Monday, March 31, 2014

Hard Starboard Radio: Why To Never Elect Celebrities

Five reasons you should never take advice from celebrities - well, okay, there are a lot more than just five, but that's all we have time for; Behold a god that bleeds - it's funny as hell; Vladimir Putin's intentions are not hard to divine, but our strategic vision shouldn’t depend on them anyway; Dirty Harry serves the interests of the Reid clan above all else; and meet Senator Tim Scott (R-SC), one of the few who’ve looked into the Obama Regime’s Internet surrender.

Why Foster Brooks would have been a great president at 6PM Eastern/3PM Pacific.

Obamacare's Cooked Books

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Conservatives constantly argue that the Obama administration is manipulating numbers.  The statistics coming from the government cannot be trusted, be it regarding the unemployment numbers, or regarding the healthcare law.

President Barack Obama is desperate for the Obamacare numbers to become more favorable.

Republican Senator John Barrasso of Wyoming believes the desperation for favorable numbers has led to the Obama administration manipulating the numbers, and offers skepticism when it comes to the claim by the democrats that more than six million Americans have enrolled in health insurance in connection with the Affordable Care Act.

“I don't think it means anything,” he told “Fox News Sunday.” “They are cooking the books on this.”

The democrats needed to be as close to the goal of seven million as possible to try to convince everyone that the disastrous roll-out of Obamacare's website was just a fluke.  According to the Obama administration, enrollment numbers are now less than a million shy of the administration’s goal, by the March 31 deadline.  And, according to Barrasso, Americans who have switched to ObamaCare from other insurance policies deemed sub-standard under the Affordable Care Act, still don’t know whether they can keep their same doctors.  As for affordability?  Most don’t know whether their premiums will go up, and if they will even be able to afford their new plans..

With only a quarter of the enrollees falling in the coveted younger demographic, the question over whether there will be enough young people joining to cover the health care costs of older Americans in the program remains up in the air.

As for the viability of the healthcare law?  Barrasso said, “I’ve looked at this 10 different ways. This health care law is unfixable.”

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Politico's Dylan Byers: MSNBCCCP In Freefall

by JASmius

Only thing is, doesn't an organization have to be above the basement in order to have any place to fall in the first place?

Hey, MSNBCCCP didn't have to make themselves the Obamunist Drone Channel.  That's all on them; they tied their fortunes to those of not just a political party, but a specific president, never bothering to attempt to imagine that the fortunes of that political party and that specific president could ever wane.  Now that they have, they've painted themselves into a corner from which only an Obama coup de tat can deliver them.

It's actually amusing that Dylan Byers is almost hoping for the 2016 election of "a really, really far-right Republican they could harp on for four years" as the ODC's salvation.  First, because it's probably true; second, because people like Byers always assume the same is true of Rush Limbaugh, despite one of El Rushbo's cardinal adages, "My success is not determined by who wins elections"; and third, because that "salvation" would only be temporary, assuming the Republican that got elected really was "really, really far-right".  Given the likelihood of a President Scott Walker replicating on the national level the successes he's enjoyed in Wisconsin, that electoral result could ultimately prove to be the nail in MSNBCCCP's coffin.

Or, more likely, it would make a bigger dent in George Soros' pocket change until Julian Castro was ready to go in 2024.  For simplicity's sake, O's coup will make matters much more streamlined.

Alexis de Tocqueville and American Exceptionalism

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Alexis de Tocqueville in 1831 and 1832 recognized the exceptional nature of the United States, and was amazed at how the politicians prayed, and the pastors preached politics, but government did not control religion, and the church restrained itself from intertwining itself with government. He noticed that though there was a certain level of separation between church and state, they also depended upon each other in a symbiotic manner. Tocqueville realized that America is great because America is good.

Alexis de Tocqueville was astonished by America because among the elites in Europe there was an anti-American sentiment that was sometimes believed by members of the general populace. The truth he learned by visiting the United States was very different from the criticisms of America by the political ruling classes of Europe.

Sigmund Freud said, “America is a great mistake.”

"Anti-Americanism was an elite view," James Q. Wilson commented in an article in The American, "but it has spread deeper to publics here and abroad."

Clearly, American Culture is different from any other culture in the world. The level of patriotism, individualism, religious beliefs, and our spirit of self-reliance sets the United States apart as a nation. As revealed in our founding documents, and the example provided by the everyday lives of Americans, we are a culture that holds dear our individual rights, while keeping a watchful eye on a potentially intrusive government. As a society, we largely support the limiting principles of the United States Constitution, expecting the role of the federal government to be restrained to only those functions necessary for protecting, promoting, and preserving the union. We expect our economy to grow as a result of a flourishing free market, with as little governmental interference as possible. Individualism means that we may encounter personal consequences, and we are fine with that, rather than expecting the government to somehow mend any vestige of perceived inequality.

The early history of America set the tone for our exceptionalism. Historically, America is diverse, rugged, and a land of individual opportunity. And for this, the United States was blessed with an incredible influx of immigrants who came to this nation desiring the opportunity to participate in the freedom, and exceptionalism, that America had to offer.

Alexis de Tocqueville appreciated this about America, and wrote glowingly about our trait of exceptionalism in his book, Democracy in America.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Obama to the Pope: You're a liar!

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Statism depends on deception to survive.  If the liberal left was ever honest about what they truly intended, nobody would ever vote for them. . . even the uninformed sheeple.  The doses of big government are in small bites, with peace, security, and good intentions intertwined with the sweetly delivered, caring claims that it is all for the common good.  In reality, behind the mask, is an eager drive to be the ultimate ruling elite, unencumbered by individualism, or petty dissent.  The push to control through big government, and achieve all of the power and wealth that goes with it, is as old as time, as is playing with the truth, and then calling those around them, "liars."

President Barack Obama is a special kind of statist.  The narcissistic personality of the American President is incapable of admitting to anyone, including himself, that he could be wrong.  He also is a master at manipulating language, to hide the serpent that lies beneath.  He is darkness, masquerading as light.

When a soul as dark as Obama's comes in contact with anything even close to being "light," the walls go up, the defenses go into overdrive, and the deceptive smile and propaganda kicks into high gear.

Obama's meeting with Pope Francis, the leader of the worldwide Catholic Church, was his first.  The Pope, being a man of God, revealed concern about how in America religious freedom has been under attack, largely through the mandate in the healthcare law that forces all insurance policies to cover all forms of contraception, including aborticides.

Catholics are pretty much against all forms of contraception, and the Pope was in full support of the people who share his Faith.

The Barack Obama version of the meeting says otherwise.  Mr. Obama downplayed the Church's concerns regarding the religious freedom and contraception issue as it pertains to Obamacare.

“We actually didn’t talk a whole lot about social schisms in my conversations with His Holiness,” Mr. Obama said at a press conference in Rome. “In fact, that really was not a topic of conversation.”

The Vatican's statement regarding the meeting between Messiah Obama, and Pope Francis, says otherwise.  The Catholic Church's version of the meeting claims the discussion spent a lot of time “on questions of particular relevance for the [Catholic] Church in [the United States], such as the exercise of the rights to religious freedom, life and conscientious objection.”

Barry's popularity has not been doing so well, with his failures to produce what he claimed in his campaigns, the failures of his policies, and him ticking off pretty much everyone by taking Bush's surveillance sins to brand new heights, including using the IRS to target his enemies, and using the NSA to spy on pretty much everyone, including the leaders of countries we say we consider to be allies.  With all of that bad karma going on, Barry Soetoro figured that cozying up to a pretty popular pope might be the way to kick start those love engines back into full power.

