Sunday, December 21, 2014

NFL Week 16 Predictions

by JASmius


SEASON vs. SPREAD: 113-111

And so it arrives.  The marble match for all the rubbers.  The showdown for the NFC West crown.  Live from the Toaster in Glendale, Arizona, with Al Micheals, Cris Collinsworth, Michelle Tafoya, and the NBC Sunday Night Football crew and accompanying national television audience in tow, it's the homestanding Arizona Cardinals taking their best shot - or, rather, the best shot they have - at dethroning the defending World Champion Seattle Seahawks.

Here's a hint, gentles: That ain't gonna happen.

The tale of the tape:

POWER RANKING: Seattle #4, Arizona #11
TOTAL OFFENSE RANKING: Seattle #11, Arizona #24
PASS OFFENSE RANKING: Arizona #15, Seattle #30

Caveats: (1) The 'hawks offense is designed to be run-first, with passing as a supplement.  With the Broncos', Packers', or Patriots' offenses installed in Hawkville, Russell Wilson would put up comparable numbers to Peyton Manning, Aaron Rodgers, and Tom Brady.  And (2) the Cards are down to their third-string quarterback, Ryan Lindley, who has never thrown a touchdown pass and hasn't played a down since 2012.  And he'll be facing The Blue Wave (Michael Bennett, Cliff Avril - just signed to an extension on Friday - and Bruce Irvin, among other pass rushers), and the Legion of Boom (see below).

RUSH OFFENSE RANKING: Seattle #1, Arizona #30
TOTAL DEFENSE RANKING: Seattle #1, Arizona #14
PASS DEFENSE RANKING: Seattle #1, Arizona #29
RUSH DEFENSE RANKING: Seattle #5, Arizona #6

The Cardinals have been objectively and independently confirmed as the luckiest team in the NFL this season.  They can't run the ball, and their passing game largely consists of the three or four shots down the field than head coach Bruce Ariens takes every game, an inordinate number of which have connected this year.  This gambit didn't work with backup Drew Stanton taking the snaps at the Clink a month ago, so the chances of Ryan Lindley pulling it off are correspondingly diminished.  Their defense is stout against the run, and held Marshawn Lynch to 39 yards on 15 carries the last time, but Russell Wilson picked up a more-than offsetting 73 yards on the ground, which means if Arizona keys on containing RW3, they'll be opening up the middle for Beast Mode.  And there's the matter of that bottom-dwelling Cardinal pass defense, which Mr. Wilson will exploit.

But I come back to a years-stale third string quarterback going up against the best NFL defense of the past decade (at least).  Arizona's defense is going to have to redefine "opportunistic" and generate a ton of turnovers to give themselves any chance against the Champs, because this is one matchup that luck isn't going to hand to them.

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

Atlanta* (+6)
New Orleans

Houston* (+5.5)

New England* (-10)
N.Y. Jets

Buffalo* (-6)

Carolina* (-4)

Detroit* (-7)

Indianapolis* (+3)

Kansas City
Pittsburgh* (-3)

Green Bay* (-10.5)

Minnesota (+6.5)

N.Y. Giants
St. Louis* (-5)

Arizona (+8)


Denver* (-3.5)

Constitution Study Radio: Lesson 27, Election Rules, Amendment 20

Douglas V. Gibbs hosts Constitution Study Radio. . .

Amendment 20, Election Rules. . . Terms, Vacancies, and the Line of Succession.

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

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

Doug's books: 25 Myths of the United States Constitution on Amazon, and CreateSpace; The Basic Constitution at Amazon and CreateSpace.

SHOWTIME:12/21/2014 at 9:00:00 AM 30 minutes

Fire Conquers Ice

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Fire conquers ice,
Transforming solid to liquid.
The ice becomes water,
To conquer the fire.

Water, changed by the confrontation,
Then becomes powerful steam,
And properly applied to the right engine,
Steam puts everything in motion.

Patience, and resolve.
We must weather the storm.
The Sea of Galilee is a rough journey,
But He promised to get us to the other side.

Darkness appears as an angel of light,
And Darkness may fool many. . .
When truth becomes a radical act,
Truth always wins in the end.

Optimism is not a difficult task
When we realize everything is possible to God.
Sometimes we must be broken down and fall to the bottom
Before we can begin to rise.

Victory is but a matter of time,
And in time, we can overcome the fiery darts.
All we must do is transform
Back to who we were in the beginning.

Solid as Ice.
Firm as a glacier.
Pure as fallen snow.
As powerful as a flowing current.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

As we fight the good fight, we must remember to maintain our Sacred Honor, and our Firm Reliance on Divine Providence.

Saturday, December 20, 2014

BREAKING: 2 NYPD Police Officers Shot & Killed In Revenge For Ferguson, Garner Grand Jury Verdicts

by JASmius

Barack Obama's race war escalates:

Two uniformed New York City police officers were shot dead Saturday afternoon as they sat in a marked police car in Brooklyn, in what investigators believe was an armed gunman's move to avenge the deaths of Eric Garner and Michael Brown.

The suspect was found dead a short time later in a nearby subway station, the New York Post reports.

The shooter was identified as Ismaaiyl Brinsley who wounded his girlfriend in Baltimore before driving to New York and ambushing the officers, according to the New York Daily News. Brinsley, reportedly a gang member, bragged on Instagram just hours before the shooting that he wanted to take out some cops, according to the Daily News.

He apparently shot himself in the head as officers closed in on the crowded subway platform.

