Monday, March 02, 2015

A Bill versus Executive Order

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Article I, Section 1 of the United States Constitution tells us that only Congress has all of the federal legislative powers granted by the States.  Legislative powers are the authority to make law, modify law, and repeal law.  An executive order is only supposed to be for proclamations and internal rule changes in the executive branch. I really don't care who has issued the most executive orders.  In the case of Barack Obama, it is not about how many, but what he has used them for.  For example, Obama has used executive orders more than 45 times to modify the Affordable Care Act, and since legislative powers do not belong to the President, each one of those executive orders are unconstitutional.  Obama's executive amnesty, decreed in November of 2014 is another example of an illegal executive order.

I think Saturday Night Live caught the reality of it all best with their version of Schoolhouse Rock's "I am only a bill. . ."

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Sunday, March 01, 2015

Obama Threatened War Against Israel

Red line represents border
God gave to Israel
By Douglas V. Gibbs

There is an old saying.  If Islam was to lay down its weapons in the Middle East, there would be no more war in the region.  If Israel was to lay down its weapons in the Middle East, there would be no more Israel in the region.  When a threat against Israel rises, time and time again the small Jewish nation launching a first strike has saved them from annihilation.

The Democrat Party has been angry because the Republicans in the House of Representatives have invited Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to speak before Congress, and ten members of the liberal left have stated they are going to boycott the speech.  The Democrats later asked the leader of Israel to speak at a closed door session with only Democrats, and Bibi turned them down.  President Obama has been setting the stage for a showdown with Israel, defending Islamic terrorist groups, and refusing to call the enemy by name, while verbally attacking both Christianity, and Israel.  Obama has threatened sanctions against Israel for building on their own land in East Jerusalem, and now according to reports, President Barack Obama has threatened to shoot down Israeli jets if they attempt to embark on a military operation against Iran in an attempt to protect Israel's interests in the region against a nuclear Iran.

The accusation that Obama said he would shoot down Israeli jets if they launched an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities are regarding an operation planned by Netanyahu back in 2014.  It is being reported that after Obama verbalized the threat to commit an act of war against Israel, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu was forced to abort the planned Iran attack.

The source being used in this story is a Kuwaiti paper, and according to that source the threat came after Israel revealed the plans of their attack on Iran's nuclear program after discovering that the United States and Iran had been involved in secret talks over Iran’s nuclear program and were about to sign an agreement in that regard behind Israel's back.

When the unnamed Israeli minister, according to the report, revealed the attack plan to Secretary of State John Kerry, Obama then threatened to shoot down the Israeli jets before they could reach their targets in Iran.

The report also says that “Netanyahu and his commanders agreed after four nights of deliberations to task the Israeli army's chief of staff, Benny Gantz, to prepare a qualitative operation against Iran's nuclear program. In addition, Netanyahu and his ministers decided to do whatever they could do to thwart a possible agreement between Iran and the White House because such an agreement is, allegedly, a threat to Israel's security.”

Former US diplomat Zbigniew Brzezinski, who enthusiastically campaigned for Obama in 2008, called on him to shoot down Israeli planes if they attack Iran. “They have to fly over our airspace in Iraq. Are we just going to sit there and watch?” said the former national security adviser to former President Jimmy Carter in an interview with the Daily Beast.

“We have to be serious about denying them that right,” he said. “If they fly over, you go up and confront them. They have the choice of turning back or not. No one wishes for this but it could be a 'Liberty' in reverse.’"

Brzezinski, after being considered as a top candidate to become an official adviser to President Obama, was forced to create distance between him and Obama after Republican and pro-Israel Democrat Party members charged him with being anti-Israel, and the Obama camp believed that Brzezinski's stance against Israel could be detrimental to Obama's placement in the polls.

The news of Obama's threat of war against Israel last year is being revealed while Netanyahu is already en route to Washington, D.C. for an address to Congress on Tuesday aimed squarely at derailing Obama's cherished bid for a diplomatic deal with Tehran.  Meanwhile, as Netanyahu is delivering his speech, Secretary of State John Kerry, and other international "Neville-Chamberlain-style appeasers" will be in Switzerland for talks with the Iranians, trying to create the framework for an agreement that is hoped for by a late March deadline.

Netanyahu's speech before the American Congress also comes only two weeks before the next election in Israel, where the Israeli prime minister may either be elected to an unprecedented fourth term, or turn his position over to a new Israeli leader.  The speech is expected to echo his first in front of Congress in 1996, when he warned that an atomic Iran would “presage catastrophic consequences, not only for my country, and not only for the Middle East, but for all mankind.”

Secretary of State John Kerry, in an attempt to downplay Netanyahu's opposition to the Obama administration's plan to negotiate with Iran regarding the country's nuclear program, insisted the Obama administration's diplomatic record with Iran entitles the U.S. to "the benefit of the doubt" as negotiators work toward a long-term nuclear deal.

"We are going to test whether or not diplomacy can prevent this weapon from being created, so you don't have to turn to additional measures including the possibility of a military confrontation," Kerry told ABC's "This Week."

"Our hope is that diplomacy can work. And I believe, given our success of the interim agreement, we deserve the benefit of the doubt to find out whether or not we can get a similarly good agreement with respect to the future."

So much for the historical philosophy of America not negotiating with terrorists.

A Netanyahu adviser said of the situation, "We are not here to offend President Obama whom we respect very much.  The prime minister is here to warn, in front of any stage possible, the dangers of the agreement that may be taking shape."

According to the adviser, Western compromises with Iran are dangerous for Israel. Israel "does not oppose every deal."  Israel is merely doing its best to warn the U.S. of the risks entailed in the current one.

According to Speaker of the House John Boehner, who invited Netanyahu to speak before Congress, to the anger of the White House because Obama was not notified of the invitation (as if Congress is required to ask him permission), Netanyahu "can talk about this threat, I believe, better than anyone. And the United States Congress wants to hear from him, and so do the American people."

Netanyahu disapproves of any deal that does not entirely end Iran's nuclear program. President Barack Obama, however, has indicated he is willing to leave some nuclear activity intact, backed by safeguards that Iran is not trying to develop a weapon. Iran insists its program is solely for peaceful energy and medical research.

