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

Tuesday, November 24, 2015

Hard Starboard Radio: Unserious

The British spoil the global Greenapalooza party; Iowa Carson support shifting dramatically to Ted Cruz; Louisiana turns "blue"; Iranian war games simulate "liberation" of Jerusalem; Obama maintains pro-ISIS tone; Obama's lectern vs. Putin's tanks; Illegal aliens gush across the U.S. southern border at a record rate; Senate Democrats hold Syrian "refugee" cutoff hostage to gun control; and the American people are still not serious about ISIS.

We, however, are serious as a myocardial infarction at 6PM Eastern/3PM Pacific.

Why We're Losing To ISIS

by JASmius

Read it and literally weep.  Or crap your pants.  Whichever works best for you:

The U.S. military intended to "destroy every truck" during a second wave of attacks on ISIS-controlled oil tankers in Syria this weekend, Army Colonel Steven Warren, spokesman for the U.S. "coalition" "fighting" the insurgents said Tuesday, but they ran out of ammunition first.

"The desire was to destroy every single truck there," Warren said at a news briefing, where he played video of ISIS fuel tankers either being shot by machine gun fire from the air or being bombed, reports

All of the trucks were targeted, Warren said, showing a video with "the good shots that you'd like." [emphasis added]

Apparently we didn't run out of warning leaflets, though.

In the words of Volstagg....

...."We're doomed".

Iranian Hackers Attack State Department

by JASmius

Wasn't giving the mullahs nukes supposed to get them to leave us alone?  Didn't Barack Obama make them our friends?  What the hell?:

American officials and private security groups say they see a surge in sophisticated cyberespionage by Iran with a series of cyberattacks against State Department officials. The New York Times reports that the latest information on the cyberattacks comes just four months after a "historic" accord with Tehran to l[aunch] its atomic ambitions.

Though the Iranians' cyberskills are not yet comparable to those of Russia or [Red] China, still American officials have concluded that cyberespionage "is becoming a tool to obtain the influence that many in Iran hoped the nuclear program would give the country."

You speak of it as an either/or proposition.  Clearly they're building upon the momentum of having skunked Barack Obama at the negotiating table, expanding into every possible tool of warfare to use against the "pitiful, helpless former giant" that they most definitely have on the run.

And this is Foggy Bottom we're talking about, an organization that won't even use free anti-virus software and is to cybersecurity what Miley Cyrus would be to a convent.  Which means the mullahs have looted a helluva lot more than just social media content and the email archives of high-ranking State officials.

Here's a thought: If the Iranians want to gain access to U.S. secrets, why aren't they just contacting their Russian and ChiComm allies and requesting that they send over a copy?  Or would even that be more difficult than just directly helping themselves?

The Senator California Deserves

by JASmius

State attorney-generaless Kamala Harris is what Barack Obama was before the "operation".  Unfortunately for her and him, "gender reassignment" doesn't adjust attitides:

The California Attorney General — who has close ties to Barack Obama [natch] — remains the prohibitive favorite to win the Democratic nomination to succeed retiring Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and win election to the Senate, but the problems are leading to calls for additional changes.

Critics point to Harris’s own personality as the reason for some of the problems.

Here we go.

“She’s perceived as very, very difficult to work for,” one strategist familiar with the campaign told the Hill. “She doesn’t have real relationships and partnerships. She has acquaintances.”....

She's a bitch.

“Here she is, she’s running for Senate, as an African-American woman, she should be raising gobs of money,” the source said. “The fact that she’s raising one and a half to two million a quarter, is absurd.

And how can that be?  Because she won't hold her hand out, she won't schmooze, she won't troll fundraisers, she won't pass the tin cup.  She expects it all to be handed to her by divine right, Obama donors and bundlers to instinctively bow down to her as they have The One for all these years.  That they're not is, I admit, an at least moderate miracle, seeing as she's the synthesis of Barack Obama AND Hillary Clinton.

“She expects fundraisers who helped Obama to help her…She gets upset when donors don’t flock to her, it drives her crazy that she actually has to meet and talk with people,” the source added.

On second thought, maybe that does explain it.

I'd throw in a slam on California having the same dopey open primary system that Washington does, but given that the Republican Party is essentially dead in that State, it probably doesn't matter.

So here's your choice to replace the national embarrassment of Senator "Don't Call Me M'am," Acupulco Golden Staters: Kamala Harris (aka Barack Obama in drag) or Loretta Brixie (her maiden name was Sanchez), the woman who destroyed Bob Dornan's congressional career.  Talk about a triangle of doom.

I mean, at least up here, we'll be able to actually put up a Pachyderm to get ritualistically butchered by Peppermint Patty.....

Ted Cruz Blowing Past Carson & Trump In Iowa?

by JASmius

On the one hand, this is a huge sign of progress on the Republican electorate finally shaking off its "We need an outsider who has no idea what he's doing!" mantra; on the other hand, it's shooting down the only candidate in the field that had actually surpassed the lone Democrat mole candidate. So is this truly progress, or is this the conservative electorate - in Iowa, in this instance - splintering again while Donald Trump cruises to the GOP nomination?

- Me, three days ago

That question appears to have been seismically answered - again, in Iowa, at least:

Ted Cruz, buoyed by Tea Party support and the backing of the conservative wing of the Republican Party, has surged to a virtual tie with Donald Trump in the first caucus State of Iowa, according to the results of a Quinnipiac University poll surveying likely Republican caucus-goers released Tuesday.

Trump took 25% of support, followed by 23% who opted for the freshman Texas senator, more than doubling his support in the same poll from October, when he earned just 10%. Trailing the two leaders is Ben Carson, who dropped from first to third, falling ten points to 18%.

Of the top three, here are the changes in the Q-poll over the past month:

Cruz +13
Trump +5
Carson -10

Again, I can see the superficial rationale of the shift from Carson to Cruz - the Islamic State's attack on Paris and al Qaeda's attack in the Malian capital over the past couple of weeks have boosted the perceived importance of perceived strength over steadiness and calm in the leadership trait goodie box.  I could believe that rationale was more than just superficial if Trump had lost ten points as well to either Cruz or Marco Rubio, but that's not the case.  Trump gained ground, despite being as big a foreign policy know-nothing as Dr. C.  Which tells me this shift isn't nearly as much about foreign policy experience as it is GOP voters' flawed belief that what we need is a "FIGHT!  FIGHT!  FIGHT!" POTUS who shoots off his mouth without being able to cash the checks his piehole is writing.  That, of course, is not true strength, because as we're all supposed to have learned sometime in childhood, if you're really, truly tough, you don't have to go around proving it to everybody you meet.

Allahpundit makes a good point today about Senator Cruz being the biggest beneficiary of Trump's presence in the race because against nobody else could Cruz be contrasted as being a "reasonable" alternative.  But I'm detecting the same disheartening vibe developing as did in the fall of 2011, as one conservative challenger after another rose up seemingly to take on the "establishment's" Mitt Romney only to fade after a few weeks.  Ben Carson's surge past Trump seemed to have staying power, arising in late August and lasting through September and October, but post-Paris, his flavor of the month(s) is fading, and now the Cruz rise looks like he's simply taking his turn in the spotlight, after which he'll dwindle back to the pack as well.  I hope and pray I'm wrong about that - and bear in mind that I'm no fan of Cruz's temperment or electability - or that there's still time for Marco Rubio to get his turn and turn it into a true turning point if Cruz can't do it - but I'm growing less and less able to convince myself of that possibility, rather like the Seattle Seahawks' vanishing playoff chances.

But even if Cruz were to win the Iowa caucuses, the same additional argument would apply of the previous two Iowa winners - Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum - going nowhere after their standalone triumphs, there evangelical cred not carrying over to any other State.  Cruz would presumably have a better chance of doing so, but we'll have to see if that manifests itself in national and other State surveys.

