Mary my words...

In the best Joe-Bidenesque fashion, "Mark my words!" (Except that I'm not an idiotic blowhard who's never done anything in his life but bang a hot-looking wife.)

If the stock market doesn't rebound within 2 years (and I don't see how it can get past 9,000 if the Dhimmicrat spending plans go through), then Obama will be thrown out of office. It's this simple: the people can't take too much more of this shit --8.1% unemployment, DOW <6,000, graceless tax-cheats in the Cabinet, qualified people bugging out of Cabinet consideration (Gupta, Zinni, Nazareth, etc.) The handwriting is on the wall: first Santelli, now Cramer. Both on CNBC. Cramer's a liberal. (They better watch their backs, not go on walks through Ft Marcy Park if you get my drift.)

Now they go after Rush, the Big Kahuna? Are they insane? I disagree with Dick Morris. This strategy would be brilliant if things were so-so. But the economy's in the f*%$ing tank. People are losing their jobs. Those that got jobs are worried shitless about losing theirs'. So what does President Lightworker do? He listens to "Skull" Begala and "Reptilicus" Carville. The American people just don't give a crap about Rush or whether he rules the GOP. What's the upside? That maybe Rush will say something inappropriate, thus forcing the Republicans in Congress to disavow him? Yeah, it's possible, this would weaken the GOP by driving a wedge in it. But this is smallball. The world is going to hell in a handbasket and the Rush thing is just a sideshow. It won't matter.

Instead look at what's happening (besides the economy shrinking). Two Democrat Senators are balking at the prez' plans. The GOP Senators are hanging tough. Events are spinning out of control. Yada, yada, yada. Obama looks like a loser, or at least a waif, somebody who's out of his depth. The W years are starting to look like a golden age in comparison.

Was Pres Messiah dealt a bad hand? Sure, so was W. So was Reagan. So was Lincoln. Nobody begged him to run for office. Can't stand the heat? Get out of the kitchen.

Anyway, where wuz I? Oh yeah: Obama getting the boot. It's gonna happen if things keep on going this way. It's inevitable. Santelli was a first shot. Cramer is more significant, he voted for him. He's given six figures to the Dems. What's the next shoe to drop? Look for a liberal Jewish Senator like Feinstein or perhaps Feingold to furrow the old brow and express "concerns" about this, that or the other. You will hear serious talk about secession. Afghanistan will continue to go south. Drip, drip, drip. Watch out if some disenchanted African-American bigwigs start saying things like, "well, you know, Obama's African, but his dad was from Africa. He wasn't down with the struggle. Besides, his momma's white." When that happens, it'll pretty much be over. Hillary would have been long-gone by that point. By this time, she won't even know his name. When some of the bozos on MSNBC turn on him --I'm thinking Chris Matthews, not Rachel Maddow or Keith Olbermann (they'll be with him in the bunker to the bitter end, comforting him and telling him that things are gonna around any minute now)--then it'll be over.

How is it going to happen? (1) The GOP will make significant gains in 2010 in both Houses and in the states. (2) Something criminal in his past will come forth. Think Rezko, Giannoulis, Indonesia connections, something. He's from Chicago, you can't live in that city and not be a criminal. (3) The House will be forced to at on impeachment. (4)Aforementioned liberal stalwarts in the Senate will go to him just like and say "you know, there might be enough votes to remove you."

like I said: Mark my words. March 7th, 2009.

See? I told you so!

Back in December I believe, I wrote that the Republican Party could shore up its conservative credentials by becoming more regional. I even said something to the effect that we didn't need Yankee liberals or "moderates" from the Northeast, that they were a drag on our brand.

Well, lo and behold, if I haven't been proven right. The unholy trinity of Arlen Specter, Olympia Snowe, and Susan Collins gave Obama his "stimulus" package. Every other GOP senator held firm, but thanks to these three miscreants, the United States has now officially become a banana republic, with trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see.

Thanks, ladies.

What can be done? How about seriously considering kicking them out of the Republican conference? Even if we lose them to the Democrats we're better off being more ideologically consistent than having to kiss their butts because we're scared they're going to screw us (and then they wind up doing it anyway).

Gays and the military, again?

What is it with these guys? Can't they just leave well enough alone? Among the the many things conservatives and traditionalists have to worry about, the whole gays and the military thing is rearing (no pun intended) its ugly head again. Only this time, there will be no resolute Colin Powell (when he wasn't a wimp) to contain the damage.

At the risk of being labeled a "homophobe," which is a made-up word devoid of any real meaning (I much prefer pervertophobe if you must label me), I'll go ahead and declare myself against the whole homosexualist agenda. That means gay "marriage" as well. Look, I got no beef with what consenting adults do in their spare time, but to force society to alter its institutions in favor of gonadal preferences is foolish at best. It's actually worse than that, it's damn near destructive.

