Tuesday, March 03, 2015

Outrage Mounts Over Hillary Clinton’s Use Of Private Email @ State

by JASmius



A Clinton engaging in an act of blatant public opacity in flagrant violation of federal law?  The hell you say!

Or, "Another day at the office for HRC":

Mrs. Clinton did not have a government email address during her four-year tenure at the State Department. Her aides took no actions to have her personal emails preserved on department servers at the time, as required by the Federal Records Act.

It was only two months ago, in response to a new State Department effort to comply with federal record-keeping practices, that Mrs. Clinton’s advisers reviewed tens of thousands of pages of her personal emails and decided which ones to turn over to the State Department.

Her expansive use of the private account was alarming to current and former National Archives and Records Administration officials and government watchdogs, who called it a serious breach.

“It is very difficult to conceive of a scenario — short of nuclear winter — where an agency would be justified in allowing its cabinet-level head officer to solely use a private email communications channel for the conduct of government business,” said Jason R. Baron, a lawyer at Drinker Biddle & Reath who is a former director of litigation at the National Archives and Records Administration.

A spokesman for Mrs. Clinton, Nick Merrill, defended her use of the personal email account and said she has been complying with the “letter and spirit of the rules.”

Under federal law, however, letters and emails written and received by federal officials, such as the secretary of state, are considered government records and are supposed to be retained so that congressional committees, historians and members of the news media can find them. There are exceptions to the law for certain classified and sensitive materials.

Should we be outraged by this?  Technically, yes, I suppose.  It was the sitting Commissar of State holding herself completely above the law, in the classic Clinton tradition that long predates the Obama carrying on of that tradition, and the response of her and her minions isn't even really damage control - just a bland counter-factual assertion that she complied with both the letter and spirit of the law, as if the Federal Records Act didn't exist.  Figure in how the so-called "Clinton Global Initiative" has been raking in foreign campaign contributions like dead leaves in a New England November, and this has all the markings and ingredients of what at one time in this country would have been a candidacy-destroying scandal.

But this is Hillary Clinton we're talking about.  Under the auspices of a Donk dictatorship.  Not a damn thing is going to happen to the Empress, and everybody knows it, because the law only applies to Republicans, and not to Democrats.  Period.  So it isn't a question of whether we should be outraged, but whether any of us can muster such a depleted commodity.

And, being somebody who maintains that Her Nib has about as much of a shot at the 2016 Democrat nomination as a rookie sportswriter prying even a grunt out of Marshawn Lynch during Super Bowl week, it was all I could do to trouble myself to put up a post about it.

And the aforementioned "outrage" statements didn't exactly help:

Republicans quickly pounced on Clinton's use of the personal email account, arguing that she failed to comply with the law while serving in the State Department. Kristy Campbell, a spokeswoman for former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, who is considering a 2016 presidential campaign, said Clinton "should release her emails. Hopefully she hasn't already destroyed them. Governor Bush believes transparency is a critical part of public service and of governing." She noted that Bush recently released personal emails from his two terms as governor.

"Hopefully" she hasn't destroyed all her emails?  She "should" release all of them?  Ooooh, THEM's fightin' words, huh?  Please.  She will release, if any, precisely the ones she wants to release, and there'll be no way of verifying if they're genuine or if they were fabricated after the fact.  And any real ones she were to release would be heavily redacted.  And no amount of Darrell Issa subpoenas or whining or "She can't DO that!!!!" will make the slightest bit of difference, because Congress has no power anymore, and everybody knows it.

Former technology executive Carly Fiorina, another potential GOP presidential candidate, said the report "once again raises serious questions as to Hillary Clinton's definition of leadership. Does she believe that leadership means acting outside the law? Does she believe that leadership can exist without transparency?"

Yes and yes, Miss Fiorina.  Any more questions?

Frankly the only thing that would be genuinely interesting about this story is if Sick Willie had been using this email account to distribute pics of his willie.

House To Pass "Clean" DHS Bill Today

by JASmius



But don't worry, my friends, it's all the Senate's fault for Mitch McConnell not nuking the filibuster according to House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, who wouldn't have done so either in the elderly Campbell's Soup Kid's shoes:

House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH8) announced that the House will vote on a "clean" Department of Homeland Security funding bill, which marks the conclusion of the Republican attempt to block funding for President Obama’s executive amnesty orders. Boehner told the Republican conference that the bill will get a vote on Tuesday. “He said Pelosi could [force a vote] but he hoped it would be done by a GOP appropriator,” a Republican congressman in the meeting tells National Review Online.

Because why wouldn't the GOP want their fingerprints conspicuously on the outside of an illegal, unconstitutional amnesty that their own base and three-quarters of the voting public detests with a fiery passion?  Can't let Crazy Nancy get all the "credit," now can they?

The GOP lawmaker is referring to a little-known rule, known as Rule 22, that allows any House member to force a vote on a bill if the Senate refuses to create a conference committee. Senate Democrats filibustered the creation of a conference committee on Monday evening, thwarting the process by which the House and Senate might have ironed out the differences between the DHS appropriations bills passed by the two chambers. The original House bill blocked funding for the implementation of Obama’s 2012 and 2014 executive orders on immigration. The Senate bill did not block funding for the president’s amnesty.

