Thursday, April 30, 2015

Rubio Hurls Fusillade Of Poison Pills @ Corker-Menendez

by JASmius

This just in: Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) is running for president of the United States.

Is rightwing Dezi trying to grab attention for himself with the two bill-killing amendments to the "bipartisan" Corker-Menendez bill purportedly "giving Congress a say" in any nuclear "deal" with Iran that he dropped today?  Sure he is.  That's presidential politics, especially for senators who aspire to a job for which they are woefully unqualified, which pretty much describes any senator who has ever lived.  Will it work?  Which is to say, will it re-endear him to conservative voters alienated by his amnesty flirtations?  Well, it can't hurt.

Let's remember what the Corker-Menendez legislation really does:

[T]he Constitution mandates that no international agreement can be binding unless it achieves either of two forms of congressional endorsement: a) super-majority approval by two-thirds of the Senate (i.e., sixty-seven aye votes), or b) enactment through the normal legislative process, meaning passage by both chambers under their burdensome rules, then signature by the president.

The Corker bill is a ploy to circumvent this constitutional roadblock. That is why our post-sovereign, post-constitutional president has warmed to it.

Because it would require the president to submit any Iran deal to Congress, it is drawing plaudits for toughness. But....[o]nce the deal is submitted, Congress would have sixty days (or perhaps as few as thirty days) to act. If within that period both houses of Congress failed to enact a resolution of disapproval, the agreement would be deemed legally binding — meaning that the sanctions the Iranian regime is chafing [?] under would be lifted.

As Corker, other Republican leaders, and the president well know, passage of a resolution of disapproval — even if assured in the House with its commanding Republican majority — could be blocked by the familiar, lockstep parliamentary maneuvering of just forty Senate Democrats. More significantly, even if enacted in the Senate, the resolution would be vetoed by Obama. As with the resolutions of disapproval on debt increases, it is nearly inconceivable that Obama’s veto would be overridden.

To summarize, the Constitution puts the onus on the president to find sixty-seven Senate votes to approve an international agreement, making it virtually impossible to ratify an ill-advised deal. The Corker bill puts the onus on Congress to muster sixty-seven votes to block an agreement.

Under the Constitution, Obama’s Iran deal would not have a prayer. Under the Corker bill, it would sail through. And once again, it would be Republicans first ensuring that self-destruction is imposed on us, then striking the pose of dogged opponents by casting futile nay votes.

This is not how our system works. Congress is supposed to make the laws we live under. It is the first branch of government, not a rubber-stamping Supreme Soviet. [emphasis added]

One correction to Mr. McCarthy's punchline: This is not how our system is supposed to work.  But Congress, alas, has not been the first branch of government for over four years, ever since the Democrats lost unified control of it, and Congress is indeed a rubber-stamping Supreme Soviet even under unified GOP control.  Or a ceremonial advisory rump entity, take your pick.

That is the "works" into which Senator Rubio is trying to throw his sibling monkey wrenches.  Neither has much, if any, chance of passing, but they're worth a look.

First, if the purpose of Iran's nuclear program really is "peaceful," then they should have no problem with or objection to recognizing Israel, now should they?  Seems reasonable and logical, does it not?  However, some of Rubio's fellow Pachyderms appear to have other priorities:

Marco Rubio is refusing to back down from his fight to force Iran to recognize Israel, a stance that threatens to disrupt a delicately negotiated bipartisan bill that would allow Congress to review any nuclear deal with Tehran…

Some Republicans who want to see legislation passed are wary of Rubio’s move on Israel with Graham arguing the amendment could “unravel the coalition” backing the bill.

Graham said he’d vote against Rubio’s Israel amendment on the Senate floor if he felt that was the only way to keep the legislation on track to be signed by the president.

“I don’t think anybody is going to accuse Lindsey Graham of being anti-Israel,” Graham said. “I’ve been working for a year … to put this coalition together. And failure is not an option.”

Obvious question: Why should any Republican care a whit about "unraveling the coalition" backing a bad bill, a flat forfeiture of the Senate's Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 ratification power, which Corker-Menendez so clearly is?  Hell, since O is amenable to it, for the reasons cited above, why should they care whether it has a supermajority or not?  Couldn't the majority party at least make the vote a photo-finish, just for appearances?  For that matter, why did they want to take back control of the Senate if they were just going to bow the knee to The One at the first opportunity?

Sorry, I'm getting off track.  But you can hardly blame me, right?

Will anybody accuse Lindsey Graham of being anti-Israel?  Well, I wouldn't have before his defense of Corker-Menendez, which guts the Constitution still further in service to a betrayal of the Jewish State that puts its very existence in mortal danger, as well as that of America itself.  Now?  I'd say the accusation is at least fair game.  Although I would characterize it more along the lines of morbid GOP fear of Obama overwhelming the loyalties they used to value and possess.

On the other hand, guess who is also a staunch supporter and proponent of Corker-Menendez?  So your mileage may vary, and all that.  Or leftwing American Jews are more leftwing than Jewish.  Which we've always pretty much known.

Regardless, if that characterization doesn't strike you at first glance, listen to how closely Senator Graham's rhetoric apes that of his "close friend and bipartisan colleague" Ben Cardin (D-MD):

Cardin said he doesn’t disagree with the language of Rubio’s amendment, but thinks the results would be “counterproductive” to Rubio’s goal. Speaking to a group of reporters Wednesday afternoon, Cardin said the amendment would do one of three things: cause the bill to fail, prevent the U.S. from negotiating any deal with Iran, or give Iran the upper hand during the negotiations.

“All three are horrible results,” he said. “It’s counterproductive to the intent what the amendment is.”

Cardin is lying, of course, as Rubio's goals are (1) to protect and retain the Senate's Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 ratification power and (2) expose Iran's and Obama's rabid anti-Semitism (as if it wasn't day-glo, hairlip obvious already).  Killing the bill and preventing the U.S. from negotiating any "deal" with Iran would advance both of those objectives, as well as U.S. national security, whereas the bill itself is part and parcel of maintaining the upper hand that the mullahs have always had in this interminable twelve-year circle-jerk.

Which is why the amendment will never pass.  For all the ballyhoo and falderol about congressional Dems "breaking" with Obama over the Iran sellout, the reality is that they've hogtied the purported Republican "majority" into yet another "deal" with the White House that confirms and legitimizes yet another in the long line of his tyrannical usurpations.  They're not going to allow a single amendment from an "inauthentic Hispanic" to derail what is most definitely an ironclad goal of theirs, as well as not a few Stockholm Syndromized 'Pubbies.

Which brings us to Senator Rubio's other amendment, which is the teriyaki filet mignon of poison pills:

Senator Marco Rubio, a Republican from Florida and aspirant for his party's presidential nomination, has a very poisonous pill he is seeking to add to Iran legislation this week before the Senate.

No, it's not his much discussed amendment saying Congress would not lift its sanctions on Iran unless Iran recognized Israel. Rather Rubio just wants the Iran deal to conform to the president's own description of a nuclear framework agreement. As Rubio said Wednesday, "It requires this final deal be the deal the president says it is."

On the surface, this seems like small ball. On April 2nd, the White House released a "fact sheet" that spelled out Iran's obligations to modify some of its nuclear facilities and limit its enrichment. The "fact sheet" said sanctions would be phased out over time as Iran complied with the terms of the framework.

Rubio's amendment simply quotes that "fact sheet" verbatim and says the president may not waive or lift any Congressional sanctions until he certifies Iran has met the White House conditions.

