Thursday, May 28, 2015

2016 GOP Presidential Chances Disintegrating

by JASmius

Only three times in the past century has a conservative candidate in an open race captured the Republican presidential nomination: Warren Harding in 1920, Barry Goldwater in 1964, and Ronald Reagan in 1980.  This was due in those years primarily to there not being any "true conservatives" in the GOP, that breed having been rendered extinct by the socialist ascendancy ushered in by FDR's "New Deal" and all the subsequent regimes that followed.  In capitalistic terms, there was no political "market" for constitutionalist philosophy and ideas.  "We are all socialists, now" was the bold, "new" mantra dominating the fruitless plain.

But, thanks to the pioneering arrow-taking of Senator Goldwater and the man-of-destiny rise of Ronald Reagan at the inevitable moment of socialist-induced national peril - looming Soviet invasion externally, runaway stagflation at home - unignorable reality gave constitutional conservatism a new lease on political life - at least, for a decade or so.

But it didn't last.  George H.W. Bush, elected to President Reagan's "third term," broke his "no new taxes" pledge, the Right and the GOP were again discredited, and American turned back to the Left with a vengeance with its embrace of the Clinton whirlwind.  And a new dynamic arose that ensured that the Republican "establishment" maintained its stranglehold on the party's presidential nomination: what I refer to as the "too many cooks" phenomenon.

For such a destructive construct, its description is surprisingly simple: The "establishment" unifies behind a single "front-runner" while the conservative grassroots splinter themselves six(teen) ways from Sunday, shatter and fragment and divide the field, tear each other limb from limb, and ensure that no conservative challenger to the "establishment" candidate ever arises.  The latter then cruises to the nomination, then tacks to the "center," the conservative grassroots stay home in protest, and he goes on, more often than not, to a crushing, demoralizing, enraging defeat in November.  This is followed by the usual tiresome recriminations and finger-pointing about the "establishment" selling out" and the conservative grassroots being "unreliable" and "not being team players".

But there is a very simple solution to this problem: conservatives ceasing to "flood the zone" with candidates but instead unify behind the best one, like the "establishment" does, and have a mano-e-mano, head-to-head battle for control, and the soul of, the Grand Old Party.

True, that isn't always possible; there were no conservative candidates in 1996, for example, viable or otherwise; ditto 2000 (House Bush re-ascendant) and 2008 (a hopeless year where no viable conservative was going to make any kamikaze runs).  But 2012?  There were two-term Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty and three-term Texas Governor Rick Perry.  And while Governor Perry's debate stage "senior moment" was unfortunate, there was no reason why Governor Pawlenty couldn't have led a spirited charge against Mitt Romney and taken the nomination from him, if only conservatives had finally learned from their persistent mistakes of the past and closed ranks behind him.

But no; the Right had to spread itself to the proverbial four winds of pizza magnates and delusional congresswomen, and Governors Perry and Pawlenty got lost in the noise.  When the dust cleared in Iowa, only two ex-legislators and a single-term ex-governor who tried to speak conservatives' language but just couldn't get the hang of the dialect were left, and the latter had all the advantages of "establishment" backing and a sizable campaign warchest.  The rightwing grassroots had sabotaged themselves yet again.  And Mitt cruised to the nomination, tacked to the center, and went down to a crushing, demoralizing defeat in November, right on schedule.

Now, in the 2016, have conservatives learned their lesson?  Are there fewer candidates cluttering up the process?  Can voters get a clear picture of the field and who is viable and who is not?

Not a blinkin' chance:

The Quinnipiac University poll released Thursday found the GOP field split evenly between former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, former neurosurgeon Ben Carson, former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, Florida Senator Marco Rubio, and Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker. Each earns 10% in a poll of potential Republican primary voters and caucus-goers…

The national survey holds limited predictive value in a race that will start off as a contest among early-State activists, but it will contribute to the culling process for the first GOP debate. Fox News, which is hosting the August 6th. gathering, will invite the top ten Republican candidates based on an average of national surveys.

Under the Fox News rules, the rest of the debate stage, according to the Quinnipiac poll, would include Paul, Texas Senator Ted Cruz, reality TV host Donald Trump, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, former HP CEO Carly Fiorina, and Ohio Governor John Kasich. Former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, and former Texas Governor Rick Perry would be among those excluded.

It wasn't that long ago that Governor Walker was topping these surveys, and by a significant margin.  Why?  Because the field was still at a reasonable size.  Clarity was still possible.  But now?  With over twenty "hopefuls"?  With it now impossible to shoehorn everybody onto a single stage in a debate format that wouldn't limit everybody to under ten words apiece or go on for several days at a sitting?  Not possible.  He's gotten lost in the noise - perhaps never to reemerge.

The only possible saving grace to a gaggle of "contenders" this absurdly huge is that the "establishment" candidate - Jeb of House Bush - has to elbow a few RINO rivals out of his own way, like Huckles and the Big Man and perhaps Trump and Fiorina.  But those obstacles hardly compare with the frighteningly overpopulated mob that is transmogrifying the conservative vote into electoral dust.

And when that "dust" settles under eight months from now?  We know Jeb'll be there.  But who'll be left after the conservative battle royal?  And will any survivors not be so damaged and depleted that Bush III won't cruise to the nomination, tack to the center, and go on to the obligatory crushing, demoralizing defeat in November (to Elizabeth Warren, remember)?

Don't me wrong, I have all the confidence in the world in my guy Walk.  But, to borrow a football analogy, a basic offensive line is only supposed to have six members: two guards, two tackles, a center, and a tight end.  You might think an offensive line with forty-three members would be able to overwhelm the opposing defenders, but in reality, it couldn't get out of the running back's, or its own, way, Beast Mode or no Beast Mode.

That's what's happening with this ridiculous nomination overpopulation.  Conservatives are setting themselves up for their own defeat yet again.  And this time it will be richly deserved, and without excuse.

"Baltimore Six" Seek Change In Trial Venue

by JASmius

Seems reasonable.  It's not like they can get a fair trial in the middle of a riot:

The lawyers for the six Baltimore police officers charged in the death of Freddie Gray filed a motion today asking that the trial be moved outside of the city.

They are claiming that the officers “cannot receive a fair and impartial trial,” the Baltimore Sun reported.

Megyn Kelly said that one of their primary complaints is against State’s Attorney Marilyn Mosby, who they claim has an anti-cop bias. They also said she has prejudiced the case with some of her public statements and that she should recuse herself.

Which she won't.

Fox News senior judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano told Kelly that there are a number of problems concerning Mosby.

“The civil unrest that occurred makes it unlikely that these police officers could get a fair trial in the city of Baltimore, even if Mother Theresa [was] the prosecutor,” he said. “But instead, you have a prosecutor who acts and sounds like she’s a political candidate for office.”

Which she is.  The Freddie Gray incident takes place, the Baltimore riots erupt, Marilyn Mosby is an ambitious leftwing extremist and Black Klanswoman in a position to exploit the situation for her own political gain, Barbara Mikulski is retiring from the Senate next year.  Those dots are not difficult to connect.  Nor does the utter purposelessness (for Mrs. Mosby) of a trial that doesn't produce a preordained guilty-on-all-charges verdict prefigure any possibility that the six BPD officers will receive their Sixth Amendment right to "a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed".

However, Jazz Shaw makes a very insightful and dismaying point: Because of the vicious national media propagandizing about the Freddie Gray incident, the Baltimore Six receiving a fair jury trial may be impossible regardless of venue :

The change of venue request is not unexpected, but it also may not prove to be all that effective of a remedy. Napolitano is correct in calling out Mosby and the Mayor for turning this into a circus which looks increasingly like a nascent campaign for higher office, but simply bringing that factor to light doesn’t get us any closer to justice. The well of potential jurors in that county is likely so badly poisoned by this point that a fair and impartial finding could never be rendered. Unfortunately, the media has saturated the entire nation with wall-to-wall narrative spin about Freddie Gray and Marilyn Mosby to the point where a level field of play might be difficult to find anywhere.

Which suits her purposes quite nicely.  For Marilyn Mosby, the Baltimore Six are a means to an end, not U.S. citizens with constitutional rights that would just get in her way.  So only "Cardassian justice" will serve.