And somehow the House Republican leadership didn't think of that rule until it was too late to avoid House Democrats embarrassing them with it, so they've decided that making themselves look like toe-sucking sellouts is a better PR angle than letting themselves look like incompetent boobs.  Man, that Johnny Boehner, what a mind, what a mind, age and defeat fetishes don't affect it all all, do they?

Exit question: Does the fact that the Speaker decided to get the surrender over with three days early and save all the pointless faux "drama" constitute "legislative efficiency"?

Benjamin Netanyahu's State Of The Middle East Address

by JASmius

Finally, a dose of truth.



UPDATE: The One is actually breaking out his "red lines" gimmick again.

My favorite Jim Geraghty reactions (from today's Morning Jolt):

Fascinatingly, President Obama walks around completely unaware of how little credibility he has left -- with skeptics in both parties, with the American public, with our allies, or with our enemies....

Ah. It’s a “red line.” How reassuring....

Think about it - breakout capacity within one year, and that’s if they don’t cheat!....

You may recall the Constitution giving the U.S. Senate the power to ratify treaties. The Obama administration insists, in defiance of our own eyes, that any deal with Iran is “only an agreement, not a formal treaty.”

The deal is bad, secret, and unconstitutional all at the same time. Quite a feat.

I'll say it again, folks: Do you still think Barack Obama is "incompetent"?


UPDATE II: About that Bloomberg link....:

This puts the White House negotiators in a bind: Unless the administration can make a convincing case that any deal Obama offers can survive well past his time in office, the regime of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is unlikely to buy into the phased approach being offered by the so-called P5+1 countries.

“The supreme leader has said publicly that he is concerned that if he enters into an agreement that the very next president is going to change that agreement,” Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker told Bloomberg reporters at a breakfast on Thursday.

How, then, can the White House possibly persuade Tehran that this deal can outlast his presidency?

Why, by extending the Obamidency as long as necessary to provide our new mullahgarchic friends the reassurance they need, of course.

Just one more reason O is seeking that bookend Final Crisis.  Which he is providing Tehran with the means of supplying him.

See?  It's a win-win - for both American enemies.  Not so good for us and the Israelis.

But then, and never, ever forget, that is for what "We, The People" twice voted.

Exit question: Do chads still hang after being incinerated?


UPDATE III: Reportedly House Minority Leader "Crazy Nancy" Pelosi - who I am frankly astonished was actually in attendance - spent the Israeli PM's speech rolling her eyes, doing her Sharon Stone leg-crossing-and-uncrossing impression (I'll leave the thought of Pelosi going visibly commando within Bibi' field of vision to your nightmares), and got up and walked out before he concluded his remarks, either to be seen as "making a statement," delivering a Klingon insult, or because without her Depends on, she'd pissed her skirt.  Her office also released a statement (which I am NOT going to quote) that tried to sound butthurt that anybody would question Barack Obama's ironclad commitment to the Israeli (and American) national security that he's casting to the four winds for the sake of his (eventual, decades from now, after he's finally died in office) "legacy," and which was so chock full of psychological projection that it should have been written while reclining on a shrink's couch.

But let's count our blessings - she could have mooned Bibi on her way out and pooped her skirt instead.

IRS Hired Blind Tech To Inspect Lois Lerner Hard Drive

by JASmius



I would say that this is really bad optics for the Obama White House, but I'll just content myself with saying that this is like the Nixon White House hiring a deaf tech to listen to the Oval Office tapes:

The first IRS technician to inspect the computer hard drive of the former official at the center of a targeting scandal was legally blind, according to an affidavit filed last summer.

The admission from Stephen Manning, deputy chief information officer for strategy and modernization at the Internal Revenue Service, came in a document filed July 18th, 2014, in a lawsuit filed by True the Vote against the IRS, according to PJ Media.

The suit alleges former IRS official Lois Lerner led an effort to target the conservative group and tea party groups by refusing to grant them tax-exempt status.

"According to the [information technology] Specialist, prior to joining the Internal Revenue Service, from 2004 to 2005, formal Microsoft training was completed through Lions World Services for the Blind, a certified Microsoft training and testing center," Manning stated in the affidavit.

The IRS technician, who was hired in 2007 and has been promoted three times, began working on Lerner’s hard drive on June 13th, 2011, according to the affidavit.

Sounds like a Saturday Night Live skit, doesn't it?  Or even Benny Hill.  Not that I have any problem with the IRS hiring blind IT people, you understand.  But the optics of this, as punny as they are, really are no joke.

But then again, IRSgate has pretty much lost any and all political relevance, and has, for all intents and purposes, passed into history.  It's like if the Frost interviews with Tricky Dick had been about how he got away scot-free with Watergate and corruptly engineered the 1976 election of Gerald Ford as his successor for good measure.

Consequently, this is one more round of rubbing our noses in what Double-L did to the Right on Barack Obama's orders, how they completely got away with it, and how they will ALWAYS get away with any and every scandal they ever commit.  It's Nelson Muntzing our helplessness.



But, okay, one more: This is like a eunuch serving as Bill Clinton's "wingman"....

Hey, gallows humor is all we've had left for a long, long time now. Might as well enjoy it while we can, because even it can't last.

Monday, March 02, 2015

Maryland Senator Barbara Mikulski Announces Retirement

by JASmius



The Troll of the Senate is hobbitting down:

Senator Barbara Mikulski, the longest serving woman in the history of Congress, is announcing her retirement, Democrat officials say.

