DOUGLAS V. GIBBS<---------->RADIO<---------->BOOKS<---------->CONSTITUTION <---------->CONTACT/FOLLOW <----------> DONATE

Monday, October 05, 2015

Baltimore Still Drowning In Its Own Self-Inflicted Blood

by JASmius

Retiring Mayor Stephanie Blake ordered her police department to stand down and withdraw back in the spring, and the inevitable result was a record-setting crime wave that is still roaring onwards, unfettered and unopposed:

Baltimore’s bloody summer ended with a barrage of bangs, as the rate of homicides and gun crimes continued to spike in the wake of the racially charged case of Freddie Gray, whose death in police custody left citizens angry and cops demoralized.

For September, homicides were up 39% and non-fatal shootings nearly doubled over the same month in 2014, continuing a disturbing trend that has gripped the Charm City since Gray’s death in April and the rioting that followed. For the year, murders are up 52% and non-fatal shootings 80% over last year.

“We have highly motivated bad guys in Baltimore,” Baltimore police spokesman T.J. Smith told

And why are they "highly motivated"?  Because they're unopposed.  Local law enforcement has been ordered to not enforce the law, not patrol neighborhoods, not deter crime before it can even get started.  Why wouldn't the "bad guys" be motivated under those circumstances?

And it has nothing whatsodamnever to do with Freddie Gray.  What happened to that drug dealer was unfortunate and still ambiguous, but the truth is clearly not relevant to Baltimore's mayor and the local State Attorney, the infamous Marilyn Mosby.  Neither is Freddie Gray's life, really.  He's just a means to an end, the evisceration of the Baltimore Police Department.  And that has led to the current endless violent crime spree that has "Charm City's" streets are still flowing with innocent blood.

Was there any mention of any of this at the U.S. Conference of Mayor's convention, held, conveniently enough, in Baltimore over the weekend?  What do you think?:

Mayor Stephanie Blake, president of the conference, will lead discussions that also will include economic development, community policing and the spike in homicides many cities saw over the summer. The group will meet at the Hilton Hotel from Friday to Sunday.

Jerry Abramson, director of intergovernmental affairs for the White House, and Ron Davis, director of the U.S. Department of Justice’s community-oriented policing services, will offer remarks at the meeting. [emphasis added]

There's that other-worldly surreality creeping in again.  It's like animals like Mayor Blake and Ron Davis and Jerry Abramson, et al are inhabiting a different quantum dimension where the disastrous, bloody consequences of their misrule somehow don't exist, even though it's going on right outside their windows.  Or, as we've said many, many times, the Left believes itself to be entitled to their own fantasy facts.

But then, does anybody really believe that any of them are going to the tsunami of blood on their hands?  It's not like anybody is compelling them to do so.

Hard Starboard Radio: Trump Card Finally Played Out?

Angela Merkel's German open borders policy is cratering her support; Trump flip-flops on "Syrian" "refugee" influx; Bringing God back into law enforcement; Jason Chaffetz vs. Kevin McCarthy; "A fight to the death against Palestinian terror"; The gun-grabbing Queen decrees her email crimes legal; Barack Obama clinches Trans-Pacific Partnership; Desperation or stupidity? Jeb Bush about to send Dubya to campaign for him; and Trump issues fresh anti-GOP extortion threats that don't sound so bad at all.

NOW I'm back at 6PM Eastern/3PM Pacific.

Trump Issues Fresh Anti-GOP Extortion Threats

by JASmius

The thing is, he makes these threats sound like they're somehow bad things:

“There’d be a major collapse of the race, and there’d be a major collapse of television ratings,” he said from his office in Trump Tower. “It would become a depression in television.”

Does this not pretty explicitly illustrate my assertion that the Trump campaign is simply Celebrity Apprentice taken on the road?  It feeds the notion that this is about nothing but his ego, not a serious candidacy, and once it stops being "fun" he'll rapidly lose interest.

I, of course, think it's about a lot more than that, but that factor is certainly present.

Mr. Trump said that a presidential campaign without him would become so “boring” that he would struggle to pay any attention to it.

“I wouldn’t even be watching it probably, and neither would anybody else,” he said.

But you know what, folks?  Yes, presidential campaigns ARE supposed to be "boring".  They're not supposed to be "reality TV," they're not supposed to be a political version of Survivor or American Idol.  It's supposed to be serious business, for candidates, campaigns, and voters.  Which, of course, it hasn't been since 2008, which, in turn, does much to explain why the country is in the pathetic, dilapidated, imperiled shape it's in today.  Donald Trump is simply an extension of that disastrous trend, and his exit would make possible its reversal.

This may reflect the fact that Trump's numbers have begun to seriously erode:

Ben Carson and Donald Trump are tied among GOP voters in Pennsylvania, a new poll finds.

Carson and Trump each receive 18% support from registered Republicans in the Keystone State, according to the Mercyhurst University Center for Applied Politics poll on Monday…

Mercyhurst’s poll also found that Carson is the best-liked GOP presidential candidate among Pennsylvania Republicans.

And not just in Pennsylvania.  Trump now trails Ben Carson by seven points nationally, according to Investors Business Daily.  He's also sliding in the early caucus/primary States.  A heartening indication that summer flings are still summer flings, and as more voters start paying attention to the race, they are dismissing Hairboy as a serious candidate, and even as a bad entertainer.

