Wednesday, May 28, 2014

Hard Starboard Radio: One Day In The Life Of Douglas V. Gibbs



Constitution Radio host and American Daily Review regular Doug Gibbs joins JASmius to discuss this morning's visit to a government office, the preceding description of which doesn't come remotely close to describing how good a radio segment this story truly is; plus CNN's discovery that Michelle Obama is the real POTUS, the Black Klan discovers the Isla Vista shootings, and further fruits of the host's fertile brain.

Getting disabled crossing several miles of parking lot at 6PM Eastern/3PM Pacific.

Oops! - There Goes Another CIA Spook....

by JASmius

John King, Margaret Talev and Jonathan Martin weigh in on Barack Obama's Plamegate.



Tea Party Candidate Defeats Incumbent David Dewhurst In Texas Lieutenant Governor Primary

by JASmius

"Red" state, fair game, good hunting.

Besides which, if my recollection is accurate, Dewhurst is a twit anyway, and, appropriately enough, bears a striking facial resemblance to Richard Nixon.



Obama's Afghanistan Troop Announcement Helps Taliban Prepare

by JASmius

I didn't call this VA-gate-driven impromptu Whack-A-Mole sortie Barack Obama's "Vietnam Victory Lap" for nothing:

Barack Obama made a "big mistake" in announcing a timeline for U.S. troops to withdraw from Afghanistan, says Representative Peter King.

Obama said Tuesday that the United States will leave 9,800 troops in Afghanistan after this year, and withdraw most of them by 2016.

"That just gives the enemy the opportunity to plan their strategy," King a Republican from New York, said Tuesday on CNN's "Out Front with Erin Burnett."

On the one hand, yeah, it is a mistake to announce to your enemy the chapter and verse on when and how you're going to withdraw your forces from the battlefield.  On the other hand, I'm pretty sure the Taliban was watching O's similar pre-announced withdrawal from Iraq, and the attendant seizure of that country by al Qaeda and Iran, so I rather doubt that this is any kind of big surprise to them.

In much the same way.....:

King was one of many Republicans who slammed Obama's announcement. Senators John McCain of Arizona, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire [the "neocon ménage a toi"?] jointly called the decision irresponsible and a "triumph of politics over strategy."

Politics?  Why do you say that, Senators?  Just because the last of the troops would be coming home just as The One is "running" for his third term doesn't mean he's thinking anything at all about politics.  You should be ashamed of yourselves.

"The president came into office wanting to end the wars he inherited. But wars do not end just because politicians say so," the three senators said.
On one side of them, they do.  And then the other side blitzkriegs all over us and we die.  Except for him, of course.  He's got a pen and a phone.

And hashtags.

"The president appears to have learned nothing from the damage done by his previous withdrawal announcements in Afghanistan and his disastrous decision to withdraw all U.S. forces from Iraq.

What makes you think he's trying to "learn" anything, Senators?  What makes you think that damage wasn't his original and avowed intent?

They said that Obama's announcement "will embolden our enemies and discourage our partners in Afghanistan and the region. His decision on Afghanistan will fuel the growing perception worldwide that America is unreliable, distracted, and unwilling to lead."

It ought to fuel the growing perception that under Barack Obama, America has switched sides.  I would have thought that abandoning Iraq, turning over Egypt to the Muslim Brotherhood, turning Libya over to al Qaeda, and trafficking arms to al Qaeda in Syria would have been enough to cast that perception in cement, but evidently King Hussein still doesn't think the world has gotten the message.

The more responsible move was a "limited-assistance mission" to aid the security forces, they said. The move would "preserve momentum on the battlefield and create conditions for a negotiated end to the conflict.

The more responsible move is several high-yield neutron warheads at strategically placed locales.  Or pretty much what we should have done in the first place, since in order to build nations - at which we generally suck anyway - there has to be a nation there in the first place to build.  But there won't be any public appetite for "The Coulter option" until after at least one American city has gone up in flames, mushroom style.  Which O's "political" withdrawal will hasten.  And even then, you can count on him not retaliating, but instead "intensifying diplomatic efforts".

Besides, we won't have any nukes left anyway, much less neutron warheads.

Obama said in Tuesday's White House remarks that Americans have learned it is easier to get into a war than out of one.

In one sense, I suppose that's true.  Both sides of both the American Civil War and World War I, for example, thought they'd steamroll their adversaries in a matter of weeks or even days.  They all found out differently, in hardway fashion.  Of course, both sides of those two conflicts wanted war, even lusted after it, precisely because they thought victory would be easy.

However, we "got into a war" against the Taliban in Afghanistan because three thousand of our civilians got massacred by the jihadist network they hosted there.  I won't presume to speak for anybody else, but that doesn't strike me as an "easy" way to "get into a war".  And President Bush declared from the beginning that, far from being easy, this would be a long, difficult, "shadow" war that would long outlast his presidency, but one we could win as long as we maintained the will and resolve to, "in [our] righteous might....win through to absolute victory".

Then came 2008 and 2012.  So much for will, resolve, and righteous might.

Barack Obama was wrong about one other thing as well: It's easy-peasy-lemon-squeezey to get out of a war; all you have to do is quit, break your word and commitments, betray and abandon your allies, and effectively side with your erstwhile enemies.  Red Barry can do those things in his sleep.

And doubtless did.

Tuesday, May 27, 2014

China Sinking of Vietnamese Fishing Boat Near Oil Platform Dispute

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Tyranny realizes that if it exposes itself with its own face, tyranny will be recognized for being what it is.  Tyranny, therefore, must cover its face, hide behind deception, and redirect its opposition toward false locations and counterfeit crises.  Tyranny always blames others for its tyranny.

As Russia invades Ukraine by blaming the Ukrainian government for mistreatment of Russians in the disputed regions, and claims the people want Russia to annex the disputed regions because Putin has planted separatist sentiment in Ukraine, and as liberal left progressivism takes over America blaming the free market and American System for mistreatment of members of liberal left democrat protected groups (minorities, poor, homosexuals), and claims the people of America want government to control them by planting socialist ideas in the culture through education, entertainment, and the news media, China is making its move for expansionism in Southeast China.

The dispute is regarding maritime control over the South China Sea, where near a recent dispute over an Vietnamese oil platform, 40 Chinese fishing vessels circled around Vietnamese vessels, ramming and capsizing one of the Vietnamese boats.

China is sending a message to Vietnam, says a senior fellow at the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies in Singapore.  "This area of water is Chinese Territory."

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

China Sinking Fishing Vessel Raises Tensions with Vietnam - Bloomberg

Hanoi Says Chinese Boat Sinks Vietnamese Fishing Vessel in Disputed Waters - CNBC

Corona Constitution Class: Federal and State Prohibitions

Join us tonight at 6:00 pm at the Corona Constitution Class, located at a central location in Southern California's Inland Empire.

Who? - Instructed by Douglas V. Gibbs, Constitutionalist, author of 25 Myths of the United States Constitution, Instructor of the Temecula Constitution Class, local radio host on KCAA AM1050.

What? - The United States Constitution.  Doug is leading a study group in Corona through the Constitution, and when he gets to the end, they will start all over again.  The group is currently in Article I, Sections 9 and 10.

When? - Tuesday Nights, 6:00 pm.