Supposedly over half of Iowa voters haven't made up their minds completely yet, so theoretically all of this could still turn upside down.  But polling is about trends, not voter fickleness, and the trends are not encouraging, not by a long shot.

Turks Shoot Down Russian Bomber

by JASmius

Turkey, if you check your programs, is anti-Assad. Russia and Iran are pro-Assad. And now they're shooting at each other. The Turks vow to shoot down more Russian warplanes if they violate Turkish airspace. The Russians promise it will "never happen again" despite the fact that it has happened repeatedly and there's no reason to believe it won't continue. Technically, in fact, Russia and Turkey are now in a state of war. And since Turkey is, technically, still a member of NATO, that means Russia and NATO are, technically, in a state of war, which means Russia and the United States are, technically, in a state of war.

- Me, six weeks ago

And now Turkey has made good on their threat against what Vladimir Putin vowed would "never happen again" but has been happening repeatedly and consistently:

Turkish fighter jets shot down a Russian warplane near the Syrian border on Tuesday after repeated warnings over air space violations, but Moscow said it could prove the jet had not left Syrian air space.

It was the [second] time [in a month] a NATO member's armed forces have downed a Russian or Soviet military aircraft since the 1950s and Russian and Turkish assets fell on fears of an escalation between the former [?] Cold War enemies.

Russian President Vladimir Putin accused Turkey of being accomplices of terrorism, warning of “very serious consequences” for relations.

“We understand that everyone has their own interests but we won’t allow such crimes to take place,” Putin said at talks with Jordanian King Abdullah in Sochi. “We received a stab in the back from accomplices of terrorism.”

That was certainly a much angrier reaction than the Kremlin evinced six weeks ago.  Since the MiG-29 Fulcrum was shot down last month, Putin looked to be pivoting off of that incident to draw the Turks away from NATO and into the Russian orbit.  Today's downing of the Sukhoi-24 Fencer - which killed one of its two occupants - would appear to at least put that psy-op on hold.  Perhaps the Russian strongman is harrumphing a bit louder to remind the Turks of which country in this equation is the "strong horse," but this reminds us once again that a Russo-Turkish war means a Russo-NATO war which means a Russo-American war.  Unless NATO opts to expel Turkey out of fear of that conflict, in which case we'd have finished making another not-informidable (especially now that Barack Obama has denuded U.S. military capabilities) Middle East enemy, and lost the northern air base at Incirclik that we had finally succeeded in wheedling the Turks to re-allow us to use,

But Russia and Turkey would still be at war, the focus on Syria and ISIS would be completely lost, and Czar Vlad would be highly unlikely to let us off  the hook for what the Turks have done in their capacity as a NATO member state, even though Obama has forfeited all U.S. influence in that part of the world (and every other part, really).

Viva "Smart Power"!

The Turks appear to be at least somewhat alarmed:

Turkish F-16 [Falcons] warned the jet over the airspace violations before shooting it down, the military official told Reuters.

Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu has spoken with the chief of military staff and the foreign minister about the developments on the Syrian border, the prime minister’s office said in a statement, without mentioning the downed jet.

Sounds like Davutoglu took both his subordinates to the proverbial woodshed.

He has ordered the foreign ministry to consult with NATO, the United Nations and related countries on the latest developments, his office said.

The foreign policy equivalent of firing up the Bat signal.

John Bolton thinks we should preemptively tell Putin to back off any thoughts of retaliation, which is both two years too late policywise and many, many metaphorical dollars short since we have no practical means of backing up such a quasi-ultimatum, even if there was the slightest possibility that Barack Obama might do so.  Marco Rubio, on the other hand, is of the opinion that such an ultimatum is unnecessary because Putin won't press his luck:

"At the end of the day, although Vladimir Putin is a gangster and a criminal, he's also a geopolitical actor who makes decisions on a cost benefit analysis," the Florida Republican senator told Fox News' Happening Now program. "He will have to save face, but ultimately he won't test the alliance if the alliance stands up [to] him, because he would lose in that confrontation, and that would be a bigger setback for him."

I don't think Putin would lose in that confrontation even if we - oh, my apologies, "NATO" - did stand up to him, because the Russians, in concert with the Kremlin's ChiComm allies, have military superiority over the U.S., to say nothing of its other twenty-seven pathetic, toothless, defenseless member states.  And, of course, there's no way in seventy-two blue hells that Barack Obama is ever going to stand up to Vladimir Putin, other than in that faculty lounge lizard pedantry of his that might split France off from NATO and into the Russian orbit in Turkey's place.

Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson used to have a famous catch-phrase he'd use on hapless WW[E] announcers and opponents:

On the world stage, Vladimir Putin is The Rock, and Barack Obama is Michael Cole.

And that stage is in the process of burning down - in a Turkish minute.

UPDATE: Here's The One to remind us all of the REAL threat, and his "shit just got REAL!" badassery in standing up to it.

ACLU Sues Indiana To Force Syrian "Refugee" Invasion

by JASmius

Welcome, dear readers to another addition of "'Constitutional' means anything on the Agenda of Barack Obama and the Left" Theater.  Today, courtesy of the ACLU, we revisit what the Supremacy Clause does and does not actually mean, with an Article IV, Section 4 chaser:

The American Civil Liberties Union on Monday sued Indiana Governor Mike Pence over his refusal to allow refugees fleeing Syria's civil war to resettle in the State, saying his position violates federal authority and the U.S. Constitution.

Pence is one of [thirty-one] governors....who have publicly called on Barack Obama to stop resettling Syrian refugees following the November 13th attacks in Paris that killed 130 people.

The governors cited concerns that some refugees [are] associated with Islamic State [jihadist]s.

In the lawsuit, the ACLU said decisions concerning immigration and refugee resettlement are exclusively the province of the federal government and cannot be dictated by State officials.

"Attempts to pre-empt that authority violate both equal protection and civil rights laws and intrude on authority that is exclusively federal," ACLU of Indiana legal director Ken Falk said in a statement.

Wrong and wrong.

Article IV, Section 4:

The United States shall....protect [every State in this Union] against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence. [emphasis added]

Far from being empowered to force States to be invaded by violent hostiles, the federal government is required to protect the States from both invasion and terrorism.  And it has been conclusively proven that ISIS has massively infiltrated the Syrian "refugee" stream.  So it is, in fact, Barack Obama who is violating HIS constitutional obligations, not, in this case, Governor Mike Pence.

Furthermore, immigration is a concurrent power of both the federal government and the States.  Indeed, the only passage in the founding document that specifically empowers the federal government on immigration matters is Article I, Section 9, which states:

The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year [1808], but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person. [emphasis added]

This clause pertained to the Atlantic slave trade, for historical reference.  But here as well, the States clearly had the right of first refusal on immigration into their territories, a legal precedent if ever there was one.

Lastly, let us recall precisely what the Supremacy Clause says and what it does not say:

Article VI, Clause 2:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof, and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land, and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. [emphases added]

i.e. Only constitutional federal laws are the "supreme Law of the Land".  And nothing in the Constitution empowers the federal government to force States to accept "immigrants" or "refugees" they do not want to accept.  Ergo, Governor Pence, and every other State chief executive in the country who does not wish to allow the Islamic State to smuggle jihadists into their communities to wreak havoc and mayhem on their citizens abso-damn-lutely well have the legal and constitutional authority to close the metaphorical gates and tell Barack Obama, "This far, no further".

But I'm sure the ACLU has judge-shopped quite effectively, and while the Seventh Circuit has a 9-3 Republican-appointed majority (with two vacancies), this is the same Seventh Circuit that sided with Planned Parenthood yesterday, so YMMV.  I just hope this case reaches the SCOTUS while there are any federal judges left alive to hear it.

Monday, November 23, 2015

Obama Regime Blatantly Covered Up How ISIS Was Kicking Their Asses

by JASmius

Nothing new and almost obligatory if he was going to keep this fraud going for the (God willing) last two and a half years of his misrule.  You can't pretend to fight a war you're not actually fighting and actually produce victories on the ground; sooner or later it would get out that the Islamic State was unaffected by our supposed martial efforts and continuing to expand unchecked, unfettered, and unopposed.  And that would be....awkward.

