Political Pistachio

Sunday, April 03, 2016

Canada's Native Indians, Lesions, and Trudeau's Denial

By Anita in Canada

Kashechewan children's skin lesions not caused by water ...

Federal Health Minister Jane Philpott says an outbreak of skin lesions among children at Kashechewan First Nation in northern Ontario is not the result of the water ...

Canada's fearless leader, Trudeau, has asked all the media to not show these pictures anymore. I hope it goes around the world. The people at the reserve asked for help a couple of months ago and were denied. Did the Canadian Government ignore them because they live in remote northern Ontario? And because they are Indians?

Admittedly, working with Native Indians can be a double edged sword.

Have you seen the pictures of those poor native children with sores all over.

Apparently it wasn't acted on by the Canadian government jerks until someone at the reserve went onto Facebook. Good for him. Hope he puts pictures up every day.

It never should have come to this.

But then, they aren't a protected class like Muslims, or evil like Trudeau. They are not among Trudeau's chosen ones.

Many people are thinking the affliction is impetigo. Could be. Could be hoof and mouth. Might be something else. If it was impetigo the kids would be scratching it cause they don't know any better, they would loose weight, they would cry a lot, no appetite. So I don't think it is impetigo. Could be something from the wild dogs. Could be bad water although the Feds say it is not. Can't believe the Feds. Could be bad vaccines administered to the kids.

Feds should build them a new town maybe 5 miles over. To get rid of the mold and crap. Wouldn't cost that much. Although the lying Feds say it would cost a fortune. Does not cost that much to lay new sewer, water and gas lines for a whole subdivision. On the reserve the homes are all built helter-skelter. You can't have proper underground utilities or water in a situation like that.

I co-authored a book on Native Alberta Indians in 1982. The parents of those kids ONLY wanted them learning Indian language skills, feathers, weaving, inking, pow wow dancing, NO math, no reading , no writing, none of that stuff. Back then their attitude was screw the Alberta Education Teachers. The Alberta Province sent them to learn the Alberta Education syllabus.

But does Trudeau believe that - NO. Does any other Canadian believe that. Probably not. The only reason I know all this stuff is cause I co-authored that book. Authorship given to Dr Garnett Birch a world traveler and Professor. It is the parent's fault these kids are not brought into the 21st century. Most kids will not get up for school in the winter. In our search, we found that the attendance rate for school in the winter went as low as 2%, two percent on the reserves. Why? In their world, the sun isn't up yet so they aren't getting out of bed.!!! There is also a big problem with incest on reserves. Also - the wild dogs they treat as sacred usually have many diseases.

One of the things the Federal government could do, but refuses to do, is provide a bus that travels to the nearest large centre so that the Natives can be seen by a doctor or dentist. A shame our governments won't do that. It would be an all day trip, and I know the natives do not like to get up early, but it would be a good investment in their health. Money well spent.

I do know that once upon a time a Health Nurse would go to the Native reserve outside our city and test all the children for Tuberculosis. Then some high and mighty abusive chief put a stop to that. We do not know how many natives are now spreading Tuberculosis all over our city/province because they think their ways are "superior" to ours.

This journalist has done a very good job on facts and figures.

This is a follow up to my story about how the natives only want their kids to learn war paint, feathers, pow wow, dancing, beading, hunting, etc. on their reserves. They do not want to learn the ABC's. And money wise - they get more money spent on them than the regular Canadian. Yet they want MORE, MORE, MORE money.

To be fair, I also know that lawyers are partly responsible for all these UNLAWFUL law suits and stupid theories the Natives bring against the Canadian Govt. and Canadian peoples. More money for the Lawyers. The lawyers retained by the Natives are extremely rich. Paid for by me and you. I am not against the Natives, but I am against all their political buls***. I am against all their alcohol abuse, their massive drug use, their unsanitary ways, their make believe ENTITLEMENT. I say take them off the reserves and bring them into the real world. Many of them are totally normal contributing members of society if taken off the reserves. It is their old world superstitions (and lawyers) and belief values that keep them in their own prison. If they don't like the white man's ways, take away their TV reception, take away their radio reception, let them live in their pre historic society.

Harper tried to make things equal for the people that lived on the reserves. Most of their chiefs were extremely crooked and did not administer the money honestly, with many of their citizens starving. So Harper brought in a law that all Reserves had to report their income and spending. Now Turdeau has reversed that so that the Chiefs can return to being the big crooks they were. Pathetic.

Anita.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Editor's Note: Perhaps the Federal Government can't afford to care for these children and people because they are pumping so much of their monetary resources into centralized medicine. . . of which, it seems, the natives haven't had access to.

The Next BLM Battleground

By Douglas V. Gibbs
Author, Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host

According to Article I, Section 8, aside from adding territory as spoils from war, the only way the federal government can own property is if they "purchase" it with the "consent" of the State legislature for the purpose of "needful buildings." Much of the land west of the Mississippi River owned by the federal government was not obtained in either manner. As a result, the Bureau of Land Management unconstitutionally regulates/manages (or should I say "mismanages") a massive portion of the United States.

Confrontations have emerged in Nevada and Oregon, of late, with the Bundy name attached to both situations. The iron grip by the federal government on these lands has led to limitations on land use, be it for grazing, farming, timber or other uses that in our short history as a country was not so much of a concern not very long ago.

According to Ken Ivory, a Republican state representative from Utah, the land belongs to the ranchers, and farmers, and ultimately to the citizens. "This land is your land," he says, "and not the federal government’s."

