Tuesday, September 23, 2014

A Conservative Project for Children: Sophie Votes Republican

Posted by Douglas V. Gibbs

Invading Liberal Territory—A Republican Project on Kickstarter?

Ever heard of Kickstarter? It’s the crowd-funding platform making headlines of late. With projects like Reading Rainbow raising over $5 million and the Coolest Cooler exceeding $13 million, it’s not hard to understand why.

Kickstarter leans left. As a New York Post opinion put it: “Kickstarter has always been dominated by projects with liberal, environmental and even ultra-left-wing leanings. That’s no surprise—the arts are dominated by people with such views.” Despite hosting many boundary-pushing, offensive projects, Kickstarter recently refused to host a film project with an anti-abortion message, raising many eyebrows.

It’s time for a rallying cry around a Republican Kickstarter project. Sophie Votes Republican is a witty, brilliantly illustrated children’s book aimed at teaching kids patriotism and making their conservative parents laugh out loud. Watch this video:


Jump on board, Republicans! Help a great Republican project succeed in an ultra-liberal environment. Now that would get some attention.

 -- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Monday, September 22, 2014

Obama's World of War

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Barack Obama began his candidacy as the pure progressive and anti-war candidate. He spoke openly against the Iraq War since its beginning, beginning with an October 2002 speech he gave while alongside Jesse Jackson. Obama, in that speech, suggested the war was a ploy to distract voters from domestic issues impacting minorities. His exact words were: "What I am opposed to is the attempt by potential hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty state, a drop in the medium income—to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That’s what I am opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war, a war based not on reason, but on passion, not on principle, but on politics."

Obama reminded us constantly that he was against the war from the beginning. He felt that Iraq was a distraction. However, he also said that we ought to also move troops into Pakistan, a shakey ally of the United States, but an ally nonetheless, with or without the permission of Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf.

And as he demanded the troops to be brought home immediately, his rise in the Democratic Party took on a messianic characteristic.

Obama began as the most liberal candidate in the race in 2008, and began proposing a geopolitical posture that was considered by some to be even more aggressive than that of President Bush. At the time Obama's campaign was drawing more financial support from more voters than any other candidate, but he was seen as an underdog because of his lack of experience.

History was made, and for the first time in history a person purely anti-American became President of the United States.

Oh, and his election was historical for some other reason, too, but I can't remember what that reason was.

In 2012, after four years of failure, chaos, and hard left liberal policies, the uninformed voters rallied around the anti-American candidate, again, as he continued to blame everything on Bush, and proclaimed he saved us from Iraq by pulling us out, and was in the process of getting us out of Afghanistan.  We have no business over there, he proclaimed.  There is no reason for American Troops to be on foreign soil interfering with happenings in other parts of the world.

The narrative, from the very beginning, has been "peace in our time," and if we want Islam to quit attacking us, all we have to do is quit pissing them off by reacting to terrorism with military force.

The way he pulled us out of Iraq, and Obama's funding of the Syrian rebels, led to the rise of ISIS. And, after Obama scoffed at Romney in the last election for declaring that Russia is our greatest geopolitical enemy, Barry has ignored Russia's rise and invasion of Ukraine.

The rise of the Islamic State (ISIS, ISIL) has especially challenged the President's narrative.  While Obama has been trying to convince everyone that the War on Terror is over, and the Muslims love us because he's President of the United States, Benghazi erupted, and now the Islamic State (ISIS, ISIL) is slamming the Middle East in full force.

For Obama, ISIS stands for an "Inconvenient Struggle (in) Iraq (and) Syria."

For Obama, ISIL stands for an "Irritating Strain (in) Iraq's Lap."

The situation in Iraq and Syria, where an Islamic terrorist organization is gaining control of a massive amount of land, has forced President Barack Obama into a corner, forcing him to do something about the problem, while he tries to protect his anti-war narrative, and his "Islam is not the problem" narrative.  So, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, according to Obama, is not Islamic (hence, why I think the letter "I" stands for Inconvenient or Irritating - because it can't be "Islamic"), and why he has assured us this is not war, we will not have boots on the ground being used in a combat mission, and it won't last as long as Bush's unlawful war for oil (his words, not mine).

What's worse for Barry Soetoro, is that ISIS has plenty of wealth behind what they are doing due to the control ISIS is gaining over oil.  So, a part of Obama's strategy will have to be to protect the oil. . . making the war in Iraq a war over oil - while he tries to tell us it is not about oil.


The funny thing about war is you can't kind of fight a war.  That's like being kind of pregnant.  If you are going to fight a war, fight it.  Defeat the enemy.  Don't play defensive political games, or else you will turn it into a fiasco. . . just ask the politicians behind Vietnam who fought the war defensively, careful so as to not upset certain political circles, or communist nations.

It is either a war, or it isn't.  There is no such thing as a "sort-of-war."  Quit calling it a conflict, quit pin-prick bombing, and stop claiming we are in the war, but yet we are not.  Indecisiveness, and unwillingness to do what is needed, emboldens the enemy.  ISIS is laughing at Barack Obama, and they are planning their sequel to 9/11. . . because our President is too worried about upsetting some delicate balance if he's too aggressive in taking these sickening, barbaric terrorists out, who, by the way, deserve to be completely wiped out.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

U.S. Begins Airstrikes Into Syria

by JASmius

It's begun.  God only knows where it's going:

The U.S. and five Arab countries launched airstrikes Monday night on Islamic State group targets in Syria, expanding a military campaign into a country whose three-year civil war has given the brutal militant group a safe haven.  

Using a mix of manned aircraft — fighter jets and bombers — plus Tomahawk cruise missiles, the strikes were part of the expanded military campaign that President Barack Obama authorized nearly two weeks ago in order to disrupt and destroy the Islamic State militants, who have slaughtered thousands of people, beheaded Westerners — including two American journalists — and captured large swaths of Syria and northern and western Iraq.

Is it just me, or does that description - "a mix of manned aircraft....plus Tomahawk cruise missiles" (remember that Obama cancelled that weapon, so this is using up whatever stocks of it are left) - sound like leftovers scraped together to make a make-shift meal?

U.S. officials said the airstrikes began around 8:30 p.m. EDT, and were conducted by the U.S., Bahrain, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and the United Arab Emirates.

Interesting; they seem to be last-minute additions to the Coalition Of The Unwilling.  Particularly Qatar, which at previous report was an ISIS supporter.  A "serpent" in our midst, perhaps?  Invited in for precisely that purpose, even?

The first wave of strikes finished about ninety minutes later, but the operation was expected to continue for several more hours, according to one U.S. official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly by name about an ongoing mission.

The "operation" - singular - as in that's our strike into Syria?  Any more to come after that?  Under any other POTUS I wouldn't feel the need to ask that question, but under this one....yeah, I do.

Hard not to notice, from the map pictured above, how we seem to be taking the long route to Syrian territory from the Persian Gulf when we could simply park ourselves in the eastern Mediterranean and reach our targets in a third or less the time.  That is most likely because Syria's Russian-supplied air defense system is concentrated in and around Damascus in the west of the country.  It's also hard not to point out that if The One hadn't canceled fifth-generation aircraft like the F-22 Raptor and F-35 Lightning, we wouldn't have to bother with any Syrian air defenses because they wouldn't be able to see us coming, going, or hovering over Boy Assad's palace jerking off.

Still, that does raise a couple of other questions: First, what happens when our first warplane is shot down?  O is allergic to army casualties, but Air Force or Navy casualties are no less casualties, and that takes out an expensive and literally irreplaceable aircraft as well.  Second, and more to the point, what if such a shoot-down comes at the hands of the aforementioned Syrian air defense system?  How much daylight do we have via-a-vie the Russians and Iranians to operate in Syrian airspace?  Has any consideration been given to the possibility of blundering into an escalation into confrontation with either or both of Boy Assad's sponsors?  This would be a really bad time and place for President Relentless Pursuit's vaunted "incompetence" to manifest itself.

And then there's what I've made reference to over recent weeks: With ISIS sleeper cells already present on American soil, what retaliatory attacks might be about to be sprung?