"For the life of me, I don't understand why that would be controversial," Rubio said Wednesday. "Yet somehow, I was told this would box the White House in." [emphasis added]

Oh, don't worry, peeps, Marco knows why this amendment is "controversial" every bit as well as we do: Because The One's "fact sheet" is a "bullshit sheet," as the mullahs themselves have been gleefully telling us.  And the proof, as they say, is in the "pudding" of this amendment.  If what Barack Obama and John Kerry are telling us this "deal" really is is true, then, again, they and their congressional minions should have no problem with or objection to codifying it in Corker-Menendez.  And yet this amendment too is somehow "controversial".  Which means that, just as Red Barry and his merry Marxist minions have implicitly conceded their Jew-hatred, they are also giving up the ghost on their demigod being a filthy, shameless liar to everybody except the mullahs themselves.

Again, not exactly a newsflash.  But the only way to even begin to attempt to rein in the rampaging Obama dictatorship is by exposing its vile, extremist, Ameriphobic trappings, which both of Senator Rubio's doomed amendments accomplish quite nicely.

However, ultimately, the rampaging Obama dictatorship cannot be reined in without a full out, knock-down, no-holds barred, Hell-In-A-Cell inter-branch constitutional crisis showdown.  It has always been thus for over four years and running, and yet it never seems to ever take place.

If you're still wondering why, let's take a look at Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) and his amendment, and the fate it met:

If you want to get worked up about an amendment, get worked up instead at the fact that Ron Johnson’s amendment to have the Iran deal treated as a treaty for constitutional purposes — which would require two-thirds approval, just as Article II demands — failed miserably two days ago, 39/54. It was destined to be filibustered by Democrats, of course, but a party-line filibuster should have produced a final cloture vote of 54/46. Fully twelve Republicans, led by Corker and including our old friends Orrin Hatch and John McCain, voted with the Democrats in the name of protecting Corker’s bill. Disgraceful.

It's difficult to know what to adequately say about this - again - but I'm sure y'all will think of something.

If you're looking for an appropriate and fitting postscript to the preceding depressing parade of perfidy, we can't do any better than this:

Britain has informed a United Nations sanctions panel of an active Iranian nuclear procurement network linked to two blacklisted firms, according to a confidential report by the panel seen by Reuters.

The existence of such a network could add to Western concerns over whether Tehran can be trusted to adhere to a nuclear deal due by June 30th in which it would agree to restrict sensitive nuclear work in exchange for sanctions relief.

Don't count on it, Reuters.  As Mr. McCarthy observed, "In Washington, you see, insisting that Iran act like a normal country is nutter stuff, but trusting Iran to enrich uranium only for 'peaceful' purposes is totally logical."

Temecula Constitution Class: Mr. President

Instructor: Douglas V. Gibbs

Tonight we discuss Article II, the President of the United States.

Faith Armory, 41669 Winchester Road, Temecula.

6:30 pm - 7:30 pm

Hard Starboard Radio: The Weaponization Of Cultural Politics

Do the Clintons even care about how their myriad scandals affect their public image? They've never had to before, but they'd better start now; "The current notion that we must avoid hurting the feelings of anybody from the "right tribe," but the feelings of people of the "wrong tribe" are fair game is becoming oppressive; Lack of "investment" is NOT the problem in Baltimore; Baltimore, Charlie Hebdo, and the weaponization of cultural politics; Republicans acting in the spirit of Barbara Jordan?; and guess who's running away with Iowa?

How about some "investments" in my bank account at 6PM Eastern/3PM Pacific?  You can call 'em, "donations," after all.

Jeb Bush: Let Illegal Aliens "Come Out Of Shadows"

by JASmius

He really is running in the wrong party, isn't he?:

Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush declared Wednesday that eleven [sic] million immigrants in the country illegally should have an opportunity to stay, wading yet again into his party's contentious immigrant debate.

In tone and substance, Bush stands out among the many Republicans lining up for the GOP's next presidential primary, where conservatives who oppose an immigration overhaul often hold out-sized influence.

Which is to say, we are the majority, both in the party and, on this issue, in the country.  Small wonder the AP wanted to obfuscate that little detail.

As he moves toward a presidential campaign, the brother and son of former presidents has not backed away from his defense of immigrants in the country illegally and a policy that would allow them to attain legal status under certain conditions.

"We're a nation of immigrants," Bush said at the National Christian Hispanic Leadership Conference that brought several hundred Hispanic evangelical leaders to Houston this week. "This is not the time to abandon something that makes us special and unique."

A successful immigration overhaul is more than simply strengthening the border, Bush said, referring to "eleven [sic] million people that should come out from the shadows and receive earned legal status."

Sure, we're a "nation of immigrants" if you go back far enough.  But here's the kicker: (1) We are, historically, a nation of LEGAL immigrants, and (2) We don't stay that way, but assimilate into the existing American culture.  What Jeb is so hell-bent on excusing - i.e. what Barack Obama is already illegally, unconstitutionally, and despotically imposing - is the antithesis of that, and what the vast majority of the American people vehemently reject.

This tells us a couple of things about the would-be Bush III: (1) His marketing sense is even worse than his political timing; and accordingly, (2) he must really and truly believe this nonsense of he's so conspicuously peddling it anyway despite its being a death knell to any chance he may ever have had at the GOP nomination.  It's definitely a poison pill that won't be washed down with any amount of donor money.

UPDATE: Who's leading in Iowa these days?  Here's a hint: It ain't Jeb.

UPDATE II: I guess we know why Jeb was campaigning in Puerto Rico.  Why he, as an ostensible Republican, should want to hand the Democrats two additional Senate seats and four or five House seats is a question he'll probably never be asked by a media that has already designated him their party's 2016 version of the Washington Generals.

Clinton Foundation Stench Driving Away Hillary! '16 Donors?

by JASmius

The Clintanic continues to founder and list at a whimsically entertaining rate, and now including from a frankly astonishing direction.

Everybody knows, and has always known, what corrupt, greedy, money-grubbing crooks La Clinton Nostra has always been and roaringly remain to this day.  But the scandals are piling up this week at too rapid a clip for even them to spin away.

Late last week we learned that Mrs. Clinton effectively sold a fifth of all U.S. uranium reserves to the Russians.

On Monday, Charity Navigator refused to even rate the Clinton Foundation on transparency (reasonable, as it's awfully difficult to evaluate something that doesn't exist), and put it on its watch list of problematic "charities.”  Meanwhile, Bill Allison of the Sunlight Foundation called the CF "a slush fund for the Clintons," and it was unearthed that the portion of its receipts actually going to charitable expenditures was a big, fat 6.4%.

On Tuesday it emerged that Bill Clinton personally profited from speeches sponsored by thirteen mega-corporations or trade associations that were also lobbying Hillary Clinton’s State Commissariat.  And remember, per Mrs. Clinton's own words twenty-three years ago, that she and The Big Me are a "blue plate special".

Yesterday none other than National Pubic Radio reported that Her Nib, to quote Ace, "sen[t] out not Susan Rice as a human shield to lie for her [claiming that an independent watchdog rated the Clinton Foundation "among the world's most transparent organizations"], but her own f***ing daughter."  Which just goes to show that the fruit really don't fall far from the tree.

And today, none other than the New York Times AND the Boston Globe disclose that the CF used a "byzantine organization" to hide the sleazy connections involved in the aforementioned Uranium One-Rosatom "deal,". which was a followup to what the Washington Post spilled yesterday.

All of which brings us to the story that actually interests me and is prompting this post:

A handful of deep-pocketed donors are reconsidering their gifts to the $2 billion Clinton Foundation amid mounting questions about how it’s spending their money and suggestions of influence peddling, according to donors and others familiar with the foundation’s fundraising.

One major donor who contributed at least $500,000 to the foundation last year said a 2015 donation is less likely because of revelations about sloppy record-keeping and huge payments for travel and administrative costs.

“There are a lot of factors and the reputational is among them,” said the donor, who did not want to be identified discussing philanthropic plans that have not been finalized. “We had some questions about how the money was being spent — and that was long before the problems were in the press.”