“It’s like having your hands on the lever of a modern-day Louisiana Purchase,” said Mr. Ivory, who founded the American Lands Council and until recently was its president. The Utah-based group encourages the federal government to give the land back to the States, and the people, and seeks to accomplish this "encouragement" through legislative and judicial means.

Ivory agrees with what folks like the Bundys are trying to accomplish, but he believes more can be accomplished through a more bureaucratic tactic.

In his home State of Utah, the local legislators have passed a law demanding that the federal government return federally controlled land to the state. The federal government has refused to comply, so now a $14 million lawsuit to claim 31.2 million federal acres of canyons, scrub desert and rolling mesas is in place.

Last year, Colorado had a Republican state senator from the agricultural eastern plains of the State sponsor a bill to create a Colorado Federal Land Management Commission, to study turning over federal lands to the State. The measure never made it out of the Republican-controlled State Senate.

Oregon's lone Republican Representative Greg Walden, the Republican who represents the Oregon district where the Bundy takeover was playing out, stood up in Congress to deplore the tactics of the armed protesters, but sympathized with their frustration.

“More than half of my district is under federal management, or lack thereof,” Mr. Walden said, expressing anger at the Bureau of Land Management. “They have come out with these proposals to close roads into the forests. They have ignored public input.”

In July 2014, Senator Ted Cruz of Texas proposed preventing the federal government from owning more than half of any state’s land. (Five states are more than half federal land, according to a Congressional Research Service report.)

Utah Representative Jason Chaffetz has proposed a bill that would eliminate all Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Forest Service law enforcement personnel.

The House Natural Resources Committee have recently considered three related Republican bills: one would allow states to take over 2 million acres of federal forests, primarily for logging; another is focused on an aircraft range but would transfer the rights to some roadways across federal land in Utah to counties; a third would let States manage tracts of federally owned land through pilot programs.

As all of this unfolds, new land disputes are emerging regularly. The Bundys have emboldened an incredible movement.

Environmentalists oppose transferring control of federal lands. Their authoritarian agenda is easier to pursue when all they have to do is work through a single entity like the federal government, and a complicit one, at that. Allowing the individual States to have a say in how land can be managed might allow hunters and anglers to have a voice, a development the environmentalists have long stood against.

Note: Hunters and anglers are adamant about preserving the wilderness. They want hunting and fishing lands to be unchanged so that they may be used by generation after generation in their original pristine condition.

As it stands now, to use Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land, ranchers and wilderness enthusiasts have to pay the federal government for the privilege. That goes for grazing, as well. Ranchers have tried to work with the government, but layers of grazing restrictions and environmental rules have made it nearly impossible to work with the federal government.

While people appreciate the rural nature of federally owned lands, they are angry about BLM policies that have whittled away logging and mining jobs, left national forests vulnerable to wildfires and has blocked human access to enjoy public land.

“The land policies now are, basically, lock it up and throw away the key,” said Leland Pollock, a commissioner in Garfield County, Utah, a county roughly the size of Connecticut with pine forests and stunning red-rock spires. “It’s land with no use. The local economy’s really suffered as a result. Grazing has been reduced. We used to have a thriving timber industry — that’s all but gone.”

While the armed standoffs may be fueled by constitutional reasoning, there are more than just the federal government goons these people have to deal with. The media and the court of public opinion is also watching. Being right is not enough in a culture where perception is a primary key in everything we do. The Bundy gang have been called "right-wing extremists" who are willing to use "dangerous and irresponsible" means to fuel their "lawlessness and violence."

Notice, the whole point of the fact that the federal government illegally (unconstitutionally) manages the land in question gets lost in the rhetoric.

While more confrontations may be on the horizon regarding the federal government's control of what should be State land, the liberal left democrats are looking for ways to silence the groups who are making the noise.

The Democratic Party-aligned Center for American Progress has called on Congress to look into groups who occupy federal lands so as to "illuminate" a "network of patriot militias, financiers, and special interest groups that are currently fighting to seize control of U.S. public lands.”

Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid commended the report, saying in a statement, "It is time for Republicans to come to their senses and stand up to these extremists and denounce the horrible values they represent."

Horrible values? Is individualism and State Sovereignty a couple examples of horrible values to Senator Reid? Remember, Harry Reid is the guy who has said in the past that the Tea Party's belief in limited government is "anarchy."

Collectivism at work. Authoritarianism in action.

The Center for American Progress Report calls the movement to return the federal land back to its rightful owners a "radical county supremacy movement ... which argues that county sheriffs are the highest law enforcement authorities in the United States."

Your County Sheriffs ARE your last constitutional line of defense against an intrusive federal government. They are your highest level of "elected" law enforcement officials for the purpose of protecting State Sovereignty, and the unlawful intrusion of the federal government into State issues. Federal Supremacy, or at least the liberal left's false definition of it, is at the root of this whole thing about the feds thinking they can do as they please. The federal government was not created to be involved in, or manage, internal issues. Studying the United States Constitution, and the documents related to it, reveals that the federal government was created to protect, preserve and promote the union, and State Sovereignty by being given authorities regarding external issues, disputes between the States, and internal issues that are directly related to the union like the postal system, or protecting intellectual property through entities like the patent office and copyright office. All other issues are "reserved to the States respectively, or to the people" (Tenth Amendment). After all, prior to the writing of the U.S. Constitution, all authorities belonged to the States (this is a concept known as Original Authority). Federal Supremacy only applies to constitutional laws and actions by the federal government. The illegal seizure of lands, or the ownership of lands as a result of extortion (an original condition for statehood in many of the cases of Western States) does not automatically make those lands federally owned in a legal manner.

"If the land agencies actually tried to listen and solve the problems of the people instead of imposing a dogma on them, we wouldn't have this issue," Utah Republican Representative Rob Bishop, who chairs the U.S. House of Representatives Natural Resources Committee, told Reuters.

Ultimately, the goal must be to return the lands, and mineral rights, to the States. There is nothing in the Constitution that allows the federal government to own the land, manage the land, nor require the States to ask permission from the federal government to use the land for any reason. The very fact that the States have had to involve the federal government in things like the Keystone Pipeline (aside from the issue regarding the pipeline crossing the federal border between the United States and Canada), or whether or not they can drill for oil or mine for other resources is not only unconstitutional, but appalling. Internal issues are none of the federal government's business. Those issues belong to the States. The States created the federal government to protect, preserve and promote the union, and State Sovereignty, and for nothing more. For the federal government to demand more, and seize more, such as we are seeing regarding BLM land, is nothing less than tyranny.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

The Larger, but Quieter Than Bundy, Push to Take Over Federal Land - New York Times

Weeks after Oregon, standoff lingers over American West's public lands - Reuters

Understanding the Supremacy Clause - Political Pistachio

Learn more about the Supremacy Clause, and other Constitutional Concepts, in my books about the U.S. Constitution:

25 Myths of the United States Constitution

The Basic Constitution: An Examination of the Principles and Philosophies of the United States Constitution

Concepts of the United States Constitution

Hillary Clinton: "Unborn Children Have No Constitutional Rights"

by JASmius

In terms of constitutional originalism, she's....well, possibly wrong. In terms of contemporary twenty-first century American culture and politics, she's absolutely right. Guess which one is more relevant today?:

CHUCK TODD: “When, or if, does an unborn child have constitutional rights?”

[MRS.] CLINTON: “Well, under our laws currently, that is not something that exists.. The unborn person doesn’t have constitutional rights. Now, that doesn’t mean that we don’t do everything we possibly can, in the vast majority of instances to, you know, help a mother who is carrying a child and wants to make sure that child will be healthy, to have appropriate medical support. It doesn’t mean that you don’t do everything possible to try to fulfill your obligations. But it does include sacrificing the woman’s right to make decisions. And I think that’s an important distinction, that under Roe v. Wade we’ve had enshrined under our Constitution.”

Is the Empress constitutionally right or wrong about that assertion? Essentially....yes.

It gets into the wording of Amendment XIV, Section 1:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. [emphases added]

With the understanding that when the Fourteenth Amendment was written a century and a half ago, nobody imagined that murder of the unborn would become not just a major national industry but be illegally enshrined as an inviolable, sacrosanct constitutional right, the question is the distinction between "all persons born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" and "any person". The former (born to two U.S. citizen parents) are designated protected citizens of the United States and their particular State, whereas the latter is (1) a larger category than just citizens and (2) are also accorded the same equal protections, including of their lives.

The logical take-away from that paragraph is that the Equal Protection Clause is not limited to citizens, but to "any persons". Would the unborn child not reside in that category? They are (1) alive and (2) human, and therefore "persons" by any measure. The problem is that that is not explicitly enumerated in the Constitution or any of its Amendments. Which should, on the one hand, have rendered it a State-level issue be definition via Amendment X, and did, on the other hand, leave a truck-sized opening for Justice William Brennan to "discover" the "right" to abortion of which Herself is so hardcore fond.

The options are pretty cut and dried: (1) The blood-soaked status quo; (2) a Human Life Amendment, which has zero chance of ever being passed, let alone ratified; (3) State-by-State nullification via reassertion of Original Authority, which has little more chance of succeeding than the HLA; or (4) figure out a naturalization process for the unborn, which would be problematic given that they would have to take a test and an oath.

So, to sum up, Hillary Clinton shouldn't be right that "unborn children have no constitutional rights," but while you can't say that she is, it is incontrovertible that those of her view hold all the power cards.

Or maybe I should say all the "trump" cards, since The Donald's latest attempt at articulating a position on abortion stated pretty much the same thing, only a lot less coherently.

Battlestar Galactica: The Eye Of Jupiter (S3/E11)

by JASmius

Rating: ** (out of four)

Written by: Mark Verheiden, David Weddle & Brad Thompson
Directed By: Michael Rymer

Is it just me, or are Ron Moore and his crew getting more than a little bit carried away with what then-Commander Adama once referred to as “this religious crap”?

You remember the reason why the ragtag fugitive fleet is at this class-M planet scraping off algae scum for Human consumption, right? All their food got contaminated during the “second exodus” (or is the third of fourth? I’ve lost track…) and they had to make a harrowing and hazardous journey through the irradiated gauntlet of a tightly packed star cluster, costing them at least one ship and a former drug runner. So this would seem to be an uneventful next few days, right?

Must have seemed that way to Apollo and Starbuck, who followed up the street fight over their New Caprica frak that Kara wouldn’t allow to be anything more than a meaningless fornicative tryst with a meaningless adulterous frak behind the backs of their respective spouses (now-Lieutenant Dualla and Sam Anders) who are fully aware of what their spouses are doing, which puts Dualla and Anders one up on Apollo and Starbuck, who don’t appear to have any idea what they’re doing, even though they can’t stop doing it.

I’ll pause now to breathe, and to opine that one long run-on sentence is a very appropriate way of bulldozing past this soap opera crap as fast as humanly possible.

Well, okay, I can’t let go Lee’s and Kara’s frakked up moral fretting. Kara is just fine with cheating but won’t hear of getting divorces so she and Lee can marry, and cheating is giving Lee the nervous complaint. Frankly, Lee’s is the more honest of the two brands of hypocrisy, which is probably true to the characters. Which only makes me wonder all the more what the devil he sees in Kara; can she really be that good in the sack, or is Dualla that bad?

Ugh. Let’s get to the part where Chief Tyrol goes AWOL.

Well, alright, he left his post, and nobody seemed to care that he did. He’s taking, um, five (a pun that will make sense eventually) and starts looking around at the scenery. He gazes at a nearby butte and gets this dreamy, faraway look in his eyes. He starts walking toward it, climbs it, and hunts around for a passage into it, like he’s being guided by an Outside Force, or maybe a Higher Power. Once he finds the way in, he finds himself standing in a temple. And not just any temple, but the fabled Temple of Five referenced in Kobolian ancient texts

I guess that was Tyrol’s Damascus Road Moment. We learn that he’s been pretty much an atheist, or at least agnostic, his whole life, never paid much attention to those ancient Kobolian texts, and evidently never thought he’d find himself standing in the presence of the Kobolian equivalent of the Ark of the Covenant. Now he’s seen her face, and he’s a believer. Or words to that effect.

Suddenly this routine algae scraping mission is another frakking religious quest. Which as you probably expected, brought Baltar and the Cylons in-system, almost on cue.

Why are Baltar and the Cylons interested in the Temple of Five? Well, the Cylons are (and the Humans as well) because of what the Temple is said to hold: the “Eye of Jupiter,” another milepost on the magical mystery tour that is the road to Earth. Which shows that, one way or the other, the thirteenth tribe had one hell of a twisted sense of humor.

Baltar, and his new girlfriend, #3 (aka D’Anna Biers), want the Eye because Biers is obsessed with identifying the five unidentified Cylon humanoid models, which she’s been suiciding over and over and over again to try and see in between downloads. Five unseen models – Temple of “Five”. Get it? The pun, I mean. Why there would be five unknown Cylonoid models, why the other seven wouldn’t know them, why the five would be unidentified, and why this would evolve into a religious quest intertwining the Cylons’ monotheism with the humans’ pagan polytheism is a pretzel I don’t think the writers even understand, and something I don’t think I want the answer to. Which is a good thing since I highly doubt we’ll ever get one.

The Cylons let the ragtag fleet jump out, and why not, since Galactica is the main prize in any case. They can’t just destroy her, though, because Adama, as he bluntly tells the Cylon envoys (including Baltar), will obliterate the Temple and the Eye with it if they make the attempt, or attempt to take the Eye themselves.

The Cylons decide to call Adama’s bluff and send several raiders toward the surface. Adama promptly readies his nukes and begins the process of nuclear release. The Cylons detect it and decide not to press their luck – all except for D’Anna, who refuses to recall her raider arguing that Adama won’t go nuclear in response to just one ship.

Next: Will Adama's nuclear bluff be called? Yes, that is a rhetorical question.

Obama's Peace Sign

By Douglas V. Gibbs

I think the headline says it all.

Peace out, fools! Obama plays the clown by flashing the peace sign for nuclear security summit 'team photo'... and gets a very unimpressed look from David Cameron and bemused world leaders
Is Obama a fool? An idiot? Or is everything going exactly as planned?

His arrogance, I think, is what gets me riled the most.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Get Ready For Trump's "Days Of Rage"

by JASmius

Sorry I couldn't find a smaller version of this pic, but I think the distendedness fits the subject matter well, all things considered:

Donald Trump's campaign for president is accusing the Tennessee Republican Party of "doing the bidding" of the national GOP establishment in a calculated attempt to “steal” pro-Trump delegates and stop them from being a part of Tennessee's GOP delegation.

It's part of a national effort by GOP party leaders, the Trump campaign has alleged, to stop the Republican frontrunner from becoming the nominee.

A Tennessee party official disputes that allegation, instead accusing Trump’s camp of distorting the truth while noting Trump will still receive all delegates won from the State.

Here's the breakdown.

The Tennessee GOP primary was held on March 1st. From it, three candidates exceeded the 20% threshold for winning delegates: Trump, Ted Cruz, and Marco Rubio. The final delegate score was Trump 33, Cruz 16, Rubio 9. Signed, sealed, and delivered, yes? So about what is the Trump Train bitching and moaning?

According to the State party rules, three delegates are assigned per congressional district, and the other twenty-eight are "at-large". Now we turn to the relevant party rule, Article IX. Rule C. Section 2:

The twenty-eight (ten at-large, eighteen bonus) At-Large delegates are bound to Presidential candidates based on the results of the primary. Half are elected in the primary and half are appointed by the Executive Committee with the consent of the respective presidential campaigns. When determining “half” divide the total number of At-Large plus bonus delegates by 2. If there are fractional delegates, round up the number of delegates appointed by the Executive Committee and round down the number of delegates determined by the Primary. [emphasis added]

What does the phrase "appointed by the Executive Committee with the consent of the respective presidential campaigns" mean? Well, as Rush Limbaugh used to say (but not anymore since he's a Trump flack), words mean things. and in this case it means that the "respective presidential campaigns" have entrusted the Executive Committee to pick however many delegates they are entitled to under this rule on their behalf. It does NOT say that the Executive Committee is obligated to pick delegates that are hardcore supporters of "the respective presidential campaigns" who will stick with them after they are no longer bound at the national convention. This is why other presidential campaigns - like Ted Cruz's, for example - have "ground games" and experts who know the party rules in each State and can get their supporters elected to State party Executive Committees to ensure that they get their hardcore supporters selected as at-large delegates in these scenarios, as is the responsibility of the "respective presidential campaigns". SERIOUS campaigns headed by SERIOUS candidates who are [drumroll] professionals and not rank amateurs with gargantuan, infantile senses of entitlement.

Like Donald Trump's for example:

Darren Morris, State director of Trump's campaign in Tennessee, told the Tennessean the Trump campaign and Tennessee Republican Party chairman Ryan Hayes had agreed Wednesday on the names of seven of the fourteen at-large delegates that, under party rules, are to be appointed by the State party. Delegates will ultimately decide the party’s nominee at the Republican National Convention this summer.

But Morris said that an updated delegate list he reviewed late this week is now wiped clean of several of those names and instead features individuals who he described as "anti-Trump."

i.e. "Insufficiently fanatically pro-Trump".

"They're picking anti-Trump people," Morris said. "They're picking establishment picks who don't support Donald Trump, and it's just the same effort that they're conducting all over the country to steal a vote here, steal a delegate there, to affect the outcome of the convention in July and take the nomination away from Donald Trump.

They're not "stealing" anything, Darren. The "ground game" is part of the game. It always has been, going back decades. It just doesn't get much attention because contested conventions are so rare. But they have happened before, the last time being Ronald Reagan's agonizing defeat at the hands of President Gerald Ford in 1976. And the Gipper was a professional candidate, did have experts who knew the rules, and did try to get his supporters on party committees and selected as delegates. He just simply fell short.

Of course, after that defeat he didn't whine and complain about being "cheated" and having the nomination "stolen" from him, because he knew that the rules had been followed, just as they are being and will be followed now, in Tennessee and across the country....

Senator Frank Niceley ‎@SenFrankNiceley

Important to remember #TN delegates are required by law to vote for their candidate on first two ballots. #CruzCrew https://twitter.com/michaelpleahy/status/716391887775657984 …

3:38 PM - 2 Apr 2016

Senator Frank Niceley ‎@SenFrankNiceley

You are talking to someone with a seemingly limitless capacity to find something to "raise Hell" about. #ChooseCruz https://twitter.com/JazzShaw/status/716399574462689282 …

4:01 PM - 2 Apr 2016

.... and campaigned loyally and vigorously for President Ford that fall instead of throwing a shit-fit, bolting the GOP and sabotaging it with the independent candidacy - as the Tea Party of his day was rabidly urging him to do - that would have destroyed, first and foremost, his viability to ever run for POTUS again.

But then (1) Trump isn't a Republican, and (2) that's been his master plan all along, hasn't it? He just never imagined he'd actually get this close to winning the nomination in his own right.

But if he is this close, sealing the deal ought not be so daunting a task to be all this hot and bothered over imaginary "establishment" plots against him, yes? He does have a 273-delegate lead; he only has to win 52.24% of the remaining delegates to go over the nomination top, and to-date he's won 48.6% of the earned delegates in a horrendously divided field; AND he's beaten Ted Cruz more often than he's lost to him, and the States remaining on the primary campaign calendar tend to lean more RINO - New York, Pennsylvania, California - and that favors Trump.

In other words, all the rules and delegate machinations in the world can be rendered moot if Trump just does what Trump reputedly always does: win. If he goes over 1,237 delegates, he's the nominee on the first ballot. Period. And the RNC or whomever else cannot and will not "take it away" from him.

The only explanation for this pre-tantrum on the part of Trumplicans is that they don't think Il Douche can seal the deal. And if he doesn't, if The Donald doesn't arrive in Cleveland with the magic number clinched, then he doesn't go over the top on the first ballot, the ground game that he spent the entire campaign until just recently airheadedly neglecting kicks in, his bound delegates are released from their commitment to him, enough switch to Ted Cruz to nominate him instead, and "Plan A" of the Trump candidacy goes into effect:

A former adviser for GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump said Friday he is planning massive [and violent] “days of rage” protests outside the Republican convention in Cleveland if the party tries to “steal” the nomination away from Mr. Trump.

Roger Stone, who left the Trump campaign in August....

And now we know why.

....tweeted several times Friday evening about his plans, announcing a “Stop the Steal March on Cleveland” and calling on supporters to get to the city for the convention in July.

Thus, effectively, authentically stealing any chance that Ted Cruz would have of defeating Hillary Clinton in November.

But then, that was the raison d'etere of the Trump candidacy all along, wasn't it?

Exit quote from Red State:

This interview is notable for a couple of things. First, Trump has a sense of entitlement that would be a perfect match for every Democrat candidate for president for the past fifty years. He thinks that the rules simply should not apply to him. Second, he basically says that his supporters are violent yokels whom he can’t control and they would be justified in rioting because of the unfairness of it all. In Donald Trump’s world anyone but him winning is, by definition, unfair.

Trump has less maturity and sense of self awareness than any third grader you’ve ever encountered.

A Cry Out for Life, A Voice of Love

Satan's greatest trick has been to convince an entire civilization that he doesn't exist. His second greatest trick has been to convince civilization that killing their own children is not evil.

Silenced Screams: Abortion in a Virtuous Society by Douglas V. Gibbs

Join me on April 23, 2016 at 5:00 pm to Celebrate 25 Years of Birth Choice Temecula's work saving the lives of unborn babies. The Birthday Benefit will include dinner and dancing, a live auction, and a live musical performance by Award-Winning Song Writer and Performer, Mary James.

The cost is $80 per person, Black Tie is optional.

Purchase your tickets online at www.bct4life.org or by sending a check by mail to Birth Choice of Temecula, 41750 Winchester Road #O, Temecula, CA 92590. (951) 296-3441.

Global Persecution Of Christians Skyrocketing

by JASmius

And nobody outside The Way cares, but are either oblivious to it, cheering it, or doing it themselves:

Attacks against Christians around the world have increased significantly last year, human rights organizations say, and raising awareness among Americans is difficult because news coverage in part is tailored to consumer demand.

"I don't believe most Americans have an accurate understanding of the real state of Christian persecution around the world," David Curry, CEO of Open Doors USA, told the Daily Beast. "But for news consumers to clamor for such coverage, they need to be aware of the extent of the problem."

Kind of a self-defeating proposition, isn't it? For "news consumers to clamor for" coverage of the rising planetary tide of genocidal Christophobia - assuming more than a smattering of them would - "they need to be aware of the extent of the problem". But they can't be "made aware of the extent of the problem" unless they get the news coverage of it for which they don't know to "clamor". Which is another way of saying that the major media do not and will not cover anti-Christian persecution because they either couldn't care less or they enthusiastically support it. And so the escalating massacres continue, blacked out, embargoed, and not even learned about to be forgotten.

Because "those bible-thumpers and snake-handlers and 'fundies' had it coming," I'm guessing.

Based in Santa Ana, California, Open Doors USA is part of an international organization that tracks and brings awareness of Christian persecution.

More than seven thousand Christians were killed last year because of their faith — "almost three thousand more than the previous year," Open Doors told the Daily Beast.

The largest areas that have seen the fastest growth are the Middle East, Africa, and Central Asia, he said. The numbers are expected to climb this year.

And not be limited to those parts of the world, either. It will spread and escalate to the levels of Revelation 6:9-11 and 13:7-10 while being celebrated as in Revelation 11:7-10. And lest you doubt me on this, feast your eyes on this little detail:

Last month, human rights organizations pressured the Obama administration to declare deaths of Christians by the Islamic State genocide....

They had to be pressured to do this. And the only reason they did was because they threw in apostate Muslims as well, downgrading the fallen Brethren to second-class/dhimmi status even in death.

"We were the sole secular humanist organization to press the State [Commissaria]t to label ISIS' crimes against Muslims and Christians as genocide," Paul Fidalgo, the communications director for the Center for Inquiry, told the Daily Beast. [emphasis added]

Nobody cares about the plight of the true martyrs except their brothers and sisters in Christ. But if they were "Muzzies"? The persecutors would feel Godbama's avenging devil wrath. Or however much of it could be loaded onto TOTUS, anyway.

But those who slay the followers of Jesus Christ will face genuine wrath, eventually:

And I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse, and He Who sat on it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness He judges and wages war. His eyes are a flame of fire, and on His head are many diadems; and He has a name written on Him which no one knows except Himself. He is clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God. And the armies which are in heaven, clothed in fine linen, white and clean, were following Him on white horses.

That's the raptured Church.

From His mouth comes a sharp sword, so that with it He may strike down the nations, and He will rule them with a rod of iron; and He treads the wine press of the fierce wrath of God, the Almighty. And on His robe and on His thigh He has a name written, “KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.”

Then I saw an angel standing in the sun, and he cried out with a loud voice, saying to all the birds which fly in mid-heaven, “Come, assemble for the great supper of God, so that you may eat the flesh of kings and the flesh of commanders and the flesh of mighty men and the flesh of horses and of those who sit on them and the flesh of all men, both free men and slaves, and small and great.”

And I saw the beast and the kings of Earth and their armies assembled to make war against Him Who sat on the horse and against His army.

And the beast was seized, and with him the false prophet who performed the signs in his presence, by which he deceived those who had received the mark of the beast and those who worshiped his image; these two were thrown alive into the lake of fire which burns with brimstone. And the rest were killed with the sword which came from the mouth of Him Who sat on the horse, and all the birds were filled with their flesh.

The Good News is, He Who will sit on the horse has already made it possible for all to join the winning side in this conflict. But as Revelation tells us, not all will. And those that do not will perish.

Enjoy your winning "battles" while you can, heathen, because you WILL lose the war.

Nuclear Drones

by JASmius

Chilling - and entirely plausible:

Terrorists flying drones to spread highly radioactive material over a civilian area: That’s part of the nightmare scenario Barack Obama urged world leaders to consider as they debated better ways of controlling nuclear material.

With the aid of apocalyptic fake newscasts, Obama told the group of fifty heads of state and foreign ministers in Washington on Friday to imagine that a terrorist group had bought isotopes through brokers on the so-called dark Web. One shipment was picked up in transit by radiation monitors, but others were thought to be still on the move. The terrorists were believed to be planning to use a drone to distribute the material. Would authorities react in time?

This hypothetical war-game was described by a U.K. official speaking on condition of anonymity because the meeting was closed. Obama’s aim was to push the men and women around the table to think about how their governments would respond. Prime Minister David Cameron told reporters the threat was serious.

“So many summits are about dealing with things that have already gone wrong and we are trying to put right,” he said ahead of the meeting. “This is a summit about something we are trying to prevent. The concept of terrorists and nuclear materials coming together is obviously a very chilling prospect. In the light of the Belgian attacks, we know is a threat that is only too real.”

Indeed. If only this scenario wasn't being touted by the same man who birthed ISIS and nurtured its rise, gave his blessing to Iran's nuclear weapons, militantly ignores North Korea's, and is dismantling our own nuclear capabilities while the ChiComms and Russians expand their strategic nuclear superiority over us at an exponential rate. It lends his argument all the credibility of Bill Clinton leading a bible study, or Trump University adding an ethics curriculum.

Wait a minute; do you hear that buzzing sound.....?

Saturday, April 02, 2016

Constitution Association: Constitution Quest Game Night

Constitution Association Monthly Dinner Meeting. Check-in between 5:00 and 5:30 pm

Merna's Cafe, 26850 Cherry Hills Blvd., Menifee

Constitution Quest Game Night - - - come play the game with us.

Is Trump Finally Becoming A "Professional Politician"?

by JASmius

The question is more, "Is Trump learning how to play the role of a 'professional politician'"? If the definition of "professional politician" is "stops saying and doing monumentally stupid bleep," then he's got parsecs to go to reach that objective. But in classic "closing the barn door after the horse is Elmer's glue" fashion, he took two grudging, halting, stuttering steps in that direction over the past twenty-four hours.

First, he's - far too late - starting to get the hang of speaking at length about abortion, without actually saying anything substantive or declarative. His remaining problem is that he's even unsubtle about his attempts at subtlety:

Asked how he’d like to change the law to further restrict access to abortions, Trump replied, “The laws are set now on abortion and that’s the way they’re going to remain until they’re changed.” [emphasis added]

That's not even saying nothing; it's question-begging and question-stalling at the same time. "The laws are set now on abortion" - which is true only until they're changed, which he tacks on at the end. But he was asked how he would change them. This is like asking what flavor of bottled water you want, and replying, "If you pour water on me, I'll get wet". Yeah, we know that, but what bleeping flavor of bottled water do you want, numbnut? The point about learning to talk about abortion from a conservative perspective is to minimize drill-down followup questions, as well as to avoid making the interviewer even more hostile than he/she already is. And a candidate can only do that if (1) they're actually pro-life and (2) conversant in the actual pro-life position. Of which Trump is neither.

So he grabbed at another talking point his handlers tossed into his flighty brain like a stray crouton on a cobb salad:

“I would’ve preferred States’ rights,” he added. “I think it would’ve been better if it were up to the States. But right now, the laws are set….At this moment, the laws are set. And I think we have to leave it that way.”.... [emphases added]

So he doesn't want to change abortion laws? But he just got through at least implying that he DID want to change the laws. Wouldn't punishing women for having abortions require changing those laws? And that doesn't even touch on his doubtless complete ignorance of what States' rights even means, which I'm quite certain if the interviewer drilled down on it, Trump would reply with something like, "You know, it was probably a bumper sticker on the General Lee."

Ironic that if he would ever do his homework on the abortion issue, he could both point out that abortion is not a federal issue and is especially not an issue with which the president is empowered to deal, as well as recognizing the opportunity to steer the interview into an opportunity to pander to the Right on judicial appointments.

And then, after making an admittedly much better attempt to parse the abortion issue than this week's earlier disaster, he fell down the stairs and pooped his pants again:

“But you don’t disagree with that proposition, that it’s murder?” Dickerson asked.

“No, I don’t disagree with it,” Trump eventually replied.

What? So he says that abortion is murder but that the laws (at the State level, over which a president should have no power or control) are "set" and should not be changed? Donald Trump condones legalized murder?

Watching the millionaire slumlord try to answer in-depth policy questions is like watching an epileptic perform brain surgery. Even when they're trying to steady their hands they still can't help decapitating the patient.

Has he figured out how to stop his digging his campaign's public relations graves? Possibly, as it looks like Corey Lewandowski is at least getting demoted:

In public, Donald Trump is standing behind embattled campaign manager Corey Lewandowski as he faces battery charges for grabbing a reporter. But behind the scenes, Lewandowski’s role in the campaign is shrinking.

In early March, Lewandowski ceded authority over many hiring decisions to a lower-ranking staffer. In recent days, the campaign’s press office has been overruling his decisions about issuing credentials for campaign events. Going forward, Trump’s just-named convention manager, Paul Manafort, is expected to take a leading role not just in the selection of delegates, but in the remaining primaries themselves, according to three people on or close to the campaign.

If Lewandowski had kept his hands to himself in the first place, Batterygate would never have happened. If he had immediately apologized to Michelle Fields after he arm-dragged her, Batterygate could have been defused before it ever arose. Instead, after initially admitting what he did but acting like it was no big deal (and clearly intimating that it was a-okay to physically accost Obamedia reporters), and then retracting his admission and smearing and insulting Miss Fields as a "liar" and "delusional" even though there was incontrovertible photographic, video, and eyewitness evidence of his actions and the injury he inflicted on her, and Trump doubling down by threatening to file counter-charges and accusing Miss Fields of plotting to blow him up with a "pen bomb," averting Batterygate was impossible, and the more the two "high-energy alpha males" counterattacked, the worse the scandal became, especially in the context of Trump's attacks on Heidi Cruz and his subterranean polling numbers with women voters.