Not that he's going to get out anytime soon.  But it does sound as if he's beginning to lay the groundwork for it, as well as the independent general election spoiler run as Hillary Clinton's (or Joe Biden's or Bernie Sanders') stalking horse.  Turns out I was right about this after all, if two and a half months off in my timing.

Desperation Or Stupidity? Jeb Bush About To Send Dubya To Campaign For Him

by JASmius

Is the former Florida governor desperate?  Yes, he is.  Is he stupid?  Well, he thought his surname and aristocratic family connections would be an asset so, yes, he is.  Given that his "Plan A" - ride his surname, family dynasty, and (for a Republican) mounds and mounds of "shock & awe" campaign cash to an unopposed Cleveland coronation next summer - has been killed deader than poor Kelsey's nuts by Trumpmania (and would have fizzled even without the Donk Trojan Horse), though, what really has he got to lose at this point?:

Advisers to Jeb Bush in this crucial early primary state have asked national campaign officials in recent weeks to send in President George W. Bush, sixty-nine, who so far has appeared only at private fund-raisers, to vouch for his younger brother on the campaign trail…

Tim Miller, Jeb Bush’s communications director, suggested that the campaign was open to having Bush43 appear at rallies for his brother before the State’s primary in February.

“To the extent it makes sense on the campaign, we’re going to be happy to have his support, and I know President Bush is willing to help,” Mr. Miller said. “Jeb is running on his record [snicker] but there is obviously tremendous respect for and good will toward President Bush in the party [snort] and beyond thanks to his leadership in a time of crisis for this country.”

As for the danger of the former president’s undermining his brother’s prospects in a general election, supporters of Jeb Bush believe the Democrats will try to link the two regardless of whether George W. Bush engages more in the contest.

That's undoubtedly true.  Sending Dubya out as Jeb's surrogate sounds crazy, but the forty-third POTUS has recovered much of his former popularity, both within the GOP and the general public beyond in classic "Miss me yet?" fashion.  Which says absolutely nothing about his ability to lift up his kid brother's dead weight from the crumpled heap into which his presidential candidacy has collapsed, even in South Carolina, which is (so far) the only location in which Dubya is to be turned loose.  The latter of which makes sense, for the most part, since the latter never won New Hampshire in 2000 and is unlikely to change any minds in mindlessly "populist" Iowa.

It's more than a little ironic that the thing House Bush is going for by this move is to lend Jeb "stature," given that that was a quantity never accorded to his big bro before or during his presidency.  It speaks more to how little of it Jeb possesses than how much Dubya still retains.

But ultimately this move is probably targeted most directly at Marco Rubio, who has supplanted Jeb as the center-right/"establishment" candidate who has all the advantages his one-time mentor lacks: Youth, energy, charisma, encyclopedic policy knowledge, telegenaity, authoritative eloquence, and smooth, caramel brown skin.  Block Rubio in South Carolina after an Iowa/New Hampshire muddle, then stamp him out in Florida, and maybe, just maybe, Jeb leaps back into the driver's seat.

No, I don't see that happening, either.  But it's not like he's got anything to lose by giving it a shot.  Anything's better than being the first Bush to lose a GOP primary campaign in thirty-six years, and far more ignominiously.

Obama Clinches Trans-Pacific Partnership

by JASmius

Since this was a big deal in these parts a little over four months ago, I though it appropriate to bear witness to the inevitable end of this particular rainbow, even if most Tea Partiers consider the pot to be filled with nothing but pyrite:

Twelve Pacific rim countries sealed the deal Monday on creating the world's largest free trade area, delivering Barack Obama a major policy triumph.

The deal on the Trans-Pacific Partnership, led by the United States and Japan, aims to set the rules for twenty-first century trade and investment and press [Red] China, not one of the twelve, to shape its behavior in commerce to the TPP standards.

As if.

"After five years of intensive negotiations, we have come to an agreement that will create jobs....

Unlikely, as he's never supported any such policy before. sustainable growth.... [emphasis added]

i.e. NO growth.  True economic growth does not require such mealy-mouthed, dishonest modifiers.

....foster inclusive development....

Same here.

....and promote innovation across the Asia Pacific Region," said U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman....

Innovation does not have to be "promoted"; just get the hell out of the way and open up the floodgates, and that's all the incentive true innovation requires.  Does anybody believe Barack Obama will tolerate anything so grubbily capitalistic?  Me, either.

Barack Obama, who made the TPP a priority of his second term, said the accord reached in Georgia "reflects America's values and gives our workers the fair shot at success they deserve."

i.e. reflects HIS socialist values and is more protectionist than he's remotely admitting in this end zone celebration.

But remember, my Tea Party friends, this deal was going to get done, Trade Promotion Authority or no Trade Promotion Authority.  Remember, as well, that the content of this pot 'o pyrite is "magically delicious".

By Executive Order, of course.

The Gun-Grabbing Queen Decrees Her Email Crimes Legal

by JASmius

As ghoulishly predictable as the sunrise - and just as tiresomely and wittingly futile:

Democrat presidential candidate Hillary Clinton on Monday will detail new proposals aimed at closing gun sale loopholes and holding accountable those who sell guns for violence committed with those weapons.