At least three other major donors also are re-evaluating whether to continue giving large donations to the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation, according to people familiar with its fundraising.

They say increasing financial pressures and escalating outside scrutiny have sparked sometimes intense internal debates about the priorities and future of a pioneering charitable vehicle that was supposed to cement the family’s legacy.

If donors to the Clinton Foundation are getting skittish, if even the "bluest" of media outlets are actually conspicuously reporting on the cesspool and ongoing criminal enterprise that is everything Clinton, you can count on the purported $2.5 billion projected "Ready For Hillary!" warchest being in mounting jeopardy as well.  Because whatever lefties still claim in public, they do not want to be "presumptively" stuck with a candidate and nominee who cannot effortlessly spin away endless scandals, whom the public doesn't like and trusts even less, and who, plainly and simply, cannot win.

In a cycle where acute Obama fatigue has already set in, a carpet-bombing of preemptive Clinton fatigue that never really went away over the past fifteen years is not a winning Democrat formula.  It will not take the Donk rank & file long to come to terms with it and adjust their preferences accordingly.

Will it?

Baltimore Mayor Blake: "Let the Protesters Loot, It’s Only Property”

by JASmius

Yes, Mayor Blake's blessing to the chaos that has wrecked her city is verified.

I guess now we know what she'll be vehemently and mendatiously denying this afternoon or tomorrow:

Despite a firm denial by [Democrat] Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake, a senior law enforcement source charges that she gave an order for police to stand down as riots broke out Monday night, raising more questions about whether some of the violence and looting could have been prevented.

The source, who is involved in the enforcement efforts, confirmed to Fox News there was a direct order from the mayor to her police chief Monday night, effectively tying the hands of officers as they were pelted with rocks and bottles.

Asked directly if the mayor was the one who gave that order, the source said: “You are God damn right it was.”

The claim follows criticism of the mayor for, over the weekend, saying they were giving space to those who “wished to destroy.”

I don't know if there's ever been a Tea Party rally in Baltimore, but if there ever is one, it will be interesting to see what orders Mayor Blake gives the BPD on that particular occasion.  Somehow I suspect they'll be a lot more "muscular".

Incidentally, would you believe that she is also the (General) Secretary of the Democrat National Committee and vice president of the U.S. Conference of Mayors, honors she was given following Barack Obama's 2012 re-election (h/t: VM) most likely by way of her complexion?  Sheesh, at least with Bill Clinton she'd have had to blow him first.

Witness: Freddie Gray Was Trying To Injure Self In Baltimore Police Van

by JASmius

Well, here's some additional context to this story:

Freddie Gray, the 25-year-old black man who died of a spinal cord injury sustained while in Baltimore police custody, was banging against the walls of the police van he was being held in, according to testimony from another prisoner in the van, the Washington Post reported Wednesday night.

The prisoner, who was the only other prisoner in the van, was separated from Gray by a metal partition, but told investigators he could hear Gray "banging against the walls" and believed he was was intentionally trying to injure himself," an affidavit obtained by the Post read.

The Post agreed not to name the individual out of fear for his safety.

The latter lends considerable authenticity to this prisoner's account, doesn't it?  Mr. Gray certainly could have been banging against the paddy wagon walls given that he wasn't buckled in or otherwise restrained.  Most likely is that he was trying to contuse himself to make it look like the police personnel had beaten him up with fists and nightsticks and such, the better to capitalize on the Ferguson Insurrection and play up the "police brutality" angle.  Although it strains credulity to assert that he would have "martyred" himself by breaking his own neck for that same purpose.

Another possibility is that he was on a raging drug high - Mr. Gray did have a rap sheet twenty-two drug dealing arrests long - and both CNN and the WaPo go on to imply that very strongly:

Also on Wednesday, CNN reported that a friend of one of the police officers who arrested Gray said that the suspect was not shackled or restrained in the van because officers were not able to bring him under control. The officers were afraid that Gray would attack or bite them so they kept their distance once he was in the van.

Gray had been arrested on April 12th after fleeing from police in a high-crime area and was carrying a switchblade knife.

You'd think there'd be a procedure for this sort of situation, which doesn't seem like it would be all that unusual.  Tranquilizer darts, perhaps?  Or restraining ("sleeper") holds?  Of course, something similar is what wound up leading to the death of Eric Garner in New York City last year, so it's becoming an impossible catch-22.  Which is, of course, the whole point from the Black Klan perspective.

Bottom line is, if the suspect is physically resisting arrest to such a violent degree that the officers are in danger of bodily harm, how are they supposed to subdue the suspect in a "peaceful" manner?  Which begs the point: Black suspects aren't supposed to be subdued, because they're not supposed to be arrested.  Call it "freelance slavery reparations".

If Freddie Gray had been able to calm himself down, he'd have been able to collect and enjoy them.

Wednesday, April 29, 2015

Hard Starboard Radio: The Sexual Revolution Demands A De-Christianized America

The Constitution is silent on sodomarriage; Obama: "religious institutions" will lose their tax-exempt status when the Supreme Court decrees sodomarriage; American Jacobins: sexual revolutionaries prepare the battlespace for a de-Christianized America; Riot-plagued Baltimore is a catastrophe entirely of the Democrat Party’s own making; and are we serious about preventing riots? Then we’d better fork over more billions to Barack Obama.

Time to bend over at 6PM Eastern/3PM Pacific.

The Other Side Of The “Soul-Searching” Coin

by JASmius

I didn't think that Barack Obama could resist delivering another patronizingly racist sermon for long:

I think there are police departments that have to do some soul searching. I think there are some communities that have to do some soul searching. But I think we, as a country, have to do some soul searching.

I think Jim Geraghty speaks for us all in today's Morning Jolt e-newsletter:

No, we don’t!

This is not a time for the usual “Socialism of Blame” where responsibility for what happened gets spread far and wide and equally to everybody.

Why do we have to do some soul searching? We didn't do anything to Freddie Gray, the man who died after being arrested. The police actions are being investigated. We didn't set fire to a senior center under construction. We didn't run into a CVS and grab everything we could. We didn't set police cruisers on fire, or jump atop smashed police cruisers.

You know who’s responsible for the punctured fire hose? The SOB who reached down with a knife and stabbed the fire hose!

All over Twitter Monday evening, people linked to that video and asked, “Why would he do that?” as if the answer were unimaginable. He did it because he didn't want the firefighters to put the fire out. He wanted the businesses to burn. He wanted the buildings to burn. He wanted to destroy. This may reflect his inability to create anything of value in his life so far, or it may reflect an anarchic desire to see destruction, which motivates many arsonists. After a while, the “why” stops mattering that much. It pales in comparison to the need to stop a guy like this
“We, as a country, have to do some soul searching”? I’m sure there’s a significant chunk of you who have never even been to Baltimore.

We can shut down our entire chain of soul stores and do a complete inventory, counting what’s on every shelf, and it’s not going to change one fact on the ground in Baltimore. [emphases added]

True, every last word of it.  But Barack Obama doesn't want to change one, or any, facts on the ground in Baltimore.  The burning down and destruction of that city, as with Ferguson, Missouri before it, is part and parcel of his racist, Ameriphobic agenda.  It suits his purposes of encouraging and stoking a coast-to-coast race war that he can exploit to impose national martial law, AND blame it all on "white America".

That is what "We, as a nation, have to do some soul-searching" means.  He doesn't mean all Americans; he means white America.  Because "white America" is irredeemably "racist" and will ultimately have to be put down and enslaved "for its own good" by forcing it - us - to "confront our racism" and "confess our sins" and accept permanent anti-white apartheid - and reverse slavery, if necessary, which it will be - as "penance" and "atonement" for our "race's" sins of centuries ago that we have nothing whatsoever to do with.