Where? - AllStar Collision in their upstairs classroom, 522 Railroad Street, Corona, California.

Why? - "A well-instructed people alone can be permanently a free people." -- James Madison

How? - All participants receive a free pocket constitution, and a handout for the lesson being discussed which includes commentary by Douglas V. Gibbs, terms and definitions, questions for discussion, and a list of the resources Doug used to develop the lesson.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Hard Starboard Radio: We Need Another Ronald Reagan



The unlearnable lesson of the UCSB killings: Weapons are the instrument and not the cause; The GOP has a generic-ballot lead, and undecided voters are sympathetic - in short, the Big Red Tsunami is on its way.  But without another Ronald Reagan, can conservatism ever be resurrected?  Or are we doomed to an Obamadency-for-life of incessant talk and promiscuous promises?; And can Islamic Fundamentalism evolve into much needed apostasy?  Of course not, which is why there's no rationale for collaboration or concessions, and every reason to mercilessly stamp it out.

Desperately seeking the Tea Party's Kitty Pryde at 6PM Eastern/3PM Pacific.

Wildfires North and South: Alaska, Arizona

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Last week, optimistic reports regarding the Slide Fire in Arizona emerged, but at this moment, the more than 20,000 acres fire is only 35% contained.  The mountainous terrain has proven to be challenging to the crews as they work to fight the fire.  To this date, hundreds of structures have been threatened, but no homes or businesses have been lost.

In Alaska, the Funny River Fire is growing, and the crews are hoping for rain, as they currently battle high winds and dry conditions.  The Funny River Fire has burned more than 248 square miles, and has threatened thousands of structures, prompting the evacuation of an undetermined number of people estimated to be currently in the dozens.

Large fires are common in Alaska, but not normally this early in the season.  An average of a million acres burns each year in Alaska.  Alaska's fire on the Kenai Peninsula has burned nearly 159,000 acres.  The state is experiencing unusually dry conditions because of unseasonably warm spring temperatures.

Rain is expected to begin Tuesday, becoming heavier Thursday and Friday.  If it rains, it will provide much needed help in battling the blaze.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Slide Fire Jumps to 20,328 Acres, 35% Contained - CBS 5

Rain could help firefighters battling Alaska wildfire - King5, Seattle

Alaska Wildfire: Funny River Fire Burns an Area the Size of Chicago - The Weather Channel

Mission Viejo California: Four Bodies Found in Home

By Douglas V. Gibbs

The discovery was made at a home in the 25600 block of Pacific Hills Drive in Mission Viejo.
Authorities responded to the location after receiving a call at about 9 a.m., according to Lt. Gary Strachan, of the Sheriff’s Department.  The bodies of four people were found dead in the home.

An investigation is forthcoming.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

White House Exposes CIA Identity

By Douglas V. Gibbs

The President's visit to Afghanistan revealed much of what we know about him, and the liberal left anti-Americans he has surrounded himself with.  But the real indication of what those people are really about was not so much Obama's speech doing what he can to reduce America's standing in the world, as much as how the White House blew the cover of the top CIA agent in Afghanistan.  The person’s name was included on a list given to reporters during a visit to the country by President Barack Obama.

The name was then emailed by the White House press office to a distribution list of more than 6,000 recipients, mostly members of the US media.

The mistake did not come to light until the reporter who had filed from Afghanistan, the veteran Washington Post correspondent Scott Wilson, looked more closely at what he had sent and noticed the name and title.

“I drew it to their attention before they had noticed what had happened,” Wilson said.

“I asked the press official that was with us on the trip if they knew that the station chief had been identified in the list. That person said that they did not know that, but that because the list was provided by military, they assumed it was OK. By this time the list was out.

“Soon after, I think that they talked to their bosses, and realised that it was not OK. And they tried to figure out what to do about this, if there was a way to kind of un-ring the bell.”

The White House declined to comment.

It is extremely rare for a US intelligence operative to be outed by the US government. In 2003, someone inside the George W Bush administration exposed the identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame, a month after her husband, the diplomat Joe Wilson, had publicly questioned the administration’s case for the Iraq war. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, former chief of staff to then-vice-president Dick Cheney, was convicted of obstruction of justice and perjury in connection with the case.

Will this latest scandal also result in charges?

Of course not.  They will say they are sorry, the media will down play it, and then it will be the progressive business as usual.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

White House "Blunder" Reveals CIA Assets In Afghanistan, Former CIA Chief Calls Disclosure "Stunning"

by JASmius

I don't wish to sound like a broken record - wait a minute, does anybody even recognize that reference anymore?  Let's start again.  I don't wish to sound like a scratched CD, but is any detrimental act committed by the Obama White House remotely "stunning" anymore?

The accidental disclosure of the identity of the top CIA agent in Afghanistan by the Obama administration could affect operations in that country — even target the entire unit for assassination by the Taliban, political operatives said Monday.

"It looks like a rookie mistake, but it's in year six of the administration," retired Air Force General Michael Hayden, who directed both the CIA and the National Security Agency, told Newsmax. "It's a bit stunning. You would never expect to see that in material that's been made public."

Former House Intelligence Chairman Pete Hoekstra told Newsmax that the CIA agent "is now compromised. I just classify this as a major blunder by the Obama White House national security staff."

"I do not know how long this person has been in Kabul, but they're not going to be there for long," Hoekstra added. "They'll probably be moved within a couple of days."

Bob Baer, a retired CIA agent, told CNN that administration officials are "going to have to pull him out now that he's been identified publicly."

"The Taliban probably didn't know his name before, but they will now," he said. "They will focus on attempting to assassinate him — and I think it is just a matter of fact that they will pull him out of Afghanistan."

Rookie mistake?  Or calculated leak to aid the Taliban and make sure we have no covert capabilities left in Afghanistan that might make possible the return of American forces or the ability to exert American influence?

Here's how the "blunder" happened:

In an embarrassing flub for the White House, the CIA official's name was included in an email sent to thousands of journalists during President Barack Obama's surprise Memorial Day trip to Bagram Air Field in Afghanistan.

The officer's name — identified as "chief of station" in Kabul — was included by U.S. embassy staff on a list of 15 senior U.S. officials who met with Obama during the Saturday visit.

The list was sent to a reporter for the Washington Post who was representing the news media, who then sent it out to the White House "press pool" list, which contains as many as 6,000 recipients....

In this case, the White House failed on at least two occasions to recognize that the CIA official's name was being revealed and circulated so broadly.

Not once, but twice.  What's that saying?  "Fool me once, shame on you; fool my twice, shame on me."  Also, "Once is a fluke, twice a coincidence, thrice a trend."  Is a "blunder" of this magnitude that just happens to out the top CIA operative in Afghanistan truly possible?  Even for as "incompetent" a bunch as Team Messiah?  Or did O give secret orders to do so?  Did some minion in the White House do what he or she thought O wanted done?  I'm not making accusations; I simply believe there is a limit to incompetence at this level, and this "blunder" dramatically exceeds it.

It's also hard not to notice that this "outing" happened as a consequence of the VA scandal that motivated this impromptu presidential sojourn to southern Asia in the first place.  "Never let a crisis go to waste" and all that.  Or, in this case, an opportunity.  And if leaking the Kabul station chief's name to the press wound up getting this person, and perhaps his family, hurt or killed, well, that's just the price of "ending the war," right?

