DOUGLAS V. GIBBS<---------->RADIO<---------->BOOKS<---------->CONSTITUTION <---------->CONTACT/FOLLOW <----------> DONATE

Friday, February 05, 2016

Saturday Schedule, Douglas V. Gibbs

Speeches, Meetings and Radio Shows. Choose as you wish. . . and I would love to see you Saturday Night at 5:00 pm at the Constitution Association Monthly Dinner Meeting where we will not just be discussing liberty, and local issues, but how we plan to restore the republic. Are you all in?

8:00 am, Douglas V. Gibbs will be the host of Conservative Voice Radio on KMET 1490-AM, a program that is sponsored, and co-hosted by members of the Banning-Beaumont-Cherry Valley Tea Party (Glenn, Jan and Diane).

9:00 am, Douglas V. Gibbs will be the guest speaker at the Corona-Norco-Eastvale Tea Party Patriots meeting, Marie Callendar's, 160 E. Rincon Street, Corona.

11:00 am, Douglas V. Gibbs will be the co-host on American Daily Review Radio on BlogTalkRadio. JASmius is the primary host and board operator.

1:00 pm, Douglas V. Gibbs will be the host of Constitution Radio on KMET 1490-AM, with co-hosts JASmius and Alex Ferguson.

4:00 pm, Douglas V. Gibbs will be the guest on Unite IE Radio on KTIE 590-AM with Don Dix, Greg Britain and John L. Hancock - debating the eligibility of Ted Cruz.

5:00 pm, Douglas V. Gibbs will be hosting the Constitution Association Monthly Dinner Meeting with guest speaker John L. Hancock, author of Liberty and Prosperity.

Ben Carson: Ted Cruz Is Worse Than Hillary Clinton

by JASmius



I think Switch said it best....



I've said all along that I like and respect Ben Carson, even though I've also maintained all along that he isn't remotely qualified for the presidency of the United States.  He is a brilliant neurosurgeon, and a more important, he's a good Christian man.

Which makes the way he's ending his 2016 presidential bid equal parts sad and stomach-turning:

Asked by Todd Starnes if he was “satisfied with the way Senator Cruz has handled himself as Christian” over the incident in Iowa, Carson said, “Well, let me put it this way, it’s not the way that I would have handled it.”

“I would have said if I didn’t agree with what’s being — which he did say that — I would make sure that it didn’t happen again,” Carson continued.

What makes Dr. Carson think Senator Cruz isn't doing precisely that?

“And I would take corrective action. Not to take corrective action is tacitly saying it’s okay, or it’s sort of like, as Hillary Clinton said after Benghazi, ‘what difference does it make.’”

First, to what sort of "corrective action" is Dr. Carson referring?  Terminating the Cruz staffer who distributed the initial CNN report of Carson quitting the campaign?  Eh, maybe that's appropriate, maybe it isn't; we don't have all the details to be able to judge it one way or the other.  I can't imagine to what other "corrective action" he could be referring other than what Donald Trump was screeching on Wednesday about a do-over, and given that Carson over-performed his pre-caucus poll numbers, and never had a remote chance at finishing in the top three anyway, it's difficult to see how he was hurt by the snafu.

The there's the matter of his announcing that he was flying home for "a change of clothes," which is one of the strangest excuses - heck, strangest things period - I've ever heard any political candidate say and/or do, at least since he suspended his campaign for a week back in October to do a book tour.  That stunt reinforced the long-suspected notion that the Doc's heart was never really in this campaign and that he was running because others told him to for the cash cow he could be to their interests.

Erik Erickson pointed to this factor again today:

The Carson Campaign is really just a consultant heavy direct mail operation that pooped out a Presidential campaign and they’re hoping to keep the money flowing by playing up outrage over the Cruz campaign. The Carson campaign is collapsing with major staff layoffs planned and more cuts to come after New Hampshire. The plans appear to have been in the works before Iowa, which means the outrage over Cruz’s campaign efficiency has more to do with trying to bleed more money from people out of sympathy than anything else.

But this begs the question of whether Carson is such a cipher (no Matrix pun intended) that he's going out and smearing Cruz with the following comparison because somebody told him to do it or if he's answering the sin of which he's accusing the Texas senator with a rousing one of his own:

“I’m not saying that it rises to the level [of] Benghazi, I’m saying it’s the same kind of attitude,” he said, when pressed by Starnes if the controversy rose to the level of Benghazi. “The attitude being, it’s water under the bridge, it’s gone by, let’s not deal with it.”

If it doesn't rise to the level of Benghazi, then why are you making the bogus comparison, Doc?  You could make the same point without being so gratuitously insulting about it.  Which strongly suggests that your point is not a moral one but is meant to be retaliatory for something that didn't even hurt damage you.

On the bright side, it looks like Gentle Ben has finally become a real professional politician.  Too bad for him that it's coming far, far too late to make any difference to his campaign.  If he'd had even this much "fire in the belly" all along, he might not have face-planted.

If, on the other hand, he's being sent out there to engage in this vile slander, then it speaks to those who have so supremely ill-served him in mismanaging his campaign and, frankly, using him so flagrantly, and speaks to Carson himself for being so weak as to allow himself to be used in such a despicable way.

Please, Doc, don't ruin your reputation for somebody else's lost cause.  Go out with the dignity you deserve.  It would be the Christian thing to do, would it not?

Hard Starboard Radio: Why Hillary & Bernie Hate Each Other



New Obama policy forces Border Patrol agents to release all illegal aliens; Obama finds way to raise oil prices & bankrupt "Big Oil" at the same time; Hillary & Bernie hate each other, tied nationally; Trumpophrenia; Enough with this "establishment" nonsense; Conservatives shouldn’t throw around the ‘Republican Obama’ label lightly; and the GOP says good-bye to the ‘good loser’ model.

The nursing home comes to New Hampshire on Open Thighs Friday at 6PM Eastern/3PM Pacific.

Trumpophrenia

by JASmius



OLD & BUSTED: Ted Cruz is a crazy, nasty, lying, cheating, election-stealing Canadian invader.

