GOP’s Katrina Vindication

Current mood: accomplished
Category: News and Politics

On Saturday Rep. Bobby Jindal (R-La) was elected governor of Lousiana. He is replacing Kathleen Blanco (D) who oversaw the running of her state during Hurricane Katrina Vandenheuvel. Blanco, showing shame so uncharacteristic of Democrats, had the good grace not even to run for re-election.

For those of you not familiar with how things work in Louisiana, they have an open primary system. Every candidate of every Party runs on a single Primary day. The two top vote-getters, whatever their Party, fight it out in a runoff a little over two weeks later. However, if, in the Primary, the top vote getter wins more than 50% of the votes, he is declared winner outright, no runoff necessary. This rarely happens in governor's races. But it did happen for Bobby Jindal last Saturday.

I remember hearing of Jindal's Congressional victory in 2004, where he came to Represent Louisiana US District 1. The first time I saw a picture of him was in the House of Representatives holding up his purple stained finger celebrating the Iraqi elections. A picture is worth a thousand words, and I saw that the man had passion.

The Liberal Media has played the template that the disaster of Hurricane Katrina was the Republican Party's fault, mostly George Bush (he caused the hurricane by causing Global Warming, he ordered the levees right by black neighborhoods blown up and then didnt send them any aid or help when they were flooded out). One lie was that Bush didnt prepare for a hurricane that could have blown out the levees in New Orleans. I got news for you, people. I lived in New Orleans from 1985 to 1987 when I was a kid. I first came to the Crescent City in 1985 and I heard many people telling me back then that if the city were hit directly by a Cat 5 Hurricane that the levees might burst, as they in fact did in 2005. And I'm sure they didnt just realize that the day before I came there. This is something that has been a long time in coming, and nobody prepared for it.

Another thing we need to remember is that we live in a Federal System of government. That means that our individual states and locales are autonomous and the federal Government may not step into them without their consent/appeal. In other words, the state governments are responsible for such things, and the Federal Government is auxiliary. Not vice-versa. Moscow is not our capital, though it seems like it sometimes.

Well, it seems that the voters of Louisiana know truly where the fault lies. With her popularity in the basement, Democratic Governor Kathleen Blanco did not seek re-election. Bobby Jindal sought to be elected, having tried to win the election back in 2003 but losing in the runoff to Blanco.

The Democratic smear machine sought to link Jindal and President Bush, and truly Jindal is a supporter of many of Bush's policies. But it didnt seem to work for them. Jindal got more than 50% of the votes in a Primary against all Democrats and some Republicans.

The voters know that it was the corrupt, inept Democrat government that made the ravages Post-Katrina worse than they had to be. Katrina was not Bush's fault. The flooded school buses have become a symbol of local Democrat incompetance in New Orleans and the rest of Southern Louisiana.

Next door in Mississippi, Republican Governor Haley Barbour is beloved for how he handled the devastation after Hurricane Katrina Vandenheuvel. The Democrats are running a sacrificial lamb against him in the governor's election in two weeks.

The voters know, People. In spite of the Liberal Media and DNC smear machine, Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath weren't the fault of Republicans. And that is why Democratic Party is taking it on the labanza in Mississippi and Louisiana.

Congratualations Bobby Jindal, and Haley Barbour, keep giving 'em Hell!

Amateur Hour at the DNC or Why I’m Optimistic About 2008

Amateur Hour at the DNC or Why I’m Optimistic About 2008
Current mood: amused

I doubt that the GOP will take back the Senate in 2008, too many retirements, too many vulnerable seats to defend versus few defenses for the Democrats. But retaining the White House and getting the House of Representatives back are good possiblities.

The reason? It's quite simple, there are no presidents among the Democrats. True, there havent been for decades and that hasnt prevented a couple of them from getting elected. Nonetheless, it's worse today.

Hillary is portrayed by Democrats and the Liberal Media as our inevitable next President. Please. She's a neophyte Senator, no executive experience, nor deserving the chance to aquire any. SHE HAS NEVER RUN ANYTHING. Except possibly a couple of hippie protests to help Ho Chi Minh's war effort against America back in the '60s.