The 78-year-old Maryland Democrat, now in her fifth term, is set to make a statement at a news conference in Fells Point in Baltimore later Monday. Her retirement could set off a race among potential candidates to succeed her, including Representative Chris Van Hollen and former Governor Martin O'Malley, who is considering a bid for president.

Mikulski became the longest-serving woman in the history of Congress in 2012. She was first elected to the House of Representatives in 1976 and has served in the Senate since 1987. Mikulski is up for re-election next year, but has declined in the past to say whether she would run for what would be a sixth term. The deadline for filing is in January 2016.

"Could" set off a race?  Why be so coy, AP?  As though no Democrat would want her seat, and any Republican would be in serious contention for it.  Oh, yes, the Old Line State did elect GOPer Larry Hogan as its governor four months ago, but that was in the biggest "red tide" election in, alternatively, four or twenty years, and that tide is likely to go right back out again in 2016, at least down-ballot, and especially in as "blue" a State as Maryland.

Mikulski is actually doing O'Malley a favor, it seems to me, as running for her Senate seat will give him a race he's actually capable of winning, as opposed to tilting at presidential windmills at which he'll have no chance whatsoever, even if there is a 2016 election at all.

Still, I kind of hope she does seek a sixth term after all, if only to see how shriveled she would grow by 2022.  That might be enough to make even Gollum....



....start blowing chunks.

Hard Starboard Radio: A Week Of JASmius On KCAA



Okay, not an entire week. Consider this replay of what was supposed to have been the April 26th, 2014 podcast of American Daily Review to be a prologue, seeing as how the opening monologue reflects both my general and specific mood at the moment. 310 days ago my ire gushed forth from the frustration of "on the road" technical difficulties and their unwitting belittlement by my Constitution Radio on-air colleagues, which is why the date of this particular podcast shows up on the ADR showpage as April 27th. As to what's behind the current disgruntlement, let's just say that one of the reasons hasn't changed in the past 310 days, or the 241 days the preceded it, and the other helps explain the on-air schedule for the rest of the week.

Live podcasts will resume Tuesday, March 10th.

Benjamin Watson Testifies

by JASmius



Even money the New Orleans Saints cut the backup tight end before the start of OTAs for this.  Which shows the (professional) courage the eleven-year veteran displayed by taking such an "Islamophobic" stand to serve as a Voice Of The Martyrs:

The images keep flooding our timelines and news feeds. Men being burned alive or beheaded by masked assassins. Stories of families on the run, fleeing their homes while they are pillaged and burned. Their testimonies hold a familiar chord. “Convert, Pay or Die!”

The persecution of Christians is not a new concept. As early as the first century we read about the Spirit filled boldness of Christians like Stephen and Paul who proclaimed the Gospel through beatings and imprisonment, torture and death. We remember Christ’s disciples, most of whom were killed just like their master. Roman emperors like Nero, executed Christians in the most ghastly ways, using them as torches to light the evening sky.

In spite of all this adversity, Christianity continued to spread because men and woman, empowered by the Holy Spirit stood strong in the face of certain death; some being delivered and others falling. As I sit here in a 21st century United States, I can’t help but wonder when we too will face martyrdom for our faith. On this very day nearly 50 countries have laws that restrict or outlaw Christianity, leading to the harassment, imprisonment and death of those who follow Christ. On this day, in countries like North Korea and China, Christians gather for church underground to avoid being arrested by police. On this day, in Nigeria thousands mourn the deaths of their loved ones killed by Boko Haram in their quest to overthrow the government and create an Islamic state. On this day, in Cuba, Christian ministries continue to risk their freedom as the countries continues to feel the effects of Communist rule.

BUT, on this day, Jesus words in Luke still ring true, “And I say to you, everyone who confesses Me before men, the Son of Man will confess him also before the angels of God; but he who denies Me before men will be denied before the angels of God.” (Luke 12:8)

I tremble with fear at the thought of facing such incredible atrocities for the sake of Christ. How could I stand firm, staring down the barrel of a gun, the life of my family in the balance? I shudder, thinking of that day. I feel so inadequate. Rest assured, fellow Americans, if it hasn't already, our day WILL COME.

Jesus goes on, providing us comfort and hope for this day. He says, “When they bring you before the synagogues and the rulers and the authorities, do not worry about how or what you are to speak in your defense, or what you are to say; for the Holy Spirit will teach you in that very hour what you ought to say.” (Luke 12:11,12)

My only hope in such trying times is the power of the Holy Spirit. He is the X factor. He will give us the strength, words, and vision when our backs are against the wall. Jesus promised the believer many things. Eternal life, abundant life, peace, purpose and forgiveness to name a few. He also promises that they, like him, WILL be betrayed, hated and persecuted, even to death. (Luke 21:12-19)

The Internet has brought close what used to be foreign. Shocking, disturbing worldwide news is available in the palm of our hands. As we see these videos and images we must remember in prayer our brothers and sisters who are suffering for Christ. We must support them in any way we can for they are being witnesses to their oppressors.

Secondly, we must WAKE UP from our slumber, be on guard and stand firm. A house divided against itself cannot stand. Spiritual unity in the body will help us weather the coming storms. We must REMEMBER that as terrible as things are and will become, they are simply signs pointing to one thing; His imminent return.

“When these things begin to take place, stand up and lift your heads, because your redemption is drawing near.” (Luke 21:28)

LORD be with us.