The former of which would not have stopped the Roseberg, Oregon, shooting; the latter of which is irrelevant to it.

Seizing the moment following last week’s mass shooting in Oregon....

Stealing the twitching bodies as campaign props before they'd even reached room temperature.

....[Mrs.] Clinton will call for the repeal of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which gives [appropriately and justly] legal protection to gun manufacturers and dealers whose guns are used for criminal activity, said a campaign official, who asked not to be named, previewing the announcement [Mrs.] Clinton plans to make on the campaign trail in New Hampshire....

Because raping and pillaging firearm and ammunition manufacturers who have no possible or reasonable power to control who illegally winds up with their products, much less uses them for illegal purposes has the power to selectively resurrect the dead.  And what better place to move to the forefront of her campaign an issue (gun control) that is arguably the biggest loser for the Left than one of the hotbeds of pro-Second Amendment support?

[Mrs.] Clinton appeared viscerally frustrated as she spoke after Thursday’s shooting at Umpqua Community College, in which authorities say a student [explicitly executed] nine [evangelical Christians] before turning one of several guns he had with him on himself. “What is wrong with us, that we cannot stand up to the NRA and the gun lobby, and the gun manufacturers they represent?” [Mrs.] Clinton said Friday at Broward College in Davie, Florida. “We don’t just need to pray for these people. We need to act.”

With or without Congress, BTW, so she's already guaranteeing that she'd be every bit the despot that Barack Obama is.  In the mean time, what is wrong with her that she's smearing the NRA and the "gun lobby" with the collateral blame for the Christophobic actions of Chris Harper Mercer?  No, not even a trick question: She's pissing away a second presidential bid and grasping for any straw that keeps her campaign from going down for the proverbial third and final time.  Look well, my friends, for that's the only kind of "transparency" we'll ever get out of that woman.

I was going to call the following a contrast, but it's actually a parallel, now that I reflect upon it.  Just as she's blaming everybody for the Roseberg, Oregon anti-Christian pogrom but Chris Harper Mercer himself, so yesterday she declared any and all investigations into Emailgate to be "beyond the pale"....

....and when incredulously, if half-heartedly, followed up on with a question of "Don't you realize how bad this whole thing looks for your candidacy?", out the Ugly Dutchess trotted the "vast rightwing conspiracy" chestnut and her defiant lie about being "the most transparent public official in American history".

Does it matter to her that nobody is going to buy a single word she says?  No, not really, because her brain won't allow her to even consider that reality.  And even if she could, she really has nothing else to say.

Meanwhile, even her allies are starting to go public with their alarm at the apparently rising prospect of her majesty facing criminal prosecution:

One of the Clintons’ oldest and most trusted legal advisers has urged Hillary to hire a criminal defense attorney to represent her in case she’s indicted for mishandling classified documents on her private e-mail server and for lying under oath.

The adviser, who has been a Clinton confidant for more than thirty years, laid out his concerns about Hillary’s legal exposure in a wide-ranging interview.

“This e-mail thing is spiraling out of control,” he said. “To paraphrase John Dean of Watergate fame, it’s a cancer on her candidacy.

“Frankly,” he continued, “I am used to my advice on legal matters being taken very seriously and acted upon by the Clintons. I’ve told them repeatedly that this FBI e-mail investigation could go in a very dangerous direction very quickly.

“I think Bill takes the matter seriously. But Hillary is still acting as though it’s a political smear job by right-wing zealots.”

Because she's not capable of regarding it any other way.  And that gets back to her utter lack of political skills, abilities, judgment, and acumen, and Mr. Bill's mastery of all of the above.

Maybe that's another reason he's being sent off on the campaign trail in her place.  Since when has Hillary Clinton ever wanted to be confronted with anything she doesn't want to hear?

Sunday, October 04, 2015

"A Fight To The Death Against Palestinian Terror"

by JASmius

In this instance, methinks that Bibi is engaging in more than a little overwrought melodrama for public consumption:

Israel barred Palestinians from Jerusalem's Old City Sunday amid fears of further violence after attacks killed two Israelis and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu spoke of "a fight to the death against Palestinian terror".

Netanyahu convened his ministers of defense and internal security and top security officials immediately after landing back in Israel Sunday from delivering a speech to the UN General Assembly.

"These steps include, among others, speeded up demolition of terrorists' homes," he said in a video address in Hebrew distributed by his office.

Sounds thunderously harsh, doesn't it?  But take a gander at the size of the loopholes the Israeli Prime Minister is leaving wide open for the Pals to exploit:

The Old City restrictions announced earlier Sunday by police will be in place for two days, with only Israelis, tourists, residents of the area, business owners and students allowed.

Worship at the sensitive Al-Aqsa mosque compound will be limited to men aged fifty and above. There will be no age restrictions on women. [emphases added]

Forgive me, but if this were really some sort of "unprecedented crackdown," as the Pals are denouncing it as, why would any non-Jew be allowed into Old Jerusalem, much less the Dome of the Rock?  Or do you think that there aren't plenty of Palestinian old men and women of all ages who are perfectly and enthusiastically willing to sacrifice themselves in the spirit and practice of jihad and can't pose as "tourists, business owners, area residents, and students"?