So Obama lied.  And he forced the entire U.S. national security apparatus to become flagrant liars as well:

Intelligence analysts at U.S. Central Command were told in emails to hold back reports showing the true strength of the Islamic State (ISIS), Fox News reports.

Fox quoted a source close to CENTCOM as saying the emails contained the lines "cut it out" and "toe the line."

President Barack Obama had been describing ISIS as a "JV squad" and was painting a picture that it was being defeated. Instead, the group continued to gain more territory for its hard-line caliphate in Iraq and Syria.

A Pentagon official told Fox News someone attempted to destroy the emails, which are now in the hands of the Pentagon inspector general. The IG probe was initiated following complaints that information had been changed to make it look like ISIS had been weakened more than it actually had been.

So the White House ordered the Obamagon and U.S. intelligence agencies to cover up his ISIS fraud, and then they ordered the Obamagon and U.S. intelligence agencies to cover up the cover-up.  And now it's blown up in his face - wait, strike that, it's blown up in Francois Hollande's face, but O could feel the heat all the way over here.  But the heat is not enough for the American people to finally rise up and either force an actual war against ISIS or force him out of power altogether, and so The One will continue ride his pro-jihad foreign policy straight into the next skyscraper, secure in the knowledge that none of the flaming jet fuel will singe him and that however many thousands or tens of thousands of hundreds of thousands or millions of Americans have to be sacrificed to the fight against "Islamophobia," they will not have been slaughtered in vain.

But have no fear, ladies and gentlemen, O has already vowed to (I swear I'm not making this up) "get to the bottom" of his own cover-up cover-up.

The worst part of this story, though, is that even the military and intelligence poobahs who didn't succumb to this totalitarian reality-hijacking still don't get the truth about Islam:

"I think this issue of not meeting a narrative out of the White House, which meant, don't talk about radical Islam, don't talk about this as being a form of a radicalization of the Islamic religion, which, if fact, it is," [former DIA director General Michael] Flynn said. "It is a cancer inside the Islamic religion, and the White House and the president, frankly, has not wanted to say that." [emphases added]

No, Director/General, "radical Islam" (pardon the redundancy) is not a "cancer inside the Islamic religiou," it IS the Islamic religion.  Global Islam is 10% violent jihadists and 90% jihad sympathizers, but they are ALL jihadists of one function or another.  Flynn's crippling misconception is essentially the Bush43 middle-ground stance, which contributed mightily to his not getting the job done in the Middle East by leaving Iran and Syria unliberated as well as trying to take the Wilsonian "freedom is the desire of every human heart" democracy shortcut instead of the all-out war to crush Islam once and for all (akin to how Germany was de-Nazified and Japan was demilitarized after the West wiped out both in World War II).  Ironically, that is the one and only path to the kind of apostasization of Islam that the Left demands we delude ourselves into believing is the reality on the ground today.

One is the narrow path to civilizational survival; the other, the road to cultural and physical destruction.  But, to borrow an Agent K line from Men In Black that excruciatingly fits Obama Middle East foreign policy in general and ISIS in particular, "The only way these people can get on with their happy lives is that they do....not....KNOW ABOUT IT!"

Until we're messily slaughtered, that is.

Then we won't know anything at all.

And that suits Barack Obama just fine.

Seventh Circuit Unconstitutionally Declares Wisconsin Abortion Law Unconstitutional

by JASmius

Alternate headline: "Planned Parenthood [bleep]s Scott Walker without protection".

Makes me wish cheesehead Republicans had at least gotten their money's worth on the bill whose homicide the Seventh Circuit upheld:

A Wisconsin law that requires abortion providers to get admitting privileges at nearby hospitals is unconstitutional, a federal appeals court panel ruled Friday.

That was it, folks.  No restriction on abortion; no "banned after twenty weeks," no parental notification, not even a requirement that the mother has to be shown an ultrasound picture of her child with his/her little beating heart and ten little toes and ten little fingers.  Just a requirement that aborticians guarantee hospital admittance for those same ex-mothers in case something goes Gosnellianly wrong.

You can say without doubt or hesitation that this Wisconsin statute was all about safeguarding women's health.  And yet even that was too much of a mortal affront to the sacred and sacrosanct Roe v. Wade, by the most torturedly tangential legal argument imaginable.

The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel's ruling comes in a lawsuit filed by Planned Parenthood and Affiliated Medical Services. The groups argue that the 2013 law amounts to an unconstitutional restriction on abortion. The law has been on hold since a federal judge struck it down earlier this year.

The law's supporters argue that the Republican-backed statutes would ensure continuity of care if a woman developed complications from an abortion and needed to be hospitalized.

But the lawsuit said the statute would force AMS's clinic in Milwaukee to close because its doctors couldn't get admitting privileges.

Why the hell could AMS not secure hospital admission privileges?  Did they even try before getting on the horn to their shysters?  Did their grisly reputation precede them?

That in turn would lead to longer waits at Planned Parenthood clinics. Therefore, the lawsuit maintained, the law amounts to an illegal restriction on abortions.

Planned Parenthood sued themselves out of additional "business"?  Methinks they didn't think that through before their lawfare reflex kicked in.

It's still absurd, though.  AMS is a bunch of slackers, so fetuscidal maniacs would have to wait a little bit longer to get vacu-sucked.  But they'd still get vacu-sucked, or sliced & diced, or acid-douched, or whatever.  They wouldn't be denied their hallowed "right" to murder their offspring.

U.S. District Judge William Conley sided with the abortion providers in March, saying the law served no legitimate health interest.

That's a bald-faced lie.  It flies in the face of the enormous health risks to women to which the abortion process exposes them, both during and in the remorseful, quaking aftermath.  It's like aborticians don't really give a flying frak about the women, who are nothing more than a source of raw materials to them.  Just so they kill the next baby, and keep that river of blood flowing at maximum capacity.

So let's add this up: The "right" to abortion - which does not, in fact, exist outside of the late William Brennan's well-merited coffin - has now been illegally and unconstitutionally amended to now be the "right" to a prompt and convenient abortion.  And with Justice "Weathervane" Kennedy always tanned, rested, and ready to take a flamethrower to the founding document on moral issues, we can count on the SCOTUS being completely useless.

Ironically, though, the Introdution of the Bill of Rights (to the States) issue does not arise in this instance, since as the word "abortion" does not appear nor is even remotely implied anywhere in the seven Articles and twenty-seven Amendments, there's nothing saying one way or the other whether fedeeral courts can dictate State law on this issue.  You cannot, in other words, legally impose a non-existent federal right on ANY level, federal, State, or local.

But they do have the power ,though.  Yes, indeedy.  Even though the Wisconsin law does not, in fact, even slow down abortion.

Wouldn't it have been cheaper for Planned Parenthood to simply build some more clinics?  Or was this a rare instance where reveling in their unchecked, fetuscidal power outweighed their naked greed?

American People Still Not Serious About ISIS

by JASmius

The headline of this Rasmussen poll sounds (for the age in which we live) like war fever:

Americans are beginning to sound the call for a war on ISIS — unhappy both with Barack Obama's response to the Islamic terrorists' attacks in Paris and his strategy to defeat them, new polls show.

In one Rasmussen Reports survey released Monday, 49% think the nation should formally declare war on the Islamic State, 28% disagree, and a significant 23% are undecided as yet.

So of those Americans who are paying attention, war is the choice by a margin of 64%-36%.  Pretty conclusive.

But the rather gaping caveat is that a quarter of the country isn't paying attention.  That's the first symptom that this poll isn't the gung-ho "We will fight them on the beaches; we will fight them on the hills; we shall never surrender" call to arms that it appears to be on the first-glance surface.