My friends, when this man's playing days are over, I think his next career will be a no-brainer, don't you?

Exit question: How is it that Facebook hasn't shuttered Mr. Watson's account?  And might C.J. Pearson be invited to a Saints game or two if Watson is still on the team next season?

50% Plunge In Stock Market Is "Possible"

by JASmius



The harmonic tremors of impending economic calamity just keep a-rumbling:

As for the stock market, "it's elevated right now," notes [Newsmax finance "insider" Sean] Hyman, author of The Six Keys to Financial Success!

"I don't expect it to perform as well over the next twelve months as it has over the past twelve months." The S&P 500 has returned 13.2% during that period....

Could the drop by U.S. stocks be as severe as 50%?

"It could happen," Hyman said. "Corrections are generally 10%, 20% or 30%. But we have had a couple of corrections — in 2000 and 2008 — that were on the tune of 40%, 50%."

Volatility has kicked up at times in recent months, "as the stock markets is getting high and the economy is not performing as well," Hyman said. "So there's a little bit of a decoupling of what markets have done versus what the economy has done." [emphasis added]



Or, in less effete euphemism, the economy is smoldering wreckage and the stock market is still wafting on the monetary fiscal updrafts of the tsunami of fiat currency pumped insatiably into the financial sector by the Federal Reserve to prop up the Obamunist illusion of an "economic recovery" that has never actually materialized by deliberate White House policy.  And when the "walls" in Wall Street come a-tumblin' down, the "crash" will be great, indeed, and Barack Obama will have his bookend Final Crisis to exploit.

Which is why I exited the market a full four years ago.

But then, by this time there really isn't anything he can't do that would require another such calamity anyway.  But his vanity still needs that "messianic" leavening for the despotic actions he'll unleash as a result, if he can't bully them out of the GOP rump Congress - which now has to be considered a legitimate possibility.

You know that Barry - he just loves to "share the credit" like he does what remains of our wealth.

ISIS Declares War On Twitter

by JASmius



The aspect of this story that's newsworthy to me?  I didn't know that Twitter had actually ever blocked or suspended any ISIS accounts.  Because, as we're all supposed to know by now, censoring jihadist tweets calling for mass oppression, torture, and murder of non-Muslims is Islamophobic:

ISIS supporters have threatened Twitter employees, including co-founder Jack Dorsey specifically, with death over the social network’s practice of blocking accounts associated with the group. In an Arabic post uploaded to the image-sharing site JustPaste.it, the group told Twitter that “your virtual war on us will cause a real war on you”. It warned that Jack Dorsey and Twitter employees have “become a target for the soldiers of the Caliphate and supporters scattered among your midst!”

“You started this failed war … We told you from the beginning it’s not your war, but you didn’t get it and kept closing our accounts on Twitter, but we always come back. But when our lions come and take your breath, you will never come back to life.”

Harmless bluster?  Just ask the good folks at Charlie Hebdo for their thoughts.  If you can find somebody to hold the seance.

What surprises me is that the Obama Regime hasn't sued Twitter on First Amendment grounds for violating the Islamic State's constitutional rights.  But I guess they don't have to when all they have to do to get even with Mr. Dorsey and his employees is just stand back and allow the jihadists to "randomly" slaughter them all.

I hope Mr. Dorsey can afford to hire private security.  He, and they, are definitely going to need it.

Dreams Of His Father: Obama Sympathized With The 9/11 Attackers

by JASmius



Like it came straight out of one of Jeremiah Wright's Ameriphobic "sermons":

In 2004, Obama released an update of his 1995 memoir, Dreams from My Father, with a little-noticed new preface about the attacks.

“On September 11, 2001,” Obama wrote, “…history returned with a vengeance; in fact, as Faulkner reminds us, the past is never dead and buried — it isn’t even past.”

“This collective history, this past, directly touches my own,” he added. “Not merely because, as a consequence of 9/11, my name is an irresistible target of mocking websites from overzealous Republican operatives.

His middle name, I'm guessing.  But not "overzealously!  Besides, I'm not (yet?) getting paid for my "Republican operations".

But also because the underlying struggle between worlds of plenty and worlds of want…is the struggle set forth, on a miniature scale, in this book,” which at its core is an indictment against Western imperialism, racism and colonialism.

Obama goes on to say he identifies with the “desperation and disorder of the powerless,” and how they can “easily slip into violence and despair.”

Like it came straight out of his "Stand With Mohammed" White House "summit" a couple of weeks back.  Only thing missing is "Those filthy infidel capitalists in the World Trade Center and Pentagon had it coming!"

Funny thing is, none of the 9/11 hijackers were "desperate" or impoverished or inadequately educated.  And I think it's pretty clear that none of them felt "powerless".  To the contrary, they never felt more powerful than when they struck their multiple, spectacular blows for their demon "god" - any criticism of any of which Barack Hussein Obama will not, to this day, tolerate in the slightest degree.

So tell us again, Obamedia, just exactly why it was so "outrageous" for Rudy Giuliani to state that your demigod "doesn't love America," or why it was unforgivable for Scott Walker to not Pavlovianly praise the "devout Christianity" that has never been publicly displayed or even evinced by the Islamic grammar school graduate, when his own autobiography corroborates them beyond anything you even allege them to have said?

No, really; C.J. Pearson needs his Facebook account unblocked.