After hanging out with the pope, President Obama is supposed to go cozy up with Saudi Arabia, next.

The religious freedom argument against the Affordable Care Act has been front and center at the United States Supreme Court, where the Hobby Lobby case has Sotomayor and Kagan fumbling for insults, and calling for the Christian business owners to shut up, and if they don't like it, don't buy insurance, and pay the penalty.

Despite evidence to the contrary, the President's team argues that it is trying to accommodate churches and faith-affiliated institutions in regard to the health care law.

“I explained to him that most religious organizations are entirely exempt,” Mr. Obama said. “Religiously affiliated hospitals or universities or [nongovernmental organizations] simply have to attest that they have a religious objection, in which case they are not required to provide contraception — although employees of theirs who choose are able to obtain it through the insurance company.”

No mention of Christian business owners?  Oh, never mind, in the case of business owners, the call by the democrats is for them to shut up and take their yucky medicine.  Since when do businesses have a right to run their business the way they want, anyway?  Especially when it comes to their religious beliefs!  Who do they think we are?  Pre-Obama America?

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Sunday, March 30, 2014

Yellowstone Joins Earthquake Storm

By Douglas V. Gibbs

After a couple of very noticeable rumblers in Southern California, and hundreds of aftershocks have rattled the southland, the swarm of earthquakes now includes a 4.8 magnitude quake causing some shaking at the Yellowstone National Park.  The earthquake was strong enough to be felt by border towns in Montana.  Though used to smaller quakes, since Thursday the national park has experienced over 25 tremblers.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Northern Yellowstone National Park shook by 4.8 earthquake, part of swarm since Thursday - Fox News

Maryland County Commissioner Willing To Go To Jail Over Prayer

By Douglas V. Gibbs

View the video at Fox News


From the Christian Post:

A county commissioner in Carroll County, Md., disobeyed a judge's recent injunction on Thursday when she opened an official budget meeting with a sectarian prayer, saying she'd rather go to jail than give up her First Amendment rights to freedom of religion.

Carroll County Commissioner Robin Bartlett Frazier opened Thursday's budget meeting by referencing the recent injunction granted by U.S. District Judge William D. Quarles Jr., who earlier this week ruled that Carroll County commissioners are prohibited from using "the name of a specific deity associated with any specific faith or belief" during pre-meeting prayers. Quarles said in his ruling that the commission may now only say non-sectarian prayers.

The injunction was granted as several Carroll County residents, along with the American Humanist Association, proceed with a civil lawsuit against the county for its pre-meeting sectarian prayers, arguing that they are official "government speech" and therefore a violation of the Constitution's Establishment Clause.

Commissioner Frazier opened Thursday's meeting with a prayer she said was originally from U.S. President George Washington. Frazier, growing visibly emotional during her statement, said she'd rather go to jail than give up her First Amendment rights.

"I think that [the ruling] is an infringement on my First Amendment rights of free speech and free religion, and I think it's a wrong ruling," Frazier said. "I believe this is a fundamental of America and if we cease to believe that our rights come from God, we cease to be America.

"We've been told to be careful. But we're going to be careful all the way to communism if we don't start standing up and saying 'no.'"

"This might be a good opportunity to demonstrate how our Founding Fathers, and leaders all throughout our history, have upheld the idea that we are a nation based on biblical principles," Frazier continued. "We're one nation under God, and I believe that's where our inalienable rights come from."

Finish Reading at the Christian Post

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

The Difference Between Obamacare, and Socialized Medicine

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Senator Angus King, an independent senator from Maine who caucuses with the Democrats, said on Fox News that "There's no such thing as Obamacare."  And technically, the senator is correct.

Here's how the conversation went:

"Two points if I may, sir," said Fox host Chris Wallace. "One, then why is Harry Reid saying he's not going to allow a vote on the fixes? And, two, speak directly and briefly, becase we're about to run out of time, to Senator Barrasso's comment that a lot of doctors, a lot of hospitals are being excluded by what Obamacare is offering."

"Now, now that's a big -- There is no such thing as Obamacare. You can't sign up for Obamacare. You sign up for an Anthem policy or an Aetna policy or a WellPoint policy. It's private insurance," said King.

Obamacare, in other words, is not a plan.  The law is there to increase federal government regulation of the insurance industry, but the private industry remains intact.  What people are signing up for is private insurance, and they are participating in a private insurance industry as we had before, with the only difference being that the Affordable Care Act places stricter regulatory controls over that industry.  After all, we have been told, the greedy fat cats of the insurance industry can't be trusted, and the federal government must rein them in and make sure they act in a manner allowed by government.

Therein lies the truth that people just can't seem to recognize.

Senator King is correct.  Obamacare is not a plan.  The healthcare law is not "single-payer," though that may be the goal.  The democrats, and liberal allies like Senator King, shy away from calling Obamacare "socialized medicine," or "universal healthcare," because they know that the American people shy away from anything that resembles communism, socialism, or the government takeover of any private sector industry.  To seize control in such a manner is too much in line with what Karl Marx would approve of, and the democrats want you to believe they are nothing like the communists of the defunct Soviet Union, or the socialists of failed European states.  And this is not the first time socialists have done what they could to convince everyone that they are not communists, or the kind of government that would seize through government takeover any private industry.

There is a style of government that is not technically about government seizure of industries, but instead uses heavy regulation to control private industries, so that the effect is the same as communism, but technically, the private industries remain in existence, though under heavy regulatory control.  This style of government was popular in many countries in the past, and extreme versions of it still exists in some third-world countries.

The movement I refer to is a collectivist system, where community is emphasized as being more important than individuality.  Everyone must work for the betterment of the group, of the community, and the nation.  The people are a part of a group, sharing responsibility, and understanding that individuality is greedy, and focuses too much of selfish desires.  A common symbol for this collectivist government system is a bundle of sticks, or a bundle of rods, and the leaders of these movements are normally publicly idolized in propaganda as the nation's savior.

Among the original symbols of this movement of community organization, and heavy regulatory control over private entities, was an ancient Imperial Roman symbol of power carried by lictors in front of magistrates; a bundle of sticks featuring an axe, indicating the power over life and death, and surely the obvious connection of people's health.  Other similar symbols used identified the leagues that were a part of the movement, and were used as symbols of strength through unity.

The movement Obamacare closely resembles also has a history of using racial division, and nationalism (love of government) to rally support, as well as using pageantry, elaborate symbolism, deceptive propaganda, and mass rallies to attempt to sway opinion.

Obamacare is indeed not the socialized medicine the democrats hope to eventually attain.  It is not technically a socialist program guided by the government seizure of the healthcare system in America.  It is a law that allows the private insurance industry to continue its existence, but under such heavy regulation that the effect of government controlled healthcare is still a reality.  Heavy regulation of private industry by bundling the private sector under intense government oversight while still allowing the private sector to continue to exist was a system of government popularized by Italy, and Germany, and has emerged in a minor role in other countries, as well.  It is not technically communism, though it is socialist in nature.  You know it better as fascism.

So, Senator King is right.  Technically, a socialist government healthcare program called Obamacare does not exist.  Instead, Obamacare is a law, and heavily regulatory law that is being manipulated at will by the whims of the executive, and one that more closely resembles fascism, than it does communism.

That makes Barack Obama, and those that support Obamacare, fascists.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Fascist symbolism - Wikipedia

Fascio - Wikipedia

Obamacare Deadline

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Monday, March 31, 2014 is the deadline for enrolling in Obamacare.  The next open enrollment period for the Affordable Care Act begins in November.  Younger Americans, the coveted segment of society whose enrollment is necessary to carry much of the financial burden of the government sponsored healthcare law, rank among only about a quarter of the alleged six million that have enrolled.  The website still fumbles, after a disastrous launch, and the law is still a work in progress, having been modified unconstitutionally by executive order dozens of times.

