Muslim Bakeries Won’t Service Homosexual "Weddings"

by JASmius



I've been posing this rhetorical question for months, including just yesterday.  Today comes redundant confirmation from Dearborn, Michiganistan:



So there it is. If you’re a Christian who wants to practice religious freedom, prepare to be vilified, threatened, discriminated against, and martyred; if you’re a Muslim who wants to practice religious freedom - including mass-murdering all non-Muslims - you have carte blanche.

Either way, we Christians will be martyred.

Exit question: Whose country is it anyway - the Mexicans' or the Muslims'?  Should be an interesting race to watch from the gulag.

SCOTUS Sides With Hispanic Legal Jihad In Mexifornia

by JASmius



Yet another reminder of why we cannot rely on the federal courts to uphold, preserve, protect, or defend any aspect of the United States Constitution:

On Monday morning, the United States Supreme Court refused to hear a case from California that allowed a public school [Live Oak High School] to ban American flag apparel worn by students.

Without comment, the Court denied the case of Dariano v. Morgan Hills School District. At least four of the nine Justices were needed to get the case before the Court next year for arguments.

The controversy goes back to a May 2009 incident between two groups of students at Live Oak High School. At a school-sponsored Cinco de Mayo event, a Mexican-American student walked around campus with the flag of Mexico and other students flew a makeshift United States flag in response and chanted at the flag-bearing student. Students on both sides complained about the incident.

Were the chanting students being boorish?  Perhaps.  Was the school ill-advised in sponsoring the celebration of a Mexican holiday at an American school?  Quite possibly, especially since this had the stink of a setup for just such litigation as in fact occurred, and which was entirely unnecessary by any reasonable definition unless the purpose was to "officially Mexicanize" California and erode the First Amendment.

A year later, several students came to school on Cinco de Mayo wearing American flag shirts and school officials told the students to remove the American flag shirts, or turn the shirts inside out. The educators said the American flag shirts could send a message that would offend the Cinco de Mayo celebrants and they had public safety concerns.

Ah, there's that word "offend" again.  Quite evidently, not all "offenses" are equal, as the American students could make precisely the same claim against the enforced glorification of Cinco De Mayo and school officials' suppression of their OTM (Other Than Mexican) patriotism.

The parents of the American flag-wearing students sued on their behalf, alleging First Amendment violations by the Morgan Hill School District.

In this new case, the lawyers for the students claim the Ninth Circuit is trying to change this definition, by restricting passive First Amendment speech. And in fact, the student’s attorneys say the Court should make it clear that American flag displays of any type shouldn't be banned at public schools.

“School officials on the scene had ample reason to believe violence and disruption were about to happen. 

School officials across the nation act against a backdrop of the need to prevent another Santee, Columbine, Littleton, or any of the hundreds of school shootings that have happened since Tinker was decided,” the Morgan Hill lawyers argue.

Note the convenient stereotyping of "Anglo" students as inherently violent.

They also believe the case isn't a referendum on flying the American flag at public schools.

Which nobody has suggested - at least, not yet.  But just give them time.  It won't take much, given the rate at which Barack Obama is importing the Mexican population.

As to which set of students have "violent and disruptive" tendencies, this quote pretty much says it all:

The Mexican students accosted the students wearing the American flag by shoving a Mexican flag into the chest of one student and shouting, “Fuck them white boys, fuck them white boys” and “they are racist. They are being racist. Fuck them white boys. Let’s fuck them up.”

In less, shall we say, colorful language, dissenting Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Judge O’Scannlain summed it up:

The freedom of speech guaranteed by our Constitution is in greatest peril when the government may suppress speech simply because it is unpopular. For that reason, it is a foundational tenet of First Amendment law that the government cannot silence a speaker because of how an audience might react to the speech. It is this bedrock principle—known as the heckler’s veto doctrine—that the panel overlooks, condoning the suppression of free speech by some students because other students might have reacted violently.

Aaaaaaand privileging the speech of the hecklers.

Leading, as it always does, back to the central question: Whose country is it, anyway?  Because it sure as salsa seems like it isn't ours anymore.

Exit question: Remember when the SCOTUS used to slap down the Ninth Circus on a regular basis? Buenos tiempos, buenos tiempos.

U.S. Muslim Population Will Double Or Triple In Next Fifteen Years

by JASmius



Remember yesterday's post on Islam's demographic overrunning of the West? Ayaan Hirsi Ali also took notice of it:

According to estimates by the Pew Research Center, the Muslim population of the United States is set to increase from around 2.6 million today to 6.2 million in 2030, mainly as a result of immigration, as well as above-average birth rates. Although in relative terms this will still represent less than 2% of the total U.S. population (1.7%, to be precise, compared with around 0.8% today), in absolute terms that will be a larger population than in any West European country except France. Between now and 2030, the Muslim population of the United States will be growing faster than that of any EU member state (with two exceptions where the absolute numbers are tiny: Ireland and Finland). The annual growth rate will be more than double that of France. [emphasis added]

And when you figure in that about ten percent of all Muslims on average are active jihadists....well, how does thirty Mohammed Attas for every town and city in the U.S. sound?

As an immigrant of Somali origin, I have no objection to other people coming to America to seek a better life for themselves and their families. My concern is with the attitudes many of these new Muslim Americans will bring with them – and with our capacity for changing those attitudes.

Of which, at least currently, there is precisely none.  It'd be "Islamophobic," remember?

Approximately two fifths of Muslim immigrants between now and 2030 will be from just three countries: Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Iraq. Another Pew study – of opinion in the Muslim world – shows just how many people in these countries hold views that most Americans would regard as extreme. (Data on opinion are unavailable for the other two big “sender” countries, Somalia and Iran.)

Three quarters of Pakistanis and more than two fifths of Bangladeshis and Iraqis think that those, like me, who leave Islam should suffer the death penalty. More than 80% of Pakistanis and two thirds of Bangladeshis and Iraqis regard sharia law as the revealed word of God. Only tiny fractions would be comfortable if their daughters married Christians. Only a minority regards honor killings of women as never justified. A quarter of Bangladeshis and one in eight Pakistanis think that suicide bombings in defense of Islam are often or sometimes justified.

Okay, so as many as seventy-five Osama Bin Ladens per U.S. town and city.  Even better.

But even that may be the tip of the ol' iceberg, thanks to the son of a Shiite Muslim from Kenya:

Muslim immigration from dangerous nations is dramatically higher in recent years, and government assurances that immigrants are being properly screened is “a farce,” according to accomplished author and columnist Paul Sperry.

“It’s a huge surge under Obama. In the last three years, he’s averaged 100,000 new immigrants from Muslim nations a year. That is very alarming. It’s more than we’re importing both from Central America and Mexico combined. This is a big shift in immigration flows,” said Sperry, who is the author of Infiltration: How Muslim Spies and Subversives Have Penetrated Washington and co-author of Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld That’s Conspiring to Islamize America.

“It’s really insane what we’re doing. No one’s really talking about it, but this mass immigration from Muslim countries poses a serious national security threat,” said Sperry, who is also a Hoover Institution media fellow and former Washington bureau chief of WND. Sperry frequently writes for the New York Post and Investor’s Business Daily.

The stated reason for the influx in recent years is the rise in refugees from war-torn nations like Syria and Iraq. The number of people accepted from Syria in particular baffles Sperry, who said there is a long standing policy of keeping Syrians at bay.