Collective guilt versus individual responsibility - or the "socialism of blame".  If each one of us is responsible for our own actions, there's nothing, no opening, for a tyrant to exploit to further and expand his tyranny.  But if guilt can be assigned on a political and group basis by the tyrant, there is no end of the reign of terror that can be visited upon the groups that are, shall we say, out of political favor, and politically favored groups have a blank check to engage in the worst evil, and unlimited atrocities.

Which brings us to Ebony Dickens, the individual pictured above:

An East Point woman accused of making serious threats against police officers on her Facebook page is in jail.

Channel 2’s Liz Artz learned the FBI, Homeland Security, the District Attorney’s office and the New York Police Department assisted East Point police with Ebony Dickens’ arrest.

Dickens is accused of writing a Facebook post Monday using the name Tiffany Milan in which she called for “death to all white cops nationwide.”

The post went on to say, “I thought about shooting every white cop I see in the head until I’m either caught by the police or killed by them… Might kill at least fifteen tomorrow, I’m plotting now.”

“That’s fifteen people that she’s talking about killing within a day or so, so whether she is serious or not that’s something that we have to take seriously,” said East Point police Lieutenant Cliff Chandler.

In the post, Dickens says she condones black-on-white killings. She took down the post on Tuesday, just hours before she was arrested.

The post was also shared on the WSB-TV Facebook page Tuesday. We took it down immediately and reported it to Atlanta Police and our FBI contacts....

Dickens has been charged with disseminating information related to terrorist acts. [emphasis added]

I'm actually surprised that Miss Dickens was taken into custody.  In fact, her arrest was, in the current  ruling "soul-searching" paradigm, "proof" of "white racism".  After all, she's black, of a politically favored group, and thus she's entitled to murder white cops, because, "social justice".  Because those white cops are, per the "official" group definition, "racists," and thus their lives are worthless, don't matter, and are forfeit to any black person who wants to take them.

This is the madness that is poisoning America in 2015.  And it is being administered from the very top.

The one interesting question to take out of this story is why Miss Dickens publicized her white cop-killing spree beforehand instead of just doing it.  It's not as if doing it wouldn't have made her famous after the fact.  My guess is twofold: Either (1) she thought she could announce her intentions, then carry them out, and be celebrated for the mass blow she struck against American Crackerdom; or, a little more rationally, (2) her Facebook manifesto was intended to provoke her arrest, thus "proving" white racism" by denying her her "right" to murder dozens of white cops.

Was that Barack Obama's fault?  Nope.  Ebony Dickens is responsible for her own actions.

But Barack Obama is responsible for his as well, which have implanted this mentality in the minds of so many African-Americans.

Or, at least, he would be if he wasn't president-for-life, and unaccountable to anybody.

After all, it's good to be god AND king.

Exit questions: (1) Does this mean that Charles Dickens was "Ivory"?  And (2) do you want to say, "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times," or shall I?

Iranians Capture U.S. Cargo Ship

by JASmius

Rather reminiscent of the "Tanker War" of the 1980s, when, during the Iran-Iraq War, both sides took to attacking neutral shipping in the Persian Gulf to deny the other its oil export capabilities and force them to surrender in the stalemated struggle on land - except for the fact that back then, the Iranians refrained from attacking the United States (which had begun re-flagging Kuwaiti oil tankers at the latter's request) directly.

That has now changed:

Iranian patrol boats intercepted a cargo ship in the Strait of Hormuz on Tuesday and forced it into Iranian territorial waters by firing shots across its bow, prompting the U.S. Navy to send a destroyer and reconnaissance plane to "monitor the situation".

Not stop the Iranian patrol boats and warn them off, but just sit there and watch.

Iranian Revolutionary Guard boats confronted the MV Maersk Tigris, a Marshall Islands-flagged vessel, as it was traversing one of the world's most important oil shipping channels and forced it to divert toward Larak Island near Bandar Abbas, where it was boarded by Iranian forces, U.S. officials said . . .

Alerted by a distress call from the Maersk Tigris, the U.S. Navy dispatched the destroyer USS Farragut toward the scene as well as a reconnaissance aircraft, the [Obam]agon said. Army Colonel Steve Warren said firing shots across the bow of a cargo vessel was “inappropriate” and seemed “provocative.”

"Inappropriate" is when you tell an off-color story at a church picnic.  This was piracy.  Which is a lot more than "seemingly" provocative.

The incident came just four days after Iranian patrol boats surrounded a U.S.-flagged vessel, the Maersk Kensington, and followed as it was in the same area, a U.S. official said. No warning shots were fired in that incident.

U.S. officials said they were concerned and monitoring the situation, but an initial review indicated the United States did not have a legal obligation in a maritime environment to defend a Marshall Islands-flagged ship with no American crew. [emphasis added]

You can see the thread-bare degree of separation at play here.  A U.S.-flagged vessel they "follow" threateningly, while a Marshall Island-flagged ship they seize outright.  But the difference really is no difference, as the Marshall Islands are a "free association" American possession, and thus there's no functional pretextual difference between the two situations.  But because there was a legal technicality to hide behind as a flimsy excuse to do nothing and let the Iranians have their way with us, that is the option the Obama Regime took.  Indeed, the White House appears to be recognizing Iran's claim to the Strait of Hormuz (the entrance to the Persian Gulf) as being their territorial waters, which would mean nobody could ever legally enter the Gulf at all, a claim that no country, including ours, has ever recognized.  Until now, apparently.

According to al Jazeera, the Iranians have since released the MV Maersk Tigris, but that doesn't mean the crisis is over and all is well.  This is classic Iranian envelope-pushing.  Seeing as how The One has green-lighted their nukes, they're probing on all fronts to see if the U.S. has a challenge line left at all.  And, of course, it could be a setup to goad us into moving major naval assets into the Gulf in order for them to destroy them.  What the mullahs are confirming is that there is no action, no matter how "provocative," that will motivate Barack Obama to oppose the mullahs' aggressive imperialist expansion.  How bad is this apocalyptic dynamic becoming?  It's rendering the nuclear "deal" all but irrelevant, a symptom at best of the bigger problem.

Which begs the question: What happens when the mullahs seize a U.S.-flagged ship?  And start shooting at any U.S. warships that are dispatched to intervene?  And perhaps sink one or more of them?  In other words, at what point will the American people start demanding active "direct" opposition to Iran, and how much public pressure will it take to force Red Barry's hand?  And is that even possible?

Pew Study: Millions To Leave Christianity For Islam

by JASmius

If you pulled the camera back in the pic above, you'd see the man on the left has impaled the man on the right through the heart, killing him instantly, and the sword is the only thing holding him up.  If eyes had been included the man on the right would have little "x's" through them.

Genocide is the only way in which the global Muslim population will increase by tens of millions at Christianity's expense, although I don't think that's the paradigm from which Pew is operating:

The results of a new study show a changing global landscape when it comes to religion, with Christians and Muslims projected to have nearly the same number of followers by 2050.

The Pew Research Center study also shows a startling figure for Christians: More than 106 million people are projected to leave the faith between 2010 and 2050, with only 40 million expected to enter. That's a net loss of 66 million people.

Many of the people who leave their Christian faith could be leaving religion altogether, with the projected change in religiously unaffiliated people at 61.4 million.

I will grant Pew the fertility argument.  Muslims breed like cats, while Western fertility rates are subterranean and heading even further south.  Christianity is depopulating itself, and over the space of decades those divergent fertility rates can make a huge overall difference in respective population size.

But they (Pew) have a significant problems with their "study": They don't understand a bloody thing about Christianity or Church history.