Democrats admit that the roll-out of Obamacare was catastrophic, and many, with the mid-term election approaching rapidly, has signed on to bills that are designed to reform the law.  Republicans, in the meantime, largely support repealing the law, with the strongest support for getting rid of the law coming from the more conservative members of the Republican Party.

Recognizing that the process to enroll is long, tedious, and filled with numerous snares, the Obama administration has announced that they would "allow" people to finish the Obamacare enrollment process on HealthCare.gov past March 31, so long as they initiated the process before the deadline.

People who believe they are a member of the ruling elite, and that they are somehow above the average person loves that word, "allow."  Pretty soon they will be adding more emphasis to "mandate," and include terms like "dictate," and "force."

The goal, of course, if for the word "fear" to enter your vocabulary, regarding the big bad government.

In the meantime, the administration has been engaged in a last-minute push to get people enrolled ahead of the deadline. Some efforts -- such as a Buzzfeed "listicle" called "7 Reasons Why Vice President Biden Thinks You Should Get Covered By March 31" -- have been directed specifically at young adults, a key demographic.

An enrollment event in Texas, and likely other red States, is being attended by Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, who also, recently attended a similar event in Florida. The disparity between red State and blue State enrollment numbers serves as a reminder to the democrats that the less blue the State, the worse the numbers are. . . and we just can't have that.

If individuals are not signed up by the law promising to cover millions of people that could not afford to be covered, and if those people aren't paying their premiums, the loving government who just wants you to have the opportunity to be covered by health insurance will slam you with financial penalties.

Oh, and don't worry, more surprises and unconstitutional modifications to the law are coming, because these people not only wish to force you to be covered, whether you like it or not, but also, they have no clue what they are doing.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

On eve of deadline, health law remains work in progress... - CBS News

Unclear how aggressive govt will be enforcing insurance requirement, collecting op-out tax.. - New York Times

Key Republicans Making Big Push For Jeb Bush In 2016

by JASmius

I thought about waiting a couple of days and changing the name in the headline above to "Ted Cruz," but I figured, "Why not let Tea Partiers have all the fun with this piƱata"?  Hell, I might take a swipe or two at it myself:

Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush is being encouraged to seek the 2016 Republican presidential nomination in a low-key campaign effort by Mitt Romney's former financial and political backers, The Washington Post reports.
That answers the question of which Republicans Newsmax thinks are "key".  Must be because of the size of their bank accounts rather than their track record of success.

Bush is seen as someone who can best unite the party as a viable alternative to New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, who has stumbled politically over the Bridge-gate affair.

Gents, let me assure you of something: the GOP grassroots don't think Chris Christie "stumbled" over the molehillian "Bridge-gate" affair; they do, on the other hand, think he's "stumbled" over embracing global warming hoaxism, homosexual marriage, and amnesty, among other heresies.  Which makes Jeb Bush a most unlikely candidate to unite the party on much of anything:

Among Bush's selling points is that he is viewed favorably by the party's establishment, and just as importantly, by evangelicals who are an important force in GOP primaries. He is known as someone who thinks seriously about public policy issues, and has the added advantage of being fluent in Spanish. Analysts say that to win the presidency, the GOP will need to reach out to Hispanic voters.... 
Bush has written a book advocating immigration reform, campaigned for common core education standards, embraced the traditional GOP foreign policy agenda, opposed Medicaid expansion, and has told audiences that the nation is experiencing a lack of economic mobility and a crisis of opportunity.
Let's tally this up: "Viewed favorably by the party's establishment"; pandering to Hispanic voters via amnesty; "campaigned for common core"; and, of course, BushJust the surname alone would start Jeb out with barely a majority level of public consideration, much less favorability.  Nominating the third Bush in barely more than a quarter-century would, far from unifying the Republican Party, drive TPers bat[bleep] insane.  They'd be renting cranes to hang elephants in effigy.  There'd be nothing I could say to Mr. Gibbs on either American Daily Review and Constitution Radio, no defense of the party I could offer.  It'd be the coup de grace double-middle finger to the conservative grassroots.  With the ideal candidate, acceptable to "establishment" and Tea Party, Reaganian track record and all, in Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker tanned, rested, and ready, it would be unconscionably stupid of "key Republicans" to foist on the rank & file what they would see as the worst RINO of all.

Money can buy a lot of things, but it can't buy passion or enthusiasm, and it can't make Tea Partiers swallow a poison pill the size of a knockwurst.  Take my advice, gentles - tell Jeb to write more books and enjoy retirement.  That is, if you have any interest in winning.

Biden: Illegal Aliens Are Already Americans

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Good ol' Joe.  If anything, he is entertaining.  Recently, Vice President Joe Biden said, in a speech to the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce’s 2014 Legislative Summit, “Eleven million people living in the shadows I believe are already American citizens.  These people are just waiting, waiting for a chance to be able to contribute fully, and by that standard, 11 million undocumented aliens are already Americans in my view.”

Mr. Biden, of course, was wrong in his speech on so many levels. The concept of full allegiance was an important concept to the Founding Fathers.  During the first century of the existence of the United States, though immigrants were needed, and welcomed, the immigrants accepted were those that were willing to go through the legal process of immigration, and throw off the allegiance they had to their homeland.  Divided loyalties was something guarded against.  Full assimilation was expected.

During the writing of the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment, one of the Civil War Amendments, the writers of the clause, Senators Trumbull and Howard, aimed to keep the wording of that important addition to the Constitution within the parameters that would have been accepted by the founders.

The clause reads:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
In the case of today's illegal immigration issue, this clause has been misinterpreted to mean that “all persons born in the United States are automatically citizens,” which is not the case. The defining term in this clause that enables the reader to recognize that citizenship needs more than just being born on American Soil reads: "subject to the jurisdiction, thereof."

To understand the term regarding jurisdiction, one may go to the debates on the congressional record of the 14th Amendment. In those debates, and in articles of that time period written to explain the intent of the language of the amendment, one finds that “full jurisdiction” was meant to mean “full allegiance to America.”

The intention was to protect the nation against persons with divided loyalties.

The writers of the Fourteenth Amendment wished to follow the importance of "full loyalty" as portrayed by the Founding Fathers. As far as the founders were concerned, there could be no divided allegiances. They expected citizens to be fully American.

Despite the defeat of the Confederacy in the American Civil War, after hostilities ended the emancipated slaves were not receiving the rights and privileges of American citizens as they should have been. The former slaves were present in the United States "legally," and because they were here legally they were "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," but they were still not receiving any assurance of equal protection under the law.

The Civil Rights Act of 1866 was created in the hopes of correcting the problem. Some of the language in the Civil Rights Act of 1866 states, "All persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States. ... All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other."

The definition of "persons within the jurisdiction of the United States" in that act was all persons at the time of its passage, born in the United States, including all slaves and their offspring, but not having any allegiances to any foreign government.

Michigan Senator Jacob Howard, one of two principal authors of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment (the Citizenship Clause), noted that its provision, "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," excluded American Indians who had tribal nationalities, and "persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers."

Exact quotes:

Mr. HOWARD: I now move to take up House joint resolution No. 127.

The motion was agreed to; and the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, resumed the consideration of the joint resolution (H.R. No. 127) proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

The first amendment is to section one, declaring that all "persons born in the United States and Subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside. I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion. This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.”

He even went out of his way to indicate that children born on American soil of foreign citizens are not included.