It is somewhat disconcerting that she isnt laughed at by 98% of America's population when she says she wants to be President. I mean, in 1992 we elected Governor Lapetomaine from "Blazing Saddles" to the Presidency and now some want his wife?

Well, that's alright. She's a bit of a novelty right now, but as Republicans coalesce behind their candidate, her lacking record will come out. I am good friends at FSU with a man who is my political opposite. Me, a Northern born Republican who loves the South, him a Southern born Democrat more into the ways of the North. We rode home together in his car one day in 2005 and he still had his Kerry/Edwards bumber sticker on. HE said to me as we got in the car "dont ever run Senators for President." It is somewhat axiomatic of politics that you dont run Senators. The only Senator to be President was John F Kennedy, and if the stories are true that dead people gave him victory in Illinois and Texas in 1960, then NO Senator has fairly won the Presidency.

And, as Senators go, Hillary is not distinguished among them. At least John Kerry had thirty years in Congress. Hillary has six. And they are not a very distinguished six either. Recently Hillary ran an ad showing herself at Ground Zero after 9-11 with a face mask. Let's have the GOP show her at the fundraiser for families of firefighters late in 2001 where she was booed off the stage. She did one right thing back then- she voted for the War on Terror. Of course that was a 100-0 vote in the Senate, so, again, she did not distinguish herself.

Hillary with her socialist medical system ideas gave Republicans the Congress back in 1994. Let's see what other politcally correct ideas she wants to foist on us. She has been back and forth on Iraq, and if you thought the GOP had fun calling Kerry a flip-flopper, Hillary is going to get it twice as bad, and deservedly so.

Make no mistake, the GOP wouldnt slander or smear her. It wont have to. Just state the record. She'll crack. In the 2000 Senatorial election she got victim points because Rick Lazio confronted her. Well, if we confront her today, and she tries to make a victim of herself, as Democrats always do, undeservedly, that will hurt her in a Presidential campaign. Nobody is going to elect a victim for President. Victimhood is not Presidential. So Hillary can't play that and hope to win.

Many women will vote for Hillary just because she is a woman. Some men will deliberately not vote for her just because she is a woman. And there are even a few women out there who will not vote for a woman. Should a woman be President? Well, when one steps forward who is fit to be, I'll support her. Hasn't happened yet. Margaret Thatcher was a great PM of Britain. The best since Churchill. If someone like that ran for President in the US, she'd win and deservedly so. But Hillary is just a weak victim. Who needs that for President?

Not only that, Hillary has high 40's% unfavorable ratings. You cant get elected president if 49% of America doesn't like you. And, as it has been pointed out, Hillary's unlikeables have been formed by adult Americans over the course of nearly a generation. We've known her since 1991. She's not going to change our minds with a few tv spots.

Is Hillary inevitable? No way. I don't give her a snowball's chance. And more good news on this? She is the best the Demos have. Barak Obama is a neophyte Senator with even less experience or anything accomplished than her. He has not yet been a Senator for three years. He will be hammered even more eaily than Hillary is. Mr Madrasa isn't going to get more support than Hillary, he will get less. And forget about John "The Breck Girl" Edwards in third place. Hillary is more of a man than this Senator, who could not as VP candidate carry one single state in his Southern Region for John Kerry in 2004.

No. The GOP candidates are not the best we've ever fielded, but we have some good leaders, all but one of whom have had executive experience and done very well against great challenges. The voters will have a real choice versus their pick of amateurs. The Democrats are not going to get the White House in 2008. And in 2012 the census will greatly favor the Republicans, and I feel that in that year, the GOP will have both the Senate and House after the election, as well as the Presidency.

We have a good chance of getting the House in 2008. In 61 districts, Hillary is expected to be a drag the Democratic Rep candidate. Neither Obama nor Edwards will be a help to these either, rest assured.

So, my prediction is this- Democrat thugs hang on to the Senate, but the GOP retains the White House and wins back the House in a stunning upset.

Hang in there, 2012 is coming.