Commenting on Netanyahu's visit and speech, Obama's national security adviser, Susan Rice, described the "timing and partisan manner" of Netanyahu's visit as "destructive" for the U.S.-Israeli relationship - as if threatening to shoot down Israeli jets is not destructive to the U.S.-Israeli relationship in the first place.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Obama firing on Israeli Jets is a Plausible Scenario - Pajamas Media

Obama Threatened to Shoot Down IAF Iran Strike - Arutz Sheva

Netanyahu Declines Dems' Invite As Obama Ramps Up Hypocrisy - Political Pistachio

Obama Eyes Sanctions On Israel - Political Pistachio

Obama Administration's Empowerment of Islam - Political Pistachio

Obama Regime Bans Muslim Apostates From "Stand With Mohammed" Summit - Political Pistachio

Obama, Netanyahu, on Collision Course 6 Years in the Making - ABC News

Endless Warfare

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Warfare is a dominant feature of human history, and history often labels these conflicts as a battle between good and evil.  Warfare as we have seen in history books, such as in the forms of revolutions, civil wars, and world wars, however, are only a symptom.  Warfare is something we are engaged in perpetually, because the war for our world goes beyond the despotic desires of tyrants.

The Framers of the United States Constitution understood human nature.  They recognized that even among themselves there were those that believed in the supremacy of a central government, and would rather see a ruling elite dictate over the masses, than a system based on representation, the rule of law, checks and balances, and a limited democratic process.

John Adams once said that the two-party system would be the death of this nation.  George Washington was elected without being a member of a political party, though historians will argue he was sympathetic to the policies and agenda of the Federalist Party.  During that time period, it was the Federalist Party that began to emerge as the party of big government, and by the 1820s, the political party had faded into obscurity because liberty-minded Americans rejected their platform.

Americans largely supported the concept of a limited federal government, restrained by the chains of the United States Constitution, and so for a generation Jefferson's Republicans, the Democratic-Republican Party, and ultimately the Democrat Party through the term of Andrew Jackson, dominated politics, and as a result the United States prospered, and expanded in pursuit of the concept of "manifest destiny," from sea to shining sea.

The Whig Party challenged the Democrats, calling for a stronger legislature, as the Democrats incrementally moved towards the concept of a stronger executive.  Then, as the Whigs began to finally make a major impact, the issue of slavery divided that political party, and the Republican Party was born.  Within the Republican Party, however, grew two schools of thought; one that followed the Constitution, and another that called for the abolition of slavery through federal enforcement and federal supremacy, and ultimately changed the country from "the United States are," to "the United States is."

Political definitions leaped around, infecting both political parties, until finally the more progressive attitudes toward governance found their home in the Democrat Party, and what would come to be known as "conservative" policies evolved as the platform of the Republicans.

In the end, however, party labels do not matter.  Both parties desire the opportunity to run "big government."  Governmental institutions, and political parties, don't voluntarily remove their hand from power, but always seek to expand that power no matter the political label they claim to associate with.  The concept of limited government, the ideal that the Founding Fathers placed their lives, fortunes and sacred honor on the line for, has always been a grassroots concept, and something that only the people can, and will, truly ever demand and maintain.

Every issue, no matter what it is, be it a fiscal issue, a social issue, or anything else you can think of, ultimately always comes down to one argument: "Should power over that issue reside in the hands of the people and culture, local government, or a centralized system?"

Tyranny always seeks centralized control.  Political leaders naturally seek an expansion of power.  But professional politicians also understand that such a concept in its basic form is unacceptable to a people that seeks freedom.  So, under the guise of the common good, the politicians package tyranny in innocent looking wrappings, because darkness never reveals itself as darkness, but disguises itself as an Angel of Light.  And once the movement towards bigger government begins, the power players of a centralized system never stop pushing the envelope, always seeking more power, and will not stop their efforts until they have all power over the people, or are stopped by revolution (be it a peaceful, or bloody, one).

We can fight all we want, we can try any possible combination of solutions, but in the end, the war for that power will never end.  Like the cybernetic character in the movie The Terminator, those that seek bigger government and control over the people through policies that are not compatible with liberty will never stop.  Those that support far left totalitarianism will always exist.  They can't be bargained with, or reasoned with. They don't feel pity, or remorse, or fear.  And the hard left ideology absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are under their control, or dead.

When it comes to battling such a relentless enemy, we have to be practical.  The practical reality of what is available to us as tools is that those tools are limited, and maintaining liberty requires eternal vigilance.  In today's America, despite the many flaws in it, the tool we have available to us is currently the Republican Party. I don't praise the GOP, and I am not one that has made any kind of pledge to the GOP, but in the current system we reside in, the GOP is the vehicle available to us to turn things around. And understand, even if we were to right the ship, the enemy of hard left liberal progressive socialist tyranny is an enemy that goes beyond flesh and blood. It never gives up, and it never stops. The best we can do is temporarily set it back, but the battle will never end. The war is endless. The drive for tyranny will always exist in one form or another.  Therefore we must be eternally vigilant, and understand that we are engaged in endless warfare that we must not only fight ourselves, but teach our children to stand strong against as they wage the war against the hard left enemy, as well.

It is our responsibility to resist evil and promote liberty. . . for ourselves, and our Posterity.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

CPAC 2015: Rand Paul and Scott Walker Emerge as Front Runners

By Douglas V. Gibbs

The 2015 Conservative Political Action Conference is underway, and once again, for the third year in a row, Rand Paul was the winner of the Washington Times/CPAC presidential preference straw poll.  Rand's father, Ron Paul, won the straw poll twice, but we saw, when it came to translating that into a number of voters, the number one position in the CPAC straw poll had only a minor influence.  Scott Walker, who has been labeled the front runner for 2016 since his dynamic speech in Iowa, placed a very strong second place in the poll.  The remaining persons in the fight for political presidential candidacy positioning with conservatives were so far separated from the two front runners that they seem as if they are not even a consideration, with Jeb Bush actually receiving "boos" when his name was announced in the poll results.  Ted Cruz, who had a strong second place finish in the last CPAC straw poll, dropped to third.  Retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson, who gained attention when he directly confronted President Obama at a prayer breakfast in 2013, and then faced demands that he should apologize for challenging Obama at a non-partisan event, finished fourth. He replied to calls for his apology to Obama by saying, "If the shoe fits, wear it," and then in interview after interview intelligently told America about how we, as Americans, need to be "problem-solvers" through gaining knowledge, accomplishment, and individuality.  The White House even warned Dr. Carson, prior to his speech, to not "be offensive" to the President during the event, even asking for a copy of his speech, of which he could not produce because Dr. Carson is a "spontaneous speaker."  On one television program, after being confronted about apologizing to President Obama for his remarks at the prayer breakfast, Carson responded by asking, "Is Obama king?"  Marco Rubio's participation in the "Gang of Eight" team regarding immigration reform, and his questionable position on a number of issues, dropped his finish to the middle of the pack.  New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, considered to be too moderate for the Republican platform by many, finished 10th.