No wonder this has the feel of something that starts off routine and ends up in disaster.

Fallen America

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Tales of apocalypse, followed by a dystopian nightmare political system that takes complete oligarchy style control, using technology that makes Orwell's big brother look like small potatoes, is a commonly used theme in much of today's, and yesterday's, science fiction genre.  As an avid reader, I have read quite a few of them.  Even the most liberal of science fiction writers understand human nature, and how the tendency of humanity is to devolve into the chaos of tyranny, and the slavery of a system ruled over by a ruling elite.  Liberty is not the norm in history, nor shall it be the norm in the future.  Only a virtuous people is capable of freedom, and we fall short of the glory each and every time if left to our own devices, and if we fail to follow the set standards of morality and limited government as offered in Scripture, and the United States Constitution.

In those fictional tales the apocalyptic writers offer, the world after the fall of America, and the demise of the capitalistic economic system, leaves the world in a dark place, a gloomy world of government control, invasive technology, and a yearning for a world when people were once free.  The slavery of the future, however, is not caused by individual-centric systems, and the free choice of informed citizens, but is the result of an uninformed public allowing the powers-that-be to bring about tyranny in the name of the socialist-wealthy, and the powerful, claiming they were following a dream of utopia.  No money, no war, possessions, no suffering, and a society where people do the things they do, not for themselves, but for the benefit of the community around them.

Dreaming that humanity is capable of achieving a utopian society is ambitious, but simply fiction.

The Founding Fathers understood human nature.  This nation was not founded on fiction, but the reality of who we are as a flawed species.  The Declaration of Independence, U.S. Constitution, and other writings by the founding fathers, were constructed following a lifetime of experience, and research.  The founding fathers studied history, including their own history of the Saxon System as Englishmen, as well as rise and fall of the Greek and Roman empires.  Their research, and heavy debates, led the framers of the Constitution to create a political system that would protect liberty, and last many generations, regardless of the change of the times. Because of their experience under the tyranny of a strong central government led by a far and distant king, they desired a system that divided power every which way it could be, placing local control over local issues, and vesting the authority to handle external issues, like common defense, in a federal government. The Constitution was designed to limit the power of the federal government, to only grant to the federal government the powers necessary to protect, preserve, and promote the union of united States. The States were autonomous, sovereign, individual entities bound together by the federal government for protection of the whole. Local issues were supposed to be state issues. The federal government had no right to overturn any state law, and was specifically tasked with defending the nation, securing the borders, creating post roads, and solving any dispute between the states should one arise - to name a few. The idea was that local government serves the local people best, and if a law in a state was not to the liking of a citizen, the American citizens in each State had the choice to move to a state more to his political liking, or try to change the laws in his or her own state.

Since the creation of the recipe for freedom, foreign ingredients have been inserted, damaging the dynamics of our government, and tainting the final product presented for consumption.  Statism has used the judiciary as their point of attack, growing the judicial branch to a level not intended, enabling activist judges to sour our system of limited government, beginning with John Marshall's Marbury v. Madison ruling and opinion in 1803.  Case law has become a dangerous counterfeit version of Constitutional Law for the collectivist powerful, a system used by them to subvert the Constitution, using cases like Roe v. Wade in 1973 to blatantly and unconsitutional overturn a Texas State law on a State issue.

People tell me the system is broken, and that it is the fault of the Constitution, calling it outdated, and antiquated, without being willing to recognize that the perfect recipe has been laced with poison and rotted ingredients.  The Constitution is not the problem, the unconstitutional tampering with it is the problem - beginning with judges legislating from the bench.

Power became less divided in Congress when the 17th Amendment took away the representation in Congress of the States. The House of Representatives was for the people, and the Senate was originally for the States - thus further dividing power, and creating a natural check and balance within Congress.

Even the office of President of the United States was carefully crafted. The founders did not wish him to have kingly powers, for that kind of power always leads to abuse by the person holding the office.  A powerful executive is always a killer of liberty. The Framers, however, also did not desire a president so weak that he was unable to protect the union when called to.

The Legislative Branch and Executive Branch were designed to be significantly different from each other.  Yet, the founding fathers designed a way they could also be connected by making the Vice President of the United States the President of the Senate. The Vice President, though his vote would only count in the event of a tie, was tasked with being involved in the Senate, a voice of the executive among the appointed Senators who were specifically supposed to be concerned with what was best for their States.

The Vice President was not supposed to be the President's personal gopher, or mindless "yes man."  The Vice President of the United States, in addition to being next in line in the case of a vacancy of the presidency, was originally intended to be the voice of the Executive Branch in the Senate, and a Legislative voice in the White House - the connector between two branches of government designed to be separated by Montesquieu's concept of "Separation of Powers."  The Vice President was tasked with the job of being an active participant in Senate sessions, arguing and debating, providing the side of the Executive Branch during the sessions, ensuring that the Senate heard an additional argument to the many issues that lay before them.

Not only has the original intentions of this American Government been pushed aside by the politicians that refuse to be statesmen in Washington DC, loading the American System with ingredients designed to poison the limiting principles baked into the recipe, but even people who claim to defend the Constitution sometimes get it wrong, conditioned to believe ours is a democracy, when in reality it is a representative republic.

The desire to bring down the American system is no longer simply the goal of a far fringe left that worships Stalin, Lenin and Marx.  No longer is the attempt to make a fallen America a reality something that only foreign enemies are working towards.  The enemy has infiltrated our government.  The mainstream of an American political party is determined to fundamentally transform the United States.  They have been at it for over a century, but the reality of the existence of left-wing anti-Americanism emerged in plain sight for all to see in May, 2008, when Barack Obama was spotted reading the book, The Post-American World.

For the last six years, a nightmare commenced. Our nation, under the guidance of the Democrat controlled United States Congress and President Barack Obama, has been in grave danger.  In the 2010 Election the TEA Party landslide for the Republican Party has slowed the bleeding, a little, but in the face of the threat of terrorism, international oil cartels, drug lords from south of the border, rogue nations seeking nuclear weapons, a Russian leader with dreams of resurrecting the Soviet Union conducting an invasion of Ukraine, and the United Nations trying to force international law into the place where the U.S. Constitution is supposed to be, the reality is that the man in the White House has been injecting a massive amount of poison into our system, and we are on the verge of societal collapse.

Policies determined to bring down America, however, are not enough for the current presidential administration. Barack Obama travels the world apologizing for America's exceptionalism, while trying to speak loudly about threats like ISIS in Iraq, while in reality carrying a wet noodle that nobody believes will be effective against an Islamic threat that is threatening to plunge the world into a global jihad.

Obama believes that reaching out to America's enemies strengthens the U.S. position in dealing with them, as if a few friendly words (as they insult him) will make them change their ways.  He has no intention on protecting the union, for he believes it should be a small part of a global oligarchy, where the most powerful rule the world. . . and if he brings down America, he believes they'll let him be a part of their global empire - and maybe even let him be president of the world.

To make it happen, the Democrats know they must orchestrate the eventual fall of America.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Anti-American Barack Obama is Reading "The Post-American World" - Political Pistachio

Hard Starboard Radio: The Crumbling Climate Change "Consensus"

by JASmius

Climate change tools rally to demand authoritarian control, while a "former Obama official" reinforces that REAL climate change consensus that climate change is not, after all, "settled science"; Greenstremists' rhetoric "heats up" as their case falls apart; Where Katherine Tempf lives in East Harlem, the environmental extremists are doing more harm than good; Barack Obama's delays, retreats, and inaction have allowed ISIS to metastasize - almost as if he has been on their side all along; The solution for a world plunged into completely unnecessary chaos?  More U.S. defense dollars - now; and has Obama already won his "fundamental transformation" game?  Dr. Laurie Roth and I disagree.

Contrary to what Kermit The Frog may have told you, it IS easy being "green" at 6PM Eastern/3PM Pacific.  Just don't let scientific facts get in the way of cathartic pagan zealotry.

Pamela Geller On NBC News Discussing New AFDI Anti-Jihad Ads

by JASmius

Well, now we know which NYC buses ISIS will blow up first.....