It's also difficult to ignore the parallels between this "blunder" and another a decade ago under an American administration:

The disclosure smacked of the 2003 disclosure that Valerie Plame was a CIA operative by officials of the George W. Bush administration, Hayden and Hoekstra told Newsmax on Monday. It was done to discredit Plame's husband, a former ambassador who had criticized the decision to invade Iraq....

"The issue is the same," Hayden told Newsmax. "The issue is revealing the name of someone whose relationship to the CIA is a classified matter. It's exactly the same thing."

Yes, General, the issue is the same on its substance.  It's different in that the Obamedia will not turn it into its latest attempt at recreating Watergate, and consequently will not launch a full court press for the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate whether this White House's "whoopsie!" was genuinely a mistake or a deliberate act of loose-lippedness - which, just as a reminder, is a crime under the U.S. Intelligence Identities Protection Act.

Unfortunately, we'll never know.  And that's a shame, because if this "outing" was deliberate, it's a vastly bigger breach than Plamegate ever was:

Referencing the Plame case, Hoekstra also cited a double standard — but this one is with the [Oba]media and its continued weak coverage of the Obama administration.

"What you're going to see again is a double standard," he told Newsmax. "Obviously, in terms of scale, this is a much more significant blunder than the mistake that was made by Scooter Libby. [Editor's note: Actually, it was made by then-Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage; Libby was merely the sacrificial goat]

"You're going to see the media just skate on this one and say: 'That's too bad. That's really too bad that someone made a mistake like this.'

"But the person in Kabul is absolutely furious that his or her cover has been blown," Hoekstra said. "When you compare that to where Valerie Plame was to the station chief in Kabul, there is no comparison — in terms of scale and in terms of importance."

Which is why I think it was deliberate.  But either way, the outcome is the same: detrimental.  In this instance, to the Kabul station chief, and to U.S. national security.

And on the towering pile it goes, with nobody knowing if this will be the addition that triggers the "avalanche".

But if it is, all The One has to say is "Whoopsie!"

Right?

America's Thoughtcrime Monitors: Family, Friends, Neighbors

By Douglas V. Gibbs

A week ago Michelle Obama called for thoughtcrime monitoring.  She instructed high school students to monitor their parents, to watch them, to listen to what they say. The First Lady of the United States told the children that if they hear anything they think would not be acceptable to the ruling powers in Washington, challenge their parents.  Wrong thinking, as defined by Washington, will not be tolerated.

How long before the children will be instructed to turn in their parents to the thought police for saying anything considered not politically correct, or anything that could be construed as racist by the definitions created by the liberal left minions of Barack Obama?  Will neighbors be advised to monitor their neighbors?  Will doctors be instructed to turn in patients?  Will friends be instructed to turn against friends?

It is one thing to be considerate, and to be a person that is mindful of what they say.  But should the government determine what those things should be?  Should government define and dictate what is acceptable?  In Britain it is going so far that the word "girl" is now unacceptable to the BBC, and is being censored out of their media programs.  In many countries that are not Muslim, it is a crime to say things unfavorable about Islam.  Should believing homosexuality is a sin be punishable by law?  Should whites have no right to have an opinion regarding race relations because to do so is considered racist by a few oversensitive individuals? How about disagreeing with the President of the United States because he is black?  Should that be monitored, reported, and punishable?

And all of this goes hand in hand with the IRS targeting TEA Party groups, and the attacks the Koch Brothers receive for their funding of conservative causes and candidates.  How long will it be before their actions are considered illegal?  How long before a Sedition Act is passed, outlawing all opposition to the liberal left ruling elite?

The message is clear.  The democrats are telling America that dissent will not be tolerated.  You will be monitored, reported, and targeted, for daring to reveal that you are not in full agreement with the policies of this administration, or if you dare to use speech outside the definitions of acceptable speech as defined by the liberal left democrats.

Obey, or Obama will punish you.  Isn't that what he once told a Hispanic group?  Punish your enemies for them daring to stand against you?

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Michelle Obama: Monitor Your Parents for Thoughtcrime - Daily Caller

Guess What Word the BBC Is Censoring? - Daily Caller

Is America Starting to Target Thought Crime? - Daily Caller

Obama to Latinos: Punish Your Enemies in the Voting Booth - Weekly Standard

Monday, May 26, 2014

Lech Walesa: America No Longer World Leader

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Poland's former president and Nobel Peace laureate, Lech Walesa, said Friday he plans to urge President Barack Obama to take a more active world leadership role when he visits Poland in June.

Speaking to The Associated Press, Walesa said "the world is disorganized and the superpower is not taking the lead. I am displeased."

The former Solidarity leader said that when he meets Obama in Warsaw, he wants to tell him that the U.S. should inspire and encourage the world into positive action.

"The point is not in having the States fix problems for us or fight somewhere, no," Walesa said. "The States should organize us, encourage us and offer programs, while we, the world, should do the rest. This kind of leadership is needed."


-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Memorial Day, 2014, In Remembrance

Images Posted by Douglas V. Gibbs




-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Hard Starboard Radio: A Memorial Day Idea



Hey, hey, VA, how many vets have you killed today?; Is VA-gate the Obama scandal that will finally stick?  Well, Democrats sound ready to bail, and O is now popping up, Whack-A-Mole style, in Afghanistan for his "Vietnam victory lap," so it just might - but remember, don't just blame socialism, but the socialist who forced it on us; Why the Obamedia won't shut up about climate disruption hoaxery; Three myths about the Isla Vista killer; and "reform conservatism" will go nowhere without another Ronald Reagan.

Remembering the reason for the wienies at 6PM Eastern/3PM Pacific.

Smart Gun Outrage

By Douglas V. Gibbs

A common thread among gun owners is the importance of gun safety.  Even if a person is absolutely positive a gun is unloaded, every gun must always be treated as if it is loaded.  Keep your finger off the trigger until it is time to shoot.  When loaded, and you set the gun down, even if for a short moment, point its muzzle away from all persons.  Point the firearm away from you, and all persons, while loading it (as the owner of three revolvers, this is one that especially applies to me).  Know your gun, understand its mechanisms, and know how to operate it safely.  Wear eye and ear protection.  Never allow access to your firearm by unauthorized persons.  Keep the gun clean and constantly check it for deterioration.  Know your target, and everything around you.  Be professional, alcohol free and drug free. Never fire your gun at a person unless it is your intent to kill them for the purpose of protecting yourself.

In other words, the problem with gun violence is not the responsible gun owner.  It is the criminal element, or the nutcases like the recent shooter in Isla Vista, Elliot Rodger.

Historically, big government types, a.k.a. the purveyors of tyranny, seek to remove guns from society.  The British tried to do it to the American Colonists, the communists in Russia did it, Hitler did it, and now the American Democrat Party is trying to do it.

But. . . confiscation is a losing proposition, and gun control is being met with negativity from the voting public.  So, the liberal left is seeking other ways to regulate our guns, and position us for confiscation. . . someday.

