► Show Top 10 Hot Links

Archive for the ‘Barack Obama’ Category

NXNW OOT

by Macker ( 264 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Communism, Golden Age of Hollywod, OOT, Progressives at October 10th, 2014 - 8:00 pm

This amusing mashup is brought to you by Weasel Zippers’ Purple Penguins thread, where John Barleycorn quipped:
SOMEDAY HUNTING PROGRESSIVES & COMMIES
. . . . . . . . . .WILL BE A SPORT.

Gee, how many points for bagging Обама?
Let The Overnight Open Thread commence!

A VDH Friday: Jacobins.

by coldwarrior ( 119 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, History, Open thread, Politics at October 10th, 2014 - 8:00 am

What would a Friday be without a brilliant VDH essay? It would be just a Tuesday. :lol:

Obama’s Ideal Revolution

America’s current revolutionary inspiration seems to derive more from Robespierre than Madison. By Victor Davis Hanson

At the end of the 18th century, there were two great Western revolutions — the American and the French. Americans opted for the freedom of the individual, and divinely endowed absolute rights and values.

A quite different French version sought equality of result. French firebrands saw laws less as absolute, but instead as useful to the degree that they contributed to supposed social justice and coerced redistribution. They ended up not with a Bill of Rights and separation of powers, but instead with mass executions and Napoleonic tyranny.

Unfortunately, the Obama administration is following more the French model than the American.

Suddenly, once-nonpartisan federal bureaucracies have become catalysts for fundamentally transforming America. Often-ideological bureaucrats have forgotten their original mission. NASA might do better to ensure that our astronauts are independent of Vladimir Putin’s Russian rockets rather than claiming that its primary mission is to reach out to the Muslim community.

Intelligence directors vie with one another to please superiors with fatuous but politically correct analysis. Director of National Intelligence James Clapper assured us that the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt was largely secular. CIA director John Brennan once termed a now-emerging Islamic caliphate as “absurd.” Former Director of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano once warned that returning veterans and right-wingers were the chief domestic terrorist threats, not Islamic jihadists.

The IRS has lost its nonpartisan reputation by hounding perceived ideological enemies. It no longer abides by the historic standards — transparency, rapid submission of documents, honesty — that it demands from those it audits.

The role of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement once was to enforce federal statutes established by Congress and signed by the president. Border-patrol agents were not supposed to become agents of social change to nullify settled laws by noncompliance.

Almost immediately it was clear that the 2012 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, was a preplanned attack by an al-Qaeda terrorist affiliate. But that truth did not fit the re-election narrative that al-Qaeda was on the run.

In response, public servants such as U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton fabricated preferable scenarios — in service supposedly to a good cause. Suddenly, right-wing video maker Nakoula Basseley Nakoula was to be blamed. He alone had incited ordinary Libyans to spontaneously riot — a useful teachable moment for the administration to muzzle such reactionary firebrands.

The Justice Department was supposed to be blind in matters of class, race, gender, and religion. Yet, under Attorney General Eric Holder, if selective non-enforcement of elements of the Affordable Care Act, immigration statutes, or conduct at voting precincts might further perceptions of social justice, then the law was often ignored.

Why would the Federal Aviation Administration shut down flights to Ben Gurion airport in Tel Aviv — the most secure in the world — because of one stray rocket? Hamas leadership hailed the Obama administration’s move as proof that their aerial barrages were shutting off Israel from the Western world.

In contrast, the FAA has not yet stopped U.S. flights to and from Liberia and other West African countries, the source of the Ebola-virus epidemic. Is it more dangerous for Americans to have open travel to and from Israel, or to and from Liberia?

What has happened to the Secret Service?

An intruder bounded onto the White House grounds, entered the White House, and bowled over a Secret Service agent. A former felon, fully armed, climbed into an elevator with the president of the United States. Shots were fired at the White House. Agents were caught soliciting prostitutes while on duty in South America.

Official stories change to fit larger agendas. One day the White House has full confidence in Secret Service director Julia Pierson, the next day she is gone. One day leaving Iraq was the president’s stellar achievement, the next day someone else did it. We are at war and not at war with the Islamic State — both a manageable problem of some jayvees and an existential threat. The Free Syrian Army is both a fantasy and plagued by amateurs and yet the linchpin of our new strategy on the ground against the Islamic State.

We are back to the daily revisionism of the Affordable Care Act, keeping and not keeping your doctor and health plan, with deductibles and premiums going down and going up.

Stopping the fracking of gas and oil on federal lands is good, but so is the cheaper gas that fracking brings.

Once-nonpartisan federal agencies are now in service to the goal of changing America from cherishing an equality of opportunity to championing an equality of enforced result.

Our revolutionary inspirations are now Georges Danton, Jean-Paul Marat, and Maximilien de Robespierre, not the Founding Founders.

Essential VDH:Bomb, Occupy, or Neither?

by Iron Fist ( 120 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Iraq, Middle East, Military, Politics, Syria at October 2nd, 2014 - 8:47 am

Read the whole thing:

Wars usually end only when the defeated aggressor believes it would be futile to resume the conflict. Lasting peace follows if the loser is then forced to change its political system into something other than what it was.

Republican Rome learned that bitter lesson through three conflicts with Carthage before ensuring that there was not going to be a fourth Punic War.

Germany fought three aggressive wars before it was finally defeated, occupied, and reinvented.
America defeated Nazi Germany, fascist Italy, and Imperial Japan, inflicting such damage that they were all unable to continue their resistance. And then, unlike its quick retreat home after World War I, America occupied — and still has bases in — all three.

Does anyone believe that Japan, Italy, and Germany would now be allies of the U.S. had the Truman administration removed all American military bases from those countries by 1948?

This is an important point. We should have been prepared to have bases in Iraq for as long as necessary. Not for two years, or five years, but however long it took. Obama did not want to do this. He was intent on throwing away what we had gained in Iraq, essentially snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

In contrast, examine what has happened when the United States pounded an enemy, then just up and left.

By 1974, South Vietnam was viable. A peace treaty with North Vietnam was still holding. But after Watergate, the destruction of the Richard Nixon presidency, serial cutoffs of U.S. aid, and the removal of all U.S. peacekeeping troops, the North Vietnamese easily walked in and enslaved the South.

It was easy to bomb Moammar Qaddafi out of power — and easier still for President Obama to boast that he would never send in ground troops to sort out the ensuing mess in Libya. What followed was a Congo-like miasma, leading to the Benghazi attacks on our consulate and the killing of four U.S. personnel.

We can brag that U.S. ground troops did not follow our bombs and missiles into Libya. But the country is now more a terrorist haven than it was under Qaddafi — and may come back to haunt us still more.

When Obama entered office, Iraq was largely quiet. Six prior years of American blood and treasure had finally led to the end of the genocidal Saddam Hussein regime and the establishment of a constitutional system that was working under the close supervision of American peacekeepers.

Then, for the price of a reelection talking point — “I ended the war in Iraq” — Obama pulled out every American peacekeeper. The result is now the chaos of a growing Islamic State.

This was predictable. Simple observation of the results of previous wars where we cut and ran after the cessation of hostilities would have shown us what we would get. I return to my central thesis: this was predictable. Obama should have known what would happen. Almost certainly he had advisers who would have told him what would happen. It is therefore logical to assume that he intended to get the results that he got. If he had intended a different outcome, he would have chosen a different course.

Apparently, Obama himself recognizes his error. When our troops were still monitoring the Iraqi peace, he and Vice President Joe Biden proclaimed Iraq to be “stable” and their likely “greatest” achievement. But when the country imploded after they had bragged about pulling out troops, Obama blamed the decision on someone else.

The unpopular, costly occupations of both Afghanistan and Iraq were not, as charged, neoconservative fantasies about utopian democracy-building. Instead, they were desperate, no-win reactions to past failed policies.

After we armed Islamists to force the Soviets out of Afghanistan in 1989, we forgot about the chaotic country. The Clinton administration periodically blew up things with cruise missiles there on rumors of Osama bin Laden’s whereabouts. An al-Qaeda base for the 9/11 attacks followed.

After expelling Saddam Hussein’s forces from Kuwait and leaving Iraq in 1991, no-fly-zones, a resurgent and conniving Saddam, and Operation Desert Fox followed. The aim of the second Iraq war, of 2003, was to end the conflict for good by replacing Saddam with something better than what we had left after the first war.

It is popular to think that America’s threats can be neutralized by occasional use of missiles, bombs, and drones without much cost. But blowing apart a problem for a while is different from ending it for good. The latter aim requires just the sort of unpopular occupations that calmed the Balkans, and had done the same in Iraq by 2011.

Obama now promises to destroy the Islamic State in Syria, solely through air power. And he assures that he will safely pull nearly all U.S. troops out of Afghanistan at the end of the year.

More likely, Syria will remain a dangerous mess like Libya, and Afghanistan will end up like Vietnam or Iraq.

I think VDH is a bit optimistic here. He is assuming that air power will actually accomplish something to degrade ISIS. I don’t see that happening, if our actions to date are any indication of our future actions in this theater. We’ve accomplished nothing so far other than the destruction of a few empty buildings. We are bombing at night, when these structures are unoccupied, in a manner that appears to be intended to minimize casualties on the part of our enemy. This is useless military masturbation. ISIS has 30-50 thousand troops right now. We need to kill all of them. Obama’s bombings appear to be intended to kill as few of them as possible. In other words, as I predicted, he is simply trying to put on the appearance of doing “something” when in reality he is doing nothing significant. This bolsters my central thesis that he is doing all of this deliberately. That he is getting the results he wants, and those results are counter to the real interests of the United States.

The lies behind bombing ISIS

by Rodan ( 101 Comments › )
Filed under Al Qaeda, Barack Obama, Communism, Democratic Party, Fascism, Hezballah, Iran, Iraq, Islamists, Progressives, Republican Party, Syria at October 1st, 2014 - 2:00 pm

The Progressive and Decepti-Con (alleged conservatives) media are all cheering the fallen god-king’s illegal bombing of ISIS in Syria. Obama has not asked for authorization of force and ISIS was not a threat to the US. The Jihadist/Saddam Baathist hybrid organization was only a threat to one nation Iran. Up until the Syrian revolution and the rise of ISIS, Iran through its puppet in Iraq which was installed by the US, Assad’s Syria and Hezbollah occupied Lebanon formed was called the Shiite crescent. ISIS shattered this crescent and has the Ayatollahs in Tehran quaking in their boots. In battles ranging from the Lebanese border, to eastern Syria and the gate of Baghdad, ISIS has defeated Iranian Revolutionary Guards, the Syrian army, Hezbollah and the Shia Iraqi army. No Iranian allied force can stand up to ISIS in battle, but their fortune may change.

In what has to be the stupidest military act since we bombed Serbia, the United States is now bombing the one military force standing in the way of Iranian Shiite hegemony of the Middle East. Even worse, we have coordinated with Iran these bombings to help their proxies on the ground in Iraq and Syria.

The U.S. told Iran of its plans to strike ISIS militants inside Syria in order to reassure them that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad would not be targetted, a senior Iranian official has claimed.

The communication, confirmed in part by a senior U.S. State Department official, appears to signal a cooling in hostilities between the U.S. and Iran for the first time since a 1979 hostage crisis prompted Washington to sever ties with Tehran.

Iran is said to have voiced concerns for the safety of Assad, who remains the Shia Islam-dominated nation’s closest regional ally and the recipient of Iranian military support during a Syrian Civil War.

[....]

The Iranian official said Iran was informed separately in advance of the airstrikes launched by Washington and Arab allies against Islamic State positions in Syria for the first time.

That’s right, the US is giving Iran a heads up on our bombings of ISIS. Our attacks have been ineffective since the Iraqi Bathist element of  ISIS have experience fighting the US since at least the gulf war. We are just hitting empty building and grain silos, but we are doing this to help Iran.
If this is bad enough, it turns out what many Lebanese Maronites have claimed through the years is true, the US backs Hezbollah. The US tipped off Hezbollah over ISIS plots to bomb their positions in Lebanon.

BEIRUT, Lebanon — They are sworn enemies who insist they will never work together, but in practice, Hezbollah and the United States are already working — separately — on a common goal: to stop the extremist Islamic State from moving into Lebanon, where Hezbollah is the most powerful military and political player and currently shares with Washington an interest in stability.

Weeks after Hezbollah, the Shiite militant group and political party, helped repel an Islamic State attack on the town of Arsal on the Syrian border, new American weapons are flowing to help the Lebanese Army — which coordinates with Hezbollah — to secure the frontier. American intelligence shared with the army, according to Lebanese experts on Hezbollah, has helped the organization stop suicide attacks on its domain in southern Beirut.

If you think this was bad, well it gets worse. The Obama Regime, Progressive media and the Decepti-Con media all claimed that there was some terror group called Khorosan ready to strike at America. This was a total lie and the presence of some al-Qaeda operatives with Nusra Front, was an excuse to bomb another enemy of Iran. Even better, the group does not exist!

Hence, Obama gives us the Khorosan Group.The who?

There is a reason that no one had heard of such a group until a nanosecond ago, when the “Khorosan Group” suddenly went from anonymity to the “imminent threat” that became the rationale for an emergency air war there was supposedly no time to ask Congress to authorize.

You haven’t heard of the Khorosan Group because there isn’t one. It is a name the administration came up with, calculating that Khorosan — the Iranian–​Afghan border region — had sufficient connection to jihadist lore that no one would call the president on it.

The “Khorosan Group” is al-Qaeda. It is simply a faction within the global terror network’s Syrian franchise, “Jabhat al-Nusra.” Its leader, Mushin al-Fadhli (believed to have been killed in this week’s U.S.-led air strikes), was an intimate of Ayman al-Zawahiri, the emir of al-Qaeda who dispatched him to the jihad in Syria. Except that if you listen to administration officials long enough, you come away thinking that Zawahiri is not really al-Qaeda, either. Instead, he’s something the administration is at pains to call “core al-Qaeda.”

Once again, the evil 2 party plutocracy has committed the blood and treasure of America to commit a stretgic mistake. All this is being done to distract Americans, while the 2 parasite parties keep feeding the Militray Industrial complex. The only people we should be assisting against ISIS are the Kurds and Assyrian Christians. It is in our interest for ISIS and Iran to keep fighting. But, the 2 headed demon that runs America is being a sucker for the Ayatollahs in Iran.

One if the greatest Republican Presidents, warned about what we are seeing today.
Other than Rand Paul who is one of the last true Republicans that Ike would recognize as one of his own, is there anyone else calling BS on this fake war on ISIS to help Iran and the Military Industrial Complex? Make no mistake, both Democrat and Republican parties hate constitutional America and seek to establish a Fascist Totalitarian police state. They just disagree on what kind Fascist police state America will have and who will benefit from it. Notice neither party ever presents ideas that will benefit all Americans? All they do is come up with plans that benefit their favorite groups and then they pit Americans against each other. Our founding fathers never envisioned what is going on today.
You are being lied to and deceived about what is really going on.

Mars Attacks: Oops WSU Deadly Force Racism Study Doesn’t Follow the Script

by Mars ( 66 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Bigotry, Blogmocracy, Crime, Democratic Party, DOJ, Education, Eric Holder, Free Speech, Guest Post, Hate Speech, Political Correctness, Politics, Racism, Second Amendment at September 4th, 2014 - 8:00 am

Apparently Washington State University wanted to find out why racial “minorities” are shot more often in police incidents. The study did not go quite as the liberals in this country would have wanted it to. My explanation why the disparity exists will be at the end of the article.

WSU ‘deadly force’ lab finds racial disparities in shootings
Blacks more feared, but shot less quickly

SPOKANE, Wash.—Participants in an innovative Washington State University study of deadly force were more likely to feel threatened in scenarios involving black people. But when it came time to shoot, participants were biased in favor of black suspects, taking longer to pull the trigger against them than against armed white or Hispanic suspects.

The findings, published in the recent Journal of Experimental Criminology, grow out of dozens of simulations aimed at explaining the disproportionate number of ethnic and racial minorities shot by police. The studies use the most advanced technology available, as participants with laser-equipped guns react to potentially threatening scenarios displayed in full-size, high-definition video.

The findings surprised Lois James, lead author and assistant research professor at Washington State University Spokane’s Sleep and Performance Research Center. Other, less realistic studies have found people are more willing to think a black person has a gun instead of a tool and will more readily push a “shoot” button against a potentially armed black person.