Despite U.S. Airstrikes, ISIS Holding Its Ground In Iraq

by JASmius

I'm not much of a fan of Juan Williams, needless to say.  But in his column in the Hill today, the man reveals another reason behind Operation "I Don't Have A Strategy" that is every bit as tell-tale as it sounds:

Fox News analyst Juan Williams has warned the GOP that there’s going to be some political bombshells going off in the weeks leading up to Election Day caused by “the ISIS effect.”

In an opinion column for the Hill, Williams says that the Democrats are gaining steam ahead of the November elections as voters appear to be rallying around President Barack Obama due to his recent handling of the Islamic State (ISIS) terror threat.

A Fox News poll last week showed that terrorism is now just as much a key issue to voters as the economy when it comes to how people will vote, with 41% of Americans saying they are both “extremely important” to their decisions, Williams wrote.

While noting that pollster Dana Blanton called it “the ISIS effect,” the analyst said that Obama’s approval numbers have been climbing since he announced plans to “degrade and ultimately destroy” ISIS with U.S. air power.

Previously, the beheadings of two American journalists and Obama’s admission that he lacked a strategy to deal with the jihadist terror group had hurt his ratings. But Williams, who’s said to be a registered Democrat, pointed out that the polls have been “shifting in the president’s favor.”

Williams wrote that a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll reported 62% of voters supported Obama’s "strategy" to take action against ISIS with airstrikes in Iraq and Syria.

Pew polling last week even found support for the president’s plan is coming from both sides of the political aisle, said the political analyst, noting that a Rasmussen poll similarly found 66% of likely U.S. voters support Obama’s plans to deal with the Sunni fanatics.

Although many Republicans have attacked Obama for not putting boots on the ground in the Middle East conflict, polls show that many Americans back the president’s decision not to send combat troops back to the region to fight the Islamic extremists, according to Williams. [emphasis added]

A more illustrative term for this would be "propaganda jiu jitsu".  The White House calculated that all they had to do to turn around the embarrassment fallout from O publicly admitting that he had no strategy for dealing with the Islamic State was to create the façade of a "plan" for doing so that would make it look like the Regime was "doing something" about ISIS without actually doing anything to defeat them, stop them, or even slow them down.  That the same dynamic that did so much to put Barack Obama into power in the first place - a public indoctrination, brainwashing, of "war weariness" - was still present in the American collective consciousness and could be easily rekindled to dupe them into the suicidal belief that an existential threat to American interests and home and abroad like ISIS can be beaten on the cheap, "pain"-free, with no cost or sacrifices.  And it appears that the White House was right, providing them, as a bonus, with a "wag the dog" dynamic that may well both save the Democrat Senate majority and win them back the House of Representatives as well.  Which helps explain why Republicans overwhelmingly voted for O's "plan" to arm and train ISIS's new Syrian "rebel" allies despite fully knowing better.

I'm still waiting to see any convincing evidence of Barack Obama's legendary "incompetence," folks.  Six years and counting, and I've yet to see hide nor hare of it.

The above creates a very telling contrast with this story:

American airstrikes against the Islamic State (ISIS) have done little to rollback the militant group's territorial gains in part because many Sunni tribes have chosen not to engage, the New York Times reported.

The United States air offensive has been successful in halting advances of the terrorist group but ISIS continues to hammer Iraqi government forces, with hundreds of soldiers having been killed in battle or mass executions.

"Behind the government's struggles on the battlefield is the absence or resistance of many of the Sunni Muslim tribes that all sides say will play the decisive role in the course of the fight — presenting a slow start for the centerpiece of President Obama's plan to drive out the militants," the Times said.

Translation: Air power alone cannot defeat the Islamic State - short of several well-placed neutron warheads, anyway - and few, if any, of O's vaunted proxy soldiers in Iraq are any more eager or willing to fight for the same America that abandoned them to ISIS in the first place than is the "Free Syrian Army" that, if it ever existed, was jilted and ridiculed by The One into making its own separate peace with ISIS.

But for Barack Obama's purposes, none of that matters.  His goal isn't to do anything to the Islamic State, but to [BLEEP] John Boehner and Mitch McConnell right up the ass, and turn Congress back over to Nancy Pelosi and Harry (G)Reid so that he will have even more time for fundraising, vacations, golf, galaga, and shrimp, like in the good ol' days of 2009 and 2010.

Looks like one more "mission accomplished" banner is headed for the Oval Office rafters.  At least for a while....

There's Bubble 'In Everything, Everywhere'

by JASmius

Now you know why I like Marc Faber so much:

For months, Marc Faber, publisher of the Gloom, Boom & Doom Report, has argued that asset markets are way overvalued.

And he's not changing his tune now, even as major U.S. stock indexes ascended to record highs once again Friday.

"We have a bubble in everything, everywhere," Faber tells CNBC.

"Eventually there will be a problem when these asset markets begin to perform poorly."

The Federal Reserve's massive easing program has inflated the bubbles, he explains. The Fed has kept its federal funds rate target at a record low of zero to 0.25% since December 2008. And its balance sheet has ballooned to $4.5 trillion through quantitative easing.

I.e. printing fiat currency like there's no tomorrow, debasing its value (masked by the absence of any objective standard of worth such as gold) and camouflaging the true depressionary state of the U.S. economy.  Which, as it happens, Article I, Section 8, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution was specifically enumerated to prevent.

So what can burst the bubble? "A rise in interest rates, not engineered by the Fed," he notes, meaning an increase in bond yields. The 10-year Treasury yield stood at 2.57% Monday morning.

Another possibility is a global recession, Faber argues. "The big surprise will be that the global economy slows down and goes into recession. And that will shock markets."

Why?  Because this asset value "boom" isn't real.  None of it is real.  It's all a fantasy, a fiction, a monetary amphetamine bender perpetrated for politicoideological purposes by an Obama Regime that wants to keep Wall Street cronyized and corrupted and Main Street stuporously anesthetized as it finishes the task of "fundamentally transforming" the late, great United States of America into the United Soviet Socialist States of Obamerikanstan.

In so many words, the mother of all bubbles.  And when that bubble bursts?  You guessed it - yet another fresh, shiny, new crisis for Barack Obama to exploit.  A commodity of which he already has an embarrassment of riches, with no end in sight.

No wonder this old commercial jingle keeps running through my brain....

In the ruthless context of economic science, that clip is terrifyingly metaphorical of what's to come in the not-too-distant future.

Rift Widens Between Obama, U.S. Military Over Anti-ISIS "Strategy"

by JASmius

Is this overblown, or is another constitutional crisis burgeoning before our very eyes?:

Flashes of disagreement over how to fight the Islamic State are mounting between President Obama and U.S. military leaders, the latest sign of strain in what often has been an awkward and uneasy relationship.

Even as the administration has received congressional backing for its strategy, with the Senate voting Thursday to approve a plan to arm and train Syrian rebels, a series of military leaders have criticized the president’s approach against the Islamic State militant group.

Retired Marine General James Mattis, who served under Obama until last year, became the latest high-profile skeptic on Thursday, telling the House Intelligence Committee that a blanket prohibition on ground combat was tying the military’s hands. “Half-hearted or tentative efforts, or airstrikes alone, can backfire on us and actually strengthen our foes’ credibility,” he said. “We may not wish to reassure our enemies in advance that they will not see American boots on the ground.”

Mattis’s comments came two days after Army General Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, took the rare step of publicly suggesting that a policy already set by the commander-in-chief could be reconsidered.

Despite Obama’s promise that he would not deploy ground combat forces, Dempsey made clear that he didn’t want to rule out the possibility, if only to deploy small teams in limited circumstances. He also acknowledged that Army General Lloyd Austin, the commander for the Middle East, had already recommended doing so in the case of at least one battle in Iraq but was overruled.

Contra what Tony Salazar speculates, I don't think there's any Seven Days In May scenario in the offing.  Generals Mattis and Dempsey are simply, as current and former professional military advisors to the Commander-in-Chief, pointing out the crippling military effects of a "strategy" that denies them the means they need to carry out the mission that has been assigned, and the geopolitical implications of that "strategy".