The details tell a very different tale:

Still, the survey finds only 25% of respondents think America should be taking the lead in a war against ISIS, with 65% saying the United States should be part of a broader coalition.

That tells you straight away that there isn't really any public will or determination to take on the Islamic State, because every "broader coalition" of which the United States has "been a part" is 95%+  composed of American forces.  Not since the Second World War has such a "coalition" been worthy of the term, and even then America was decidedly the "senior partner".  There is, in short, no practical, on-the-ground difference between "America taking the lead" - or going it alone - and being "part of a broader coalition".  The latter is a couple of nipple pasties for the former.  Which means that two-thirds of Americans crave phony semantics, or else they tacitly endorse Barack Obama's ISIS policy.  And according to Rasmussen, respondents claim to rate his ISIS policy at 36%/45%.

I guess President Contained isn't waving his magic putter hard enough.

A CBS News survey delivers somewhat more encouraging results:

[H]alf the country now supports the use of ground troops in Syria and Iraq to battle ISIS. The poll found 50% are okay with ground troops — 66% of Republicans, 43% of Democrats and 45% of independents — while 42% are against using ground troops, including 48% of Democrats, 46% of independents and 29% of Republicans.

50/42 is a considerably narrower majority for the only means of actually defeating and destroying the Islamic State than the alleged 49/28 margin that wants a less specific "declaration of war".  With the most overwhelming majority being in favor of our continuing to "lead from behind," that strongly suggests that whatever public support their is for actually fighting ISIS would quickly collapse at the first wave of casualties.

And Barack Obama knows this.  Which, in addition to his stubborn, cosmic ego, is why he will not, and has no intention of, changing his ISIS policy, but will continue to ride it out indefinitely, or until ISIS pulls off its improvement on 9/11 and his hand is truly forced - if then.

In the mean time, the RNC asks a toe-curlingly pertinent question....

That's the best GOP War On Terror ad I've seen since the Bush 2004 "wolves" spot.

Funny how the other side keeps making them so easy to produce.

Phobos To Make Mars a Ringed Planet

By Douglas V. Gibbs

In addition to being a political junkie, I love science.  This is why the concept of "science by consensus", like we see with the Global Warming Hoax, drives me nuts.  Science is not about consensus.  It's about seeking the truth through the scientific method, and then seeking to see if that can be disproved with greater understanding of the topic using additional tests, examination, or experimentation.

As a young boy I especially loved astronomy, so concepts put out there by scientists about the heavens always catches my attention.

In recent news, according to a report about the findings by astronomers presented by The Guardian, in about 20-70 million years, Mars will become a ringed planet.  The problem is that Mars' largest moon (of its two moons), a moon that is very small when compared to our own, called Phobos, is slowly working its way towards Mars.  As its downward spiral allows the moon to get too close, the tidal forces of Mars will become too much, and Phobos will plummet towards Mars, and be ripped apart in the process, leaving it to remain as a huge ring of shattered material, to circle Mars much like the rings around Saturn.

The outer planets, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune all have rings, but they are gas giants.  When Mars joins the club, it will be the first rocky planet in our solar system to support a ring.  Deimos, the other Mars moon, is about half the size of Phobos, and orbits far enough away from the planet that the same fate is not foreseen for the smaller moon.

According to experts, Phobos, which is currently about 6,000 kilometers above Mars in its orbit, edges closer to the fourth planet by about 1.8 centimeter per year.  At that rate, Phobos will begin to skim the planet's atmosphere in 20-70 million years, resulting in either the moon breaking apart in orbit, or slamming into the planet.

Scientists are gathering data on Phobos in the hopes of determining its fate, learning what they can about the Martian moon's density, internal structure, and the varying forces that play a part in its position.  Reports suggest that the largest crater on Phobos, caused by an impact long ago, sent cracks through the moon, and because of these cracks, the moon could begin to break apart as early as 20-40 million years.  The scientists suggest the Martian moon will crumble quickly, and likely become a ring, rather than impact upon the surface of Mars.

In their journal entry in Nature Geoscience, the scientists state the ring could last for a million to one hundred million years.

As the process begins, it is believed that some of the chunks breaking off of the crumbling moon may survive their fall to Mars, and create spectacular collisions with the surface of the planet, but do so with less force than an asteroid or comet impact, coming in slower, and at a shallower angle.

Some have speculated the channels on Phobos may be the first signs of the moon breaking apart.  The channels may be fault lines in the moon.  The long grooves on the Martian moon were first noticed in the 1970s, and recent images from the European Space Agency's Mars Express orbiter reveal that rather than being a solid lump of rock, Phobos is a bundle of loose rubble, held together by a sronger layer of material.

Though the current studies can only provide speculation, Mars missions in the near future scheduled should be able to determine if the fatal prediction for Phobos is correct.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Senate Democrats Hold Syrian "Refugee" Cutoff Hostage To Gun Control

by JASmius

I will give the Dems credit on this one, though, as their gun control amendment sounds reasonable.  Under its provisions, nobody on a terrorist watch list would be able to purchase a firearm of any kind.  How, in light of the events in Paris and Mali the past ten days, could anybody object to that?

How you know that it isn't reasonable begins with how they laughably oversell it:

“As we speak, a terrorist on the FBI’s terror watch list can walk into a gun show in your hometown and buy as many AK-47s and explosives as they need to commit the kind of mass, heinous slaughter of innocents we witnessed in Paris and which we know terrorists want to perpetrate here in America,” [Senate Minority Chisler Harry G]Reid said Friday.

“I think this is a no-brainer,” said the sponsor of the bill, Senator Dianne Feinstein, D-CA. “If you’re too dangerous to board a plane, you’re too dangerous to buy a gun.” [emphasis added]

I'm pretty sure that (1) you can't buy AK-47s and explosives at gun shows now and (2) it's illegal for gun shows to carry those particular items already.  (G)Reid ridiculously exaggerates like that because (1) he can't help it, whether due to his bilious personality, encroaching dementia, or both and (2) most Americans know more about the Kardashian sisters' bra sizes than they do the firearms business and thus buy every sneering word Dirty Harry blithers.

But still, jihadists could do a lot of damage with the guns they could obtain at gun shows.  But that presupposes that (1) ISIS operatives will scrupulously follow all federal, State, and local gun laws (the federal ones being, of course, unconstitutional), and (2) everybody on a government terrorist watch list is a jihadist.  Not only has that proven to be far from the case, but nobody seems to know quite what the criteria is for winding up on said lists:

The Intercept (which isn’t exactly a conservative or libertarian publication) got hold of the National Counterterrorism Center guidelines for putting people on watch lists last year. Some of these guidelines includes social media and what “walk-ins” say, even if government employees are told not to use hunches.

So, yes, you might be on a terrorist watch list if you tweet, Facebook, or use other social media sites to post an article someone doesn’t like. The rules are so vague that even those who might be criticizing or pointing something out for others to see could end up on the list.

Government terrorist watch lists are, in other words, tailor-made for leftwingnut politicization.  We know who the Obama Regime consider to be the REAL "terrorists"....

....and it seems that once you wind up fingered as a terrorist suspect by this bunch, it's well-nigh impossible to clear your name:

Indeed, it’s terrible for law-abiding Americans with no ties to terrorism to end up on some sort of government-run list of people under suspicion. Of course, that’s precisely what has already happened; I wonder if Iftikha knows Ted Kennedy and the Weekly Standard’s Stephen Hayes ended up on terrorism watch lists. This is one of the reasons many Republicans don’t want to ban gun sales to people on the “terror watch lists,” because there’s little public disclosure about just how someone ends up on the “terror watch list” or “no-fly list,” and once you’re on it, it’s exceptionally hard to get off. There is no independent or judicial review; once on it, you are guilty until proven innocent. [emphases added]

Long story short, this is just another weasly Democrat gun control angle hiding under the cover of "fighting terrorism".  Which, as I say, is deftly opportunistic on their part, but is still the same old unconstitutional gun-grabbing fetish that has been unpopular for decades, and isn't going to gain any popularity from being used as a poison pill to keep the flow of ISIS-infested Syrian "refugees" pouring into this country.