Let's stay with the military. It has never been the contention of traditionalists that homosexuals can't fight or that they don't love their country. History shows this to be false. Our contention has always been that introducing sexual tension into cohesive fighting units inevitably degrades them. This means putting women in combat situations as well. It's not enough for the high and might to deride the opinions of straight men and simple say in a snide manner "straight men don't like to shower with queers. That's their problem." No sir, it's YOUR problem. Already, it's predicted that reinlistment rates will drop. Pretty soon, the military will have achieve a critical mass of homosexuals, which will have a demoralizing effect on those who aren't gay.

Why is this, you ask? Think of it, what do you think would happen if you put a straight man in a shower with 20 or say naked, nubile young women? Of course, if you believe in human nature, you would say he would be aroused. Why are we to believe otherwise for gay males in the same situation? Part of it is because we've been propaganzized to believe that gay males are somehow "holy" and "virtuous." Women are notorious for believing this horseshit. They draw their impressions of homosexuals from TV shows like "Will and Grace" and like the fact that men can be sensitive and caring (like themselves). Many women love having gay men as friends because they're non-threatening and seem far more empathetic than their loutish husbands or boyfriends.

This is all besides the point however. As far as the military is concerned, the fears of straight men go far beyond possible homosexual rape in the showers. The single greatest fear men have (of whatever sexual orientation)is: will my CO endanger my life on a mission because I haven't returned his affections (or because he wants my wife/girlfriend)? The moralistic strictures of the USMJ, such as prohibitions against adultery and fraternization between the ranks, are there for a reason. Any relationship between the ranks that goes outside of the normal hierarchy is dangerous. It breeds discontent and can have disastrous consequences. Hence concerns about unit cohesion.

Any talk about famous homosexual military commanders in the past is gratuitous. Alexander may have been bisexual. Same thing with Julius Caesar. But would any American raised on belief in the equality of man want to have served in their armies? These men lived in societies that had rigid class structures, including slavery. Sodomy was a time-tested way of enforcing subservience. Do we really want to overturn our republican social norms (which is what homosexuality will ultimately do) just so homosexuals can serve with impunity in the last, workable institution we have?

Look at the other institutions that have been damaged by homosexuality: the academy and the Roman Catholic priesthood. American higher education today is in a parlous state. Censorship exists because of political correctness (just as Larry Summers). The purpose of liberal education --free and open inquiry--is all but dead. As for the Catholic Church, its Christian witness has been horribly damaged and all thanks to a "lavender mafia" burrowed within its ranks that made it impossible for heterosexuals to pursue the priestly vocation.

Make no mistake: there has been no greater engine for social good in the West than the Roman Church. All of the greatest institutions that drove Western Civilization to its present apogee --universities, hosptials, orphanages--have been products of the Church. Today, when we stand on the precipice of legally sanctioning a new abortion holocaust (via the FOCA), the only bulwark standing in the way is the Catholic Church. And because of the pederast scandal of the recent past, its moral authority has been horribly compromised.

In conclusion, the United States Armed Forces are perhaps the last bastion of professionalism left in our culture. It is the one institution which still commands respect across the political spectrum (not really: the Left are seditious bastards who hate the military, but they can't say so openly). Its forces are all volunteer. According to standardized tests, they have higher IQs, better organizational skills, and are considerably less criminal than the population at large. And now because of a Leninist comintern of homosexual brownshirts, President-elect Obama is going to grant them their every wish.

Most homosexuals in America are patriotic. But despite their feelings for our country, their lifestyle is incompatible with what we expect from professional servicemen serving in the army of a republic. The American people may not care much about this at present, but there will come a time in which they will wake up and find out that their armed forces, which used to be the envy of the world, have become a giant homosexual cadre of Mameluks, unrestrained by moral concerns and the plaything of oligarchs and tyrants.

So far, not so good...

Well, it's been about three weeks. Busy time. Anyway, it looks like this Blago mess isn't going away. Now William Blaine Richardson III of New Mexico has pulled out. It's probably not a big thing but whatever he's being investigated for doesn't pass the smell test. Hence the Blago allusion.

Anyway, I believe Gov Bill's been kneecapped by Miz Hillary herself. Richardson took a big gamble endorsing Obama and the Clinton's are always out for revenge. I thought it was gutsy on Bill's part to essentially be the first big name to endorse Hillary. He thought I'm sure, and I thought, that if Obama won, he'd be in the clear. WROMG!

I don't think anybody else in Obama's cabinet-to-be has to worry as they don't seem to be a threat to Hillary, but this doesn't portend good things for Obama. Unless he finds some way to stab her in the back somehow (preferably after she's given up her Senate seat), then he's gonna have the biggest albatross hanging around his neck that any president had since Carter had his brother Billy.

so far, so good

For a political movement that is supposed to be in retreat, Conservatism seems to be doing just fine. So far, in three special elections, the Conservative candidate won handily. In one of these, Anh Cao, defeated the execrable criminal William "Cold Cash" Jefferson in the rottenest of boroughs, New Orleans. As important, the thirty-five of the GOP senators plus four Dem senators hanged tough and refused bailout money for the Detroit Big Three.