41.5 percent of respondents listed Mr. Paul as being in their top two, and 40.8 percent listed Mr. Walker in the same manner, putting the top two winners in close proximity of each other.  Mr. Cruz and Mr. Carson trailed with little more than half that support.  Respondents praised Scott Walker as being the person that is more of a candidate that unifies the party than any other candidate in recent history, largely because of how he stood up to the attacks by the Democrats and Labor Unions in Wisconsin, when he applied conservative principles to his State, and even had to survive a recall election in the process.  Scott Walker has been described, in some circles, as being a Calvin Coolidge and Ronald Reagan combo, exactly the kind of candidate we need in these perilous times.

Of those who voted in the 2015 CPAC poll, a number exceeding 3,000 participants, 41% voted that they support the legalization of marijuana, with 26% supporting that the drug should at least be available for medicinal purposes with permission of a doctor.  From a constitutional point of view, I must remind everyone that the decision regarding marijuana should be made at the State level.  The federal government has no constitutional authority to be dictating to States what they can or cannot do in the form of legislation regarding drugs, and without a constitutional amendment granted the power to the federal government, technically all current federal drug laws are unconstitutional, and therefore, illegal.

Personally, I don't support the legalization of pot for recreational use, but I do support it being available for medicinal purposes if it is properly monitored as is any other medical drug.  Once again, however, I urge, with the caveat, that those regulations must be applied by State governments, rather than the federal government, unless someday in the future, through amendment, the federal government obtains permission from the States to centrally regulate substances that are defined as being "drugs."

The voting at CPAC also revealed support for the legislative branch to act in a manner it is constitutionally allowed to, using the House of Representatives' "power of the purse" to stop President Obama's expansion of executive powers, including his actions through executive fiat to alter immigration law.  The support for such legislative action came in at 60% of the voters saying they “strongly agree” with the tactic.

The straw poll also revealed that conservative voters remain skeptical of military intervention on the global stage, and that the participants in the poll are eager to undo Mr. Obama’s health law and his unilateral immigration moves.

Regarding Common Core, an attempt to standardize education through centralized control, and a system through which the federal government has been meddling with the constitutionally "local issue" of education by offering subsidies to school districts that implement the educational curriculum that has become a flashpoint recently, 57.6 percent of conservatives at CPAC said they would not be able to vote for a candidate who supported the standards, an opinion that will likely knock Jeb Bush out of any chance at contention (unless the establishment decides to pump all their money into him, and enable him to rise from the dead like McCain did in 2008), especially since Mr. Bush remarked to the conference this week that he was willing to defend Common Core.

One must remember that though the CPAC straw poll is usually a fairly accurate indicator of conservative opinion, it does not always reflect the entire mood of conservatives, and often the winners don't find themselves in the driver's seat as the presidential primary season approaches.  Remember, Ron Paul won the straw poll twice, but never fared well in the Republican Presidential Primaries (not that I was a huge Ron Paul backer like many of my readers might be).  We may have the Republican Establishment to partially thank for that, as well as the participation of independents who, though I believe them to be largely conservative, don't always find Republican agenda items to sometimes be the most palatable.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Battlestar Galactica: Bastille Day (S1E4)

by JASmius

Rating: ***

Written by: Tony Graphia
Directed By: Allan Kroeker

All in all, a decent, worthwhile hour. Good continuity, a main story idea that did not degenerate into a stock cliché, but with some characterizations that didn't always make sense.

Let's begin with the continuity. So far there hasn't been a stand-alone episode of this series. "33" made reference to the five days since the "ragtag" fleet left its home space; "Water" referred to the three days that had passed since the destruction of the Olympic Carrier at the climax of "33"; and "Bastille Day" picks up where "Water" left off, with the fleet at the planet where Boomer found H2O. Their challenge now is figuring out a way to extract it so they can be on their way before the Cylons find them again.

The biggest obstacle is that of which they have the least: manpower. The equipment is available, but it is determined that the project will require at least a thousand people. Why a thousand? Because that just happens to be the number of convicts the fleet is carrying on its prison barge, the Astral Queen.

Immediately arises fresh conflict between Commander Adama and President Roslin. Adama, being the no-nonsense pragmatist that he is, looks at the matter in his linear, eminently practical way: they need a thousand men; there are fifteen hundred convicts on the Astral Queen; so send a thousand of them down to the planet and get the water. Mission accomplished.

Not so fast, says the President. Those men are convicts, but they're not slaves. Forcing them down to the planet to extract the water the fleet needs would constitute "slave labor," and she will not hear of it.

Enter Captain Apollo.

Adama, now being aware of his son's role as Roslin's liaison - or, more accurately, buffer between her and himself - isn't too thrilled with the arrangement. Several times throughout the hour he makes references to Apollo "choosing sides," as though the relationship between the military and its civilian overseers is necessarily adversarial. Certainly it can be, but under these circumstances, one would think that such territorial instincts could be minimized or suppressed. Apollo seems to recognize this a lot better than his father does, and for the frankly appalling naivete that he exhibits in later on, he ends up optimally and properly resolving the subsequent crisis.

Not to get ahead of myself in this synopsis, but Adama's hostility seemed forced here. Ever since the pilot he and Roslin seemed to be working together amicably, with Adama even making conciliatory gestures (the pomp & circumstance-laden official visit to the Galactica, and his gift of a book from his personal library) to nurture the relationship. Now, almost abruptly, he reverts back to his initial hostility, and all but accuses Apollo of being a sellout.

I guess maybe Apollo has the makings of a fine politician, unlike his cranky, inflexible old man, but Adama's demeanor in this ep just rang false to me.

Apollo suggests a compromise: offer the prisoners incentives in return for their consent to work on the water recovery project. If they cooperate, they earn "freedom points" that can earn a quicker parole for them. Adama, not being a politician, balks; he wants what he wants, period. Roslin, being not only a politician but the President, agrees, since it appears to accommodate the immediate need and her ethical objections.

I say "appears to accommodate" for reasons that will quickly become day-glo obvious.

Roslin sends Apollo to the Astral Queen as her representative. He dutifully relays the President's offer to the prisoners and asks for volunteers.

The cell doors open. But no convicts step forward.

Then one does. Not to volunteer, but to reveal himself as their leader. His name? Tom Zarek (Richard Hatch, aka "Classic Apollo").

Zarek is a terrorist (or, in his mind, "freedom fighter") who blew up a government building on Saggitaran twenty years before as part of a campaign to, so he says, "free his people." Is he a freedom fighter? The dialogue doesn't really say. His exchanges with Apollo mention a published manifesto of his being banned, and President Roslin speaks of her predecessor, Adar, having "sent in the Marines," but we really don't learn the veracity of Zarek's claims of his planet's oppression by the other eleven colonies.