First, they don't understand what a "Christian" is.  They see it as a cultural term; somebody who, for example, attends church services twice a year, on Christmas and Easter, not of his own accord but going along with his family or friends or because that's what his parents always did, etc. would be classified by Pew as a "Christian," despite lacking any life evidence of devoutness and having the morals of a snapping turtle the other 363 days of the year.  Such people could indeed "leave Christianity" and "convert" to any number of false religions and "convert" right out of them in turn, or "leave religion" altogether.  But in reality, they were never "Christian" to begin with.

The Apostle John, as it happens, addressed this issue in his first epistle:

Children, it is the last hour; and just as you heard that antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have appeared; from this we know that it is the last hour. They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us. [emphasis added]

Jesus Christ Himself gave a sneak preview of this phenomenon in Matthew 7:
“Not everyone who says to Me, ‘LORD, LORD,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father Who is in heaven will enter.  Many will say to Me on that day, ‘LORD, LORD, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’  And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness.’

So what is the biblical definition of a Christian?  Someone who has admitted he/she is a sinner, confessed those sins to God, accepted Jesus Christ into his/her heart as his/her LORD and Savior, and surrendered his/her life to Him.  Such a person is indwelt and sealed by the Holy Spirit as proof of this transformation, and really is a Christian and will, by definition, never "leave the faith," because such a thing is not possible.  Which is why the only two paths by which the trends Pew is conspicuously rooting for are demographics and nuclear jihadism.

Oh, and one other point: If there is one word that descriptively encapsulates biblical Christianity, it is this: counter-intuition.  "'For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways,' declares the LORD."  "And He has said to me, 'My grace is sufficient for you, for power is perfected in weakness.' Most gladly, therefore, I will rather boast about my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may dwell in me."  The Crucifixion looked like the most crushing of defeats, when it was, in fact, the greatest of epic victories; the difference was in having all the information, and knowing the true nature of the battlefield, and who the enemy really was.

This, through God's limitless grace and empowerment, is why, paradoxically, true Christiandom has never thrived or grown faster than when under ferocious persecution.  The Roman Empire spent three centuries trying to eradicate Christianity, and instead spread it throughout their territory and beyond, such that Emperor Constantine, in one of the most famous examples ever of "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em," called off the dogs and made Christianity the official religion of the Empire.

That was when the Church started going downhill until, ultimately, the Reformation a millennium later.  For it is prosperity and tolerance and "good times" that have been the biggest threat to the Church down through the centuries, creating distractions and competition for believers' attention and practical allegiances and endless opportunities for the flesh and pride to insinuate themselves and lead us astray into sin (Yes, believers still sin; for which purpose God gave us 1 John 1:9: "If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness."  A useful reminder that keeps us humble, if we let it.)

That's not to say that James 1:2-4  should be misinterpreted as an exhortation to masochism.  No rational person wants to suffer.  But the true Christian knows that God allows trials into our lives for the purpose of maturation, growth, and learning to trust in Him in even the darkest, bleakest circumstances.  And, most importantly, as motivation to spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ, that, in the words of the Apostle Paul, "I would wish to God, that whether in a short or long time, not only you, but also all who hear me this day, might become such as I am, except for these chains."

Lastly, True Messiah also has a word for for jihadists and their Christian martyrs:

Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him Who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.
In God, Whose Word I praise, In God I have put my trust; I shall not be afraid. What can mere man do to me?

Exit quote (updated) from Stephen King's The Stand: "God [not "Allah"] always wins.  Like the Seattle Seahawks,"

Tuesday, April 28, 2015

Corona Constitution Class

As Instructor Douglas V. Gibbs continues to work us through Article II of the United States Constitution, explaining the enumerated authorities granted to the federal government, and the limitations placed upon that government, and the President, we have come to the point of deeply investigating Montesquieu's concept of "Separation of Powers."

Join us, Tuesday Night, 6:00 pm for a free Constitution Class at AllStar Collision, 522 Railroad Street, Corona, CA  92882.

Hard Starboard Radio: Baltimore's Last Gleaming

Baltimore's black mayor gives blessing to rioters; Baltimore is what you get from one-party Democrat rule; In Baltimore, it’s the same old story: If you allow lawlessness to go unchallenged, you get more of it; Lessons from the 1968 Baltimore riots; Justice Kennedy and marriage: A guide for the perplexed; and according to Barack Obama, "religious institutions" will lose their tax-exempt status when the Supreme Court decrees sodomarriage.

"Won't be no justice 'till the last straight honky is dead" at 6PM Eastern/3PM Pacific.

Race Riots in Baltimore Continue


200 arrests, 144 car fires, 15 buildings burned...

Shopkeepers called police 50 TIMES - and no one came!

Cops threw rocks back at protesters?


Scramble to save tourism, conventions...

Intel warning: Gang attacks on white cops might spread... 

Schools closed...

Orioles games cancelled...

Team VP blasts 'militarized and aggressive surveillance state'...

Troops deployed...

KING: My Uncle MLK JR Would 'Be Heartbroken'... 

VIDEO: Mother confronts son rioting...

Maryland Pols Walk Out on CNN Interview...

SALON: Smashing police cars legitimate political strategy...

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Baltimore's Black Mayor Gives Blessing To Rioters

by JASmius

This is what Stephanie Blake said:

And I’ve made it very clear that I work with the police and instructed them to do everything they could to make sure that the protesters were able to exercise their right to free speech. It’s a very delicate balancing act, because what we try to make sure that they were protected from the cars and the other things that were going on…um…we also gave those who wished to destroy space to do that. [emphasis added]

She's trying frantically to evade her own words today, and insulting everybody's intelligence in the process.  If she hadn't meant to say "We also gave those who wished to destroy space to do that," she wouldn't have said it.  Period.  Unless she has rhetoriconarcaleptic lapses of consciousness wherein she channels her inner Eric Holder or something.  Even if it were possible to "accidentally" give her blessing to the rioters, that's the sort of verbal brain fart that anybody with any self-awareness would realize the sound of in about two seconds and immediately retract.

Mayor Blake did not do so, because she said precisely what she meant to say.  She supporters the rioters.  She supports the armed insurrection against the City of Baltimore.  She supports Barack Obama's race war.


In other news from the Battle of Baltimore:

***According to some in the Baltimore PD, Mayor Blake ordered them to stand down and let the rioters run wild - and that order may have come from the White House itself.

***The Obamunist Left and its "community organizers" are, as you've doubtless already noticed, all over Baltimore like, um, white on rice.

***A wheelchair-bound white woman was attacked by racist obscenity-spewing black rioters because, "social justice".

***Have no fear, Baltimore, Rev'rund Al is on his way, with the Sinister Minister not far behind.

***In case you were wondering, yes, the Obama White House was represented at Freddie Gray's funeral.  No bets on whether they'll also attend the funerals of Baltimore police officers killed by the black rioters, unless you think they actually will.

***The National Guard has been ordered to stand, wait, they've been put on alert, which makes sense, because Maryland Governor Larry Hogan is a Republican, and thus actually gives a damn about law and order.

***Baltimore City Schools Superintendent: "We are hoping to use this looting as teachable moment".  Begging the question of what he is intent on his young skulls full of mush "learning".

***Actual headline: "Rioters turn Baltimore [in]to 'absolute war zone'".

***"The 21st Century Rioter: Fed, clothed, hair dyed; brick in one hand, cell phone in another"

"This is insane, there were crowds of young men armed with bricks and objects pelting cops, hundreds of objects pelting them. They came prepared to attack the police.

"News reports are reporting not only the threats from the Black Guerrilla family, and that the Bloods and Crips have been contracted or agreed to attack the police."

***"Barack Obama dodged potential questions about violent street protests in Baltimore on Monday when he met with Attorney General Loretta Lynch."  And why not?  His minions already have their marching orders and are "aggressively" carrying them out.  He's set this madness in motion and they know what to do.