The only possibility of justice these cops have is to waive their right to a trial by jury and go straight for a bench trial and let a judge decide it, and thus to shop for their judge very, very carefully.  And that possibility is a dim one since judges have been programmed by the Black Klan "police brutality" Narrative same as everybody else.  But as it worked for Cleveland policeman Michael Brelo, it's probably their only option.

Not that Mrs. Mosby will allow it, you understand.  But a hail Mary is better than nothing at all.

Judging Obama Depends Upon Your Point of View

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Media outlet upon media outlet has attempted to navigate the waters regarding President Barack Obama's legacy, and how history will look upon him, and each time it turns out they are on the wrong waterway in the first place.  I am sure these well intentioned writers, as they try to make comparisons to other presidents, and how White House residents like Bill Clinton became more apt to compromise near the end to save his legacy, may actually believe some of the tripe they put out.  The reason for their confusion is not that they are not politically tuned to what is going on, or that they don't understand the complexities of politics.  In the case of any other President, these writers would be right on target.  Their failure is not in understanding a general sense of politics, and how politicians tend to react in various situations, but that they have their foundational understandings about who Barack Obama truly is all wrong.  Barack Obama is not seeking to ensure that his legacy looks favorable when historians look back upon his presidency from the point of view of what was best for America in a traditional sense.  Barack Obama's goals are not to leave the United States in a better economic position, or enjoying a better standing on the international stage, than when he arrived.  To be honest, those kinds of objectives stand contrary to what Obama really desires, and how he wishes history to look upon him.  Rather than have historians look back and say, "America was better off economically, and the citizens enjoyed more liberty, thanks to President Obama," Barry seeks a very different observation.  He wants historians to say, "Barack Obama was the president that finally dropped America to its knees, forcing the oppression of her history of prosperity to end, so that all nations may be equal.  Thanks to Barack Obama, the wealth of the United States was redistributed to other nations, and due to Obama's hard work, America finally became a socialist nation seeking the final utopia that humanity's evolution screams for.  Following Obama's presidency, the States ceased to believe they are sovereign, and the psychotic concept of individuality was finally eliminated.  True equity has been achieved, where the citizens work for the central government, give their allegiance to the worldwide caliphate, and honor no god above him (Messiah Obama).  Long live the history of heir Obama."

A recent New York Post article, "ISIS rises, the economy falters, and Obama's legacy falls apart," attempts to address the spectacle of Obama's legacy, indicating in the article that Barack Obama has voiced his desire to protect his post-presidential legacy.

The article begins with a reference to an interview Obama gave The Atlantic, to show that Barry is conscience of how history may view him.  “Look, 20 years from now, I’m still going to be around, God willing. If Iran has a nuclear weapon, it’s my name on this. I think it’s fair to say that in addition to our profound national-security interests, I have a personal interest in locking this down.”

John Podhoretz, the Post writer, comments that worrying about their legacy makes presidents eager to make the right decisions, but it can also lead them to make risky decisions.  In the case of Iran, Podhoretz is of the opinion that with his Iran negotiations, Obama has taken some risks.


Obama's deputy national security adviser, Ben Rhodes, when talking about Iran's nuclear program back in 2013, said, “Bottom line is, this is the best opportunity we’ve had to resolve the Iranian issue diplomatically … This is probably the biggest thing President Obama will do in his second term on foreign policy. This is health care for us, just to put it in context.”

The error in Mr. Rhodes' statement is even believing that the issue could be resolved diplomatically.  History has shown us time and time again that evil cannot be negotiated with, and evil does not work with those that they believe oppose them.  The Obama team may actually realize this, which would mean that it may be that they don't see Iran's leadership as evil, and that is why they are willing to negotiate with them.  That, and through negotiations they may actually be trying to help Iran along.

We are told they are trying to seek common ground with Iran.  The reality is, there is no common ground, be it America with Iran, or the Obama regime with American liberty.  Iran's behavior has not changed because it does not serve their interests to change their behavior.  Like Iran, Obama's behavior is not going to move toward the center, because from his point of view, he is right on track.  It is not in his interest to change his behavior.

With the chaos in the Middle East increasing, as a direct result of Obama's foreign policy of trying to treat the Muslim terrorists with kid-gloves, and refusing to take a harder stance in containing their madness, critics view the failure of the Arab Spring, the collapse of Libya, war in Syria and Iraq being waged by ISIS, Yemen's fall, Russian aggression, and North Korean saber rattling as marks against Obama's legacy.

Not according to Obama.  For him, everything is proceeding as planned.
Obama doesn't care if we trust him.  All he cares about is knocking the United States down a few notches, and being viewed through the rearview mirror of history as the guy that finally forced America into the fold of socialism, and Islam.

The writer at the New York Post observes, "For all of Obama’s posturing, he has done little to curb the nuclear ambitions of Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei."

He's not interested in curbing Iran's nuclear ambitions.  Like all players that support his idea of a world run by statists, Mr. Obama hates Israel almost as much as he hates Bible-thumping, gun-clinching conservatives, and he desires the elimination of Israel someday in the future.  What better way, in his opinion, to annihilate Israel than to let, and enable, Iran to nuke the Jews?

Domestically, things aren't much better, or couldn't be much more successful (depending upon your point of view).

ObamaCare is a failure.  Or is it?  It seems to be destroying the private market just fine, moving us towards universal medicine as originally desired by the leftists.

They keep telling us that the economy is fine, while we know it is in shambles.  While the unemployment rate is dropping in favor of Obama, in reality, using the standards we abandoned in 1995, the unemployment rate is actually 23% (which is right there with Great Depression levels).

So much for hope and change.  Americans love to hope, but they hope this change we've been experiencing changes soon.  Obama's hope and change was change nobody had hoped for.  If the media and the education industry remains in the hands of the leftists, however, the historians won't be saying that in the future.  It is likely they will view Obama just as the President wants, as the guy that finally forced America to be brought down to the level of the rest of the world. . . the president that ended American Exceptionalism.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Alternate Unemployment Reports - John Williams' Shadow Stats

Yet Another Greek Bailout Is Imminent

by JASmius

When last we visited this story, the Germans were balking at throwing more good money down the Athens black hole, and the Greeks were in a raging temper tantrum at the outrageous expectation being "forced" upon them that they start living in fiscal reality and abandon the socialist "free lunch" fantasy once and for all.  I, your hard-headed Germanic correspondent, expressed great skepticism about the Euros' philosophical resolve but also held out hope that they might finally force the Greeks to accept their day of reckoning.

Oh, dopey me:

Greece said Thursday it aims to clinch a deal with its creditors by Sunday that will allow it to receive the desperately needed final installment of its international bailout plan and keep it from defaulting on its debts.

"This optimism that the Greek government is expressing is not idle talk. It is based on very specific facts," government spokesman Gabriel Sakellaridis told reporters at a briefing. "We are going into these negotiations with the aim to have an agreement with our partners by Sunday."

Sakellaridis' comments come a day after Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras expressed similar optimism that a deal was near, and Greek officials said the text of an agreement was being written up. The optimism, which caused a market rally late Wednesday, proved short-lived, however, after key creditor states like Germany warned a final agreement remained elusive.

Because, of course, the Greeks, who elected a communist government (the "Coalition of the Radical Left," or "Syriza" party) in January, have no intention of making any capitalist free market reforms or otherwise making any concessions to economic reality.  They want their free lunch, they want it forever, and the E.U. is by-God going to provide it for them - period.

This has the look and feel of a game of public relations chicken designed to erode the Euros' resolve and force them to cave on yet another debt infusion to kick the default can down the road one more time.  And then the whole sordid cycle would start all over again, with "negotiations" and fiscal and propaganda brinksmanship leading to another showdown, and then another debt infusion, and so on in depressing perpetuity.

What this amounts to is that Greece is holding its entire continent hostage to its gimmie-gimmie whims, and a scarcely any less philosophically sympathetic E.U. is incapable of imposing the fiscal discipline needed to break the Greeks of their infantile bad habits.  So Prime Minister Tsipras is probably right about the latest "deal" being imminent.

But sooner or later the whole unstable, rotten, unsustainable scam will fly apart and collapse.  It is inevitable.  The only question for the Euros is whether they retain some degree of control over the process so as to limit collateral economic damage, or whether they reap the insolvency whirlwind right alongside the extremist denizens of the one-time "birthplace of democracy".  And fallen human nature makes that question depressingly rhetorical.