Enter, stage left, Smart Gun technology - guns that only fire in the hands of the owner.  Easy to require to be registered because configuration will require registration, electronically traceable, and limited to only one person.  The good intent on the surface, the "for the common good" argument being used by the liberal left, is that these guns will ensure that unauthorized persons won't shoot your gun.  Eventually, the gun control supporters suggest, all guns will be Smart Guns.  It is for safety.  It's okay, they tell us, if you sacrifice just a little freedom for some safety.

Smart Gun advocates argue that the technology will stop kids from shooting themselves, undermine the market for stolen guns, and protect the police from having their guns used against them.
Smart Gun opposition argues that the technology adds yet another thing that can fail on the firearm, and yet another obstacle for a gun owner to maneuver through in the haste of preparing to defend oneself against home invasion.  Also, the criminal element always finds a way around electronic limitations.

The National Rifle Association said, regarding Smart Guns, "The NRA does not oppose new technological developments in firearms.  We are opposed to government mandates that require the use of expensive, unreliable features, such as grips that would read your fingerprints before the gun will fire."
The inevitability of Smart Guns winding up on gun store shelves approaches, and the opposition of the technology understands that the guns will eventually become a part of the firearm market.  The problem is, as you normally see with liberal left political strategies, if you disagree with the left's tactics, you are labeled as a hater. If you defend your gun rights, you are told you want children to die.  For the sake of their hatred, you are lumped into the same group with the criminals, killers, and nutcases.

Constitutionally, it is illegal for the government to mandate that all guns be smart guns, and it is illegal for them to suddenly make other guns ever sold unlawful - it's that thing in Article I Sections 9 and 10 of the Constitution that disallows ex-post facto law.  The government cannot lawfully make guns obtained lawfully retroactively illegal.

Then again, we must remember that the current administration, and the current crop of leftists at all levels of government (federal, State, and local) has a history of lawlessness.

As long as the Smart Guns remain a part of the market, but is not mandated to be the only firearm available in the gun market, the way to stop them is through the free market.  Don't buy them.  If, as consumers, we refuse to purchase them, the economics of the issue will resolve the problem. . . or at least that's the way it normally works in free societies.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Poll Finds Americans Skeptical of So-called Smart Guns - NRA-ILA

IRS Rules Employers Can’t Dump Workers In ObamaCare Exchanges

by JASmius

Since when?  The Employer Mandate was designed to do precisely that.  Of course, on the other hand, Barack Obama unconstitutionally delayed the unconstitutional Employer Mandate of the unconstitutional Unaffordable Care-Less Act for a year and doubtless will again, so there shouldn't be any penalty at all for employers "dumping" their employees into the exchanges, whether or not they reimburse them for their ObamaCare premiums.

So either the IRS didn't get that particular memo, or the IRS is going rogue, or Red Barry didn't really mean it about deferring the Employer Mandate, or he's just asleep at the 'prompter again:

The Internal Revenue Service has ruled that employers cannot hand tax-free contributions to their workers and tell them to purchase health insurance, the New York Times reported.

Employers who try dumping employees into the healthcare exchanges to avoid having to pay for their coverage are now on notice that the practice is prohibited. Employers who circumvent the law are subject to a $100 a day tax penalty, the newspaper said.

The [Una]ffordable Care[-Less] Act requires large employers to provide healthcare coverage to their full-time workers. Some companies figured it was less expensive to give each employee money to purchase their own coverage on an exchange rather than providing coverage through group policies.

The ruling comes as a blow to many employers who gave their workers tax-free cash contributions to purchase coverage.

Forgive me, but what difference is there between an ObamaCare-compliant employer plan and an ObamaCare-compliant individual plan for which your employer reimburses you?  Either way, the employee and dependents are in an ObamaCare-compliant plan, yes?  Indeed, since the individual market has already been destroyed, it's group-market plans that are more like to not be ObamaCare-compliant, so one would think that "dumping" from employer plans would increase the chances of more Americans being forced into an ObamaCare-compliant plan.  Yet the IRS is going to hit such employers with an annualized fine of over thirty six grand per employee for doing what they've always done?:

The ruling comes as a blow to many employers who gave their workers tax-free cash contributions to purchase coverage. Andrew Biebl, a tax partner at CliftonLarsonAllen in Minneapolis, said the idea of giving workers money to buy their own insurance preceded ObamaCare.

"For decades, employers have been assisting employees by reimbursing them for health insurance premiums and out-of-pocket costs," Biebl told the Times. "The new federal ruling eliminates many of those arrangements by imposing an unusually punitive penalty."...

The IRS says so-called employer payment plans — when a company reimburses a worker for premiums — do not satisfy the requirements of the [Una]ffordable Care[-Less] Act which mandate that specified preventive services be offered without co-payments, the Times reported.

Well.  Guess that answers that question.  So employers - large ones, at least - have no choice, other than bankruptcy.  For them, the IRS has reinstated the Employer Mandate The One had deferred.  Or they did what he wanted done on his behalf but didn't want to take the heat for.  Just one more example added to dozens and hundreds of them why nobody can nor ought to trust a single word that comes out of the mouth of Barack Hussein Obama ever again.

Honoring the Ultimate Sacrifice: Memorial Day 2014

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Memorial Day is a day of remembrance.  It is a day to remember the sacrifice given by members of the American Military for the purpose of protecting the American idea of liberty.  From the recent combat in the Middle East, all the way back to the American Revolution.  They fought for freedom, and asked nothing in return but to be remembered.

In 2000, my wife and I visited the USS Arizona memorial in Hawaii.  As I entered, I removed my hat, slowly approaching the names on the bulkhead, reading them carefully.  Remembering these men I never met.

In 2002 I visited the Arlington National Cemetery in Virginia, near Washington DC, stopping at one point while at the cemetery to observe the ceremony at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier.  My wife and I walked the entire grounds, appreciating those that gave their life for their country.


Every year I observe Memorial Day with a moment of silence, and a visit to the Riverside National Cemetery, where my Grandfather, Thurman Clark, is buried.  He fought in World War II as a part of the Army-Air Corps.  This year, I also visited Paul Young, my dear friend that died over a year ago, who served briefly in the United States Army.

Memorial Day is about those fighting men of the American Revolution that were a ragtag collection of farmers, store owners, and businessmen who weren't exactly sure what they had gotten themselves into; about a young nation's military that stormed the shores of Tripoli during the Barbary Wars to protect America's trade routes; about the second revolution during the War of 1812 when once again invaders came to America's shores; about those brave soldiers that fought to support Americans during the westward expansion; about those that fought in the Mexican-American War and in some cases made their last stand at a dusty fort overrun by the enemy; about Americans who fought fellow Americans in a bloody civil war that defined America's resolve to truly reveal the meaning of the phrase: All Men Are Created Equal; about the rough riders that stormed San Juan Hill; about the brave warriors in a war that America did not have to enter in Europe, a war so bloody it was hoped it would be the war to end all wars; about the greatest generation as they gave their lives in yet another defense of freedom in Europe, and this time also in the Pacific; about the Americans that served to stop the spread of communism in Korea and Vietnam, about those Americans that gave their lives during the Cold War that turned out to be a war that was often not so cold after all; about those Americans that served in the Persian Gulf at a time before we fully understood what we were up against when it came to Islam; about those Americans that extended, or entered service, after September 11, 2001 for the purpose of defending this nation against an enemy we still understood very little regarding; about the gunfire in the Muslim village, and the explosions on the lonely roadway, as our brave troops fought in Iraq fighting for the freedom of people they didn't even know; about those that gave their lives in other locations around the Middle East as we worked to make sense of a deceptive enemy; about those that have died in Afghanistan doing what they can to wrap up a promise to address the terror that held Americans hostage in 1979 and toppled towers in 2001, and about the four Americans killed in Benghazi, Libya when Islamists violently attacked them on the 2012 anniversary of 9/11.