"It’s an execution," a law-enforcement source told the Post. The shooting occurred at 3 p.m. in the Bedford-Stuyvesant section of Brooklyn. The man had fired through the front windshield.

The officers' names were not released pending notification of relatives, the Post reports. The officers were taken to Woodhull Hospital in the borough — and at least one had been shot in the head, police said.

"I’m Putting Wings on Pigs Today," Brinsley, believed to be the shooting suspect, wrote on an Instagram posting three hours before the shooting, the Post reports.

It was just a week ago, ladies and gentlemen, that twenty thousand black/leftwing insurrectionists marched through the Big Apple shouting, "What do we want?  DEAD COPS!!!" at the top of their lungs.  Honestly, I'm surprised it took this long for somebody to start making good on this threat.

What?  You didn't think they were serious?  A lot of New Yorkers now know better:

Witnesses described scenes of chaos.

"I heard shooting -- four or five shots," Derrick McKie, 49, told the Post. "It sounded like from a single gun," he said, adding that ambulances and police cars rushed to the scene.

"I seen them putting the cop in the ambulance. He looked messed up," added McKie, a barber. "He took a high-caliber weapon to the face. He was lifeless... I couldn't see where the holes was at, all I could see was blood. His body was lifeless."

Holes?  His face was probably gone, folks, along with most of his head.

Behold, the fog of race war.

Remember the threats Al Sharpton and Russell Simmons made last week?  Ismaaiyl Brinsley seems to have taken them seriously.  Remember Eric "The Red" Holder's renewed accusation of cowardice against "white America" for not wanting to kowtow to the Black Klan?  Is this the "talking about race" he had in mind?  Entirely one-sided, lethal, with "words" of high-caliber hot lead?

Exit question: Will the Insurrectionist-in-Chief tear a hamstring dashing from the back nine to the nearest media camera and microphone to comment on this atrocity?  I'd set the odds at the same level as the Jacksonville Jaguars playing the Washington Redskins in Super Bowl XLIX.

UPDATE: Former New York City Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik:

Former New York City Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik told Newsmax that Saturday's execution-style shooting of two uniformed police officers was ultimately encouraged by Mayor Bill de Blasio and the Rev. Al Sharpton — and "they have blood on their hands."

"de Blasio, Sharpton and all those who encouraged this anti-cop, racist mentality all have blood on their hands," he said. "They have blood on their hands."...

Kerik told Newsmax that the officers' deaths resulted from a climate created by de Blasio, Sharpton and other New York City officials.

"This guy's intent — based on that Instagram post — was retribution for Eric Garner and Michael Brown," he told Newsmax. "The people who encouraged these protests — you had peaceful protesters who were screaming 'kill the cops' — the so-called peaceful protesters.

"Who was encouraging these protesters? De Blasio, Sharpton and other elected officials and community leaders. They encouraged this mentality. They encouraged this behavior.

"They encouraged it — and these two cops are dead because of people like them," Kerik said. "They don't owe the cops an apology.

"An apology isn't good enough. They have blood on their hands."

Something tells me Sharpie and de Blasio and Russell Simmons and Eric Holder and Barack Obama are going to be quiet as the tomb about this.  Or Sharpie and Simmons, anyway; their revenue steams aren't taxpayer-guaranteed.

NFL Week 16 Saturday

by JASmius

A mismatch the playoff contender has to have, and what looked like an inter-conference matchup of playoff contenders even a month ago, but now....not so much.

Philly has gotten - or better hope that they've gotten - over their "Seahawk fatigue" (so coined from the fact that teams that play the World Champs almost always lose the following week, as the Eagles did at home to the Cowboys last week), and while they have little chance at a first-round bye, they can still secure a first-round home playoff game by winning the NFC East.

Meanwhile, the Redskins, though they won at the FCC yesterday, couldn't win this game if the Eagles failed to show up.

Philadelphia* (-7.5)

It seems like the Chargers have two late-season templates: They either start slowly and then get hot down the stretch, like they did last year in advancing as far as the divisional round and giving the eventual AFC champion Denver Broncos all they could handle, or they start fast and then fade spectacularly as December unfolds.

This year is the latter for the Bolts, as their playoff hopes are flickering at 8-6, their power ranking sunk to #20 after being in the top ten for most of the season.  SD is holding on by a thread, and the thread is greased.

But they've got it made compared to the Niners, who are in complete disarray.  They've dropped to #23 in my power rankings, Coach Jim Harbaugh is on his way out after "wearing out his welcome" despite this, his fourth season, being the first off year of the Harbaugh era.  Quarterback Colin Kaepernick is a basket case, running back Frank Gore has gotten old like Walter Donovan after drinking from the wrong Grail, their stellar linebacker corps still hasn't fully reassembled from the injured and suspension lists, respectively, the secondary losses in last offseason's free agency were more impactful than anticipated.  And then there's the worst development of all: they got swept by Seattle.  Getting skunked by your bitterest rival is not the taste you want in your mouth as you head off into a playoff-less offseason, but there they go.

So who has the edge at the Big Bell Bottom tonight?  I don't think it matters all that much, frankly.  But I'll take what Vegas considers a slight upset.

San Diego* (+2.5)
San Francisco

I will say this, though: I agree with those who argue that the 49ers will rue the day they let a proven NFL head coach of the quality of Jim Harbaugh leave merely because he's "too competitive" without having somebody at least as good in mind and lined up for his replacement.

Not that I, as a Seahawk fan, am complaining, you understand.  Having a clearer path to the NFC West title each year is just fine by me.