So why is this happening? Buyer's remorse for Obama? Possibly. We also gotta thank Blago, the Chicago nonsense is already a mini-Watergate, besmirching the Light-worker. Islamic terrorism proceeds apace, obviously the Bombay murderers didn't get the memo from Islam central that all would be peace and light now that the evil Crusader Bush and his evil Christianist party is out of the picture.

I think there is something else at play here. The Republican Party, which is where the conservative movement resides for the most part, is becoming a regional party. Of the South. While the East Coast elites decry this trend, I say: fie on them! Two of the Dem senators that voted against the bailout were from Arkansas, the other two were from the Mountain West. This area is the demographic homeland of Reaganite conservatism.

Personally, I could care less if the GOP retreats to the South and West (except for California --long gone). We don't need to accommodate the RINO's of New England, who have long skewed the party to the Left. And now, we wont have to: Chris Shays, the last remaining GOP Congressman in New England, went down to defeat. To be sure, we'll have to keep an eye on the weak sisters of Maine, but to sustain filibusters, we have new Dem friends that can cause us to overlook them.

Make no mistake: we're going to have to hang tough to derail the continued nationalization of our economy. Obama will ride a crest of popularity after his inauguration, but this Chicago thing ain't going away. The jihadists will strike again. Just because the MSNBC crowd gets weak in the knees means nothing to the rest of the American population who lives in the real world. Obama's magic ain't gonna fly unless he starts performing, no matter what his cheerleaders in the MSM say.

Memory Eternal...

I direct your thoughts today towards the Orthodoxie blog immediately to the right. The author (Fr Joseph Honeycutt) has it exactly right. Patriarch Alexei II of Russia was a true shepherd of the Orthodox Church, respecting its canonical norms and leading his Church "from glory to glory."

Because of his resolute stewardship, the Orthodox Church emerged from the rubble of the old Soviet state intact. As Fr Joseph says, neither retrograding to an imperialist past, nor adopting the fads and whims of the moment.

Some have accused the late patriarch of colluding with the old KGB, indeed being an agent of it. While some collusion was necessary, "by your fruits you shall know them." In no way could it be said of Alexei that he was not a true Christian shepherd. All you have to do is look at his record of accomplishment and you can see for yourselves the fruits of true Christian labor.

Let us pray that the Holy Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church elects as good and pious a leader. One who is sober, judicious, prudent, but not afraid of taking a stand, a man for our times. (May I suggest His Grace Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev of Vienna, Austria?)

May his memory be eternal.

He may be losing it

Like millions of others, I gave Obama credit for running --along with his apologists in the MSM--a masterful campaign. How masterful? He's basically an empty suit who looked better than the old guy, plus he had the great good luck to run when the stock market tanked.

Granted, I was rather pleased with the quasi-Reaganites he chose for his economic advisors, not as good as Larry Kudlow, Art Laffer, etc., but hey, we're talking Democrats here, on the whole, not bad.

However if there was ever any more proof needed that Obama is an empty suit, it was solidified today, when he named his national security team. Yeah, yeah, I know, Gen Jim Jones is a stand-up guy, no --a great guy. But Napolitano is a non-entity who will shill for La Raza and the open-borders crowd, Eric Holder's a joke as AG, the UN ambassador is a nobody in a dead-end job. But Hillary? Don't get me wrong, as a conservative and hawk, Obama could do a lot worse (we're talking Dems remember?). Most of the Democratic intellectuals have what I call the "surrender at any cost" mentality. We could call them the SAC Caucus for short. These people would love to see America defeated on the field of battle. They are worse than dissidents, they are seditious bastards. So yeay, I'm real happy Hillary was chosen.

But Obama opened himself up for major grief here. Hillary will take over, becoming a co-president. She won't undermine Obama, she'll overtake him. And he'll be too scared to do anything about it. If he fires her, she will take him on in 2012. If he keeps her, his far-Left base will get angry at him.

Besides the obvious, what this tells me about Obama is that he's basically a weak man. He didn't have to hire Hillary, or interview her. For the first 3 weeks after the election, Obama basically owned this country. He certainly owned his party. He could have told Reid, Pelosi, Hillary, etc. that he was president, not them. But he didn't, he caved unnecessarily to Hillary, who engineered the whole interview and appointment from soup to nuts. She not only set up the interview, but steered the conversation to SecState talk, then leaked it making it impossible for him to renege, and now she's the belle of the ball. Plus, she screwed Bill Richardson big-time, causing Obama to piss off the Hispanics who expected a guy like the governor of New Mexico to get this plum position, especially after he screwed up the requisite cojones to endorse Barack when the going was iffy.

Is there a silver lining? Yeah, Hillary screws up bad on some issue forcing him to fire her. (Would Bill's connections to nefarious foreigners have anything to do with his? Possibly.) In this scenario she looks bad and effectively destroys herself as a political player. But I don't see this happening.