You can tell that this rift is already becoming a PR problem for the White House by the alacrity with which Commissar of Defense Chuck Hagel lunged to contradict pretty much all his previous rhetoric about ISIS being a dire threat to the U.S.:

Defense [Commissar] Chuck Hagel tried to reassure the House Armed Services Committee on Thursday that civilian and military leaders at the Pentagon were in “full alignment” and in “complete agreement with every component of the president’s strategy.”

Translation: "Shut up, Generals, and toe the party line, if you know what's good for you".

Some in Congress, at least, have noticed the rift and are not buying Hagel's dubious reassurances:

Some lawmakers were skeptical. Representative Howard P. “Buck” McKeon (R-CA25), chairman of the Armed Services Committee, suggested that Obama should listen more closely to his commanders. “I think it’s very important that he does follow the advice and counsel that he receives, the professional advice of the military. They are the ones best suited to do that.”

“I realize he’s commander in chief, he has the final say and the final obligation and responsibility,” McKeon added. “I would also request that he not take options off the table.”

A little late for that, isn't it, Buck?   Now that you've collectively signed off on the Regime arming and training Syrian "rebels" that have already signed a non-aggression pact with the Islamic State, thus pre-emptively removing what passes for "boots on the ground by proxy" from The One's already dubious "strategy".

For all intents and purposes, Barack Obama is deliberately setting up what's left of the U.S. military to humiliatingly fail before the entire world and be beaten by our most visible, maniacal, and implacable foe.

Which, of course, reminds me of another movie line:

"Losing's really not an option for these guys."  That sums up the U.S. military, doesn't it?  And yet here and now, they are being, in effect, ordered to lose in advance, pawns in a pro-jihadist geopolitical play that will advance the Obama Doctrine by diminishing American power and influence another order of magnitude further.

That's not going to trigger a military coup. But you can certainly understand how that doesn't sit well with military leaders who can transparently see what's going on and what the inevitable outcome will be, and why their ability to muzzle their frustrations is eroding so quickly.  Because they know that, sooner or later, they're going to be stuck fighting a much bigger war, much closer to home, on the enemy's initiative and terms, with other enemies joining in for the kill.  A feeding frenzy, as it were.

And all of it deliberately precipitated by their Commander-in-Chief.

If any do have any temptations to be the real-life James Mattoon Scott, I'd be hard-pressed to blame them for it.

Former Obama Official: Climate Change Not 'Settled' Science

by JASmius

An absolutely delightful follow-up to last evening's global warming/climate change hoaxery "Stand Up To Carbon!" post.

It's almost as if God really does have a serendipitous sense of humor:

A former high-ranking Obama administration official says climate science and the implications of global warming are not "settled," insisting such claims are "misguided" and stifle debate on the matter.

Parenthetically, here's another "former Obama Regime official" publicly calling BS on another of the demigod's "messianic" policy claims now that he no longer "worships in the Obama Cathedral," as it were.  Boy, blasphemy against The One is becoming a bigger pandemic than Ebola, isn't it?

Writing a Page One story in the Wall Street Journal Weekend Review section, Dr. Steven Koonin argues that groupthink among experts has been inhibiting "the scientific and policy discussions that we need to have about our climate future."

Koonin, who served at the [Anti-]Energy [Commissariat] as President Obama’s under[commissar] for science..., is director of the Center for Urban Science and Progress at New York University.

Koonin’s position strikes a blow against climate change [extreme]ists as People’s Climate March organized demonstrations at more than 2,000 locations worldwide.

I'm not sure how much of a blow Dr. Koonin's piece strikes against the Global Carbonophobes, but it's really a case of "the more, the merrier," and his essay appearing in the WSJ certainly doesn't minimize the impact.  But it's the timing of it that is so delicious - almost as if the climatic Chicken Littles knew Dr. Koonin's article was appearing in the Journal this weekend and staged their worldwide "Greenapalooza" placard festival in a desperate attempt to drown him out.  To no avail, evidently.

Now one might fairly ask what a "climate change denier" - aka genuine scientist - like Dr. Koomin was ever thinking by going to work for Barack Obama as an undercommissar for "science" when that position's job description is the antithesis of its title.  And that's a very legitimate question.  The word "science" derives from the Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge".  A synonym for "knowledge" is "truth".  Historically and traditionally, the scientific method was the process by which man learned the truth about nature and his environment; everything from biology to chemistry to astronomy to thermonuclear astrophysics and every other scientific discipline that Bruce Banner and Tony Stark banter back and forth over a big bag of potato chips.  Building our store of scientific knowledge facilitates the development of technology that comprehensively improves the quality of life for our "species".  Which is a big reason why we have clean water, clean air, miracle vaccines and disease cures, plasma screen televisions, i-phones, the Internet, jet air travel, space stations, interplanetary space probes, and everything else that makes Sheldon Cooper reach for his Kleenex, if you know what I mean.  It's what we know as present-day "intelligent design," and what the greenstremists would call "human evolution," if they didn't have such a vested political interest in dragging us all back to the primordial slime.

Which brings us back to Dr. Koomin, and what he was doing prostituting his professional integrity to such a "liberal left Marxist socialist commie" pinko pagan shimpmonger as Red Barry.  Since he accepted the job as O's climate change political hack minion in May of 2009, it can't be that he was a Bush holdover.  I can only conclude that either he was hopelessly naïve, or it took over two years for him to develop a sufficient sense of ethics to muster enough conscience to become a, well, genuine scientist.  Or maybe the Obamunists' anti-carbon jihad has gotten so ludicrously strident that even he could no longer take it seriously.

Or maybe he bailed out for other reasons.  That's what I gather from his own explanation:

We often hear that there is a 'scientific consensus' about climate change," writes Koonin.  "But as far as the computer models go, there isn't a useful consensus at the level of detail relevant to assessing human influences."

Koonin says his extensive training as a computational physicist with a forty-year career of scientific research and management, has given him an up-close knowledge of climate science.

"Detailed technical discussions during the past year with leading climate scientists have given me an even better sense of what we know, and don't know, about climate," writes Koonin. [emphasis added]

In other words, once he got away from the greenstremist hacks and started consulting with genuine scientists, he realized that he'd spent the preceding two years being a greenstremist hack.

And then he re-discovered science...:

However, Koonin adds, while humans can cause serious issues for the climate, "they are physically small in relation to the climate system as a whole," with additions to carbon dioxide to "directly shift the atmosphere's natural greenhouse effect by only 1% to 2%."

Other scientists have argued that the sun’s solar activity has a much greater impact on [planetary] temperatures that human activities.

....and facts....:

Meanwhile, while....Earth's average surface temperature has risen by 0.9 degree Fahrenheit over the last quarter of the 20th century, the increase has been much slower over the past sixteen years, while the human contribution to carbon dioxide has gone up by 25%.

"Yet the models famously fail to capture this slowing in the temperature rise," says Koonin. "Several dozen different explanations for this failure have been offered, with ocean variability most likely playing a major role. But the whole episode continues to highlight the limits of our modeling."

....and more facts:

  • Models that show Arctic ice melting over the past twenty years forget to note the almost equal growth of ice across Antarctica, which he says is “now at a record high.”
  • A prediction that the “lower atmosphere in the tropics will absorb much of the heat of the warming atmosphere” has not materialized.
  • The fact global sea levels in the first half of the twentieth century rose at almost the same rate as today.
  • Climate sensitivity— "that is, the warming induced by a hypothetical doubling of carbon-dioxide concentration," he says is "no different, and no more certain" than it was thirty years ago.

  • What would a true climatologist conclude from this observational knowledge and the risible inadequacy of "state of the art" climate theories and modeling?  That climatology is enormously more complex than global warming hoaxers want anybody to know; that it cannot be distilled down to the miniscule fraction of climatic influences that stem from the mere existence of modern human civilization; that we don't know jack bleep about climatology to be taking drastic, draconian governmental policy actions that will decimate civil and economic liberties and the global economy right along with it; and that, accordingly, greenstremists, being the "liberal left Marxist socialist commie bastards" they are, are both willing and determined to force human civilization to regress centuries to a medieval level of squalor, poverty, filth, disease, pestilence, and primitivism so as to finally and permanently rule the planet with an iron fist.  A condition you can count on them never accepting for or imposing on themselves.

