FUNGAZI.COM

On February 14, 2008 Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff announced the U.S. government’s intention of accepting the 28-mile section of virtual fence now constructed along the U.S.-Mexico border in Arizona by Boeing Company contractors working for the federal government.  “I think it looks good,” Chertoff told lawmakers two weeks ago.

The virtual fence is the U.S. government’s politically correct answer to the American citizen’s demands for stronger border enforcement aimed at curtailing the continued influx of illegal aliens into the United States from Mexico.  Furthermore, it is their alternative to the 750 miles of double layered border security fencing mandated by the 2006 border fence law which has been under attack by minority special interest groups like the racist organization, La Raza, environmental activists and the Mexican government.

Unfortunately, the $20.6 million dollar project which President Bush hailed in May 2006 as “the most technologically advanced border security initiative in American history,” doesn’t work, and it isn’t that it simply has a few problems that can be quickly ironed out, the virtual fence is an unmitigated fiasco.   In fact the fence is such a complete disaster that it’s sensors failed to pick up a group of more than 80 illegal aliens traveling together as they were spotted by a U.S. Border Patrol Agent when they crossed the border into the United States. 

Richard M. Stana, the General Accounting Office’s director of homeland security issues, testified before a House subcommittee this week that cameras employed along the virtual fence were purportedly capable of resolving images at a distance of ten kilometers however, in actual practice those cameras proved to be incapable of giving anything close to a clear image at less than half that distance, the radar system is triggered by rain and wind while illegal aliens seem to wander through the area without triggering anything and the U.S. Border Agents operating the multi-million dollar system from it’s Tucson command center have found it nearly impossible to lock any of the virtual fence cameras on previously identified targets.  

Rather than scrapping what was obviously an ill advised idea in the first place and possibly jailing a few of the Boeing executives for bilking the American taxpayers out of enough money to fund another one of the Democrat’s social welfare programs, the Department of Homeland Security has given Boeing another $65 million dollars to replace the current software.  Meanwhile, homeland security officials are now saying that the virtual fence, which was estimated in 2006 to eventually cost $7.6 billion dollars before the completion of its first 100 miles in 2008, will be further delayed, and at this point in time neither the federal government, the President nor the entire Department of Homeland Security are willing to speculate how much more of the taxpayer’s hard earned money will be chucked into the virtual bottomless pit or when the questionable project might be completed.  Richard Stana admitted that the current project, which the Department of Homeland Security has had full control of since its inception, is so half-assed that DHS officials don’t even know the type of terrain over which their proposed boondoggle is supposed to built, they don’t have any idea what materials will be used in it’s construction or how much it will cost the American tax payers to purchase the land where it is to be constructed.    

In 2004, the Department of Transportation completed the construction of more than 2,205 linear miles of highway barriers in forty-five different states and in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico at a cost of around $3 billion dollars. These highway barriers are the twelve and forteen foot high sound walls you see on both sides of most American freeways throughout this nation.  The construction on these highway barriers was completed in a cost-effective timely manner and neither the construction nor the final product has been shown to adversely impact the sensibilities of individuals living nearby, the drivers on the highways running between them, the migrating birds, mammals, insects, fish, vegetables or other plant life in the area, or the sensitive racial feelings of Latinos illegally living in the affected areas.  At the time of this writing no species yet known to man has been forced into extinction as a result of building these highway barriers.  It seems entirely logical to assume that if the U.S. Department of Transportation can construct 2,500 linear miles of twelve and fourteen foot high barriers along this nation’s highways, then the federal government should be able to competently and responsibly manage the construction of a mere 750 miles of visually pleasing, double-layered border security fence at a total cost that is far less than what they have already blown out their furry butts for a 28 mile stretch of virtual fence that is virtually worthless and has proven beneficial to nobody outside Boeing who is being paid far too much money to construct it.