THE NEW HOTNESS: "I’ve always liked Cruz and haven’t ruled him out as VP".

Or maybe I should say newEST hotness, as late last night it was just "I'm over Iowa":

The day after accusing Ted Cruz of winning the Iowa caucuses unfairly and asking for a rematch in the State, Donald Trump says he’s now over it. “I’m so much into this, into New Hampshire, that I just — I don’t care about that anymore,” Trump said in an interview with CNN’s Anderson Cooper in Manchester, just five days out from next Tuesday’s primary contest here. “This is the place I’m focused on now.” …

In Thursday’s sit-down with CNN, Trump said some “strange things” appeared to have happened in Iowa, and that the Cruz campaign’s actions likely hurt him more than Carson.

“I like Ben Carson very much and he got pretty roughed up, frankly,” Trump said. “Although it affected me maybe more than Ben.”

But Trump added: “Who cares?”



He does, for starters, or he wouldn't have brought it up again.  I interpret this as his managing to breathe into a paper bag yesterday and take a good look at the fallout from his Wednesday outburst, as well as the direction of his post-Iowa poll numbers, and realizing that he needed to stop digging, as it were, and belatedly focus on New Hampshire in order to avoid an Iowa sequel that could finish off his campaign within the space of barely more than a week.

Including another belated bowing to the efficacy of conventional, traditional, ANTI-POPULIST politicking:

Throughout his campaign, Trump has largely avoided smaller, town hall-style events. But since coming in second place after Cruz in Iowa, Trump appears to be acknowledging the importance of retail politics and one-on-one time with voters.

Trump was initially set to hold two campaign events on Thursday. But late Wednesday, the campaign announced an additional three campaign stops, including the interview with CNN and a visit with local business leaders.

Too little, too late.  REAL presidential candidates spend the preceding year in the Granite State; Trump isn't going to pick up much from trying to make up for not doing so with a fast & furious five-day blitzkrieg.  He's going to have to rely on what brought him to this dance.  Which will probably be enough to avert a death spiral (i.e. losing New Hampshire as well), but not to put him back on the "table-running spree" he was looking at before (i.e. a close NH victory).

But don't think that Trump is over Iowa.  What we've seen from him this week is probably how Mitt Romney felt after his two Iowa failures; it's just that Mitt didn't publicly vent each and every last syllable of it on social media.  He had a normal, adult human being's discretion.  He "didn't let 'em see him sweat".  Donald Trump isn't capable of discretely going to the bathroom, much less publicly venting every thought and emotion that flits through his coiffed noggin.  He's a rookie, having entered a "business" he thought was easy-peasy-lemon-squeezy for a man of his mastery of everything right up until votes actually started being cast, and then learned the hard way that it was a lot tougher than he thought it was.  And now he's struggling with wrestling his titanic ego into enough submission to enable those lessons to actually sink in, and having to to so in a very compressed stretch of time.

Or perhaps he's still in an utter, screaming rage, and is just trying to put up a brave front to try and conceal it, which would help explain the aforelinked bit of Cruz-ward condescension:

In a striking reversal of rhetoric, Donald Trump would not rule out Ted Cruz as his hypothetical vice-presidential pick.

“Well, I don’t know. Look, I have nothing against him. It was sort of a sad thing that happened, but I’ve always liked him,” Trump told Hugh Hewitt on his radio show Thursday, after weeks of trashing his primary rival as nasty, hypocritical and disliked.

Trump added that he has “always gotten along well” with Cruz, but that “I’m so much now focused on New Hampshire.”

Allahpundit had a great way of synopsizing this: "Given how serious the accusations are — election fraud! Cruz unhinged! — these aren’t trial balloons Trump is floating so much as trial zeppelins. And then, a few days later, when it doesn’t work out as well he planned, he turns around and essentially says: What zeppelin?"

Or maybe he's just insane.

Either way, it should make tomorrow's debate must-see-TV.

Hillary & Bernie Hate Each Other; UPDATE: Tied Nationally

by JASmius



She hates him because he's inexorably taking away her last chance at moving back into the White House, and he's not thirty years younger and a "well-spoken, clean-cut Negro".  He hates her because, well, doesn't everybody?

They sure sounded like they hate each other given how aggressively they went after each other last night, although it was hard to focus on their genuine or calculated animus given that it had the dual flavor of "Hey, you kids, get off my lawn!" and any of fifteen conversations in the nursing home dining room when nobody has their hearing aids turned up.

That's something Senators Rubio or Cruz can definitely exploit next fall all by itself, if the Republican electorate makes it back to the land of sanity.  But there was plenty of other future attack-ad fodder from which to choose:

[Mrs.] Clinton used her opening statement to needle the senator from Vermont, who describes himself as a socialist, over what she has contended are unrealistically liberal plans for universal health care, free college and other programs.

“I’m fighting for people who cannot wait for those changes, and I’m not making promises that I cannot keep,” the former [commissar] of state said.

Sanders replied that a number of European countries had approved single-payer health-care systems. “I do not accept the belief that the United States of America cannot do that,” he said.

In reality, Mrs. Clinton is right.  Even the Donk SuperCongress of 2009-10 could barely shove ObamaCare down the country's unwilling throat, and they couldn't even jam a "public option" into it.  And Democrat supermajorities with a Democrat POTUS only come along every third of a century or so, and the next one is probably decades away.

But this isn't the general election, it's the New Hampshire Democrat primary, and her leftwingnut audience doesn't want to hear what's realistic, or what promises can or cannot be kept.  They want to hear what they want to hear and that she's going to (does this sound familiar?) FIGHT!  FIGHT!  FIGHT! for it.  Which begs the question of for what she's "fighting" if not what her leftwingnut audience, whose votes she's desperate to get, is demanding - like Weekend Bernie is.

Point, Sanders.

As they had at a town hall forum the night before, the two remaining Democrat presidential contenders also squabbled over the modern definition of the word “progressive,” which has become the preferred term for the Democrat left.

When "communist" is so much more accurate.  Which is why I always edit out the former for the latter.  I'm a big believer in mandatory truth in labeling.