    It almost sounds like a Global Climatic....Caliphate, come to think of it.

    No wonder the Global Left and the Global Jihad get along so well.

    Sunday, September 21, 2014

    Climate Change Tools Rally to Demand Authoritarian Control

    By Douglas V. Gibbs

    A couple days before the globalists at the United Nations meet to come up with more measures of control over the world's population using the hoax of man-made climate change as the impetus, hundreds of thousands of people marched worldwide in some ridiculous People's Climate March.

    Even the name of the march has authoritarianism written all over it.  "People's" is a common introduction to all kinds of communist political entities and systems.  The People's Republic of China is probably the most known use of "People's" at the beginning of a Marxist system based on killing liberty, and forcing the people to follow the madness of a ruling elite's authoritarian goals.

    Watching the video of the climate change march in New York, I got to thinking about the cartoon movie Disney put out when my kids were still young, "Beauty and the Beast."  In that movie, dishes from the kitchen, and other items throughout the house, because of a curse, can walk and talk.  If ever we wanted, in that same line of thinking, to know what it would look like if a bunch of tools, because of a political curse, were able to be walking and talking and holding signs, the climate change rally was a perfect example.

    Scientists that do not have a political agenda, or are holding their hands out for cash from politicians, have come to the conclusion that if humanity has any influence on the warming or cooling of our planet, the effect is negligible.  The changes of global temperature are based on natural cycles, largely influenced by sunspot activity.  Recently, we have been bombarded with news about criminal manipulations and cover-ups in the climate change community, coupled with news that the Earth is no longer warming, and the polar ice is broadening and thickening.  A part of the reason?  A reduction in sunspot activity.

    I know, it seems crazy that the warming of Earth could be due to the Sun!  Who'd have thunk it?

    The liberal left Marxist socialist commie environmentalists that are blaming human activities as being the cause of global warming, and claiming that we are killing our planet, are the same people that
    were claiming in the 1970s we were causing the planet to cool.  The political agenda is the same now as it was then. . . and excuse to exert control over the people.  With Climate Change, the design is for the purpose of controlling energy usage, herding the people into tighter habitats, and in order to control a number of other aspects of our existence.

    Remember, it is through the United Nations that these protesters have placed their faith, for only the U.N. can save mankind from the ravages of Climate Change.

    In 1963, a list of 45 Communist Goals for a Communist Takeover, was submitted to Congress.  Number 11 on that list begins, "Promote the U.N. as the only hope for mankind."  

    Man-Made Climate Change is a ruse that the tools marching around with signs that say "save our planet" have fallen for hook, line and sinker.  The gullibility of these people is amazing, and what is worse is that their religion of leftism has even gotten to the point that the mindless automatons marching in those rallies call those that proclaim the truth on this issue "deniers," as if that is some kind of profane thing to be, trying to compare people who value real science on this issue as being comparable to people who are deniers of the Nazi Holocaust, or to compare them to some kind of bigot that is unwilling to follow the pied piper over the cliff and into a doomsday dive into an oblivion of worldwide totalitarianism that uses fear to get the people to march in the defense of their masters.

    The Climate Change protest was designed to convince the world leaders that will be meeting at a United Nations summit to create treaties for saving the planet, like the treaty Obama has been planning to enter into without ratification of the Senate, that will coerce countries into compliance with their authoritarian rules regarding carbon emissions, regardless of what the people in that country want in regards to the issue.

    In other words, these people are not marching for freedom, but for slavery, based on a lie, a myth, a hoax perpetrated against the people of the world using manipulated models to convince everyone that the world is dying, and it's all our fault, and if we don't enter into a brave new world of unprecedented worldwide dictatorship, the horrors of science fiction novels where the Earth is just a great big desert, will suddenly fall upon us.

    Stupid, stupid tools marching for our slavery based on their gullibility regarding an incredible lie that has never been proven to be true, and is actually being proven to be false.

    And just for kicks and giggles, here is something I wrote in March, 2008 on this subject:

    Al Gore, the leader of the Worldwide Church of Global Warming, told us that global sea levels would be rising by more than 20 feet with the loss of shelf ice in Greenland and Antarctica, devastating coastal areas worldwide. He told us that heat waves will be more frequent and more intense. He claimed that droughts and wildfires would occur more often. He declared the Arctic Ocean could be ice free in summer by 2050. He proclaimed more than a million species worldwide could be driven to extinction by 2050. And he said it was our fault because of all of that carbon (you know, less than one percent of the total that winds up in the atmosphere) we spew into the sky. All along I have been saying that any warming tendency of this planet is a natural phenomenon caused by solar activity, specifically in relation to sunspots. I have had a couple of experts, Holly Fretwell, a natural resources policy expert, adjunct professor of economics at Montana State University and research fellow at PERC--The Property and Environment Research Center, and Analyst John Berlau of the Competitive Enterprise Institute on my radio show to discuss this, the second of which indicated that not only is there not a consensus of scientists claiming man-made global warming is true, but that recently 19,000 analysts and scientists proclaimed that all of this global warming hysteria is false. So what's the truth? Well, it turns out that Al Gore, with his tampered models and thirst for whatever he is getting out of this, is a big fat liar. In fact, pretty soon I am expecting him to jump on the man-made global cooling hysteria trend. Maybe they will begin encouraging us to put more carbon into the air to combat this sudden cooling trend! Fact is, temperature monitors are reporting widescale global cooling. And why is the warming trend over? What could have possibly caused this turn around? Wait for it. . . wait for it. . . because according to the article linked in this sentence, sunspots have all but vanished, and activity is suspiciously quiet. Notice the harrowing tone of the article. Al, give back the awards (that would be Nobel Peace Prize, Oscar, and I am sure there are more of your ill-gotten awards on your mantle), sit down, and shut up. You are a liar.

    Oh, and this is how Drudge Report reported on the Climate Change rallies:

    Tens of thousands protest 'climate change' at world rallies...

    Communists, Radicals Spotted in NYC...

    'F*** the Police'...

    'Science Not Settled'...

    Huge grain crops spell headache for farmers...

    -- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

    (I think Think Progress needs to change their name so that it is more truthful with what they are pushing.  It should be named, "Think Slavery."

    Solar Activity and other Natural Causes of Global Warming - Akdart

    Report Shows UN Admitting Solar Activity May Play Significant Role in Global Warming - Fox News

    Stunning satellite images show summer ice cap is thicker and covers 1.7 million square kilometres more than two years ago. . . despite Al Gore's prediction it would by ICE FREE by now - U.K. Mail Online

    Antarctic Sea Ice Growing Despite Global Warming Warnings - NewsMax

    Lead author claims U.N. Climate Change Report was Written for Political Reasons - Breitbart

    Antarctic crew build ice helipad to help rescuers - U.K. Mail Online

    11 Untruths in Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" - Herald Sun

    Fresh round of hacked climate science emails leaked online - The Guardian

    UN Calls For Eco-Fascist World Government At Durban Summit - Alex Jones' Info Wars

    Sen. Boxer to climate-change deniers: ‘You are endangering humankind’ - The Hill

    Rickie Fowler's Hair with a little radical Finesse

    By Douglas V. Gibbs

    From long locks, to a short haircut, to a high and tight with "USA" shaved into the side of his head.  Yes, over the years, PGA golfer Rickie Fowler has made a lot of changes to his hair.

    One of my few claims to fame is that I have golfed with Rickie Fowler before. . . twice.  He beat me miserably.  I never had a chance.  The thing is, both times he beat me he was so young, he wasn't even a teenager, yet.

    The Suchy Trenching Golf Tournament was all for fun.  I loved to golf, when I was still able to, and I had a pretty decent drive from the tee box . . . especially when I managed to luckily keep the ball somewhere on the fairway, and out of the rough.  My long game was fairly good, and my short game often struggled, but no matter how competitive I am, I just loved to play the game.  It was like the old saying goes, "A horrible day of golf is still better than a great day at work."