Technorati Tags

illegal aliens, La Raza, border fence, virtual fence, Border Patrol, DHS, Boeing, Mexico, Michael Chertoff

digg this | del.icio.us

While the number of criminal parasites flowing into our nation has surpassed the 35 million mark, the federal government continues to ignore the problem and American citizens are forced to carry the burden of feeding, housing, educating and providing medical care to every third-world scumbag that manages to wander into our nation illegally, our nation’s leader is pushing for a massive $1.4 billion, multi-year foreign-aid package for Mexico to help the Mexican government secure their southern border against the flow of illegal aliens from Central America.

Inasmuch as the United States government has reduced funding for our own nation’s border security efforts until we are up to our collective wazoo in illegal aliens, they have drug their feet on constructing the border fence that was mandated by law in 2006 and have basically ignored the outrage expressed by more than 80% of the American people with regard to the U.S. Senate’s numerous attempts at legalizing the hordes of parasitic invaders,  giving $1.4 billion dollars of the American tax-payer’s money to Mexico so that they can secure their southern border is nothing less than astounding.    

“The Merida Initiative” which was put together in secret meetings attended by government representatives of both Mexico and the USA, without the benefit of congressional input (as if that would matter), has resulted in a package of benefits for Mexico being tucked carefully into the U.S. 2008 supplemental budget plan.  The first phase of the plan calls for American taxpayers to shell out some $550 million in aid to Mexico for inspection scanners, helicopters, surveillance tools, and other equipment. 

We are talking about $1.4 billion dollars to a nation that has dedicated itself to undermining our immigration laws by actively encouraging their citizens to violate our laws.  We are talking about financially aiding a country whose military have repeatedly invaded the United States in support of the Mexican drug cartels efforts to smuggle drugs into this nation. A nation where rampant corruption among police and military officials is as commonplace as taco stands in Santa Ana.  We are talking about $1.4 billion dollars in tax-payer money collected from American citizens who, if given any say in this matter, would undoubtedly tell Mexico to “pound sand.” 

Fortunately for Mexico, the American people will not have a say in this matter because the American government knows that the Merida Initiative would be shot dead by the American citizens if they had a chance. 

Representative government – my ass

Technorati Tags

Merida Initiative

digg this | del.icio.us

Since the beginning of this year (a short 56 days ago), another 554,000 illegal aliens have entered the United States without legal authorization, the overall total of illegal aliens now residing in the U.S. has swollen to approximately 35 million, and it now appears that no matter who is elected to the office of U.S. President in 2008 the American people will lose traction and the pro-amnesty/open borders crowd is going to move a little bit closer to their goal of destroying everything that has made this nation great.

At this point in time it looks as if we will be having a presidential race between Hillary Clinton and John McCain, or between Barack Obama and John McCain.  Either way it turns out the choice you will be forced to make is going to be one of the disgusting over the despicable because there simply is no “lesser of the evils” to vote for.  Personally, I may sit this one out, at least as far as the office of the President is concerned because I refuse to sacrifice my principles by supporting anyone who has worked with so much determination to eliminate the American middle-class and further weaken our nation’s national security. 

Regardless of who takes the office of the President the American people need to keep an eye open for new legislation now in the preliminary stages of development that will further abridge our First Amendment right to free speech by limiting what ethnic special interest groups loosely define as “Hate speech.”  The National Council of La Raza has recently kicked off their “We Can Stop the Hate” campaign in the middle of the presidential campaign with the intention of forcing the candidates to focus on “Hate Speech” as an issue of importance.  According to La Raza, any speech opposing amnesty for illegal aliens or any criticism of the federal government’s failure to stem to influx of invaders across this nation’s southern border is considered “Hate Speech.”  Talk of implementing tough immigration enforcement policies and demands to complete the border fence are also viewed as “Hate Speech” by La Raza and their supporters. 

Janet Murguia, the head of La Raza has praised John McCain for his promise to taper down the government’s immigration enforcement efforts if he wins the White House and she has plenty of reason to believe that, if elected, McCain will support La Raza’s push for broadcast Fairness Doctrine policies that will keep immigration enforcement proponents off the airwaves and silence La Raza’s opponents.    