Obama FBI Raids Texas Secessionists Meeting

by JASmius



Prima facie evidence, it seems to me, that the Obama Regime takes the slightest hint of any States even contemplating escaping his iron-fisted grip deadly seriously:

It seemed like a typical congressional meeting for the "Republic of Texas". "Senators" and the "president" gathered in the center of a Bryan, Texas, meeting hall, surrounded by public onlookers, to debate issues of the "national" currency, develop "international" relations and celebrate the birthday of one of their oldest members.

But this wasn't 1836, and this would be no ordinary legislative conference. Minutes into the meeting a man among the onlookers stood and moved to open the hall door, letting in an armed and armored force of the Bryan Police Department, the Brazos County Sheriff’s Office, the Kerr County Sheriff’s Office, Agents of the Texas District Attorney, the Texas Rangers and the FBI.

In the end, at least twenty officers corralled, searched and fingerprinted all sixty meeting attendees, before seizing all cellphones and recording equipment in a Valentine’s Day 2015 raid on the Texas separatist group.

“We had no idea what was going on,” said John Jarnecke, president of the "Republic of Texas". “We knew of nothing that would warrant such an action.”

A group of cranks playing make-believe and dress-up?  Perhaps.  Will Texas ever attempt to secede from the Union for real?  Beats me.  Is the "Republic of Texas" a dangerous, violent group that would warrant a mass, multi-level law enforcement raid, guns all but a-blazing?  Hell, no.

What was the "provocation"?  A “legal summons” to a local judge "ordering" him to appear before the group for charges of "crimes".  Was that a smart stunt to pull?  Probably not.  Should the local judge have just laughed it off (assuming it didn't include actual physical threats)?  You betcha.  Could the local judge have done the "ROT" more PR damage by mentioning their "summons" publicly and ridiculing them without mercy?  Certainly.  Did he overreact by getting the entire police apparatus - local, county, State, and federal - involved to treat these harmless cranks like they were an ISIS cell?  Unquestionably.  And now they are going to get a ton of sympathetic publicity for their troubles, and for the litigation that is probably gestating even now in the "ROT's" upper echelons.

"Smoking gun" quote from the raiders:

“You can’t just let people go around filing false documents to judges trying to make them appear in front of courts that aren’t even real courts,” said Kerr County sheriff Rusty Hierholzer, who led the operation.

Actually, Rusty, yes, you can.  In fact, legally speaking, you have no other choice.  What you can't do is burst in on a peaceably assembled group of citizens, gathered for a perfectly legal purpose, like some amalgam of the Gestapo, the KGB, and the Stasi, and treat them like domestic terrorists.

Or at least, you're not supposed to be able to.  But I guess that that, too, has changed in the Age Of The One.  And yet, none of your small army of cops made any actual arrests, did it?  Which suggests precisely what this raid was: a message from the ruling authorities.  "Stop meeting and disband your seditious organization at once - or else."

I wouldn't recommend that the "ROT" send out any more "legal summons" like they were reenacting the Nuremberg trials, but it would be interesting to see what happens if they continue to hold public gatherings and focus more on legally advocating secession instead of pretending that their State already had, just to see how much more the ruling authorities might overreact to unwittingly prove their point.

Netanyahu To AIPAC: No ‘Disrespect’ To Obama Intended

by JASmius



Well, at least we know that Temple One got through Barack Obama's air defenses.  Now begins Bibi's combination charm/disarming offensive:

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu insisted Monday that his plans to address Congress are not aimed at disrespecting President Barack Obama, even as he assailed the U.S. leader's bid for a nuclear deal with Iran as a threat to his country's survival.

"I have a moral obligation to speak up in the face of these dangers while there is still time to avert them," Netanyahu said during an address to a pro-Israel lobbying group in Washington.

I'm assuming that this statement of the obvious was designed to quell fears from some who actually still pay attention to and are swayed by anything this White House says on a daily basis that Mr. Netanyahu isn't going to take the lectern in the House chamber tomorrow donned in coal-black minstrel makeup and drop the N-word forty seven times.  Except that, of course, anybody who still pays attention to and is swayed by anything this White House says on a daily basis probably won't be watching Bibi's speech anyway, and will find out about it afterwards from MSNBC, who will dutifully "report" that the Israeli Prime Minister shuffled comically to the House lecturn and and told StepNFetchit jokes about O's days as Barry Soetoro in a horrible Rochester impression.

But then we have to remember that Mr. Netanyahu's very existence anywhere on this planet is considered "disrespectful" by King Hussein, much less coming here, much less to address a(n almost) joint session of Congress, much less to tell the truth about The One's total sellout to the mullahs on their nuclear weapons ambitions.  And that's not even including the latter's contemplation of shooting down Israeli warplanes if and when they do try to take out Iran's nuclear weapons facilities, to which it is unlikely that even the Israeli Prime Minister will make reference in so public a setting.  And, really, if Bibi gave a kosher dill about the fragility of The One's ego, he wouldn't be in Washington this week, now would he?

It's....interesting that AIPAC made him the meat in a most unpleasant oratorical "manwitch":

Netanyahu's remarks at the annual policy conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee were being bracketed by speeches from a pair of senior U.S. officials: U.N. Ambassador Samantha Power and National Security Adviser Susan Rice.

Power spoke warmly of the ties between the U.S. and Israel, saying the relationship was rooted in "shared, fundamental values." She highlighted the billions of dollars in military assistance Washington provides Israel and the constant defense the U.S. provides Israel at the United Nations.