Or, in other words, welcome to "post-racial America".

***Oh, and anybody who opposes the destruction of Baltimore is a "racist" according to the Obamunist Left. Of course, that cake was baked six and a half years ago.

***"Peaceful, law-abiding" black Baltimore residents helpfully directed black rioters to wipe out Chinese liquor stores.

***More "social justice".

The worst part is, there is no good solution to this, because Barack Obama has usurped any and all of the "moral high ground".  Either the insurrectionists and revolutionaries are allowed to burn down the country because, slavery, or the States (and, if necessary, the feds via Article IV, Section 4) exercise their responsibility to quell "domestic Violence" and restore "domestic Tranquility" - protect the law-abiding and uphold the rule of law over the rule of the mob - and thus "prove" the rioters' "point" about "police brutality".  Yet another example of how The One has made his radical, extremist, racist policy of promoting race war as "social justice" a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Heads Obama wins, tails we lose.

With a brick.

Nullification is a Natural Right, but Not the Only Tool to Restore the Republic

By Douglas V. Gibbs

A reader and listener of mine sent me an email asking me my opinion of an article titled "Nullification is a Natural Right!" by a writer at Renew America that goes by the moniker Publius Huldah.  The article is a good article, but I did have a few things to say about it that may be construed as criticisms.

Nullification is a very valuable tool, but not the only tool. The article by Publius Huldah suggests that nullification is all we need to turn this thing around, and her article presents a valid argument supporting the concept of nullification.  She specifically challenges amending the Constitution, a specific stab (I believe) at the concept of an Article V. Convention. The problem is that people that support nullification tend to criticize convention as a tool, and those that support convention tend to criticize nullification as a tool, and the reality of it all is that both are very important cogs in the overall machine.

The article, "Nullification is a Natural Right!", is a fairly good one, but it does have a small collection of minor flaws.

Where the article says the federal government is given the authority of "road building," the truth is the only time roads are expressly mentioned in the Constitution is regarding "establishing" post roads. In fact, in 1817 President James Madison vetoed a public works bill because federal funding of roadways and boatways are not a granted enumerated power. That tells us that the federal highway system is unconstitutional, and should have either been authorized by amendment, or the building and maintenance of such a massive highway system should have been left to the States to accomplish.

Immigration is not mentioned in Article I, Section 8 as Publius Huldah suggests, though Naturalization is. Immigration is provided for in Article I, Section 9, where it allows the federal government to prohibit such persons from migrating into the United States through the passage of legislation.

That said, the heart of the article is nullification, and the truth is, nullification is a valuable tool. Nullification, however, it is more than merely a natural right. Nullification is a duty and obligation of the States. My only "quibble" with the "Nullification is a Natural Right!" article, aside from the two things I listed above, is that it doesn't fully explain (though it makes a valiant effort in its attempt) "why" nullification is something the States can, and ought, to do.

To understand nullification, we must understand the basic foundational nature of the Constitution. The United States Constitution is a social contract, not much unlike any other contract one might enter into. The States wrote the contract through their delegates, and ratified the contract, so as to create a federal government to serve the States, and handle the external issues the States individually may not be able to handle. These "authorities" to the federal government, as the article by Publius Huldah so carefully explains, are expressly enumerated, and the powers of the federal government are limited to those enumerated authorities.

The contract is much like a contract you may have with a construction company to add a room to your house. As the initiator of the contract, your rights regarding the contract are vast. If the construction company was to breach the contract, you have the right to reject their non-contractual actions, and to demand that they abide by the contract. The States have the same allowance (called nullification) as the originators of their contract called the Constitution.

Could you imagine if you hired the construction company to add that room to your house, and then when you came back from lunch they were mowing your lawn and sweeping your walkway? "Hey," you would say, "landscaping is not in the contract."

What if they responded, "We interpreted the contract to say we can, and we are going to charge you extra for it. Arguing will serve no point, for our lawyers also say we can do as we please."

That is what is going on. The States wrote a contract with specific duties enumerated to the federal government, but in the name of "interpreting" the Constitution, the statists have decided to do things not in the contract, charge us extra for it in taxes, and then claim their lawyers (the federal court system) says they can do it and there's nothing we can to about it. The problem is, We the People, poisoned by a couple centuries of erroneous information (by design), have failed to recognize the unconstitutionality of the actions and laws by the federal government.

As the writers of the contract, We the People, through our States, must be well-versed in the language of the contract, and we have the right, duty, and obligation to nullify (refuse to abide by and implement) actions and laws by the federal government that are not specifically granted to the federal government by the United States Constitution.

New authorities to the federal government can only be achieved by amending the Constitution, and those proposed amendments must be ratified by at least 3/4 of the States (in other words, the federal government cannot have additional authorities unless the States approve of it).

Thomas Jefferson in his draft of the Kentucky Resolutions wrote that nullification is a valuable tool, and Madison (regarding the nullification crisis) explained that when nullification is applied properly it is the State's way to "defeat the federal government's schemes of usurpation."

Now, that all said, just because nullification is such a valuable tool, and an obligation that we need to put into action when the federal government is acting in a tyrannical manner, that does not mean that an Article V. Convention is not an important cog in the overall machine, as well.

The 11th Amendment was proposed and ratified to reel in a federal court system that, during Chisolm v. Georgia, challenged the sovereignty of the States. The 11th Amendment, therefore, serves as an example of how We the People can use amendments to reduce the size of government. The problem is, government constantly expands, but never voluntarily reduces in size, therefore, there should be no expectation that Congress would propose amendments that would serve to limit the expansion, or the power, of the federal government. That is where an Article V. Convention becomes a valuable strategy in reeling in the size of government. Convention allows the States to propose amendments (amendments that may reduce the size of government, of which Congress would never conceive of proposing), and then for the State Legislatures to ratify the proposed amendments with a 3/4 approval. I understand the fears of those that feel such a convention could become a runaway convention, but in Federalist 85, Alexander Hamilton lays down a pretty good argument that explains the 3/4 ratification requirement is a valid fail-safe against such a potential crisis.

There are other cogs in the machine regarding restoring the republic, as well, that should not be ignored. The threat of secession by the States (because the States are voluntary members of the union, and have a right to exit a contract that has been breached), an armed citizenry ("necessary to the security of a free State), the effectiveness of a peaceful revolution (such as the Tea Party), and a Republic Review (an audit of the federal government by a grassroots movement that applies originalist constitutional definitions to existing federal functions and agencies to determine their constitutionality) are all also very important tools on our tool belt.

Is nullification a greater tool than all of the others? Perhaps it could be seen that way by some. But, without a Republic Review, which may be an integral part in determining what should be nullified (remember, our State leaders are not exactly experts on the Constitution), restoring the republic may be a difficult row to hoe. In other words, the different tools we have are not supposed to compete with each other for a position of dominance, but act in a complimentary manner. A peaceful revolution may lead to a Republic Review, which may lead to nullification and/or an Article V. Convention, which may then lead to a proper restoration of the republic.

The article by Publius Huldah is essentially correct, but places nullification on a pedestal above all other tools available to us, and the writer refuses to include the value of the other tools available to us. And, as I stated earlier, "Nullification is a Natural Right" begins with hostility towards amending the Constitution as a tool to reel in the federal government. I largely agree with the points presented in the article, but I don't believe nullification is the only strategy we should be using, or that all of the other tools are to be avoided like the plague.

The drive to restore the republic is not a quick fix, and even if we utilize all of the tools I have listed, none of them mean anything if We the People are not eternally vigilant, or if We the People are not morally centered. After all, as the Declaration of Independence reminds us, we must have a "firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence." So, yes, nullification is a natural right, but it is a complimentary tool on a tool belt populated by a number of other tools. And the tool belt itself, though filled with a number of important constitutional tools, is nothing without our loins being girt about with truth, without a breastplate of righteousness, without our feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace, without the shield of faith, without the helmet of salvation, or without the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.