Clearly, the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment had no intention of freely giving away American citizenship to just anyone simply because they may have been born on American soil.

The second author of the Citizenship Clause, Illinois Senator Lyman Trumbull, added that "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" meant "not owing allegiance to anybody else."

The full quote by Senator Trumbull reads:

"The provision is, that 'all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.' That means 'subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.' What do we mean by 'complete jurisdiction thereof?' Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means."

Trumbull continues, "Can you sue a Navajo Indian in court? Are they in any sense subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States? By no means. We make treaties with them, and therefore they are not subject to our jurisdiction. If they were, we wouldn't make treaties with them...It is only those persons who come completely within our jurisdiction, who are subject to our laws, that we think of making citizens; and there can be no objection to the proposition that such persons should be citizens."

Senator Howard concurred with what Mr. Trumbull had to say:

"Mr. HOWARD: I concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois [Trumbull], in holding that the word 'jurisdiction,' as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now."

Based on these explanations by the writers of the clause, then, it is understood that the intention was for those who are not born to American citizens to have no birthright to citizenship just because they simply were born inside the borders of this country.

The courts have interpreted the Citizenship Clause to mean other things, but we must remember that the Constitution cannot be changed by the courts. Changes to the Constitution can only be made by amendment (Article V.).
Joe Biden also screwed up on the numbers he presented.  First of all, the myth that there are only 11 million illegal aliens in this country is believed by nearly nobody, except those in the voting pool that do things like call 911 because McDonald's ran out of Chicken McNuggets, or believe that North Korea is somewhere near Australia.  The number of illegal aliens in this country is closer to 40 million, and probably grossly exceeds even that very high estimate.

Are the illegal aliens "living in the shadows"?  How is it we can trace back to the single source cow in a nationwide case of mad cow disease, but we don't have a good idea on where illegal aliens are hiding, or the exact number of illegal aliens in the country?

He said they are waiting, waiting for a chance to be able to contribute fully.  If they are not "contributing," then how is it they can pay to stay?

Then, in his speech, Joe Biden drew from a figure of the late nineteenth century, taking out of context, and leaving out important parts, the words of President Theodore Roosevelt, when in 1894 in a speech titled "True Americanism," the Rough Rider said, according to Biden, "Americanism is not a question of birthplace or creed or a line of descent. It’s a question of principles, idealism and character."  Except, that's not exactly what the man carrying a big stick said, and there is much more to what Roosevelt said and meant.

Roosevelt said, “Americanism is a question of spirit, conviction, and purpose, not of creed or birthplace. The politician who bids for the Irish or German vote, or the Irishman or German who votes as an Irishman or German, is despicable, for all citizens of this commonwealth should vote solely as Americans.”

In the same speech, Roosevelt also states, “The patriotism of the village or the belfry is bad, but the lack of all patriotism is even worse.”

“The man who becomes Europeanized, who loses his power of doing good work on this side of the water, and who loses his love for his native land, is not a traitor; but he is a silly and undesirable citizen. He is as emphatically a noxious element in our body politic as is the man who comes here from abroad and remains a foreigner.”

That last part is particularly problematic considering that few of those being legalized actually want to be Americans in that sense of the word.

“Even if the weaklings who seek to be other than Americans were right in deeming other nations to be better than their own, the fact yet remains that to be a first-class American is fifty-fold better than to be a second-class imitation of a Frenchman or Englishman…”

“We welcome the German or the Irishman who becomes an American. We have no use for the German or Irishman who remains such. We do not wish German-Americans and Irish-Americans who figure as such in our social and political life; we want only Americans, and, provided they are such, we do not care whether they are of native or of Irish or of German ancestry. We have no room in any healthy American community for a German-American vote or an Irish-American vote, and it is contemptible demagogy to put planks into any party platform with the purpose of catching such a vote…”

“But where immigrants, or the sons of immigrants, do not heartily and in good faith throw in their lot with us, but cling to the speech, the customs, the ways of life, and the habits of thought of the Old World which they have left, they thereby harm both themselves and us.”

In other words, Joe Biden was cherry picking that speech, and doing so poorly.

Joe Biden compared illegal immigrants to immigrants who legally entered the United States, saying it took “a lot of courage” to pick up and go to America where they don’t speak the language and no one seems to want them.

If they are that courageous, then why can't they do what my father-in-law did, which was save his money, and come over to this country through legal channels?  Is it courageous to break the law?  Who is more courageous, the person who saves up the money to purchase an item, or the person that walks into a store and steals it?

“All they want—they just want a decent life for their kids, a chance to contribute to a free society, a chance to put down roots and help build the next great American century. I really believe that. That’s what they’re fighting for,” Biden added.

Then why not fight to turn their country back into a free society?  Why come here to do to America what they did to Mexico, before they abandoned it?

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Biden: 11 Million Undocumented Aliens are Already Americans in My View - CNS News

Biden Misquote Teddy Roosevelt in Support of Illegal Alien Amnesty - FrontPage

Congressional Globe, 39th Congress (1866) pg. 2890: Senator Jacob Howard States the Intent of the Fourteenth Amendment Published in the Congressional Record, May 30, 1866.

The Civil Rights Act - April 9, 1866

Constitution Study Radio


Lesson 07: Introduction to the Constitution

- Patriotism

- The Rule of Law

- Preamble

Join Douglas V. Gibbs of Political Pistachio, Constitution Radio on KCAA 1050AM, and the Constitution Association, as he journeys through the United States Constitution. We will study the concepts, principles, and direct text of the U.S. Constitution from the original point of view of the Founding Fathers.

New episodes each Sunday Morning at 9:00 am Pacific Time. The link above is also good for listening to the podcasts of past episodes.
Also, remember, Doug's new book, 25 Myths of the United States Constitution is available on Amazon, and CreateSpace....more
today at 9:00 am Pacific Time

Original Intent and James Madison

Posted by Douglas V. Gibbs

"Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government." -- James Madison

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Saturday, March 29, 2014

Earthquake Fears Grip Los Angeles

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Is "The Big One" coming?  Or are these tremblers releasing pressure that will protect us from the next big one?

The 5.1 quake that centered near Brea and La Habra wasn't the end of it, it seems.  Now, a 4.1 magnitude earthquake slammed the area around Rowland Heights, real close to Friday's larger rumbler.  The 4.1 quake is considered to be an aftershock, one of more than a hundred of them.

After the latest earthquake, more than 70 people have been displaced from their homes, 54 of them from an apartment complex where 20 units were red-tagged after the building suffered a cracked foundation.

Experts suggest that these quakes could lead to something bigger.

The "Big One" has been expected during my entire life here in California.  Every time a good-sized earthquake strikes, the hysteria begins, but one of these days, the people panicking may finally be right.

According to John Dvorak, a geophysicist who now works at a astronomical observatory in Hawaii, earthquakes come in storms, and California has not had a storm of quakes in a long time.  He warns that a break from earthquakes can just be the calm before the earthquake storm.

Most of the motion between the Pacific and North American plates occurs along coastal California. In the last hundred years, there has been only one significant earthquake along those plates: the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake, also known as the World Series earthquake.

But during the previous hundred years before that, there were five significant earthquakes along the California coast, in 1812, 1838, 1857, 1868, and 1906.