But there is one impediment they lack the ability to overcome:

The Senate could take up the House-passed refugee bill as early as the week of November 30th. At that point, Democrats will likely try to attach the gun control provision as an amendment, although it will be up to Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-KY, to decide whether he’ll allow it. [emphasis added]

That ought to be a no-brainer for Mitchie The Kid, both policy-wise and politically.  In essence, Senate Donks have declared that gun control is their price for not catastrophically degrading U.S. internal security against enemy infiltration and attack.  McConnell should stick their despicable amendment someplace anatomically impossible and force them into the optically horrific position of filibustering the popular, true "no-brainer" House bill that cuts off ISIS from easy access to U.S. soil.

Could six Dems be split off from the minority party herd to attain cloture?  Quite possibly.  In which case Barack Obama will have to veto it, thus inflicting those same horrific optics on all Dems instead of just those in the Senate, punctuated by the inevitable enemy-inflicted mayhem to come.

The moral of the story?  Jihadists can't buy AK-47s and explosives at gun shows if they're not in the country in the first place.

Illegal Aliens Gush Across The U.S. Southern Border @ Record Rate

by JASmius

Remember 2014's Border Crisis?  Remember how that made such huge headlines and raged all that summer?  Remember how I said that that was just the first of many such crises, or their perpetual continuation, and how each successive stage would receive "progressively" less media attention until it just became "the New Normal," just as on every other issue over the past seven years?  And remember how we've often discussed how OTMs (Other than Mexicans, which can be extended to include all Hispanics/Latinos) comprise upwards of 40% of illegals, and how most of them are of Middle Eastern origin?

Told you so:

Illegal aliens, specifically non-Mexican children, have been caught crossing the U.S. southern border at an alarming rate according to recent Border Patrol statistics.

With nearly five thousand unaccompanied children caught [and released] in October and almost three thousand caught [and released] in the first half of November, the Washington Times reports that it signals how smuggling cartels and would-be illegal aliens are paying close attention to the [non-existent] border enforcement in the U.S.

"The greatest existential threat to this nation right now is this administration's open-border policy. This is no longer about immigration, it's about the president and DHS keeping open the corridors on the southern border that are accessible to anyone in the world," said Representative Duncan Hunter (R-CA50) "We can defend our country against another country's navy, a missile threat and even repel a conventional military invasion. [Knock wood] But the president's policy of allowing anyone into the nation as students or refugees presents a serious threat," he said. [emphasis added]

Of course, Congressman Duncan, Jr.  That's the epitome of the Obama Doctrine.  It's what "fundamental transformation" is all about.  And, well, fundamental to that paradigm is the assertion that no, we are not entitled to borders because no, this isn't our country, we are not entitled to it or to independence, that the Old World was right and we've been wrong all along, and now it's time to give it all back.  Since we "took" the American southwest from Mexico and we "took" Alaska from Russia and we "took" the American Midwest from France and we "took" Florida from Spain and we "took" the eastern seaboard from Great Britain, America is the biggest thief and aggressor of all, the focus of evil in the modern world, and Barack Obama's mission in life is to make sure that the wrongs will be righted, the past made present, the United....DIVIDED!

<ahem> Sorry, I drifted off into that Arliss Loveless scene from Wild, Wild West.  But you get the point.

In other news, five Syrians were stopped at a Laredo port of entry on Friday, bringing the total number of Syrians seeking to enter the U.S. via "the Gateway to the Americas Bridge" in the week following the ISIS attack on Paris up to thirteen.  Begging the question of how many weren't stopped and got through and are now roaming our country, free to plan and carry out more, and worse, attacks.

But take comfort in this, my friends, that per our country's demidivine leader, we will have had it coming, and then some.

Call it "tough love".

Obama's Lectern vs. Putin's Tanks On Assad

by JASmius

In the waning days of World War II during a discussion of the future of eastern Europe, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill cautioned Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin to consider the views of the Vatican. To this the "man of steel" responded “How many divisions does the Pope of Rome have?” Stalin’s brutal sense of humor demonstrated that he only respected force. Since the Pope had nothing he feared or wanted, Stalin would ignore him.

Fast forward seventy years and essentially, nothing has changed, other than the region of the planet being discussed and the fact that Barack Obama is substituting his faculty lounge lizard ego for the Catholic Church:

Obama said Russia must make a strategic decision about Syria and the next several weeks will show whether Russian President Vladimir Putin will give up backing the Syrian regime of Bashar al-Assad to join in a broad campaign against the Islamic State.

He's already made that decision: he's going to do both.  And why can't he?  It's not as if protecting Assad and crushing ISIS are in any way incompatible objectives, after all.  O has only succeeded in convincing himself otherwise.

The U.S. won’t in any circumstances agree to a political settlement for the civil war in Syria that leaves Assad in power because he’s lost all legitimacy, Obama said. As long as Assad stays there is no way to unite the country’s various factions for the fight against the Islamic State.

Assad is a dictator; he never had "legitimacy" in the first place.  And, aside from the Kurds and the local al Qaeda affiliate, ISIS wiped out or assimilated "the country's various factions" years ago.  And they're not "legitimate," either.  The Syrian civil war isn't about legal niceties and nuances and political settlements; it's about force, not pumping the air full of useless words that those with the REAL power will never heed in any case.  And it is force that will - already is - giving THEIR words the weight that The One's gibberings lack.

“It would not work to keep him in power,’’ Obama said at a news conference Sunday in Kuala Lumpur. “This is a practical issue, not just a matter of conscience.’’

Putin is proving otherwise.

There is an increasing awareness on the Putin’s part that the [Muslim] group is a much bigger threat to Russia than losing an embattled ally in Assad or anything else in the region, Obama said.

What hypocritical, fantasist claptrap.  It's not binary for the Russians, Barry.  Maybe your entreaty would be credible if you'd start taking ISIS seriously yourself; like, say, agreeing to halt all immigration of Syrian "refugees," and, oh, I don't know, redeploying a hundred thousand U.S. troops to Iraq.

The U.S. and its allies will press ahead with their battle against Islamic State in Syria and Iraq with or without Russia’s cooperation, he said

After regaining his composure and control over his eye-rolling, Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev had the inevitable retort:

“The strengthening of the Islamic State became possible partially due to irresponsible policies of the United States. Instead of concentrating joint efforts on fighting terrorism, the United States and its allies decided to fight against the lawfully elected [snort] president of Syria, Bashar Assad…The sensible policy in the Middle Eastern countries, be it Syria, Egypt or Iraq, for all countries, including the United States, should entail support of the legitimate authorities, who are able to ensure the integrity of the state, and not destabilize the situation.”

Medvedev (almost) nailed it.  The inescapable fact of the matter is Syria is in the condition it is today because of Barack Obama's clandestine aiding and abetting of the uprising against Assad combined with abandoning Iraq and allowing al Qaeda in Iraq to resurrect itself as the Islamic State.  Put another way, ISIS owes its existence to Barack Obama.  The One is ISIS's literal godfather.

And as far as Assad goes, Red Barry had the chance to take him out two years ago and not only chickened out, but punted the whole Syria mess he created to....Vladimir Putin, who was always going to take Assad's side and prop him up.  And now there he stands at his lecturn, lecturing Putin not just on how the Russian strongman must follow all the policy prescriptions that he never did because he wasn't willing to put American military force behind them.  Is it any wonder that Putin said a few weeks back that Obama has shit for brains?