Constitution Radio with Douglas V. Gibbs - The Department of Justice's License to Lie

Constitution Radio with Douglas V. Gibbs begins at 2:05 pm Pacific on KCAA 1050AM,, and call to listen at 832-999-1050.  Join the Conversation by calling into the studio, 888-909-1050.  Listen later, or download the show, from our archive page immediately after the program.

The whole three-hour extravaganza of American Daily Review and Constitution Radio is also available on YouTube.

Segment One, 2:05 pm: Intro Monologue

Segment Two, 2:10 pm: Guest Sidney Powell

Segment Three, 2:25 pm: Book of the Week

Segment Four, 2:30 pm: Constitution Quest Question of the Week

Segment Five, 2:35 pm: The Big Stories of the Week

Today's guest is Sidney Powell, author of Exposing Corruption in the Department of Justice.


A gruesome suicide, a likely murder, a tragic plane crash, wrongful imprisonment, and gripping courtroom scenes draw readers into this compelling story, giving them a frightening perspective on justice and who should be accountable when evidence is withheld. Licensed to Lie is the true story of the strong-arm, illegal, and unethical tactics used by headline-grabbing federal prosecutors in their narcissistic pursuit of power.

The Constitution Quest Question of the Week is brought to you by Constitution Quest Game.  You can still get 20% off the already discounted Christmas price for the game if you enter "Doug" in the Discount Box when you purchase the game online.
- = - = - = - = - = - = -
Big Stories of the Week, December 20, 2014 brought to you by AllStar Collision and Repair.

17. Ebola. . . Not Forgotten

16. Another edition of The War on Christmas begins

15. War on Christianity Extends to Chaplains

-- Flashback:

-- Flashback:

-- Flashback:

-- Flashback:

-- Flashback:

14. Don’t forget the War on Rightwingers

13. Decision by some Germans to Stand Against Islam Leads to Comparison to Nazism

-- Side Note:

--  Yet. . .

12. Sexual Perversion, the Next Step: Transgenderism

11. Ferguson’s Mental Witnesses Produces Another

10. Target: Gun Owners

9. Sony Caves Under Pressure From Hackers, and North Korea

8. Widening the Racial Divide

7. Obama’s New Cuba Policy

6. And the Communists Respond

5. Enemies Target American Dollar as Reserve Currency

4. U.S. Senate Torture Report

3. Terror in Sydney

2. Obama’s Final Countdown

1. CR-Omnibus


Did you miss the show?  Catch it on our podcast archive page!

Listen every Saturday at 2:05 pm Pacific on KCAA Radio.

Don't forget American Daily Review at Noon Pacific on Saturdays.

Constitution Study Radio airs every Sunday Morning at 9:00 am Pacific.

U.S. Troops Fight ISIS In Western Iraq

by JASmius

Alternate headline: "Mosul summit meeting between President Obama and Caliph al-Baghdadi in mortal peril":

U.S. soldiers clashed with ISIS militants, helping the Iraqi army repel attacks against the town of al-Baghdadi in the Western Anbar province, Al Jazeera TV reported Saturday, as Kurdish forces advanced in the north.

The U.S. troops were from al-Assad military base, the biggest in Anbar, First Lieutenant Muneer al-Qoud from the Iraqi police said by phone today. U.S. Central Command is aware of the reports and is looking into them, a spokesman said today.

Translation: "What the hell were you doing engaging ISIS in ground combat?  This isn't supposed to be a REAL war!"

The clashes may mark the first time U.S. ground forces have engaged Islamic State militants since President Barack Obama authorized air strikes against the al-Qaida breakaway group in August. A ground conflict would mark a policy shift for Obama, who made pulling the U.S. out of Iraq the centerpiece of his first presidential campaign and oversaw the withdrawal of combat forces from the country in 2011.

This is nothing of the kind.  Obama's ISIS policy - pretend to fight the jihadists for public consumption while doing nothing militarily to actually slow them down, much less defeat them - is unchanged.  There is no "policy shift".  Which is why U.S. Central Command is "looking into" reports of American-ISIS ground combat.

But that's the funny thing about war.  As the old saying goes, "No battle plan ever survives first contact with the enemy".  In other words, war is unpredictable.  Things happen that you don't anticipate, no matter how thought-out and detailed the plan.  And then you have to adapt and adjust to them on the fly.

Put another way, war isn't politics and propaganda.  It cannot be orchestrated once it has begun.  I will guarantee what you already know: This clash was not part of the script.  Barack Obama desperately doesn't want a ground war with ISIS.  Even having to pretend to pin-prick Islamic State positions from the air was humiliating enough.  And now the man whose proudest boast was "ending the war in Iraq" has the ground war in Iraq that he never imagined and never wanted.

Which begs the question: How do you pretend to fight a ground war?  At least without getting a whole lot of U.S. soldiers killed?  Because we can count on this: Backing into wars is costlier than waging them head-on, and the American people are not going to accept significant casualties if we are not committing to winning.

But, then again, isn't all Barack Obama has to do is sign an Executive Order declaring peace in Iraq and Syria?  Caliph al-Baghdadi and his berserker followers will lay down their arms and obey their master - won't they?  It worked on House Republicans, after all.

American Daily Review: Big Stories of the Week Conservative Commentary

As always, the list is long, and important.