I suppose, though, that once a "freedom fighter" crosses the Rubicon of utilizing "asymmetrical" tactics, such moral distinctions begin to erode. After twenty years, they're probably gone altogether.

Zarek certainly seems to display this in his attitude. When he steps out into the cell corridor, he does so in a laconic way that fairly drips with equal measures of cynicism and contempt. His reply on behalf of his fellow inmates is simple: no deal.

It wasn't difficult to see the direction this situation was headed. Not just in the "prison break" cliché sense, but the attitudes of the characters themselves. Zarek had the upper hand from the beginning because he knew that he had something "the government" wanted: his comrades' able bodies. And he knew that in Apollo he had just the bleeding heart greenhorn he needed to get what he wanted: a coup de 'tat.

The prison break doesn't take long. Apollo foolishly descends into the cell-block to Zarek's "suite" to negotiate with him, believing that he can appeal to the man's "better nature" by identifying with his cause. He tells him he respects his point of view, and even read his manifesto in college despite its being banned. It isn't quite hero worship, but Apollo does his pathetic best to be the "good cop."

Unfortunately for him, there's no "bad cop" present to play off of, and Zarek never did strike me as being lame-brained enough to fall for such a transparent ploy. Once he has Apollo where he wants him, he plays his winning hand. On a signal, one of the guards, whom Zarek has already persuaded to switch sides, opens all the cells again, and the prisoners quickly overpower Apollo and his small negotiating team. Just like that, Roslin's and Apollo's squeamishness has saddled Adama with a frakking hostage crisis.

To this point the cliché was playing out pretty much by the numbers. But then Tony Graphia threw in a few mild surprises.

Zarek gets on the fleet-wide intercom and states his demands: the immediate resignation of President Roslin and the holding of new elections so that humanity's survivors will have truly representative leadership.

Now what is it that strikes you about this demand? If your answer is, "That's an impossible demand that Zarek has to know will never be granted," go to the head of the class.

Roslin, for her part, despite having precipitated this fiasco with her anachronistic (for her people's new reality) scruples, is firm in her refusal to negotiate for the hostages' release. And there was never any doubt that Adama would immediately order the re-taking of the Astral Queen.

However, it takes a scene or two for all of this to sink into Apollo's moderately thick skull. When it does, he then dutifully regurgitates it for the audiences' sake, to wit, that Zarek wants to force a military solution so that he can "go out in a blaze of glory" as a martyr for his cause, and bring about President Roslin's fall in the process.

Of course, it doesn't turn out that way. Starbuck leads the Galactica's boarding party, which quickly secures the barge. But before she can pick off Zarek, Apollo disarms him and does a different brand of negotiating at gunpoint: accept his terms or die. Zarek, of course, wants to die, and says to go ahead and shoot. Apollo, of course, hesitates, as he's really bluffing. Starbuck, of course, isn't bluffing, and takes her shot when Apollo moves out of her crosshairs, except Apollo pulls Zarek out of the way an instant before his head would have become chunky salsa. This finally shakes the "freedom fighter," since he never believed Apollo would plug him but had no idea where the shot that almost did came from. At last, he's willing to cut a deal.

The deal that is cut is so generous as to piss off both Adama and Roslin: the convicts will have no weapons and will be completely dependent on outside sources for their sustenance and supplies, and they will supply the labor for the water recovery project. In return, they will retain control of the Astral Queen and be granted limited freedom; and an election will be held in seven months.

Of course, seven months marks the end of President Adar's term, which President Roslin is serving out. So all Apollo really did is remind Zarek of what the law already called for anyway. Is it really possibly that Zarek wasn't aware of this? Or did he just assume that in the wake of the Cylon holocaust the law would be dispensed with?

Roslin, impressed by Apollo's newfound intrepidity, acquiesces, commending him for upholding the law. Besides which, as she later confides to the younger man, her cancer may kill her before she can even run for a term of her own anyway. Adama, on the other hand, just glowers and snaps to his son that, "I guess you've chosen your side." Man, does that guy need to get laid.

On the periphery the other ongoing character arcs got some attention, and some of it was quite intriguing.

Dr. Baltar was called before Adama, where the commander demanded point-blank to know where his oft-promised Cylon-detector is.

This was a wonderfully written and acted scene on several different levels. First is that Adama made it clear that he knows Baltar is full of crap, but also conceded that he doesn't have anybody else to turn to. Baltar, for his part, finally broke down and started to admit that there never was any Cylon-detector. I say "started to" because this triggered a sudden fit of rage from Number Six, who started shrieking orders at him to tell Adama exactly what she wanted him to say - at one point lunging right into his face with such force that Baltar dropped the glass of water he'd been holding, causing it to shatter on the deck.

For Baltar, who had gotten nothing but seduction and gently manipulative banter from the sexy Cylon, this had to be a nightmarish development. In his own self-centered, solipsistic way, far more nightmarish than the destruction of the Colonies was. Now this siren in his head isn't just a treasonously ribald distraction, but a malevolent tormentor bullying him to knowingly finish the betrayal he was unwittingly tricked into. The question now becomes what will become more unbearable for him - this mental stalking by the enemy or the secret he doesn't want his fellow humans to ever discover? "Fascinating," as Spock would say.

What Number Six compels Baltar to say is a request for a nuclear warhead. And, almost incredibly, Adama grants his request. Definitely an arc that is coming to a rapid, er, climax, at this rate.

We see further interaction between gruff, spit & polish hardass Colonel Tigh and irreverent hotshot pilot Lieutenant Starbuck. During Apollo's absence Starbuck is acting CAG, and Tigh takes issue with her joking command style (which seems at odds with the dressing down she urged Apollo to inflict upon her in "33," but maybe it's a "There's a time and a place for everything" sort of dynamic). Starbuck replies that you can't just yell at your subordinates all the time or they'll stop listening to you. She follows that up with a wisecrack about his alcoholism, which we see resume in the opening scene.

However, after she volunteers for the rescue mission on the grounds that she's "the best shot in or out of the cockpit," and Tigh backs her up, she attempts to bury the hatchet with the old man over a couple of glasses of water. But he rebuffs her gesture, saying that his shortcomings are personal, while hers are professional. In a word, ouch. For once, Starbuck was left speechless. That feud certainly won't be settled any time soon.

There's a fresh scene back on "Cylon-occupied Caprica" in an empty city that for whatever reason wasn't nuked. Helo and the Boomer avatar are making their way through it on their way to somewhere, while on a nearby roof Doral and one of Number Six's "sisters" look on. I still have the feeling that something huge is going to come out of this arc, but at this point I haven't a clue what it might be.