Here's an even more galloping irony: Obama's "Assad must go" fixation is preventing the new leader of the First World (there is no "free" world, anymore), French President Francois Hollande, from putting together the grand alliance Obama, in other fixations, insists is necessary before the Islamic State can even be confronted.  As I pointed out just last week, the Russians have large military forces in Syria and they were already fighting ISIS, and after the Sinai incident they have additional motivation.  This is the perfect opportunity to do a reprise of the eastern front in World War II, using the Russians as cannon fodder to do our ground fighting for us.  Just make isolated common cause with them, redeploy large American forces to Iraq, and roll up the Islamic State from all sides.  Overrun and overwhelm them.  And then we can bicker about Assad.

If "defeating and destroying" ISIS was truly Barack Obama's goal and intent, surely his admonition to Putin of prioritizing that over Assad's ultimate disposition applies to him as well.  And yet he's putting getting rid of Assad over getting rid of ISIS as an excuse for NOT allying with the Russians against the Islamic State.  Which can only benefit.....ISIS.

Putin sees this.  All the "Arab allies" that have drifted away from O's phony "coalition" see this.  All the rest of our allies see this.  But Barack Obama sees only what he wants to see.  And what he sees is all the world as a classroom, and himself as the world's stern, smug professor.

And folks, it won't be spitballs that he never sees coming.

Belgium Raid Reveals Terror Plots

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Paris is not the end of it, and the 16 people arrested in Belgium is only a temporary setback for the Muslim terrorists.  In one case, in regards to the Belgian police raids, one person was injured after police opened fire on a car that drove towards police.

Nineteen raids were carried out in various Brussels neighborhoods, including a poor immigrant district.

Police made three other raids in the industrial town of Charleroi, where an international airport is sited.

No weapons or explosives were found in the raids, prosecutors said.
As the leftists desire, armed officers and troops could be seen patrolling the near-deserted streets of Brussels all weekend after the government raised the terror alert to the highest level of four in the city of more than a million that is also home to the NATO and European Union headquarters.

The risk of terror is a great excuse for martial law style control.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Sunday, November 22, 2015


By Allan McNew

The claim that "Syrian refugees" will be thoroughly vetted prior to entry rings rather hollow. Those promoting Obama's dangerous farce should ask themselves the same thing I would ask of Harry Reed if I had the ability to get the answer on public record:

"Senator Reed, will you reserve the whole floor of that hotel you live in for Syrian refugees to be your neighbors and promote converting the lobby into a mosque?"

Regardless of how he would answer the question, we all know what he really thinks.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

NFL Week 11 Predictions

by JASmius


SEASON vs. SPREAD: 73-73

Straight up picks indicated by asterisk (*); picks against the spread in parentheses (x).  And no, don't bet the farm on these picks; they're just for my amusement and your aggravation.  Or vice versa.  We'll see how it turns out, now, won't we?

Arizona* (-3)

Dallas (+4.5)

Denver (+1)

Green Bay
Minnesota* (pick'em)

Indianapolis* (+6)

Kansas City* (-3)
San Diego

N.Y. Jets
Houston* (+2.5)

Detroit (+2)

St. Louis
Baltimore* (-1.5)

San Francisco
Seattle* (-12.5)

Philadelphia* (-5.5)

Carolina* (-7)


New England* (-7)

Finished with the Republican Party?

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Is the Republican Party broken?  I get it.  We would prefer perfection.  Each and every Republican has things about them that make we want to scream.  But, we have to remember there are more things involved here than just a bunch of unconstitutional, cowardly, big government minded members of the GOP.

A large part of our problem is human nature.  Any person, no matter how virtuous, no matter how perfect you think they may be before they go into political office, will find a way to eventually make you mad.  Once in office, their human nature kicks in.  They try to get along, they make deals where they are willing to vote for something they would not normally vote for in order to gain support for something they find important from people that would not normally vote for something like what they are offering, and the power goes to the head a little.  The reality of politics is human nature, wheeling and dealing, and that the politicians all have their own separate and unique agendas must be something we take into consideration.  In turn, we need to recognize what is going on, and quit with this "third party" garbage, or the "I'll just stay home and not vote" mentality, because like it or not, though we have flawed republicans, they are all that stands between us and a tyranny led by the Democrats.  We have to decide to either work with what we've got, or lose the game.  You will never get the Republicans to be perfectly Constitutional (though I am constantly working to move them in that direction), nor any other politician, for that matter.  I am not condoning their actions, I am simply recognizing that what we have exists and we need to work within the system as it is.  With the tools available to us, the only chance, even if the odds are against us, to get this turned around in the terms of restoring the Constitution and the Republic, is through the Republican Party.  Yep, I can't stand any of the existing GOP presidential candidates.  My only candidate was Scott Walker.  As a number cruncher, he was our best bet.  But, the Democrat Party is so far to the left that even some of the least desirable GOP candidates are better than any of the commie bastards and bastardettes (yes, I know what the proper term for Hillary is) from the Democrat Party that could be on the ticket.  To paraphrase a Winston Churchill quote (he used the word "democracy", which I won't use), America has the worst form of government in the world, except for all others.

The way to win is not to cry and wait for perfection.  The way to win is to be McGyver, and use what we have to create effective tools to win this thing.  Hey, if it takes a loud mouthed paperclip with a frail and weasely string around it to form a tool to put a restraint around the ankle of our federal government, then, by golly, let's do it.

The Republican Party is the vessel for returning to the Constitution we have available for us, right now.  So we need to use it, rather than wait for a perfect party with perfect candidates that may never come.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Obama Maintains Pro-ISIS Tone

by JASmius

He did add the word "destroy" in relatively close proximity to the acronym "ISIS," but it was so obfuscated by the unchanged fog of his usual jihadi-symp and "climate change" mania rhetoric as to be almost undetectable.  And it's not as if there's anybody left on the planet that would take him seriously on it anyway.

Perhaps even he has begun to get a whiff of that lame-duck stink:

Barack Obama called Sunday for resolve in the face of heightened jihadist threats....

Resolve to ignore them and pretend they don't exist.

....insisting panicked citizens must not succumb to fear and urging world leaders not to abandon a climate summit in Paris.

Note that he was completely oblivious to the hilarious irony of that statement.  Or, as Sinead O'Connor once said on Saturday Night Live....

Then he launched into a reprise of his "ISIS is the jayvee squad":

The perpetrators of the Paris attacks were not "masterminds" he said, but rather "a bunch of killers with good social media".

i.e. The Paris attackers weren't ISIS, weren't Islamic, and weren't terrorists, and my gun control agenda would have disarmed them.

"It's absolutely vital for every country, every leader, to send a signal that the viciousness of a handful of killers does not stop the world from doing vital business," he said.

Like bankrupting the global economy back to the Stone Age for absolutely no tangible reason just in time for humanity to freeze to death before they can starve to death.

Here is where he went into his "muscle"-flexing pose:

Facing accusations that he has allowed the Islamic State group to spread by refusing to send U.S. troops to Syria or step up the air campaign there, Obama made his most determined pledge yet to win the fight.

"The American people in the past have confronted some very real, enormous threats. And we beat them. We vanquished them," he said. "This will be no different."

"In addition to hunting down terrorists, in addition to effective intelligence, in addition to missile strikes and in addition to cutting off financing, he said, "the most powerful tool we have to fight ISIS is to say that we're not afraid."

While our military inferiors are out doing our fighting for us (and losing), we will stay home and bake cookies.

Here, as yet another reminder, is why we sure as hell are afraid:

"They cannot strike a mortal blow against France or the United States or a country like Malaysia, but they can make people fearful," Obama said. [emphasis added]

Oh, really?  It's precisely because they CAN strike mortal blows against us that we ARE afraid.  That and the fact that you won't fight them or even acknowledge the identity and nature of this enemy, without which the victory in which you've publicly declared you're not interested is impossible.

We're afraid because there's an enemy out there trying to slaughter us all, and an enemy in our own White House who is happy to invite them all in and let them do it.

And no, we're not talking about little kids, dumbass.  Let me put it in a way that even you might be able to understand: Islam is contrary to "our values" - and so is mass American death.