So, this week on American Daily Review Radio today at Noon Pacific (or by podcast at any time), we will be discussing, with hard-hitting commentary through the lens of the United States Constitution, the following topics:

Big Stories of the Week, December 20, 2014

17. Ebola. . . Not Forgotten

16. Another edition of The War on Christmas begins

15. War on Christianity Extends to Chaplains

-- Flashback:

-- Flashback:

-- Flashback:

-- Flashback:

-- Flashback:

14. Don’t forget the War on Rightwingers

13. Decision by some Germans to Stand Against Islam Leads to Comparison to Nazism

-- Side Note:

--  Yet. . .

12. Sexual Perversion, the Next Step: Transgenderism

11. Ferguson’s Mental Witnesses Produces Another

10. Target: Gun Owners

9. Sony Caves Under Pressure From Hackers, and North Korea

8. Widening the Racial Divide

7. Obama’s New Cuba Policy

6. And the Communists Respond

5. Enemies Target American Dollar as Reserve Currency

4. U.S. Senate Torture Report

3. Terror in Sydney

2. Obama’s Final Countdown

1. CR-Omnibus

The Secret is Out about Douglas V. Gibbs

Douglas V. Gibbs' On-The-Air time is expanding. . .

Doug is "Mr. Constitution," or "That Constitution Guy," with appearances on National Television and Local Television notched into his belt, as well as various radio programs around the country.  Locally, between his Constitution Classes, speaking engagements, and writing (books, internationally posted articles, and blogging), he has made quite an impact.  On the airwaves, his impact is growing.  Already "on the air" three hours each Saturday, splitting time between American Daily Review on BlogTalkRadio, and Constitution Radio with Douglas V. Gibbs on KCAA 1050AM, and podcasting on Sundays on Constitution Study Radio, Doug has been invited to participate in Conservative Voice radio on KMET 1490AM in Banning/Beaumont beginning in 2015.  The reality is, people want to hear what Doug has to say, and there is no limit to what he is "willing to say."  Between his willingness to hammer on representatives like Congressman Ken Calvert last July when the Republican stayed away from the Murrieta Immigration Protests until the political winds shifted in a politically favorable direction to ensure it would be safe to do so, to Doug's criticism of both Calvert and Duncan Hunter for putting their vote to a CR-Omnibus bill packed with unconstitutional federal spending, and disgustingly covered with earmarks as a result of the vote-buying game they play in Washington after the pair never even read the bill, to Doug's relentless reporting on the drunk (former mayor of Murrieta, Alan Long) and alleged criminal (Murrieta Councilman Rick Gibbs, Mr. Ethics Violations himself), Doug is through with playing Mr. Nice Guy.

A local voice for local issues, as well as on political issues beyond the Inland Empire, Douglas V. Gibbs is becoming more than a local voice.  He is Mr. Constitution, host of Constitution Radio with Douglas V. Gibbs, the local show with a global footprint.

Catch the programs today:

American Daily Review - Noon to 2:00 pm at BlogTalkRadio.

Constitution Radio with Douglas V. Gibbs - 2:00 pm to 3:00 pm on KCAA 1050AM.

And catch his program tomorrow:

Constitution Study Radio on BlogTalkRadio.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

North Carolina Common Core English Lesson Proselytizes Islam

by JASmius

Andy Taylor wept:

Parents in Farmville, North Carolina want to know why their children were given a Common Core vocabulary assignment in an English class that promoted the Prophet Muhammad and the Islamic faith.

“It really caught me off guard,” a Farmville Central High School student who was in the class told me. “If we are not allowed to talk about any other religions in school – how is this appropriate?”

The Islamic vocabulary worksheet was assigned to seniors.

“I was reading it and it caught me off guard,” the student told me. “I just looked at it and knew something was not right – so I emailed the pages to my mom.”

At least we know some Farmville students are still being raised properly and to think for themselves.

Then again, maybe it's because the Islamic proselytizing is so pile-driver blatant:

“In the following exercises, you will have the opportunity to expand your vocabulary by reading about Muhammad and the Islamic word,” the worksheet read.

The lesson used words like astute, conducive, erratic, mosque, pastoral, and zenith in sentences about the Islamic faith.

“The zenith of any Muslim’s life is a trip to Mecca,” one sentence read. For “erratic,” the lesson included this statement: “The responses to Muhammad’s teachings were at first erratic. Some people responded favorably, while other resisted his claim that ‘there is no God but Allah and Muhammad his Prophet.”

Another section required students to complete a sentence:

“There are such vast numbers of people who are anxious to spread the Muslim faith that it would be impossible to give a(n)___ amount.”

The Farmville School District, not-so-shockingly, defended this Muslim propaganda:

A spokesman for Pitt County Schools defended the lesson  – noting that it came from a state-adopted supplemental workbook and met the “Common Core standards for English Language Arts.”

“The course is designed to accompany the world literature text, which emphasizes culture in literature,” the statement read. [emphasis added]

That's the dhimmis' CCCP fig leaf.  Christianity is "religion" and thus verboten, but Islam is "culture" and thus a legitimate part of "social studies".

If the Farmville Schools insist on injecting Islam into its curriculum, they should do so not as "social studies," but as fictional literature, seeing as how they left out the part about the "prophet" Mohammed being a racist, rapist, murderer, drug addict, and pedofile.

Exit question: When they get to the chapter on constructing suicide bomb jackets, will that be taught in shop class?

Two Pennsylvania Democrats Bribed To Oppose Voter ID Laws

by JASmius

They had to be bribed?  They didn't just do it for the righteousness of The Cause?  Shocking!:

State representatives Vanessa Brown and Ron Waters were caught as part of a years-long investigation that found they accepted $4,000 and $7,650, respectively, in cash or money orders from a confidential informant in 2011 ahead of a vote for a bill that required voters to show identification at the polls; the law passed, but was struck down by a judge in January of this year.