Not any more, apparently.  Can't imagine why, can you?

Hayden: Obama's Deal Would Okay Iran's Nukes Within A Year

by JASmius



The first thing that has to be understood about this Iranian nuclear "deal" that Barack Obama triumphantly announced yesterday is that it is no "deal" at all, but merely an "agreement" to "negotiate" for three more months without either side walking away from the "table" first.  If you don't believe me, ask yourself whether a skeleton (analogous to the announced "framework") can walk and run around without any musculature and flesh surrounding it outside a Halloween cartoon.  The "fine print" is where this tediously insane "process" always breaks down before the cycle starts again anew like, very appropriately, an episode of The Walking Dead.  Or one of Dr. Henry Morgan's popcorn-like resurrections.  Take your pick.

Except, of course, that this time it may not, which is former CIA Director and Air Force General Michael Hayden's real point:

Retired Air Force General Michael Hayden was among many slamming the Obama administration's framework for a nuclear deal with Iran on Thursday, telling Newsmax that it turns Tehran into an "industrial-strength nuclear state" that could have its own weapon within a year.

"It took us eighteen months to get to the outline of a framework and now we're going to get to the fine print in what, three months?" asked Hayden, who led both the CIA and the National Security Agency. "That shows you how difficult this is.

"We have just agreed that Iran will be an industrial-strength nuclear state and that it will never be any more than one year away from having a nuclear weapon," he said.

Or, as I believe, they've had nuclear weapons as long as seven years ago (I worked out the math in a post at my old blog, which is no longer accessible as you can see if you follow the link) and they've been building, and continue to build, an arsenal bigger than even our own.

The United States and....world powers reached a framework with Iran on Thursday that seeks to curb Tehran's nuclear program for at least a decade.

To....what?  Buy more time for another decade of "negotiations"?  By that time the mullahs might develop their own death star.....

The plan comes after eight days of marathon talks in Switzerland and is incumbent on a final deal being reached by June 30th.

Which, given the history of the past dozen years, it won't be, but given the nature of Barack Obama, it probably will.

All sanctions against Iran would remain in place pending a final deal.

Which have done nothing to obstruct Iran's construction of nuclear weapons or the ICBMs to deliver them.

They would only be suspended by the U.S., the United Nations, and the European Union after the International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed Iran's compliance.

Which is unconfirmable because the mullahs won't permit true verification, which means the U.S., the U.N., and the E.U. will just trust them anyway.  After which we all will die in hellish, irradiated flames.

If you don't believe me, get a "load" of the Cleveland steamer The One and his henchman laid on us following this empty "announcement":

In a Rose Garden speech at the White House, President Barack Obama hailed the outline as "a good deal, a deal that meets our core objectives."

i.e. To ensure that the Islamic Empire keeps (or attains) its nuclear arsenal.

He compared it to nuclear arms-control agreements struck by Republican Presidents Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan with the Soviet Union that "made our world safer" during the Cold War.

Nixon's detente policy made our world dramatically more dangerous, not less.  As would have President Reagan's had he not already pushed the USSR past the tipping point toward its eventual collapse.

"Today, the United States, together with our allies and partners, has reached a 'historic' understanding with Iran....

There's that word again.

....which, if fully implemented, will prevent it from obtaining....nuclear weapon[s]," Obama declared.

i.e. It guarantees it.

"The issues at stake here are bigger than politics," he said.

i.e. "I won".
.

"These are matters of war and peace, and they should be evaluated based on the facts."

i.e. The mullahs will have, and use, their nukes.  Which means that Obama shares that objective.

In Switzerland, Secretary of State John Kerry touted the outline as "a solid foundation for the good deal we are seeking."

i.e. The "deal" that will give his boss the piece of paper he longs so excruciatingly to wave around like a nut while debarking from Air Force One like a minstralized Charlie Chaplin.

Meanwhile, back in this quantum dimension, former Bush43 Ambassador to the U.N. (and, God willing, Scott Walker's future Secretary of State) John Bolton vainly talked sense from the wilderness a week ago by advocating what I've argued for, well, a dozen years as the only way to verifiably disarm the mullahs:

There is only one way to block the Iranians from building a nuclear bomb, according to former ambassador John Bolton: Bomb them first.

"The inescapable conclusion is that Iran will not negotiate away its nuclear program," Bolton wrote in an opinion piece for the New York Times [last] Thursday. "Nor will sanctions block its building a broad and deep weapons infrastructure."

The "inconvenient truth," Bolton insists, is that "only military action like Israel's 1981 attack on Saddam Hussein's Osirak reactor in Iraq or its 2007 destruction of a Syrian reactor, designed and built by North Korea, can accomplish what is required. Time is terribly short, but a strike can still succeed."

Such an attack would not need to destroy Iran's entire nuclear infrastructure, but instead, Bolton said, would break key links in the nuclear fuel cycle and set back Iran's program by at least three to five years.

It would (or would have been) easier and less incendiary for the United States to do this, of course.  Indeed, it would have been ideal to invade Iran and topple the mullahgarchy altogether back in 2003 when we had the forces deployed next door in Iraq to do so (precisely what the mullahs feared at the time).  Now the Bolton-prescribed bombing attack falls to Israel, which makes it more potentially incendiary....although with the Middle East dissolving into chaos per the Obama Doctrine already, perhaps that's only a matter of degree, as it appears that the rest of the region, Israel and the Arabs alike, has come to an alignment perception against Persian Iran as the common enemy of both.

Well, Iran and Obamerikastan.  Can't have one, it seems, without the other.


UPDATE: Submission accomplished:

Temecula Constitution Class: Wrapping Up The Enumerated Powers

Instructor: Douglas V. Gibbs

Temecula Constitution Class at 6:30 pm
One Hour Presentation
Faith Armory
41669 Winchester Road
Temecula, CA

Tonight we are wrapping up Article I, Section 8.

Recent issues that will be inserted into tonight's discussion:

Bundy Ranch: Is federal ownership or control over property as we see with the Bureau of Land Management constitutional?

Operation Jade Helm: The framers feared the army being used against the people, yet we are seeing military operations among the civilian population being put into action regularly during the current administration.  What protections are in the Constitution to protect us against such a possibility?  What about Posse Comitatus?

Implied Powers: Can the President use constitutional interpretation or "precedent" to support his actions as he decides to do as he pleases, with or without Congress?  What about the Necessary and Proper Clause (Elastic Clause)?  How does that final clause of Article I, Section 8 come into play?

Join us tonight for these discussions, and more.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Iran Deal Appeasers Pat Themselves on the Back

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Neville Chamberlain's name will live in infamy.  Chamberlain was Prime Minister of Great Britain when the Nazis were on the rise in Germany prior to the Second World War.  Neville was a pacifist, a guy that, if alive today, would have peace signs plastered throughout his office.  His foreign policy was much like Barack Obama's, filled with "negotiate first" and "appeasement" insertions to the point that it was disastrous.

Chamberlain's the guy that believed Adolf Hitler was a character that could be negotiated with, and Neville was a part of a European team that formed a disastrous deal with Nazi Germany that gave a part of Czechoslovakia to Germany in 1938 as a peace offering to the furious fires of Nazi Germany's inevitable war march.  Hitler was happy to receive the gift, that Czechoslovakia had no say in, and then promptly invaded Poland the following year.