Large earthquakes are the major means by which seismic energy gets released after building up between the two tectonic plates. And so one or more large earthquakes are in California’s future. It is a matter of when.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Earthquake: 4.1 quake strikes near Rowland Heights; Felt over wide area - Los Angeles Times

EPA Plan To "Protect Wetlands" Another Federal Land Heist

by JASmius

EPA plan to "protect wetlands" may give government power to grab homeowners' land:

I agree with John Tamny and Steve Forbes on abolishing the EPA, not so much because of this particular land grab - which is hardly the first - but just on the general principle that even the EPA's ostensible mission is not an enumerated power of the federal government under the U.S. Constitution, much less the corrupt, tyrannical White House catspaw it's long since become.  This latest regulatory metastasization seeks to overturn two recent SCOTUS rulings on "wetland" overregulation that scaled back the EPA's power.  It could not be a more brazen, in-your-face rivening of the rule of law, whose moribundity expands cancerously once again with this EPA smackdown on Olympus and property owners.

It's as I keep saying: Barack Obama's chief legacy is the amputation of power from legal authority.  In a word, tyranny.  And if his Regime will not be stopped by Congress or the Supreme Court, what hope do We, The People, have?

Obama, Putin & The Perception Of Power

by JASmius

Jeanine Pirro explains the Obama Doctrine, apparently without fully recognizing it for what it is:

If global geopolitics were a faculty lounge, Barack Obama would lose anyway, but all he, and we, would lose is face.  In the real world, the stakes are more than a smidgen higher.  Human lives, nations' freedom and even continued existence are determined in the ebb and flow of international relations.  The way such valued factors get taken or defended, depending on your point of view, is, ultimately, by military force.  The more credible a country's military strength and the strength of character of its leaders, the safer and more secure that country will be.  Correspondingly, the more credible America's military strength and the strength of character of its leaders, the safer and more secure humanity will be.  And vice versa.

Ronald Reagan rebuilt America's military capabilities and had in abundance the strength of character needed to face down the mightiest military power ever to exist on this planet, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.  The result?  America won the Cold War without firing a shot.  Barack Obama is dismantling America's military capabilities, displaying his loathing of his own country like a hairlip, abandoning allies and embracing enemies as fast as he can, and standing steadfast only in his belief in his ability to talk his way out of, and other people into, anything.

For his entire life, O's solution to anything and everything has been to give a speech.  And for his entire life, his audience has bowed down and worshipped him.  So he naturally believes that that template applies to foreign policy as well.

Vladimir Putin has tanks.  And APCs.  And combat aircraft.  And missiles.  And nukes.  And for some strange, mysterious reason, they proved better able to take Putin into Ukraine than O's words did in keeping him out.

So, obviously, The One hasn't been yakking enough.

I'm sure Russian armored columns will be greatly entertained as they approach Kiev.

Obamunism: The Manchurian Candidate

By Alex Ferguson - www.conservativecannonade.org

It is worth noting that every significant influence on Barack Obama during his formative years was either a Marxist revolutionary or an Islamic Jihadist.  From his parents (both of whom deserted him to pursue their dreams of socialist utopia) to Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, from Frank Marshall Davis and Jeremiah Wright to Saul Alinsky and Rashid Khalidi, on down to Ali Abunimah, every one of these degenerate radicals agreed on two primary goals: The destruction of the American economy and the decimation of her military.

It is clear from Obama's performance in office that these are his goals as well.  The wrecking ball is gaining speed and power daily.  When our economy suffers a catastrophic collapse and our military becomes an international laughingstock, Obama will declare, "mission accomplished."

Worse yet, he will also declare martial law, at which point it's "Game Over."

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Video: Teacher Testimony - Intimidation and Bullying over Common Core

Video: Veteran Teacher Reveals the Shocking Intimidation She’s Faced for Opposing Common Core in Tearful Testimony

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Constitution Radio: A Republican's Rebuttal

Constitution Radio with Douglas V. Gibbs, Saturday, 2:00 pm Pacific, KCAA AM1050, www.kcaaradio.com

Call in Number 888-909-1050

Today's Show brought to you by:

Constitution Quest Game

Murrieta/Temecula Republican Assembly

Bob H. DollarSense1 - Gold, as Insurance against Deflation

I will open up today's show with a discussion about the two party system, and the opinions of John Adams and Thomas Jefferson regarding this issue.

After the opening monologue, Today's guest is Chris Vaca, author of the book, Hey! Alan Colmes, I Read Your Book (A Republican's Rebuttal).

The Book of the Week is Mr. Vaca's book.

The Constitution Quest Question of the Week will circle like a vulture over The Judicial Branch.

And finally, we will discuss the. . .

5 Big Stories of the Week, March 29, 2014

5. Natural Disasters. . . Naturally

-- SoCal Earthquakes


-- Washington Landslide Death Toll Rises


4. Shooting at Naval Base in Virginia


3. Missing Malaysian Flight Determined to have been flown into the ocean





2. Matt Drudge’s Liberty Tax



1. Russian Troops Amass Along East Ukrainian Border







http://fxn.ws/1hptpJx (Romney: Obama should have seen Ukraine coming)

McCain: Force US Businesses To Leave Russia

by JASmius

Leave it to that rarest of creatures, a Regressive Hawk, to go about taking muscular action against a geopolitical foe of the United States by beating up American business:

The U.S. should consider forcing major American companies such as General Electric and Exxon Mobil to suspend business in or pull out of Russia if President Vladimir Putin attempts to take more territory from Ukraine or other neighboring nations, said Senator John McCain of Arizona.

"I know that that's a tough call and I know that we don't want to hurt our own economy, but what are the consequences of Vladimir Putin just being able to act?" McCain, a Republican who advocates military assistance for the Ukraine, said in an interview for Bloomberg Television's "Political Capital with Al Hunt" this weekend.

Such a move likely would come through formal sanctions rather than political pressure on individual corporations, McCain said, and "would only be considered" if Putin "went much further."
See, that's how you can tell that Sailor is a Republican Regressive; a Democrat Regressive (pardon the redundancy) would be blaming General Electric and Exxon-Mobil for "provoking" Vladimir Putin into attacking Ukraine in the first place and demanding that they be sent the way of GM and Chrysler.  A RINO goes about it indirectly, via toothless "sanctions" that accomplish nothing other than punishing an American private sector economy that is already being amply punished by Obamanomics.  No thought of expanding U.S. natural gas exports to Europe to break Russia's energy stranglehold on Europe and boost our economy at the same time, oh heavens, no.

And, BTW....:

In addition to GE and Exxon-Mobil Corp., the companies with the largest business interest in Russia include Ford Motor Co., General Motors Co., Citigroup Inc., JPMorgan Chase & Co., and PepsiCo Inc.
Oh, well.  I guess "Ukraine's dead and Russia's alive!", right?

Putin, who annexed Crimea from Ukraine earlier this month, has amassed tens of thousands of troops along the border, which McCain says indicates Russia may strike soon.

"If you'd asked me three or four days ago, I'd have said I believe not -- now I'm not sure," he said. "You don't keep troops massed on the border of a country for no reason."
Anybody else get the feeling that this process is accelerating like the Arlington, WA landslide?  The Ukrainians, who are, you know, actually there on their own border, say that the Russians are massing a hundred thousand heavily-armed troops, complete with tanks, APCs, combat aircraft, etc., while the Obama Regime stubbornly persists in lowballing it by a factor of five and in its unkillable belief in the efficacy of pumping the air full of useless words:

President Barack Obama and Putin had an hour-long telephone conversation yesterday on the crisis, and the leaders dispatched their top diplomats to conduct further discussions.

Obama told Putin that a diplomatic solution "remains possible only if Russia pulls back its troops and does not take any steps to further violate Ukraine's territorial integrity and sovereignty," the White House said. [emphasis added]

I don't watch the Animal Planet channel all that much, so I may not be an expert on this analogy, but I just don't recall seeing that many lions being intimidated away from chowing down on a felled zebra by the specter of a spindly gazelle wagging its hoof in disapproval.