Seriously, Brown and Waters wouldn't have voted against that voter ID law anyway?  Which is to say, they didn't smell a ringer when they were offered bribes to do what they were going to do all along?  Not the sharpest knives in the drawer, are they?

Waters also reportedly accepted a $2,000 Tiffany bracelet.

Following a grand-jury investigation, Philadelphia district attorney Seth Williams said Brown and Waters “fully admitted that they knowingly took illegal cash payments.”

In other words, they wittingly and with corrupt malice aforethought broke the law.  Open and shut case, right?

Only if you choose to prosecute it in the first place:

When the revelations emerged earlier this year, the Keystone State’s top law-enforcement officer, Democrat attorney general Kathleen Kane, said she would not charge Brown or Waters, and shut down the operation that began under her predecessor, then–attorney general and currently outgoing Republican governor Tom Corbett. The Philadelphia Inquirer reports that Kane called into question how the investigation was conducted and suggested that race played a role in targeting Brown and Waters, who are black.

Because blacks, as part of de facto slavery reparations, are exempt from all federal, state, and local laws, and are entitled to vote as many times as they want in order to ensure that Democrats win every single race, federal, state, and local, from sea to shining sea.  And if you try to mess with that sweet deal, you're a racist and will be summarily destroyed.

Then-AG Corbett, by the way, took up the prosecution of Brown and Waters because Reichsfuhrer Eric "The Red" Holder and his Commissariat of Injustice, Revenge & Coverup declined to do so with the same corrupt, extremist alacrity with which they are going after local police departments on mythical charges of racism.  Because, you know, blacks, as part of de facto slavery reparations, are exempt from all federal, state, and local laws, and are entitled to vote as many times as they want in order to ensure that Democrats win every single race, federal, state, and local, from sea to shining sea.

Kudos to the courageous Seth Williams for doing Holder's and Kane's jobs for them.  Over/under on how many days his career has got left is in double-digits.

Obama Denies Telling Sony To Cave

by JASmius

Suuuuuuure he did:

Barack Obama sat for an interview Friday with CNN and rebutted any notion that Sony Pictures consulted with the White House on pulling "The Interview" from theaters after the news channel aired excerpts of a separate interview in which the studio's chairman, Michael Lynton, described reaching out to the administration.

In addition, a source close to the administration took issue with any suggestion that it advised Sony on the film's release.

CNN anchor Candy Crowley nabbed the interview with Obama....

Her "gold watch".

....which will be shown in full Sunday for the final installment of her series "State of the Union." Appearing on the network Friday to promote the interview, she recounted that Obama told her no one in the White House talked with Sony about yanking the film.

"They called about the hacking," Crowley, who announced she was leaving the network earlier this month, said on air Obama told her. "There was not discussions about distributing or not distributing."

Enough, already.  Does anybody seriously believe this?  Or is this a case of O relaying the cave order through one of his underlings?  Or Sony instinctively knowing what The One wanted and carrying it out?  Because it has to be one of these three possibilities, the latter two providing him with semi-plausible deniability.

Regardless, the other shoe will fall on this one.  Count on it.

What clinches my ocean skepticism about O's "stand fast!" claim?


A senior administration official who spoke to Variety on condition of anonymity, said, "There was a meeting, and they did present to the government their issue. But to say that we instructed them, or made them to believe that we endorsed the idea of them pulling the film is categorically incorrect. The administration, and no Administration, is in the habit of instructing businesses what to do or not do or how to conduct their business." [emphasis added]

I call this "the audacity of nope".  Feel free to add your name entries in the comments, until POTUS has the NoKos hack them.

Granddaughter Observes Nativity

By Douglas V. Gibbs

As Alexya touched the various pieces of our Nativity Scene in our Living Room, I warned her to be careful.  My three-year old Granddaughter responded, "I am careful with Baby Jesus."

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Friday, December 19, 2014

The Communists Come Together

Posted by Douglas V. Gibbs

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Hard Starboard Radio: Team North Korea, Movie Police

Sony should take a lesson from Captain America’s creators, who faced death threats from Hitler’s thugs; Why liberals really, really hate conservatives; Will insisting that diversity depends on race and identity instead of class cost the Left its political power?; Elizabeth Warren has everything going for her that Hillary does not; Is Barack Obama's "winning streak" imaginary?; and Bill Clinton gives the ChiComms MIRV'd ICBMS.

Stan Lee really does have a pair on Open Thighs Friday at 6PM Eastern/3PM Pacific.

Massachusetts Town Removes ‘Merry Christmas’ Sign After A Single Complaint

by JASmius

One complaint.  Which means this town was looking for any excuse, no matter how flimsy, to censor even the word "Christmas" within its city limits.  And did I mention that the sign was on private, not public, property?  Makes you wonder what the extend of the municipal government's jurisdiction really is, doesn't it?:

“It’s a Christmas holiday, it’s a national holiday, not some random holiday,” said one man at the post office today.

Precisely.  And, consequently, the "holiday" that would be eliminated altogether if not for its, shall we say, commercial aspects.

Over the weekend, several Department of Public Works workers put an electronic sign on a friend’s property, right on the main road through the town. And the message? Merry Christmas.

“We work for the town, and we just wanted everyone to be in the Christmas spirit and there are few decorations,” said Steve Barber, a DPW worker.

Two words: "Merry Christmas".  No Gospel message.  No Scriptural references.  Just the generic seasonal greeting.  On private property.  And the Christophobes won't tolerate even that much.