I should also close the loop on the main plot with a subplot that lent it the authenticity without which the whole ep might have fizzled.

The idea that these are hardened criminals usually never gets exposited in this particular story genre. If all we'd heard from was the comparatively urbane and civilized Tom Zarek, we'd never have gotten the full message that these really were dangerous scumbags whose release could be dangerous to the rest of the fleet (or, as Adama put it, even having control of the Astral Queen put a weapon in their hands).

Fortunately (well, not for Callie, but I'll get to that momentarily), here we get that little bit extra, in maximally visceral fashion.

One of the prisoners begins verbally abusing Chief Tyrol's assistant through the bars of her cell. And, God bless her, she doesn't back off an inch. She doesn't go out of her way to antagonize him, but she stands her ground. This not being the reaction he was seeking, the piece of human debris enters her cell and gets right up in her face, demanding that she "respect" him. Being a bit more frightened now, she says that she does respect him, but in, shall we say, a very "ironic" way. Incensed, the man seizes her and drags her off, presumably to rape her. Subsequently we do hear a high-pitched scream, and both the characters present (Dorky Aide and Petty Officer Dualla, whose torturous - to the audience - courtship persists) assume the worst.

However, in a delightful turn of events, the shriek was from Callie's assailant, whose ear she bit off in Mike Tysonesque style. He gets blown away by her rescuers, but her courage, coming from what has heretofore been a "nervous Nellie," elicited as much fist-pumping from the viewer as it did from her colleagues.

The moral of the story, if there is one? That even after doomsday, human nature remains human nature. Which, come to think of it, is pretty much what the Cylons said at the end of the pilot.

Intriguing, isn't it?

Next: How Starbuck killed Zak

Saturday, February 28, 2015

Constitution Radio Welcomes Michael Loftus of The Flipside

Join the Conversation by Calling into the program LIVE at 888-909-1050

Constitution Radio with Douglas V. Gibbs is the flagship broadcast for the 3-hour Saturday Extravaganza. Listen Live at 2:00 pm:, or on our "Call to Listen" feature at 832-999-1050, or locally on KCAA 1050AM and 106.3FM.  Podcasts can also be listened to directly after the program airs.  On Constitution Radio this week our guest is Michael Loftus of The Flipside, a program that takes a comedic look at the world of politics, and the biggest news stories.

After the interview we will discuss the Book of the Week, Constitution Quest Question of the Week, and the top stories of the AllStar Collision Big Stories of the Week.

Constitution Corner:

Patricia Arquette: Constitution Not Intended for Women

Catch Stories 5-19 on American Daily Review

AllStar Collision Big Stories of the Week on Constitution Radio:

4. Keystone XL Veto

3. DHS Bill Under the Stroke of Midnight

2. Killing National Defense

1. FCC Takeover of the Internet

McCain: Time to 'Move On' From Homeland Funding Fight

by JASmius

For those gullible House conservatives who piled in to pass the Senate's one-week extension of "clean" DHS funding last night thinking that they were gaining seven more days to persuade their weak-kneed Senate counterparts to join what was originally advertised as the Republican stand for the Constitution and the rule of law against Barack Obama's unlawful executive amnesty decree, behold the harbinger of your final, crushing defeat from the sneering lips of the GOP king of amnesty himself:

The ongoing House battle over funding the Department of Homeland Security is angering Republican senators, who say it's time to move on to other issues on the legislative calendar.

"I just think we ought to move on to other things," said Arizona Republican Senator John McCain, according to the Hill. "I'm not sure how it helps for the American people to have the perception that Republicans in the Senate and Republicans in the House are at odds with each other. We have a lot of initiatives I think we could show the American people we can work together on."

Senators are pointing out that it's time to move away from the battle and focus on other vital issues, including trade legislation, regulatory and tax reform, and the budget.

However, the ongoing fight, being waged in an effort to block President Barack Obama's executive action on immigration, has brought the other issues to a virtual halt, with the threat of the Homeland Security department facing a shutdown pushing back on other GOP agenda items.

Exactly the sort of condescending Maverick crap that we've grown accustomed to over the years, as though the Senate is where the "adults" reside and the House is littered, cluttered, and overrun with unruly "children".  "Children" who are "obsessed" with this quaint, outmoded notion that preserving, protecting, and defending the Constitution of the United States - an oath they have all taken, including Darth Queeg - against the rampaging dictator in the White House who continues to systematically tear the Founding Document limb from figurative limb is just an irrelevant afterthought.  As though beating back a quite literal presidential tyranny just doesn't matter nearly as much as "trade legislation, regulatory and tax reform, and the budget" - none of which will mean a damn thing in any legislative context if Barack Obama can just ignore Congress and decree what he wants on all of those issues as well.

In case you were wondering, two other of the four GOP faces of "comprehensive immigration reform" from the 2013 "Gang of Eight" mini-me'd themselves right into line behind Sailor:

"Why don’t we just look at the court decision in Texas, declare victory and move on?" said Arizona GOP Senator Jeff Flake.

And Senator Lindsey Graham, R-SC, agreed that "when the judge ruled, that was the way I wanted to end it."

Oh, you mean the "court decision in Texas" that the White House is already flagrantly and completely ignoring as they bulldoze ahead with Obamnesty implementation?  This is the same dubious excuse-mongering that gave us the 2012 SCOTUS upholding of ObamaCare and the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (one of the authors of which was, appropriately enough, John McCain).  It can be summed up, Jeopardy!-like, in the form of a question: What makes you people think that federal judges at any level are going to be any less susceptible to outside political pressures - especially from this viciously lawless Regime - than are you yourselves?  Besides which is that, constitutionally speaking, it isn't the federal courts' job to stop a despotic chief executive - that responsibility was placed by the Founders on Congress, as the preeminent branch of the federal government.

And the Senate, last I checked, was part of Congress.

And then there's this additional dollop of arrogant condescension:

"What's frustrating is that the House guys think any of the Democrats over here are under pressure to vote or cloture. They're in their own little bubble, it's myopic," said a Senate Republican, who spoke to the Hill permitted on condition of anonymity.

Well, of course Senate Donks aren't going to feel any pressure to vote for cloture on the House DHS bill defunding Obamnesty - if you people won't apply any.  Good Lord, Charles Krauthammer - again, not exactly a Tea Partier fire-eater - urged Senate GOPers to abolish the filibuster in its entirety to get these things done, because otherwise Democrats will still be running the upper chamber from the minority - which is clearly the case, judging by the depressing events this week.