China's Islands

By Douglas V. Gibbs

While we place our worries on Iran, Russia and North Korea (as well we should), China has been working its own magic while they think nobody is looking.  Expansionism is on the move.  Tyranny is moving us toward a worldwide conflict.  Iran is doing what it can to take control of the Middle East.  Russia is trying to regain the Eastern European nations that once lived under the iron fist of the Soviet Union.  North Korea is doing its usual saber rattling, stirring the nerves of Japan and South Korea.  But, let's not forget about China, the largest of the fearsome foursome.

Chinese expansionism has began to pursue an interesting tact.  While Russia and Iran are advancing into other countries to expand their reach, China is building her empire, one island at a time.

The zone where China is building artificial islands is in areas of the South China Sea where China has been quarreling with other nations over whose maritime jurisdiction reigns.  Chinese dredging vessels have been hard at work, and building crews have created these beacons of Chinese dominance in the area over that last year.  Now, with these islands completed, and others near completion, nations in the area, including Australia, are concerned China will start packing surveillance systems and war machines into their newly built islands as Russia has been cramming into Kaliningrad.  In fact, Australia claims that China is introducing regular surveillance flights that is enabling China to project her military power and potential terror across areas that are also some of Australia's busiest trading lanes.

Australia intends to challenge China's claims to the disputed maritime zones, sending Australian naval officers and air force pilots on "freedom of navigation" missions to demonstrate that Australians do not accept China's intrusion.

The artificial islands are being built upon previously submerged reefs, and the construction includes a network of airstrips, deep-water ports and other military-capable infrastructure.  Chinese officials claim their war footing is not war footing at all.  Like Iran, they claim their obvious attempt at creating what they need to kill their neighbors is for peaceful reasons.  China insists the new sand islands will be used for humanitarian, environmental, fishing and other internationally-minded purposes.  China added, however, in its own Defense White Paper, that China will gradually expand "offshore waters defense" to include "open seas protection", adding that it would not tolerate other countries "meddling".

South China Sea neighboring countries are taking a defensive stance, recognizing the true threat China is presenting with their island building actions.  At this rate, it would seem reasonable to assume China will think it can build a sand castle on an Australian beach, and claim it to be Chinese territory.

Australia is determined to show that they do not recognize any 12-mile territorial zone or more expansive economic zone that China may unilaterally claim around its freshly-minted islands.  However, Australia also realizes they must tread lightly, partly because China is Australia's largest trading partner.

American presence was demonstrated with a flyover by a P-8 surveillance plane.

Discussions have risen regarding a joint humanitarian or military exercise with Australia participating with the United States or one of several regional partners including Japan, Malaysia and Singapore.  Such activity would send a message of solidarity, and demonstrate the region's distaste regarding what is being perceived as Chinese aggression.

Meanwhile, China's claims include areas that cover more than 80 per cent of the entire South China Sea.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

China eyes airspace over disputed waters... - Financial Times

Wednesday, May 27, 2015

Obama Nationalizes Water

by JASmius

It's his, his, all his - the stream on your property, the pond across town, the puddles on your sidewalk after a stiff rain, the saliva in your mouth, the urine in your bladder, the blood in your veins, the very clouds in the sky - all now belong to Barack Hussein Obama by the stroke of his mighty pen.

I suspect the atmosphere - i.e. the air we breathe - will be next:

The Obama administration issued a rule on Wednesday increasing the number of small bodies of water and wetlands that fall under federal protection [i.e. seizure], a move that has riled some lawmakers, business executives and farmers who say the rule unnecessarily expands federal bureaucracy.

The rule, issued jointly by the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, is estimated to put about 3% more waterways throughout the U.S. under new federal jurisdiction, which will require more permits for use of those waters and could [i.e. will] restrict access altogether, according to the EPA. Agency officials [claimed] Wednesday that the rule will protect drinking water supplies for more than 100 million Americans…

Does that include in California?  Probably not.

“My administration has made historic commitments to clean water, from restoring iconic watersheds like the Chesapeake Bay and the Great Lakes....

You mean if not for your administration, Chesapeake Bay and the Great Lakes would have dried up by now?  Or did and you filled them up again?  Or do you mean that you parted them with your mighty putter when nobody was looking?  Is anybody ever not looking at you?  Isn't that what the three hundred million sets of alligator clamps are for? preserving [i.e. stealing] more than a thousand miles of rivers and other waters for future generations....

And bleep the current generations who individually owned - past tense - their own respect chunks of them before you confiscated them for yourself.
“With today’s rule, we take another step toward protecting the waters that belong to all of us.”

You know what they say: If something belongs to "everybody," it really belongs to nobody.  And if property belongs to nobody, it will be left to deteriorate, rot, and ultimately disintegrate because nobody has any incentive to, that's right, maintain and preserve it.

But you meant "the waters that belong to me," didn't you?  By which you meant ALL water.

Aren't convinced yet, folks?  Take a gander at his definition of "other waters":

The rule will seek to protect only waterways that have physical features of flowing water, according to a fact sheet about the rule. [emphasis added]

On the vast majority of our planet, water is a non-viscous liquid.  Unless frozen solid, it is incapable of not flowing, even on a completely level surface, of which there aren't many.  Which means, among other things, that it will really suck for the White House once the coming ice age arrives, but in the mean time also means that all water everywhere within the jurisdiction of the United States government belongs to Barack Hussein Obama.  And we can't use it, drink it, dam it, redirect it, swim in it, piss in it, poop in it, or any other application we can think of without his express permission.  And that applies to everything from the "mighty Mississip" to the Great Salt Lake to Puget Sound to trout streams to prairie potholes to isolated stretches of cattails to mud puddles to a single raindrop.  It's evocative of the old expression, "The only reason you're all breathing is because I ALLOW IT!!!"

Barack Obama has usurped the entire planetary hydrological cycle.  And believe it or not, there are some people who think this is <gasp> unconstitutional:

“EPA’s Waters of the United States rule is an attack on individuals’ private property rights under the guise of protecting our country’s waterways. In reality, the rule isn’t about protecting waterways or wetlands. It’s about increasing the size and scope of the federal government and giving Washington bureaucrats more control over what American citizens do on their own property. The WOTUS rule goes far beyond the scope of the Clean Water Act and the Constitution as it usurps the States’ regulatory control over waters within their borders. EPA should withdraw this overreaching and unconstitutional rule.”

Which, of course, they won't.  Ever.

But is the AEA right about WOBHO's unconstitionality?  Let's take a look at the relevant portion of the Fifth Amendment, shall we?:

....nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.

Begging the question of who decides what is "just compensation," the feds or the private property owner.  For the answer, let us consult America's Constitution authority:

The provisions of the Fifth Amendment are there to keep our courts honest, and the powers of the government constrained. The last phrase of the Fifth Amendment, however, is considered too general by many, and it has been used in a manner by the federal government that is extremely troublesome, because it gives the government the right to take property if there is just compensation.

How is just compensation determined? Is it based on the market value of the property? How do the government officials involved in eminent domain calculate the non-intrinsic value? How do they compensate for the value on which nobody can put a price?

Just compensation was intended to be based on what the property owner deemed to be just. If the property owner did not deem the offer to be just compensation, then the government, from a constitutional viewpoint, is out of luck. [emphases added]

And, of course, the Obama EPA and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers didn't bother with the pretense of a transaction, didn't make any offer whatsoever; they just took "America's water".  ALL of it.  And by extension, every last piece of formerly private land over which it flows, because if you have water in any way, shape, or form anywhere on your property, you can use or modify neither.  If a flood turns your back forty into a swamp, sorry, pal, you can't drain it.  If the morning dew alights on your front lawn, sorry, chief, you can't mow it.  And if drought is turning your pasture into a dust bowl, too bad, bunkie, you have no access to moisture via irrigation, tanker truck, hose, or any other mode of hydration.  And if a passing squall de-parches it, guess what?  It now belongs to Barack Hussein Obama.

And there's not a damn thing you, or we, can do about it, because the Constitution belongs to him as well.

Anthrax Accident?

by JASmius


The Pentagon revealed Wednesday that "live anthrax" was shipped, apparently by accident, from a lab in Utah to as many as nine states over the course of a year.

Pentagon spokesman Colonel Steve Warren assured "there is no known risk to the general public" and said an investigation is under way. But precautions are being taken for potentially exposed workers in labs where the samples were sent. A U.S. official told Fox News that four people in three companies are being treated for "post-exposure" and being prescribed prophylaxis....

The material in question was prepared at Dugway Proving Ground, Utah, as part of what was described as a "routine" research process. It was then sent out to Defense Department and commercial labs in nine states between March 2014 and March 2015 -- and the shipments were supposed to include only inactive, or dead, anthrax when they were transferred.

"These were supposed to be dead spores anthrax, called AG-1," a defense official said.

But a private lab in Maryland, on May 22, informed the CDC that they thought the samples contained live anthrax. The CDC then informed the Defense Department. According to the Associated Press, the government has confirmed the Maryland lab got live spores, and it is suspected the others did as well, though not yet confirmed.

When asked how many of the states that were sent anthrax received live samples, the defense official said that “out of an abundance of caution, it is safe to assume it’s all live." [emphases added]

I will reiterate: I am not a conspiracist.  Conspiracies are the least efficient way of accomplishing anything.  Too many people have to keep quiet, and keeping quiet is not in human nature.  And this instance would come across like something out of a comic book, and not the Marvel/DC superhero/supervillain variety, either.

But y'all also know I can't help asking questions.  "Apparently by accident"?  If Fox News is qualifying the Regime's claim, that suggests that they think the claim is as fantastical as it sounds to me.  Dugway Proving Ground sent out live anthrax samples to government and private labs all over the country for over a year and didn't realize it?  I know, I know, "never underestimate the power of human stupidity"; stupid mistakes are more likely than honest mistakes; yata yata yata.  But DPG doesn't have protocols and safeguards in place to prevent just such mistakes?  What is called "quality control" in manufacturing?  Really?  Seriously?

If I were a conspiracist, I would suspect that this was either a dry run or actual attempt by the Obama Regime to artificially seed an anthrax outbreak ("...there is no known [i.e. admitted] risk to the general public...."), since their like attempt with ebola last fall didn't take, and if the latter, it failed, and now they're trying to hide it in plain sight by claiming it was an accident; or perhaps it's a feint, a distraction from something or things else.  Once one starts speculating down that road, the possibilities can be endless.

If I were a conspiracist.  Which I'm not.

But Occam's Razor just doesn't seem to indicate an accident.  Maybe once or twice, but nine different States over an entire year?  Is there an explanation apart from an implausible series of accidents that would not be conspiratorial?  I'm all ears.

Evaluating Trans Pacific Partnership

By Douglas V. Gibbs

On Constitution Radio with Douglas V. Gibbs on May 23, 2015 on KMET 1490AM, the topic of the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) free trade agreement moseyed its way into the arena of discussion.  During the conversation a rare instance in the many year history of the radio program, and on the Political Pistachio blogsite for that matter, emerged where JASmius (my longtime co-host, staff writer, and dear friend) and I disagreed.  While I indicated I felt that the deal is potentially a dangerous one, and I am against Republican support of the Obama supported trade agreement, JASmius stated he supported the spread of capitalism, and that is what the TPP agreement accomplishes.  I responded that I support free trade, but not when it puts the United States, and more specifically "American sovereignty," at a disadvantage.  I added that the secretive nature of this agreement threw up red flags for me, as well.

In an examination of what little information is available regarding this "behind-closed-doors" consensus of international political elites, the potentiality of the TPP free trade treaty being a disadvantage for American interests is alarming.  The agreement will facilitate the creation of global economic integration that will empower globalistic schemes, and place American interests at risk.  At first blush, the agreement caters to those that wish to annihilate national sovereignty, hindering America's position on the global economic stage while redistributing the wealth of nations to other countries that may not be so far up on the world-stage ladder, while positioning global economics into a position to better be able internationalists to ultimately push aside domestic individuality while moving the planet closer to a one world model that can be more easily controlled by a worldwide centralized governing authority.

While on the surface, the Trans Pacific Partnership claims to be about free trade, it has little to do with trade, and is more about moving chess pieces around for those that have global aspirations.  The United States, in this agreement, joins 12 countries that includes Canada and Mexico, two countries we already have three-quarters of our foreign trade with - and of which is already covered by NAFTA (which has also been proving to be disastrous due to the agreement having similar globalistic provisions that places the United States at a disadvantage).  Growth exports are already covered by NAFTA, so while the TPP agreement is being heralded as a trade agreement, it actually has no significant relevance to our trade relations, or at least not in a manner that improves our position in relation from NAFTA.

The TPP agreement is not designed to grow trade because instead it is constructed in a manner designed to carry on, and double-down, on the destructive policies already in place because of the Obama administration.  Don't be fooled, though.  Obama is not the only one behind this kind of thinking.  Those tyrannical policies are also championed by the Democrats, and a number of Republicans who think it may serve them well in the future.  What TPP does, however, is take those policies out of the hands of the elitists in the American System, and then transfers all of these oligarchical aspirations to international whims and governance.

The statists in the federal government have been working to centralize power, and strip Congress of its constitutional authorities, since the nationalists around people like Alexander Hamilton and John Marshall began to take actions to circumvent the United States Constitution.  Under Barack Obama, however, we have witnessed an increased irrelevance of the United States Congress and a massive drive to complete the process of reducing the Constitution to nothing more than some forgotten, antiquated document that the liberal left claims was designed for the purposes of oppression, anyway.

Mr. Obama has repeatedly said he will make sure his policies are enacted, "with or without Congress."  He has threatened to make agreements with Iran, and agreements regarding global environmental concerns, without the constitutional requirement of ratification from the U.S. Senate.  The representation of We the People is an obstacle to the statist left's aspirations, and therefore Congressional involvement with the growth of a centralized authority maintained by a ruling elite must be eliminated. . . and TPP accomplishes just that when it comes to trade with other nations.  Under TPP, congressional oversight is largely removed, with a host of items through the agreement being transferred from the control of the U.S. Congress and the several State legislatures to international agencies and international trade courts.  To make sure the agreement is slammed into place, Obama is also using another mechanism that will allow the executive to bypass Congress called "Fast-Track."

The realities regarding the Trans Pacific Partnership are shocking, placing more power over our trade into the hands of international overseers, and that is the reason for the secretive nature of the negotiations, and the release of little information about the agreement itself.  Like the Affordable Care Act, few know what is in the agreement, and whatever questions do arise regarding America's role in the agreement will not be offered to be approved or resolved by American legislatures, but will be handed over to international trade courts to sort out, interpret, redefine, and control the language and overall application of the agreement.  The international courts can decide any way they want, and there is nothing, under TPP, the American People, the United States Congress, or the individual States can do about it.  This will, once the stage is set, allow players that stand against the United States to manipulate the provisions of the agreement, specifically giving China the opportunity to further erode America's standing in international trade, and in the global economic picture.

The TPP also nullifies any American regulatory control regarding access to our part of the global market, disallowing restrictions that federal or State laws may place on the types of goods moving through the market such as restrictions American law has in place regarding genetically modified foods.  Under the TPP, the international courts would also have the ability to impose limitations on congressional say regarding the "free flow of labor" that is already crossing the border illegally at will.  Any attempts to slow down the flow of illegal immigration by the United States can be stopped by international courts (international panel of arbitrators), in line with the provisions of TPP.  TPP also enables the international courts to enforce against Congress the international requirement (as per TPP) to impose environmental policies, and sustainable development policies, even if Congress refuses to accept these internationally mandated intrusions upon American sovereignty.  From a constitutional point of view, what this does is surrender to international interests congressional responsibility under Section 1, Article 8 of the Constitution that grants to Congress the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations.  In short, the agreement places international demands, and decisions decided by international bodies, above American law and American interests.

On the political front inside the United States, the Obama administration has been working feverishly to centralize authority, and make Congress nothing more than a consultative assembly that can complain, but do nothing, about his executive actions.  The onslaught of tyranny against the people, against their representation in Congress, and against the sovereignty of the States, has been moving at full-throttle under this administration.  Despite their efforts, however, the White House has failed to force America to fully embrace leftist policies regarding various economic authorities, immigration, environmental policies, and the social issues.  So, having failed to accomplish what they want using unconstitutional federal strong-arming, Obama is left no choice but to retreat to the stronghold of the international community, using international agreements to force Congress, and the States, into compliance with his leftist agenda.  The move is no surprise.  Obama has repeatedly shown that he holds international opinion above American interests and American constitutional authorities. 

Obama, and his minions, have global aspirations.  The centralization of power into the executive branch is not the end-goal.  International rule, where wealth is redistributed in a global manner, and the individual sovereignty of nations is only a faint memory, is the long-term objective of the global ruling elites.  It is a worldwide manifestation of Jean Jacque Rousseau's "General Will" and drive for an "Ordered Society," where the will of the people is presumed not to be understood by the populace, but only by the ruling elite, and those that dare to oppose the laws put in place for the common good by the ruling elite must be restrained by the body politic. . . because "man must be forced to be free."

In Washington, D.C., the system is no longer based on the constitutional construct that birthed our system.  The servants have become a ruling elite, a machine with bureaucrats and staffers that use threats and the selling of favors to accomplish the oligarchical desires of vicious masters.  Economies are manipulated by the press of a button, and the future of American liberty is being extinguished by backroom deals.

The Founding Fathers feared concepts steeped in the centralization of government residing in the hands of a powerful few.  They recognized these kinds of schemes would subject all voluntary associations to government regulation, controlling the people in the name of the common good as interpreted by a ruling elite.  Such a system would lead to the end of individual liberty, the end of the free market, and the end of the prosperity and sovereignty of the United States.  The political romanticism of a global utopia can only be pursued by eliminating individualism, be it the individualism and exceptionalism enjoyed by people, States, or the United States of America as a whole.

If the internationalists get what they want through TPP, the power of the international courts will become the dominant force in trade, special interests, political characters, and multinational corporations will find a way to manipulate the international courts to rule in their favor.  When power is centralized, the individuals wielding that power can be easily bought and influenced.  The apolitical, or impartial, men of the international courts will then become no different than the bought and paid for justices in our own federal court system, swayed by political favors, and a tyrannical ideology that will afford them even more power if they simply obey the demands of the most powerful statists over them.

Thomas Jefferson, based on his understanding of history, taught that the closer the government is to the people, the more likely it is to be the servant, rather than the master.  When government is centralized, and placed farther away from the people (be it Washington D.C., or an international body) it is inevitable that despotism will be the consequence.  As the old saying goes, "Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely."

On the surface, the TPP is being sold as a wonderful thing, an agreement that will better America's position in the global scheme of things, but we must remember, darkness always reveals itself as an angel of light.  Knowing this, especially when there is a secretive component to a political endeavor such as the Trans Pacific Partnership, we must always ask for the details.  We need to be asking "why?", and demand that the sovereignty of the States and the representation of the people (along with a variety of checks and balances against absolute power) remain in place, and be protected.  TPP places a concentration of power into a small number of hands, and all too frequently in history, when that happens, the mentality of tyrants take control.

The most confusing part of all of this is that while this international agreement called the Trans Pacific Partnership is being engineered with international interests at the top of the autocratic pile, while placing American sovereignty at a disadvantage, the Republicans, a number of them usually in tune with conservative values and constitutional intentions, have suddenly been fooled so easily by it.  Was not Barack Obama's position on this dangerous agreement enough to throw up some red flags?  Has he bought them off?  Are they suddenly eager to give in to centralized power?  Are the Republicans, who have complained about the Obama administration's seizure of power on other issues, and the consolidation of power we are seeing into the executive branch, suddenly willing to hand over more power to him, and international courts, through TPP?

TPP allows the President of the United States to negotiate anything that falls under the TPP (which can be interpreted to mean anything) through the provision called "fast-track authority."  Obama, under this agreement, can negotiate anything he wants.  Never mind treaties that at least require Senatorial ratification.  With TPP, "fast track" gives Congress no way to stop a power-hungry president, or tyrannical international agencies, from ripping up and tossing aside the philosophies and principles of the United States Constitution that have served as the rule of law in the United States, and has led this nation to prosperity under those principles.  TPP creates an expansive global power that is managed by a powerful few, and dismisses American interests, American sovereignty, and American exceptionalism.

If the expansion of capitalism on the world stage requires the United States to become a small speck of controlled dust in an ever-expansive global authority, never mind.  You can keep it.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Hard Starboard Radio: John Adams' Conservative Message

“Things fall apart; the center cannot hold; mere anarchy is loosed upon the world”; The Republican budget contains some positive steps, but also some sleight-of-hand and increased spending; A stroll down my core dump at Political Pistachio today; and why only moral individuals are capable of making for limited government (or "Constitutional Corner on hump day").

Time to break out the powdered wigs at 6PM Eastern/3PM Pacific.

Rick Santorum To Announce Presidential Bid In Interview With ….George Stephanopoulos

by JASmius

And then there, heck, I've lost count....:

Rick Santorum, the former Republican senator from Pennsylvania, will announce today that he will seek the GOP nomination for president in 2016, ABC News has learned. ABC News’ Chief Anchor George Stephanopoulos will sit down for an exclusive interview with Santorum this afternoon.

Santorum, 57, is set to reveal his presidential intentions at an event today in Cabot, Pennsylvania, near his childhood home. It will be his second run for the White House, almost four years after he won primaries and caucuses in eleven states and finished second to former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney in the race for the Republican nomination.

Which means, don't forget, that it's Tricky Dick's "turn" in 2016.  It isn't much of a pretext, but it's more than most of this thundering herd of trunkless Pachyderm flesh possesses.  And think of the He[ck] In A Cell match he'll have with Huck [and...Jeb Bush?] for the affections of evangelicals.  I can see the PPV fundraising revenue tsunamis now.

Is it all the more appalling that he's re-legitimizing Stephi in the process?  Probably not.  As bottom-of-the-candidate-barrel as Santorum is, and as late a buzz-raising start as he's got, he can't be choosy about the media outlet(s?) willing to give him another fifteen minutes of fame.  And, really, was anybody the slightest bit surprised that Bill Clinton's first White House press secretary was on the payrolls of ABC and the Clinton Foundation at the same time?  Hell, I've always assumed it.  And you'll notice that ABC, far from giving GS the Brian Williams treatment, just waited a couple of weeks for the mini-teapot-tempest to blow over and returned to business as usual.  It's why I didn't bother writing about it here at PP.  What would have been the point?  It's not like it was news or anything.

For the Media, It's All - And ONLY - About Hillary's Vagina

by JASmius

Well, we can't ask about her utter dearth of accomplishments as First Lady (besides setting back feminism several centuries).  We can't ask about her complete absence of accomplishments in her eight-year run in the U.S. Senate (besides her frequent illustrations of narcolepsy).

We can't ask her about her non-existent list of accomplishments as Commissar of State, unless a majority of Americans consider "reducing America to the level of the rest of the world" and setting all of our emboldened enemies gunning for our national jugular an "accomplishment" (and, to be fair, half the country does).  And nobody can take any promise she makes seriously, since it will have the half-life of hydrogen-7, which is just this side of a quantum vacuum fluctuation.  So what else is left other that (alleged) X-chromosome?

Nothing, as far as the Obamedia is concerned:

Expecting a Commander in Chief to have some kind of accomplishments that show their qualifications before getting hired for the job is reasonable, right?  Maybe, just not if those accomplishments happened while serving has the head of the State Department, according to U.S. News and World Report’s Susan Milligan.

On Hardball with Chris Matthews, Milligan said the question posed to the Iowa Democratic panel was “unfair.”

“I think most people could not look at a Secretary of State and point to an accomplishment. Frankly, mostly what a Secretary of State does is keep something from becoming a massive crisis so, that in a way wasn’t a terribly fair question,” said Milligan.

Really, Susan?  Ever heard of the Alaska Purchase?  The Marshall Plan?  Or the "opening to China"?  Or SALT I?  These were all quite notable accomplishments of Her Nib's predecessors at Foggy Bottom like William Seward, George Marshall, and Henry Kissinger, just to name a few.  But then they all had penises and not delusional presidential ambitions, so I guess they don't count.

Kinda cuts down on Mrs. Clinton's campaign slogans, I would think: "Vote for Hillary, she's concave, if elected she'll behave"?  "Only a president that bleeds, leads - Hillary 2016"?  Certainly they have to get rid of "Ready for Hillary!" unless it's accompanied by the Ugly Dutchess mounted in stirrups awaiting a pelvic examination.  And they'd have one helluva time cramming that into a bumper sticker.

Exit question: Is it hilarious or infuriating that only now, almost a decade later, does Tingles publicly admit that Barack Obama's 2008 resume was thinner than Miley Cyrus's virtue?