Memorial Day is about our fallen. It is a day for prayers and reflection. It is about thanking those we can no longer thank in person. It is about visiting the cemeteries where they lie, dropping off flowers and American Flags at their graves. Kneeling in prayer, and dropping tears on their name plates as we remember their sacrifice.

Memorial Day is about the defense of an idea called freedom, and remembering those that gave their lives to protect that idea.

Memorial Day is a day of remembrance, and appreciation for the sacrifices of the fallen.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

In Memoriam

by JASmius

In remembrance of all those who have sacrificed so much for their country and countrymen, who have thrown it all away.  It wasn't your fault, my brothers and sisters, and you still, and always will be, heroes and patriots, all.



Homes For Our Heroes

by JASmius

Operation Homefront - aka the private sector - provides free housing for homeless veterans.  Imagine what the private sector could do for veterans' health care - and that of every other American.



Obama Visits Afghanistan

By Douglas V. Gibbs

President Barack Obama paid a surprise visit to the troops in Afghanistan, telling them that for many of them, this will be their last tour in the country.  The war is finally coming to an end, he explained.  The combat mission will be over by year's end.  "America's war in Afghanistan will come to a responsible end."

Obama's optimism that the Afghans will be able to hold down the fort echoes his same assurances over Iraq when American troops departed in 2011.  Iraq is now slipping into chaos as al-Qaeda continues to infest the region.

Afghan President Karzai's office said it had declined a U.S. Embassy invitation for him to go to Bagram to see Obama.

Instead, Obama called Karzai from Air Force One on his way back to the U.S.

This was Obama's fourth visit to Afghanistan as president.  Most of the U.S. and international forces in Afghanistan are withdrawing ahead of the year-end deadline. Elections are underway to replace Karzai, the only president Afghanistan has known since the U.S.-led invasion in 2001.

Pentagon officials have pushed for as many as 10,000 troops; others in the administration favor as few as 5,000 troops. Obama has insisted he will not keep any Americans in Afghanistan without a signed security agreement that would grant those forces immunity from Afghan law.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Obama Signals US to Keep Limited Role in Afghanistan - Associated Press

Karzai refused to meet Obama at Bagram Air Base, says U.S. Official - Yahoo News

Peter King Renews Gun-Control Push After California Shooting

by JASmius

I thought about predicting this right after the drive-by shootings took place, but I decided to wait.  After all, where's the fun in predicting the utterly predictable?:

Members of both major political parties are calling for laws to make it tougher for the mentally ill to buy guns after the Friday rampage in California that left six people and the gunman dead — four of them from gunshot wounds.

Republican Representative Peter King of New York-2 told the Washington Post that stronger background checks are needed and that he is pursing legislation to get more help for the mentally ill.

Friday's killings near the University of California at Santa Barbara campus were carried out by 22-year-old Elliot Rodger, who had a history of mental issues. Still, he was able to buy his guns legally since he had no criminal history and had never been involuntarily committed to a mental health facility.

"This tragedy demonstrates once again the need to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill," King told the Post.

Yeah, Pete, except who gets to define the term "mentally ill"?  Your "friends" on the Left have already sought to have veterans categorized as "mentally ill" on the grounds of allegations of post-traumatic stress disorder.  How slippery is the slope to stripping Second Amendment rights from people who "might" go berserk, as appears to have been the case with, er, Mr. Roger?

 King's position is a minority view in his party, which has largely resisted attempts to toughen gun laws.

"Even though this issue may not be popular in particular congressional districts, if we want to be a national party, we ought to be looking closely at it," King said.

If "we" want to be a national party, we should cave to the Democrats on every emotional issue they play up and exploit as distractions from the across-the-board wrecking ball they've been taking to the country for most of the past decade?  Or should "we" stand for what we claim to believe in - which, last I checked, included the Second Amendment - especially when that is the side of the gun issue on which the American public still staunchly resides, almost miraculously, despite decades of anti-Second Amendment media demagoguery?

The bottom line problem with your demand, Congressman, is that we simply do not trust those on the other side of the aisle to keep their word that this is and will remain only about background checks only for people with objectively determined and documented mental illness.  Even that proposal is debatable, charitably put, but there are simply no grounds on which to believe that it would stay so limited.  And your ready willingness to be panicked and stampeded by their Agenda-driven faux indignation is, quite frankly, why the GOP grassroots do not trust RINOs like you, Mr. King.  You're a pawn, a useful idiot and propaganda prop, lending a veneer of dubious "bipartisanship" to yet another attempted hand-waving distraction from the economic and social destruction Barack Obama and the Democrat Party have wrought on the formerly fruited plain, which has them headed for a crushing defeat in November at the hands of "our" party.  Why would you want to help them, Congressman?

On the bright side, perhaps this means he's going to abandon his silly, quixotic presidential ambitions - gangland style.

Psychotic UC Santa Barbara Shooter

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Hope and Change has turned out to be the same old liberal failed policies, that offer no change, and no hope.  As the doom and gloom of the Divider in Chief works its way into society, and his liberal left minions do what they can to kill America, the teachings of liberalism over the last few generations has revealed itself in the madness of today's youth.  The insanity is surfacing.  When there is no hope, and a generation lives in a fantasy world because they have been taught that a participation trophy is what they deserve, they are special without any accomplishments, and government will always take care of them, and then they realize the world is not the utopia they were taught, something is bound to snap.  Snap.  Snap like a prisoner seeking a way out of a hopeless situation.

Reality has escaped today's youth.  They have been told lies their entire life, and now that the liars have control of government, the truth is that it was all a bunch of crap.  Some people even believe this is the end. There is no way out.  Collapse is inevitable.

For some, hope is lost.

A life of make-believe, it turns out, is often preferable.  In a world where intolerance is called tolerance, the racists call their opposition racists, and right has become wrong, the confusion is expected.

The bad guys have become the heroes.  Taking matters into your own hands seems to be the order of the day.  Psychotic is good.

Elliot Rodger killed six people in Isla Vista near the University of California at Santa Barbara, and it is surfacing that he was trying to act out the role of a film star when he went on his killing spree.  Life had caught up to him.  Despite the coddling of his generation, he felt like a failure in life, and he was trying to make up for it, going out as a star.

A YouTube video revealed his manifesto, where he exposes wanting to be like the main character in the film American Psycho.  Was the anti-hero from the film, a character that mutilates and kills prostitutes after having sex with them, the young man's role model?

A little Dexterish.

The UC Santa Barbara killer, Elliot Rodger, shares commonalities with the Columbine High School killers Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, who fantasized about the idea that Steven Spielberg would make a movie about their lives.

In the case of Elliot, his father worked as an assistant director on The Hunger Games, which involves teens killing teens.