The National Council of La Raza is a racial separatist group similar to the American Nazi Party, the Ku Klux Klan and the Black Panthers.  The only difference between La Raza and other racist organizations is in the support they are given.  La Raza (The Race) is supported by Bank of America, Citigroup, The Ford Foundation, Bill Gates, The J.P. Morgan Chase Foundation, Procter & Gamble, The Rockefeller Foundation and the U.S. Departments of Commerce, Education, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development and the U.S. Department of Labor, while the American Nazi Party, the Ku Klux Klan and the Black Panthers depend entirely on the dues money paid by their members.  Regardless of who supports them or how much money they raise, a racist organization is still a racist organization. They are all equally dispicable, and when they become as entrenched in American politics as La Raza currently is, we had better keep an eye open for the legislation they support.

Technorati Tags

John McCain, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, La Raza, Fairness Doctrine

digg this | del.icio.us

The pathetically transparent attempt by The New York Times to trash John McCain with weak allegations of adultery is fairly typical of what many have come to expect of the nation’s leading socialist propaganda outlet.  If the incredibly biased liberal publication had so much as one microscopic iota of credibility to their name, the February 22nd article entitled “McCain Denies Aides’ Statements About Lobbyist” should effectively vaporize it.  The vulgar hatchet job was a clearly obvious attempt to discredit the Republican front-runner with suggestively sexual innuendo, anecdotal evidence and regurgitated information linking McCain to the 18 year old Charles Keating scandal.  Despite the obvious lack of anything remotely resembling concrete proof that John McCain behaved inappropriately, or actual solid evidence indicating that there ever was an affair between McCain and the lobbyist, Vicki Iseman, the New York Times’ smarmy news article resorted to focusing on third party gossip picked up from campaign staffers who worked for the candidate during his 1999 presidential campaign.  This is very weak stuff.

I am not a fan of John McCain, and to say that I do not support his current bid for the White House could be considered one of the biggest understatements I have made this year, however, I strongly support honesty and truthfulness, two characteristics that The New York Times obviously does not encourage in their investigative reporters or their editorial staff.  Overall, I am not surprised by the New York Times’ attempted smear, what I do find surprising is that their editors allowed the publication of such an embarrassing tabloid style article that contains absolutely no substantiation whatsoever.  John McCain’s life is a veritable cornucopia of relatively untapped dirt and questionable activity far more substantial in nature than anything he may or may not have had going with the lobbyist, Vicki Iseman.  His connection with Charles Keating should have resulted in the end of his political aspirations.  Despite the substantial evidence against him, congressional investigators on that incident chose to look elsewhere, his affiliation with underworld figures has been duly noted and overlooked, his dedicated effort to scuttle the congressional POW/MIA investigations which pulled the rug out from underneath the thousands of American families who had missing relatives and loved ones vanish during the Vietnam War, the published transcripts of his confessions to war crimes and the highly cooperative nature of the services he voluntarily rendered to our enemies in North Vietnam during his five year stint as a POW, these are all meaty items worthy of any investigative reporter’s Pulitzer effort, and yet the sorry gossip mongers at the New York Times became fixated on trying to spin what appears to be a simple lobbying relationship into a titillating expose of sexual debauchery.  Please, give me a break. 

John McCain is 71 years old and despite the fact that Vicki Iseman is a very attractive woman who is thirty-one years younger, seventy-one is still a fairly advanced age for sexual debauchery of any sort, let alone the sort of sexual decadence anyone in this country would find even remotely interesting.  Even if the geriatric Republican were capable of getting it up for the classy looking blond lobbyist, very few American citizens would care to hear about it and even fewer would find it all that scandalous.  After all, this is 2008.  Our congressional representatives have labored long and hard to provide equal rights and legal protection to every sort of sexual deviant and freak we could possibly imagine.  Gary Condit, the Democratic representative from California and a senior member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence breezed by being seriously implicated in the murder of Chandra Ann Levy with whom he had a stormy extramarital affair.  We’ve suffered through at least two Congressional Page sex scandals where the elected representatives of both major political parties were caught with their pants down sodomizing underage congressional pages in illicit homosexual affairs.  We endured months and years of sensational journalistic coverage reporting the all too intimate details of former President Clinton’s numerous, but entirely pathetic, blow jobs in the Oval Office by Monica Lewinsky, and more recently we had more than sufficient coverage of Larry Craig’s ill-advised sexual escapades in the airport bathroom when he tried to pick up an under cover cop.  We can only imagine the sort of scandalous stuff going on in Washington that we don’t hear about.  Those were scandals.  The only way a sexual encounter of John McCain’s could be considered a scandal is if he were filmed banging away on a Saint Bernard on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in broad daylight, anything short of that might be considered an minor impropriety in comparison to Condit, Gary Studds, Mark Foley, Larry Craig, or even Monica’s come-stained dress, but certainly not worthy of the term “Scandal.”  The New York Times story is an obvious hatchet job and if they were not liberals they would be embarrassed.  Then again, it’s the New York Times, they have never been too credible in the past and we sure can’t expect them to start being credible now.

If this alleged “sex scandal” is the best that the smut peddlers at the New York Times can dredge up with regard to John McCain then it’s entirely possible that the man is a lot cleaner than I previously thought, and it is quite possible that my earlier assessment of him may have been somewhat premature.  This is not an endorsement of his far too liberal positions but he may be a tad bit more honest than I have previously given him credit for if the dedicated dirt miners at the the most liberally biased newspaper on the planet can’t find anything worse on him than these paltry allegations.

Technorati Tags

John McCain, Larry Craig, Monica Lewinsky, Gary Condit, Mark Foley, New York Times

digg this | del.icio.us

The current philosophical trend influencing the Republican Party leadership has resulted in the further erosion of the differences between a free and Democratic republic and the socialistic ideology that is most commonly viewed as a precursor to communism. 
     
The family once viewed as the most natural and fundamental social unit, a historically well-respected and sacred concept rooted in the marriage commitment between one man and one woman is rapidly being displaced by government officials demanding the acceptance of and acquiescence to special interest agendas that can only be described as moral abominations.  The negative consequences of undermining the family as the fundamental social unit of our society are disastrously indicated by the increased tolerance of lawless behavior and the self-centered attitudes that have become so dominant in American society.  

Social democracy, political correctness, large-scale managerial government and constitutional interpretations narrowly tailored to favor the interests of the state have worn thin the concept of individual liberty while the traditions, the nationally defined beliefs and customs of the American people have been cast aside by subversive political forces promoting socially divisive multiculturalism and convoluted legislative changes designed to favor the few at the expense of the many. 

The sound practice of economic conservatism where responsible government servants religiously avoid incurring large debts that inevitably fall on the shoulders of the American taxpayers has been forced aside by governmental elitists who seem to have adopted the view that no expense is too great and no tax is too oppressive for the American taxpayer to bear.  Imprudent and capricious government spending has resulted in the constantly growing accumulation of massive debt to hostile foreign powers.  The economic sovereignty of our nation has been sacrificed and our own government has handed over to our enemies the economic weapon they can use to destroy us. 

Democratic debate has given way to legislative trickery and honest government has yielded the floor to the slick marketing strategies of manipulative political con artists.  The will of the people is routinely ignored while the demands of elected representatives, firmly entrenched in the pockets of the highest bidder is carefully transformed from the laughable and illogical disaster it really is to the most immanently desirable and beneficial to all concept that has come up in decades regardless of the hardship or outrageous expense inevitably hoisted onto the backs of the suffering taxpayers. 

It may be the inalienable right of the Republican Party leadership to adopt changes that are entiely contrary to the core principles that once attracted so many conservatives, but as long as this nation continues to allow a democratically-elected, representative government (which may not be for long) the GOP has no such inalienable right to expect the loyalty of a membership it has worked so diligently to disenfranchise, and despite my long term association with the Republican Party I will not toe the party line by supporting ridiculously liberal candidates simply because the GOP choses to endorse them.

Admittedly, I like many other registered Republicans have been dismayed by the obviously left-leaning political opportunists who seem to be leading the GOP over the edge of a cliff, and I am entirely nauseated with their presumptive candidate for the 2008 presidential nomination.  A candidate I personally see as being a dishonest charlatan and someone I would rather see in the Democratic Party where such unprincipled individuals belong.  Furthermore, I have become so disgusted with the GOP and their newly adopted philosophy that I, like many other formerly faithful conservatives, am tempted to vote Democratic in the hope that a devastating loss will turn the GOP around and force them back to the principles that made them my party of choice.  Further reflection and a great deal of thought has led me to the conclusion that win or lose, the GOP will probably never be the same as it once was, and the old adage that the only constant in life is change is entirely apropos in this circumstance.  I have reached the inevitable conclusion that positive changes in the GOP are unlikely, and win or lose, the leaders of the GOP will undoubtedly continue on down the path they have chosen irrespective of what I or anybody else might think about it.  However, I chose them, they didn’t chose me, and if they choose to abandon the principles that attracted my attention in the first place it really doesn’t matter because I will still support those who most closely align themselves with those principles regardless of their party affiliation.

Rather than allow the morally suspect leadership of the GOP the right to dictate the principles by which I deem a candidate worthy I will continue to vote for those who demonstrate their staunch support for conservative economic, social, and national security policies.  Those who have voted to cut wasteful government spending, to encourage the sanctity of life, to lower our taxes, to defend the sanctity of marriage and to strengthen the family unit that is so necessary to a well ordered society will receive my support regardless of their political affiliation.  Those who favor multiculturalism by pandering to the multitude of minority special interests and those who conspire to undermine the will of the American people and those who seek only to enrich themselves with power and undeserved riches at the expense of the American people will receive my strongest opposition regardless of their political affiliation. 

My allegiance and my loyalty is to the United States of America and to the Constitution upon which that Republic was founded.  I owe nothing to the fickle and extremely transitory policies embraced by any given political party.  They have all demonstrated their willingness to embrace dishonesty as a strategy to bloat their influence over the others, they have abandoned those who entrusted them with the authority they hold and they have openly and arrogantly indicated their lack of true integrity, character and honesty to all of us.  To achieve a stronger America we need a strong people who are willing to divorce themselves from the corrupt political parties demanding our blind allegiance, a people who are willing to stand together in support of responsible economic policies and the sound traditional government practices that made this nation the envy of its enemies.  Our current path is the path to our own destruction and the liberty of all those who come after us is in the balance.   The time to act is now.

Technorati Tags

multiculturalism, Republican Party, special interests

digg this | del.icio.us

This thing has been cropping up all over the place and if you haven’t seen it you should read it now. 

I have a plan to destroy America
by Richard D. Lamm

I have a secret plan to destroy America. If you believe, as many do, that America is too smug, too white bread, too self-satisfied, too rich, let’s destroy America. It is not that hard to do. History shows that nations are more fragile than their citizens think. No nation in history has survived the ravages of time. Arnold Toynbee observed that all great civilizations rise and they all fall, and that “an autopsy of history would show that all great nations commit suicide.” Here is my plan:

1. We must first make America a bilingual-bicultural country. History shows, in my opinion, that no nation can survive the tension, conflict and antagonism of two competing languages and cultures. It is a blessing for an individual to be bilingual; it is a curse for a society to be bilingual. One scholar, Seymour Martin Lipset, put it this way: “The histories of bilingual and bicultural societies that do not assimilate are histories of turmoil, tension and tragedy. Canada, Belgium, Malaysia, Lebanon all face crises of national existence in which minorities press for autonomy, if not independence. Pakistan and Cyprus have divided. Nigeria suppressed an ethnic rebellion. France faces difficulties with its Basques, Bretons and Corsicans.”

2. I would then invent “multiculturalism” and encourage immigrants to maintain their own culture. I would make it an article of belief that all cultures are equal: that there are no cultural differences that are important. I would declare it an article of faith that the black and Hispanic dropout rate is only due to prejudice and discrimination by the majority. Every other explanation is out-of-bounds.

3. We can make the United States a “Hispanic Quebec” without much effort. The key is to celebrate diversity rather than unity. As Benjamin Schwarz said in the Atlantic Monthly recently, “The apparent success of our own multiethnic and multicultural experiment might have been achieved, not by tolerance, but by hegemony. Without the dominance that once dictated ethnocentrically, and what it meant to be an American, we are left with only tolerance and pluralism to hold us together.” I would encourage all immigrants to keep their own language and culture. I would replace the melting pot metaphor with a salad bowl metaphor. It is important to insure that we have various cultural sub-groups living in America reinforcing their differences, rather than Americans emphasizing their similarities.

4. Having done all this, I would make our fastest-growing demographic group the least educated. I would add a second underclass, unassimilated, undereducated and antagonistic to our population. I would have this second underclass have a 50 percent dropout rate from school.

5. I would then get the big foundations and big business to give these efforts lots of money. I would invest in ethnic identity, and I would establish the cult of victimology. I would get all minorities to think their lack of success was all the fault of the majority. I would start a grievance industry blaming all minority failure on the majority population.

6. I would establish dual citizenship and promote divided loyalties. I would “celebrate diversity.” “Diversity” is a wonderfully seductive word. It stresses differences rather than commonalities. Diverse people worldwide are mostly engaged in hating each other–that is, when they are not killing each other. A “diverse,” peaceful or stable society is against most historical precedent. People undervalue the unity it takes to keep a nation together, and we can take advantage of this myopia.

Look at the ancient Greeks. Dorf’s “World History” tells us: “The Greeks believed that they belonged to the same race; they possessed a common language and literature; and they worshiped the same gods. All Greece took part in the Olympic Games in honor of Zeus, and all Greeks venerated the shrine of Apollo at Delphi. A common enemy, Persia, threatened their liberty. Yet, all of these bonds together were not strong enough to overcome two factors … (local patriotism and geographical conditions that nurtured political divisions …)” If we can put the emphasis on the “pluribus,” instead of the “unum,” we can balkanize America as surely as Kosovo.

7. Then I would place all these subjects off-limits–make it taboo to talk about. I would find a word similar to “heretic” in the 16th century that stopped discussion and paralyzed thinking. Words like “racist”, “xenophobe” halt argument and conversation. Having made America a bilingual-bicultural country, having established multiculturalism, having the large foundations fund the doctrine of “victimology,” I would next make it impossible to enforce our immigration laws. I would develop a mantra –”because immigration has been good for America, it must always be good.” I would make every individual immigrant sympatric and ignore the cumulative impact.

8. Lastly, I would censor Victor Davis Hanson’s book “Mexifornia” –this book is dangerous; it exposes my plan to destroy America. So please, please–if you feel that America deserves to be destroyed–please, please–don’t buy this book! This guy is on to my plan.

Technorati Tags

illegal aliens

digg this | del.icio.us

The federal government is preparing to grant green cards to thousands of aliens already living in the U.S. without bothering to perform background checks, and the Democrats in the House of Representatives are preparing a scaled down version of the failed U.S. Senate amnesty bill to give this nation’s more than 20 million illegal aliens a five year visa.  You can consider that a sort of amnesty installment plan and the House Democrats believe that with the hullabaloo of the presidential election going on in the background nobody will notice what they are doing.  New reports from the Washington-based Pew Research Center indicate that the population of the United States will increase to nearly 5 billion by 2050, at which time 25% of the people in the U.S. will be foreign born, the number of Hispanic people in the country will triple in size while the every-day white American citizen will, for the first time in American history, become a minority faction representing only 47% of the country’s population.  Meanwhile, George Bush has asked Congress for a $1.5 billion aid package to Mexico to help the country of Mexico strengthen it’s immigration enforcement effort along their southern border and the President of Mexico has demanded that the U.S. Congress put no conditions be put on how the Mexican government uses the money.   

To add a little spice to this noxious stew, an AP news story carried in the Washington Times reports that the overwhelming majority of Hispanic voters (legal and otherwise) will not consider casting their ballot in favor of Barack Obama because he is an African-American.  Their refusal to vote for Obama has nothing to do with his policies, his campaign promises, his past voting record or his character.  Their refusal to vote for Obama is based solely on the color of the man’s skin.  I can think of a number of reasons why I would not vote for Barack Obama but none of them have anything to do with the pigmentation of his socialist hide.  I’m surprised that the same people who recently condemned every white anti-illegal alien and anti-open border American as being racist against Hispanics would admit to their own strong racial bias against blacks, but I probably shouldn’t be surprised by anything that goes on these days.  The article quoted a popular New York Spanish-language radio host, Luis Jimenez, as saying, “Let’s face it, Hispanics will vote for a woman president before voting for someone who is African-American.”

All things considered, I have come to the conclusion that the people of the United States of America deserve to have the most wishy-washy, politically correct, pacifistic, socialist president that money can buy.  Their ever increasing self-centeredness and stupidity has made this all possible and I certainly don’t think their desire should be denied.  The United States that existed when I was a child simply does not exist anymore and the people of this nation are more concerned with Paris Hilton’s latest scandal than they are about little things like freedom and liberty.  Eight years of Hilary, Obama or McCain should do wonders for their sense of perspective. 

Hopefully this nation survives the lesson we are about to receive.

Technorati Tags

illegal aliens, amnesty, Paris Hilton, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John McCain

digg this | del.icio.us

The entire Internet seems to be awash in the outraged lamentations of conservative voters just now starting to recover from the surprising lead taken by John McCain in the Republican primaries, and there is a distinct impression that thousands, if not millions of Republicans will end up voting for the winner of the Democratic nomination, or simply staying home on election day rather than cast a ballot in favor of John McCain if, indeed he ends up with the Republican nomination. All things considered, it appears that the entire Republican National Party is fast approaching a meltdown and John McCain’s surprising lead in the primaries may be a big problem for a lot of Republicans but it probably looks like a small part of the much bigger problems being faced by the leaders of the GOP.

As the 2008 election draws near the Republicans are trying to figure out how to deal with the 28 congressional incumbents who are now saying that they will not run for office again, leaving the GOP scurrying around in the mad attempt to find suitable replacements with some appeal to the voters. Six of the congressional Republican incumbents, all of whom are facing stiff opposition in their respective districts are struggling along with far less money in their campaign chests than their Democratic opponents after the Republican Congressional Campaign Committee ended 2007 $30 million behind the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

While it is fairly well known that the public approval rating for the 110th session of the U.S. Congress was far lower than the public approval rating given to the current presidential administration, a surprising side note to that was added by the results of a recent ABC News/ Washington Post poll which indicated that while 54% of the respondents disapproved of the job that congressional Democrats were doing a whopping 63% disapproved of the job Republicans in Congress were doing.

To make matters ever worse, on February 6, 2008, the National Republican Congressional Committee announced that they have retained a forensic auditor to review its accounting for the last several election cycles and there are strong hints that the unfolding investigation may uncover financial improprieties stretching back several years. At this point in the drama the only official NRCC comment on the matter has come from NRCC Chairman Tom Cole who stated that there were “accounting irregularities” at the committee that “may include fraud,” and that the committee has “notified the appropriate law enforcement authorities,” later determined to be the FBI.

If the staunch conservatives favoring the GOP thought that John McCain was the worse news they have had this decade they may be in for a rude awakening as this investigation unravels what may very well be the political scandal of the century and the sudden demise of the Republican Party as we now know it.

As for the criticism aimed at John McCain, the following is a partial sampling of some of the more outspoken and well-known commentators.

Evangelical leader, James Dobson said in an interview this week, “I am convinced Sen. McCain is not a conservative, and in fact, has gone out of his way to stick his thumb in the eyes of those who are. He has sounded at times more like a member of the other party. McCain actually considered leaving the GOP caucus in 2001, and approached John Kerry about being Kerry’s running mate in 2004. McCain also said publicly that Hillary Clinton would make a good president. Given these and many other concerns, a spoonful of sugar does NOT make the medicine go down. I cannot, and will not, vote for Sen. John McCain, as a matter of conscience.”

Sean Hannity stated that, “The problem with John McCain isn’t that he’s a moderate Republican. It’s worse than that on some issues and that’s just a substantive disagreement.”

Conservative commentator Ann Coulter, speaking on Fox’s “Hannity and Colmes”, said Thursday she is prepared to vote for Hillary Clinton over the Arizona senator in a general election match up suggesting that McCain is little more than a Republican in name only.

Charles Hurt, writing in the New York Post said that, “if history is any guide, the McCain we’ve seen of late on the campaign trail is the most conservative McCain we’ll ever see. McCain has so radicalized key conservatives that some have vowed to turn themselves into suicide voters next November by pulling the lever for Hillary Rodham Clinton over him.”

Don Devine, vice chairman of the American Conservative Union said of John McCain, “He doesn’t have, or has very few, friends in the leadership of the conservative movement. There is no question about it.” Devine said he would likely not vote for McCain should he win the Republican nomination.

Right-wing radio host Rush Limbaugh stoked the fires of under John McCain’s rear end saying that he is trying to stop the wanton destruction of the party.
“We are sick and tired of how the people who seem to be triumphing in our party are precisely the people who seem to be selling this party out in terms of its ideology.”

On the NBC Today Show, conservative spokesman Pat Buchanan said that McCain “will make Cheney look like Gandhi.”

During registration at the Conservative Political Action Conference held at the Omni Shoreham, attendees had to be instructed beforehand not to boo John McCain when he spoke.

I can’t help but wonder if the general run-or-the-mill registered Republican voters are so out of touch with reality that they honestly consider John McCain as a viable conservative candidate, or is it more the ignorant prejudicial myopia of a political party who can’t overcome their own discriminatory aversion to voting for someone who just happens to be a Mormon. What ever the case, as many historians have pointed out in the past, people living in Democratic nations don’t always elect the best or the most qualified candidates to office but the candidates they do elect tend to be the ones that they most deserve. Obviously, that is exactly what we are in the process of doing and may God have mercy on our ignorant souls once this is all over.

Ultimately, the GOP had their big chance to square things away during the 109th session of Congress when they had the benefit of the upper hand, but they blew that chance like a bunch of bumbling hounds squabbling over a meaty bone. To date the GOP has yet to take any positive steps towards repairing that significant damage. The GOP will probably lose quite a few congressional seats over the next four or more years and may disappear completely from this nation’s political landscape as we slowly sink beneath the squalor caused by our immigration problems. Maybe so – Maybe not. Who can say?

One thing’s for certain – it is going to be very interesting to watch.

Technorati Tags

John McCain, Ann Coulter, Pat Buchanan, CPAC, Rush Limbaugh, Don Devine, James Dobson, Sean Hannity, Charles Hurt, Republican Party

digg this | del.icio.us

Obviously I am not the only person out here with serious reservations about John McCain.  Read the article “HOW THE CLINTONS WILL DESTROY JOHN MCCAIN” by Dr. Jack Wheeler for more information on this so-called “Conservative.”  A vote for McCain might as well be cast for Hillary.

Technorati Tags

John McCain

digg this | del.icio.us

If you are concerned about the future of your nation

If you do not want to see America inundated with illegal aliens

If you do not want to see America in economic ruins

If you do not want to see yourself burdened with higher taxes

If you are tired of the nauseating liberals

THEN VOTE LIKE YOU HAD A BRAIN

digg this | del.icio.us