Liberal PC Thought Police To Pursue Limbaugh

Well, it's just come out over the wire that Rep. Henry "Nostrilitis" Waxman (Bolshevik- Ca), instead of launching another of his endless potemkin investigations at taxpayer expense, has something more sinister in mind. He has ordered his staff to monitor Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Mark Levin and compile reports of what they have to say on the air.

Well. I thought Democrats were opposed to government monitoring its citizens, especially if they are contacting al Qaeda? We can't run down Islamofascists who want to make a piece of America glow in the dark, but we can monitor those "Right Wing Extremists."

"Limbaugh isn't the only one who needs to be made uncomfortable about what he says on the radio," a House Leadership source says. Watch out all you people out there who don't observe the strictures of Political Correctness in every particular! Big Brother is watching you!

Liberalism is closet Socialism and in earlier days it had a long, long love affair with the Soviet Union. I went to school in Massachusetts from 1985 to 1987 and the Liberals there admired the USSR. I'm quite sure after it went to its well-deserved place on the ash-heap of history a few years later, they must have been heartbroken. Since the heady days of the 1917 Revolution, Leftist Americans have ever sought to emulate the Soviets and have tried to implement their policies here. "Separation of Church and State" is nowhere in the US Constitution, but is a mainstay of the Soviet.

So, are we really surprised to find Leftist leaders monitoring patriotic Americans like Orwell's Thought Police? I know I'm not. As I stated in an earlier blog piece, our faith, beliefs and love of country scare Liberals who, effectively, believe in nothing beyond their own noses. Only a strong and agressive Conservative Movement will prevent the Waxmans of the world from establishing a Gestapo to stamp out Thoughtcrime.

Liberals' Budding Love Affair With Iran

Liberals love tyrants. This I have observed from my youth. I remember one of my Liberal teachers defended Khaddafi when we responded to his terror attacks by bombing across the Line of Death back in 1986. At the same school they showed us a propaganda film saying that Reagan had stopped sending food to Ethiopia because he hated Black people and wanted to let them starve. The film didnt mention that Ethiopia's Marxist government had been taking food that we sent them FOR FREE and shipping it to the USSR in exchange for weapons. At the time I was greatly astounded that my Liberal professors were not interested in learning the facts.

In the '70s and '80s Liberals adored Fidel Castro. Many violated American law and went to visit him and spend our American dollars to keep his economy afloat. They lambasted Pinochet ruthlessly, but the greatest tyrant of the Western Hemisphere, Fidel, they adored, even though Pinochet wasnt guilty of a fraction of Castro's atrocities.

Liberals loved Daniel Ortega, the Communist President of Nicaragua (recently elected fairly for the first time in his life, mainly by young Nicaragua voters who know only the mytique, but not the crushing reality, of life under Communism). He came to power by force in 1979, silenced all political opposition, and had a sham election in 1984 not unlike Saddam's old elections. He did not hold another election until after the Berlin Wall fell, after which he promptly lost and couldnt elect a dogcatcher for nearly a generation. In the '80s Liberals defended this man in ways they'd never stick up for any American. They called Reagan an old Nazi tyrant, but Ortega was their shining prince.

Liberals loved Gorbachev, he was more popular than Reagan to them. I remember seeing in "The Nation" magazine in 1988 a cartoon that showed a Soviet soldier in Afghanistan flying a kite shaped like a dove of peace, while an Afghan freedom fighter was manning a Flak gun stamped "Made in the USA" was about to shoot it up. How were we Conservatives so stupid as to not realize that Soviet helicopters in Afghanistan in the '80s were there to spread peace, love and red rays of sunshine?

Going back in the history books, I've learned how Liberals loved Joseph Stalin, Ho Chi Minh, Kim il-Sung, and others. They formed "peace" movements to aid these bloody tyrants and to stymie American efforts to resist them.

And we are all well aware of Liberal efforts to give aid and comfort to al Qaeda in Iraq.

Now a new enemy has stepped forward for Liberals to coddle. Mahmoud Ahemdinejad, madman President of Iran, who is seeking nuclear weapons, the only leader besides Kim Jong-il who actually WANTS to start a nuclear war, has now drawn the loving attention of America's Left.