C'mon, admit it, you thought I was going to say "chimpanzee," didncha?

The only thing that surprises me is that Putin took O's call.  I honestly can't imagine what they had to talk about.  Seems to me like Putin's hundred thousand troops moving into their invasion readiness positions speaks volumes about the Kremlin's intentions.  And the best Red Barry can do is dangle the "carrot" of Vlad having to snore through more of his bloviating against the "stick" of having his audio access to the Traveling "Historic" Speech Channel cut off if he doesn't content himself with just ripping the Crimea from Ukraine's grasp?  I mean, I know that the Obama Doctrine is the termination of the United States as the global economic and military superpower, but he's doing it in such a way as to raze his own reputation as a planet-bestriding demigod in the process.  "Don't do it even more or I'll stop talking!" sounds like a sweet deal to me, even if the price of the inevitable reneging on it is well worth the admittedly steep cost.

Moldova - Ukraine's last conduit to the Black Sea - is evidently next on Vlad's geopolitical shopping list after the crown jewel is conquered.  But the Baltic States are different, Darth Queeg argues:

The NATO-member Baltic states are a different matter, said the lawmaker who was his party's nominee for president in 2008. If Putin moved on to Estonia, Latvia or Lithuania, he said, "I just can't believe we wouldn't have some kind of military response."

McCain reiterated his call for the U.S. to provide the Ukrainians with weapons to defend themselves. "Symbolically it means so much," he said, and a lack of military assistance may encourage Putin "to exercise further adventurism."

So now we're to believe that the neoCzar will be deterred from slurping up Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania by virtue of their NATO membership?  The same NATO alliance that, with the sole exception of Poland, has been shedding military capability like S'Mores the Wonder Kitty is shedding fur (much to Mrs. Hard Starboard's lament)?  And bear in mind that Europe, having been freeloading off the U.S. for the past half-century, never had an overabundance of martial hardware to begin with.  Now they're following Barack Obama's bad example and divesting themselves of much of what little they had.

Which raises the deadly serious question of whether NATO would be able to muster any credible force with which to defend the Baltic States against a nakedly open Russian invasion.  And that question is rhetorical: of course it wouldn't.  So we wouldn't even bother trying.  Just fire off more diplomatic missives and empty threats, beg Putin not to go even further, make a few timidly annoying noises before ducking back into the clubhouse lest the Czar decide to step on us next.  The fraud of NATO would be in tatters, and who knows, maybe Vlad would stop taking Barry's calls altogether.  Which would probably be The One's idea of a nightmare.

That, BTW, is what makes Maverick's proposal of arming the Ukrainians so not-hot of an idea, unless he's in favor of the Russians getting their hands on what remains of our latest military hardware.  Precisely the reason, in turn, why I don't understand why O isn't doing exactly that: don't arm Kiev sufficiently to actually be able to repel a Russian invasion, or even be able to inflict heavy damage on Putin's forces, but give them just enough for them to capture and reverse-engineer.  It'd save the Kremlin a great deal of espionage time and cost.

Might even get Vlad to start taking his calls again.

UPDATE: Senator McConnell made a bit more sense.

Welcome to the New Age: Monitored 24/7/365

By Douglas V. Gibbs

The reality is, technology has opened up all kinds of innovative ways for government to expand their iron grip, control their social engineering projects, and intrude into our lives.  And like it or not, this is just the tip of the iceberg.

And it is not just the government that wants to keep an eye on you.  Corporations want a piece of that action, too.

Surveillance exists in any way imaginable, from the cameras on police cars, to the monitoring equipment emerging on our city streets.  Satellites spy on your property, and cellphone towers keep track of your every move.  According to Liat Clark, it is a battle we can't win, so join in.  Embrace the madness.

Never mind that the Constitution does not allow warrantless searches, or unreasonable search and seizures.  Never mind that our rights may be kind of important to us, and we tend not to be hip when society intrudes on our privacy.

Liat Clark says it is too late.  So, how does the technology writer propose we deal with it?

According to Clark's article, "It's already too late to stop the ubiquitous tracking and monitoring of the public through biometrics," says Peter Waggett, Programme Leader at IBM's Emerging Technology Group. "We need to stop worrying about prevention, and start working out how to make the most of data garnered from that kind of surveillance."

"We're fighting the wrong battle when we ask should we stop people being observed. That is not going to be feasible. We need to understand how to use that data better," urged Waggett, who was speaking as part of a Nesta panel debate on what biometrics mean for the future of privacy.

"I've been working in biometrics for 20 years, and it's reaching a tipping point where it's going to be impossible not to understand where people are and what they are doing. Everything will be monitored. It's part of the reason why when we put together the definition of biometrics it included biological and behavioural characteristics -- it can be anything."

To back up his point, Waggett identified a few of the futures once portrayed in science fiction movies, now a reality. Minority Report is generally the go to film for these kinds of comparisons. But it's the commercial aspects of the film Waggett flagged up, rather than the gesture technology. In the film, the protagonist walks into a shop where an advertisement immediately pops up and draws on his past preferences to offer up some suggestions. "The one thing they got wrong is you won't recognise you're being scanned -- the flashing red light in the film is for effect, but all that's now feasible."

It is a perfect example of how we need to be aware, now more than ever, of what data we are giving up, and, for companies, how best that data can be used without infringing on customer privacy and potentially threatening that relationship.
Clark goes on to tell us about mannequins (EyeSee mannequins) in stores that gather age, sex and racial data on retail customers using facial recognition, so that stores can market their stores accordingly.  Another uses beacon technology in smartphones to automatically alert customers to product details via an app. When a customer comes within 100 meters of one of the mannequins, they will receive an alert about the available content, including details on the items the mannequin is wearing and links to purchase them straight from the shop's website. It operates 24/7, so a passerby can buy an item when window-shopping, rather than entering the store.

As this technology gains traction, customers may have options available to opt out, but the customers will be more willing to open their data for increasingly attractive "rewards".  Already retailers have the option of asking customers to sign in to the app with Facebook or Google+, as with most apps, which could potentially open up a whole realm of analytics options depending on the user's privacy parameters. Add a camera to that mannequin, and using Facebook's facial recognition tools it could soon be asking you -- by name -- how you feel today, or pointing out that your clothes are looking particularly shabby.

"The pressure to ID people is becoming more and important with things like the internet of things," points Waggett. If we are to securely make the most of those future networks, we're going to have to free up more of our biometrics. "Google Glass wants to block facial recognition to stop people using invasive technology, but I think a lot of these things can be used for good."


Did you read that part of Clark's article?  The individual being quoted, Peter Waggett, Programme Leader at IBM's Emerging Technology Group, says that he is willing to accept the evil of monitoring and surveillance because "a lot of these things can be used for good."

That is how they get you.  Good intentions.

The common good.

For the good of the community.

Darkness always appears as an angel of light.

"Biometric systems are becoming much more accurate and ubiquitous," said Waggett. "It is impossible not to be identifiable by some kind of signal you're leaving behind. Accuracy is going up almost exponentially and we are dealing with concerns about privacy and how we map that.

"But trying to stop this would be fighting the wrong battle. The information is out of the bottle already -- we have to deal with the issues surrounding it now. Embrace the challenge of what we've got, embrace understanding it and focus on what we can do with that new data."

In other words, they argue, "It's going to happen, whether you like it, or not.  So quit fighting it, and embrace the change."

I can remember a great many tyrannies that said the same thing, as they weaseled their way into power.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

American Daily Review: Flown Into The Ocean. . . or Pakistan

We are shaken, not stirred; sliding, shooting and missing.  But in the end, is it a tax? Or a fine?  And if so, how many Russian Troops can you fit on the head of a pin?