Iranian War Games Simulate "Liberation" Of Jerusalem

by JASmius

Now that Barack Obama has given them their nukes, we can count on "trees" like this launching out of the Iranian "forest" without ever evoking a sound from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue:

An Iranian paramilitary force controlled by the Revolutionary Guards held an exercise simulating the “liberation” of [the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, which] has become the flashpoint of Muslim-Jewish violence.

It's never ceased being such a "flashpoint," actually.

Hundreds of Basij militia fighters took part in the exercise to capture the al-Aqsa mosque in the exercise from a “hypothetical enemy,” Iranian media reported. Planes and helicopters were involved in the operation, which took place outside the Shiite holy city of Qom. The exercise involved bombing targets before deploying troops. The reports didn’t mention Israel by name.

Do they really have to?

I wonder if this would come before, after, or concurrent with Iranian forces overrunning and conquering Jordan, invading from Iraqi bases, which would have to have been cleared if Islamic State forces to be established, which the Russians will most likely accomplish for them,  I also wonder how they don't figure an Israeli preemptive attack into this equation.

No, actually, I don't; because I take for granted that the mullahs already possess nuclear weapons, and if they didn't, their friends the Russians do

Ah, what an idyllic Middle East "garden of civilization" Obamunist "smart power" hath wrought.

Louisiana Turns "Blue"

by JASmius

The leadership of Bobby Jindal has not "failed"; the leadership of Bobby Jindal has been exemplary for the entirety of his eight years as governor of Louisiana, highlighted by hands-on handling of the Deep Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico five years ago. The most that could be said in that regard is the not-unusual "fatigue" that sets in at the end of any two-term gubernatorial or presidential administration. Now nobody knows how a Vitter governorship would unfold, or if it would be "Jindal's third term," but the same general rule of thumb applies: any Republican will be better than any Democrat.

So why is Lieutenant-Governor Dardeene defecting to the other side? Evidently because he thinks Vitter started it:

During the primary Mr. Dardenne and another Republican, Scott Angelle, a public service commissioner [and former Lieutenant-Governor], bristled at attacks from the Vitter campaign and, as the weeks went on, gave as good as they got. While Mr. Vitter accused both of being loose-spending liberals, Mr. Dardenne and Mr. Angelle both accused Mr. Vitter of lying and explicitly talked of his 2007 prostitution scandal, in which Mr. Vitter admitted only to a “very serious sin.” [emphasis added]

I'm not going to pretend to be sufficiently familiar with Louisiana State politics to know whether Senator Vitter's assertions are true, or to what extent they are, but (1) Vitter himself has a 95% ACU rating, so he wasn't hurling boulders from a glass house, and (2) I think it's awfully telling that Dardenne and Angelle didn't fire back on policy grounds - because they couldn't - but went directly below the belt.

And it backfired on them, and Dardenne, anyway, is making the mistake of taking his defeat personally, and now he's lashing out with treachery and perfidy, and all John Bel Edwards (not related to the infamous Donk crook governor Edwin Edwards - that would have made this story beyond perfect), the Democrat, has to do is sit back and watch this GOP mutually assured destruction drop the governorship in his lap like low-hanging fruit.

- Me, two weeks ago


With a victory that defied political geography and near universal predictions from just months earlier, a previously little-known Democrat, State Representative John Bel Edwards, soundly defeated United States Senator David Vitter in a runoff election on Saturday to become the next governor of Louisiana.

Mr. Edwards won 56% of the vote with virtually all of the ballots counted.

And after he conceded defeat last night, Senator Vitter also announced he would not be seeking reelection to his Senate seat next year, either.  So well done, Mr. Dardeene, well done.  Maybe that Senate seat will turn "blue" next year as well.  Then your RINO mission will be fully accomplished.  And all it took was the personal destruction of one man who is better than you'll ever be.

I wonder how soon Dardeene will announce his party-switch.

As for Governor-Elect Edwards, who says the old Dem "Blue Dog" bait & switch strategy doesn't still work?:

Edwards’ biography lays it all out. A West Point graduate and Airborne Ranger, Edwards is pro-gun, hawkish and touts his family’s deep religious faith and ties to the church. If you dropped this guy anywhere else in the country he’d be a Republican. Heck.. .he’d be toward the right wing of the party. In short, they found somebody palatable to any Republicans who were dissatisfied with the current leadership and looking for a change.

His biography is also irrelevant, and most likely, phony as a three-dollar bill.  The bottom line is, if John Bel Edwards were really and truly pro-gun, hawkish and a Christian evangelical, he'd be a Republican and not a Democrat.  The fact that he IS a Democrat means that he will throw aside that "Blue Dog" camouflage in short order after he's sworn in a few weeks from now and govern as the standard, prototypical corrupt, leftwingnut extremist that every Donk is required to be these days.  And then maybe Louisiana GOP voters will re-learn the lesson of what a fraud the "Blue Dog" scam is and has always been.

Or maybe not.  Depends upon how many will have awakened from their tequila comas and regained the ability to think straight.

Or at all.

Saturday, November 21, 2015

Iowa Carson Support Shifting To Ted Cruz

by JASmius

On the one hand, this is a huge sign of progress on the Republican electorate finally shaking off its "We need an outsider who has no idea what he's doing!" mantra; on the other hand, it's shooting down the only candidate in the field that had actually surpassed the lone Democrat mole candidate.  So is this truly progress, or is this the conservative electorate - in Iowa, in this instance - splintering again while Donald Trump cruises to the GOP nomination?:

The Paris attacks and several recent foreign-policy fumbles are leading conservatives in Iowa to abandon Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson for rival Ted Cruz.

"He’s a great guy, he’s fun to listen to, but I didn’t hear anything substantive," Alan Hilgerson, a physician in Des Moines, told Politico. He said that national security was an "extremely high" priority for him as he pores over the candidates.

"I don’t know that I’d want him as my president," Hilgerson said.

Marilu Erdahl said that she was leaning more toward Cruz because of his strong positions on national security.

That's curious, as Marco Rubio's positions on national security are stronger than those of Ted Cruz, and Lindsey Graham's are stronger than Rubio's.  So clearly there's more at play with Miss Erdahl's ruminations than just national security.

"He has experience, he’s shown what he can do," she told Politico at the Family Leader Forum in Des Moines. "With the state of affairs we’re in right now, I think it is very important. It’s vital.

Excuse me, but how has Ted Cruz "shown what he can do" in this context?  He's a freshman senator halfway through his first term; all he's done is talk, which is a senator's core job description.  He's never been a political executive in command of military forces (e.g. National Guard troops).  It's true that he's more knowledgeable about every area of public policy than Dr. Carson, but when it comes to national security and the 3AM phone call, Cruz is as much a "virgin" as Gentle Ben.

Which is a circuitous way of asking the question of why State governors have gone nowhere in the 2016 cycle.  Why is Carson's support not hemorrhaging to Chris Christie?  Why did Bobby Jindal and Scott Walker not even draw flies?  Again, this movement is clearly about more than national security.

"We need someone who knows the ropes, who’s not the establishment but who doesn’t need on-the-job training.

"I guess I’ve maybe made up my mind," she said.

Cruz is certainly not the "establishment," but he doesn't "know the ropes" and needs every bit as much "on-the-job training" as Ben Carson does.

All of which begs the question of why Donald Trump is still at the top of the Republican primary polls.  Everything that is being said about Ben Carson's utter lack of foreign policy cred is every bit as true of Trump, and yet he appears to be surging, not slumping.  Which is a dismaying indication of what GOP voters consider to be foreign policy cred.  Having a big mouth does not, in reality, fit that description, but rather what President Theodore Roosevelt once called, "Speak softly, and carry a big stick".  Barack Obama speaks softly and is stickless.  It's going to be a long, perilous journey back to the point where America does possess a "big stick" again, and the last thing we need in the White House is somebody who speaks LOUDLY without the knowledge, temperment, or ability to back it up.  And yet that is precisely what far too many Republican voters are determined to inflict upon our party and our country.  And that will get is all killed just as certainly as the Obama Doctrine will.