All of which is a circuitous means of saying that after having so loudly and insanely defended him for almost a month, quietly fading Lewandowski out of the picture as the small-time, unqualified, temperamental bit player and mistaken campaign manager hire he was is probably the best option Trump has left at this point, and that appears to be what he's doing. Which would seem to indicate that he is not completely incapable of learning and unwilling to do so. A journey of thousand miles, as the saying goes, begins with a single step. But that's still one long-ass journey.

Or, in this case, not a thousand miles, but precisely 189 days. Because he cannot win in November, and "Trump being Trump" is yielding yet another reason why his crushing defeat is already assured:

Republicans worried about Donald Trump’s steady march toward the party's nomination have taken some solace in the possibility that, despite his toxic comments, the billionaire businessman might still have a narrow path to the White House driven by an upsurge of white working-class male voters. And this group has indeed supported Trump vigorously throughout the primary season.

But as the eminent political theoretician Sir Isaac Newton once put it, “For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.” A new Democracy Corps poll conducted for the Women’s Voices Women Vote Action Fund illustrates the Democrat counter-reaction to Trump. As this chart shows, interest in the 2016 presidential campaign has soared among each of the key Democrat constituent groups — minorities, millennials, and single white women:

“What you see in this chart,” says Democrat pollster Stanley Greenberg of Democracy Corps, “is big engagement since last December among not only core Democrat groups, but also the swing electorate like college[-educated] women who usually split fairly evenly between the parties.”

“This shows for sure that there’s already a counter-reaction to Trump,” says Greenberg. “And that means we’re getting closer and closer to an earthquake election.” [emphases added]

I'd ask, yet again, whether Trumplicans really want to elect Hillary Clinton to the presidency, and even dimly realize that nominating their hero is the only possible means of doing so, but we already know the answers to those questions. Giving redundant voice to them is more depressing than it's worth.

UPDATE: A Trump....apology?:

After numerous embarrassments this week involving women, Donald Trump grudgingly admitted to New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd that "it was a mistake" to re-tweet blatantly contrasting pictures of Heidi Cruz and his wife Melania.

"If I had to do it again, I wouldn’t have sent it," he told Dowd for a column published on Saturday.

Eh; burqa-ized at best. Much more like he was sure it would be a deft, rapier thrust into his opponent's heart, and it wound up whacking himself in the groin. THAT's what he regrets.

And, sho 'nuf, he went on to say....

"I’m just going to be myself," she quoted the candidate as saying. "That’s all I can do."

Never mind.

Constitution Radio: You Only Live Twice

Here We Go: Obama Regime Threatens To Cut Off North Carolina Over "No Perverts In The Bathroom" Law

by JASmius

For every action, there is an equal and opposite BS tyrannical reaction.

That's not what Isaac Newton verbatim said, but if he was alive today, I'm sure that's how he would amend it:

The Obama administration is considering whether North Carolina’s new law on [homosexual] and transgender rights....

Stop the tape. That is NOT what that law was about; it was about the right of everybody else not to have sexual predators receive an engraved invitation from the city of Charlotte to barge into the wrong bathroom (and lockerroom and shower stall) on them using "gay and transgender rights" as a cover. It's the same basic principle as to why Muslim immigration needs to be cut off because it's been proven to be shot through with jihadists. If the Regime wants to put an accurate label on the law, call it "North Carolina's new law on women's and children's rights".

Remember when liberalism was all about protecting and empowering children and women, respectively? Good times, good times.

....makes the State ineligible for billions of dollars in federal aid for schools, highways and housing, officials said Friday.

The means by which constitutional federalism and Original State Authority in this country have been completely destroyed.

Cutting off any federal money — or even simply threatening to do so — would put major new pressure on North Carolina to repeal the law, which eliminated local [supremacizing of] homosexual and transgender people and restricted which bathrooms transgender people can use.

Yeah - just like the rest of us. Because it's not a bleeping eliminatory buffet.

A loss of federal money could send the State into a budget crisis and jeopardize services that are central to daily life.

Then let the "services" be privatized. That one sentence alone diagnoses the core problem, doesn't it? Government at all levels has too much power. Ever wonder why Florida Governor Rick Scott is talking like this? Now you know.

The feds know that the fiscal cudgel works - that's why they enslaved the States to the chains of federal funding for this, that, the other thing, and everything in the first place. Heck, look at how Disney, Marvel, and the NFL held Georgia hostage on its religious liberty protection bill. Governor McCrory had to know that there was going to be federal retaliation for the State-level reassertion of common sense and decency. That's why it frankly surprised me that he signed the "no perverts in the bathroom" bill into law.

Can the Regime carry out its threat? Constitutionally, no, but nobody follows the Constitution as originally intended anymore, or even remembers that original intent. Legally, yes, as the funds in question have already been appropriated by Congress, though one would like to think that since the "offending" law in question is contained and applies entirely within the State of North Carolina, and the federal government has no such "homosexual and transgender protections" on its own books, leaving nothing with which for the Tar Heel bathroom statute to conflict,

But this is the Obama Regime we're talking about, so there'll be no hesitations about hypocrisy or how such a jackbooted move would make them look. And besides, with his 24/7/365 media protection and cheerleading, it's not as if O ever pays a political price for anything he does.

So the feds will cut off North Carolina, and the State legislature and Governor McCrory will - maybe not right away, maybe after a futile court challenge, but sooner or later - capitulate, repeal their bathroom protection law, and let the freaks and perverts have at their women and children.

In case any Trumplicans have managed to gin up enough intellectual curiosity to wonder, THAT is political correctness run amok.