"Peace in our time," declared Chamberlain, when he waved the agreement for all to see.

Diplomacy is a valuable tool, and negotiations can be an integral part of an overall understanding by nations on a global level.  The desire to negotiate makes sense, and is normally a good path to pursue.  The success of a good foreign policy is often rooted in the ability to have encouraging talks with other nations, and deals that benefits all of the nations involved in the agreement.  Treaties are a desired route, most of the time.  However, a nation's foreign policy success is not only founded upon those successful and beneficial deals made with other countries, but also upon an administration's understanding of when it is wise to enter into an agreement, and when it is wise to recognize the futility of trying to deal with certain characters on the international stage, and then stepping away from the table and taking the appropriate actions, be they sanctions, a policy of non-association, or taking a military stance of readiness.

As with today's politicians who are trying to make deals with Islamic countries who are determined to destroy any opposition to the Muslim ideology, and eventually give Muhammad's barbaric false religion a theocratic empire that dominates the world through jihad, Chamberlain did not fully understand the evil he was making deals with.

President Barack Obama is acting much like Neville Chamberlain did, heralding a deal with Iran over their nuclear endeavors that is being put together.  Obama practically called the deal "peace in our time," and then warned the Republicans, who are not so fast to trust Iran, that they better forget about their constitutional authority to take action against the final deal that is in the works at this moment.

"The issues at stake here are bigger than politics," Obama said during remarks in the White House Rose Garden. "These are matters of war and peace, and they should be evaluated based on the facts."

The facts, however, are being ignored.  Islam desires war, and is playing the appeasers for fools.

While Barack Obama explained the limits on Iran's nuclear program that are in the deal, the dangers the deal poses to Israel, and the rest of the world down the road, are being pushed under the rug.  Iran is guided by the Muslim faith in a false prophet that puts war ahead of everything.  Islam does not honor treaties.  Islam uses treaties to regroup, take advantage of the foolish peace-niks, and then they break any agreement they are a part of the moment it serves their interest.  Iran is an Islamic nation.  Iran wants to create chaos in the world, bring war to the Great Satan and the Little Satan (U.S. and Israel), and then bring about their version on The End Times by using the chaos to release the 12th Imam, create a worldwide jihad of destruction and carnage until all of the infidels are either dead, or under the control of Islam, and do all of that even if it means the destruction of Iran.

You cannot reason with the unreasonable.  After this deal, Iran will demand more, and Islam will demand more.  Deals will continue to be made, until so much is given away that no more can be given.  And then, while the appeasers are patting themselves on the backs, claiming they have brought peace to our time, war will be waged, because Islam will wait no longer.

The leftists, upon reading this, will call me a "scare-monger", or an "Islamaphobe," or whatever else they can muster, and that is fine.  Those that questioned Neville Chamberlain's appeasement received the same kind of attacks.  Neville Chamberlain is now remembered as the idiot that trusted Nazi Germany, and Barack Obama and his merry crew of appeasers will be remembered in history as the idiots that led us into World War III, because they were willing to trust, and work with, an ideology that cannot be trusted, and with whom deals are only temporary in nature.  Islam honors treaties only as long as the agreement benefits them, and then, they break them.  Historically, that is a constant reality.  Islam cannot be trusted.  Just ask Israel.

What is even worse is that the President of the United States, though he can sign treaties, cannot legally put those treaties into force without the treaty being ratified by the United States Senate.  The requirement for any treaty to be approved by Congress is a constitutional mandate.  Yet, Barack Obama's warning to Congress today against them taking action that could upend work toward a final deal was a direct threat warning Tom Cotton, and the rest of the Republicans in the Senate who sent a letter to Tehran telling them Obama needs congressional approval, not to act in a manner consistent with their Constitutional authorities.  And the Republican Party, who has the opportunity to make a difference, is sitting and doing nothing, fearful of a President that is acting like a dictator.

Obama's actions are no longer just actions dangerous to our American System.  Now, the lives of people around the world are in danger because of his radical leftist actions.  The "diplomacy" he claims he is pursuing is setting the world up for the next world war.

Barack Obama calls the agreement that is now appearing on the horizon "a good deal, a deal that meets our core objectives...if Iran cheats, the world will know it."

But the world (meaning the leftist politicians standing with Obama regarding this deal) will do nothing about it if Iran "cheats."  The appeaser will only try to appease more, and the Muslim nations know it.  After this deal, the next deal will be a deal giving away pieces of Israel to the enemy in the hopes it will bring peace (under the guise of a "two-state solution"). . . just like Neville Chamberlain did with Czechoslovakia for Germany.  And like in 1938, the message is, "We are too cowardly to stand against you, we are willing to give you anything you want to keep the peace, so do as you will."

So while Obama threatens Congress not to get in the way, or authorize new sanctions on Iran, Muslim nations are rubbing their hands together waiting for the next gift they will get from Obama and his global minions - all the while giving Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu all the more reason not to trust this administration, and forcing Israel to plan its own defense when the Iran agreement Obama is so proud of hits the fan.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Obama hails Iran framework as 'historic' understanding - Yahoo News/Associated Press

Hard Starboard Radio: Meet Mike Pence, RINO

Barack Obama's Chicago presidency (conclusion); Anatomy of an Obama success (finally); Indiana's Religious Freedom Restoration Act doesn't need to be "fixed"; Are we prepared to handcuff a feminist photographer who won’t take pictures at a strip club?; Jim Crow compelled discrimination, RFRAs do nothing of the sort; and sorry to disappoint the "social justice" warriors, but the faithful won’t yield on religious liberty, which means they will have to be forced to do so.

Mandatory homosexuality can't be far behind at 6PM Eastern/3PM Pacific.

New Study Predicts Muslims To Outnumber "Christians" Worldwide By 2070

by JASmius



Demographics is destiny:

Over the coming four decades, Christianity will remain the world’s largest religious affiliation, but Islam will see a major increase that will make the two religions nearly equal in numbers by 2050….

If current fertility rates and youth populations continue to grow at their current rate, Muslims will make up 10% of Europe’s overall population by 2050.

Only 10%?  Not a majority?  Oh, yea of little faith, Pew.

Islam is expected to nearly match Christianity in the coming four decades as a result of a “comparatively youthful” population with high fertility rates.

If current trends continue, Muslims will outnumber Christians worldwide around 2070.

Sounds like Pew is rooting for that end, if you ask me.

Muslims worldwide are projected to see a 73% increase while Christians will rise about half that fast (35%). The world’s overall population is predicted to rise to 9.3 billion by 2050, also with a 35% rate of increase over the same time period.

In the United States, Christians will decline from more than three-quarters (78%) of the population to about two-thirds (66%) by 2050.

Muslims, “other religions” and those unaffiliated with religion....

Collectively known as Christophobes.

....will see the largest increases in North America. The religiously unaffiliated are expected to rise from 16% to more than one-quarter of the population, 26%. And by 2050, the U.S. will have more Muslims (2.1% of the general population) than people who identify as Jewish (1.4%).

Again with the pessimism.  The folks at Pew obviously believe, and are rooting for, Muslims to be a majority here as well.  I guess they're settling for cleansing Obamerikastan of its remaining Jewish population.

I put "Christians" in quotes in the headline because the non-Christian definition of "Christian" is, shall we say, less than entirely precise, much less accurate.  True Christians are no less fertile, and pump out kids like a pez dispenser no less free-wheelingly, than Muslims do.  "Christians" in the cultural sense do not, which accounts for the demographic trend for which Pew is hoping.

Which is another way of saying that Muslims already vastly outnumber true Christians, a trend that will be kept firmly in place by the latter's rabid enemies, by any means necessary.

Pity Pew didn't survey that.

Jihadists Storm University In Kenya

by JASmius



"....militant American homosexuals bitterly disappointed at not being given the opportunity to join in the fun":

An attack by masked terrorists who stormed a university in eastern Kenya has left at least 147 students dead, according to the government's disaster body.

At least 79 others have been confirmed as wounded in the siege, which has now ended after the four attackers were killed.

Two police officers are among the dead, following heavy gunfire and explosions in a campus building at Garissa University....

But police officers were not the targets:

Somalia's al Shabaab militant group has claimed responsibility for the pre-dawn attack.

Spokesman Sheikh Abdiasis Abu Musab said earlier the group had "sorted people out and released the Muslims".

"There are many dead bodies of Christians inside the building. We are also holding many Christians alive."

Say, wasn't Barack Obama, Sr. a Shiite Muslim from Kenya?  Hmmmmm.....

Seriously, isn't Jess Dooley crushed about missing out on this massacre?  I understand she's developed quite a taste for Christian blood.


UPDATE: Video of thirteen hours of Islamic hellfire.

Harry Reid's Revenge

by JASmius



I'll tell you what, the mouthy old bastard knows how to have fun, which only comes at his enemies' expense:

Now that Harry Reid is retiring, he’s letting his mouth run wild.

Because he's been the exemplar of rhetorical discretion up to now.

The Senate Minority Leader, who announced last week that he will not seek re-election in 2016, gave a wide-ranging interview to CNN during which he discussed [Barack] Obama, Hillary Clinton and the Republican contenders for president in 2016.

Amazingly, it wasn't only Democrats of whom Reid spoke highly. He also had quite nice things to say about GOP senators with whom he works who are slated to run for president in 2016.

“I like that guy,” Reid said of Kentucky Senator Rand Paul, who has been giving the Senate Minority Leader advice on his eye injury. “He is so nice.”

What'd Rand ever do to him?

“Ted Cruz and I disagree on virtually everything,” Reid expanded when asked about the Texas senator, who has officially announced his presidential bid. “On a personal basis, he has been very nice to me. I don’t think he stands much of a chance, but I admire his tenacity for thinking he does.”

Holy crap, Harry (G)Reid and I agree on something.  Although....Ted Cruz has been "very nice" to Senator Pencil Neck?  Geez, even he's going RINO.

He also labeled South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham a “super good guy,” adding, “Whenever I need to know what’s going on with Republicans, call Lindsey.”

What does Lindsey Grahamesty have to do with the Republicans?

And then there's his interesting take on Jeb Bush:

His dad was wonderful. I thought that his brother [was] the worst president that we’ve ever had,” Reid explained. “I think he doesn’t know who he is and of all of the candidates we’ve mentioned, I hope he loses.

Kind words for Rand Paul and Ted Cruz (sort of), harsh words for Jeb Bush....could there be some attempted reverse psychology going on here?  I'd like to think that its naked transparency would be obvious to the GOP nominating electorate, but we are The Stupid Party, after all, both "establishment" and Tea Party.

Thank God he didn't mention Scott Walker.

Chaos In Yemen

by JASmius



Behold, the Obama model of counter-terrorism success:

Yemen's Shiite rebels and their allies fought their way through the commercial center of Aden on Thursday and seized the presidential palace on a strategic hilltop in this southern coastal city, security officials said.

The capture was a major blow to the Saudi-led coalition, which has been carrying out airstrikes for a week now across Yemen, including in the capital, Sanaa, in a campaign meant to halt the advance of the Iran-backed rebels known as Houthis....

The capture of the palace came just hours after al-Qaida militants, who have profited from the turmoil and violence roiling Yemen to expand their foothold in this Arabian Peninsula nation, captured the coastal city of Mukalla, another key port, to the east of Aden.

In the raid, al-Qaida militants freed about three hundred inmates from a local prison in Mukalla, including scores of militants, according to the security officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to talk to media.

Among those freed from the prison was senior al-Qaida operative Khaled Baterfi who had been in detention since 2011.

I wasn't kidding with that lede, BTW.  White House spokesjerk Josh Earnest:



It's a lie, of course.  Or, rather, a redefinition.  Because, you see, Barack Obama defines "counterterrorism success" the same way we would if we removed the modifier "counter".  It's a simple process, really: Withdraw support for Middle East allies, overthrow their governments and replace them with jihadist regimes, withdraw all U.S. military assets, withdraw all U.S. influence of any kind, allow jihadists to run wild, force any surviving former U.S.-allied governments (like the Saudis) to take military action against the enemy attacks that we are no longer deterring but facilitating, and sit back with a frosty adult beverage and watch the carnage.

Yemen is the Obama Doctrine in microcosm.  And the macrocosm....?





....The Iranians will take care of that. The One will see to it.

Gaystapo Rampage In Indiana

by JASmius



Can we not all finally agree that the Lavender Lobby is a hate group?:

When Indiana Passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act this week liberals and the LGBT community acted like it was the authorization for a gay holocaust. Far from promoting discrimination, the law simply protects individuals’ religious beliefs. For example: a family owned Pizzeria in Indiana has said their beliefs wouldn’t allow them to cater a gay wedding. As you can imagine the Gaystapo came after this poor family with everything they have including death threats. Ironically, the threats against the Pizzeria prove why religious freedom needs to be protected.

Today, Memories Pizza in Indiana, owned and run by the O’Connor family, became the bane of the Internet. The family had the gall to tell a local news broadcast that their religious beliefs would keep them from catering a same-sex wedding. They added that they wouldn’t discriminate against gay people that wanted service in the restaurant, just that they don’t believe in gay marriage. [emphasis added]

The twenty-first century unforgivable "sin".

Ignoring the fact that people have the right to believe what they want to believe....

....as long as they believe in sodomarriage....

....and that no wedding, gay or straight, would cater with pizza, the gay community went bonkers. The restaurant was inundated with crank calls and threats, Yelp users slandered the hell out of this family owned business. Then at least one death threat came in.

See above Tweet.  Sounds like a convincing case for abolishing social media, doesn't it?  And, you know, homosexuality itself, it being the Nazism of our time and all.  Which reminds me, I'm still waiting for the Gaystapo to start demanding that mosques perform "gay" weddings.  Funny how that keeps not happening.

So it’s ignorant to believe in religious freedom, but enlightened to threaten arson and death against people for their religious beliefs?

Yep, that about sums it up.

Remind me who the intolerant ones are here....

Why, Christians of course.  Didn't you get the memo?

Please understand what has happened here. A family of Christians that are opposed to gay marriage has possibly had their business and livelihood destroyed in less than a day. Did they discriminate against anyone? No. Did they cause damage to anyone? No. All they did was make a public statement about their religious beliefs. And for that, they are ruined.

Because Christians have no rights.  Because we ALL MUST be homosexuals now.  And any who disagree will perish.  Right, Jess?

Still don’t think a law that protects people’s religious beliefs is needed?

Only if you're an "intolerant h8ter".

Ace reminds us of the eight steps of "liberal" extremism:

1. It's a free country, X should not be illegal.

2. The Constitution prohibits X from being made illegal.

3. If the Constitution protects a right to X, how can it be immoral? Anyone who disagrees is a bigot.

4. If X is a Constitutional right, how can we deny it to the poor? Taxpayer money must be given to people to get X.

5. The Constitution requires that taxpayer money be given to people to get X.

6. People who refuse to participate in X are criminals.

7. People who publicly disagree with X are criminals.

And step #8?  You know what that is....





I don't know about y'all, but I'm seeing less and less of a difference between the gaystapo and the Islamic State.  I really am.

Know who agrees with me on that?  The Gay Patriot:

Some will say, “It’s just words; there’s no actual threat of violence.” As we have seen, it didn’t take long for chants of “What do we want? Dead Cops” to become actual dead cops. The road from threats of violence against Christians to actual violence against Christians is also a short one; particularly when the media and the culture are cheering it on. “It’s just the market at work,” say the socialists; because, obviously, death, violence, and arson threats are just part of the invisible hand of free enterprise.

The gay left has decided that Christians do not have rights. They have no right to refuse to participate in gay weddings. They have no right to even express opposition to gay marriage. Once it gets decided that certain people can have rights taken away from them by those who have power, violence follows inevitably.

Just imagine, for a second, if a gay-owned business had been forced to close because Christians threatened to burn it down and murder its employees.

The gay left has become the KKK, in 600 thread count Egyptian cotton sheets. [emphasis added]

Couldn't put it better myself.

Senator Ted Cruz gets the last word.

Stop Iran Deal Says....Howard Dean?

by JASmius



I'll say this for him: Either the ex-Vermont governor is a lot braver than we ever imagined, or he's as crazy as we always suspected:

Howard Dean, a former governor of Vermont and the former chairman of the Democratic National Committee, said Wednesday he would like to see the United States walk away from the negotiating table with Iran over its nuclear program.

During an appearance on MSNBC's Morning Joe, Dean was asked about his opinion on the ongoing talks that were extended by at least a day into Wednesday.

"I think John Kerry and Barack Obama are far, far too eager for a deal with Iran, and could actually get a better deal if they walked away from the table and possibly came back later," host Joe Scarborough said. "Why am I wrong, Howard?"

Well, funny you should ask, Joe.  You're wrong because the only "deal" worth inking is the mullahs unconditional surrender, which they will never offer.  Which makes the past dozen years of endless circle-jerking "negotiations" a complete waste of time, time that the mullahs have used to both strengthen their conventional defenses and build their nuclear arsenal.  In fact, you'll know when they're ready to nuke us and our allies, because they'll walk away from the table and deliver their ultimatum and demand for OUR unconditional surrender.

Which is to say, Scarborough's question proceeds from a false assumption.  And so does Dr. Demented's answer:

Dean seemed to surprise Scarborough with his answer.

"I actually think you're right about that," Dean said. "I think the United States is negotiating from a much stronger position than we were four years ago.

See what I mean?

And the reason for that is [Iranian officials] are desperate to get rid of the sanctions.

They could give a frog's fat leg about the sanctions.  All they care about is their nukes.;

It reminded me of a New York real estate person: You come in at the closing and you say, 'I'll take another 10,000 or else.' At the closing, right?"...

Dean said he is "worried" about the status of the discussions.

"I think Obama is right to try to get a deal....

Which he can't get because the more desperate O becomes for an agreement, the more outrageous concessions he makes, and the less incentive the mullahs have to do anything except drive an even harder bargain and make ever more outrageous demands.  There is such a thing as aggressive coercion in diplomacy, after all.  Which, in turn, illustrates that from the White House perspective, this isn't at all about disarming the mullahs and everything about getting The One is Chamberlainian piece of paper, no matter how many millions of American and European and Israeli lives it costs.

....[but] I'm worried about the way these negotiations have gone, and I think Joe was right, probably step away from the table say, 'OK, you're not backing off on sending you the uranium to Russia, and we'll get rid of the sanctions at our own pace.' I agree," Dean said.

It isn't that Dean isn't still grievously wrong about this; it's that there seems to almost be three sides to this issue now - correction, four: (1) The right side - break off these ridiculous talks and give the mullahs an ultimatum: Give up your nukes or die; (2) the GOP side - stop making outrageous concessions, be willing to walk away, but reimpose ineffective economic sanctions instead of taking direct action, which is the only way the mullahs will ever be disarmed; (3) the (for lack of a better term) "mainstream" Democrat side, more or less expressed by Chairman How; and (4) the Iranian side, personified by Barack Hussein Obama.

If "YEEEEAAARRRRGH" is worried, that sounds like at least a DEFCON-2 level of justifiable fear for the rest of us.

Douglas V. Gibbs Speaks to Oath Keepers in Calimesa

The Inland Empire Oath Keepers will be having its chapter meeting this Wednesday, April 1st, 6:30 pm to 8:30 pm at Bob’s Big Boy 540 Sandalwood Dr. Calimesa, CA 92320

OK Topics:
General Oath Keeper Information
Current Events
Special Announcements

Speaker:
Douglas V. Gibbs

Douglas V. Gibbs is the host of Constitution Radio on KCAA AM1050 (moving to KMET 1490AM May 2nd), and the host of Conservative Voice Radio on KMET AM1490. He blogs at PoliticalPistachio.com, is the President of the Constitution Association, Author of 25 Myths of the United States Constitution and The Basic Constitution: An Examination of the Principles and Philosophies of the United States Constitution, a Public Speaker, and an instructor for Constitution Classes he teaches in Corona, and Temecula. He has appeared on television regarding Immigration, The Constitution, and local Murrieta Politics on Fox News, One America News, Al Jazeera America, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, ARD German Television, and various other smaller outlets. Doug has been interviewed on the radio for National Public Radio, and various stations around the country. Doug is a freelance newspaper columnist for The Central Idaho Post, and his articles have appeared on websites like The Free Republic, Drudge Report, Canada Free Press, and dozens of other websites. He has been featured on the American Family Association's OneNewsNow news portal a number of times. Doug is a member of the California Republican Assembly, "Unite Inland Empire " patriot group coalition, the “American Authors Association”, the “Committee of Concerned Journalists” and “The Military Writers Society of America.” He received the Golden Anchor Award for his patriotic commentary in 2008, was a candidate for his local Murrieta City Council in 2010, and received a California State Senate Certificate of Recognition in 2014 for his work regarding the Constitution. Doug is a family man, married 30 years to his high school sweetheart. He is the father of two and has six grandchildren. Doug is a proud United States Navy veteran.

Doug will touch on Common Core, as well as, Martial Law and the Constitution.

Preparedness Forum
TBD

Come join us, and learn from our Speaker and others at Bob’s Big Boy in Calimesa.
DO NOT MISS THIS CHANCE TO GET BETTER PREPARED.

We look forward to our Inland Empire Oath Keepers’ meeting. Feel free to send this on to others and invite them to the meeting.

Join us on Facebook - Inland Empire Oath Keepers page: https://www.facebook.com/groups/OathkeepersInlandEmpire/

National Oath Keepers Website
http://oathkeepers.org/oath/

Con-Con Versus Article V. Convention

By Douglas V. Gibbs

In an email response to a friend of mine that is a member of the John Birch Society, who said he heard I support a Con-Con, I explained to him in full my point of view:

XXX,

Your assumption of my opinion regarding convention is based on a false premise.  I do not support a con-con, for there has only been one Constitutional Convention, it was in 1787, and that should be the only one we have.  I do support an Article V. Convention, which is a totally different animal.  There are only two ways to propose amendments to the Constitution, and if you refuse to support an Article V. Convention which allows We the People through our States to propose amendments, then that means you support the idea that the only way amendments should be proposed is through Congress.  Do you really trust Congress to be the only ones allowed to propose amendments?

The fail-safe in the case of the Article V. Convention, as with if Congress proposes amendments, is that any amendments proposed by We the People through our States still has to receive 3/4 ratification from the State legislatures (or by convention if the State so chooses).

As for the fear of a runaway convention, why would the Left do that in plain sight when they are capable of destroying the Constitution through the courts as they have been since John Marshall?  The fear of an Article V. Convention was created, and is driven, by the Left because they fear an Article V. Convention and they want us to fear it as well, a fear based on their propaganda, so that we don't use that tool the founders gave us to limit the powers of the federal government through amending the Constitution.

I also teach that we should have a Republic Review, which is a grass roots convention to establish and enumerate the federal government's unconstitutional aspects.  Such an audit of the federal government can then be used to educate and sway the States in how they handle their role regarding nullification, and a potential Article V. Convention.

 

Blessings,

Douglas V. Gibbs

Constitution Radio, Moving Soon to KMET

Conservative Voice Radio, KMET 1490AM

Author, "25 Myths of the United States Constitution," "The Basic Constitution," and "Silenced Screams: Abortion in a Virtuous Society"

President, Constitution Association

www.douglasvgibbs.com 

www.politicalpistachio.com 

www.constitutionassociation.com 

www.constitutioneducation.net

White House: GOP "Not Qualified" To Vote On Climate Treaty Because They'd Vote No

by JASmius



Outcome-based ratification:

In a striking sign of contempt for the Constitution....

The latest sign of contempt, you mean.

....the White House Tuesday said the right of Congress to weigh in on an international agreement should be judged by the views lawmakers have on the issue.

This is approximately like saying, You get to vote if you vote the way I want.

That's precisely what they're saying.  Which is why they'll never submit it to the Senate for review or ratification, but are simply going to shove it down our throats, same as they do with everything else.

The White House’s, uh, "groundbreaking" interpretation of the Constitution was included in an exchange between Shannon Bream of Fox News and White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest about the right of the Senate to consider an international climate deal that United States is negotiating.

According to The Hill, Earnest’s comments are “directed at lawmakers such as Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Senator Jim Inhofe (R-OK) and Representative Lamar Smith (R-TX21), who have all insisted that the international agreement the U.N. is working on is a treaty and cannot be enforced without Senate approval.”

It's not a question of insisting on it; that is, definitionally, what it is.

The topic arose because the White House Tuesday had pledged to cut U.S. emissions 26-28% by 2025 from 2005 levels....

i.e. pledged to commit economic seppuku.

....as part of the emerging pact.

Which, by the way, is fantasy in the absence of a literal, outright Soviet-style communist dictatorship.  Which is yet another clear indicator of the Obama coup de tat that is on the way in the next year and change.

But, while we still can, let us recall Article II, Section 2, Clause 2:

He (the president) shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur and have reasonable opinions on the matter.

Oh, wait a second, that's the Obamunized version.  I should have recognized it by the crayon scribbling in the margins.

Let's try that again:

He (the president) shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;

Man, that old, yellowed piece of parchment has some novel ideas.  Too bad we can't give 'em a try, huh?  Even if it wouldn't "de-carbonize" the U.S. economy into genocidal famine in ten years.

Michelle Obama Slops The Hogs

by JASmius



Remember that George Carlin bit from his A Place For My Stuff album the punchline of which was, "Here, Dave, eat this before I give it to an animal"?

Well, here you go:

There’s one group of young eaters who like Michelle Obama’s school lunch program: pigs.

New Mexico’s Galloping Grace Youth Ranch is accepting fruits and vegetables thrown away by students at several elementary schools in the Rio Rancho area and collects some five tons per week.

“It’s really whatever they don’t eat coming off of their trays, so when they get up to the trash cans they will scrape it into one of our buckets that we pick up on a daily basis,” ranch CEO Max Wade tells KRQE.

Speaking of the pigs, goats and chickens gobbling up the students’ castaways, Wade says, “If you think about it, it’s a fresh salad bar every day. Fruits and vegetables and they love it.”

To underscore the point, he’s talking about the farm animals, not the school children.

Well, I suppose starving school children is a way to combat childhood obesity.  And this way, the kids don't have to eat Scheherezade's slop and the swine and billygoats receive a daily banquet.  Or what is known as a win-win proposition.

The Galloping Grace Youth Ranch is far from the only beneficiary, as you might imagine:

The Nebraska Farmers Union was working to partner with Lincoln-area schools to collect discarded food to fuel a worm farm, known as vermiculture.

“Composting gives them more hands-on experience. They can see how their waste is going to be turned into a useful product rather than going into a landfill,” says Brittney Albin, interim recycling coordinator at Lincoln Public Schools.

She says she isn’t sure how much of the 11,600 pounds of food waste per month come from the cafeteria.

“However, food waste does make up a large portion of the school waste, so we would expect the vermicomposting program to make a big dent in that number,” Albin tells the Journal Star.

Some 3,000 pigs at a Rhode Island hog farm scarf up uneaten fruits and vegetables, too.

The pigs are enjoying “half-eaten tuna sandwiches and other food scraps students discard during their lunch periods” as part of a new recycling program established by the town of Cumberland, according to WoonsocketCall.com.

Two Rhode Island districts – North Smithfield and Burrillville – that are sending their scraps to My Blue Heaven Farm. Both districts are participants in the National School Lunch Program, which is implementing the hated federal lunch rules.

Now this is not to say that school kids never threw away any lunch items before Michelle Obama became the national food fuhrer.  I vividly recall how every one of my grade school classmates absolutely loathed peas, for example.  In fact, I remember one instance where a teacher became so obsessed with forcing one girl to eat her peas that he was practically putting her in a headlock while simultaneously prying open her mouth to shove the green vegetable paste down her gullet.

He was unsuccessful, needless to say.

What I also recollect is that once my class arrived in junior high school (what's known as "middle school" today), we were given the lunch option, in addition to brown-bagging it, of buying either the standard school lunch or a burger and fries.  You could call it "lunch choice" - something that school children today are most definitely not given, aside from throwing away the tasteless glop FLOTUS insists they consume and which she never has, never does, and never will....



The obvious next step is to take away all garbage and recycling receptacles and require teachers to put school children in headlocks while simultaneously prying their mouths open and shoving ObamaLunches down their gullets.  Because does this look like a woman....



....who will tolerate gastronomic "treason"?

US Supreme Court Rejects Obamacare Death Panels Case: No Harm, No Case

By Douglas V. Gibbs

The stronghold of the court system by far left statism continues to do the work for Obama, acting in a political manner when the court system is supposed to be apolitical.  The 9th Circuit Court threw out a lawsuit challenging Obamacare's "Death Panel" provision, and when the case made it to the United States Supreme Court, the Supremes refused to hear the case, leaving the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision to throw out the case intact.

The case had been initiated by Arizona-based business owner Nick Coons and Dr. Eric Novack, an orthopedic surgeon, who sued in 2011.  In its August 2014 ruling, the appeals court said that the plaintiffs had not shown they had suffered any harm that they could sue over.  No harm, no case.

On the IPAB claim, the court noted that under the terms of the healthcare law, the board acts only if Medicare spending increases at a certain level. The earliest it could ever take any action that could potentially reduce Novack’s Medicare reimbursements would be in 2019.  Potential harm is not real harm, so the courts threw it out.  The plaintiffs also challenged the provision of the law known as the individual mandate, that requires Americans to obtain health insurance. Those claims were also rejected.

So, while opponents of the Unaffordable Care Act continue to use the courts to challenge the law, a court system filled with liberal judges paid by taxpayer money through a liberal left controlled system of federal government departments under a liberal left President of the United States, I wonder when they will realize that going after the unconstitutional actions of a radical leftist President through the courts are a dead-end.  The law is unconstitutional.  The final arbiters of the Constitution are not the courts, but are the States.  When will the States simply begin nullifying the unconstitutional healthcare law, and reject the federal government's demands and court attacks while standing behind their decision to refuse to implement the law in their State?

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

U.S. Supreme Court rejects Obamacare 'death panel' challenge - Yahoo Finance

Son Of Hamas & The Religion Of War

by JASmius



I guess sometimes, the apple really does fall far from the tree:

He is the son of Hassan Yousef, a founding member of Hamas, and the man who became the face of the “Second Intifada.”

His name? Mosab Hassan Yousef. Not only is he a convert to Christianity, but he also worked as a double agent within the Israeli security service Shin Bet against the State Department-designated terrorist organization Hamas.

The author of Son of Hamas recently sat down in an interview with Glenn Beck of The Blaze, and he uttered a phrase that is not new, but is nonetheless striking.

“Islam is the religion of war.”

Which is kind of like eureka-izing that water is wet.

But who would know this better than the "Son of Hamas"?  Who would have more credibility in stating the blindingly obvious?  And who is better suited to lead the Islamic apostasy movement, since even a rudimentary understanding of the Qu'ran indicates that jihadism is the "Muslim Reformation"?

After all, which is the more credible: the son of a jihadist born in Israel who tells the truth about Islamic Fundamentalism, or the son of a jihadist born in Kenya who insatiably extols and defends Islamic Fundamentalism as if he were an acolyte?

Arkansas GOP Governor Caves, Threatens Veto Of Religious Freedom Restoration Act

by JASmius



Yesterday, Indiana Republican Governor Mike Pence - heretofore a Tea Party stalwart - buckled to the leftwingnut rump ranger lynch mob and agreed to ask for followup legislation to Indiana's new Religious Freedom Restoration Act "clarifying" something - that it isn't a license to "discriminate against" homosexuals (which they define as Christian refusal to be dominated by them, but I digress) - that not only it, but no version of the RFRA in any other State or at the federal level, either explicitly or even implicitly promulgates.  And which the LIVs and NIVs will conclude that it does because Governor Pence's capitulation tacitly acknowledges that fiction.

His Arkansas counterpart, Asa Hutchinson, isn't waiting for his State's RFRA to reach his desk before bending over and grabbing his ankles:

Arkansas Governor Asa Hutchinson on Wednesday called for changes to a religious objection measure facing a backlash from businesses and gay rights groups, saying it wasn't intended to sanction discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Which is correct.  So what "changes" are necessary to ensure it doesn't do what it wouldn't do anyway?

The Republican governor said he wants changes to the bill lawmakers sent him prohibiting state and local government from infringing upon someone's religious beliefs without a compelling interest. Hutchinson said he wants the Legislature to either recall the bill or pass a follow-up measure to make the proposal more closely mirror a 1993 federal religious freedom law.

That's not going to be enough for the Lavender Lobby, Governor.

Here's the Quint's-nails-on-the-chalkboard part:

Hutchinson had initially supported the bill and on Tuesday his office had said he planned to sign it into law.

It's amazing how quickly groundless Pachyderm fear both metastasizes and spreads, isn't it?

The move comes after Indiana Governor Mike Pence signed a similar measure into law last week. Pence this week said he wants follow-up legislation to address concerns that the law allows businesses to discriminate based on sexual orientation.

Again, Governor - Governors - it won't be enough.  "Gay rights groups" don't want any Religious Freedom Restoration Act bill "clarified" or made similar to the federal version; they want it vetoed and never brought up again.  They don't want any Religious Freedom Restoration Act statute "modified"; they want them all repealed, killed, buried, salted, paved over, and jumped up and down on in a pagan sodomization ritual.  Christian evangelicals are to have NO constitutional rights and are to be FORCED to service the Hershey Collective.  Because militant homosexuals don't want "equality," they don't seek "tolerance," they demand dominance and the utter eradication of the Church of Jesus Christ (and I DON'T mean "of Latter Day Saints," either, although they would certainly be collateral damage).

It almost sounds like politicocultural bondage, come to think of it.

Good luck trying to get the splinter-of-the-mind's-eye image of Governors Pence and Hutchinson in nipple clamps and other assorted BDSM paraphernalia out of your frontal lobes.  Even I won't actually post that pic.

Abortion Deductions

by JASmius



As President Reagan once observed, if you tax something, you'll get less of it, and if you subsidize it, you'll get more:

It’s tax time and millions of Americans are looking for extra deductions to get the maximum refund possible. Some Americans may be surprised to know that, if they aborted their baby last year, they’re eligible for a deduction.

Did you know that abortions are apparently eligible for a tax deduction? That appears to be true, so says the IRS.

So what does the IRS say about deducting the cost of killing your child? “You can include in medical expenses the amount you pay for a legal abortion,” it says.

So if you murder your unborn child, that's deductible.  But if your baby dies through no fault of your own, not so much:

Ironically enough, although you can claim abortion as a tax exemption, IRS Publication 501 forbids parents from claiming a stillborn child on their taxes for exemptions. So, in other words, you can receive a tax deduction if you kill the child in the womb. But, if the child is born at birth and dies naturally - no deduction for you.

Which is depraved, because stillbirth and the related procedures therein would seem to fall under the umbrella of obstetrics and maternity, which are unequivocally medical procedures.  Whereas abortion is murder of genocidal proportions perpetrated by quasi-medical means.

It just so happens that Mrs. Hard Starboard and I once suffered a stillbirth fifteen years ago, after which our thoughts were not preoccupied with what tax deduction we could salvage from it.  If only we'd known about the abortion deduction, we could have been "proactive" about the whole thing, right?

That is the designated incentive, after all.  It's a wonder the abortion rate continues to decline, huh?

Exit question: How does the Hyde Amendment fit into all this?

Iran Significantly Upgrades Hezbollah's Arsenal

by JASmius



Not - that we know of - including nuclear warheads, but orders of magnitude above what the Hezbos possessed the last time they attacked Israel nine years ago:

Iran is placing guided warheads on its rockets and smuggling them to Hezbollah in Lebanon, a senior Defense Ministry official said Tuesday.

Speaking at the Israel Air and Missile Defense Conference in Herzliya, Colonel Aviram Hasson, who is involved in preparing IDF air defenses, said Iran was converting Zilzal unguided rockets into accurate, guided M-600 projectiles by upgrading their warheads.