2 Hours, beginning at Noon Pacific!

As usual, the First hour of today's American Daily Review Radio will be a sparring match between Republican Rider JASmius, and Constitutional Classical Centrist Douglas V. Gibbs.  The second hour is JASmius' play time.

Don't miss today's episode of: American Daily Review.
Remember, however, this is just the pre-game show for Constitution Radio on the Political Pistachio Radio Network: broadcast at 2:00 pm Pacific on KCAA-1050AM more

America and Saudi Arabia: End of an Alliance

By Douglas V. Gibbs

There is an old saying, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." - Or at least, temporarily.

The temporary alliance between Saudi Arabia and the United States seems to be reaching that end, under the watch of the President of the United States that campaigned on ushering in a new international age of understanding and cooperation.  Barack Obama, back in 2008, argued that the world hates America because of his dreaded predecessor, George W. Bush, but he was going to change that, and the world was going to love us, especially the Middle East.

An Arab Spring has emerged, and we have lost any working relationship with Libya, Egypt, Syria, and now Saudi Arabia.  Iraq is falling back under the grip of al-Qaeda.  A number of Muslim nations have fallen under the spell of radical Islamic jihad, including Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Syria, and possibly Turkey.  Iran has advanced its move towards nuclear weapons, and is in full force of financing the Assad regime in Syria.  Afghanistan is lost.  Pakistan has become more radicalized, and our relationship with them is all but severed.  Crimea has fallen into Russian hands, and Ukraine fears invasion by Putin's forces.  North Korea's saber rattling has become deafening.  Europe has been abandoned, the United States is working to reduce our military force to pre-World War II levels, and around the world Barack Obama's foreign policy has become an ongoing fuel source for jokes, and criticism.

Saudi Arabia, though never an ally in the sense that we could call them friends, has been one of the countries that has helped maintain a certain level of stability in the Middle East.  A shared interest in their oil help facilitate that relationship, there is no doubt.  But the seven decade long strategic alliance has disintegrated under the presidency of Barack Hussein Obama.

President Obama arrived in Riyadh on Friday, and the the rulers of Saudi Arabia say they feel increasingly compelled to go their own way, pursuing starkly different strategies from Washington in dealing with Iran, Syria, Egypt and the role of the Muslim Brotherhood in the region.

“Their view of Mr. Obama is that his entire understanding is wrong,” said Mustafa Alani, an analyst at the Geneva-based Gulf Research Center who is close to the Saudi monarchy. “The trust in him is not very high, so he will not have an easy ride, and a lot of hard questions will be put on the table.”

Obama's understanding is not wrong, his motives are.

Saudi Arabian officials say that has forced them to pursue their own course, to try to contain Iran, oust President Bashar al-Assad of Syria and support the military-backed government that has taken over in Egypt.

Middle Eastern peace, or a rough-edged facsimile of peace, is now hanging in the balance, as is the oil flow to the United States - where Obama and his democrats have all but forbidden a free market pursuit of domestic drilling, and new pipelines for both American, and Canadian, oil.

Obama is still touting the need for diplomacy.  "We need to talk," he keeps saying.  They don't care what he has to say.

How do you mediate diplomacy for sides that not only don't want to talk, but they definitely don't want to talk to YOU.

The Saudis have now taken the lead in a campaign against the Muslim Brotherhood across the region, not because of reasons that we may think, or embrace ourselves.  They do not do it to stop terror, or to quell any Islamic jihad.  They simply see the Muslim Brotherhood's style of jihad as being the wrong kind.  It is their jihad they want in place.  An easier, calmer, incremental jihad that steals your freedom without you even realizing it.

You know, Jasmius' ol' "Right Tribe, Wrong Tribe" thing.

“It is a war,” said a former Saudi official with ties to members of the royal family. “They see the Muslim Brotherhood as an existential threat, and there are some people who think that it is possible to eradicate the Brotherhood throughout the region.”

The Saudis finance jihadists when it serves their interests.  The Muslim Brotherhood, and al-Qaeda, do not serve their interests.

In the Muslim World, the Saudi opinion is not well received.  Muslims believe that the Sunni approach of the Saudi's is passed, and now it is time to create chaos.  The Shiite model has emerged, and a desire to end the domination of The West, and attack the infidels, has become a priority among the Muslim Brotherhood supporters.

The Saudis fear the Muslim Brotherhood, and al-Qaeda.  The war for Islam is not what people think, however.  The differences of the Sunnis and Shiites are not as different as we hope, and they are not going to simply kill each other off.  Islam unites when in opposition to non-Islam nations.  Sunnis and Shiites alike danced in the streets on September 11, 2001.

They all believe the caliphate is coming, it is just a matter of who will control it.

In the past month, Saudi Arabia criminalized membership in the Muslim Brotherhood and classified it as a terrorist organization on par with al-Qaeda.

Its Interior Ministry issued a new law imposing harsh penalties on Saudis who join the fighting in Syria. And to punish neighboring Qatar for its support of the Brotherhood, King Abdullah led the coordinated withdrawal from Qatar of his own ambassador and the envoys from the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Egypt.

At a private gathering of Arab security chiefs at the Four Seasons Hotel in Marrakesh, Morocco, two weeks ago, the Saudi interior minister asked every Arab country to outlaw the Muslim Brotherhood, to heated opposition.  Brotherhood-aligned parties have become accepted parts of the political establishment in much of the Muslim World.

Saudi leaders are already vexed at Mr. Obama for failing to throw America’s military might behind their proxy war with Tehran in Syria, where the Saudis are sending money and weapons to back the Sunni-dominated rebels. And the Saudis were flabbergasted last year when Mr. Obama reversed course at the last minute, calling off missile strikes against the Assad government for its use of chemical weapons.

The Saudis, and most folks, don't understand the reality of who Barack Obama is.  Barack Obama is like a chihuahua approaching a sled normally pulled by huskies.  He barks a lot, convinces everyone he is capable of pulling the sled, and he even approaches the sled to convince you he is prepared to do so, but in the end, he knows, and pretty much everyone else knows, he can't do it.  All he does is bark.  We need huskies.

The fact is, he doesn't want to pull the sled.  His focus isn't really on foreign affairs.  Obama has a greater enemy he is facing off against. . . conservatism, and those that dare defy him domestically.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Is Obama's 'Voter ID' Scam Busted?

by JASmius

Wayne Allen Root thinks so:

No one can collect "free" ObamaCare services from any doctor without showing ID. And since everyone is now required to have health insurance (or is given free insurance), the government is requiring that everyone have a photo ID. Don't look now, but ObamaCare just opened the door for voter ID.

1) Without addressing the question of whether Republicans should or should not make the attempt to impeach Barack Obama - and there are good arguments both ways - the suggestion that he would ever be convicted by the Senate and removed from office is, indeed, a pipedream.

2) Of course there was massive voter fraud in the 2012 election; there is in EVERY election.  Has been for years.  I happen to think the Holder Commissariat of Injustice & Revenge was the clearinghouse for it, or at least the facilitator.  Tell us something we don't know, Wayne - because there's always the chance that the LIVs and NIVs might possibly be listening.

But also, remember that the very nature of voter fraud precludes our ever being able to prove it - or that it was the decisive factor in Barack Obama's re-election.  What was it Winston Churchill once said?  "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."