But apparently, someone complained and sure enough, there are by-laws governing electronic signs. “We don’t object to the message,” said Building Commissioner Gerald O’Neill, “but the sign has to conform to size regulations, among other factors.”

i.e. "We object to the message - which really isn't a message, per se - but we have a fig leaf behind which to hide our anti-Christian bigotry, and we're going to take full advantage of it.

So the sign had to go. But one DPW worker said next year, they’re going to put a large banner across Route 139. “There are fewer regulations about banners,” he said.

There won't be by a year from now, pal.  I guarantee it.

Think a sign about Ramadan would receive similar treatment?  Or would the complaintant be vilified as an Islamophobe?  I think we know.

"Diversity," my ass.

Oh, and MERRY CHRISTMAS.  I dare Commissioner O'Neill to find a by-law censoring season's greetings here.

Obama May Visit Cuba

by JASmius

See if you can guess the real reason why:

Just a day after his stunning announcement that the United States will re-establish a diplomatic relationship with Cuba — including opening an embassy in Havana —  President Barack Obama is weighing a trip to the island nation or hosting a visit from its communist leader, Raul Castro.

"I don’t have any current plans, but let’s see how things evolve," Obama told ABC "World News Tonight" anchor David Muir.

Time reports that Secretary of State John Kerry is already planning a trip there, according to a statement issued Thursday in which he said: "I look forward to being the first Secretary of State in sixty years to visit Cuba."

Earlier Thursday, White House spokesman Josh Earnest said the president was not "ruling out" a visit to Cuba, with Earnest adding that there could be "important national security reasons for the president to travel to other countries that have what we would describe at best as checkered human rights records."

Here's a hint: dignifying and bolstering regimes with "checkered human rights records" with corrupt U.S. diplomatic recognition and "engagement" is NOT why O is "weighting a trip to Cuba".  On that score he's much more interested in giving Raul Castro the red carpet treatment here, which is already in the works.

No, there's one reason - besides that fine Cuban choom - why his infernal majesty wants to frolic on that Caribbean island prison:

Earnest also noted that the natural beauty of Cuba might entice the president to make a trip there.

"Like many Americans, (Obama) has seen that Cuba is a place where they have a beautiful climate and a lot of fun things to do, so, if there's an opportunity for the president to visit, I'm sure he wouldn't turn it down," Earnest said.

That's right, folks: Cuba is O's newest vacation destination.  He'll even get to play golf on the same course as Che Guevara did!  That will be some reverent putting, right there.

Exit observation: Calvin Coolidge is the last POTUS to visit Cuba for any reason.  What, then, does that tell us about Cuba's strategic value to the United States, and Barack Obama's hard-left ideological reasons for tossing the oppressed Cuban people overboard?

Bonus exit question: If O goes to Cuba, can't they keep him down there?  He'd be right at home, after all.

Are Implied Powers Constitutional?

By Douglas V. Gibbs

The United States Constitution was written to establish a federal government to handle issues the States individually could not.  The States, who had original authority over all issues prior to the ratification of the United States Constitution, legally transferred some of their powers to the federal government so that it may function in the manner intended by the framers of the Constitution during convention in 1787.  The federal government were given express powers that are enumerated in the Constitution, but may not act upon any power not enumerated unless that action is necessary and proper to be used in order to carry out an expressly granted authority.  The powers given to the federal government were carefully chosen, limiting the central government to handling only external issues that concern the union of States, as well as conflicts between the States.  In return, the States would be tasked with administering issues that are internal, or specifically affecting to their own affairs.

In Federalist #45, James Madison explains that by design, as provided by the United States Constitution, "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State."

The concept of "Implied Powers," as defined by Alexander Hamilton during his argument for a national bank, was that "there are implied, as well as express powers [in the Constitution], and that the former are as effectually delegated as the latter. . . Implied powers are to be considered as delegated [to the federal government] equally with express ones."

Implied Powers are assumed authorities to the federal government, according to those that support the concept, that are not expressly enumerated, but are implied based on the interpretations of the Constitution by the political class, and judges.  We are even told as soon as we are old enough to study American History that it is the job of federal court justices to "interpret the law," which in turn leads to their authority to "interpret the Constitution."

The problem with the power of interpretation is that if you give an agency the authority to "interpret" something, their definitions will be more apt to reflect their own political ideology, than the letter of the law.

A living and breathing legal system changes at the whims of the electorate, politicians, and judges.  Cultural evolution can be used to manipulate the law, changing legal definitions without using the proper tools granted by the Constitution, such as the Article V. amendment process, to get the Constitution to mean whatever the power-brokers want it to mean.  The writers of the Constitution did not initiate a flimsy system that should change based on the whimsy desires of political opportunists.  The American form of government under the United States Constitution was designed to be a system based on a set standard, a written foundation with specific enumerated powers expressly granted to the federal government.  To allow the political elite to manipulate the Constitution based on their interpretations of the document through an unconstitutional concept they call "implied powers" is to go against the original intent of the document, and to establish a direct path to tyranny, and a loss of liberty in America.

Strict constructionism recognizes that the federal government was created to serve the States, not control them.  Supporters of the concept of Implied Powers suggests that the federal government can expand beyond those original restraints by simply following the opinion of a politician, or judge, regarding the constitutionality of a federal law, or action.  There are powers that lie beyond what is specifically enumerated, but those powers are not "implied powers," but instead find a direct connection to authorities expressly enumerated in the Constitution in Article I, Section 8, and any subsequent amendments.  Those powers are called, "Necessary and Proper."