“A progressive is someone who makes progress,” [Mrs.] Clinton said.

That's a glib non-response.  A "progressive" is a communist.  She's not willing to admit that, and Weekend Bernie is.

Point, Sanders.

Sanders, who enjoys enormous enthusiasm among the party’s liberal base, continued to make the argument that [Mrs.] Clinton is too heavily dependent on those who have financed her campaign and made her personally wealthy. He said that he does “not only talk the talk, but walk the walk. I am very proud to be the only candidate up here that does not have a super PAC.”

A mixed bag for the Vermont senator, since it bolsters his authenticity, which is the heart of his appeal to Donk voters, but it deprives him of the resources with which to fully compete with La Clinton Nostra nationwide, which is the only reason he's not already the Democrat nominee.

However, Herself can always be counted on to keep coming to Weekend Bernie's rescue:

[Mrs.] Clinton accused Sanders of engaging in a “very artful smear” of her character. She insisted she had never changed her position on any issue based on having received contributions from special interests.

Two words: Clinton....Foundation.



“Senator Sanders has said he wants to run a positive campaign. I’ve tried to keep my disagreements over issues, as it should be. But time and time again, by innuendo, by insinuation, there is this attack that he is putting forth,” [Mrs.] Clinton said.

I bet you didn't know that Senator Sanders was a card-carrying member of the Vast RightWing Conspiracy, didja?

But then I suppose she's right about this in a way: the Empress doesn't always need to be paid to switch issue stances.  It just comes reflexively naturally to her.



Remember that all-time classic?  Five flip-flops in three minutes and twelve seconds.  To the vast degree that Barack Obama wasn't simply a vastly superior candidate to her, this exchange was probably the rest of why she crashed and burned eight years ago.  That reputational stink has stuck to her ever since, which is why it is so effortless and obvious a target for even so manifestly non-Obama a candidate as Bernie Sanders.  And it illustrates how terrible a candidate she is that she can't even spin out from under the gambit when wielded by such a crazy, wild-eyed, elderly old white bastard that just happens to be blowing her out by thirty points in the Granite State polls.

In the final analysis, I have to say that Hillary probably hates Sanders a bit more than he does her.  Why?  He took a pass on hitting her on Emailgate, a topic about which the Nutroots don't care in the slightest.  Or perhaps it's that he's more interested in kicking her when she's down effectively, rather than indiscriminantly.

In which case, mission accomplished.


UPDATE: The long-awaited Hillary Clinton implosion?:

In the Democrat race nationwide, former [Commissar] of State Hillary Clinton has 44%, with Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont at 42%, and 11% undecided. This compares to a 61% – 30% Hillary Clinton lead in a December 22nd survey by the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University Poll. …

“Democrats nationwide are feeling the Bern as Senator Bernie Sanders closes a thirty-one-point gap to tie [Commissar] Hillary Clinton,” said Tim Malloy, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Poll.

A twenty-nine-point collapse in six weeks, folks.  She doesn't have majority support among women voters (though she's still ten points ahead with them).  So much - again - for what has always been the core argument of her candidacy: inevitability.

The notion that she was electable was always a joke, and this Q-poll's general election hypotheticals reiterate that as well:

vs Cruz: Sanders +4, Rodham 0
vs Rubio: Sanders 0, Rodham -7
vs Trump: Sanders +10, Rodham +5

An average of 5.3 points better in November.  Not insignificant.  Just as it's hard not to notice that Rubio does, on average, 5.5 points better than Cruz and eleven points better than Trump.  If the idea of an election is to win it - I know, what a novel concept, right? - then Bernie Sanders and Marco Rubio would appear to be the ways to go for their respective parties.

If you're looking for an explanation for the Bern-feeling and Marcomentum, this one makes a whole lotta sense.


UPDATE II: The latest Reuters/Ipsos poll confirms Quinnipiac:

Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders has erased [Commissar] of State Hillary Clinton's wide lead for the Democrat presidential nomination since the start of year, putting the two in a dead heat nationally, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll. [Mrs.] Clinton leads Sanders 48% to 45% among Democrat voters, according to the poll of 512 Americans, conducted February 2-5 following the Iowa caucus. The poll has a credibility interval of five percentage points.

Thursday, February 04, 2016

Obama Finds Way To Raise Oil Prices & Bankrupt "Big Oil" At Same Time

by JASmius



And since that's not getting the job of bringing us ten dollar per gallon pump prices done, President Solyndra is opting for a more direct approach:

Barack Obama wants oil companies to pay a $10 tax for every barrel of oil to help fund investments in "clean" [i.e. no] transportation.

Obama will formalize the proposal Tuesday when he releases his final budget request to Congress. The $10-per-barrel fee is expected to be dead-on-arrival among Republicans who control Congress and oppose new taxes and Obama's energy policies.

Still, the White House hopes the proposal will drive a debate about the need to get energy producers to help fund efforts to fight climate change.

That is to say, steal more money from already impoverished American consumers, already mired in unemployment and economic misery, who need and want cheap gas to fuel their cars and heat and power their homes, and for whom the current low oil prices are a blessing, in order to force them to pay for yet more exorbitant, unwanted, inefficient, impractical, "green" boondoggles like traffic reduction, high-speed rail, cutting carbon dioxide emissions within regional transportation systems, and self-driving electric cars.  Another, even more hamfisted, jackbooted attempt to force us out of our cars and into public transit and onto bicycles and hippety-hops, and make every American city look like Hanoi and Saigon.

Thanks, Barry, but bleep you.  Which is the preemptive, collective response from the majority party on Capitol Hill:

Congressional Republicans vowed Thursday to kill Barack Obama's plan to add a $10-per-barrel tax on oil production to pay for "green" transportation projects, with House Speaker Paul Ryan calling it "dead on arrival" and "an election-year distraction."

"[Barack Obama] expects hard-working consumers to pay for his out-of-touch climate agenda," the Wisconsin Republican said. "A $10 tax for every barrel of oil produced would raise energy prices — hurting poor Americans the most.