    Rickie Fowler's dad was a sand and gravel trucker, something I did for about five years, myself.  One of his neighbors here in my beloved city of Murrieta, California, was one of the owners of the construction company I worked for at the time, and every year we had the just-for-fun golf tournament out in Irvine that even included guys messing with each other, doing things like planting a flag from a green in a bunker.  The base of the flagpole would be driving deep into the sand, with the golfer getting ready to send his ball in the direction of the flapping flag, none the wiser that it had been misplaced, because of the hill between him and the promised land.

    We had a beer cart, we were all toking on cigars, and most of us were also cigarette smokers.  What a great game.  Smoke, drink, inhale the outside air at a location other than on a construction job site, and get beat mercilessly by a nine-year-old kid with scrawny arms and long hair.

    When Rickie was put into my group, I knew little about him.  The previous year I had nailed the longest drive, and this year I was hoping to repeat my feat.  On the fairway where they measured for the longest drive prize, that particular day, I was on target.  Long and straight.  Nobody was going to beat me.

    Then the little boy with short clubs approached the tee, whacked the ball, and rolled it half a football field beyond my massive, monstrous drive.

    I played with the kid a couple years later, again.  And he was even better than before, with a long drive, near-perfect short game, and a putting stroke that made everyone in the tournament envious.

    After one of his drives, I walked over and squeezed his arm. "Where in the hell did that come from?" I asked as I gestured down the fairway.

    "It's not about power, sir.  It's about finesse," he said.


    Finesse is definitely something the kid had, and has.  Now, watching him be the professional golfer everyone knew he'd become, his long locks and bright orange shirts were not a surprise.

    Then, he cut the locks, and began to wear not-so-loud outfits.

    The boy has matured, and the man he has become is kicking butt on the links.

    Now, in a show of patriotism in his second Ryder Cup, the formerly long-haired kid showed us how radically awesome he can be.  He will be travelling to Europe with a big ol' "USA" shaved into the side of his dome.

    Good for you, Rickie.  Now that is what I call "finesse."

    -- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

    Rickie Fowler's hair is now ready for the Ryder Cup - sbNation

    NFL Week 3 Predictions

    by JASmius

    LAST WEEK vs. SPREAD: 4-12

    SEASON vs. SPREAD: 10-22

    See last week's preface, minus the "Hey, it was Week 1!" excuse.  One more week like that, and I'm going to have to enter the "prognosticator protection program".  Which is to say, I'm picking like "number one," and "number two" ain't far behind.

    You'll also notice how hard I'm hoping nobody noticed what happened to the Champs in that oven they laughingly call Qualcomm Stadium.  That's because I don't want to run out of excuses if Peyton Manning pulls a Phillip Rivers on us at the Clink this Sunday.  Because the Broncos have had September 21st circled on their calendars for almost six months, and I'm sure The Forehead was taking notes.

    [Straight up picks indicated by asterisk (*); picks against the spread in parentheses (x).]

    ~  ~  ~

    Baltimore* (-1.5)

    Dallas* (-1)
    St. Louis

    Seattle* (-5)

    N.Y. Giants (+2.5)

    Indianapolis* (-7)

    Kansas City (+4.5)

    Green Bay* (+1)

    New Orleans* (-9.5)

    New England* (-14.5)

    Carolina* (-3)

    San Diego* (+2)

    San Francisco
    Arizona* (+2.5)

    Cincinnati* (-7)

    Philadelphia* (-6.5)


    Chicago* (+2.5)
    N.Y. Jets

    Civil War Amendments. . . Constitution Study Radio

    Constitution Study Radio: Lesson 22 - Civil War Amendments

    Through the Constitution with Douglas V. Gibbs

    The 13th Amendment abolished slavery, and the 15th Amendment protects the right to vote regardless of "race, color, or previous condition of servitude." The 14th Amendment is where we will spend most of our time today, discussing the citizenship clause, the due process clause and the equal protection clause.

    Join Douglas V. Gibbs of Political Pistachio as he journeys through the United States Constitution. We study the concepts, principles, and direct text of the U.S. Constitution from the original point of view of the Founding Fathers.

    New episodes each Sunday Morning at 9:00 am Pacific Time. Go to Constitution Study Radio for all podcasts of past episodes.

    Doug's book, 25 Myths of the United States Constitution is available on Amazon, and CreateSpace.

    Rand Paul Retreating From Tea Party Positions

    by JASmius

    Tea Party, meet Senator Rand Paul, RINO (via Newsmax Insider):

    Senator Rand Paul has earned a reputation as a libertarian ideologue who enjoys widespread support from Tea Party advocates.

    But the Kentucky Republican, a potential 2016 presidential candidate, has been seeking to broaden his appeal by softening or backing away from some earlier stances on foreign and domestic policy.

    "While he has maintained his core support for cutting spending and protecting Americans' privacy rights, Paul has shaded, changed, or dropped some of the ideas that he espoused as a Tea Party candidate and in his confrontational early days as a senator," the Washington Post observed on Monday.

    The Post reviewed Paul's speeches, op-eds, and pieces of legislation he has authored, and interviewed several Paul advisers, to map out the freshman senator's policy shifts.

    In June, when Islamic State militants had taken control of large parts of Iraq, Paul expressed skepticism about possible American airstrikes and U.S. military intervention in general.

    But after the beheadings of two American journalists, Paul had what the Post called a "stark change of heart" and came out in support of airstrikes and other actions to destroy the militant group.

    In 2011, Paul proposed eliminating all foreign aid, including aid to Israel. But he soon changed his position and instead called for cutting aid to $5 billion a year, providing Israel with its full share of more than $3 billion.

    In 2012, Paul called for immediate changes in Medicare, replacing the current system with subsidies to seniors to buy coverage from private insurers. Two years later, he is now working on a different Medicare plan, according to an aide, who said the senator might propose preserving the old system after all.

    Paul previously criticized the construction of a fence along the Mexican border, saying it reminded him of the Berlin Wall. More recently he supports building two fences, one behind the other, according to the Post article written by David A. Fahrenthold.

    Last year Paul introduced legislation that would declare a fertilized egg a human being whose life is protected by law. But earlier this year he softened his stance, acknowledging that the country is "somewhere in the middle" on the abortion issue and "we're not changing any of the laws until the country is persuaded otherwise."

    Paul earlier expressed his opposition to same-sex marriage, but he has stated that the GOP ought to "agree to disagree" on such issues to welcome a broader coalition of voters into the party.

    Paul was elected in 2010 with 56% of the vote in the general election, with solid support among tea party advocates. He helped form the Senate Tea Party Caucus, and delivered the Tea Party response to President Obama's State of the Union speech in February 2013.

    His retreat from his earlier positions could negatively impact Paul if he runs for the GOP presidential nomination in 2016, Fahrenthold points out.

    Paul's "transformation carries enormous risk," he said. "As Rand Paul seeks to broaden his appeal, he may damage his image as an authentic non-politician who is unafraid to stand up for his beliefs."

    In an interview with the Federalist published on Wednesday, Paul claimed the Post article was a "hit piece" and "full of inaccuracies." Fahrenthold responded that Paul's office had refused to elaborate on the inaccuracies of the reporting. [emphasis added]

    A few observations, in no particular order:

    ***Because Senator Paul is a libertarian more than a conservative, a lot of that "softening" is predominantly a simple recognition of political reality and common sense.  He was wrong to question destroying the Islamic State, and it took the beheadings of James Foley and Steve Sotloff to bring him to his senses.  He was wrong to want to cut off aid to Israel, but right to cut it off for every other national recipient, and he has now recognized that fact.  Whether he also realizes that foreign aid is a drop in the bucket of federal spending and opposition to which is largely nonsensical symbolism is anybody's guess.  He was right about total Medicare privatization, but since learned that such massive change can only happen incrementally.  He was wrong on not building a border fence and has corrected that grievous error.

    On the other hand, his collapse on the right to life and support of biblical marriage is a significant disappointment that reflects his listening to GOP political consultants regarding the abandonment of social/moral issues.