Is it the fault of Hollywood?  Hardly.  Elliot made his choices.  He decided to act out.  But psychologists say that children are a product of their environment.  Elliot was a person determined to act out of feelings of inadequacy, and he was a person that is a mirror image of the classic rampage killer: young, male, isolated and sexually frustrated. . . and he considered himself to be a victim.

Racial division, entitlements, and a government that passes blame at every opportunity while catering to groups as if they are victims makes it easy for these kids to see themselves as victims.  In his video, Elliot said, "You forced me to suffer all my life and now I’ll make you all suffer."

He blamed his suffering on others, and therefore felt his violence was righteous. It was a disturbed reality.

Elliot's manifesto revealed he felt he was a victim of all of humanity.  If you feel as if the whole world is against you, it makes it easier to start attacking random individuals – and then kill yourself.

The finger pointing didn't stop there.  While Elliot pointed his finger at everyone else but himself, the father of one of the victims blames guns for the killing, targeting "irresponsible politicians" and the NRA for the death of his child.

The National Rifle Association responded by saying that responsible gun owners should not be punished for the actions of mass shooters.

Rodger began his killing spree by stabbing his three male roommates.  No blame has been directed at the knives, and the stabbing instruments could not be reached for comment.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

He mimicked America Psycho - U.K. Daily Mail

Sunday, May 25, 2014

Days Of Future Past, Past

by JASmius



Directed byBryan Singer
Produced by
Screenplay bySimon Kinberg
Story by



RATING: *** (out of four)


Let's start at the beginning - which seems appropriate for a time travel tale, doesn't it?  And yes, there be spoilers here, but think of them as pieces of a disassembled jigsaw puzzle.  If you want to see 'em assembled, you can always go here.  Or, better yet, your friendly neighborhood Cineplex.

In a dystopian future, sentient robots known as Sentinels are exterminating mutants and oppressing humans, since humans harbor the genes that lead to mutant offspring.  A small band of mutant survivors manage to evade the Sentinels thanks to the powers of Kitty Pryde, who has the ability to project a person's consciousness back in time to deliver warnings.

This is to say, the Sentinels are exterminating the same small band of mutant survivors over and over and over again, and Ms. Pryde - or "Shadowcat" in the comics - keeps quantum-leaping them back to life.  Seems like a monumental hassle of a lifestyle, until you realize that the alternative is death. 

Also, if that world looks an awful lot like those of the Terminator and Matrix franchises, and the X-Men's solution bore an uncanny similarity to that of the former, go to the head of the class and collect your gold good-noodle star.  But hey, there's no such thing as a boring time travel story.  Confusing, sure, but this one didn't have that problem.

One minor issue I had with the future prelude is how the mytharc gets from "our" world as we saw it at the end of last year's The Wolverine, to this post-apocalyptic wasteland.  I'll freely and publicly disclose here that I never read the comic books, so my knowledge of them is backfilled from the movies and corresponding Wikipedia pages and so forth.  I know the Sentinels were depicted in the comic books, but with the exception of the "Danger Room" scene in X-Men III: The Last Stand - that name of which, in light of DOFP, seems even sillier - they've never been mentioned or even hinted at.  I'd have thought that if the Sentinel program had been around as long as Roe v. Wade, there'd have been a lot bigger impact on society a lot sooner.  I mean, Skynet only took a matter of days to take over the world after it was brought online; why did it take the Sentinels over forty years to make their move?

Yes, yes, I know, the movie wasn't about that.  But I dislike fait accomplis.  I have this annoying habit of wanting to know "why?".  So sue me.

Kitty's group rendezvous with Magneto and Professor Charles Xavier in a monastery in China. They hatch a plan to send Wolverine's consciousness back in time to prevent Mystique from murdering Bolivar Trask, the lead designer of the Sentinels.

Here is an example of not having read the comics being an advantage.  In the comics, it's Kitty Pryde who astrally projects herself across time to stop Mystique.  So the notion of Wolverine making the trip probably grates on the hardcore X-Men geeks.  As for me, my cynical side acknowledges the inevitability of Wolverine being the choice - Hugh Jackman is the face of the X-Men franchise and is the only character to be in every single one of its releases, so who else was it going to be?  But it also makes sense within the confines of the story.  Kitty can send people's consciousnesses back a few hours or days or even weeks, but the process is arduous and physically taxing on the time traveler.  But half a century?  Only Wolverine, with his instantaneous self-healing ability, could possibly survive it.

Of course, logically, Kitty shouldn't be able to generate that much phasing energy, at least without endangering her own life, but then Wolverine shouldn't have had adamantium claws, since they were chopped off by the Silver Samurai in The Wolverine, unless he underwent a really hardcore manicure.  Cinema Sins, admittedly, but not ones sufficiently egregious that they can't be overlooked for the sake of a good story, which this one is.

Trask's assassination will make him a martyr, Mystique will be captured and her mutant powers will be reverse-engineered and used to create the formidable Sentinels of the future. Professor X advises Wolverine to seek out his younger self for aid.

I'm not a big believer in historical "focal points".  As Hank McCoy (Beast) acknowledged in one scene, I agree with the idea that time is immutable, like a river.  You can toss a big rock into it, it'll make a big splash and send out big ripples, but the river itself will keep right on flowing in the same direction.  Remember how Sarah Connor thought assassinating Miles Bennett Dyson, the inventor of Skynet in her timeline, would prevent Judgment Day in Terminator II?  In the end, Dyson died and all his notes and research and proto-Skynet tech was destroyed along with him.  Yet in Terminator III we saw that Skynet was simply invented by somebody or somebodies else a few years later.  There was no "focal point"; it was an inevitable trend leading to an inevitable end, with only the details and timing being variable.  So, who's to say, in the absence of Trask's assassination, that Sentinels wouldn't have been invented and deployed anyway?  In the altered 1973 we saw precisely that possibility arise as Trask simply made his sales pitch to the Soviets and ChiComms after he was turned down by Congress, and I doubt they'd have turned him down as well.

Wolverine wakes up in 1973 in his younger body and travels to the X-Mansion, where he encounters the young Hank McCoy and a disheveled Xavier. His school has failed and most of his original X-Men are dead, and this has left him a broken man. He has also lost his telepathic powers through taking serum which allows him to walk again.

Actually, Xavier's school didn't fail as such.  As revealed by Beast, most or all of his students were drafted during the post-Gulf of Tonkin Vietnam escalation.  Which seems rather odd given that "anonymity will be our first line of defense," as he told Moira McTaggart at the end of First Class.  Evidently the government knew where to find them.

I had surmised that Xavier had used his mutation itself to heal his legs - "mental fun with DNA," more or less - so to see that it was a "serum" (little nod to Captain America, that) of McCoy's invention that restored Charles' lower extremities was a little disappointing, although I suppose it conjoined with explaining how McCoy can turn his Beast persona on and off at will (rather like Bruce Banner/Hulk in The Avengers).  That the serum "deactivates" Xavier's telepathy seems kind of arbitrary.  But you can't really blame him for choosing legs over Megamind; problem is, he really isn't using either one.