Judicial Antidote To Obamnesty?

by JASmius

Potentially.  Or maybe theoretically is a better adjective.  Sure, the votes of actually U.S. citizens could be hypothetically weighted to offset and negate the votes of illegal aliens under Obamnesty.  In practice, this "one person, one and a half votes" idea would be criminally exploited by the Left in the diametrically opposite direction to even more unimaginable lengths:

The Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to hear a case that will answer a long-contested question about a bedrock principle of the American political system: the meaning of “one person one vote.”

The court has never resolved whether that means that voting districts should have the same number of people, or the same number of eligible voters. The difference matters in places with large numbers of people who cannot vote legally, including immigrants who are here legally but are not citizens; unauthorized immigrants; children; and prisoners.

The new case, Evenwel v. Abbott, #14-940, is a challenge to voting districts for the Texas Senate brought by two voters, Sue Evenwel and Edward Pfenninger. They are represented by the Project on Fair Representation, the small conservative advocacy group that has mounted earlier challenges to affirmative action and to a central part of the Voting Rights Act.

Jazz Show elaborates on why the SCOTUS should leave well enough alone:

Demanding that the states divide up their districts based on eligible voters looks like a task which makes cleaning King Augeas’ stables seem simple by comparison. The first reason is that the census is not accurate. It’s a close approximation at best. Counting the homeless, the frequently moving renters and those “living in the shadows” or off the grid is a massive challenge. And even if you had an accurate count of the total number of heads, how many of them are in prison, on parole or otherwise ineligible for reasons of having committed a felony?

Until the Democrats extend them the franchise.

How many are illegal [alien]s?

Already being extended the franchise.

For that matter, how many will die before the next census?

In which case they'll all be countable as Democrat voters.

And none of this addresses the question of low population states like Wyoming. They have a single district with [fewer] than [six hundred thousand] people, so all of their votes are worth more than the rest of ours by definition.

But that's okay, because Wyoming is a "red" State.

On the other side of the coin, among those who are currently ineligible....

Though not for long. many will finish their prison terms and regain the right to vote? How many will complete the naturalization process? The list goes on and it’s a dizzying problem to even contemplate. I suppose the court could say something vague along the lines of demanding that the State make their “best effort” to determine the numbers, but then you’re just in line for an endless series of lawsuits from plaintiffs who claim that the best effort in question wasn’t good enough or was corrupted by biased politicians.

Which underscores the folly of the Project on Fair Representation's filing of Evenwel v. Abbott in the first place.

The bottom line is, do we really want the federal government deciding how much each American's (and non-American's) vote counts for based upon criteria the federal government makes up to suit its own purposes?  And do I even have to ask where in the Constitution the federal Judiciary would be empowered to take such a nakedly corrupt and tyrannical action?

Even if this SCOTUS doesn't take this horribly ill-advised step, they've all but guaranteed that a future, even less constitutionalist and more lefty oligarchical  High Court will.

So enjoy your ballot while you have the chance, my friends.  Soon it will be "officially" disemboweled as well is functionally nullified.

Rand Paul Smears "GOP Hawks" As "Creators" Of Islamic State

by JASmius

Looks like Hillary Clinton has found her presidential primary challenger; problem is, he's in the other - and quite clearly the wrong - party:

Senator Rand Paul on Wednesday blamed the growth of the Islamic State (ISIS) on the "hawks in our party who gave arms indiscriminately," in the Middle East, with the weapons eventually ended up in the hands of the militant fighters.

"Most of those arms were snapped up by ISIS," the Kentucky Republican and 2016 presidential candidate told MSNBC's Morning Joe host Joe Scarborough, responding to people in his party such as Senator Lindsey Graham, who "want to bomb [Syrian leader Bashar al-]Assad, which would have made ISIS' job easier."

ISIS is also all over Libya because of "hawks in my party," said Paul. "They loved Hillary Clinton's warning. They wanted more of it ... everything they have talked about in foreign policy, they have the gall to point the finger otherwise."

I'm not sure if this is just more of the same pissing match between Paul and McCain/Graham that's been going on, off and on, ever since the Ronulan arrived in the Senate, or whether he's either lost his mind or suffered some sort of memory engram re-sequencing.  I'm also not sure to what GOP constituency he's attempting to pander with this nonsense unless the Paulnuts are still considered within the "big tent," which would probably be news to them, or Senator Paul is contemplating a party switch.

The fact of the matter is that it was the Obama Regime that flirted with Syrian "red lines" and bombing Assad - for which McCain and Graham were, indeed, rooting (though I sure as hell wasn't, for reasons the opposite of Rand's - i.e. It wouldn't have been a comprehensive intervention to liberate Syria altogether).  But....the Obama Regime didn't bomb Syria.  Just as it was the Obama Regime that did arm the proto-Islamic State under the loopy guise of empowering "moderate" anti-Assad elements that never, in fact, existed.  Which, again, McCain and Graham supported, but which they did not have any hand in carrying out.  And they were hardly any kind of majority among Republicans overall.

Same thing applies to Operation Just Because in Libya - a dubious intervention undertaken for anti-American/pro-jihadist purposes that a tine fraction of the powerless congressional GOP - mainly McCain and Graham - mindlessly supported.  It's like Senator Paul is accusing his two co-partisans of somehow manipulating The One into these actions with Dick Cheney's superdupersecret mind control apparatus or something and compounding the offense by overgeneralizing to "GOP hawks" for good measure.  Does Rand really feel that threatened by the high comedy candidacy of Lindsey F'ing Graham?  Or is that a Freudian omission that Rand's candidacy belongs in the same joke category?  I don't get it.

But what is unquestionable offensive, obnoxious, and shall we say, "counterfactual," is the accusation that "GOP hawks" had any hand in "creating ISIS," when it was precisely the pell-mell withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq - which Rand Paul presumably supported, or he can't very well call himself an isolationist "non-interventionist" - that was responsible for the Islamic State's rise.

What is not at all difficult to grasp is Senator Paul's promised foreign policy, which sounds barely distinguishable from that of the man he purports to succeed:

The ultimate answer to dealing with ISIS, Paul said, is to get an "Arab coalition and boots on the ground that will stop them ... Turks need to have their army up on the border. They need to fight."

He also believes that the United States should work toward recognizing the Kurds and encourage them to fight with Turkey to wipe out ISIS.

"Also, Assad does need to leave," Paul said, and then be replaced by "a government we can support. Right now there are 1,500 groups that hawks in our party have been arming."

The self-evident problem with these suggestions?  None of them are possible or workable or feasible without U.S. military power.  If the Turks were capable of ousting Assad, they'd already have done it.  If the "Arab coalition" and/or the Kurds were capable of defeating the Islamic State, they'd already have done it.  That neither has taken place clearly indicates that none of the aforementioned parties are capable of doing what Senator Paul is calling on them to do.

And so, under a Paul administration, the Middle East would continue to disintegrate into chaos and mass murder and war that would only empower and triumphalize the Iranian mullahgarchy and the Islamic State.  Almost as if Barack Obama had never left office at all.  Because the only way to turn that around is via U.S. leadership and certainly, at this sorry stage of the game, U.S. military intervention.  You know, what those warmongering "GOP hawks" can't wait to do.

But then this is the same man that has more or less single-handedly killed the Patriot Act, which was designed to - yes, constitutionally - protect the American homeland from rabid jihadists like the Islamic State, whatever one deludes oneself into believing was its "REAL" origins.

And that is the context for this story:

Social media-savvy Islamic State (ISIS) supporters and propagandists are overwhelming U.S. investigators trying to keep up with the jihadist plots and threats that, according to an ominous bulletin, suggest "military bases, locations, and events could be targeted in the near-term," Fox News reports.

The six-page bulletin obtained by Fox News warns that law enforcement and military personnel should be wary at upcoming national holidays and military events due to the "heightened threat of attacks by the Islamic State of Iraq and [Syria]."...

The bulletin was sent from the FBI, Department of Homeland Security, and National Counterterrorism Center one day before the Memorial Day holiday weekend, Fox News reports.

And all of it solemnly, sacredly, and sacrosactly protected by Rand Paul's....creative reinterpretation of the Fourth Amendment.

So in essence, under a Paul White House, directly resisting jihadism would be both seen as both breeding, if not justifying jihadism and considered unconstitutional at the same time.

Forget Julian Castro, Hillary - which is to say, Elizabeth Warren - has found her true running mate - or at least her Commissar of State.