But this Vichy mentality is pervasively impregnable, alas.  They've just been marinating in that Beltway "We've gotta have the Hispanic vote, and they all monolithically want amnesty!" pulp fiction too long, and have been brainwashed into believing that they'll all lose their re-election bids if they don't demonstrate their "ability to govern," defined as serving as Barack Obama's collective rubber stamp.

Illinois's Mark Kirk (who'll almost certainly lose his seat in 2016 anyway) summed it up:

"I think the feeling of most people is this is the fight that we should have not fought," said vulnerable Republican Illinois Senator Mark Kirk. "We really, as a governing party, we've got to fund DHS and say to the House, 'Here’s a straw so you can suck it up.'"

Yeah, and I'm sure they'll tell you to suck on something as well, Senator.

Exit question: Second look at a Democrat Senate restoration?  It's likely only twenty-two months away.

American Daily Review: Braver than McConnell and Boehner

Once again JASmius and Douglas V. Gibbs are poised to tackle the big stories of the week. . .

Listen live at Noon Pacific on American Daily Review, or catch the archive later.

ADR Radio is the first two hours of a three-hour radio extravaganza that culminates with the blistering hour of AM Radio on KCAA from 2-3 pm Pacific on Constitution Radio with Douglas V. Gibbs

And now for the AllStar Collision Big Stories of the Week, February 28, 2015
- Constitution Corner (both shows):

20. Patricia Arquette: Constitution Not Intended for Women

- Big Stories ADR:

19. The Passing of a Star Trek Icon, Leonard Nimoy

18. American Sniper Snubbed at Oscars

17. American Sniper Murder Verdict

16. The Next Real Estate/Mortgage Crisis

15. Global Warming: Ice and Witch Hunts

14. The Obama Youth

13. The Question About Smart Meters

12. When Guns are Confiscated

11. As the Democrats have done to Israel

10. The Enemy in Obama’s America

9. Man Kills Families in the Homes in Missouri on Shooting Rampage

8. Assassination of Russian Opposition Leader

7. Obama Administration’s Handling of Islamic Terrorism Threat

6. Scott Walker Tackles Right to Work

5. Obama Targets Ammunition

- Big Stories Constitution Radio:

4. Keystone XL Veto

3. DHS Bill Under the Stroke of Midnight

2. Killing National Defense

1. FCC Takeover of the Internet

Today's Conservative and Constitutional Radio Schedule

Host Douglas V. Gibbs will be on the radio three times today:

*all times Pacific

8:00 am, Conservative Voice Radio, KMET 1490AM

12:00 pm, American Daily Review, BlogTalkRadio

2:00 pm, Constitution Radio with Douglas V. Gibbs, KCAA 1050AM

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Homeland Security Funded for One Week

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Democrat Representative Nancy Pelosi accused the Republicans of creating a mess, but in reality it is President Barack Obama that has created the mess, by unlawfully demanding amnesty by executive decree, and expecting his changes to immigration policy to be funded not by an individual bill specifically for his Executive Amnesty, but in a Department of Homeland Security bill that normally includes border patrol funding.  As midnight approached, and the question of whether or not DHS would even be funded, after the Senate refused to approve a bill rejecting amnesty funding, a quick one week funding bill was approved by both Houses, and signed by Obama, to give the debate one more week of life.

The final vote by both Houses of Congress was rapid, and Obama's signature occurred literally a few minutes before the clock tolled midnight.

In response to Pelosi's accusation of creating a mess against the GOP, Representative Peter King of New York tweeted,  "There are terrorist attacks all over world and we're talking about closing down Homeland Security. This is like living in world of crazy people."

The conservatives of the Republican Party, a group that dominates the House of Representatives, have been challenging the largely "establishment" Republicans of the Senate to refuse to include Obama's immigration policy by executive fiat because the President's actions without approval through a legislative process is unconstitutional.  The question over funding is a matter of whether or not they should be condoning lawlessness.  Fully funding Obama's immigration action would be to allow an expansion of executive power into the realm of legislative powers, enabling the President to act as king and decree law at his leisure, without the benefit of the representation of the people.

After the Senate refused the House's original version of the bill 57-42 (three short of the 60 required), of which the "Nuclear Option" in the U.S. Senate would have allowed the original 57-42 vote to pass the bill in the Senate with a simple majority, McConnell's "clean" DHS bill was rejected by the House, and then a three-week funding measure was voted down 224-203, so the Senate presented a one-week alternative, which slid under the wire just before midnight.  The potential of an ugly showdown remains.  Realizing that in the past failing to fund something normally gets dragged through the mud as being the GOP's fault by the media, the Senate figured out the one-week partial save, to keep the agency open for now.  Duties of the Department of Homeland Security includes facing off with terrorism, as well as border security.

While the conservatives of Congress sees the passage of the bill a gift of one week to debate and gain support for their refusal to okay Obama's unconstitutional immigration action by executive fiat, the Democrats believe next week, because of the pressure to fund DHS, this will lead to passage next week of a bill to fund the agency through the September 30, the end of the budget year, with an inclusion of funding for Obamamnesty.

"It does not make any difference whether the funding is for three weeks, three months or a full fiscal year. If it's illegal, it's illegal," said Representative Mo Brooks, R-Alabama, referring to Obama's unconstitutional executive orders demanding allowing illegal aliens to remain in the country without fear of deportation.

The opposition to the one week bill included conservatives like Representative Brooks that were standing behind their belief that Obama's executive amnesty was unconstitutional, and Democrats that preferred to hold out for a bill that funds DHS through September.  The threat against not funding DHS came in the form of furloughs, a claim by Homeland Security officials that said they would have to send 30,000 employees home without pay if some kind of funding did not pass.

The bill the conservatives of Congress are seeking, one that would reject Obama's unlawful changes to immigration policy, is becoming something of a difficult sell, since we've seen with this week's battle that the Senate Democrats have shown they have the ability to block any challenges to Obama's immigration policies, and Obama, with that kind of support from his fellow Democrats, has no problem vetoing any bill that appears on his desk that is not fully to his liking.

When called to compromise, Democrats have shown that even when they are in the congressional minority, they are unwilling to flinch, and are truly the party of "No."

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Conservative Voice Radio: Rome, Islam, Amnesty, FCC, DHS, and American Sniper

Conservative Voice Radio with your host Douglas V. Gibbs is a round table discussion with members of the Banning-Beaumont-Cherry Valley Tea Party.  The program airs on KMET 1490AM at  8:00 am Pacific.  Listen live at


Obama and the Expansion of ISIS.

Rudy Guiliani says Obama doesn't love America.

Obamacare: IRS sends wrong tax information/Federal Government using Taxation to Control Economy.

Immigration Threat Assessment: ICE Unable to keep track of Illegals.

FCC Control of the Internet.

McConnell's fear to stand up against Democrats.