It's the paths taken by the two people closest to him - Mystique and Magneto - that broke Xavier.  In a way, it was inevitable; naïvely optimistic idealists always have their day of reckoning with reality sooner or later.  Xavier thought that by saving the world from Sebastian Shaw's plot to cleanse the world in nuclear fire, his mutants could win over the rest of humanity; he found out very differently.  He thought he could win Erik Lehnsherr over to his idealistic vision of human-mutant peace; he and his spine found out very differently.  But the departure of Raven Darkholme - his de facto sister - and transformation into an assassin was the dagger from which he never recovered, leaving him a bitter, disheveled recluse whiling away his days in his dilapidated home.

Hmm; a bitter, disheveled recluse, whiling away his days in his dilapidated home.  Wow, that's hitting a little too close to home, isn't it?  Moving right along....

Wolverine convinces Xavier to free Magneto — who was accused of murdering John F. Kennedy (a charge he denies, stating that Kennedy was himself a mutant) — from a prison cell beneath The Pentagon. They do this with the help of Peter Maximoff, a mutant who can move blindingly fast.

If you go here, you'll learn that it was Mystique (impersonating Lee Harvey Oswald, natch) who fired the bullets from the School Book Depository.  Whether Magneto steered them into JFK or not is conjectural; his line about Kennedy being a mutant is just silly, and I didn't buy it any more than Xavier did.  I mean, how would Lehnsherr have known this, besides JFK's kid brother being a manatee?  And if he did, why wouldn't he have passed this little nugget of information on to his comely blue nudist?  Would have saved him ten years of deep - and I mean deep - incarceration.

Of course, it's baffling why either Mystique or Magneto could have thought that a mutant assassinating the POTUS could ever have positive repercussions for mutantkind.  More on that later.

The scenes with Maximoff - aka Quicksilver - were a highlight of the film, and contained the "Easter egg" of his line about his mother "knowing some guy like [Magneto] once" - Quicksilver being, in the comic books, the son of, yes, Magneto.

Meanwhile, in Saigon, Mystique prevents a young William Stryker from appropriating a group of mutant American GIs, including Havok, for Trask's research. Mystique investigates Trask Industries and discovers he has been capturing and experimenting on mutants, including some of her old comrades. Knowing that the assassination of Trask occurs in Paris, Xavier and Magneto board a private plane with Beast and Wolverine in order to intercept Mystique, although the two argue over abandoning each other.

Not really a "young" William Stryker, as this was the same time period in which he approached Logan and Victor Creed (aka Sabertooth) about his "special team, with special privileges".  Perhaps Stryker was capturing mutants for his own experiments at Three Mile Island in addition to Bolivar Trask's?

Mystique's infiltration of Trask's headquarters and his autopsy files shows us what happened to Tempest, Azazel, Banshee, Emma Frost, etc.  No wonder he and Stryker got along so well.  Indeed, in one scene Stryker asks the same question of Trask that Stryker himself is asked by General Munson at "The Island" five years later: "You really hate mutants, don't you?"  Trask's answer is quite similar: A claim not to hate them, even while he's trying to wipe them out, with the additional proviso that this can bring the entire human world together "as a species".  See what happens when you get brainwashed by evolutionist propaganda?

The core of the story is embodied in the dialogue between Xavier and Lehnsherr on that flight to Paris.  It's like they picked up right where they left off on that Cuban beach.

Recall that at the end of First Class, Xavier's belief in the attainability of human-mutant peace is shaken, but not yet shattered, whereas Lehnsherr's certitude about the inevitability of a human-mutant conflict to the death is irretrievably reinforced.  Still, the Cuban Missile Crisis events send them in divergent directions.  Magneto (and, by extension, Mystique) essentially makes his prophecy self-fulfilling by waging the "inter-species" war that is not, in fact, inevitable, and provoking and/or exacerbating the genocidal actions of a Trask and a Stryker.  Xavier, by contrast, turns those emotions inward, against himself, as depression, and gives up on life.  The ironic commonality is that in taking those different paths, both Professor X and Magneto failed in what they both claimed to want to do: protect their fellow mutants.  Yet each blamed the other for that failure, and continued to do so for the rest of their lives as they pursued their own respective philosophies, and thus "all those years wasted fighting each other".

They're friends, yet they're enemies.  They want the same end, but not by the same means.  They're both extremists, with the truth somewhere in the middle.  It's probably the richest, most complex, most fascinating relationship I've ever seen in movies, TV, or literature.  And James McAvoy and Michael Fassbender absolutely nail all of it on that plane ride to Paris.

Xavier takes all his self-pity and self-loathing and directs it at Lehnsherr ("You took the things that meant the most to me!").  Lehnsherr, disgusted by it and by Xavier's self-absorption that can't see anybody else's pain but his own, throws it right back in Xavier's face ("Maybe you should have fought harder for them!") with a vehemence that literally knocks Xavier on his ass as he goes on to tick off the names of all the mutants, all his friends, that he's lost over the preceding decade, which he believes backs up what he told Xavier from the start: There's a war coming, and mutants should fight it pre-emptively, by any means necessary.

But as usual, Magneto goes too far.

In Paris, the Americans and Vietnamese are negotiating the end to the Vietnam War. Mystique impersonates a Vietnamese general to infiltrate a meeting with Trask. As she is about to kill Trask, Wolverine, Xavier, Magneto and Hank arrive. To guarantee her powers can never be used for the Sentinels, Magneto tries to kill Mystique, who flees out a window. A fight on the street ensues, in front of onlookers and television cameras.

Well, of course he does.  Because naturally, Magneto would be able to vaporize her remains after he blew her head off.  Or so he'd have had to hope, because otherwise he'd have spared Trask the trouble of having to kill Mystique himself plus dropping her body right into his Mini-Me lap.  As it is, he "bends" another bullet into her leg, thus giving further lie to the "I was trying to save Kennedy because he was a fellow mutant" whopper, and providing Trask with a blood sample to get started on his Sentinel upgrade.  And of course, the whole fracas takes place before the entire planet at the Vietnam peace talks, so if the general human population didn't know about mutants before, they sure as shinola do now, and in the worst possible light.  Gee, maybe there's something to Xavier's "anonymity as the first line of defense" reasoning after all.

Predictably, it all goes to hell after that.

Although Trask is saved, the world is horrified by the existence of mutants. President Richard Nixon approves Trask's Sentinel program and arranges an unveiling in Washington, D.C.

Just as an aside: Earlier Trask was lobbying Congress for Sentinel funding; they turned him down.  Since Congress, constitutionally speaking, has the power of the purse, what would have been the point of lobbying President Nixon about it?  He'd have had no constitutional authority to "approve" the Sentinel program because it would still have required a congressional appropriation.  Which was why Trask was lobbying Congress in the first place.  And they turned him down.

Another thought: Doesn't the fact of Trask promptly taking his proposal to America's enemies render him a traitor and a fool, since, as I observed above, it's not difficult to see Moscow and/or Beijing turning the Sentinels to uses other than mutant-hunting?  And does the irony not get excruciating when you realize that Trask could have brought about the very end result - a global nuclear holocaust - that Sebastian Shaw was seeking as the entrance to a new mutant-dominated order in the first place?

At the mansion, Xavier eschews his regular serum dose to regain his powers. Through Wolverine, Xavier communes with his future self and is inspired to struggle for human-mutant peace once again. He uses Cerebro to track Mystique en route to Washington.