"This announcement proves that Barack Obama is still on a mission to destroy a major backbone of the U.S. economy," Ryan said. "[Obama] should be proposing policies to grow our economy instead of sacrificing it to appease [communist] climate [extrem]ists."

Arkansas Senator Tom Cotton said Obama's plan "would be laughable if it didn't illustrate just how much he's lost touch with reality over the last seven years.

"While his plan might be applauded by environmentalists and big-city liberals, it would be a nightmare for working families," the senator said. "This proposal would effectively double the gas tax — at a time when Arkansas families are enjoying more affordable gas prices.

"Worse, that tax would unfairly target people in rural states like ours who use more gasoline."...

House Majority Whip Steve Scalise also repeated the "dead-on-arrival" pledge.

"From day one of Barack Obama's administration, he has waged open warfare on American energy — and his radical policies have cost jobs while increasing costs on hard-working families," the Louisiana Republican said. "Washington spending is already too high, and the best way to create more jobs and get our economy back on track is by cutting taxes and controlling spending."

Oklahoma Senator Jim Inhofe, chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, said the tax would "extinguish" the only job-growth sector in the American economy.

"One of the only bright spots in Barack Obama's anemic economy has been the jobs created by the oil and natural gas production industry, which has grown despite his policies," he said. "It is no surprise his [communist] leadership and petty partisanship would try to extinguish that economic contributor as well.

"Frankly, I'm unsure why [Obama] bothers to continue to send a budget to Congress," Inhofe continued. "He never submits one that balances — and even his own party members have not only voted against it but voted against it unanimously.

"America is ready for a new president."

Unfortunately, it's clear that Ryan and Cotton and Scalise and Inhofe still don't realize what is happening here.  For all that we're obsessing over the 2016 election, the fact of the matter is that that is all, ultimately, a distraction.  America is not going to get a new president, because the current one isn't going anywhere.  Just as his $10 a barrel oil tax isn't just a proposal he's including in his budget, but a notification of his next round of Executive Orders/memoranda/whatever the hell he's calling them now - imperial decrees, diktats, etc.  This effective doubling of the gas tax WILL be imposed, WILL be forced on us, WILL be shoved down our throats, no matter what Congress thinks of it.  They, and we, are powerless to resist.  The One is simply bestowing the gratuitously taunting courtesy of rubbing it in our faces in advance.

But don't worry, my friends, I'm sure that Congress, and/or the States, and/or the imperiled energy industry, will have their futile, time-wasting lawsuits against it on their launching pads, all ready to go.

New Obama Policy Forces Border Patrol Agents To Release All Illegal Aliens

by JASmius



There really haven't functionally been any U.S. immigration laws for a number of years now.  This just makes it even more overtly official:

A new federal stand-down order forces border patrol agents to release many illegal [alien]s they arrest — and bans the agents from ordering their return to a deportation hearing, according to the head of the agents' labor union.

The latter part is much less of a deal than it might sound, since 95+% of illegals never show up for their deportation hearings anyway.  It's the forcing of Border Patrol agents to turn them loose in the first place that's the outrage.

"Immigration laws today appear to be mere suggestions, there are little to no consequences for breaking the laws and that fact is well known in other countries," Brandon Judd, president of the National Border Patrol Council, said in testimony before the House Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security Thursday. [emphasis added]

Once again, it's all about incentives.  Nullify U.S. immigration laws, as the Obama Regime has illegally and unconstitutionally done, and the incentives for ever larger hordes of passive invaders to pour across the former border skyrocket.  Reverse those incentives - as I recall Mitt Romney suggesting four years ago with his eminently sensible "self-deportation" idea - and the influx would dwindle, and even reverse itself.

"If government agencies like [the {Commissariat} of Homeland {Ins}ecurity] or [Customs and Border {Redu}ction] are allowed to bypass Congress by legislating through policy, we might as well abolish our immigration laws altogether," he added.

May as well, since they've already erased our borders.  The inevitable result of (illegally) making it as easy as possible to come here illegally, whether across the former border or via visa overstays, and stay here permanently, enjoying all the benefits of citizenship - including voting - while actual citizens are forced to pay for it financially, economically, and culturally, and Democrats benefit from it electorally.  Which is, of course, the whole point of this "new" Obama border erasure policy.  It's simply the next step in a process long and irreversibly underway.

One that might be called "running up the score":

"Simply put, the new policy makes mandatory the release — without a [Notice to Appear] of any person arrested by the Border Patrol for being in the country illegally, as long as they don't have a previous felony arrest and conviction and as long as they claim to [have] been continuously in the United States since January of 2014," Judd explained.

"The operative word in this policy is 'claim'," he added. "The policy does not require the person to prove they've been here, which is the same burden placed on them during deportation — instead it simply requires them to claim to have been here since January of 2014." [emphases added]

Of course - because, in The Age Of The One, in which the only honor is among thieves, that is the only possible manifestation of the "honor system".

I mean el sistema de honor.  Lo sentimos, idioma incorrecto.


And, he said, agents not only are ordered to release the illegal [alien]s, "we do it without any means of tracking their whereabouts."
Naturally.  In a country where aliens are citizens and citizens are aliens, it's the citizens that are tracked, while the aliens roam free.

And, of course, elect Democrats.

Our mass deportation notices will be arriving any day now.  Only questions are when the Regime will start rounding us up and to where we'll be shipped off.

Hard Starboard Radio: Is Trump Following Carson Down The Drain?



Collapsing Cuban commie coffins; Meet Hillary Clinton, greedy capitalist; Chris Christie vows to stay in the race as long as it takes to put Donald Trump over the top; "Baltimore" is Ebonic for "hell"; After Iowa: Trump 25%, Cruz 21%, Rubio 21%....nationally; Ben Carson's campaign "streamlining"; and Texas pro-abortion prosecutor "offers" the wrong defendant probation.

Is sanity making a comeback in the GOP presidential primaries at 6PM Eastern/3PM Pacific?

Texas Pro-Abortion Prosecutor "Offers" The Wrong Defendant Probation

by JASmius



What a deal, huh?:

A [pro-life] activist indicted for using a fake driver's license ID to aid secret filming inside Planned Parenthood facilities turned himself into authorities in Houston on Thursday and was offered a probation deal, prosecutors said.

David Daleiden, indicted in January by a Houston-area grand jury, appeared briefly at Harris County District Court on the charge of tampering with a governmental record, which can bring up to twenty years in prison. He also faces a misdemeanor charge for trying to procure fetal tissue.

Which, if Planned Parenthood wasn't in the black market business of illegally selling it, would be an awfully....curious thing for Mr. Daleiden to have been doing, no?

Daleiden is leader of the California-based Center for Medical Progress that released the secretly filmed videos used to [expo]se the [baby-killing] group of trading in [slaughtered baby] tissue.

He was offered a probation deal typically reserved for non-violent offenders in which, if he keeps a clean record for a certain period, charges would be dropped, prosecutors said. [emphasis added]

To put it a lot more transparently, the Lauren Reeder-hijacked Harris County Prosecutors Office is "trafficking" in acts of blatant police-state intimidation in order to completely shut down and silence the pro-life movement permanently.  Mr. Daleiden's outrageous, justice-mocking criminal indictment in Planned Parenthood's rightful place is, in other words, a warning, both to him and to every American who dares oppose the continuing, wholesale, industrial slaughter of the innocent unborn: "If you oppose us in any way, shape, or form, we will destroy you."  If Mr. Daleiden capitulates, he and one of the most effective blows ever struck against the abortion industry and culture has been silenced and neutralized; if he tells them to go bleep themselves, they will make the ultimate example of him that, they believe, no other pro-lifer will ever want to follow or emulate.

And, perhaps, a martyr whose rallying cry will take the pro-life movement to the next level, and a place where baby-killers do not want it to go.  Is David Daleiden - who's only twenty-six - willing to effectively sacrifice his life for his cause?  We're about to find out.

Ben Carson's Campaign "Streamlining"

by JASmius



.....since we're not allowed to use the term "imploding" anymore.

But the look, sound, and smell sure is the same:

Ben Carson, the famed neurosurgeon whose bid for the Republican presidential nomination has struggled to keep pace with rivals, will cut more than fifty staff positions Thursday as part of an overhaul and downsizing of his campaign.

Salaries are being significantly reduced. Carson’s traveling entourage will shrink to only a handful of advisers. And instead of flying on private jets, Carson may soon return to commercial flights.

The employees being released — about half of Carson’s campaign — mostly work in field operations and at his headquarters in Northern Virginia.

Look, let me reiterate here what I've reiterated many times previously: I like Ben Carson.  I respect the man immensely.  He's more accomplished than I will ever be.  But...well, let me put it this way: Has there ever been ANY sort of organization that ever took this sort of step as a manifestation of its roaring success?

The comments of allegedly estranged Carson campaign....manager?  guru?  groupie? Armstrong Williams did nothing to change that perception:

“Dr. Carson is going to get his campaign lean — really lean,” Williams said in an interview. “One issue for a while has been too much infrastructure, and he has decided to fully address it so that he can sustain his campaign until the convention.” [emphasis added]

"Too much infrastructure"?  Is there any such thing in the business of presidential campaigns?  I suppose it depends on what "Run, Ben, Run!"'s organizational chart looked like.  Which suggests one, or equal portions of, two things: (1) Williams totally botched and mismanaged Carson's campaign - which would help explain why the two men are "estranged" - and/or (2) Ted Cruz was not wrong in his campaign's relaying that Dr. Carson is exiting the race, but merely premature.

After all, isn't what's coming up on the primary calendar pretty needful of more campaign infrastructure, not less?:

The campaign will move from two small-population States to the larger South Carolina, one place where Carson needs to win or come close enough to impress donors all over again. Ten days later comes Super Tuesday, where campaigns that hope to compete literally have to be fifteen places at once — or at least as many of those fifteen as possible to remain competitive.

Maybe Williams (or whomever) is just jettisoning the groupies, bloodsuckers, rent-seekers, and parasites.  But that only serves to illustrate that Carson 2016 was "under-infrastructured" to begin with, and never was capable of sustaining a full-fledged national campaign.

Which is sad for Gentle Ben, because I've always believed that his presidential candidacy was a notion foisted upon him by his fans, friends, and the groupies, bloodsuckers, rent-seekers, and parasites it attracted.  Ben Carson is a great man, but he was never more than a potential Surgeon-General in the world of politics.  Far better that he had never been schmoozed to delude himself otherwise, because his slow fade has long since crossed the threshold of being painful to watch.

After Iowa: Trump 25%, Cruz 21%, Rubio 21%....***Nationally***

by JASmius



Marcomentum, anyone?:

Trump’s 25% standing reflects a nine-point drop from our last national poll, which was taken the week before Christmas. It reflects an overall decline in Trump’s popularity with GOP voters. Trump’s favorability has dropped a net seventeen points, from a previous +24 standing at 58/34 to now just +7 at 48/41.Trump is particularly starting to struggle on the right - he’s dropped to third place with ‘very conservative’ voters at 19% with Cruz at 34% and Rubio at 22% outpacing him with that group.

Which is what happens when a Democrat mole takes off his mask too soon and starts frantically attacking Ted Cruz in Iowa from the left, using Democrat tactics and rhetoric.  Hell, even recovering Trumplicans Mark Levin and Rush Limbaugh noticed it.

He does still lead with moderates and ‘somewhat conservative’ voters to give him the overall advantage.

In other words, Trump is the "establishment"/RINO candidate.  Or "Mitt Romney without the manners".

Rubio is the candidate with the real momentum in the race. He’s up eight points from his 13% standing in our poll right before Christmas. Beyond that he’s seen a large spike in his favorability rating- it’s improved a net twenty-eight points from +15 at 49/34 to +43 at 64/21. That ties him with Ben Carson as being the most broadly popular candidate on the Republican side.