American Sniper Snubbed at Oscars.

FCC's Ajit Pai: Even Dems Admit Obama Owns Net Neutrality

by JASmius

Prior to Thursday, O's Internet crackdown was compulsorily clandestine; now that the techno trachea tourniquet is in place, even Debbie Wasserman-Schultz is taking swooning victory laps around her party's golden calf:

FCC commissioner Ajit Pai says the barrage of criticism he's received for labeling "net neutrality" as President Barack Obama's plan is bogus — because the Democratic National Committee agrees with him.

And Pai also told Newsmax TV's The Steve Malzberg Show on Friday that Obama embraced the plan to regulate the Internet as a utility because he needed a "political issue" to push during his second term.

What, ObamaCare "tweaking" and Obamnesty weren't sufficient?  No!  They!  Weren't!

"If you look at some of the reports, it's pretty clear the White House was casting about for a political issue after the November election and they settled on net neutrality," said Pai, who was appointed by Obama and opposed the plan.

What, Obamnesty wasn't suff....oh, never mind.

"I've gotten a decent amount of criticism for calling it President Obama's plan, but today, if you look at the Democratic National Committee website, they brag about the fact that 'the FCC just approved President Obama's plan for Internet regulation.' "

"Well, when the political party that inspired it is taking credit for it, we have to call it what it is … a presidential plan to regulate the Internet."

Oh, I don't know, Commissioner Pai, we called it that three and a half months ago.  Nor do I think that The One moved to seize the Internet because he "needed a political issue" any more than he issued the Immigration Proclamation because he thought Obamerikastan had a dearth of Mexican restaurants.  Barack Obama sent "his" FCC after the 'Net like a lion after a lame wildebeest because it was the last remaining outpost of unfettered free market capitalism and the one and only remaining outlet for untrammeled mass free speech.  Something that he, as an orthodox Marxist-Alinskyist, could not tolerate, and was freed by the fall of the Democrat Senate to, as "the president he always wanted to be," ruthlessly terminate by slow, regulatory strangulation.

Or just flipping the off-switch, if the random whim suits him.  I'm sure that feature is in that 332-page vise somewhere.

Which sets the stage nicely for the 2016 presidential election that is increasingly looking like it may never take place.

Friday, February 27, 2015

Weekend Conservative Radio with Douglas V. Gibbs

4 Radio Broadcasts

4 Different Platforms



12:00 pm: American Daily Review, BlogTalkRadio

2:00 pm: Constitution Radio, KCAA 1050AM


9:00 am: Constitution Study Radio, BlogTalkRadio

Conservative Voice Radio with your host Douglas V. Gibbs is a round table discussion with members of the Banning-Beaumont-Cherry Valley Tea Party. The program airs on KMET 1490AM at 8:00 am Pacific. Listen live at

Today's Topics:

Obama and the Expansion of ISIS.

Rudy Guiliani says Obama doesn't love America.

Obamacare: IRS sends wrong tax information/Federal Government using Taxation to Control Economy.

Immigration Threat Assessment: ICE Unable to keep track of Illegals.

FCC Control of the Internet.

McConnell's fear to stand up against Democrats.

American Sniper Snubbed at Oscars.

American Daily Review is the pre-game show for Constitution Radio with Douglas V. Gibbs. During this program Doug and JASmius tackle the issues and stories of the week that did not make the final list to air on program on KCAA. ADR is two hours of hard hitting conservative commentary, through the lens of the United States Constitution. 

The flagship broadcast for the 3-hour Saturday Extravaganza. On Constitution Radio this week our guest is Michael Loftus of The Flipside, program that takes a comedic look at the world of politics, and the biggest news stories.

After the interview we will discuss the Book of the Week,Constitution Quest Question of the Week, and the top stories of the AllStar Collision Big Stories of the Week.

Learn more about the program at
Constitution Study Radio

After the massive dose of commentary on Saturday, join Doug's online Constitution Classroom at Constitution Study Radio. Live at 9:00 am Pacific, with podcasts of all past shows available at one convenient location.


Scott Walker Tackles Right to Work

By Douglas V. Gibbs

In Wisconsin, Governor Scott Walker is waiting for the Right to Work bill, which has already been approved by the State Senate, to work its way through the State Assembly.  He has indicated he will sign the legislation to make Wisconsin a "Right to Work" state, prohibiting employees from being forced to join a union against their will. As we've seen in countless other States that have adopted the "Right to Work" philosophy, it's the right thing to do for job creators and employees alike.

The liberal left progressives are accusing Walker of reversing his stance on Right to Work legislation, but that is not necessarily true.  He did not pursue the legislation before not because he did not believe in it, but because the timing was not yet right.  First, he wanted to reform the unions, and do away with collective bargaining with public unions in the State of Wisconsin.

Walker has shown he supports the idea of "Right to Work" as far back as 1993.

"I've never said that I didn't think it was a good idea," Walker told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. "I've just questioned the timing in the past and whether it was right at that time."

When Governor Walker signs the legislation, it will make Wisconsin the 25th Right to Work State, a move that has been instrumental in encouraging job growth, and economic prosperity in the States it is enacted.

Liberal Left media outlets have suggested he is tackling the unions once again to help fuel his run for President in 2016.  Walker has shown to have courage made of steel, having stood up to the unions before, and surviving a massive attack from the liberal left that led to a recall effort a couple years ago.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Scott Walker and Right to Work - Wall Street Journal

Obama Administration's Empowerment of Islam

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Numerous conversations I have with folks have shown me that there are a number of people out there that not only believe that President Obama is an anti-American President, but that he is a Muslim.  In the end, it is all speculation, for Barack Obama has never given anyone indisputable evidence regarding his faith, which is why Scott Walker accurately indicated he had no idea what Obama's faith is.  However, regardless of if you believe that Obama owns a Muslim prayer rug, or if you think he's a Christian with a "Reverend Jeremiah Wright" G-Damn America splash of crazy in his religious thinking, or if you support the idea that Obama is a Godless Communist that rejects faith but appeases Islam because it serves his purpose, his actions and words tell a very interesting story that suggests he personally feels hostility towards Christianity, and is sympathetic to the followers of the false prophet Muhammad.

In a recent speech, after slamming Christianity with his Crusades remark, saying that "terrible deeds also committed in the name of Christ" during a National Prayer Breakfast, President Obama also went so far as to say, "Here in America, Islam has been woven into the fabric of our country since its founding."

The statement was delivered during one of his speeches at the White House's Extremism Summit, suggesting that not only were Muslims not enemies of America, and are not terrorists, but that they played a crucial role in America’s founding.