The final step on young Xavier's path towards truly becoming Professor X.  There's something to be said for having one's convictions and faith tested "by fire".  If you come out the other side with your beliefs intact, they become "adamantiumized" - unbreakable and indestructible.  Ditto, however, any accompanying errors and misconceptions.  The scene between Patrick Stewart and James McAvoy is novel and, in its way, solipsistically inspiring.  "I don't want your suffering!  I don't want your future!" becomes "We need you to hope again" in a matter of a few minutes' screen time.  But hope, in and of itself, is mainly about making oneself feel better, and can be taken to self-deluding ends.  Which was the other side of "all those years wasted fighting each other".

Nixon unveils the Sentinel prototypes on the White House lawn. As a show of force, Magneto raises RFK Stadium and deposits it around the White House.

Even more awesome than when he moved the Golden Gate Bridge in Last Stand.  Worth the price of admission all by itself.

He also commandeers the Sentinels and has them attack the crowd.

And if Magneto had limited it to that, he'd have achieved his objective.  Make it look like the Sentinels malfunctioned and went berserk.  Permanently discredit Trask before the whole world and minimize the chances of anybody else being able to pick up his work.

But...no.

Nixon and Trask are taken to a safe room, followed by a disguised Mystique. Xavier, Wolverine, and Beast try to stop Magneto. Magneto impales Wolverine with rebars and flings him into the Potomac River.

Completely gratuitous.  There wasn't anything Beast could do, and Wolverine didn't have his adamantium claws yet, and couldn't so do a reprise (or would it be a preprise?) of his Sentinel beheading from the Danger Room scene in Last Stand.  I guess it's like Wolverine observed about Lehnsherr on the flight to Paris: "So, you always were an asshole."

In 2023, the X-Men make their final stand as the Sentinels assault the monastery.

This, my friends, was a real "last stand".  And graphic, after a fashion: Colossus gets ripped in half, Sunspot and Bishop immolated, Blink drawn & quartered, Iceman beheaded, Storm impaled and thrown off a cliff.  Even Old Magneto was wounded.  Kinda makes one wonder how the Sentinels would have taken out the "indestructible" Wolverine; did they have flaming adamantium swords?

And yet it wasn't quite a real last stand, since Shadowcat had to maintain Wolverine's mindlink to his past self for the plot to be resolved, which would save all of them (again).  Or, in other words, a cheat, and an additional jeopardy premise to add suspense to a climax that could only end one way.  But such is the case in almost all time travel stories.  This one was at least plausible, even if the Sentinel ships did look like gigantic electric shavers.

Pulling the safe room out of the White House, Magneto aims the television cameras at himself and prepares to kill the President with the whole world watching.

Not to poop on the party or anything, but isn't this what Mystique was attempting to do writ huge?  If a mutant blowing away Bolivar Trask turned him into a martyr and humanity against mutantkind, wouldn't a mutant murdering the President of the United States in front of the entire world be the same thing magnified logarithmically?  Heck, wasn't that the same thing - the Kennedy assassination - that started this whole process in the first place?

But one extremist had to set the stage for the other extremist to save the day and restore their crazy balance of insanity.

Disguised as the President, Mystique wounds him with a plastic gun and reveals her true form. Xavier persuades Mystique not to kill Trask and allows her and Magneto to flee. Mystique's interference is seen as a mutant rescue of the president; the Sentinel program is cancelled and Trask is arrested for selling military secrets to foreign governments.

Did anybody else buy Nixon's theft of Thor's line about "Take my life and let the others go"?  Tricky Dick sacrificing himself?  That made Mystique's impersonation a dead giveaway.

So Xavier could have used his powers to forcibly reorient Magneto and Mystique ideologically, but instead gambles the entire future of mutantkind on what might remain of "the better angels of her nature," and then allows both of them to escape, thence to perpetrate future massive crises and provoke the "inter-species" war they so much want to fight and he wants to prevent.  And here I thought Charles Xavier wasn't a "big fan of violence".

But then, that's what the X-Men are all about: keeping themselves in business.

In the changed future of 2023, everybody is alive.  Even Cyclops and Jean Gray...and En Sabah Nur.  Which just goes to show that even if you can change the past for the better, that can still open up other cans of worms you know not of.

Sic semper sequalis.

Daniel Webster Quotes about the Constitution, Honest Government

Posted by Douglas V. Gibbs

“Hold on, my friends, to the Constitution and to the Republic for which it stands. Miracles do not cluster and what has happened once in 6,000 years, may not happen again. Hold on to the Constitution, for if the American Constitution should fail, there will be anarchy throughout the world.”
― Daniel Webster

“The Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions”
― Daniel Webster

“I apprehend no danger to our country from a foreign foe. Our destruction, should it come at all, will be from another quarter. From the inattention of the people to the concerns of their government, from their carelessness and negligence, I must confess that I do apprehend some danger. I fear that they may place too implicit a confidence in their public servants, and fail properly to scrutinize their conduct; that in this way they may be made the dupes of designing men, and become the instruments of their own undoing. Make them intelligent, and they will be vigilant; give them the means of detecting the wrong, and they will apply the remedy.” 
Daniel Webster

“If we abide by the principles taught in the Bible, our country will go on prospering and to prosper; but if we and our posterity neglect its instructions and authority, no man can tell how sudden a catastrophe may overwhelm us and bury all our glory in profound obscurity.”
Daniel Webster

“God grants liberty only to those who love it and are always ready to guard and defend it.”
Daniel Webster

“If religious books are not widely circulated among the masses in this country, I do not know what is going to become of us as a nation. If truth be not diffused, then error will be. If God and His Word are not known and received, the devil and his works will gain the ascendency. If the evangelical volume does not reach every hamlet, the pages of a corrupt and licentious literature will. If the power of the gospel is not felt throughout the length and breadth of this land, anarchy and misrule, degradation and misery, corruption and darkness will reign without mitigation or end.”
Daniel Webster

“A country cannot subsist well without liberty, nor liberty without virtue.”
Daniel Webster

“I regard it (the Constitution) as the work of the purest patriots and wisest statesman that ever existed, aided by the smiles of a benign Providence; it almost appears a "Divine interposition in our behalf... the hand that destroys our Constitution rends our Union asunder forever.”
Daniel Webster

“I shall stand by the Union, and by all who stand by it. I shall do justice to the whole country...in all I say, and act for the good of the whole country in all I do. I mean to stand upon the Constitution. I need no other platform. I shall know but one country. The ends I aim at shall be my country's, my God's, and Truth's. I was born an American; I live an American; I shall die an American; and I intend to perform the duties incumbent upon me in that character to the end of my career. I mean to do this with absolute disregard of personal consequences. What are the personal consequences? What is the individual man, with all the good or evil that may betide him, in comparison with the good or evil which may befall a great country, and in the midst of great transactions which concern that country's fate? Let the consequences be what they will, I am careless. No man can suffer too much, and no man can fall too soon, if he suffer, or if he fall, in the defense of the liberties and constitution of his country.”
Daniel Webster

“Nothing will ruin the country if the people themselves will undertake its safety; and nothing can save it if they leave that safety in any hands but their own.”
Daniel Webster

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary