Monday, May 02, 2016

"Bad People" Revisit Seattle

by JASmius



Or, "how the Emerald City celebrates every communist Christmas":

At least nine protesters were arrested and five police officers injured during May Day clashes in Seattle where flares, bricks and Molotov cocktails were thrown, authorities said.



The anti-capitalist disorder followed a peaceful march earlier in the day by advocates for workers and [alien]s — one of several nationwide events Sunday calling for better wages for workers and work permits for [illegal alien]s.

One officer was struck by a rock, one was hit by a Molotov and a third was bitten, the Seattle Police Department said. The nature of the injuries to the other two officers was not immediately known.

The anti-capitalist demonstrators carried signs including one saying: “We Are Ungovernable.”

Well, they are when the put the work into the task - up until the "lumber shampoos," pepper spray blasts and tasers join the fun, anyway.



Since this is an annual rite in the home of the forty-eighth Lombardi Trophy, local businesses, like Starbucks, prepared for the occasion by literally boarding up ALL their windows - and still it wasn't enough:




Window just busted by masked anarchist. Starbucks on 4th and Pine

Bleated leftwingnut, homosexual Seattle Mayor Ed Murray:

It is unfortunate and deeply regrettable that in a city that goes to incredible lengths to respect First Amendment rights, there are some who disregard our values and engage in senseless acts of violence and property destruction. This city condemns any acts of physical violence against our police officers, and my thoughts are with the officers who were injured.

Well, Seattle also seems to attract "acts of physical violence against police officers" on this particular date on the calendar, so perhaps the lengths to which it goes to "respect the First Amendment rights of those who disregard our values and engage in senseless acts of violence and property destruction" are a wee bit too incredible.

The "celebrations" in San Francisco (where protesters tried and evidently failed to gin up Ferguson-style riots at Fisherman's Wharf) and Los Angeles (with its gigantic Donald Trump piñata) were "festive" if far more peaceful.

I guess they just weren't trying hard enough.

Sunday, May 01, 2016

Mr. Constitution Douglas V. Gibbs on Social Media

Twitter: @DouglasVGibbs and @constassoc

Doug is also on SnapChat and Instagram

POLITICS, RACE AND RACISM

By Allan McNew

I have not been a Trump supporter. However, a few months ago I was angrily confronted with, out of nowhere and out of context (no political discussion or any at all with this individual at the time), with “Trump isn't going to be president”. Looking back, it seems that he based his assumption that I am a Trump supporter on the facts that I'm white and he's brown.

More recently, a friend I've known for years said to me that he thinks Trump is a racist in large part by the people who are around him, that they look like white supremacists. I replied that those people he's pointing to in a CNN news clip on the TV at that very moment are the Secret Service, the same people who protect President Obama, whereupon he looked doubtful and changed the subject. I'm white, he's brown and I wondered to myself where he got the assumption that those government
employees were white supremacist thugs.

A few weeks ago, I told a funny but true story half in Spanish to a woman, the funny part doesn't come through in English. She laughed and said to me “My people don't know this, but you're a good guy.” I asked “What do you mean by 'your people?'” The answer was basically brown people who speak Spanish.

Over the past few days there have been violent activities at a number of Trump rallies, large and small, perpetrated by mostly brown people who oppose Trump and aggressively push their physical presence into those with whom they politically disagree. It seems to me that they were prepped by one party media, which confuses partisan slant and political talking points with journalism, and whipped up by activists who prize emotion over fact and prefer to allege racism over utilizing reasoned argumentation.

Last night I watched the White House correspondent's dinner, which was comprised of bitter mockery liberally laced with racial commentary pretending to be comedy. It went down just about every  offensive avenue except gratuitously throwing out the word “cracker” . Which would have touched off a apocalyptic firestorm if the President and the “comedian” had been whites using like material.

Obsession with race seems to be just as pervasive as it's ever been with the pot calling the kettle black.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Trump Has The Wrong Obsession About Red China

by JASmius



The latest rationalization for Trump general election support from the Director is that "at least he's a capitalist, and that makes him better than the Marxist-Alinskyist Hillary Clinton."  To which I replied on this past Saturday's edition of Constitution Radio that he is not a capitalist, but a crony capitalist, a businessman who is mercenary, utterly unprincipled, and entirely willing to buy politicians and turn the power of government in his pecuniary favor as much as he possibly can (like most businesspeople, actually; the management of the NFL, Disney, and Target Stores comes to mind, which gives the lie to the Left's stereotypical hostility to "Big Business" and "Corporate America" as being definitionally "conservative").  Trump has made a career and well-earned reputation of this sort of corruption.  So have other leftwingnut billionaires like Michael "No Big Gulps" Bloomberg, Tom Steyer (aka "King Coal"), and George "Dr. Evil" Soros.  These are all liberal left socialist commie bastards who have used capitalism to enrich themselves while still remaining staunchly opposed to capitalism.  Donald Trump, the enthusiastic supporter of Planned Parenthood, transgendered public bathrrooms, higher taxes, higher spending, bigger government, socialized medicine, touchback amnesty, and staunch enemy of entitlements reform (without which the federal government and U.S. economy will inevitably and catastrophically collapse), is little, if any, different.

The irony being - to those who think Trump is a pure-strain capitalist, at any rate - that Hillary Clinton isn't all that different, either.  While Trump has dealt primarily in real estate, over the past ten years or so having pushed more and more the "product" of himself, so the Empress and her hubby have used the political system and "personal branding" to enrich themselves beyond the dreams of avarice.  Consequently, the two potential and ostensible general election foes are in reality, vastly closer together in the common creed of corrupt greed than Mr. Constitution is giving them credit for.



A veritable "two sides of the same coin"....threesome.

If all of that wasn't enough to skepticize you on the dubiousness of Donald Trump's "capitalist" bona fides, his virulently anti-capitalist protectionism, particularly vis-a-vie Red China, really ought to be the clincher.  He was flogging that old nag yet again in Indiana yesterday:

"Republican" front-runner Donald Trump has ratcheted up his already harsh criticism of [Red] China, telling a campaign event in Indiana on Sunday, "We can’t continue to allow [Red] China to rape our country, and that’s what they’re doing," the Hill reports.

It's more like they're "raping" themselves, actually.  Which is to say, the communist government is "raping" the oppressed Chinese people, as they have been for sixty-seven years.  If Trump would ever question free trade with the PRC in a national security or anti-communist context, I might be willing to put forth the effort to attempt to take him seriously on the issue.

Still waiting....

The U.S. trade deficit with [Red] China has been a constant theme in Trump's campaign.

And, of course, another term for "trade deficit" is "investment surplus".  All a trade deficit really is is an indication that the supplier country is producing quality products at a competitive price that citizens of the consumer country want to buy, and that the process isn't flowing as voluminously in the opposite direction because either (1) the consumer country is producing crap, (2) the consumer country is producing products that do not interest the citizens of the supplier country, (3) the consumer country is producing products that are not competitively priced, (4) the citizens of the supplier country are impoverished slaves who are a few rungs above having to subsist on tree bark, or, (5) some combination of the above.  Given that Red China is a communist wasteland and the United States is rigor mortically but nevertheless coasting along on the fading momentum of its former two-plus centuries of capitalist dynamism, I can't imagine a trade relationship between the two countries that wouldn't lopsidedly favor the ChiComms.

A true capitalist would be a champion of free trade for everybody on the planet, and would seek not to punish trading partners (and American consumers) by vindictively cracking down on their greater economic competitiveness with draconian border taxes that can only trigger retaliation against his own country's exports that he presumably wants to boost, but would pursue policies, like lower taxes and deregulation, designed and intended to reduce the cost of his own country's products in order to make them more competitive.

Remember last week's Pogo reference?



And what does the purportedly "capitalist" Donald Trump want to do?  Slap on the punitive border taxes on "Them" and not put our own economic house in order first.  Futile economic xenophobia.

Not something a true capitalist would do, it seems to me.

He has often accused the country of manipulating its currency to help its exports, but has not used the word "rape" before.

Because apparently his previous "populist" bombast level wasn't having the desired visceral effect of bulldozing true capitalists into big-government protectionist statists.

"We're going to turn it around, and we have the cards, don't forget it," Trump said. "We have a lot of power with [Red] China."



No, we don't, actually.  What leverage do we have over the ChiComms?  Even if you rule out counter-tariff retaliation from the equation, remember, the Xi regime is already in the process of "raping" its own captive population as we speak.  And they're a dictatorship invulnerable to domestic public pressure.

It's much like what the Architect once said....



...."There are levels of survival that [they] are prepared to accept."  Which means, almost by definition, that we have no "cards" to play against them.

But they "have a lot of power" over us.

First, Beijing holds about a quarter of all U.S. government debt held by foreign governments - approximately $1.2 trillion.  Picture them dumping those debt instruments on the market all at once.  What might that do to the value of the dollar?  The current global reserve currency that the ChiComms are trying to replace in that role with the yuan, which helps explain the strategic purpose for their currency manipulations.  A 45% tariff on ChiComm goods would have zero effect on that aside from further pissing off Beijing to retaliate against us economically - and militarily.

Which brings us to the second vulnerability.  Let's review that tale of the tape again, shall we....?

To summarize (using "official" numbers and estimates for our enemies, which means our numbers are doubtless inflated and theirs are low-balled):

TOTAL PERSONNEL: Russia/China 7,955,000, USA 2,540,000 (3.13 to 1)

TANKS: Russia/China 24,564, USA 8,854 (2.77 to 1)

AFVs: USA 41,065, Russia/China 36,096 (0.88 to 1)

ARTILLERY (GUNS): Russia/China 18,571, USA 3,235 (5.74 to 1)

ARTILLERY (MLRs): Russia/China 5,570, USA 1,331 (4.18 to 1)

FIGHTERS/BOMBERS: USA 5,006, Russia/China 4,458 (0.89 to 1)

HELICOPTERS: USA 7,119, Russia/China 2,696 (0.38 to 1)

AIR TRANSPORTS: USA 5,367, Russia/China 1,962 (0.37 to 1)

AIRCRAFT CARRIERS: USA 20, Russia/China 2 (0.10 to 1)

TOTAL WARSHIPS: Russia/China 423, USA 190 (2.23 to 1)

Bottom line is, we are heavily outnumbered on the ground (We probably still hold a qualitative edge in training and equipment, but that's been steadily eroding over the past nearly seven years, just as have our numbers), heavily outnumbered at sea (with the notable exception of aircraft carriers, which is more an air power factor than at sea - and which the Russians and ChiComms especially are developing surface- and submarine-launched missiles to counter; and, of course, we now lack the sea transport capability to deploy our meager ground forces anywhere), and while we still have (nominal) numerical superiority in the air, only a low-to-mid single-digits percentage of our combat aircraft are fifth-generation (i.e. stealth - F-117 Nighthawk, B-2 Spirit, F-22 Raptor, F-35 Lightning), and the vast majority of them are anywhere from thirty (e.g. F/A-18 Hornet) to forty (e.g. B-1b Lancer, F-14 Tomcat, F-15 Eagle, F-16 Fighting Falcon) to even sixty (i.e. B-52 Stratofortress) years old. Which is to say, decrepit, obsolete, and doomed (i.e. 50% or greater losses) against the enemy's fifth-generation air defenses.

....and the recent alarming congressional testimony of U.S. military officials on our military unpreparedness visa-a-vie Red China and our other enemies....

Despite having the largest military budget in the world, the United States probably wouldn't be ready if it were forced into a "great power war" with [Red] China, Russia, Iran or North Korea, says the nation's top general.

Military leaders voiced concern on Wednesday about their ability to fight a war with global powers like Russia, telling a congressional hearing that a lack of resources and training was weighing on America's combat readiness, reported Reuters.

U.S. Army Chief of Staff General Mark Milley told a House Armed Services Committee hearing that if the Army were to fight a "great power war" with any one of four major potential foes, he had "grave concerns" about the readiness of his forces.

"(The Army) is not at the levels that can execute satisfactorily ... in terms of time, cost in terms of casualties or cost in terms of military objectives," Milley said.

Also speaking at the hearing, about the Fiscal 2017 budget request for the military, Air Force [Commissar] Deborah James said half of her combat forces were not "sufficiently ready" for fighting against a country like Russia.

"Money is helpful for readiness but freeing up the time of our people to go and do this training is equally important," James said.

Earlier this month Air Force officials said they were facing a shortage of more than five hundred fighter pilots, a gap expected to widen to more than eight hundred by 2022. [emphasis added]

....and the real-world interaction of both unfolding in "Beijing's Lake":

The confrontation has been building for the past three years, as [Red] China has constructed artificial islands off its southern coast and installed missiles and radar in disputed waters, despite U.S. warnings. It could come to a head this spring, when an arbitration panel in The Hague is expected to rule that [Red] China is making “excessive” claims about its maritime sovereignty.

What makes this dispute so explosive is that it pits an American president who needs to affirm his credibility as a strong leader against a risk-taking Chi[Comm] president who has shown [justifiable] disregard for U.S. military power and who faces potent political enemies at home.

“This isn’t Pearl Harbor, but if people on all sides aren’t careful, it could be ‘The Guns of August,’" says Kurt Campbell, former assistant [commissar] of state for Asia, referring to the chain of miscalculations that led to World War I. The administration, he says, is facing “another red line moment where it has to figure out how to carry through on past warnings.” [emphases added]

Substitute the name "Trump" for "Obama" and that scenario becomes even more terrifying than it is already.  "An American president who needs to affirm his credibility as a strong leader" with a Neanderthal's knowledge of foreign policy and the emotional temperament of a toddler.  That's a recipe for all kinds of horrific outcomes, none of which any Republican voter should want to have to contemplate, and few general election voters will.

THIS is what Trump needs to be addressing with regard to the ChiComms - their rise to the superpower level from which Barack Obama has removed America, their aggressive expansion in the Western Pacific, and, by their annexation of the South China Sea, their sitting astride a $5 trillion annual shipping lane choke point to our Taiwanese, Japanese, and South Korean allies that stands to vassalize them into the twenty-first century successor to the old Imperial Japanese "Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere".  Not screwing American consumers and Smoot-Hawley-ing us into an even deeper economic depression, the very epitome of crony-capitalist statism.

And what is the extent of Trump's ruminations about the Pacific Rim?  U.S. withdrawal and promoting nuclear proliferation.  Splendid.

If U.S. Far East foreign policy was being made in Beijing, it would bear a striking resemblance to the coarse blitherings coming out of the mouth of the millionaire slumlord, as they would accelerate Red China's move toward their strategic endgame.  They don't need to make a pawn of him, because he is unwittingly volunteering for the role - like any ignorant crony capitalist would.

Ku Klux Klan Endorses Donald Trump

by JASmius



Donald Trump is not a racist per se.  He doesn't spew racial epithets.  He doesn't overtly traffic in prejudices or any of the other heinous accusations of knee-jerk leftwingnut crazies like the ones that have been chasing him around California recently.

And as far as anybody knows, he has not and did not ask for the endorsement of the KKK that he received  on Friday:

INTERVIEWER: You’re paying attention to the presidential elections?

IMPERIAL WIZARD: Oh, yeah.

INTERVIEWER: In your personal opinion who is best for the job?

IMPERIAL WIZARD: I think Donald Trump would be best for the job.

INTERVIEWER: For president?

IMPERIAL WIZARD: Yeah. The reason a lot of Klan members like Donald Trump is because a lot of what he believes we believe in.



When I saw that vid, I honestly suspected that it was a parody, a stunt, or a hoax.  Maybe a Saturday Night Live bit, if not particularly funny and more than a little skin-crawling.

Further research yielded that no, this is an actual news story and an on-the-level interview conducted by the NBC affiliate in Richmond, Virginia.



You know the long time disagreement that the Director and I have had over his assertion that the GOP has been "infiltrated by progressives," and how I've been arguing that that infiltration is actually happening now under the rubric of Trumpmania?  Well looky what else it's seeping into the party but the Democrat Party's one-time domestic terrorist arm.

I'm not going to dignify the Grand Exalted Imperial Omnipotent Stomper's "We're patriotic Christian Americans" bullshit.  I didn't even want to listen to the eerily papally dressed critter for as long as I did.  But I endured the reprehensible fecality because I was waiting for the inevitable other shoe to drop, and it did when he tried to draw a distinction between "white supremacy" and "white separatism".  And that ought to tell you all you need to know about who the Ku Klux Klan still are: flaming racists (Besides, as a practical matter, given that whites are still the majority in America, if a shrinking one, how would we go about "separating" ourselves from minorities?  Wouldn't that have to take the effect of separating minorities from us?  And what form would that take, especially since, apart from illegal aliens, the remainder are American citizens with Constitutional rights?  Doesn't that question matter?).  The only thing that has changed about them is their tactics, which explains his claim that "today's Klan" is no longer a "hate" group but a "political" organization.  Which metaphorically translates to night-riding in minivans, I guess.  As the Black Klan spokesman observed in the second vid, when the KKK starts burning crosses on their own lawns, perhaps we can revisit their blasphemous claim that it represents "God's light".  Why they don't change their name to the "National Association for the Defense of White People" (NADWP) to at least make a token effort to shed that indelibly racist image they claim no longer applies is frankly baffling.  Or maybe it isn't.

Again, Trump has not and is not seeking white supremist endorsements like this, and I, for one, am not accusing him otherwise.  But I cannot help  but wonder why he is not disavowing them.  Why would any decent human being seeking high elective office not come out after such an expression of support and make clear that he doesn't want their backing and does not represent anything they stand for?  I would have already expected a statement to that effect from the Trump campaign, just so there were no lingering doubts.  I mean, how many votes would that really cost him?  Or do we really want to know?

And yet, just as when he didn't disavow David Duke, so now all that comes from TrumpWorld on this toe-curling subject, up to now anyway, is....



Is this the kind of company Trump wants to keep?  And if so, why?

My theory remains the same:

Trump did not set out to attract the Klansman vote, but that was an unanticipated side effect of the wedge issue he used to try and sell himself as a "conservative". In other words, Trump, a liberal Democrat who clearly thinks that all conservatives and Republicans are "racists," depicted himself on illegal immigration in the way that he believes REAL conservatives and Republicans think and are motivated; not by the Constitution and the rule of law, but by "nativism" and "xenophobia". So instead of emphasizing the former, he emphasized the latter - "Mexican rapists," etc. - because that's the "language" he thought he needed to speak, and because he wasn't fluent in the other one. And that just happened to have been right in the wheelhouse of animals like David Duke.

And the Grand Exalted Imperial Omnipotent Stomper above.

In short, he's committed to this angle, and if he were to backtrack on any of it in the slightest, he fears it would be seen as weakness - to say nothing of bowing to "political correctness," also a concept that he and his drones don't understand (being "anti-PC" doesn't mean being a jerk and/or a monster).

But then, as far into the Kool-Aid tank as Trumplicans are now, would they really even raise an eyebrow at their hero giving the KKK the bum's rush?  He's already told his supporters at one of his rallies to their faces that he could shoot one of them right there on Fifth Avenue in Manhattan (or anyplace else) and the rest would only embrace him more.  There's no reason to think that he was kidding about that.  So what would it cost The Donald to repudiate the Klan?  Especially with a weather eye toward the fall campaign (and given that he contradicted himself on illegal immigration months ago)?

Unless....maybe it's not so much that Trump is a racist as that he just quietly outsources that vile impulse to those who have adopted it as their chosen profession.  It's up to him to prove otherwise.

All I know is what Streiff did me the favor of reiterating as I have been repeating since last June 15th:

Donald Trump is personally validating every liberal Democrat Upper West Side stereotype of the Republican Party and doing damage that will be impossible to overcome.

Mission (almost) accomplished.

Exit question: The Stomper also said this:

If Donald Trump dropped out tomorrow I’d support Kasich before I would Ted Cruz.

INTERVIEWER: Why is that?

IMPERIAL WIZARD: Because he’s not an American citizen.

Cruz IS an American citizen; the issue is whether he's constitutionally eligible for the presidency.  Bringing us to the question: Do the "progressive" infiltrators not know how to speak our language, and does this mean that Trump's campaign store will soon be doing a brisk business hawking white hoods?

Cruz Unraveling Trump's Win In Arizona

by JASmius



It might not matter after Tuesday, but the Texas senator continues to pile up second convention ballot delegates for a smashing comeback nomination victory, if he can get that far.

And what you would think would be confident Grand Canyon State Trumpers were in stereotypical full-whine mode at being out-hustled yet again:

Backers of Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump accused the Arizona GOP convention of cheating after Texas Senator Ted Cruz pulled out a strategic victory Saturday.

i.e. Trump lost the delegate recruitment race yet again.

Cruz won virtually all of the twenty-eight at-large national delegates and roughly split the twenty-seven delegates selected by congressional district. Cruz’s Arizona campaign organizer says simple math led to the at-large victory. Cruz offered a nearly identical slate of candidates as John Kasich backers, and the combined votes led to a win.

State Treasurer Jeff DeWitt, who chairs Trump’s Arizona campaign, said a challenge is possible after calls for a revote were rejected by the party.

“The Trump campaign is very unhappy with the results,” DeWitt told reporters. “We don’t feel that this was a fair process. The Trump button got checked more than any other, so why do we have so few delegates?”

Because so few Republican delegates in Arizona actually support Donald Trump, that's why.  The Cruz campaign's retort was short and to the point:

Constantin Querard, Cruz’s Arizona campaign chair, struck back against claims from DeWitt.

“They lost because of math, not because of malfeasance. If you take the people that want Cruz, and you add to them the people who don’t want Trump, that’s a majority in just about any room in America.”

Quite so.  And yet it's Trump that is nearing the point of becoming presumptive nominee.  Wanna run that "It's all rigged!" bleat by us again?  I don't think it applies the way Trumpies think it does.

I don't understand why they're so bent out of shape, though.  Isn't their demideity about to smash Cruz's hopes for good in the Hoosier State in forty-eight hours?  Isn't he on a fortnightly winning streak?  Who cares if TrusTed gets his supporters into State delegations across the country?  They'll still have to vote for Trump on the first ballot in Cleveland, right?  If he goes over 1,237 on the first go-round, there won't be any second ballot, and all the organization and ground game gambits will be for naught, correct?  So what's the problem?  Do they not think that Biff can pull it off?  Or have they become so totally corrupted by their association with the New York liberal conman that they're as big a bunch of sore-losers as he is?

If I was Treasurer DeWitt and other top Trumpers, I would keep my mouth shut about challenging delegate credentials if I were them.  Both because it makes the Trump campaign look even smaller, even pettier, and runs counter to its "It's already in the bag!" Narrative, and because it would open a can of worms it would be in his best interests to leave securely closed:

Even if Trump crosses the threshold to earn 1,237 bound delegates at the convention, Cruz may not be out of options. The Texas senator has been crushing Trump in the shadow fight for loyal convention delegates — delegates who could be free to vote their preference on a second ballot. It’s conceivable that a majority of the delegates at the convention in Cleveland will oppose Trump’s nomination, even if they’re bound to vote for him. In that scenario, that majority could unseat scores of Trump delegates, rewrite convention rules to eliminate any binding requirements and make it less likely — if not impossible — for Trump to claim the nomination.

This is generally known as the "Scorched Earth" or "Not No, But HELL No" option.  One that, from Trump's perspective, need never be provoked.  Heck, I prefer not to see that option provoked, as I've iterated and reiterated in this very space.  After all, he's going to romp in Indiana and have the nomination in hand before California, right?  Why would Trumplicans want to see that triumph put in jeopardy by their hero being an even worse winner than he is a loser, and pushing the #NeverTrump majority too far to where it is willing to, to build upon this metaphor....



...."fight fire with fire"?

If the pompadoured prince can reach 1,237, he should just shut his mouth and accept the nomination graciously - something of which, of course, he isn't capable, but should try to feign for the next two and a half months.  Because otherwise, if there's a delegate-challenge war....



....Trump will have started it - and he will lose.

So will the GOP, of course, but Trumpmania has already guaranteed that.

Greece In The Caribbean

by JASmius



For House Speaker Paul Ryan and Republican congressional leaders, it isn't a question of whether or not to pull the plug on Puerto Rico, it's whether or not to stop up the drain down which it is spiraling:

Puerto Rico said its Government Development Bank, which is operating in a state of emergency to preserve its dwindling cash, reached an agreement with some credit unions to delay $33 million of bond payments as the commonwealth rushes toward a potential historic default.

The pact only affects a portion of the $422 million that the bank owes on May 1st.

i.e. Today.

The GDB will exchange the $33 million in bonds for new debt that will mature May 1st, 2017, Governor Alejandro Garcia Padilla’s administration said in a statement Friday. The terms of the agreement are available to other credit unions, called cooperativas, and investors, according to the statement.

A whopping 7.8%.  Yeah, that'll be an adequate downpayment downpayment.

The bank is still negotiating a possible debt exchange on all of its bonds, which would require the participation of all its creditors, according to the statement. The GDB, which structured the island’s debt sales, has $5.1 billion of debt. The governor’s office said Garcia Padilla will speak to the commonwealth in a televised address Sunday at 5 p.m. New York time. [emphasis added]

That should be as informative as mud.

“Apart from this private exchange, GDB continues to negotiate a potential [i.e. fictitious] transaction related to an exchange of all of GDB’s bond indebtedness, which would require the participation of all creditors of GDB (including the cooperativas),” the administration said in the statement. “The private exchange does not affect, or take the place of, those ongoing negotiations.” [emphasis added]

In other words, this little $33 million short-term rollover mini-arrangement isn't a side deal in double-cross of all the other creditors, even though that's pretty much what it is.  Boy, wouldn't you like to have Governor Padilla's job right about now?

The credit raters, as is their want and job, are less than impressed:

No matter which route Puerto Rico takes, credit-rating companies see a default as inevitable. Moody’s Investors Service analysts said last week that any non-payment, even if it’s agreed to by creditors, constitutes a default in their eyes. S&P Global Ratings said a distressed-debt exchange or temporarily withholding interest is synonymous to default. [emphases added]

No amount of lipstick, in short, will conceal the porcine nature of she to whom it is being applied.  You cannot spin your way out of reality.  A default is a default is a default.  And today - May Day, appropriately enough - Puerto Rico has defaulted on its $72 billion debt, and its complete fiscal/economic collapse is not far behind.

And how did Puerto Rico get into this jam?  You know how:

Puerto Rico and its agencies owe $70 billion after years of borrowing to fill budget shortfalls as the island’s economy contracted. [emphasis added]

The one and only difference between Puerto Rico's government and that of the United States is that the latter printed five trillion currency-undermining dollars of wastepaper and monetized the latter's onrushing borrowing binge.  Which means that when - not if - the United States defaults on its twenty-six-hundred-fold debt, the resulting hypercanal cataclysm will make the island common"wealth''s fall sound like a hiccup.

Which makes congressional deliberations over whether to "bail out" or "extend bankruptcy protections to" Puerto Rico seems so inconsequential.  Lend them another credit line, give 'em some more time, who cares?  That's one card when the entire deck/house is teetering before the fiscal/economic four winds.  Bottom line is, the Isle of Enchantment is going down, whether by itself or with the entire "fleet".  Only question for the latter is when.

For the former, it's....today.

Obama Prostrates Himself (Again) To Trump's Pal In Moscow Over His Mythical Syrian "Truce"

by JASmius



Remember that "truce" in Syria that John Kerry supposedly negotiated a couple of months ago?  Neither does anybody else.  Russian military operations there in concert with and on behalf of the government of Bashar al-Assad continued unimpeded and uninterrupted.  There was no "truce".  It was all an Obamunist delusion.

That O thinks he's trying to "revive" in his trademark Vichyistic fashion:

Scrambling to resuscitate a nearly [?!?] dead truce in Syria, the Obama administration has again been forced [?] to turn to Russia for help, with little hope for the desired U.S. outcome.

Behold the tsunami of American irrelevance that crashes forth out of that single sentence.  "Resuscitate a truce" that was a Russian scam to get the White House off their backs while the finished matters in Syria for their client, "turning for help" to the scammers, and admitting that the whole thing is pointless, yet pursuing it anyway.  I take back something I said in the last post; we're not "the pitiful, helpless giant of President Nixon's depiction," we're Trumpkin (no pun intended, this time).  Or perhaps Nikabrik, since he was killed in Prince Caspian.

At stake are thousands of lives....

There are still people alive in Syria that haven't left to "counter-crusade" into Europe?

....and the fate of a feeble peace process essential to the fight against the Islamic State group....

That we're not fighting.

...and [Commissar] of State John Kerry has appealed [groan] once more to his Russian counterpart for assistance in containing and reducing the violence, particularly around city of Aleppo.

So Lurch is asking the Russians to escalate their military campaign in Syria?  Wouldn't that run counter to the idea of a "truce"?

Kerry spoke at length....



....on Friday with [well-rested] Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov to that end, and had been hoping [!] to meet with Lavrov soon, according to U.S. officials. Kerry was scheduled to arrive in Switzerland late Sunday for talks with U.N. envoy Staffan de Mistura, Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir and Jordanian Foreign Minister Nasser Judeh, and planned to return to Washington on Monday.



But Lavrov was not expected to be in Geneva.... [emphasis added]



....complicating Kerry's efforts to make the case directly to the Russians for more pressure on their Syrian government allies to stop or at least limit attacks in Aleppo.

That are being aided and abetted by those same Russians.  Man, this is embarrassing.

But it could be even worse, even though it won't take long to count those blessings.

Battlestar Galactica: A Day In The Life (S3/E15)

by JASmius



Rating: * (out of four)

Written by: Mark Verheiden
Directed By: Rod Hardy


Star Trek: The Next Generation did an episode like this one called “Data’s Day.” It chronicled a day aboard the UFPS Enterprise-D as seen through the eyes of Lieutenant Commander Data. Chief O’Brien and Keiko Ishikawa are about to be married, and Data’s uncertainty of what to get them for a wedding gift gives us some amusing character glimpses into Lieutenant Commander LaForge, then-Lieutenant Worf, and Dr. Crusher (where her nickname “The dancing doctor” was born). But there’s also a serious plot line of a Vulcan Federation ambassador, T’Pel, proving to have been a Romulan spy, and the Enterprise serving as her unwitting courier home. Data discovers the subterfuge, and when the attempt is made to recover T’Pel, the Federation flagship finds itself surrounded by Romulan warbirds. “Some days you get the bear and other days the bear gets you,” Commander Riker whispers to Captain Picard on the bridge as this time the good guys are forced to retreat to fight (OK, this was TNG, so “fight” probably isn’t the right verb, but you get the idea) again another day.

I don’t know that this was necessarily a typical day for the Enterprise crew. More like taking a high-ranking officer’s log entry and using it for an episode script. As such, though it certainly wasn’t groundbreaking, it worked as a decent standalone TNG installment.

“A Day In The Life” seemed far more likely to be an average day aboard the battlestar Galactica, in the sense that it pretty much bored the viewer right out of his tits.

There are only two things that happen in this ep, and neither of them were worth spending an hour of my time. One, Mr. and Mrs. Tyrol go to work together, get trapped in a leaky airlock and almost suffocate to death, all the while moderately bickering over what to do with their infant son Nicholas during the day; the other, Admiral Adama conducts his annual ritual of mourning his dead bitch of an ex-wife by hallucinating more of her insufferable hectoring and nagging.

Sorry, ladies and gents. I wish there was more to discuss, but that’s pretty much it.

Oh, alright, I suppose there IS a scene where President Roslin asks Adama to pull Apollo from his CAG duties to supervise the legal tribunal that will conduct the trial of Gaius Baltar, which is the device by which we get what was no doubt intended to be a deep familial discussion between father and son about the latter’s dead bitch of a mother.

I guess that might sound like a cruel, insensitive description of the late, former Mrs. Adama. But the admiral’s curious, self-flagellating regrets aside, the woman that inhabits his annual hallucinations is an aggravating, infuriating, abusive, psychopathic shrew. I had no problem understanding why the admiral took every assignment he possibly could to get out of the house and away from that shrieking hag.

Maybe what he was really regretting was abandoning his two sons to her (okay, she did have a name, “Carol Ann”) un-tender, drunken mercies. Lee tells his dad as much, describing her booze-filled tirades and physical abuse of him and Zac, evidently in an attempt to reassure the older man that he really has no reason to mourn that dead bitch. Still, Adama remains stubbornly inconsolable, somehow convinced that Carol Ann became a bitch because he wasn’t around enough to be the bastard she needed.

Or something like that. Personally I would really like to see the members of this cast stop hearing voices in their heads. When it was just Baltar it made sense as an insight into both his psyche and that of the Cylons. Now it’s just getting tiresome, and more than a little weird.

Was there any connection between Adama’s melancholy maunderings and the Tyrols’ imminent peril? Logically, no. Not that Mark Verheiden didn’t try a link anyway. Near as I could tell, the admiral didn’t want li’l Nicholas to be robbed of his parents the way he’s convinced himself he fractured his own family by his choice of career. So what was his solution to their problem? Blow them out into space….and into a waiting Raptor.

Did it work? Do you have to ask? Did it make this much of a jeopardy premise? Do you have to ask that, either?

One other fact we learn here is that it’s been seven weeks since the fleet last saw the Cylons. Which means that whereas the Human diaspora was in constant danger of sudden, fiery death before, now their biggest threat is slowly encroaching mass tedium.

Maybe the Cylons do “have a plan,” after all.


Next: Look for the union label – even if it kills them all.

Consequences of Bad People Among Us

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Early on in Donald Trump's campaign for President in the 2016 Race he made a comment that claimed, "the worst elements in Mexico are being pushed into the United States by the Mexican government."  According to Mr. Trump, Mexico is "sending people that have lots of problems" to America including rapists, drug runners, and other criminals.  Immediately, there was blow-back, and The Donald claimed the media was distorting what he said. Later, in an attempt to clarify, Donald Trump added in a written statement, "Many fabulous people come in from Mexico and our country is better for it. But these people are here legally, and are severely hurt by those coming in illegally.  I am proud to say that I know many hard working Mexicans—many of them are working for and with me…and, just like our country, my organization is better for it."  Trump also argued the Mexican government is "not our friend" and is taking advantage of the U.S. on "bad trade deals."

As a result of his statements the popularity of Donald Trump as a consideration for President of the United States skyrocketed.

That was June and July of 2015.

Half a year later, in December, Donald Trump thrust the media and the liberal left into a frenzy again, this time with a statement about the Muslim Migrants being shipped into the United States by the Obama administration. Mr. Trump called for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on. His statement included the following information:
According to Pew Research, among others, there is great hatred towards Americans by large segments of the Muslim population. Most recently, a poll from the Center for Security Policy released data showing "25% of those polled agreed that violence against Americans here in the United States is justified as a part of the global jihad" and 51% of those polled, "agreed that Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed according to Shariah." Shariah authorizes such atrocities as murder against non-believers who won't convert, beheadings and more unthinkable acts that pose great harm to Americans, especially women.
Mr. Trump stated, "Without looking at the various polling data, it is obvious to anybody the hatred is beyond comprehension. Where this hatred comes from and why we will have to determine. Until we are able to determine and understand this problem and the dangerous threat it poses, our country cannot be the victims of horrendous attacks by people that believe only in Jihad, and have no sense of reason or respect for human life."
During World War II the United States completely shut down any immigration of persons from the countries we were at war with, Germany, Italy and Japan.  Our government did not disallow these people from coming into the country because they believed every last one of them were dangerous, because they were being insensitive, or because they were just a bunch of racists.  The United States Government shut down the immigration of persons from the countries we were at war with because we were unable to tell the good from the bad.

During and after the war, as the Soviet Union and the United States began to tap-dance through a period known as The Cold War, Senator Joe McCarthy claimed that communists had not only entered the United States, but that many of our fellow Americans were communists.  According to McCarthy, communists had infiltrated high positions in government, the media, and the entertainment industry, and were doing what they could to assist the enemy.  Mr. McCarthy was demonized for what he did to combat those bad people among us, and the demonization of the Senator by the liberal left continues to this day. With the declassification of government records, both American, and Russian, the record is showing that McCarthy was right. Almost every case he charged has now been proven correct. Whether it was stealing atomic secrets or influencing U.S. foreign policy, communist victories in the 1940s were fed by an incredibly vast spy and influence network.  The communists, had indeed, and continue to, infiltrate and operate within the United States.

From an article at World Net Daily:
Although most of McCarthy’s cases involved actual spies and “security risks,” the really important issue was that of communist influence over American foreign policy, argued Evans. Harry Hopkins, Roosevelt’s closest advisor who lived in the White House, had regular contacts with Soviet intelligence. He helped bring about the disastrous Yalta and Pottsdam agreements. The Morganthau Plan, to prevent German reconstruction and starve the Germans to make them desperate enough to go communist, was the product of Laughlin Currie and Harry Dexter White at the Treasury Department. The abandonment of Chiang Kai-shek by denying military support was the product of “China Hands” led by John Stewart Service, John Patton Davies, and Lattimore. Evans described other major spy networks — in England, the Burgess Maclean group which infiltrated Washington as well as London.
Reed Irvine, chairman of Accuracy in Media, told how he himself had been a leftist in his early career. He had been against McCarthy, but McCarthy’s speeches had made him think and start to read “evidence that I had avoided.” He described how all during his military career as a Marine officer and later in Japan with the U.S. occupation he had never hidden his leftist views and later had even been offered a job at the CIA. Irvine argued that real communists were only in the hundreds, but that thousands of leftists, such as he, all feared McCarthy and had wanted him discredited.
Pulling all the latest evidence together was luncheon speaker Professor Arthur Herman. His new book, “Joseph McCarthy: Reexamining the Life and Legacy of America’s Most Hated Senator,” and featured in the Sunday New York Times Magazine, shows the vindication of most of McCarthy’s charges. Herman, who is also coordinator of the Smithsonian’s Western Heritage Program, said that the accuracy of McCarthy’s charges “was no longer a matter of debate,” that they are “now accepted as fact.” However, the term “McCarthyism” still remains in the language.
Asked whether McCarthy had understood all the forces arrayed against him, Herman said no, that McCarthy hadn’t realized he’d be fighting against much of the Washington establishment. President Truman was fearful that exposures would reflect on key Democrat officials, he said, and big media and the academic world were very leftist, a heritage of the Depression and World War II. High government officials also feared investigations of their past appointments and associations with people who turned out to be communists or sympathizers.
That was the reason McCarthy was so demonized, he said.
As the Trump Campaign continues to march forward in 2016, violence by protesters has not only become common, but the Latino protesters are promising more violence, and more agitation.  Is this violence and hate towards a Republican Party candidate who says, essentially, that he intends to enforce American immigration law, being brought upon our country by good people who want a better America?

My wife was born in Mexico, immigrated here legally as a child, and naturalized in 2007.  She had the idea to build a wall long before Trump emerged on the political scene with his call for a wall.  My wife, however, wants to add a mote full of alligators, and gun turrets.  Is she being racist against Mexicans?  Or does she understand the importance of protecting the American System from an invasion of people who reject our culture of freedom?

Violence has been one of the consequences of our nation being filled with bad people, and more specifically letting bad people who hate this country into our country with a blessing, and a whole list of entitlements they never paid for.  Is all of the violence at the Trump rallies being caused by illegal aliens?  Not necessarily.  Those who aren't illegal, however, who are acting violent at these rallies, support policies that let bad people into our country.

In the first clause of Article I, Section 9 of the United States Constitution, Congress is given the authority to "prohibit" the importation of slaves, and to prohibit the "migration" of people they believe should be prohibited from entering the country.  The part about slavery outlawed the Atlantic Slave Trade as of 1808, a move that the Founding Fathers hoped would begin the journey towards ending slavery in America.  Most of the signers of the Constitution were abolitionists, and they believed slavery would end in America during their lifetimes.  The part in Article I, Section 9 about the "migration of such persons" addresses immigration, and was designed to protect the country from allowing bad people to enter the country and reside among us.

Understand that immigration was a big deal, back then.  The United States was growing by leaps and bounds.  We needed all of the immigrants we could get.  The Western Frontier was beginning to expand westward, and as a developing nation we needed to increase our workforce, and increase our population.  So, if we needed more immigrants so badly, why would the Founding Fathers enable Congress to limit who could come into the country?

There were those out there who wished to destroy the American System before it could get off the ground.  The British Empire, after the American Revolution, didn't even officially recognize the United States as a sovereign country.  Those loyal to The Empire figured the experiment would fail, and the Americans would go crawling back into the arms of the monarchy.  The United States, however, refused to cry "uncle."  We even fought a second revolution against Great Britain in The War of 1812, during which Americans holding high position were often captured, and then hung for treason against The Empire.

During the early years of the existence of the United States the Tories, who were loyalists to The Crown, mostly departed from the American Shores, and went back to England.  Some, however, remained.  They attempted to infiltrate the American System, to bring it down from within.  During the Constitutional Convention in 1787 the delegates in Philadelphia were aware of the attempt to destroy our new country from within, and realized that there were undesirable persons out there who were immigrating into the country.  Yes, the United States needed to allow in many immigrants to fill the Western Frontier, but we didn't need people coming into this country who would prefer its system of freedom is destroyed.  So, in Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution the U.S. Congress was given the authority to prohibit certain persons from immigrating into the United States.  These groups may consist of persons sick with disease, persons who have no skills, or persons from countries that considered themselves enemies of the United States.  In the last case, though there may be good people among those potential immigrants in question, the reality was (and remains) that among their ranks were people who could be damaging to the American System.  If the risk is high that a particular population has among their migrant population coming to America bad people who wish to do America harm, or be disruptive to our American System, we simply don't need them in our country, and Congress has every constitutional authority to pass law prohibiting such persons from immigrating to the United States.

Which brings us back to Donald Trump.  Is he racist and insensitive when he says he's prepared to build a wall between the United States and Mexico, and that he's prepared to stop the Muslim migration into the United States?  Or is he being more like the Founding Fathers by determining that among these populations are bad people, and we simply can't tell the good from the bad, so we need to have policies limiting, if not prohibiting, these folks from entering our country?

Mr. Trump may be a lot of positive and negative things, but when it comes to the consequences of letting bad people into our country, he has it exactly right.

The consequences of having bad people among us are already manifesting in our cities, in our government, and at Trump rallies. . . violence, the burning of the American Flag, and a population of people among us who do not wish to assimilate into our culture, but wish to change our system into the one they departed from, are among the illegal aliens and Muslim migrants.  It is logical, knowing this, to prohibit them from entering the country in the first place.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Shiite Protesters Storm Iraqi Parliament

by JASmius



It took five years for the Bush Administration to pacify and secure Iraq, but they were finally successful.  Then Barack Obama came to power and threw it all away, consigning the country to Iranian vassalhood and eventually being largely conquered by the Islamic State.