However, if Hairboy is as confident as he likes to portray himself, why is he making noises about reneging on the pledge he signed with the RNC to not go Ross Perot next year?:

Donald Trump says he might run as an independent candidate for president in 2016.

The billionaire and former reality show star is leading the race for the GOP nomination for the fourth straight month. But he says that if the Republican Party does not "treat him fairly," he'll "see what happens" and consider running as an independent.

I don't get it.  He's back on top (which is Trump's definition of being "treated fairly").  The longer he is, the more people start talking about him actually winning the GOP nomination next year.  Sure, there's this rumored "establishment" "guerrilla" campaign to "take him out," but the nature and dynamic of the Trump campaign has been to make such assaults boomerang on his attackers, and I can't imagine this one being any different - everybody knows about his personal "foibles" and peccadilloes, after all.  So what gives?

Maybe the one candidate in the GOP race that Trump truly fears is Senator Cruz.  And you'll notice that Cruz is the one candidate in the GOP race that Trump hasn't shat upon.  That could be the mano-e-mano showdown.

Ironic it would be, since Trump and Cruz are the two least electable Republicans on the candidate roster.  But rationality never showed up for this cycle to begin with, so why should it make a belated appearance now?

UPDATE: You know who would not just beat Trump, but stomp a mudhole in him, at least in New Hampshire?

Food for thought?  I think I could hold my nose hard enough, if it came down to it.

ISIS Planning Attacks In U.S., Worldwide On Sunday?

by JASmius

Last Thursday he said that ISIS was "contained"; the next day, ISIS mowed down hundreds of Parisians, killing 129 of them.  Two days ago, John Kerry said that al Qaeda had been "neutralized"; the next day, al Qaeda stormed a luxury hotel in the capital of Mali, murdering eighteen people including an American.

Today Barack Obama said that there is no risk or threat from "Syrian refugees," and that he will welcome in "millions (of Muslims) from around the world"

I'd be heading to the fallout shelters by the end of the day if I were you:

- Me, eight and a half hours ago

Son of a bitch:

The hacker group Anonymous said Saturday that the Islamic State plans to attack sites in the U.S., Paris, Indonesia, Italy and Lebanon on Sunday.

In the U.S., the terrorist group is planning an attack at the WW[E] Survivor Series pro-wrestling event at the Philips Arena in Atlanta at 7:30 p.m. EST on Sunday, the International Business Times reports.

And what is the Obama Regime doing with this tip?  Not much:

The FBI said Saturday that it was aware of the alleged threat to the Atlanta event, but lacked "specific or credible information of an attack," FBI Special Agent in Charge Britt Johnson said. [emphasis added]

I wish I could believe that the FBI was just concealing the tip so as to not give away any details off what they actually know and are preparing for.  I do not believe that, however; I cannot.  Nothing out of this bunch the past seven years, but especially the past week, can lead any rational, logical observer to conclude anything other than that the FBI is ignoring Anonymous's warning.

Anonymous has arrived at the same conclusion:

"All proof was submitted to official authorities all around the globe days ago," the group said. "They have it and it is their responsibility to do something with it.

"But because they have not done anything with it yet and it’s almost the 22nd, we have [to take] matters into our own hands.

"We only take the responsibility of warning civilians (in case the authorities do not act well enough)," Anonymous said.

God willing, Anonymous is wrong and nothing happens tomorrow anywhere.  That's the outcome everybody, including them, presumably wants.  But what if they're right?  Simultaneous attacks on three different continents in the same day of unknown size and scope and method, even if they're "just" Paris-sized strikes, would be one helluva statement about the Islamic State's power and global reach, and that they haven't been "contained" at all, but are engulfing the world in its own to-be-shed blood.

If the latter, and tomorrow proves to be an "interesting day," I almost can't wait what Barack Hussein Obama will have to say about this runaway ISIS global offensive next.

Exit prediction: Assuming this is all legit, the Paris, Indonesia, Italy, and Lebanon attacks will be thwarted due to local officials taking the Anonymous warnings deadly seriously, but the Survivor Series will be blown to merry hell.

I guess we'll find out in twenty-three hours, one way or the other.

A Flood of Islam Across the West

Posted by Douglas V. Gibbs

POLL: Majority of Americans feel like strangers in own country...


Austin school needs Arabic tutors...



Syrian, Pakistanis traveling illegally to USA stopped in Honduras...

'Nearly impossible' to find jihadists among migrants, Greeks warn...

LOCKDOWN: Brussels under serious terrorism threat after Paris attacks...

Chemicals, explosives found...

Water supply under heavy guard...

Russia gives France puppy to replace police dog killed...

Wary Parisians vow to keep party going...

Well planned Mali attack took advantage of security lapses...

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

The British Spoil The Global Greenapalooza Party

by JASmius

Their timing is not just impeccable, it's a gas:

With breathtaking abruptness, the British government has in recent months slashed its support for solar power and other renewable forms of energy, leaving a once-promising industry with grim prospects and throwing into doubt the country’s commitment to clean power.

If it were promising, it wouldn't have needed government subsidies.  Or, in other words, "clean power" is NO power.

The moves have baffled environmentalists, business leaders and even many government allies. Britain has long been in the vanguard of efforts to combat global warming. It has been expected to play a leading role — alongside the Obama administration — in efforts to secure a package of tough reforms at the U.N. climate change summit in Paris, which kicks off at the end of this month.

But the decision to cut hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of support for renewable energy at home, with a planned 87% reduction in subsidies for solar power, threatens to undermine Britain’s international authority, while showing just how difficult it can be for a developed nation to break a centuries-long addiction to fossil fuels.

Pretty much every nation on Earth is "addicted" to electricity.  Fossil fuels are the most economical and efficient fuel source there is.  It's not complicated, really.

Parenthetically, aren't the British isles about the worst place on the planet, aside from the poles, to make solar power a top priority?  Doesn't it rain there an awful lot?  And doesn't that mean frequent and heavy cloud cover?  Sounds like something out of a Benny Hill skit.

The only reason the greenstremists are " baffled" is because they don't understand capitalism.  So I'll explain it to them veeeeery sloooooowly and use as many monosyllabic words as I can: The Brits came to their senses.  Or you could say that they got a better offer: Natural gas, which is much cheaper and more plentiful and to which their old power plants can easily be converted.  And they've ceased to throw money away on "green" fantasies in service to a cause that is a complete fraud.  Would that we were following London's example.

And those "wind farms" (a double entendre that also sounds like a Benny Hill skit) turn out to have an awfully big carbon footprint:

Wind farms are typically built on upland sites, where peat soil is common. In Scotland alone, two thirds of all planned onshore wind development is on peatland. England and Wales also have large numbers of current or proposed peatland wind farms.

But peat is also a massive store of carbon, described as Europe’s equivalent of the tropical rainforest. Peat bogs contain and absorb carbon in the same way as trees and plants — but in much higher quantities.

British peatland stores at least 3.2 billion tons of carbon, making it by far the country’s most important carbon sink and among the most important in the world.

Wind farms, and the miles of new roads and tracks needed to service them, damage or destroy the peat and cause significant loss of carbon to the atmosphere, where it contributes to climate change. [emphasis added]

No, not really.  Although we certainly need it to to offset the mini-ice age that's on the horizon.  Still, it's at the same time amazing and completely unsurprising that the greenies didn't think of that little detail.  I guess that's what happens when your case and cause are based on lies and fiction and facts are whatever you need them to be instead of intractably objective and grounded in reality.

The next logical step would be the Brits skipping Greenapalooza altogether.  Why bother attending after having peed in the enviros' punch bowl?  All they're going to get is flack and ritualistic denunciations for "destroying the planet" and "selling out" to "Big Oil" and so forth.  Better to stay home in their nice, warm, toasty, and more prosperous isles and keep setting that newfound good example.