No, this spittle-spewing bluster on Mr. Netanyahu's part is more of a bluff, it seems to me, even a tacit concession of weakness, at least until such time as he backs it up by cutting off the Old City to the Pals altogether.

Now we'll see if Israel's "hardline" leader is willing to take that necessary step.  If not, he will have forfeited significant credibility, IMHO.

McCarthy vs. Chaffetz

by JASmius

Let me state right at the start that I don't have much interest in this "showdown" for the House Speakership.  Representative Chaffetz (R-UT3) is about ten points more conservative than Representative McCarthy (R-CA23) on the ACU scale, but Chaffetz was also John Boehner's hatchetman when the outgoing Speaker ordered Mark Meadows (R-NC11) sacked from his House Government Reform & Oversight subcommittee chairmanship back during the Trade Promotion Authority scrum, so I'm not convinced that Tea Partiers are as enthusiastic about Chaffetz's candidacy as they're belatedly trying to let on.  And, of course, being ten or so points more conservative than the House Majority Leader would make Chaffetz about as conservative as....John Boehner, whom TPers couldn't wait to get rid of in favor of....Kevin McCarthy.  This is the kind of master strategizing that is deluding them into believing that either Chaffetz or the hapless Daniel Webster (R-FL10) has a prayer against McCarthy in the first place.

No, this is a backfilling way of addressing the kind of rapier PR acumen we can expect from the next House Speaker:

[McCarthy] drew fire from colleagues last week when he implied a Republican-led probe of 2012's Benghazi attack was aimed at hurting Democrat Hillary Clinton's presidential candidacy. He said his words were misinterpreted.

And, indeed, they were.  Which is what tends to happen when you compose your words so clumsily and stupidly.  I know what McCarthy was trying to say - that Hillary Clinton is a criminal running an ongoing criminal conspiracy in blatant disregard for and defiance of federal law, wantonly endangering national security by subordinating it to her Nixonian veil of personal secrecy, and that cannot help but have a negative political impact on her presidential bid.  And Trey Gowdy's House Select Committee on Benghazigate was the investigative entity that shook lose the pebbles that have become the Emailgate avalanche.  All of that is simply straight-forward factual.

The problem is that none of this needed to be said, especially by the incoming House Speaker.  In media interviews it is possible, even for Republicans, to "punt" without saying anything "soundbite-", much less "headline-", worthy.  McCarthy's antennae should have perked right up at that question and he should have given the requisite non-answer in order to avoid taking the heat off of Mrs. Clinton, even for a single newscycle.

Instead, he blurted the above and breathed new life into the Empress's "vast rightwing conspiracy" rantings.  It was a most decidedly unforced error, and one that hardly boosts confidence in the next holder of the Big Gavel.

But it's also not going to keep McCarthy from the Big Gavel, either.  Something for which I hope Tea Partiers are prepared.

Especially since they will be more responsible for it than anybody other than John Boehner himself.

NFL Week 4 Predictions

by JASmius


SEASON vs. SPREAD: 26-22

To think that if the Steelers had a kicker with two legs, I'd have gotten my upset special on Thursday.  But that's why kickers are almost never heroes and are almost always goats.  Just ask Super Bowl champion Scott Norwood.

There's not a whole lot to say about the Seahawks' 26-0 blanking of the Chicago Bears at the Clink anymore than there was their 27-17 loss in Green Bay the week before that.  Just as nobody expected us to hang one on Aaron Rodgers at Lambeau, where he never loses, so nobody thought Seattle wouldn't, or was even capable of not, breaking through into the win column against once of the worst teams in professional football.  And so we didn't and did, respectively.

But it was still hugely underwhelming, although all on the offensive side of the ball.  With Kam Chancellor back, the Legion of Boom was back, which is why the Bears punted on all ten of their possessions.  Although the lack of a single turnover - and, if memory serves, the absence of a single interception in the first twelve quarters of the season - is more than a little concerning.

But let's talk about the offense.  Let's talk about Seattle only being up 6-0 at halftime.  Let's talk about Marshawn Lynch's nagging injuries that are beginning to become a bigger deal than just missing a first quarter here and there (back, calf, hamstring pull).  Let's talk about the slow starts that, while I get the part about finishing being more important, are still a recipe for falling behind and making how they finish irrelevant.  And let's talk about the difficulties they're having getting all-pro tight end Jimmy Graham involved in the offense beyond his being a mediocre blocker at best.

Sure, burgeoning Rookie of the Year candidate Tyler Lockett's 105-yard second half kickoff return for a touchdown (his second in three weeks) opened the floodgates, and Graham wound up with seven catches for eighty-three yards, and rookie tailback Thomas Rawls rushed for 104 yards in the second half, but even then the offense could only get in the end zone once all game.  And Russell Wilson got sacked four times by a Bears D-line that hadn't had a sack at all until they visited the Pacific Northwest, putting the $87.6 million man on pace to be demolished sixty-four times this season.  And it only takes one of them to blow out a knee or break a shoulder and terminate this season for good, and maybe beyond.