At this point, I have to say that, though the man is an idiot, Joe Biden's one-time proposal to partition Iraq into Sunni, Shiite, and Kurdish sub-countries is starting to not look as ridiculously defeatist as it once did:

Iraq declared a state of emergency in Baghdad after supporters of Shiite Muslim cleric Moqtada al-Sadr stormed parliament, the Interior Ministry said, but Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi said late Saturday the city's Green Zone was under control, Fox News reported.

Mobile-phone video footage broadcast on Iraqi news channel al-Sharqiya showed hundreds of al-Sadr’s supporters inside the legislature on Saturday.

Why did al-Sadroids do such a thing?  Because their leader told them to.

And it's not difficult to guess why:

Al-Sadr earlier on Saturday accused lawmakers of sectarianism in their selection of ministers and ordered his bloc to withdraw from the parliament session where members were preparing to finish voting on a new cabinet.

In other words, too much accommodation was being made to Sunnis and Kurds in the upcoming cabinet selections in al-Sadr's august estimation and so he decided to pull a Trump.

And, sure enough....

Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi, who has pledged to give minority Sunnis and Kurds a bigger role in the Shiite-dominated government, has faced resistance to an effort to replace politicians in key roles with technocrats.

As the Obama Regime has "smart diplomacied" him into attempting, which could only piss off the Shiites at the same time that it would be considered insufficient by the Sunnis and Kurds, because these three groups do not want to share power or live together in the same country, and every successive attempt to shove them together, like moldy cheese, a rotten banana, and a container of yogurt three weeks past its expiration date in the back of a refrigerator -  or "the establishment," Trumplicans, and constitutional conservatives in the same political party - is doomed to failure and just makes the disharmony and strife worse.

Prime Minister al-Abadi and House Speaker Paul Ryan could probably relate to each other very well and closely:

He’s also under fire for his handling of a financial crisis and charges of government corruption. Parliament canceled its session earlier this month after a failed vote on whether to retain its embattled speaker.

Iraq's today is America's - or the GOP's, anyway - tomorrow.  Although is sure sounds like today, doesn't it?

And we are, evidently, bugging out, judging by the White House's vehement denials of same:

The U.S. Embassy is monitoring the situation, it said in an e-mailed statement....

That's all they ever seem to do - "monitor".  They never do anything about what they're "monitoring".  Just....monitor.  Sit there, passively, five-knuckle-shuffling.

Until it's time to evacuate, anyway:

....adding that reports that embassy personnel are being evacuated are inaccurate. The highly fortified Green Zone houses most of the country’s ministries and foreign embassies.

Which means they're fleeing as we speak.

“Under the Vienna Convention, all diplomatic missions are protected by the host country’s security forces,” it said. “We have full confidence that the Iraqi Security Forces will meet its obligations.” [emphasis added]

Which is why they're evacuating.

Will The One do anything else besides running away?  What do you think?

Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi is "toast" after anti-government protesters climbed over walls and stormed parliament on Saturday — threatening all efforts to [pretend to] destroy the Islamic State — and any intervention by the Obama administration will "just be political Band-Aids to address a significant problem," retired Army Colonel Derek Harvey told Newsmax.

"Prime Minister al-Abadi is toast — and whether he remains prime minister or not, he's no longer effective," Harvey said in an interview. "Al-Abadi's days are numbered."...

He called the protests, led by hundreds of supporters of Shiite Muslim cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, a "coup" that creates a "competing center of power now that directly challenges the government and puts at risk everything we have been trying to do in working with them to [pretend to] fight ISIS." [emphasis added]

And that is why we're still not-fighting ISIS almost two years later, even if you go on the premise that defeating the world's mightiest jihadist army is actually Barack Obama's intention.  "Working with" a country that doesn't functionally exist anymore can only hamstring us, impede the reaching of our objectives, and as a practical matter keep feeding U.S. military equipment to the Islamic State after every "Iraqi Army" retreat.  There is, plainly and simply and again, no way to destroy the Islamic State short of a second full-scale invasion of Iraq that rolls into Syria and cleans out and eradicates the entire nest.  Not relying upon incompetent proxies, not nuking them and quite likely igniting Armageddon, as Donald Trump implied last week and the Director dismayingly and overtly suggested yesterday,  U.S. boots on the ground, and plenty of 'em.

Which, of course, we couldn't do if Obama wanted to, because we don't have enough troops or equipment to mount a second invasion of Iraq anyway.

And as I discussed the other day with regard to the nuclear non-option:

U.S. policy for over half a century has been that (1) we do not use nukes first and (2) we neither use nor threaten to use them against non-nuclear countries.

Not a "lack of balls," Director, unless yours are filled with lunacy instead of fortitude.  That was frankly a profoundly stupid and morally abhorrent thing to say, since what your friend, the late Tim "Loki" Kerlin, was advocating by a Blackbeard-ish "KILL 'EM ALL!" policy against the Muslim world sure looks like the definition of "genocide" that I learned in school, and defeating the Global Jihad does not require us to become them.  Remember the "strong horse/weak horse" dynamic?  We're not talking World War Z here.  They can be sent back into "Allah wants us to wait" hibernation.  They can be beaten without having to wade through oceans of irradiated blood to do it.

Get some Christian perspective back, brother.

Which means that the Islamic State would need to (1) nuke us and (2) would have to be proven to have been behind the attack before we could retaliate in kind. But that brings up the second problem of ISIS not being a recognized nation-state, in which case that retaliation in kind would constitute nuking Syria and Iraq (at the very least), neither of with which the U.S. is at war and neither of which is a member of the "nuclear club".

Third....such a retaliation in kind would, in both blast and radioactive fallout affects, cause massive collateral damage against innocents, likely much more than ISIS itself would suffer, since they intermix themselves with their captive subject populations.

Fourth....the risks of igniting a larger nuclear war with Iran and especially Russia (both of whose ally would have had its territory and citizens nuked) from such a retaliation in kind would grow enormously.

Barack Obama might or might not attempt to apply "bandaids" to Haider al-Abadi's "toastedness," but that's all he can do, because he has stripped us of any other means of influencing the world beyond our borders.  We are the pitiful, helpless giant of President Nixon's one-time depiction.

And that giant is ripping itself apart, until there will be nothing left.

Hell, in a lot of ways, the "Iraqis" might be better off than we are.

March of Remembrance: Murrieta

Join me today.  Walk with us.