3) Don't get your hopes up over the stark dichotomy between the Regime's outlawing of voter ID and ObamaCare requiring it.  Sure, in a logical world, policy consistency would be not just required, but wouldn't have to be because nothing else would ever occur to governing authorities.  But this is ObamaWorld, in which the governing authorities are not subject or accountable to anybody or anything, where the rule of law is deader than poor Kelsey's nuts, and where the people are fodder, a source of revenue to be taxed, a pool of raw material to be kept ignorant and afraid until The One needs them to be angry at Republicans/conservatives/Christians and swell with idolatrous fevor.  Kind of like the woman who voted for him twenty times.

If there's another GOP tsunami this November, it will be (A) because of ObamaCare and (B) will overwhelm the Regime's voter fraud machine.  But the next close election, it will pick up right where it left off sixteen months ago.

Upcoming Schedule of Events

Constitution Radio/Constitution Association
          Upcoming Schedule of Events

Constitution Radio and the Constitution Association have some great guests, and speakers, coming up. Mark your calendar - don't miss these great dates! And don't forget, you can call into the show to join the conversation at 888-909-1050. Listen live each Saturday at 2:00 pm Pacific Online at www.kcaaradio.com or catch the archive later. Learn more at www.douglasvgibbs.com . . .

Constitution Radio, Every Saturday at 2:00 pm on KCAA AM1050, www.kcaaradio.com

On March 15 we had Senator Jim DeMint
On March 22 we had Karen Moreau regarding Fracking

Coming Up:

- March 29, 2014: Chris Vaca, author of "Hey, Alan Colmes, I read your book!"
- April 5, 2014: Matt Kibbe, CEO and President of Freedom Works (tentatively scheduled)
- April 12, 2014: Dr. Alveda King, Niece of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
- April 19, 2014: G.R. Mobley, We the People: Whose Constitution Is It Anyway?
- April 26, 2014: Dr. Elizabeth Lee Vliet, Left the AMA over Obamacare
- May 3, 2014: G.R. Mobley, Republic Review
- May 10, 2014: Clare Lopez, regarding Benghazi
- May 17, 2014: G.R. Mobley, Turning America Around
- May 24, 2014: Ryan Murphy, 17 year old oratorical contest winner regarding speech on the Constitution (tentatively scheduled)
- May 31, 2014: Larry Stone regarding the Motion Picture "Noah," and the biblical problems with the film.

Constitution Association, First Saturday of Each Month, 5:00 pm, Boston Billie's in Menifee, CA

Upcoming Speakers

- April 5, 2014: James Horn, Political Islam (and a short presentation by a new advertiser on my radio program regarding investing in gold)
- May 3, 2014: Lydia Gutierrez, Candidate State Superintendent of Public Instruction, speech will be regarding Common Core.
- June 7, 2014: G.R. Mobley, author: We the People, Whose Constitution Is It Anyway? speaking on "Republic Review"
- July 5, 2014: Ryan Murphy is tentatively scheduled. She is the young lady that won an oratorical competition with her speech about the U.S. Constitution.

Learn more about the group at www.constitutionassociation.com

Constitution Class, Temecula: 6:30 pm each Thursday Night, Faith Armory, 41669 Winchester Rd.

Upcoming Topics

- April 3, 2014: Executive Branch
- April 10, 2014: Executive Branch Continued
- April 17, 2014: Judicial Branch
- April 24, 2014: Judicial Branch Continued
- May 1, 2014: Full Faith and Credit
- May 8, 2014: Article V. (Amendments, and Convention)
- May 15, 2014: Supremacy Clause
- May 22, 2014: Introduction to the Bill of Rights

Past handouts are available Online at www.temeculaconstitutionclass.blogspot.com

Other Events

A Constitution Class in Corona is in the works, and may materialize soon.

The High Desert Oath Keepers group have been in contact with me and have asked me to speak to their group in the near future.

In September we will once again participate in the San Jacinto AgFest event, with this year's emphasis being on the Constitution, and Divine Providence.


Kobe Bryant Takes Heat For Refusing To Support Trayvon Martin

by JASmius

.....at first:

Basketball star Kobe Bryant is at the center of a social media firestorm after suggesting in a magazine article that the widespread support for Trayvon Martin was premature and that without facts he refused to show support for the slain teen solely because he's African American....

In the article, Bryant said the social adjustment was made difficult by his "growing up a little differently," combined with "blacks having their own way of talking, and I really had to learn two languages in order to fit in. Kids are cruel. It's always been hard."

Bryant added that as an adult African-American athlete, there's "always a struggle to step outside" of "the box people try to put you in."

When asked by McGrath to expound on that in relation to the Miami Heat's show of solidarity with Martin in the viral photo tweeted by LeBron James in March, 2012, Bryant ruffled liberal feathers.

"I won’t react to something just because I'm supposed to, because I'm an African-American," Bryant said. "That argument doesn’t make any sense to me. So we want to advance as a society and a culture, but, say, if something happens to an African-American we immediately come to his defense? Yet you want to talk about how far we've progressed as a society? Well, if we've progressed as a society then don’t jump to somebody's defense just because they're African-American. You sit and you listen to the facts just like you would in any other situation, right? So I won’t assert myself.”
Maybe it's just me, but I've never had the enmity against Kobe Bryant that a lot of NBA fans have displayed over the years.  The feud with Shaq, the accusations of "selfishness," and all that.  I can understand him wanting to prove that he had a hand in that first Lakers threepeat and could win a title or titles without O'Neal vacuuming up all the accolades and attention, and that a big part of that was him scoring a boatload of points.  And once he got some talent around him, guess what?  He did - back to back.

I would say something like, "And that has earned him the right to think for himself instead of being bullied into being a racist," except that EVERY black American has that right.  Except it's not just a right, it's a duty and responsibility - one that is still being viciously and militantly shirked.

Just ask Kobe:

Bryant has incurred wrath from the left both in print and on Twitter following his New Yorker comments, Mediaite reports.

A piece at The Urban Daily slammed Bryant for being a "jerk," adding, "Over the span of Kobe Bryant‘s career… we’ve seen him do and say some very smug, cavalier and even cornball things at times but the comments that he made regarding the Miami Heat’s support after Trayvon Martin was killed… by far takes the cake!"

The term "cornball" is often used to disparage blacks for "acting white."
Because seeking the facts - which is to say, seeking the truth - which is to say, seeking true justice - is....what?  Beyond black intellects?  A black man is not "authentically black" if he doesn't want to see a "white Hispanic" get lynched?  Maybe it's the cornball in me, but that assertion seems not just awfully racist, but stupidly racist to boot.

Najee Ali, director of Project Islamic H.O.P.E., angrily called for a boycott of Bryant.

"African American youth should no longer buy Bryant’s jerseys or shoes and should boycott all products he endorses," Ali said in a statement to Fox News.

"Bryant doesn’t identify with the struggle that our African-American youth face nationally. So why should we continue to support Bryant who has never truly identified with the African American experience."

Because Kobe ought to know that trying to murder white-looking people MMA-style is part of the African-American youth struggle experience.  The struggle, of course, being when the white-looking people attempt to defend themselves.  If Zimmerman had just docilely let himself be bludgeoned to death like he would have if he wasn't such a flaming racist, Trayvon might still be alive today.  So everybody burn their Kobe gear until he tracks down and offs Pau Gasol for trying to pull a Shaq on him.  Or something.

And you know something?  He just might:

Kobe Bryant         @kobebryant 
Travon Martin was wronged THATS my opinion and thats what I believe the FACTS showed. The system did not work  
C'mon, Kobe, you're almost there.  A man of your resources ought to be able to bankroll the vigilante Black Klan manhunt it will take to find and liquidate George Zimmerman once and for all.  Otherwise known as "finishing the job Trayvon started".

Otherwise, they just might come after you, instead.

Isn't "justice" a beautiful thing?