, just accuse them of being hypocrites and watch how (hysterically) indignant they get.

Cindy for President!

To hell with Cindy Sheehan running for Nancy Pelosi's House seat...we need to get the Moonbats to scare the Democrat Party into putting her on the Presidential ticket!

The Democrats are so afraid of the Loons in their party that it could actually happen.

And once those Americans who pay just enough attention to the MSM to think that they know what's going on get a load of the real Cindy on the campaign trail, rats from a sinking ship wouldn't even begin to describe the flight from the Democrat Party.

Not only that, but just think about how entertaining it would be watching her make public speeches for the next year-and-a-half! The woman makes George Bush sound like Shakespeare. We could howl in laughter as we watched the Dems fall right off the Left side of the map.

Time to get on Kos, Moron.org, etc. and plant the...meme.