IOW, Ambassador Power is the "good cop".

Power said the deep ties between the longtime allies meant their relationship "should never be politicized."

I.e. like Netanyahu, Boehner, and McConnell are allegedly doing.

The ambassador also defended Obama's pursuit of an accord with Iran and said the president shared Israel's commitment to preventing Tehran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

Which, if he really shared Israel's commitment, he'd be invading Iran instead of negotiating with them.

"If diplomacy should fail, we know the stakes of a nuclear-armed Iran," she said. "We will not let it happen."

....but are.

Rice was expected to deliver a more specific rebuttal to Netanyahu's criticism of the U.S.-led nuclear negotiations. She also has been among the most outspoken critics of the prime minister's plan to address Congress, calling the move "destructive" to the U.S.-Israel relationship.

IOW, she's the "bad cop".  As though that will have the slightest jot or tittle's effect on the stiff dose of truth Prime Minister Netanyahu will deliver tomorrow.

Frankly, if it didn't "disrespect" the "right" people, the speech would be an utter waste of time.  And as Bibi said today, "U.S. leaders worry about the security of their country," he said. [They don't, actually, but he knows that, and besides, he's trying not to "disrespect" Obama, remember?] "Israeli leaders worry about the survival of their country."

It's only Red Barry that refuses to recognize how inextricably linked those two worries really are.

Is The Army Of The Twelve Monkeys Real?

by JASmius



It's either that, or we're back to the endless question of whether the Obama Regime is "incompetent" or malevolent:

A dangerous, often deadly, type of bacteria that lives in soil and water [Burkholderia pseudomallei] has been released from a high-security laboratory at the Tulane National Primate Research Center in Louisiana. Officials say there is no risk to the public. Yet despite weeks of investigation by multiple federal and state agencies, the cause of the release and the extent of the contamination remain unknown, according to interviews and records obtained by USA Today. [emphasis added]

Meaning they have no idea what the degree of risk to the public is of the contagion they've either bumblingly or deliberately unleashed, yet are insisting that there's nothing to see here, so kindly move along until you get sick and keel over dead.

And this is just the latest in a serious of such "mishaps":

The safety breach at Tulane's massive lab complex thirty-five miles north of New Orleans is the latest in a recent series of significant biosafety accidents at some of the most prestigious laboratories in the country where research is performed on bacteria and viruses that are classified as potential bioterror agents.

"The fact that they can't identify how this release occurred is very concerning," said Richard Ebright, a biosafety expert from Rutgers University in New Jersey, who testified before Congress last summer in the wake of lab incidents at federal agencies involving anthrax, smallpox and a deadly strain of avian influenza. [emphasis added]

Well, now.  That's reassuring.

Oh, and this Burkholderia pseudomallei outbreak?  It's had three months to spread God knows how far, because public officials don't have any [BLEEP]ing idea:

The Tulane incident involves the release, possibly in November or earlier, of a bacterium called Burkholderia pseudomallei, which is primarily found in Southeast Asia and northern Australia and is spread to humans and animals through direct contact with contaminated soil and water where it can live and grow.

And, of course, soil and water are pretty much....well, everywhere.

Tulane's research, which has been halted by federal officials, was part of an effort to develop a vaccine against the bacteria. It was conducted mostly with rodents inside a secure biosafety level-3 laboratory with multiple layers of safety equipment that were supposed to ensure the pathogen couldn't get out.

Yet at least four monkey-like rhesus macaques — that were never used in the experiments and were kept in large outdoor cages in another part of the 500-acre facility — have been exposed to the bacteria, initial tests have found. Two of the macaques became ill in November; both eventually had to be euthanized. Meanwhile, a federal investigator, who became ill twenty-four hours after visiting the facility in January as part of the ongoing release investigation, has also tested positive for exposure to the bacteria — though it remains unclear whether her exposure may have occurred during international travel and not at the lab.

Oh, I don't think it "remains unclear" at all.  They just want the public to think it is.  Perhaps the same thing goes for their professed ignorance about this Burkholderia pseudomallei outbreak as well.  Maybe it was deliberate; maybe this series of such incidents - which hardly seems to be accidental when taken in toto - are "dry runs" for yet another Obama "fundamental transformation" avenue that would provide him with his long-sought bookend Final Crisis to exploit.

Or there's always the possibility that jihadist infiltrators are involved in at least some of these "accidents".  Maybe some were raids in which Islamic terrorists obtained one or more pathogens in order to weaponize them if they weren't already.  You have to admit, as hardy a bug as Burkholderia pseudomallei is, it wouldn't take much effort to deliberately spread it across a large metropolitan area in a short span of time.

But if paranoia doesn't float your boat, you still have to acknowledge that even if these "incidents" are just a random serious of incompetencies, they can certainly be exploited to nefarious ends, and the more of them that take place, the more likely it is that they will be.

And we don't even have James Cole and Cassandra Railly....



....to bail us out.

My advice?  Stay away from water and dirt.  Mud, especially.  It may be our only hope.