Article I, Section 8, Clause 18, the "necessary and proper clause," reads: To make all law which shall be necessary and proper to carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested in this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

The language of this clause specifically establishes that only laws that may not be expressly granted as authorities, but are necessary and proper in order to carry into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested in this Constitution, may be passed using this clause as their supporting authority.

Foregoing powers means "the powers expressly granted preceding this clause." All other powers vested in this Constitution means "any other powers granted by amendment."

Also notice the word "vested." Vested means "legally transferred." If the powers are legally transferred, they must be transferred from someplace. If you read Article I, Section 1 and the Tenth Amendment, it becomes apparent that the original possessors of the powers granted to the federal government is the States, therefore the laws must be in accordance with those powers granted, and any new powers must be obtained through the amendment process (Article V) which does not go into effect until the States ratify the request with a vote of three-quarters of the States.

Any laws passed by the federal government must be in line with their authorities from the Constitution itself.  If an authority is not specifically enumerated as a power of the federal government, it must be "necessary and proper" in order to carry out express powers granted.

As an example, in Article I, Section 8, the Constitution gives the federal government the authority to establish post offices.  A necessary and proper law or federal action to carry out that express power would be if Congress purchased the land needed for the location, hired the construction company to build the facility, and hired the personnel necessary to wrap up any construction, or post-construction needs.

The government uses the concept of "implied powers" to justify regulating companies like UPS, or Fed Ex, because they carry out services similar to that of the post office.  However, regulating those private companies is not necessary and proper in order to carry out U.S. Mail functions, nor is the government placing such restrictions on a private company for any reason enumerated in the Constitution.  Therefore, federal regulation over private parcel delivery corporations is unconstitutional.  The States, however, are not prohibited from setting rules regarding the movement of parcels within their boundaries, therefore, any regulation necessary regarding parcel delivery companies would need to be established by the States in which the companies operate.

Implied powers, therefore, are not constitutional, but necessary and proper laws legislated for the purpose of the federal government being able to carry out authorities expressly granted by the U.S. Constitution are.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Pew Research Study: U.S. Wealth Gaps Hit Record High

by JASmius

"Income inequality" didn't work - i.e. the Left voyeuristically sticking their grubby paws all over our paychecks (those of us that still receive one, anyway) - and so now they've moved on to sticking their grubby paws all over our nest eggs, where their greedy voyeurism is equally unwelcome:

The wealth gap between the country's upper-income and middle-class families has risen to a record high, according to a new study from the Pew Research Center.

The survey, based on thirty years of Federal Reserve data, shows the gap between upper- and lower-income families also has climbed to an all-time peak.

And for the exact same reason that income inequality has exploded under Barack Hussein Obama: The "1%" are having to shelter their resources against O's confiscatory plundering and forcibly imposed, exorbitant regulatory costs instead of investing them in economically productive (i.e. "profitable") and job-creating ventures.  In short, "the rich" will remain "rich" no matter how much Obamunists purport to "soak" them, but "lower-income families" can't be upwardly economically mobile if no jobs are being created for them to fill.

The median wealth of upper-income families totaled $639,400 last year, 6.6 times the median wealth of middle-income families — $96,500. That compares with 4.5 times in 2007, the year before the financial crisis.

That's interesting, isn't it?  My family and I have never had more than a middle-of-middle class income, and yet our nest egg is somewhere between those two numbers.  Why?  Because we have never run up huge debt, we've never "house hopped" to bigger and bigger dwellings, we've never purchased new cars but got along with recently "pre-owned" vehicles.  In short, we've never consumed conspicuously, and that has enabled us to sock away dough consistently over the years against the proverbial "rainy day" - which turned out to be a fifteen-months-and-counting deluge.

If interest rates were being set by the market instead of Janet Yellen's ouija board, who knows how much additional wealth I would possess by now?

But should I be penalized for not living beyond my means?  And is the economic status of "lower-income families" the fault of Americans who have done vastly better?

There's a right answer to those two questions.  It just isn't the answer that will come out of the Obama Regime.

"The latest data reinforce the larger story of America's middle-class household wealth stagnation over the past three decades," the report states.

"The Great Recession destroyed a significant amount of middle-income and lower-income families' wealth, and the economic recovery has yet to be felt for them. . . . Middle- and lower-income families' wealth levels in 2013 are comparable to where they were in the early 1990s."

The (Second) Great DEPression - which is still ongoing - destroyed approximately 5% of my wealth, and I subsequently made it back plus an additional 15% or so.  Of course, by the same token, in the next year that nest egg will begin declining by about 5% a year, barring the advent of a fresh source of income for me, all of which illustrates that Obamanomics - and horrible bosses - will "get" you sooner or later. But it still isn't any of anybody's damn business what my financial resources look like, or yours, or everybody else's - particularly those who are more well off than you or I are.  Economic voyeurism is the principle means by which income and wealth disparities are exacerbated to justify further depressionary government interventions, in a perpetual motion machine of poverty, squalor, and oppression.

Hey, Pew: How's about we each keep our own eyes on our own bank accounts, our own noses to our own grindstones, and the feds get the hell out of the way and allow the former American capitalist economy to function?  If you really want to ease income and wealth inequality, that is.

Paramount Follows Sony, Bans "Team America"

by JASmius

After Sony Pictures allowed North Korea to dictate to them what pictures they can make and release, a few theaters around the country substituted Team America: World Police, a 2004 film that parodied the NoKos, for The Interview, and did so to huge public acclaim and appreciation.