Things also bode well for Rubio as the field gets smaller in the coming weeks. In a four candidate field he gets 32% to 31% for Trump, 23% for Cruz, and 8% for Bush. In a three candidate field he gets 34% to 33% for Trump and 25% for Cruz. And in head to heads he leads both Trump (52/40) and Cruz (46/40). As other candidates drop out of the race Rubio is the most likely destination of their supporters. [emphasis added]

Now do you see why Chris Christie's Marco-phobia helps Donald Trump?  If the billionaire slumlord is the "establishment" candidate (and he is, as he was boasting just last week), and Senator Cruz is the Tea Party/"True Conservative" candidate (which he is), Rubio is the bridge between them that can bring all Republicans together and unify the party for the general election struggle to come.  The sunny, optimistic, Reaganesque hybrid of the two.  Or at least the closest thing to it we're going to get.  Because, once again, my Tea Party friends, anger does not sell in a general election, while a smile, a laugh, and an eye-twinkle does.  It's Marketing 101.

Will this overthrow Trump in New Hampshire?  Probably not.  Even applying the national post-Iowa polling shifts to the Granite State, the result is still Trump 24%, Rubio 18%, Cruz 15%.  But even Trump narrowly surviving in a State where he has such an overpowering "home court advantage," being from next-door New York, New Hampshire being a "blue" State, and his having led so crushingly for all these months only to limp across the finish line will continue the "loser" narrative his "upset" defeat at Senator Cruz's hands in Iowa on Monday started, with territory much more favorable to his two younger opponents looming on the primary calendar.

The intriguing question going forward will be how Trump can possibly reinvent himself in order to regain his "alpha male" manly swagger mojo when he's pretty much been everyone and everything at least once already.  It's kind of like the time Daffy Duck finally brought the house down....



....or as Montgomery Scott once said:



"Baltimore" Is Ebonic For "Hell"

by JASmius



Remember this guy?  DeRay McKesson, the #BlackLivesMatter racist extremist insurrectionist who got a plumb gig as a guest lecturer at Yale University the school year?  Guess for what plumb gig he's one of the front-runners now:

In a surprise move, [racist extremist insurrectionist] DeRay Mckesson jumped into the already crowded contest for Baltimore mayor Wednesday night, shaking up the Democrat field minutes before the deadline to file.

IOW, the general election field, since I'll land another accounting job before "Charm City" elects a Republican as its mayor.

“Baltimore is a city of promise and possibility,” the Black Lives Matter [rebel] told the Baltimore Sun. “We can’t rely on traditional pathways to politics and the traditional politicians who walk those paths if we want transformational change.”

Sounds simultaneously Obamunist and Tea Party-esque, doesn't he?  And yes, that was meant to singe your toes, TPers, and prompt, perhaps, a bit of soul-searching on your parts.

He said he planned to release a platform within a week. He said it would include a call for internal school system audits to be made public.

And, you know, end “broken windows” policing (which is a proven crime reduction technique), increase community oversight of police (which is a proven crime-encouragement technique) and limit use of force (which is a proven technique for producing mountains of dead cops and runaway violence, rioting, and societal breakdown, leading to full-fledged communist revolution) among other goals.

See why "Mr." McKesson is one of the front-runners for the Baltimore mayoralty?  His only obstacle is Sheila Dixon, the former mayor (preceding the departing Stephanie "Give Them Room To Destroy" Blake) who is merely an embezzler, all-around crook, and convicted felon.

It almost makes you wonder where Maryland State attorney Marilyn Mosby is, other than riding her politicized, overcharged prosecutions of the Baltimore Six straight into the flaming ground, without which my guess would have been launching her U.S. Senate campaign to succeed the retiring Barbara Milkulski.  But her hubby, Nick, is running in her place, so don't worry, dear rioters, all is well.

BERNIE AND THE CLINTONS – THE PARTY OF OLD WHITE PEOPLE

By Allan McNew

Bernie Sanders is a fascinating study for me. The rumpled Senator, perpetually looking like he has endured several days sleeping in an airport lobby because all flights were grounded due to a bad storm, is easy to imagine as still sitting in the front row of the very first showing in 1967 of the musical “Hair”, or perhaps throwing off his clothes to cavort around naked in a haze of marijuana smoke while attending a long ago Grateful Dead concert.

Even though he appears to have some blind spots concerning self awareness as well as apparent denial as to the true nature of the far left elite he would need to implement his described agenda – an elite whose base self interest is the direct opposite of what they profess to endorse for society – Bernie appears to truly believe what he says. It's as though Cervantes wrote the screen play of “Mr Sanders Goes to Washington” and the film is rolling before our eyes with Don Sanders in rusted armor assaulting Wall Street astride the broken down, old nag Rocinante. Throw in Vice Presidential candidate Sancho Panza, always on the lookout for his next scarce meal, and the lovely, yet elusive, White House aide Dulcinea del Toboso, the best salter of pork in the public domain – whose virtue will never allow her to wear a blue dress in the White House. Something about precedence.

For all the stuff on his political platform he can't realistically deliver at this time in space, Sanders embraces his ideology, proudly proclaiming to be an unapologetic socialist. Unlike Bernie, the whole mass of socialist poltroons comprising the Democratic party are in the political closet, hiding behind the label of “progressive”.

Even though the Bern is wrapped in an impractical version of far left ideology, it's hard for me – as I understand him - to not like and respect Sanders for saying what he truly believes, as ungrounded in reality as it may at times be. It's a rare quality in the political world.

On the other hand, there are the Clintons. I remember how energetic Bill Clinton looked as President in 1993, the day he got that $200.00 haircut on the public dime in Airforce One with the engines running while blocking a couple of runways, which prompted former presidential candidate Ross Perot to grab someone to film himself (Perot) getting a $15.00 haircut, which Perot paid for out of his own pocket. Bill looked really bad standing behind Hillary as she gave her pre-emptive speech for the 2015 Iowa primary, in which Sanders came out of nowhere for an election draw. Mouth slightly agape, eyes vacant, hollow cheeked, geriatric white hair, Bill looked like he had been wheeled out of the old folks home, all that was missing was a portable oxygen canister with tubing to his nose and a wheelchair.