Facebook Bans C.J. Pearson For Saying Obama Doesn't Love America

by JASmius



Remember C.J. Pearson, the bright young lad who eloquently YouTubed his hearty concurrence with former NYC mayor Rudy Giuliani's public declaration of the self-evidently obvious fact that Barack Obama doesn't love America?  Well, he made the unwitting "mistake" of sharing it on his Facebook page, and now the FB Obamastapo has landed on him with both feet:

On Friday, C.J. Pearson, a 12-year-old conservative from Georgia who posted a viral video supporting Rudy Giuliani, discovered that his personal Facebook page was locked. In an exclusive interview with Examiner.com on Saturday, Pearson said he received a message from someone about 6 a.m. Friday. That’s when he learned his account and page had been locked for “suspicious activity.” As is so often the case in these situations, Facebook did not respond to his requests for help. Nor would they tell him what the alleged suspicious activity was. We reached out to Facebook, but the social media giant has so far refused to respond to our request for comments.

If FB poobahs could be pumped full of sodium pentathol, "sedition" or "blasphemy" would be the terms they would probably mumble forth.

Now, contra Mr. Pearson, this isn't a First Amendment issue, which, please recall, forbids the federal government from abridging, among other things, freedom of speech and of the press.  State constitutions address the same issues individually, and there is nothing that forbids private communications platforms like Facebook from censoring content they don't like.  If they want to voluntarily halve (or more) their market share to only cater to Obamunists, and cost themselves a buttload of revenue, and crater their bottom line, that's their prerogative.  But that is precisely where they're headed in piecemeal fashion with this kind of sneaky, obnoxious exclusionary conduct, and it would behoove them to just come right out and be honest about it, and terminate conservative customers' FB accounts summarily and en masse rather than endlessly dancing around this burning bush.  That way, the conservative version of Facebook could be launched and relegate the original to the social media equivalent of MSNBCCCP-ville.

I'm not sold on the direction of Mr. Pearson's civic activism, but the fact that a sixth-grader is doing the following is, to quote Darth Vader, "most impressive":

Pearson said he is working on legislation to lower the age of those serving in the State House and Senate. The legislation, which is set to be the subject of a hearing on Monday, would lower the age of House members from 21 to 18, and lower the age of state Senators from 25 to 21. Pearson said he was using Facebook to line up witnesses for the hearing, but Facebook’s actions have made that more difficult. He can’t read any messages sent to his old profile and the old page doesn't show up.

That legislation has the Uhura Corollary ("Be careful what you wish for, you may get it") written all over it.  But if the day ever arrives where the vast majority of American youth is like C.J. Pearson, why not?  It isn't like their antecedents haven't more or less completely screwed things up anyway.



Scott Walker Wows CPAC

by JASmius



David Freddoso's take:

He’s the loser of the straw poll but the big winner of CPAC. Walker finished four points behind after attendees enthusiastically received his speech (even though it was only so-so), and buzzed about the brutal, unfair treatment he had lately received from liberal media outlets.

The "If they're going after him that aggressively this early, they must think he's our biggest threat" dynamic.

During CPAC, Walker was tendentiously hammered for making a point about his personal fortitude (it was construed as a comparison of his critics in Wisconsin to ISIS)....

Red meat to the CPAC faithful, certainly, although something the media will use to try to make him poison to independents later in the campaign.

....and falsely accused of going easy on rapists on college campuses.

The obligatory "War On Women" swipe.  Which is kind of funny, given their taking such grave offense at being compared to ISIS.

A quiet formal effort to turn out Walker supporters apparently did exist at CPAC 2015, but you wouldn’thave known it. It was so stealthy that it is very hard to think it was solely responsible for the result. Not a single Walker 2016 sticker could be seen (even Cruz and Carson had stickers everywhere); not a single Walker t-shirt was on display; no throngs of identifiable Walker footsoldiers roamed the halls or showed up just in time to pack the hall for his speech (as they did for both Paul and Jeb).

Which, either unintentionally or very slyly, illustrates the genuine appeal and support Governor Walker enjoys.  Or, put another way, he really is the GOP front-runner.

Simply put, there are many conservatives who do not want to nominate another Bush and are at least somewhat wary of Paul’s foreign policy views. For them, Walker seems like the most obvious choice.

Might I make another suggestion?  They recognize not only that Scott Walker is a fighter and a "true conservative" and an inspiring hybrid of Calvin Coolidge and Ronald Reagan, but they also recognize that he is the most electable Republican in the 2016 field.  There is no way on God's green Earth that any freshman senator will ever be elected president again any time soon, so that eliminates Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, and Ted Cruz.  Other Republican governors are far more problematic, as Bobby Jindal of Louisiana is too wonky (and the media would use his "non-whiteness" to racistly flambe him) and Chris Christie of New Jersey has the "RINO" label to fight on his right and the "scary" label to fight on his left, in addition to the unfortunate timing of his re-election having come a year prior to Governor Walker's as well as it having come from tacking left rather than overcoming multiple leftwing smear attempts without compromising ideologically.  And, let's be brutally honest about this: Is there any chance at all that the American electorate would even consider for a femtosecond electing a third Bush in a single generation?

When you figure in the changes that have been made to the GOP presidential nominating process to discourage earlier and earlier primary/caucus "front-loading" that has usually enabled the "establishment's" annointed candidate to clinch the nomination within days of the Super Bowl - a definite blow to Bush III that could be the more formalized equivalent of "I am paying for this microphone, Mr. Green!"....