UPDATE: I'm not with the Big Man on much, but on the Patriot Act, Chris Christie nails it:

"I agree with the folks in the intelligence community who have kept us safe for fourteen years since 9/11," the governor said. He added that, unlike people in the Senate who are talking about the act, none have actually used it, while he did use it while he was a federal prosecutor trying 9/11 cases in New Jersey.

"They talk about it from a speculative perspective; I talk about it from a real life perspective," Christie said. "Nobody that's in this national conversation right now has the practical experience I've had."

And Christie denies that lawmakers need to choose between the Fourth Amendment and national security.

"The Patriot Act hasn't led to us making that choice," said Christie. "We can protect our homeland and our civil liberties. We've been doing it for nearly fourteen years."

While opponents say they want to see an example of how the collection of metadata has prevented an attack, Christie said he wants to see "just one" time when the act violated a person's civil liberties.

"You have people just making things up that the NSA is sitting and listening to people's conversations," said Christie. "They're not. And the fact is, we want them to be connecting those dots."

And if there is another attack, Christie said, the same people opposing the Patriot Act will be the ones calling the FBI and CIA to testify about what went wrong.

Precisely.  Amen, Governor.

I might have to lift Double-C up my primary campaign candidate list (though certainly not the top).  Even if I have to rent a crane to do it.

UPDATE II: Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal piles on:

“This is a perfect example of why Senator Paul is unsuited to be Commander-in-Chief,” Jindal said in a statement from his governmental office. “We have men and women in the military who are in the field trying to fight ISIS right now, and Senator Paul is taking the weakest, most liberal Democrat position.”

“We should all be clear that evil and Radical Islam are at fault for the rise of ISIS, and people like President Obama and Hillary Clinton exacerbate it,” he said. “It has become impossible to imagine a President Paul defeating radical Islam and it's time for the rest of us to say it.”

Couldn't have put it better myself.  And that's saying something.

Senate GOP Backing Plan To Extend ObamaCare Subsidies

by JASmius

C'mon, my Tea Party compatriots, you knew this was inevitable.  If the SCOTUS manages to be sufficiently literate to actually read what Original ObamaCare actually says about subsidies only being provided for Regime-approved health insurance policies coercively purchased through "State [cartels]," and declares for the plaintiffs in King v. Burwell next month - which I don't think they will any more than they struck down the Individual Mandate three years ago, and for the same damn reason - we all know what the Islamocommumedia Complex caterwaul will be: "Rightwing Republican extremist Supreme Court viciously takes away Americans' health care".  And the rabid leftwingnut jihad will be on.

Now of course WE say, "".  Of course WE say "ObamaCare is still hugely unpopular, so the American people will be on our side" (which I don't think they would be once the leftwingnut howling reached full-throated volume).  But elected Republicans, while elected by us, are, by and large, NOT us.  And they do have to take the entire electorate into account, not just their own base, if they want to retain the unified congressional majority they only so recently regained.  That's simply how their mindset - and political reality - works.

Of course, WE say that they have to take their base into account first if they want to retain the unified congressional majority they only so recently regained.  But who listens to US anymore?

But in this case, the castor oil is intended to be bipartisan:

In preparation for a decision by the Supreme Court to strike down ObamaCare subsidies, a number of Senate Republicans are backing a plan that would temporarily restore them for current enrollees.

According to Politico, thirty-one senators have signed onto a bill authored by Wisconsin GOP Senator Ron Johnson that would extend the subsidies through September 2017 but, at the same time, repeal ObamaCare's Individual and Employer Mandates and insurance coverage requirements.

"In that moment of what could be political chaos, we're offering such a reasonable proposal that solves a mess," Johnson said, according to Politico. "It fixes a mess caused by a sloppily written law, unlawfully implemented. All we're asking for is a little bit of freedom back, which would be, I think, pretty popular."

The measure has the backing of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and the rest of the GOP leadership, as well as a number of lawmakers who are facing tough re-elections.

But Johnson's plan is unlikely to gain support from the White House or Senate Democrats. [emphasis added]

So whaddaya think, TPers?  Is the gutting of ObamaCare worth a couple of years' subsidies?  Sounds like a helluva bargain to me.

Of course, as you're doubtless already retorting, congressional Republicans would never have the cajones to go to the mat with Barack Obama on this (and he's already guaranteed a veto, which means it would never get past the inevitable Senate Democrat filibuster), and would instead cave and pass a "clean" subsidies extension bill instead, or even retroactively amend ObamaCare to extend subsidies to policies obtained through

And you're probably right.

But it is inevitable, and you shouldn't have expected anything else.

Exit question: Isn't it a relief that Chief Justice Roberts or Justice Kennedy will come to Senate Republicans' rescue once again?

Megyn Kelly's Rebuttal To Barack Obama's "We Have Peace For Our Time" Memorial Day Manifesto

by JASmius

At the top of Tuesday’s Kelly File on the Fox News Channel, host Megyn Kelly tore into President Obama and his remarks at Arlington National Cemetery on Memorial Day where “America's commander in chief celebrate[d] the absence of a major war, while his own top security advisers warn the American people directly that the danger right now is greater than at any time in a half century.”

Prior to senior political analyst Brit Hume joining the program, Kelly made her displeasure known with a three-minute-plus introduction in which she detailed the numerous foreign policy crises that currently brewing at the very time that the President made his speech touting how “this Memorial Day is especially meaningful.”

<shrug>  He - and the sixty-two million morons who twice elected him - have gotten what they wanted: "An America reduced to the level of the rest of the world".  Which is to say, weak, impoverished, paganized, oppressed, powerless, and - soon to be - war-torn, from sea to bloody sea.

If you were Barack Obama, wouldn't you exploit Memorial Day to take a "victory lap" and rub your enemies' noses in the fact?

Tuesday, May 26, 2015

U.S. Air Force Announces EMP Missile

by JASmius

I only have one question: How did a weapon as cool as this one get past the Obama Regime's anti-military dragnet?:

The Air Force has reportedly picked Lockheed Martin’s long-range Joint Air-to-Surface Missile to carry a new “superweapon’ – a pulse-generated beam weapon capable of destroying electronics and computers from miles away.

Major-General Thomas Masiello of the the Air Force Research Laboratory says the technology, known as CHAMP — for Counter-electronics High-powered microwave Advanced Missile Project — can destroy electronic equipment with bursts of high-power microwave energy, Flight Global reports.

The technology will be "miniaturized" to fit the Lockheed missile, Flight Global reports.

This revolutionary development in weaponry, right out of a Star Trek episode, could radically change warfare, experts say....

By dramatically recovering and enhancing U.S. technological (at least) military superiority, yes.  Which is why Barack Obama will cancel it, and probably why Major-General Masiello was ordered to go out and publicly spill the beans in the first place.

This will be the Regime's SOP cover:

But there are also fears the project could trigger a strong reaction from U.S. competitors like China and Russia.

"Should the [United States] be known to have developed such a technology to the production stage, it would drive others to try to act similarly," according to Trevor Taylor of the Royal United Services Institute, the Daily Mail reports.

As if only our developing an EMP missile first could possibly motivate our enemies to develop and deploy and use their own.  And as if Moscow and Beijing haven't already stolen this technology and done precisely that, courtesy of their friend in the White House.

Hey, O is indirectly arming the Islamic State and Iran, and sold arms to all kinds of bad actors at twice the rate the Bush Administration ever did.  Why would the CHAMP system be any different?

Violent Protests "Trigger" Rise In Conservative Voting

by JASmius

Or at least, they did half a century ago.  Today, in an America that is much less white and much less conservative, and in which what conservative remnant there still is is far more obsessed with tearing down its own party than it is fighting the dominant leftwingnut ruling elite?  I've got massive doubts.

Evidently the Obamedia is taking the "threat" at least a bit more seriously:

Riots elicit a hostile, right-wing response, a new study shows.

i.e. Violent "social justice" stimulates "white racism".

The finding by Omar Wasow, an assistant professor at the department of politics at Princeton, comes in his paper titled, "Nonviolence, Violence and Voting: Effects of the 1960s Black Protests on White Attitudes and Voting Behavior."

But it has some intriguing implications for cities roiled by anti-police brutality protests that have escalated into riots, New York Magazine reports.

"If the violent protests in Ferguson and Baltimore [and New York City and Oakland and Cleveland and....] supercede nonviolent protest, Wasow’s research implies that the liberal moment might give way to another reactionary era," New York Magazine reports.

i.e. The "white racists" will win and the KKK will ride again and the Confederacy will be resurrected.  Even though all of the above were manifestations of the Democrat Party.  The editors of NYM need to bone up on their American history education.