    ***Why the "softening"?  Isn't it obvious?  Senator Paul has deluded himself into taking it for granted that he's presidential timbre.  Accordingly, he is following the Nixon template of "moving to the political center" well in advance of 2016.

    ***Is David Fahrenthold correct that Senator Paul is dooming a presidential candidacy by flipping the bird to Tea Partiers more than he is helping it by "broadening his appeal"?  I'm probably not the person to be asked that question, because I consider the notion of Rand Paul actually winning the presidency to be patently absurd - he (1) does not possess sufficient political experience and (2) it's the wrong kind, as the U.S. Senate is not the career path to the White House and hasn't been for over a century.  But based upon what got him his Senate seat four years ago, and what I know of the Tea Party - i.e. if they haven't excommunicated him already, they inevitably will, with tar and feathering close behind - I would say this is a foolish move on his part, as moderate and left-leaning independents will be far more difficult to convince of the "New Rand Paul" than Tea Partiers will be to forgive his retrenchment from ideological purity.

    ***How will Tea Partiers react to Senator Paul's "betrayal"?  If even so staunch and stalwart a TPer as Rand Paul can join the "cockroaches," is their shining, pristine, idealistic view of the Founders' America (that has never actually ever existed, although it's been a helluva lot closer to that vision in the past than it is now) truly unattainable?  I figure TPers will either (1) quit in despair and disgust or, more likely, (2) re-double their "Fight!  Fight!  Fight!" efforts, search for fresh "champions," become even more purity-obsessed, and consequently less politically viable and relevant.

    I would say, "I told you so!", but I frankly don't have the heart to do so at this point.  That, and I was never a huge Rand Paul fan in the first place.

    Ted Cruz, on the other hand....man, if only he had waited a couple of years and run to succeed Rick Perry.  He'd have been the total package.  Or at least a great running mate for Scott Walker.

    The latter of which he still can be.  Hmmmm.....

    California Heat Knocks Out Electricity for Thousands of Los Angeles Residents

    By Douglas V. Gibbs

    The heat this week in Southern California got pretty unbearable.  With multiple days over 100 degrees in Temecula Valley, to the northwest in Los Angeles County the heat got so back that it knocked power out to thousands of customers.

    On Tuesday, power was out for about 7,000 customers throughout Los Angeles County, including about 3,000 in the city of Los Angeles.

    Southern California Edison officials said the utility reached its year-to-date consumption of 23,055 megawatts on Monday, just shy of its all-time weekday peak of 23,303 on Aug. 31, 2007.

    Overnight, outages were also reported in Brentwood and Sherman Oaks.

    SCE replaced 245 transformers between Saturday and Tuesday morning.

    -- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

    2014 U.S. Senate Scoreboard (9/21/14)

    by JASmius

    Kansas Democrats pull a stealth switcheroo, and now GOP incumbent Pat Roberts has fallen behind.  Meanwhile, Scott Brown closes slightly on Jeanne Shaheen in New Hampshire.

    (Incumbents in bold; all polling via Rasmussen Reports)


    ALABAMA:  Jeff Sessions (R) - unopposed
    IDAHO:  James Risch (R) 54%, Nels Mitchell (D) 29%
    MAINE:  Susan Collins (R) 59%, Shenna Bellows (D) 31%
    MISSISSIPPI:  Thad Cochran (R) 48%, Travis Childers (D) 31%
    MONTANA:  Steve Daines (R) 55%, Amanda Curtis (D) 35% (GOP pickup)

    NEBRASKA:  Ben Sasse (R) 51%, David Domina (D) 34%
    OKLAHOMA:  James Inhofe (R) 58%, Matt Silverstein (D) 27%
    SOUTH CAROLINA:  Lindsey Graham (R) 49%, Brad Hutto (D) 30%
    SOUTH DAKOTA:  Mike Rounds (R) 44%, Rick Weiland (D) 29%, Larry Pressler (RINO) 18% (GOP pickup)

    TEXAS:  John Cornyn (R) 47%, David Alameel (D) 29%
    TENNESSEE:  Lamar Alexander (R) 47%, Gordon Ball (D) 32%
    WEST VIRGINIA:  Shelly Moore Capito (R) 50%, Natalie Tennant (D) 33% (GOP pickup)

    WYOMING:  Mike Enzi (R) 63%, Charlie Hardy (D) 27%


    GEORGIA:  David Perdue (R) 46%, Michelle Nunn (D) 40%
    KENTUCKY:  Mitch McConnell (R) 46%, Alison Lundergan Grimes (D) 41%


    ALASKA:  Dan Sullivan (R) 47%, Mark Begich (D) 45% (GOP pickup) KANSAS:  Pat Roberts (R) 44%, Chad Taylor (D) 40%
    LOUISIANA:  Bill Cassidy (R) 44%, Mary Landrieu (D) 41% (GOP pickup)


    IOWA:  Bruce Braley (D) 43%, Joni Ernst (R) 43%


    ARKANSAS:  Mark Pryor (D) 44%, Tom Cotton (R) 43%
    COLORADO:  Mark Udall (D) 44%, Cory Gardner (R) 42%

    KANSAS: Greg Orman ("Independent") 45%, Pat Roberts (R) 40% (Dem pickup)

    MICHIGAN:  Gary Peters (D) 45%, Terri Lynn Land (R) 39%
    MINNESOTA:  Al Franken (D) 50%, Mike McFadden (R) 42%
    NEW HAMPSHIRE:  Jeanne Shaheen (D) 48%, Scott Brown (R) 42%
    NORTH CAROLINA:  Kay Hagen (D) 45%, Tom Tillis (R) 39%


    DELAWARE:  Chris Coons (D) 49%, Kevin Wade (R) 34%
    HAWAII:  Brian Schatz (D) 60%, Cam Cavasso (R) 28%
    ILLINOIS:  Ali Dickbar al-Durbini (D) 48%, Jim Oberweis (R) 38%
    MASSACHUSETTS:  Ed Markey (D) - no polling, prohibitive favorite
    NEW JERSEY:  Corey Booker (D) 48%, Jeff Bell (R) 35%
    NEW MEXICO:  Tom Udall (D) 54%, Allen Weh (R) 33%
    OREGON: Jeff Merkley (D) 48%, Monica Wehby (R) 35%
    RHODE ISLAND:  Jack Reed (D) - no polling, prohibitive favorite
    VIRGINIA:  Mark Warner (D) 53%, Ed Gillespie (R) 36%

    HIGH:  GOP picks up Montana, South Dakota, West Virginia, Alaska, Louisiana, Iowa, Arkansas, and Colorado, but loses Kansas, for a net gain of seven seats and a 52-48 majority in the next U.S. Senate.

    MEDIAN:  GOP picks up Montana, South Dakota, West Virginia, Alaska, Louisiana, and maybe Iowa, but loses Kansas, for a gain of four or five seats and either a 50-50 split or a 51-49 deficit in the next U.S. Senate.

    LOW:  GOP picks up Montana, South Dakota, and West Virginia, but the Democrats pick up Kansas, for a net GOP gain of two seats, leaving the Democrats to retain a 53-47 majority in the next U.S. Senate.

    Last week Tom Tillis's North Carolina campaign collapsed, this week Kansas incumbent Republican Pat Roberts gets submarined by a classic Donk shell game.  The Democrat candidate, Chad Taylor, "implicitly" withdrew and in swooped "independent" Greg Orman like Robert Redford in The Candidate, spouting all the usual, clichéd pap about "independence" and not being "beholden" to any party that so foolishly appeals to the LIVs and NIVs, of which even a "red" State like Kansas, it seems, has an overabundance.  Kansas's GOP Secretary of State, Kris Kobach, contested Taylor's withdrawal, but the Kansas Supreme Court overruled her, and the Dems have their stealth candidate and a sudden five point lead over Senator Roberts.

    Karl Rove said in his Wall Street Journal column this week that the problem is the GOP getting outraised and outspent by the Dems.  That's certainly part of it; to quote Peter Pevensie in Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch & The Wardrobe when his centaur lieutenant told him that numbers do not win a battle, "No; but I bet they help."  The same applies for money in election campaigns.