It's ironic that calculating, presumptuous, political chameleon Hillary Clinton was in the Watergate posse that was part of Nixon's demise, and all these years later Hillary now has an FBI investigation up her skirt.

As I write about the Clintons, I'm getting a bad taste in my mouth. I could go on for hours about their fifty some odd years in politics, but I think I'll go take a bath instead, wash some of that off me.

Bernie's much more fun.

Author's Note: That title sounds like it belongs on an LP album jacket of a late 60's garage band release, doesn't it?

Editor's Note: Bernie may be more fun now, but if Hillary were to win, as Rome burned, at least we'd be laughing at Bill Clinton's sexual exploits.  The End-Times Comedians would have plenty of fodder for jokes in their act, thanks to Bill, too.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Chris Christie Vows To Stay In Race As Long As It Takes To Put Donald Trump Over The Top

by JASmius



His ostensible reason is to stop Marco Rubio at all costs - including, presumably, clinching Trump's hostile takeover of the GOP on La Clinton Nostra's behalf - which I guess means that he's taking the "F**K RUBIO!!!" baton from the plaintively pathetic Jeb Bush, who now has been reduced to begging stonily silent audiences to applaud his speeches.

There are two ironies to this corpulent obstinacy.  The first is that the Big Man's ostensible justification is one that I would ordinarily heartily endorse - executive experience:

Governor Chris Christie says Marco Rubio doesn’t have the experience to be president, and that he won’t drop out of the race even if the Florida senator beats him.

“He just doesn’t have any experience. All he has is experience of being a legislator,” Christie said on Good Morning America today. “We’ve tried that as a party and as a country and it doesn’t work.”

Indeed, it doesn't.  Double-C is absolutely right about that.  The U.S. political history of the past century devastatingly proves it.  Only three senators have been elected president since 1920 - Warren Harding, John Kennedy, and Barack Obama - and the first two were mediocrities (before dying in office) while the latter has, of course, been a complete, unmitigated disaster.  Whereas the most hailed, heralded, and successful POTUSes - FDR and Reagan come immediately to mind - have been governors.

And how has the embarrassment of gubernatorial riches with which the GOP started out this campaign fared thus far?

Scott Walker, Rick Perry, Bobby Jindal (my top three favorites in that order, as it happened): Out

Jeb Bush, John Kasich, and yes, Chris Christie: cellar-dwellers in Iowa and in the New Hampshire polls.

Behold, the wages of Trumpmania.  Which the Jersey Dirigible is now stubbornly reinforcing.

Christie’s argument centers around Rubio’s age – forty-four....

Not particularly persuasive given that he was only forty-seven himself when he ran for governor of New Jersey.

....and that he is not a strong enough candidate to take on Hillary Clinton in the general election if she wins the Democrat nomination.

Despite the fact that Rubio is the strongest of all the top GOP candidates in hypothetical head-to-head matchups.

“We need to make sure we nominate someone who not only can beat Hillary Clinton but also can manage the government and get it back on the right track once they’re elected president of the United States,” Christie, fifty-three, argued. “No need to take those chances on someone who’s never managed anything larger than a thirty-person senate staff.”

The same argument I've been making for over thirty years.  However, the Republican electorate has gone stark-raving mad this cycle, and there is now a far worse outcome than nominating a wet-behind-the-ears freshman senator, Governor....



....an outcome your continued pointless presence in the GOP race can only make more likely by keeping the anti-Trump vote more divided.

The fact that Jeb Bush for months, and now Chris Christie, have been at bitter war with Marco Rubio has only served to reinforce the perception that the Florida senator is a RINO/"establishment" candidate, one that grew out of his rookie mistake in lending his name and face to the most recent attempt at "comprehensive immigration reform".  Rubio is leading the "establishment lane" to the nomination, so the "thinking" goes, so that's why Bush and now Christie are trying to blow Rubio up.

That revisionist Tea Party labeling of Rubio has never set well with me.  It goes right to the heart of how TPers have drained the term "establishment" of any real meaning by lumping any pol who isn't 100% "pure," who stumbles or makes even a single mistake - like Paul Ryan or, yes, Marco Rubio - in with genuine RINOs like John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Susan Collins, Peter King, etc.  Rubio was one of the 2010 Tea Party superstars, the guy who took down genuine RINO sellout (literally) "Sorry Charlie" Crist.  Yes, he's made some mistakes - amnesty, waving the white flag on sodomarriage - but there's more to RINOism than just screwing up once or twice; there's a leftish attitude that goes with it.  A general hostility to conservatism and conservatives that isn't remotely present with most of the Republicans Tea Partiers have excommunicated the past few years - particularly Marco Rubio.

But don't take it from me, take it from the slowly recovering ex-Trumpmaniac....Rush Limbaugh:

"I don't like this idea that Marco Rubio is all of a sudden being labeled as an establishment candidate. I know that Rubio's got the baggage of that 'gang of eight' bill...I understand that. But I'm here to -- Marco Rubio is no moderate Republican centrist...I'm just telling you, I don't see Marco Rubio as anything other than a legitimate, full-throated conservative. Nobody's pure and nobody is ever free of making mistakes. I know Senator Rubio...I don't like his idea that we're all of a sudden going to make Rubio the establishment bad guy, as though Rubio is no different from the McCains, and the Bob Doles, and the Romneys, and the others that have come along and been nominated by the establishment. He just isn't." [emphasis added]



This is not an endorsement of Senator Rubio on my part.  I made my endorsement over two years ago when I first started touting Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker in November of 2013.  What it is is an attempt to restore some degree of perspective in Tea Party minds that Rubes is no RINO pariah or turncoat, but a "legitimate, full-throated", admittedly imperfect, and non-angry conservative, the latter Reaganesque trait of which is most of why, contra the Big Man, Marco Rubio really is the most electable Republican in the field for this November.

And no, that is not an implication on my part that Ted Cruz isn't electable.  The only unelectable candidate in the Republican field for this November is Donald Trump, over whom I would take ANYBODY else in that field.  It just so happens that Rubio and Cruz are the only other candidates standing.  For ALL Republicans, including Trumplicans, that should not be a difficult choice.