Douglas V. Gibbs
Constitution Radio, KMET AM1490
Conservative Voice Radio, KMET AM1490
Publisher, TableTop News,
Author, "25 Myths of the United States Constitution," "The Basic Constitution,"
and "Silenced Screams: Abortion in a Virtuous Society"
President, Constitution Association

Rand Paul: It Was A "Mistake" To Overthrow Saddam Hussein

by JASmius

Actually, Senator, no, it wasn't.  It was very straightforward: Saddam Hussein was a sponsor of Islamic jihadism, including al Qaeda; Saddam Hussein had chemical weapons and was developing nuclear weapons; per the Bush Doctrine, he had to be taken out and his country liberated.  The "mistake" was not that, but in failing to liberate Syria and Iran as well.

But in a self-servingly pragmatic sense, I understand why Rand is saying this.  The American public is to this day confused about foreign policy and America's vitally necessary leading role in the world.  They spent years being angrily convinced of the Obama Doctrine - that America is the focus of evil in the modern world and must withdraw from the rest of the world completely as some sort of penitently redemptive white-flag-waving act - and they've watched the disastrous consequences unfold over the past four years, which produces hopelessly illogical poll results like these, in which U.S. respondents support Barack Obama's nuclear sellout to Iran by 58%-33% but think it will result in disaster and lead to nuclear war in the Middle East by 62%-35%.  This is either a fatalistic resignation to the horrific fate to which Obama has consigned us, or it is the flowering of the twenty-first century neo-isolationism that the Paulnuts have long been waiting for, and Rand is attempting to tap into it.  And it will last, of course, right up until the first nuclear flash, but by then, it'll be too late.

But what does Senator Paul care about millions of U.S. and allied civilian lives?  He's got a GOP nomination he actually thinks he can win:

Republican presidential candidate Senator Rand Paul says it was a big "mistake" to topple Iraqi strongman Saddam Hussein — and that it may have made Iran "twice as strong as it was before the Iraq War."

Actually, again, Senator, no, it didn't.  To the contrary, if the mullahs were ever willing to part with their nukes, it was in the summer of 2003 in the midst of our blitzkrieg across Iraq, and for precisely the same reason Muammar Khaddafy voluntarily gave up his WMDs: He didn't want to wind up in a spiderhole.  Sure, Iran now controls Iraq and Syria and Lebanon and Gaza and Yemen; sure, they've never been stronger or more emboldened; but that's because of President Bush's failure to liberate Iran when he had the chance, and Barack Obama's gifting of Iraq (and now Yemen, plus a nuclear arsenal) to the mullahs, not taking out Saddam in the first place.

But, just to prove that I'm not out to write "hit pieces" on Senator Paul as some of you seem to indiscriminately and defensively believe, Rand wasn't totally cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs in his foreign policy remarks, at least in the same sense that a stopped clock is right twice a day:

Speaking to Orthodox Jews at the Torah Umesorah Hebrew Day School in Brooklyn, New York, Paul also said he doesn't support war with Iran over its nuclear bomb program....

Okay, that's insane.  Besides which, by conceding the mullahs the upper hand, the initiative, and nuclear weapons with which to carry it out, the "choice" of war with Iran will not be ours, but Tehran's, which means when they strike - with an EMP attack - we won't be able to respond.

Or, "It'll be too late".

Wait a minute; why is Rand wasting time addressing a constituency whose votes he'll never win in a State vastly too "blue" for any Republican to ever carry?  And he's trying to appeal to Jewish voters by, in essence, leaving the Israelis twisting in the wind?  For which party's nomination is Senator Paul running, anyway?

Now let's see if I can honor that sop to the Paulnuts above:

....and blamed Democratic presidential contender Hillary Clinton for the turmoil in Libya after U.S. forces dumped Moammar Gadhafi, the New York Observer reports.

Agreed.  But do you know why, Rand?  Because the invasion of Iraq in 2003 put the "fear of Allah" into Khaddafy, neutralizing him as a strategic enemy of the United States long before Barack Obama gifted Libya to al Qaeda and, now, the Islamic State.

Paul also warns that any attempt to oust Syrian dictator Bashar Assad would only lead to the Islamic State's (ISIS) being "in charge of Damascus."

Agreed again.  Of course, that would be a "six of one...." proposition.  Right now, the Iranians are "in charge of Damascus," which hardly seems like an improvement.  But then, I'm not clear on whether you support or oppose war against ISIS, either, actually.  Which was pretty much part & parcel of what we were doing in Iraq from late 2003 through 2008 - quite successfully, I might add, until Barack Obama - who also considered overthrowing Saddam Hussein a "mistake" - threw away everything American soldiers had achieved at not inconsiderable cost in blood and treasure.  Did you support that as well, Rand?

At any rate, as I wrote here during the "red line" crisis of September 2013, there was (and is) no "side" to take in Syria, which means that either we glass and full-scale invade the country and eliminate Assad and ISIS, or we don't go in at all.  I would lean toward the latter - which is to say, Barack Obama was right for the wrong reasons - only because at this late date, engaging the mullahs' proxies and stooges is strategically pointless.  They need to be taken out directly, assuming they don't quite yet have nukes, just like we did....Saddam Hussein.

Which Senator Paul thinks was a "mistake".

Sorry, Paulnuts, I just can't leave this one alone:

"All the way back to the Iraq War, I think it was a mistake to topple Hussein," he said. "Hussein was the bulwark against Iran. The Sunnis didn't like the Shiites, now Iraq is a vassal state for Iran." [emphasis added[

Couple of points: (1) The Sunnis and Shiites may dislike each other, but they both hate our "infidel" guts and want us all dead.  That's not something that withdrawing into "Fortress America" will remedy; and (2) Saddam Hussein may have been an enemy of Iran, but he was our enemy as well.  Ditto the mullahs.  As much as we might want to evade the reality that this war really is a clash of civilizations, that's precisely what it is and has been for fourteen centuries, and we would be far better off accepting that fact and acting accordingly.  Which, contra Rand, does not require us to attack every Muslim country at once, or one at a time, or even every Muslim country, but only those that pose a strategic threat to the United States and its (former) allies.  In which category most definitely resided Saddam Hussein and resides the Islamic Empire of Iran.

You know which was the last administration to consider Saddam Hussein a "bulwark against Iran," Senator?  The Reagan (and Bush41) Administration, which accordingly armed Saddam against the mullahs, and against whom we ended up having to fight in the first Gulf War.

In foreign policy there is rarely, if ever, a "good vs. bad" choice.  Rand Paul would have us never make the choice at all.  The last time we pursued that foreign policy, the result was the Second World War - another conflict in which our enemies made that choice for us.  Not an example to be repeated, it seems to me.

But what do I know?  I've got "hit pieces" to write - right?

Monday, April 27, 2015

The Belly of the Beast in a Depraved Society

By Douglas V. Gibbs

A little over a week ago I called my weekend at the University of Southern California a weekend in the belly of the beast (a phrase I've always believed comes from the "Jonah and the Whale" story in the Bible).  Whenever I spend time at political affairs, or legislative sessions, I have called my time at those events "time spent in the belly of the beast."  Ferguson, Missouri reminded us that the belly of the beast has expanded its reach into the public realm, and one can simply spend a little time of social media if one wishes to dabble a little inside the belly of the beast.

The Festival of Books at the University of Southern California (USC) is among the largest of the open-air book sale events in the State.  The cost to have a booth is high, and the ideological pendulum swings way left, treading deeply into the totalitarian depths of leftwing politics.  The other booths in our vicinity included communists, socialists, a group called "Atheists United," mysticism, and black magic.  Near us, at the poetry stage, at one point a speaker discussed the dangers of Christianity, and how "reading the Bible makes you a hater."