That's why I have no real feel for the Monday Night contest at Century Link against Detroit.  I'm taking the 'hawks and the points because that's what my numbers say, but I haven't seen a truly dominant performance from this team since last November.  And that, frankly, is what I'm looking for.  I want to see us blow the Lions' doors off, like 42-7 or worse.  With another 10AM road game at undefeated Cincinnati next in the queue, the ex-Champs could really use some momentum.

Straight up picks indicated by asterisk (*); picks against the spread in parentheses (x).  And no, don't bet the farm on these picks; they're just for my amusement and your aggravation.  Or vice versa.  We'll see how it turns out, now, won't we?

Carolina* (-3)

San Diego* (-7.5)

Dallas* (+4)
New Orleans

Green Bay* (-8.5)
San Francisco

Atlanta* (-6.5)

Indianapolis* (-9.5)

Kansas City
Cincinnati* (-3.5)

Denver* (-6.5)

N.Y. Giants
Buffalo* (-5.5)

N.Y. Jets* (-1.5)

Chicago (+3)

Philadelphia* (-3)

St. Louis
Arizona* (-6.5)


Seattle* (-9.5)

Obama's War Crime in Afghanistan?

Posted by Douglas V. Gibbs


Medics frantically phoned NATO and Washington...

19+ dead...

'War crime'...

'Patients burning in their beds'...

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Join Me For Football

By Douglas V. Gibbs

For those of you in Southern California's Inland Empire, I will be at RJs Sizzling Steer on Kalmia and Madison in Murrieta this morning to watch football at 10:00 am.  Feel free to come down and join me, and talk about football, politics, or the Constitution.

Looking forward to meeting you.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Saturday, October 03, 2015

Bringing God Back Into Law Enforcement

by JASmius

Behold, ladies and gentlemen, the New Counterculture:

Law enforcement agencies in the South and Midwest are adding "In God We Trust" to their vehicles, drawing attacks from watchdog groups who argue that the move violates the separation of church and state.

Which, remember, is not in the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, or any of the other seventeen Amendments.  The First Amendment's Establishment Clause states thusly:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof....

The federal government, in short, is not permitted to designate a national religion nor prevent the free exercise of religion by the States and the people.  State and local governments are not similarly constrained apart from whatever stipulations may be present in State constitutions.  Consequently, sheriffs' departments are entirely free to put what is, after all, a non-sectarian motto on their patrol vehicles.

"If it's on my money and it's on the State flag, I can put it on a patrol car," Polk County (Georgia) Sheriff Johnny Moats told the New York Times. He wrote other sheriffs across the State urging them to put the motto on their vehicles.


'Twould be better if their motive for doing so was not so defensive, though:

Some officials say that displaying the motto expressed patriotism, while others contend that it seeks to counter the attacks law enforcement has taken in the wake of several high-profile shootings in recent months.

"With the dark cloud that law enforcement has been under recently, I think that we need to have a human persona on law enforcement," Sheriff Brian Duke of Henderson County, Tennessee, told the Times. "It gave us an opportunity to put something on our cars that said: 'We are you. We’re not the big, bad police.'"

First of all, local law enforcement is neither "big" nor "bad," not after the past year of the Black Klan's insurrectionary attacks.  If anything, they're targets of the Black Klan's domestic terrorism, every last one of them.  Second, in the wake of that vicious propaganda, how likely is it that a "patriotic" four-word slogan would change poisoned black minds?  The latter would be far more likely to see it as a transparently phony PR ploy, would they not?

But, unsurprisingly, those aren't the attacks "In God We Trust" is drawing:

"This motto has nothing to do with the problem of police forces' shooting people, but it’s a great way to divert attention away from that and wrap yourself in a mantle of piety so that you’re above criticism," Annie Laurie Gaylor, a co-president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, told the Times.

See, I told you so.

Based in Madison, Wisconsin, the group has demanded that law enforcement officials refrain from exhibiting the adage.

"The idea of aligning the police force with God is kind of scary," Gaylor said. "That’s the first thing you'd expect to see in a theocracy."

Oh, my God, will you please shut up?  Take a few month's sabbatical in Iran and learn what a REAL theocracy is.  Then discover that they will never release you, and start contemplating your need for the help of people who still venerate that four-word "patriotic" phrase you loathe so much.

And that you have put yourselves forever beyond the reach of that assistance.

There could not be more deserving victims of theocracy, could there?

Exit motto: "In God We Trust".

And "in your faces".

UPDATE: Dr. Ben Carson didn't fail to recognize the opportunity:

The hashtag has gone viral.

Praise the LORD.

And I am happy to second that motion.

Constitution Association: Hidden Governments of Riverside County

The Constitution Association meets weekly on Wednesday at noon at various locations for the purpose of growing the organization so that we may work to restore the republic through educating the general public about the Constitution, and associated topics.  If you would like to join our weekly meeting, contact Douglas V. Gibbs at ConstitutionSpeaker at

Our monthly dinner meeting is on the first Saturday of each month at Merna's Cafe, 26850 Cherry Hills Blvd., Menifee, CA.

Check-in: 5:00 pm
Program begins at 5:30.  We normally adjourn around 7:00 pm.

Today's Saturday, October 3, 2015 topic: Hidden Governments in Riverside County by Tim Brown, Mayor Pro-Tem of Canyon Lake.