Meet Hillary Clinton, Greedy Capitalist

by JASmius



Everybody, including Herself herself, knows that the leftwingnut extremist base of the Democrat Party loathes and distrusts Hillary Rodham Clinton for many reasons, but most prominent among them because she is a greedy, money-grubbing corruptress that is the Chrysler Building of hypocrisy when she makes her screeching communist panderings, as she has been doing non-stop for the past year in a frantic effort to preempt Elizabeth Warren and then stay ahead of, or even with, "Weekend Bernie" Sanders.

Now I will cut her some slack for the quote below because she was in a presumably friendly media setting at last night's New Hampshire town hall gathering and was probably at least somewhat justified in not seeing this question coming.   But was she really, truly, not better prepared for a question about why she accepted almost seven hundred grand in speaking fees from Wall Street titan Goldman Sachs than this?:

Hillary Clinton gave no ground to Bernie Sanders over her [communist] credentials at a televised forum Wednesday night, but the most notable moment came when [Mrs.] Clinton was forced to answer a question about her Wall Street ties from moderator Anderson Cooper.

The night featured few fireworks, but [Mrs.] Clinton found herself on the defensive when presented with one of Sanders’ key talking points: that she shouldn’t have taken high amounts of speaking fees from Goldman Sachs.

“Well, I don’t know.....

The three words you are NEVER, EVER supposed to say when running for POTUS.  Especially if you are The Smartest Woman In The World.

....That’s what they offered,” she said when asked whether she needed to be paid for three speeches amounting to $675,000, which Sanders often points to as evidence that she is beholden to Wall Street.



Heavens to Murgatroyd.  In those four words she just validated everything Sanders has said about her Wall Street umbilical.  Hell, the answer wasn't even responsive to the question - Why did she NEED to be paid for those GS speeches? - which could have afforded her an on-ramp for more of her "pleading poverty" BS, at least.  She can't think on her sensibly-shoed feet at all, can she?

And then the toe-curling got so bad that it sent viewers' tootsies straight through their plantar fascias:

Every [commissar and] secretary of state that I know has done that.”



You mean like Condoleeza Rice?  Colin Powell?  James Baker?  George Schultz?  Alexander Haig?  Henry Kissinger?  Or does she really ONLY know Democrat CoS's?





You know how I've been saying for years that the Donk "establishment" has no more enthusiasm for Her Nib than the Donk grassroots, but they feel a "Gotta go to the dentist/Gotta eat our brussel sprouts because it's/they're good for us" nose-holding duty to give hoisting the old puffgut into her decades-long infernal power dream the "old college try"?  And how the media, along those same lines, is desperately rooting for her to do something, ANYTHING, to make that thankless, unglamorous, back-breaking job easier so as to spare them metaphorical hernias?  And how when she screws the pooch this badly, they can't contain their wincing and cringing?

Behold the leftwing Tweetosphere at that moment:

One thing that hasn't changed for the last two years: Clinton really doesn't have a solid answer on paid speeches.https://twitter.com/danmericaCNN/status/695090690817200128 

Wow. Spectacularly bad answer on Goldman Sachs speeches, even though she must have known it was coming.

Man this segment on the Goldman speeches is just brutal.

Clinton’s answer for why she took Wall Street speaking fees is because she wasn’t sure at the time she was going to run for president

This segment wasn't just brutal, Mr. White; it will be in every Bernie Sanders ad from here to the finish line.

Now, to be fair, there really wasn't any good answer that Mrs. Clinton could have given to this question.  But what was the best answer she could have offered up?  If I were advising her, I would have told her to apologize for taking the Goldman Sachs cash.  After all, an apology is a get-out-of-jail-free card for liberals, isn't it?  Just say "I'm sorry" and pretend to be contrite and that makes everything all better for them.  Just apologize and promise never to do it again and that'll be that.

Of course, everybody would know it was phony-baloney, plastic-banana, good-time-rock&roll horse manure.   But when a leftie says those words, his/her listeners are morally obligated to take them at face value, right?

The obstacle, of course, is that by even pretending to apologize, that implies an admission of being....wrong.  A confession that Hillary Clinton is as incapable of making as Arthur Fonzerelli....



....no matter how contemptuously insincere it would have been.  Which just illustrates all over again how terrible a liar the Ugly Dutchess is that she wasn't even willing to make the attempt, but lamely fell back on her "I"m just a [filthy, stinking rich] little old grandmother" routine.

See what we might have to look forward to for the next five years?

That and angry, mendacious scandal denials:

Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign is crying foul over details being released about emails that were forwarded to the private email server she used while [commissar] of state, saying "selective details," — including information that the some of the communications referred to undercover CIA officers — are being leaked to give a false impression of the communications.

"This shows yet again how the leaking of selective details gives a completely false impression about what is actually contained in the emails forwarded to Hillary Clinton," [Rodham] campaign spokesman Brian Fallon told NBC News.

"Whenever the full contents of these emails are learned, there is invariably less than meets the eye."

Uh-huh:

A Republican member of the House Intelligence Committee said Wednesday that the State [Commissariat] has classified seven more of Hillary Clinton's private emails as "top secret."

"There are more than twenty-two, and it's not just one or two more," Representative Chris Stewart told the Washington Examiner, referring to the twenty-two emails deemed top secret by the State [Commissariat] last week. "It's a more meaningful number than that."...

"These were classified at the top secret level, and in some cases, above that," he said.

Stewart said his years of experience handling highly classified material allowed him to recognize immediately the sensitive nature of [Mrs.] Clinton's emails. The Utah-2 Republican said he had never seen anything more sensitive than the information contained within the emails.

"They do reveal classified methods, they do reveal classified sources, and they do reveal human assets," he said during an appearance on Fox's America's Newsroom earlier in the day.

On second thought, we'll only have the next year to look forward to Herself's angry, mendacious denials about THIS scandal, because after she's safely elected, it would become "old news".  And it will, of course, take even her some time to generate all the new future scandals to come.

Just thought I would provide that clarification.

Oh, and the House Oversight Committee will be kicking off their own Emailgate investigation, FWIW.