    But the problem is more than that.  The Republicans should have every structural advantage: Barack Obama's approval ratings are in the toilet, the "six year itch" (the out party historically always makes big gains in the sixth year of a presidency).  Even if the Dems have a nominal money advantage, the GOP should simply be doing better than this.  And yet it is precisely now that their chances are precipitously fading.

    The reason appears to be what the party's incompetent political consultants don't want to hear: There's no clear, contrasting, bold, nationalized message.  As in 2012, social issues are either being conceded or 'Pubbies are actively aping Donk stances on them.  Even their economic message is vague.  Genuine independents want bold colors, not pale pastels, and yet once again, Republicans appear to be playing not to lose by simply being "not Obama".  And once again, that "strategy" is not working, and causing what should be a walkover to a Senate majority to rapidly unravel.

    The GOP always has had the reputation of being the "Stupid Party" always capable of pulling any defeat from the jaws of victory.  Incredibly, that history appears to be repeating itself.  Is 44 days enough time to avert this crushing electoral catastrophe?  Who the hell knows?  But for those of you who still think the Republic is resurrectable, you'd better pray to God it is, and that Republicans don't squander it.

    Saturday, September 20, 2014

    Rand Paul: Obama Created Lawless Atmosphere in Washington

    By Douglas V. Gibbs

    The Republican Party in California is having their convention this weekend, and among the speakers tonight was Rand Paul.  On stage, the U.S. Senator, and son of former presidential republican candidate, Ron Paul, immediately targeted the anti-constitutional posture of President Barack Obama.

    In Article II, Section 3 of the United States Constitution the President of the United States is tasked with taking "Care that the Laws be faithfully executed."

    In the final clause of Article II, Section 1 the oath of office the President is required to recite reads, "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."

    Rand Paul, a presidential hopeful for the Republican Party in 2016, says that President Obama fails to follow those constitutional requirements, and is a lawless president.  As a featured speaker at the California Republican convention, Paul blasted President Obama and potential Democratic nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton as insufficient present or future commanders-in-chief.

    He accused Obama of confounding the Constitution when he expanded Obamacare, moved against overseas targets without specific congressional authorization, and announced plans — since delayed until after the midterm elections in an obvious political move (while blaming Murrieta supposed protesters' partisan actions as the reason he had to delay his unconstitutional executive actions)  — to use executive action to change the nation’s immigration laws.

    “It is a terrible tragedy, it is a danger to us as a country, and we need to do everything we can to stop him from abusing our laws,” Paul said. He said later, "We have a president who basically has created a lawless atmosphere in Washington.”

    Speaking about Clinton, he used her famous 2008 primary ad, to argue that she, like Obama, failed answering a national security phone call about a middle-of-the-night crisis:

    “I think she had a 3 a.m. moment. She didn’t answer the phone, and I think it absolutely should preclude her from being [president],” he said after detailing what he termed her failings leading up to the 2012 attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya.

    Paul also argued the GOP needs to broaden, the party needs to look more like America.  The writer at the L.A. Times took that to mean he was saying that the Republican should pander to various groups, but that is not what he meant.  Ronald Reagan taught us that you don't broaden the appeal of the Republican Party by targeting or pandering to groups, but by producing an American message that appeals to all Americans, regardless of any group they may be a member of.

    In other words, conservatism wins.

    Rand Paul then targeted specific issues, such as the NSA’s mining of data from cell phones.
    “What you say or do on your cell phone is none of the government’s damn business,” he said.

    -- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

    Angry Mob Throws Ukrainian Politician Vitaly Zhuravsky In Garbage

    by JASmius

    Nothing metaphorical about this, is there?

    For the record:

    Vitaly Zhuravsky (born May 8, 1955) is a Ukrainian MP elected to the Verkhovna Rada in the 2012 Ukrainian parliamentary election for Party of Regions from the Zhytomyr region.  He is the author of controversial draft law on defamation in 2012.

    If you follow the link on the draft law on defamation, you'll find the Wikipedia page is all in Ukrainian, so I have no idea why this crowd dumpsterized him.  However, the London Daily Mail reports that the aforementioned defamation law cracked down on "anti-government" protestors, and at the time of its passage Ukraine had a pro-Russian puppet government, since overthrown, so the respective motivations and allegiances of Mr. Zhuravsky and his sanitation crew are pretty much what you would have suspected.

    Pity Vladimir Putin couldn't be "disposed" of that easily.

    Quarter Of Americans OK With Seceding

    by JASmius

    To secede or not to secede - that is the question.

    There is, however, a big catch:

    Could the U.S. see a Scotland-like secession vote of its own? Nearly a quarter of Americans wouldn't have a problem with that, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll. Some 23.9% of us strongly or somewhat support secession for our states, reports. That's compared to 53.3% who strongly oppose, or tend to oppose, the idea. The idea of leaving the country is most popular among Republicans and rural Americans in the Western U.S., and President Obama's policies are a major reason for it. But plenty of Democrats—some 21%—would also lean toward seceding.

    "When I say secede, I'm not like (ex-NRA head) Charlton Heston with my gun up in the air … It's more like we could do it if we had to, and it's a way of getting Washington to listen up," says a Texas Democrat. Some 29% of Republicans, meanwhile, back the idea. "I have totally, completely lost faith in the federal government, the people running it, whether Republican, Democrat, independent, whatever," notes one. Geographically, Americans in the Southwest are most supportive of the idea, with some 34.1% of people backing it; New England is least supportive, at 17.4%.

    First of all, secession goes back to precisely what the U.S. Constitution is: a contract between the States creating a federal government with specifically enumerated powers to which it was strictly limited.  Consequently, any State, as a party to this contract, that becomes dissatisfied with the arrangement to the degree that they want out of it does have the power, and is perfectly entitled to, do so.  Which is to say, by way of example, the Confederate States were entirely within their legal rights to secede from the federal union in 1861, for whatever wrongheaded reasons they did so, and the remaining, or "Union" States had no legal authority to deny secession to them.

    But that brings us to the big catch I referenced above: in the run-up to the Civil War (or "War Between The States," if you prefer), the issue over which passions rose to the point of a hostile split - slavery - was a sectional one, with one region (the southern States) pitted against another (the northern States).  Thus, secession was heavily incentivized, not just in terms of there being overwhelming majorities in favor of it in certain States, but all those States being contiguous and sharing a common culture and more agricultural - and slave-based - economies.  Which, parenthetically, it's difficult not to think of today when the pro-amnesty crowd cites "cheap labor" as a justification for "comprehensive immigration reform".

    None of those factors are present today.  Yes, there are "red" States and "blue" States, but even within them the split - which runs along cultural and ideological lines across the issue spectrum, not just on a single issue like slavery was - is not nearly as clear-cut.  Secession thus becomes a great deal more difficult as a practical matter, as it would quite likely entail mass emigration in both directions, economic upheaval, and all kinds of opportunity for violence and societal breakdown.  It wouldn't be a clear-cut conflict between two sections of the country, but a mass, confused free-for-all that would dissolve the country into chaos.

    And that doesn't take into account the notion of secession FROM a State, as happened in 1863 when the pro-Union/anti-slavery counties of Virginia split away into their own State (West Virginia), a one-time event that would be all but impossible today, given the need for the State legislature to approve such a motion.  Which is why nothing has ever come of the several secession movements that have arisen in California over the past several years.  When one ideological faction dominates a State, they're not about to let their syphonable, enslaveable political enemies get away and reduce their power and influence.

    And then there's, you know, the fact that the percentage of Americans who favor secession is a clear minority.  So this idea isn't going anywhere any time soon.

    But it is noteworthy, nevertheless, that that percentage has grown as large as it has.  And it might not be that far away from a crystallization point where it gathers the remaining support it would need much quicker than anybody suspects.  Particularly in the wake of a cataclysmic event such as, say, an Obama coup de tat and refusal to relinquish power when he's constitutionally required to.  So keep this one filed away in your mental rolodex.  It may be revisited sooner than you think.