Hasson, who is in charge of upper-tier missile defenses at HOMA – part of the Defense Ministry’s Administration for the Development of Weapons and Technological Infrastructure – described Iran as a “train engine that is not stopping for a moment. It is manufacturing new and advanced ballistic missiles and cruise missiles. It is turning unguided rockets that had an accuracy range of kilometers into weapons that are accurate to within meters.”

Hezbollah, he continued, “is getting a lot of accurate weapons from Iran. It is in a very different place compared to the Second Lebanon War in 2006.” [emphases added]

One thing to bear in mind above all else about Hezbollah and Hamas: They are not the primary Israeli enemy.  Iran is.  Iran controls, arms, and uses both as distractions and as means of tying the IDF down "at home" and thus preventing them from focusing on the Iranians themselves.  There is also the public relations dimension - we saw it again last summer with Operation Protective Edge - of "big, bad" Israel "beating up on" poor, little Hamas in Gaza.  And whenever the Israelis have to "degrade" the Hezbo's arsenal, they have to invade Lebanon to do it, and that ignites even more ignorant, anti-Semitic international outrage.

I can easily see a scenario in which, much like in 2006, Hamas starts up hostilities yet again, and when the IDF is fully engaged in Gaza, Hezbollah opens up a second front with their precision M-600 munitions all over Israeli territory, and when their prey is overrunning Gaza and Lebanon once and for all, and the "international community" is in full-throated "Final Solution" mode, the mullahs will issue Prime Minister Netanyahu an ultimatum: Unconditionally withdraw immediately, not just from Gaza and Lebanon, but also from the West Bank, and accept the "two-state solution," or Haifa, Tel Aviv, and Beersheeba will be incinerated.

Or maybe they'll just go ahead and do it without warning, all the better to preempt an Israeli preemptive nuclear strike.

If, as I suspect, Tehran already has a substantial nuclear arsenal, this would be all too plausible an outcome.

If the mullahs are still short of strategic nuclear capability, they can count on Barack Obama to militarily intervene against Israel.  After all, that's what allies are for.


UPDATE: I wish this was a reason why another Iranian nuclear "deal" "deadline" has come and gone:

The commander of the Basij militia of Iran's Revolutionary Guards said in an interview that "erasing Israel off the map" is "nonnegotiable," the Times of Israel reported. [emphasis added]

An irrelevancy to the Obama White House, I realize, but still.....

Exit thought: O offers the mullahs more than they asked for, and they still won't take it, even though they make no secret of their intention to blanketly cheat on any agreement regardless.  Anybody care to speculate on how insane the White House concessions will get from here?  Transferring the remaining U.S. nuclear arsenal to Tehran?  Providing the mullahs with an Obama-approved list of U.S. cities to nuke?  I'd suggest nationally imposing Sharia, but that's already happening.

2016: Clinton/Bush Face-off Not in the Cards

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Last night during my Constitution Class in Corona, California, one of the students asked me, "What can we do about stopping the establishment from making sure Jeb Bush is the presidential nominee?"

The reality is, the Republican Party is willing to do just about anything to put a moderate candidate up as the next nomination.  They have this silly notion that you must move to the middle to win a presidential election to grab independents that sit on the fence.  The GOP is doing all it can to distance itself from the "radical rightwing" base, shunning the Tea Party while embracing the Log Cabin Republicans (homosexuals) and pro-amnesty candidates in the hope of achieving the wonderful opportunity to milk a few leftwingers from the fence and into the great big inclusive tent.  But, as the Republican Party leaders sell the soul of the GOP in order to gain a few liberal voters that refuse to call themselves Democrats, they are losing plenty more that refuse to compromise their beliefs and vote for a party that is abandoning its conservative platform.  Like most conservatives, I prefer to vote my conscience.  If Jeb Bush becomes the Republican nomination in 2016, one thing is for sure; the Republican Party will once again lose the opportunity to return to the White House.  Only a conservative who can articulate conservatism, and doesn't have targets so large that even a two-year old could hit them, can win in 2016.  Jeb Bush will cause the conservative voters to flee for the hills.  Chris Christie would cause an even larger evacuation of conservatives from the GOP during the election.  And Ted Cruz, regardless of how conservative he is, and how wonderful of a Senator most folks believe him to be, has targets so big all over his body that doing to him like the liberal left did to Sarah Palin would be a cake-walk.  Our best chance for winning in 2016 is Scott Walker, with Rand Paul perhaps as a second possibility. . . perhaps.

On the other side of the aisle, Hillary Clinton's chances were long gone a long time ago.  JASmius and I have been saying for many years that Hillary Clinton will not be the Democrat Party candidate in 2016 for President of the United States.  She has too much baggage, and Democrats are not willing to play into the dynasty madness. . . unless that candidate is their messiah that can use racism as a violent weapon, Barack Hussein Obama.  Barring Obama figuring out a way to disregard the 22nd Amendment and run for a third term, JASmius is convinced Elizabeth Warren may be the next candidate for the party of the jackass.  I have been convinced that since the race card worked so well with Obama, and now that the Democrats have been courting Hispanic voters (largely by importing more through illegal immigration), the next Democrat to run for President will be a Hispanic, likely San Antonio's favorite son, Julian Castro.

"Wait, Doug," I can hear some of you saying.  "He's got no experience.  He's only been a mayor, and now is only the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development."

And did the lack of experience stop them from putting Obama in office?  The liberal left statist socialist commie Democrats don't care about experience.  They want to win, and they can't do it in the arena of ideas, so they do it by appealing to the low-information voters who could care less about experience, just as long as the President isn't one of those "racist" Republicans, and as long as the candidate looks more like them.  The race card has worked wonders with the first black President, so surely a Hispanic candidate will make a killing too, right?

Clinton is old, worn-out, and carries way too much baggage for the Democrats to care about putting her up as their person.  And the sexism card is not nearly as effected as the race card.  So, while all of the Chicken Littles on the conservative side are running in circles worried about Hillary Clinton becoming the next President of the United States, I am here to tell you to not fret about us having another Clinton in the White House.  Hillary is not going to be the Democrat candidate in 2016.  It's going to be someone much worse.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

O'Malley Speaks Out Against Possible Dynastic Rematch for White House - New York Times

Nixonian Hillary Wiped Her Server - Rush Limbaugh

Benghazi Committee seeks 'transcribed' interview with Clinton over deleted records - Fox News

Iran Nuclear Deal Deadline Come and Gone

Posted by Douglas V. Gibbs

The headlines offered at Drudge:

APRIL FOOLS: Iran nuclear talks miss deadline; Russia says 'key aspects' agreed...
Bibi Blasts Talks After Iranian General Says 'Israel's Destruction Is Non-Negotiable'...
'But Evidently Giving Iran's Murderous Regime a Clear Path to the Bomb Is Negotiable'...
Saudi Defense Minister: 'Iran cannot be trusted'...
Kerry Dazzled By Charm of Iran's Foreign Minister...
HOWARD DEAN: Walk away!
Iranian plane buzzes Navy copter...
PAPER: Even Chamberlain would not make deal Obama eager to conclude...
REPORT: Obama Advisor Worked for Pro-Khamenei Lobbying Group...
Saudis Make Own Moves...
Yemen nears 'total collapse' as Mideast powers trade blame...

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

April Fool

by JASmius



It is not April Fool's Day.

Carry on.