Learn more about the organization at

Bill Maher, Richard Dawkins Rip Leftwing Islamophilia

by JASmius

There is quite literally nothing I need to add to the substance of this story and this video exchange, other than the identity of the two participants.

Bill Maher and Dick Dawkins are jerks, assholes, and douchbags of the lowest order, rest assured, but at least they're consistent in their religion-bashing, and don't spare their fellow leftwingnuts and the latter's suicidal Islamophilia.

Break out the buttered and salted popcorn and frosty beverages and enjoy, my friends.

Trump Flip-Flops On "Syrian" "Refugee" Influx

by JASmius

3) Guess which "Republican frontrunner" is all for taking in as many "Syrian refugees" as we possibly can?:

GOP presidential front-runner Donald Trump says that the United States will have to accept some of the refugees fleeing the chaos in Syria.

Appearing Tuesday on Fox News Channel's The O'Reilly Factor, Trump said he does worry that some in the group could be terrorists and said a screening process will be needed.

"But something has to be done," he said. "It's an unbelievable humanitarian problem."

Kinda clashes spectacularly with the issue gimmick - immigration - that got him where he is today, doesn't it? As a matter of fact, Trump has now put himself on the same side of this particular issue with Senator Marco Rubio - you know, the face of "comprehensive immigration reform" a couple of years ago - and - wait for it....wait for it - Senator Lindsey Graham, the ultimate GOP border eraser along with his "old buddy" Senator John McCain and the same guy whose cell phone number he scrawled all over media bathroom walls back in July.

Donald and Lindsey, sitting in a tree....

I know your hero is bulletproof and can do no wrong in your eyes, TPTers, but doesn't his call for the country to open our borders to a jihadist-infested Muslim tide that he pretends to want to deny to Hispanics at least create the urge to do the slightest double-take?

- Me, three and a half weeks ago

Donald Trump, today:

The government's plan to bring Syrian refugees could result in "one of the greatest military coups of all time," GOP front-runner Donald Trump said Saturday, claiming that ISIS fighters could be among the refugees and the migration would be like a "Trojan horse."

"I heard about three weeks ago when I saw the migration as they call it," Trump told Fox News Cashin' In host Eric Bolling. "They were talking about 3,000 people coming here. You say who are they, do they have papers? Then I heard ten, twenty-five. Now 200,000 people. If you look at this migration it is mostly young, strong men."

And, Trump told Bolling, he wondered "why aren't they fighting for Syria if in fact they come from Syria. Then I said, 'how are we going to take 200,000 people?' This could be one of the greatest military coups of all time...some of them definitely in my opinion will be ISIS."

Does it not bother you, Tea Party Trumpsters, that your hero either (1) is that slow on the up-take that he cannot instinctively recognize the national security threat inherent in deliberately (because they can't swim here) importing tens or hundreds of thousands more Muslims into this country, at least ten percent of which are jihadists by definition; or (2) so readily flip-flops, weathervanes with the political winds as necessary, like the sort of professional politician he's not supposed to be and he's built his campaign on vilifying?

It's great that Trump is now echoing me, but shouldn't he have been out there amplying what I was saying a month ago?  Isn't that supposed to be his gimmick?  And why doesn't it matter to Trumpsters that it appears the answer to that question is "no"?

BREAKING: Angela Merkel's German Open Borders Policy Is Cratering Her Support

by JASmius

Boy, I bet nobody over in Germany saw THIS development coming....:

A new poll is adding to indications that Chancellor Angela Merkel’s personal popularity is taking a knock amid the influx of migrants to Germany, though there’s no sign of serious political damage.


The Infratest Dimap poll of 1,001 people for ARD television, conducted by telephone Tuesday and Wednesday, found 54% of respondents satisfied with Merkel, nine points fewer than a month earlier. Satisfaction with Bavarian governor Horst Seehofer, the most prominent critic of her welcoming stance toward refugees, was up eleven points to 39%.

The poll published Thursday night also showed 51% of respondents saying they’re worried so many refugees are coming, a thirteen-point rise. [emphases added]

Again, don't look at the "snapshots," look at the trends.  Merkel has dropped nine points in a matter of weeks, and her biggest critic has risen eleven points over that same span, while public concern has spiked thirteen percent.  Those are huge numbers for such a small stretch of time and clearly indicate the new direction of the German political winds, which may help explain the discordant and dissonant degree to which the German Chancellor has changed her tune:

German Chancellor Angela Merkel says Europe must protect its external frontiers as it faces the greatest influx off refugees since World War II in a crisis that she says is “testing Europe’s mettle”…

“And for Europe, this means we of course need to, above all, protect our external borders across Europe – and protect them together – so that immigration to Europe is orderly,” she said. [emphases added]

This is the same woman who was bragging a month ago about both the numbers her country was going to absorb and how it would change her country - for the better.  As was eminently predictable to any non-multi-culti, it didn't turn out that way.  But Merkel, to her credit, is adjusting to those drastically shifted political winds out of simple political self-preservation.

Funny how we never see Barack Hussein Obama make any such adjustments, isn't it?  It's almost as if he's a dictator or something, huh?

Constitution Radio: Taking on the World

KMET 1490-AM with Constitution Radio with Douglas V. Gibbs at 1:00 pm on Saturdays.