You can see where this is headed, cantcha?:

Three movie theaters say Paramount Pictures has ordered them not to show "Team America: World Police" one day after Sony Pictures surrendered to cyberterrorists and pulled "The Interview". The famous Alamo Drafthouse in Texas, Capitol Theater in Cleveland, and Plaza Atlanta in Atlanta said they would screen the movie instead of "The Interview", but Paramount has ordered them to stop. (No reason was apparently given and Paramount hasn’t spoken.)  "Team America" of course features Kim Jong Un’s father, Kim Jong Il, as a singing marionette.

Does Paramount have to give the reason?  We all know what it is.  Alamo Drafthouse, Capitol Theater, and Plaza Atlanta were going to show a different movie that would piss off the NoKos, and Paramount didn't want to incur any cyberretaliation, so they put the kibosh on Team America as well.  In effect, Pyongyang doesn't have to censor American cinema, because now American cinema is censoring itself to the NoKo's "sensibilities".

If I were the Un-dictator, I'd spread the censorship net as wide as I could, just to see how far Hollywood can be pushed to bend over and grab its ankles.  MGM's remake of Red Dawn, which depicts a North Korean invasion of the U.S., would appear to be next on the chopping block.  I wonder how long this one will take?

UPDATE: George Clooney weighs in the side of right (for once), and is stunned that so many of his Hollywood chums are already in the tall grass:

A good portion of the press abdicated its real duty. They played the fiddle while Rome burned. There was a real story going on. With just a little bit of work, you could have found out that it wasn’t just probably North Korea; it was North Korea. The Guardians of Peace is a phrase that Nixon used when he visited China. When asked why he was helping South Korea, he said it was because we are the Guardians of Peace. Here, we’re talking about an actual country deciding what content we’re going to have. This affects not just movies, this affects every part of business that we have. That’s the truth. What happens if a newsroom decides to go with a story, and a country or an individual or corporation decides they don’t like it? Forget the hacking part of it. You have someone threaten to blow up buildings, and all of a sudden everybody has to bow down. Sony didn’t pull the movie because they were scared; they pulled the movie because all the theaters said they were not going to run it. And they said they were not going to run it because they talked to their lawyers and those lawyers said if somebody dies in one of these, then you’re going to be responsible.

We have a new paradigm, a new reality, and we’re going to have to come to real terms with it all the way down the line. This was a dumb comedy that was about to come out. With the First Amendment, you’re never protecting Jefferson; it’s usually protecting some guy who’s burning a flag or doing something stupid. This is a silly comedy, but the truth is, what it now says about us is a whole lot. We have a responsibility to stand up against this. That’s not just Sony, but all of us, including my good friends in the press who have the responsibility to be asking themselves: What was important? What was the important story to be covering here? The hacking is terrible because of the damage they did to all those people. Their medical records, that is a horrible thing, their Social Security numbers. Then, to turn around and threaten to blow people up and kill people, and just by that threat alone we change what we do for a living, that’s the actual definition of terrorism.

You do realize what this dynamic is, yes?  Hollywood is finding itself on the receiving end of political correctness for a change, and only a few - Rob Lowe, Jimmy Kimmel, Michael Moore, and now George Clooney - are willing to put their "artistic freedom" money where their mouths are, when the censors in question are ideologically sympatico.

I can disagree with somebody but still respect their consistency.  Those with whom I disagree and haven't the courage of their rancid convictions are and ought to be beneath our contempt.

Exit question: How far will the NoKos have to take this cyberterrorism gambit before a majority of Hollywoodies join their handful of colleagues in saying, "Enough is enough!"?  I'd put the over/under in the dozens of movies scotched, except that I'm not aware of that many North Korea parodies.  Maybe they'll expand their dragnet to "any film that depicts Asians in a negative light".  That'd put the over/under in the hundreds, actually.

FCC: "Redskins" Not "Profane"

by JASmius

And why would it be?  Just because it offends the Left?  The same Left that has no problem at all forcing all manner of obscenities on the Christian Right in the name of "tolerance" and "free speech? 

Just one more one-way street, my friends.  And the FCC, remarkably, chose not to let leftwingnuts redefine the term "profane":

In a formal ruling, the commission rejected calls to yank the broadcast license of a radio station owned by Washington Redskins owner Dan Snyder for excessively using the team’s name, which some find offensive.

George Washington University professor John Banzhaf filed a petition in September opposing the license renewal of the D.C. station, WWXX-FM.

The FCC can prohibit the use of profane or obscene language, but the team’s name does not fit the definition of either category, according to the FCC’s Media Bureau, which handled the case.

As, indeed, it does not.  The attempt itself to define the term "Redskins" as "profane" would seem, to me, to be a racist slur against Original Americans, whose very existence is anything but "profane".

Now I could understand "Professor" Benzhaf's objection if Daniel Snyder renamed his NFL franchise the "Foreskins," because that could be construed as "describing or depicting sexual conduct".  And I fully realize that every time D.C.'s 3-11 football team takes the field, the product they put forth is itself an obscenity, and perhaps crappy football is an insult to American Indians.  But none of that has anything to do with the team's nickname, which, by the official FCC definition, clearly is not "profane," and thus not subject to a ban.

It reveals, in point of fact, how desperate lefties are to, um, shaft the "skins that "Professor" Banzhaf attempted this dubious legal gambit.  But I have a suggestion for him and the rest of his ideological fellow-travelers: Get over yourselves, dial down your hyperoversensitivities, and understand that you are not entitled to not be "offended".

At least not in a country where the First Amendment is a two-way street.