....there may be no stopping Governor Walker's momentum.  Which grows, let us never forget, from the widespread recognition of the unparalleled peril in which We, The People, find ourselves under the Obama Tyranny, and from the equally widespread realization that moderate "establishment" candidates are not more "electable" and have won the popular vote exactly once since 1988 - that being Bush43's re-election in 2004 - and that was only with 51% of the vote.  If we're going to go down, we want to go down with our best, not yet another mushy compromiser festooned with such obvious, easily exploitable vulnerabilities.

And who knows?  If we do go with our best, he might just win.  And isn't that the name of the game?

GOP Senators: We Have Healthcare "Fix"

by JASmius



Not an ObamaCare repeal, or even a replacement, but a "fix".

I don't know about all of you, but that doesn't do anything for my vital signs:

Three leading Republican senators are promising to help millions of people who may lose federal health insurance subsidies if the Supreme Court invalidates a pillar of President Barack Obama's healthcare law.

Bet you couldn't tell this was an Associated Press lede, could you?

Senators Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, John Barrasso of Wyoming, and Orrin Hatch of Utah outline their plan in a Washington Post opinion article titled "We have a plan for fixing healthcare" posted online Sunday evening.

And "We have a plan for fixing healthcare" appears to be the extent of their "outline".

The article provides no detail on how much assistance they would propose, its duration or how they would pay for it. Nor do they address how they would overcome GOP divisions or Democratic opposition to weakening the law.

Hey, AP, they said they "had a plan". Kind of like a painter has an easel, canvass, and paint, but can't find his confounded brush.  Or, in this case, won't find it for fear that their easel and canvass will end up scattered, torn shreds of debris, and them along with it.

But then, that was one of the primary purposes of ObamaCare: to mire as many Americans as possible in dependency upon it for their very lives so as to make it politically impossible for Republicans to get rid of it.  Which is what made, in my august opinion, the 2012 election the point of no return for the Old American Republic, because that was the last chance to reverse course before the Unaffordable Care-Less Act became entrenched.

Case in point:

The senators' article is the latest political salvo that seems aimed as much at the court's nine justices as at the public. Last week, Health and Human Services [Commissar] Sylvia Burwell said nullifying the subsidies would cause "massive damage to our healthcare system."

Actually, it is ObamaCare that has done massive damage to our healthcare system.  But nobody is supposed to notice, much less publicly say, that.  And you'll notice that Commissar Burwell directed her rhetorical fire at the SCOTUS, not three piddling Pachyderms who have one tabula rasa "plan" amongst a multitude of them:

Congressional Republicans unanimously opposed the law's creation and have long worked on plans to weaken and replace it. They have not united behind a specific proposal.

Which means some congressional Republicans are serious about scrapping ObamaCare, and some are too chicken to do so but want to be seen as striving for the same goal, even though disunity will make attaining that goal impossible, even if it wasn't already impossible due to Barack Obama's re-election.

As for the Hatch-Alexander-Barasso "plan" itself, well....:

In their column, the three senators acknowledge that if their side prevails in court, six million Americans could lose subsidies and many would no longer afford coverage. They call the case "an opportunity" to reshape the law and say they "have a plan to protect these people and create a bridge away from" the statute.

"First and most important, we would provide financial assistance to help Americans keep the coverage they picked for a transitional period," they wrote.

Without saying how, they wrote that they would also give states more flexibility to create their own health insurance marketplaces. And they blame the health law for problems like forcing many Americans to surrender their previous insurance and doctors.

"People do not deserve further disruption from the law," they wrote.

Does anybody even remember what the original "law" was?  Even its namesake?  And does even he care, as long as some amalgam of it remains in force?  It is, itself, merely the bridge to single-payer, after all.

Yes, I can hear the Tea Party "RINOs!!!!" caterwauling already.  "Replacing one subsidy regime with another" - which, if Bill Clinton were still POTUS, he'd probably accept, both to get out from under the "incompetence" stigma of the original UCLA being so poorly written as to leave out subsidies for plans purloined though healthcare.gov, as well as belatedly getting GOP fingerprints on, and therefore ownership of, ObamaCare overall, but Barack Obama never will - "'reshape' the law rather than repeal it," "dupe more States into setting up O-Care exchanges" - which sure appears to be what "give states more flexibility to create their own health insurance marketplaces" sounds like, meaning that the "Gang of Three" are either genuinely selling out, or they are more abysmal at the written word than they are at public speaking.

But we all need to remember what every such "plan" and "healthcare fix" floated on Capitol Hill is at this point: an audition for Scott Walker's 2016 GOP platform, because no further changes to ObamaCare are going to come from anyone, anything, and anywhere outside of Red Barry's pen and phone.  And something tells me the Wisconsin Governor is going to have his own ideas on healthcare, and that they will be far more to your and my liking.

A Bill versus Executive Order

By Douglas V. Gibbs

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

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




-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Sunday, March 01, 2015

Obama Threatened War Against Israel

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

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

Obama Threatened to Shoot Down IAF Iran Strike - Arutz Sheva

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

Obama Eyes Sanctions On Israel - Political Pistachio

Obama Administration's Empowerment of Islam - Political Pistachio

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

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

Endless Warfare

By Douglas V. Gibbs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

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

By Douglas V. Gibbs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Battlestar Galactica: Bastille Day (S1E4)

by JASmius



Rating: ***

Written by: Tony Graphia
Directed By: Allan Kroeker


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

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

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

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

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

Enter Captain Apollo.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The cell doors open. But no convicts step forward.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Intriguing, isn't it?


Next: How Starbuck killed Zak