Here's today's AllStar Collision Big Stories of the Week:

16. Constitution Corner: Citizen's United

15. Constitution Corner II: Secession

14. Killing Babies

13. Killing Hillary

12. Stealing 2016

11. Trump, Rubio and Who?

10. Middle East Changing of the Guard

9. Killing America's Defense

8. Netanyahu at U.N. Nails It

7. Europe's Muslim Hordes

6. Muslim President not Compatible with U.S. Constitution

5. Economic Woes

4. Historic Rains and Hurricane Joaquin

3. Gay Infiltration

2. Bye Bye Boehner

1. Umpqua

American Daily Review: Examine the Culture

JASmius and Douglas V. Gibbs examine the stories of the week on American Daily Review every Saturday at 11:00 am to 1:00 pm, and then wrap up the radio broadcasting day at KMET 1490-AM with Constitution Radio with Douglas V. Gibbs.

Here's today's AllStar Collision Big Stories of the Week:

16. Constitution Corner: Citizen's United

15. Constitution Corner II: Secession

14. Killing Babies

13. Killing Hillary

12. Stealing 2016

11. Trump, Rubio and Who?

10. Middle East Changing of the Guard

9. Killing America's Defense

8. Netanyahu at U.N. Nails It

7. Europe's Muslim Hordes

6. Muslim President not Compatible with U.S. Constitution

5. Economic Woes

4. Historic Rains and Hurricane Joaquin

3. Gay Infiltration

2. Bye Bye Boehner

1. Umpqua

Illegal Aliens & The Electoral College

by JASmius

There are, of course, direct illegal alien votes, facilitated by the Immigration Proclamation and the Left's war on any and all State and local voter ID laws.  And illegals break Democrat by a margin of approximately 8-1.

But that's not the only way that thirty million illegals skew the country's electoral system in an unjustly and disproportionately "blue" direction:

The Electoral College awards one elector for each U.S. Senator, thus one hundred of the total, and D.C. gets three electors pursuant to the 23rd Amendment. Those electoral numbers are unaffected by the size of the non-citizen population.

But “the same cannot be said for the remaining 435, more than 80% of the total, which represent the members elected to the House.” Those are allocated based on the U.S. Census, which are reapportioned every ten years to reflect the population changes found in the census.

“That reallocation math is based on the relative “whole number of persons in each State,” as the formulation in the 14th Amendment has it,” authors Paul Goldman and Mark J. Rozell write in Politico. “When this language was inserted into the U.S. Constitution, the concept of an ‘illegal [alien],’ as the term is defined today, had no meaning. Thus the census counts illegal [aliens] and other noncitizens equally with citizens. Since the census is used to determine the number of House seats apportioned to each State, those States with large populations of illegal [aliens] and other noncitizens gain extra seats in the House at the expense of States with fewer such “whole number of persons.

“This math gives strongly Democrat States an unfair edge in the Electoral College,” they continue. [emphasis added]

Because they are magnets for illegal immigration through refusal to enforce immigration laws, "sanctuary cities," etc.  But Goldman's and Rozell's estimate, just to take an example, screening out illegals from the Census would strip California of five House seats, and Washington and Oregon one each.  That's seven fewer locked-in/guaranteed Electoral Votes for the Dems right there.  And given that those seats would be reallocated to States with much lower "non-citizen" populations, and most of those are "red" States, well, you can draw the appropriate conclusion.

It's not nearly as dramatic as padding the Democrats' national popular vote margin by almost twenty-four million votes, but they will take every last ill-gotten advantage they possibly can, any angle at the margins that will put their nominee over the top.  Don't forget, as I'll guarantee you they haven't, that 2000 came down to five hundred thirty-seven votes in Florida.  An extra seven or ten Electoral Votes that makes a post-election war unnecessary, or guarantees victory from it....they'll sure as shinola take it.

And when combined with schemes like the anti-federalist National Popular Vote InterState Compact - which does include California and Washington - it creates a multiplier effect that amplifies illegitimate illegal alien "clout".

And remember, as well, that this trend is only going to get worse, assuming, as I do not, that it ever gets better.

Kinda puts a premium on not "staying home" on Election Day because our candidate isn't "pure" enough, wouldn't you think?

How Is Chaos Better Than Boehner?

by JASmius

Again I will say it: I've never had any particular affinity or loyalty or fanboyism for House Speaker John Boehner.  My stance has always been that if Tea Partiers can replace him with one of theirs, more power to them.  But that has always been the rub, as it were, as TPers don't know the first thing about taking down a sitting House Speaker, appearing to believe the same "right makes might" nonsense that they apply to budget confrontations with the Democrats.  They're always disorganized, they're incapable of both finding a viable candidate and unifying behind them.  This is why all these periodic "coup attempts" over the past nearly five years, every last one of them, have always failed hilariously.  Any who wish to apply the perjorative "losers" to the Tea Party would, at least, not be inaccurate in that appellation.

Now that Boehner has finally wearied of herding cats, he's exposed that Tea Party operational incompetence for everybody to see and marvel at, and if it proves as overwhelming as it appears at this point, you could call it "Boehner's Revenge," as the days of his Speakership will start looking better and better by comparison:

House Republican turmoil is boiling over as leadership elections approach, with dissatisfied lawmakers casting about for new choices and a surprise longshot challenger emerging in the speaker's race.