The findings also run counter to the public perception, heightened with the recent shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo., that police are more willing to shoot black suspects. Statistics show that police shoot ethnic and racial minorities disproportionately to their population.

But the last comprehensive look at the racial makeup of justifiable and non-justifiable shootings was a 2001 study (pdf) using more than two decades of U.S. Bureau of Justice data, said James. And while statistics show black suspects are shot at more frequently than white suspects, the 2001 study found black suspects were also as likely to shoot at police as be shot at.

“At the moment, there are no comprehensive statistics on whether the police do inappropriately shoot at black males more than they do at white males,” said James. “Although isolated incidents of black males being shot by the police are devastating and well documented, at the aggregate level we need to understand whether the police are shooting black unarmed males more than they are white unarmed males. And at the moment, nobody knows that.”

Shootings in the field are particularly difficult to study because they can have a multitude of complex, confounding and hard-to-control variables. But WSU Spokane’s Simulated Hazardous Operational Tasks Laboratory can control variables like suspect clothing, hand positions, threatening stance and race, while giving observers precise data on when participants are fired upon and how many milliseconds they take to fire back.

James’ study is a follow-up to one in which she found active police officers, military personnel and the general public took longer to shoot black suspects than white or Hispanic suspects. Participants were also more likely to shoot unarmed white suspects than black or Hispanic ones and more likely to fail to fire at armed black suspects.

“In other words,” wrote James and her co-authors, “there was significant bias favoring blacks where decisions to shoot were concerned.”

When confronted by an armed white person, participants took an average of 1.37 seconds to fire back. Confronted by an armed black person, they took 1.61 seconds to fire and were less likely to fire in error. The 24-millisecond difference may seem small, but it’s enough to be fatal in a shooting

The recent study analyzed data from electroencephalograph sensors that measured participants’ alpha brain waves, which are suppressed in situations that appear threatening.

The participants, 85 percent of whom were white, “demonstrated significantly greater threat responses against black suspects than white or Hispanic suspects,” wrote James and her co-authors, University of Missouri-St. Louis criminologist David Klinger and WSU Spokane’s Bryan Vila. This, they said, suggests the participants “held subconscious biases associating blacks and threats,” which is consistent with previous psychological research on racial stereotypes.

However, the current study only measured the alpha waves of participants drawn from the general public, not law enforcement or the military. Consequently, wrote the authors, “results from this sample are not generalizable to sworn officers.”

“However,” they added, “there is some evidence from the field to support the proposition that an officer’s threat bias could cause him or her to tend to take more time to make decisions to shoot people whom they subconsciously perceived as more threatening because of race or ethnicity. This behavioral ‘counter-bias’ might be rooted in people’s concerns about the social and legal consequences of shooting a member of a historically oppressed racial or ethnic group.”

James said she has data on subconscious associations between race and threat from law enforcement subjects, and she awaits funding to analyze whether these biases predict decisions to shoot in the simulator. Like study participants from the general public, she said, “they were still more hesitant to shoot black suspects than white suspects. They took longer and they made fewer errors.”

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2014-09/wsu-wf082914.php

Ok, has anyone here figured out the real reason more “minorities” are shot in police incidents even though this study shows the opposite should occur? It’s pretty simple, the reason is right in the article, buried under a bunch of other information. Here’s the money quote.

the 2001 study found black suspects were also as likely to shoot at police as be shot at.

Yes, ladies and gentlemen. Right in the article it shows that a previous study proved that black suspects were far more likely to shoot at the police than any other group. Yet, somehow with that information there is still a mystery here that this research team needs Scooby and the gang to help figure out. Oh, and maybe the bit about police thinking that african americans might be more violent. Well, I’m not sure where they would get that Idea.