On the first day, as I stood with a handful of red, white and blue bookmarks proclaiming constitutional originalism, and handing them out to as many folks as I could, a man walked up, eyeing our Grand Union Flag, and the covers of my books on the Constitution, and he asked me, "What do you fancy yourself to be?"  I responded, "An expert on the Constitution."  "No you're not," he replied, before rushing away.

During last week, following our couple days dwelling among the hard left academics of USC, the daily news was filled with stories of violence, and division.  A President that acts as king, surrounded by a ruling elite that is so out of step with the rest of America that the lurch into oligarch rule is even obvious to their minions in the press, gathered for a correspondence dinner that was nothing more than an orgy of narcissism and self-aggrandizing.  In Baltimore a riot based on racial division broke out, once again revealing how people can act more like vicious animals than civilized human beings when goaded by a regime fueling class warfare.  The federal court system is on the cusp of inserting federal dictates normalizing homosexuality, without constitutional authority, and in defiance of State Laws passed to the contrary on an issue that belongs constitutionally to the States.  Nations like Greece continue to teeter towards bankruptcy as a result of socialism's "redistribution of wealth" that creates dependency upon government, as America seeks to embrace the very same economic system of bondage that led those nations towards collapse, but have convinced the uninformed that prosperity begins with gifts from the treasury, stolen by government from the producers in society.  A false science (loaded with evidence of tampering and model manipulation) claiming that humanity's use of energy and release of carbon into the atmosphere (less than 1% by mankind of the total) is capable of altering global temperatures and driving humanity into extinction if the public doesn't do as they are told by government, is not only being used in a totalitarian manner, but those that dare to doubt the ruling elite's claims of climate change are being threatened and forced into compliance whether they like it, or not (despite the overwhelming scientific evident that the warming and cooling of the Earth is the result of natural cycles, largely attributed to solar activity) through accusations of being "Climate Change Deniers" (a linguistic stigma borrowed from the phrase "Holocaust Deniers") and through the threat of withholding federal funding.  The federal government, who is tasked with securing the national borders as per Article IV of the United States Constitution, refuses to do so, as the threat of Islamic Terrorism continues to rise, and as ISIS (Islamic State) zeroes in on committing terrorism inside the United States (with a base of operations mere miles from Texas in Mexico - and with 36 Islamic training facilities within the United States).  Meanwhile, not only is Russia expanding into Europe by military force (without any worry of American intervention), but is hacking into American government computers.  We have National Guardsmen selling guns to the Mexican Cartels, and police forces repeatedly being caught physically beating members of the public (all on video for the world to see).  Riots are on the rise, and equipment that is increasingly more militaristic is emerging in various police departments around the country.  Some folks defend the militarization of the local police forces, asking "Do you blame them?"

Do you?

The madness is worsening, and the only way to control it, the leaders tell us, is with more government control.

The problem, however, goes much deeper than what we see on the surface.  The Founding Fathers understood which bricks to use to establish a foundation of liberty, and Alexis de Toqueville recognized that foundation when he visited the United States from France during the 1830s.  Alexis de Toqueville observed that the politicians prayed, and the pastors preached politics, yet neither group controlled the other.  America, he determined, is great because America is good.

Benjamin Franklin presented the truth of liberty in a simple and forthright manner.  "Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom."

Samuel Adams seconded what Franklin had to say, calling the freedom in America "...the gift of heaven" and that if we were to enjoy that liberty, "let us become a virtuous people; then shall we both deserve and enjoy it."

John Adams was even more direct, explaining that "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people.  It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

George Washington said in his Farewell Address that, "Religion and morality are indispensable supports... where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of moral and religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice?"

The Roman Empire collapsed from within due to the depravity of society, and the demand for more power by the rulers.  Greece toppled for similar reasons, as has every great society in history once the rule of law, and the morality of the people, were abandoned.

Benjamin Franklin warned, "As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters."

Samuel Adams revealed, "If we are universally vicious and debauched in our manners, though the form of our Constitution carries the face of the most exalted freedom, we shall in reality be the most abject slaves."

Thomas Jefferson took it a step further, not only believing that a society must be virtuous to be free, but that the virtuous members of that society must participate in the workings of the system.  "We in America do not have government by the majority -- we have government by the majority who participate... All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent."

But, who are these people of good conscience, and why do they become silent when tyranny is on the march?

The forces that oppose liberty, the Constitution, and the Godly morality of the majority, uses fear to slam their agendas into place.  Language is manipulated, and society is segmented into rival divisions.  Humans naturally congregate with that which is familiar to them, but an even stronger impetus can encourage humans to congregate with the unfamiliar.  That impulsion can be redirected through fear, or the panic that one may be left alone in his beliefs as societal ideas shift and redirect based on political influence.

Remember, our enemy is deceitful, dishonest, and has an agenda rooted in control, and the destruction of all that is good and moral.  If we fail to keep our feet grounded in God's truth, all of our political strategies will be all for naught, and the corrupt will gravitate towards positions of power, and positions in law enforcement, leaving us alone in our quest to preserve liberty, and ruled over by an enemy that believes the American System of liberty must be destroyed.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Nerd Prom is a Mess - Politico

Winding up, Obama tosses zingers at press, political foes - Yahoo News

Obama Turns Tables on Michele Bachmann Rapture Dig at White House Correspondents' Dinner - Huffington Post

1,000 Black Baltimore Rioters Smash Police Cars, Local Businesses in Frenzied Protests - Breitbart

Arrests as Freddie Gray Protests Turn Violent - Fox News

Baltimore Erupts into Violence, Chaos as #BlackLivesMatter Riots Rage - Breitbart

Violence Mars Baltimore Protest over Police Custody Death - Yahoo News

Protests Take Violent Turn in Baltimore - CBS Baltimore

Freddie Gray protesters clash with Baltimore Police at Camden Yards - ABC Baltimore

Top U.S. court appears on cusp of declaring right to gay marriage - Yahoo News

Thousands March in U.S. Capital Against Gay Marriage - Yahoo News

If Greece falls, no one wants their prints on the murder weapon - Yahoo News

Top scientists start to examine fiddled global warming figures - U.K. Telegraph

FEMA Targets Climate Change Denier Governors, Could Withhold Funding - Washington Times

FBI Investigating a Possible ISIS Inspired Threat Inside the U.S. - CNN

ISIS Camp a few miles from Texas, Mexican Authorities Confirm - Judicial Watch

Islamic Terrorists Training In America - Political Pistachio

Islamberg, New York - Political Pistachio

Russian hackers obtained Obama's unclassified emails, report says - Fox News

National Guardsmen accused of trying to sell guns to Mexican drug cartel - Fox News

Police Gear Spurs Concern - Press Enterprise

Hard Starboard Radio: The Fall Of La Clinton Nostra

‘Space’ to ‘destroy’: Baltimore’s Mayor gives a gift to to Black Klan rioters; Justice Anthony Kennedy's hopelessly convoluted marriage jurisprudence; The GOP Senate voting to confirm an attorney general who won’t uphold the Constitution isn’t a way to inspire confidence among conservatives; Rogue Democrat prosecutor John Chisholm, union-connected partisan behind Wisconsin's evil "John Doe" intimidations, now suggests that Governor Scott Walker should be prosecutable as a criminal for criticizing the John Doe investigations; Three scenarios for Hillary Clinton, and they all spell crushing defeat; The fall of the House of Clinton, a berrry, berrry scarrrrrry tale of political corruption run amok; and are Democrat insiders starting to panic about Hillary already?

The Left's political death throes groan on, summoning the Obama coup de tat at 6PM Eastern/3PM Pacific.