Either, the President doesn't understand history, he subscribes to a version that is not true, or he has gotten so arrogant about his lies that he doesn't care how obvious the untruth that spills from his mouth is.

The Crusades, after all, were a response to hundreds of years of Muslim attacks and expansionism in the Holy Land, and Europe; and after the founding of the United States, our first two international wars were against Islam, in the Barbary Wars waged during the Thomas Jefferson and James Madison presidencies.

One group of people that did play a crucial role in America's founding were the Jews.  7,000 Jews were present in the United States, and almost all of them supported the drive for independence.  And when the Revolutionary War effort was suffering financially, Haym Salomon, a Jewish banker in New York, borrowed money on his credit to help to continue to finance the effort for independence.

President Obama's "Crusades" and "Islam has been woven into the fabric of our country" statements are not the first time he has patted Islam on the back for something the ideology has never done, and attacked Christianity in America.  In April 2009 he said, “Although, as I mentioned, we have a very large Christian population, we do not consider ourselves a Christian nation or a Jewish nation or a Muslim nation. We consider ourselves a nation of citizens who are bound by ideals and a set of values. I think modern Turkey was founded with a similar set of principles.”

Referencing his remarks regarding Muslim influence on the founding of America, taking historical accuracy into account, Muslims did not begin to immigrate into the United States in significant numbers until after the American War Between the States.  The first mosque did not appear until 1915.  Islam had zero impact on America's founding, aside from declaring war against the new country before the country had even convened its Constitutional Convention in 1787.

It is true that Thomas Jefferson owned a Koran.  He believed it to be important to understand the enemy.  Jefferson also hosted a dinner meeting at the White House with an emissary from the Barbary States, but it was not a social visit, but an attempt to position the Iftar into submission after the USS Constitution captured ships from the bey of Tunis during the first war with the Barbary Pirates. Jefferson's knowledge of Islam, to that point, was primarily from 1786, after Barbary pirates attempted to blackmail America into monetary tribute. At that time, the Barbary emissary justified piracy with reference to the Koran, according to a report from Jefferson:

"The Ambassador answered us that it was founded on the Laws of the Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners."

John Quincy Adams, writing of these negotiations, stated:

"The precept of the Koran is perpetual war against all who deny that Mahomet is the prophet of God. The vanquished may purchase their lives, by the payment of tribute; the victorious may be appeased by a false and delusive promise of peace; and the faithful follower of the prophet may submit to the imperious necessities of defeat: but the command to propagate the Moslem creed by the sword is always obligatory, when it can be made effective. The commands of the prophet may be performed alike, by fraud, or by force."

Quincy Adams would later lament, “Such is the spirit, which governs the hearts of men, to whom treachery and violence are taught as principles of religion.”

The negative views of Islam were not restricted to only those early Americans.  Montesquieu wrote that the Turks were despotic. William Blackstone wrote that religion could be used for despotism, as shown by “terrible ravages committed by the Saracens in the east, to propagate the religion of Mahomet.” Thomas Paine wrote of Islam in Common Sense, but only as a reference point for despotic attempts to stifle liberty: he said that divine right of kings was a “superstitious tale, conveniently timed, Mahomet like, to cram hereditary right down the throats of the vulgar.”

The discovery of the New World by Columbus was largely because a land route was impossible pursue to the Far East, for the Muslim countries that blocked the way demanded tribute to cross their lands, and were viciously murdering travelers that refused to pay, and sometimes even murdering those that did pay.

Which means either Obama does not understand history, or he is a liar - and in either case, his actions show that he is doing what he can to be sympathetic towards Islam in today's global arena.

Other actions by the President show that he may have even deeper connections to Islam. Obama, for example, in the presence of dozens of Islamic African delegates, gave the one-finger affirmation of Islamic faith, at last August’s U.S.-African Leaders’ Summit in Washington D.C. (pictured at the beginning of this article).  

When Coptic Christian women and children were kidnapped and slaughtered in Egypt, and when Christians were lined up on a Libyan beach and beheaded, the Obama administration was willing to call the action "evil," but stopped short of calling the action "Islamic."  In the case of the Coptic Christians, the White House refused to label the Christian victims as anything other than "Egyptian."  The same narrative was used with 150 Christians kidnapped from a string of villages in Syria.  "Evil" was used to describe what happened, but it was not an action the minions of Obama even considered to be connected to Islam.

Specifically regarding the Islamic State's raid of Christian women and children in Syria, U.S. Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said that the Islamic State's “latest targeting of a religious minority is only further testament to its brutal and inhumane treatment of all those who disagree with its divisive goals and toxic beliefs."  She then went on to declare, "ISIL continues to exact its evil upon innocents of all faiths and the majority of its victims have been Muslims."

She stated that as if the fact that some of their victims are Muslim somehow means they are not acting in the name of Islam.  Could it be those Muslims that she claims were killed were terminated not because they were Muslim, but because they refused to join the group?  However, because ISIS is acting in the name of Islam, the Christians are indeed being targeted specifically because they are Christians.

Ms. Psaki also said that the United States was fully committed “to leading the international coalition to degrade and defeat ISIL and to working towards a negotiated political solution that stops the bloodshed and secures a future of freedom, justice and dignity for all Syrians.”

But the problem is not just ISIS.  The problem is Islam, and jihad is being waged by many more groups other than the Islamic State.

How can you fight a war against an enemy if you are not even willing to admit who the enemy is, or from where their motives originate?


The Obama administration does not see Islam as an enemy.  Remember, the administration has declared that the hoax of man-made global warming is a greater danger to worldwide safety than terrorism, and have shown time and time again that they believe the greater threat to America is Christianity, conservatives, and gun owners, rather than the Islamic Jihad.

While groups like the Islamic State has been slaughtering Christians because they are Christians, be it on a beach in Libya or a town in Nigeria or the CAR, Chad, Niger, Iraq, the Philippines, Thailand — following their religious imperative to “Slay the unbelievers wherever you find them” (Quran 2:191), the Obama administration refuses to call them what they are. . . but don't be fooled.  The stance of the White House is not driven by political correctness, or an attempt to be sensitive to those they believe to be peaceful Muslims (as they are telling us).  By his actions, Obama is using the language he uses, and is taking the actions he is taking, in order to empower Islam, to support the jihad, and side with them in their slaughter of non-Muslims.

George W. Bush fell into the trap of being careful with calling the attacks "Muslim" because he was a fool on that particular issue.  Obama is careful about using the Islamic label because he wishes to either appease them, or support them, in their bloody endeavors.

And as all of this happens, not one reporter has challenged the White House on this.  Online bloggers are willing to, but not the media. . . which is a part of the reason why Obama's FCC decided to seize control over the internet.