Can you imagine the quantity of buttered popcorn and frosty beverages Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer, and James Clyburn are going through right now?

The upheaval reflects a caucus ever more divided in the week since House Speaker John Boehner stunned Capitol Hill by resigning under conservative pressure.

Um, no.  Boehner did not "resign under conservative pressure".  He went out on his own terms, and as if to say, "Okay, my Tea Party friends, you think you can do better?  Here's your shot."

Like I said, "Boehner's Revenge".

And it comes as a long list of weighty and polarizing issues loom on Congress' agenda, including raising the federal borrowing limit to avoid a market-shattering default, and paying the bills to keep the government running.

Lotsa luck with that, TPers.  Hope you have your magic wands oiled up and ready to wave like the devil.

Representative Jason Chaffetz of Utah-3, the brash forty-eight-year-old chairman of the high-profile House oversight committee....

And who has a few sympathy/Obama persecution cards to play long about now.

....intends to challenge the prohibitive favorite for speaker, Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy of California-23, Republican aides said Friday. Yet it's not clear that the hardliners who....view McCarthy with suspicion would flock to Chaffetz, given that as committee chairman he's enforced leadership initiatives such as punishing lawmakers who buck the party position.

IOW, they don't like McCarthy because he's "next in line," but Chaffetz isn't "pure" enough for their tastes, either.  And the only one, apparently, who is.....

"It would be hard to replace John Boehner with someone who also kicks people off committees for their votes," sniped Representative Thomas Massie, R-KY4, who is backing another candidate, Representative Daniel Webster, R-FL10. also a roaring joke and precisely the kind of bumbling malcontent that makes its so difficult to take Tea Partiers seriously.

That raises the prospect of more unrest — and potentially even more candidates — before votes for the new leadership team are cast October 8th.

Thus guaranteeing McCarthy's Speakership.  And never forget that Kevin McCarthy is less conservative than John Boehner.

This Oklahoma Republican, at least, seems to "get it":

"Until we decide that we're going to function as a team instead of as a series of groups trying to enforce their agenda on the majority of the House, then we're going to have this treadmill kind of a thing where we're just walking faster and faster but not actually physically moving," said Representative Frank Lucas, R-OK3.

There's no entitlement to power and influence, my Tea Party friends, and no short cut to it, either.  It must be earned.  You must work within the system.  And yes, you must play the political game to get where you want to go.  You can tell yourselves that you "forced out Boehner" all you like, but you're going to be reminded in fairly short order of the Uhura Protocol: "Be careful what you wish may get it."  And "it" may not, after all, get you that which you were seeking.

Friday, October 02, 2015

Obama Ups Government Shutdown Ante

by JASmius

Well, John Boehner may not have wanted a government shutdown, and Mitch McConnell may not have wanted a government shutdown, but Barack Obama appears to want one more than Sheldon Cooper lusts after the train that destroyed the DeLorian at the end of Back To The Future III:

Barack Obama on Friday [commanded] the U.S. Congress to approve a bill to fund the government for the current fiscal year to avoid doing damage to the economy at a time global growth is slowing.

Like he cares about an economy on whose neck he's been keeping his hobnail boot for the past seven years.  He just wants more spending, period.  Because the "austerity" of adding a mere half-trillion dollars to the national debt every year is just too much "deprivation" to bear.

"I will not sign another short-[term] spending bill," Obama told a White House news conference. He said a short-term spending bill passed by lawmakers this week set up an opportunity for a new crisis before Christmas.

See?  Keeping the government "open" is no longer good enough.  He wants unconditional surrender.  He wants his budget and nothing else or the whole thing (i.e. 1/6th of it) can shut down forever and it'll be all the GOP's fault as far as he and the bulk of the American public is concerned.

Did Boehner and McConnell's preemptive rule-out of a shutdown showdown give up the leverage necessary to deter this White House brinksmanship?  Actually, no, as congressional Republicans never had any leverage to begin with.

On Wednesday, just hours before a midnight deadline when government agency funds were due to run out, Congress approved extending existing spending through December 11th.

That gives Congress and the White House ten weeks to settle on spending priorities for the remainder of the new fiscal year, which ends on September 30th, 2016.

No, actually, it gives Senate Republicans and Senate Democrats ten weeks to settle on spending priorities for the remainder of Fiscal 2016, since the latter will filibuster anything the former offer up short of Barack Obama's budget.  And then Senate Republicans will pass Obama's budget because they're terrified of another government shutdown that they know they'll lose.  Which they would.

There are deep differences between Obama and congressional Republicans.

That will be resolved entirely in Obama's favor.

Obama wants to lift tough spending caps enacted a few years ago that impose across-the-board savings. Some conservative Republicans want to bust those caps for the military, but not for domestic programs. The disagreement has led to fears of government shutdowns just before Christmas, when current funds expire.

Which will never happen, and we all know it, and O has just told us how it's going to turn out, so why waste any more time griping about it?

Congress "can't flirt with another shutdown. It has to pass a serious budget" and "get rid of some of these mindless cuts," Obama said.

And they'll do it, too.

And you all know why.