I first saw it on a bumper sticker some grungy hippies had on their VW van "US hands off Iran." Then I saw a couple other grungy types with similar statements over the past couple years, but never believed anything serious was afoot on this front until recently.

Jon Soltz, Plastic Posterboy Veteran for the Left, who claims to be nonpartisan, but has his websites filled with Demorat propaganda and who claims to speak for a majority of soldiers but really only speaks for a small minority, has a blog piece on his website filled with the usual Left Wing blather-paranoia that the US is creeping up on some innocent country. The innocent country in this case being poor picked on Iran. He is buddies with "STOPIRANWARNOW.ORG" this group claims to have 55,000 or so co-signers.

Further investigation leads to Wesley Clark's webpage. He also, in addition to giving aid and comfort to al Qaeda in Iraq, also excoriates Bush for wanting to take out Iran. How a disgraceful pig like Clark got to be a General is beyond me. My theory is that, as anyone who served knows, there are those ass-kissing backstabbers we always encounter. Clark must have been a wildly successful one. Now his long knives are in the back of the country itself. I am so glad I never had to serve under that pimp.

Clark is giving advance aid and comfort to Ahmedinejad. I remember seeing in a History Channel show, they interviewed one of the 1979 hostage takers from our embassy in Tehran. He was saying that "we thought the American people would understand." He elaborated that by citing the existence of "peace" movements from Vietnam and earlier made them expect a similar movement to arise on their behalf. They did not expect America to unite under Ronald Reagan.

This is important to realize. America's enemies now, when they strategize, come to count on our Leftists to assist them in the coming battles. And it is rare that they are disappointed. Liberals blame Bush for the dead in Iraq, but I blame only two sources- al Qaeda and Liberals. The former did the deeds. The latter made 'al-Masri's boys believe that they can win if they hang in there. They would have given up long ago if they didnt have the hope of Leftists forcing us to withdraw to cling to.

Now Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, someone seeking nuclear weapons, the destruction of Israel and America, and the reign of Iranian mullahs over the Middle East, knows he can count on some segments of America to help him. Used to be, Liberal "peace" movements would blunt US policy and then Liberals would go back to their coffeehouses, drink their $10 lattes and the filled mass graves wouldnt affect them any. But if a nuclear bomb goes off in the US, I'm afraid for Liberals that starbuck's will be closed in that area and they'll have to miss the episodes of Sex and the City that night.

Rush Limbaugh versus Benedict Arnold Reid and Phony Veterans

Good for Rush Limbaugh!

It's about thirty-five years overdue for someone to stand up to the Left and its Legions of phony veterans. The truth of the matter is that there are never enough poster boy veterans who betray their fellow veterans for Liberal politicians in their efforts to sabotage America's wars.

So what is the solution? Invent some veterans. This is not new. Much of our misbegotten perceptions of Vietnam Veterans as soldiers "reminiscent of Jhengis Khan" come from John Kerry's perjured Senate testimony and the "Winter Soldier" group. These supposed veterans told fantastic tales of American atrocities which have stuck in our collective memory. It turned out that most of these guys had never even worn the uniform. But there was no big investigation, no castigation of the traitor John Kerry for his stinking lies. No, on the contrary, he has lived in opulence since betraying his country, while loyal veterans lived under bridges.

Jesse McBeth has carried on the tradition. A Basic Training washout, he has claimed to be an Army Ranger and has told similar lies against soldiers. His lies have been translated into Arabic and circulated throughout the Arab World. Only a blithering idiot would deny that this endangers American lives. Not to mention America's honor as a nation.

Liberal Poster Boy Veterans like John Kerry and Phony Liberal Veterans are the most contemptable type of scum. For profit they betray their country and never seem to get called on it.

Thugocrat leader Harry Reid has condemned Rush Limbaugh for speaking out on this truth. Nothing Liberals hate more than having one of their shams exposed.

From us real veterans to you, Harry Reid, RESIGN, you anti-American douchebag!! You don't have jack to say to a true American like Rush Limbaugh! You lied to your voters and betrayed your state and your nation. Go get bent!