The unspoken - or unwritten, I suppose - phrase in the above quote is "reactionary against civil rights".  As opposed to simply "reactionary against rioting and black racist street violence and burning down businesses and neighborhoods and otherwise sanctioning the upheaval and destruction of American civil society".  Something the uberLeft was just as complicit in attempting to stir up during the 1960s as they are today, and which I would think Americans of all colors and ethnicities would vehemently oppose.  That this is not remotely the case is more prima facie evidence that America is not nearly as conservative as it once was.

You can see this slant throughout "Professor" Wasow's paper:

According to the magazine, Wasow looked at the nonviolent civil-rights demonstrations and urban rioting during the 1960s, honing in on the change in public opinion from 1964, when Lyndon Johnson swept to victory with a liberal, pro-civil rights campaign, and 1968, when Richard Nixon won on the basis of a "social backlash."

The Left's repeated attempts at violent revolution in my first four years of existence outside the womb could not help but provoke a "social backlash" any more than a person's healthy autoimmune system would ignore an invading flu virus.  That was not a backlash against "civil rights" - which, I'll remind everybody, congressional Republicans championed and congressional Democrats fought like the devil.  And today?  "Civil rights" has been redefined to mean "black dominance and 246 years of reverse slavery" or several years of U.S. GDP in "slavery reparations," whichever is less convenient.

"Examining county-level voting patterns, I find that black-led protests in which some violence occurs are associated with a statistically significant decline in Democratic vote-share in the 1964, 1968, and 1972 presidential elections," Wasow writes.

"Black-led nonviolent protests, by contrast, exhibit a statistically significant positive relationship with county-level Democratic vote-share in the same period."

He says he found in the 1968 presidential election "exposure to violent protests caused a decline in Democratic vote-share."

"Examining counterfactual scenarios in the 1968 election, I estimate that fewer violent protests are associated with a substantially increased likelihood that the Democratic presidential nominee, Hubert Humphrey, would have beaten the Republican nominee, Richard Nixon," he writes.

Perhaps.  Though the black-led riots of the mid to late '60s were subsumed by the violent protests against the Vietnam War, and should be seen in that context, as part of a rising tide of societal upheaval that stirred up profound concerns and fears for the country itself and the need to reestablish "law and order" - which was, of course, one of the core planks of Tricky Dick's platform.

Nixon was also, in case there was any confusion, a supporter of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

But "Professor" Wasow is, naturally, ignoring other factors, like Hubert Humphrey being an abysmal candidate, and George Wallace almost negating what would otherwise have been the first of consecutive Nixon landslide victories.  Maybe next time he can take a stab at soothsaying what the result of a Nixon-Bobby Kennedy matchup would have been - you know, the same RFK that, as his brother's attorney-general, signed off on illegal wiretaps of [the Republican] Dr. Martin Luther King's phone lines.

"As African Americans were strongly identified with the Democratic party in this time period, my results suggest that, in at least some contexts, political violence by a subordinate group may contribute to a backlash among segments of the dominant group and encourage outcomes directly at odds with the preferences of the protesters."

Today, "Professor", it is whites and conservatives that are the "subordinate group" and blacks and commies that are the "dominant group".  Which may be why the latter feel free to be as violent and revolutionary as they want to be, free of any worries of consequences that could backfire on their cause.

The study concluded nonviolent civil-rights protests didn't trigger a national backlash — but violent protests and looting did.

"The physical damage inflicted upon poor urban neighborhoods by rioting does not have the compensating virtue of easing the way for more progressive policies; instead, it compounds the damage by promoting a regressive backlash," the magazine writes.

And that backlash during the Nixon years, the magazine reports, "drove a wave of repressive criminal-justice policies that carried through for decades with such force that even Democrats like Bill Clinton felt the need to endorse them in order to win elections."

What is "progressive" about racist minority violence caused by your preferred racist communist policies, "Professor"?  And what is "regressive" and "repressive" about "insuring domestic Tranquility"?

The solution would seem to be simple - keep communist protests peaceful.  But communist policies (particularly the Democrat Party's fifty-year welfare war against black America) breed minority racist violence, particularly against even the most reasonable, impartial enforcement of the law.  A case of "Physicians, heel thyselves" instead of being a baying pack of Typhoid Marys.

Somehow I don't think "Professor" Wasow was listening.

IRS Allows Hackers To Loot Tax Info Of 100,000 Americans

by JASmius

It's almost like, having stolen our money for decades in general, and having abused our personal information over the past six and a half years for tyrannically partisan purposes, the Obama Internal Revenue Police have opted to begin selling franchises of and for their stock-in-trade:

Sophisticated criminals used an online service run by the IRS to access personal tax information from more than 100,000 taxpayers, part of an elaborate scheme to steal identities and claim fraudulent tax refunds, the IRS said Tuesday.

The thieves accessed a system called “Get Transcript,” where taxpayers can get tax returns and other filings from previous years. In order to access the information, the thieves cleared a security screen that required knowledge about the taxpayer, including Social Security number, date of birth, tax filing status and street address, the IRS said.

“We’re confident that these are not amateurs,” said IRS Commissioner John Koskinen. “These actually are organized crime syndicates that not only we but everybody in the financial industry are dealing with.”

Birds of a feather, Mr. Department Store Mannequin?  I have no doubt of your confidence that they're not amateurs, because you probably had a hand in training them, as all large enterprises do their franchisees.

The miracle is that only a hundred thousand Americans got identity-thefted.  Although that was probably just a trial run; they'll get the rest of our personal information in the very near future.

Exit question: How pathetic is it that nearly a third of Americans are still at least "somewhat confident" that their personal information is safe and secure with the Obama Regime?

Marco Rubio Backfills On Sodomarriage

by JASmius

Anybody else notice this now-established passive-aggressive pattern of the retiring Florida senator on "controversial" issues?  When asked two weeks ago the stupid-ass retroquestion of whether he'd have invaded Iraq in President George W. Bush's place "knowing what we know now" (which isn't true in any case), Senator Rubio dutifully chirped, "Sir!  No!  Sir!"  Then, a little over a week later, it's like I performed a Vulcan mind meld on the man, and he's giving Chris Wallace the answer I've been bellowing at the top of my lungs for the past fortnight.  It's almost like he's a wet-behind-the-ears rookie or something, making rookie mistakes he has to keep going back and correcting.

Now he's doing it on sodomarriage.

Six weeks ago, Senator Rubio, when asked if he would attend a queer "wedding," answered, "Sir!  Yes!  Sir!"  Then, doubling down on that, a few days later he trial-ballooned the totally unsubstantiated assertion that homosexuality was not a choice, but that those who "burn for others" of the same gender are "born that way".  Both of these gaffes were completely unnecessary and futile panders, unforced errors that will gain him nothing with center-left voters who'll never get the chance to vote against him anyway because they also (further) pissed off the Republican voters he needs to win the nomination in the first place.

And, again, it's like my mind reached out during REM sleep like Charles Xavier's and re-sequenced the young senator's memory engrams, because while he didn't go so far as to correct his previous mistakes on this issue, he did point out where the Lavender jihad is headed:

Today, his deep faith drives public policy positions on social issues such as traditional marriage.

Knock wood.

"If you think about it, we are at the water's edge of the argument that mainstream Christian teaching is hate speech," Rubio told CBN News. "Because today we've reached the point in our society where if you do not support same-sex marriage you are labeled a homophobe and a hater."

Oh, we reached that point a long time ago, Marco.

"So what's the next step after that?" he asked.

"After they are done going after individuals, the next step is to argue that the teachings of mainstream Christianity, the catechism of the Catholic Church is hate speech and there's a real and present danger," he warned.

Indeed, there is.  That was the plan all along, and it's nearing irretrievable fruition.

From the standpoint of Senator Rubio's presidential ambitions, pointing out this self-evident fact accomplishes two things: (1) It attempts to not so much make amends with the evangelical voters he enraged with his earlier pro-homo compromises and panders but distract us from them, and (2) it utterly begs the question of what in blazes he was doing burbling those pro-homo compromises and panders knowing they were aiding and abetting the militant "gay" endgame of which he warns now.

As Agent K said to Agent J at the end of Men In Black II....

...."still a rookie".