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/228479.pdf

In 2008, although black youth account­
ed for just 16% of the youth population
ages 10–17, they were involved in 52%
of juvenile Violent Crime Index arrests
and 33% of juvenile Property Crime
Index Arrests

http://ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/crime/JAR_Display.asp?ID=qa05261

The Violent Crime Index arrest rate in 2011 for black juveniles (627) was 5 times the rate for white (125) youth, 6 times the rate for American Indian juveniles (105), and 15 times the rate for Asian juveniles (41).
In the 1980s, the Violent Crime Index arrest rate for black juveniles was 6 times the white rate. This ratio declined during the 1990s, holding at 4 to 1 from 1998 to 2004. Since 2004, the racial disparity in the rates increased, reaching 5 to 1 in the late 2000s.

My advice to people is if you want the cops to stop shooting your minority group “youths”, then you should get your children to stop killing cops and other people. It would go a long way to changing the perception of potential violence seen by the police responding.

I’m trying to put this information out there without coming off insensitive, but I think we’ve hit the point where the majority of violent crime is committed by one group in this country, and that same group screams racism anytime that the police are forced to stop a violent criminal. I don’t get how this solves anything. Believe me when I say that 99% of the police out there have no interest in killing someone. That is a situation that leaves scars that few ever fully recover from. (Their leadership with their militarization goals are something else entirely, it’s always easier when you aren’t the one pulling the trigger.) If people would take the time to stop blaming others for doing their job and actually take the time to engage with their own families (or in many of these cases even admit that they have a family) a lot of this could be solved.

So, Yeah, the NRSC has made a game

by Mars ( 61 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Blogmocracy, Democratic Party, Election 2014, Entertainment, Guest Post, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Media, Politics, Progressives, Republican Party at September 1st, 2014 - 8:07 pm

Guest post from Mars:

 

While stumbling the internet today I came across an article about how the National Republican Senatorial Campaign had made a game. So, I of course had to check it out. You can look at it here.

I went to missionmajority.com and gave it a try. While enjoyable the game will invite ridicule on several fronts. One, they attempted to jump on the current 8-bit game fad. In recent years 8-bit style games have made a huge comeback and are the favorites of indy developers. However, it’s pretty obvious from the comments I’ve seen on several sites that this is “conveniently” overlooked by our liberal friends who use the old school look of the game to show how “out of touch” the party is. Two, it’s overly simplistic. I know they want it to be quick and easy so they can get the message across in the shortest time possible, but come on, I wasn’t even really taking it seriously and only lost two lives in the whole game. Finding a balance between simple and frustrating should have been a concern. Three, the soundbites have no context whatsoever. It’s all well and good to have dozens of damning comments from libs, but many of them I was even unfamiliar with and I consider myself fairly informed from the radio shows. How is someone who is just coming in from a link on another site (probably a liberal or at least negatively slanted site) supposed to even know what the heck half of the comments are even talking about.

This was an interesting attempt by the GOP to be hip and engage people, but I think it is far more of a misfire. Something a little more polished and with actual interesting characters and information would have been a far more effective means of reaching out. People don’t mind learning things when playing games, but they want an entertaining experience, not something that would be embarrassing for me to have my youngest child play. I’d like to give them some credit, but I think it’s for the best if this experiment in gamification is quickly and totally forgotten.

I just hope this didn’t cost the donors as much as I fear it did. Right now on Indiegala.com they have the Axis Game Factory Bundle on sale for a minimum of 9.99. With that software a day to gather sound bites, and a couple hours to draw sprites and throw it together, even I could make something better than this. (Though to be fair it will cost more to get the package that lets you format it for a website.) Not sure it would be any more informative, but it would look a hell of a lot better. Maybe a popup with who made the statement, when, and what it was about would help. It also shouldn’t just repeat the same dozen comments over and over, it would be nice to have more variety.

Painful Video To Watch

by Macker ( 159 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Democratic Party, Military at August 28th, 2014 - 8:00 am

I actually made myself watch Обама’s address to The American Legion, which occurred two days ago. If you think the military’s response was bad due to Обама’s open contempt, wait till you see…no wait! RUN this speech in the background while you go do other stuff.
Here’s the speech:

Shootout at the Cold Stone Corral: The Arizona Republican Gubernatorial Primary

by The Osprey ( 79 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Business, Corruption, Democratic Party, DOJ, Economy, Election 2014, EPA, Eric Holder, Health Care, immigration, Immigration, IRS, Janet Napolitano, Misery Index, Politics, Regulation, Republican Party, taxation, The Political Right, unemployment at August 24th, 2014 - 6:02 pm

AZnObamaTruck

Damn. The Arizona Republican Primary is Tuesday, and I have still not been able to make up my mind who I am going to vote for to be our contender for Governor in November. There are 6 – count ‘em – 6 candidates!

Nicknames in quotes are mine :lol:

I break them down like this:

The Corporates – pushing their experience in the private sector:

Doug Ducey. “The Ice Cream Man” : Current AZ Treasurer. Founder of Cold Stone Creamery, the upscale ice cream chain. Has gotten endorsement of Republican heavy hitters from outside the state – Scott Walker, Ted Cruz, radio talker Hugh Hewitt. On the hand, he has been endorsed by John McCain and there have been questions of impropriety raised around some of his dealings with Cold Stone franchisees. UPDATE: It appears that Doug Ducey has been endorsed by Sheriff Joe Arpaio.

Christine Jones. “Go Daddy’s Girl”: Kind of a dark horse, or should I say, ginger horse. (She’s a red head). Was corporate attorney for Scottsdale based internet hosting company Go Daddy – they of the racy Superbowl ads and Danica Patrick ad campaign. Claims to be for strong border enforcement, but recent revelations of her social media posts from a few years back supporting Obama and other liberal positions, resume embellishments (she claimed to have worked as a prosecuting attorney prior to her Go Daddy days) have made me skeptical of her.

The Politicos – claiming the voice of moderation:

Ken Bennett: “Cool, Calm Ken” Current Arizona Secretary of State. Long term AZ politico seen by many as a balancing force in AZ Republican politics. Presents a “cool calm and collected” image but may be a RINO. Many Arizonans who support Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s Cold Case Posse investigation of Obama’s document fraud feel Bennett allowed himself to be bamboozled by Democrat officials in the Hawaii State Dept. of Records, and his lack of experience outside government has caused some criticism as well.

Scott Smith: “Mayor McRINO” Current Mayor of Mesa. Presents himself as a moderate Republican. Has a pretty good record as Mayor, but his support of Brewer’s Obamacare associated Medicare expansion which was passed in the dead of night by RINOS and Democrats and his participation in national Mayors conferences heavily influenced by Democrats has left a sour taste in the mouth of small government and balanced budget advocates in AZ. Endorsed by Jan Brewer.

The Lawmen- For border security and state’s rights :

Frank Riggs: “Marshall Dillon” Frank is a California transplant who moved to AZ in 2001. An army veteran and former police officer, he represented a conservative district in California in the Reagan years. This is his first foray back into politics since moving to Arizona. Has the endorsement for former State Senator Russell Pierce, author of SB 1070. A Border hawk. Those who object to him site a congressional voting record that is not quite as conservative as Riggs claims it to be.

Andrew Thomas: “The Boy Scout” Former Maricopa County Attorney. Defended Sheriff Joe’s immigration law enforcement in court, exposed and lead prosecution of various corrupt State representatives and Maricopa county supervisors. This gained him many enemies in the liberal Democrat run AZ Bar Association, who filed a lawsuit against him that while ultimately defeated, nonetheless lead to him being disbarred. He is very well liked in among AZ conservatives, but even many who like him feel that he is “damaged goods” and vulnerable to a Dem lead smear campaign in the General.

My initial thoughts back in February or March favored either Doug Ducey or Christine Jones. Having someone in the Governor’s office with private sector experience could help Arizona divert a lot of those California companies fleeing that state’s regulatory environment to Texas, into Arizona instead.

However, with the Bundy Ranch vs. Fed Gov showdown in April, the ongoing controversy over Sheriff Joe’s investigation into Obama’s document fraud, the “Camp of the Saints”/”Children’s Crusade” on the border, and the threat of ISIS infiltration via the border, has me leaning now towards one of “The Lawmen”. I don’t think the “Corporates” would have enough spine to stand up to Obama and Holder.

Polls are all over the map, there are some in the media who say the race is Ducey’s to lose, but I think there is a strong undercurrent for Andrew Thomas, as an F-YOU! to the Dems locally and nationally.

Curious to hear what other Blogmocers either in AZ or out of state think. We, along with Texas are on the front lines of the border crisis, Obama and Holder have been meddling in our local politics and the economy here has been struggling since 2008.

UPDATE: It appears that Sheriff Joe Arpaio has endorsed Doug Ducey.

ISIS supporter takes picture outside of the White House

by Rodan ( 1 Comment › )
Filed under Al Qaeda, Barack Obama, Headlines, Hipsters, Islamists, Jihad, Leftist-Islamic Alliance at August 9th, 2014 - 10:05 pm

Can’t tell if this ISIS supporter is a Hipster or Islamist.

ISIS is using social media to get supporters. AN ISIS supporter being that close to the White House should send chills down the spine of people.

Can You Think Of A Better Way To Destroy America?

by Flyovercountry ( 243 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Progressives at August 5th, 2014 - 9:22 am

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

So this morning, while just beginning to plug back into the world, I noticed that the news reports are focusing in on the effects of severe budget cuts to that one piece of our government the political left is more than willing, we’ll call it down right eager, to cut, our military. Defense spending for those of you who have not read the document, is one of two items of expenditure mentioned specifically within our Constitution. The other is a National Postal Service. Active duty personnel are being delivered their pink slips while in the field overseas. Calling this revelation unprecedented is an understatement. Suicidal, stupid, egregiously self destructive, openly rooting for American defeat, fomenting American defeat, or the even more caustic, a course of action so idiotic that it could only have been born by someone with an Ivy League education leap immediately to mind.

Bear in mind that while this silliness is taking place, our military is refitting, at considerable expense I might add, many of our sea traveling vessels designed for purposes of war to operate on biodiesel. This is a fuel source by the way, that even with heavy subsidy from the Department of Energy, carries a price tag that is roughly 600% higher for our Navy to pay. This undoubtedly is another of those politically correct points of stupidity to help our national defense apparatus fight our real enemy, “Global Warming.” So, I guess we can look forward to any actual people left in our armed forces facing a redeployment literally, to tree hugging duties and other such time and money wasting boondoggles, while the enemies of freedom and civilization run rampant and inflict their caliphate upon a world suddenly devoid of the once formidable protection of a strong and committed United States. Isis, Hamas, Hezbollah, a Nuclear capable Iran, a Taliban ruled Pakistan, Al Qaeda ruling in Libya, the actual invasion of our Southern Border by Mexican Drug Cartels armed via gift from Barack Obama and Eric Holder personally, are all small potatoes, when compared to the unproven claims, (and coincidentally, recently the subject of some more scandalous incidents of data manipulation by the NOAA,) inherent in the global warming scam.

Just when you thought this couldn’t get any more surreal, we get a bipartisan approval of the very same all in one air craft that other armed forces the around the globe passed on, mostly because it’s useless, over a decade ago. We’ll allow the guy who designed one of the truly great fighter jets in world history to tell you why the F-35 is a disaster, and why it is folly for our military to spend one thin dime more on this project. (Yes, Democrats and Republicans alike should be taken to task on this one.)

What we have is a military now that is being literally starved of its most valuable asset, troops to do the work necessary. At the same time that we’ve fired the people necessary for any endeavor to succeed, we’ve been busier than hell spending like idiots on gadgetry and new toys, some of them already proven to be worthless. Technology is great, but only when used properly as a tool in the hands of trained professionals. Barack Obama is decimating our military, and changing its mission from one of national defense to one of environmental radicalism. In this game of national self flagellation however, the United States is not the only citizenry to pay the consequences for our country’s insistence upon twice electing the least qualified person in any room he enters to be our chief executive. The world as a whole is less safe. The removal of our missile defense systems from Europe turned out to be the beginning of long line of national defense blunders, entered into purposefully, so that America and her allies would get their comeuppance. Redeploying our military to be nothing more than the political muscle of Green Peace just turns out to be adding insult to injury. Purchasing the F-35, a jet proven to be less capable of performing any individual task which may be asked of it than the aircraft used by the military during 1950′s, that’s just flipping any who hold our Constitution in any regard the proverbial middle finger. That’s modern liberalism folks, recognize it for what it is.

http://musingsofamadconservative.blogspot.com/2014/08/can-you-think-of-better-way-to-destroy.html