Continuing on a theme…

The theme I speak of in today’s post title is the civil war within the GOP between the Washington establishment and the Tea Party, conservatives, and other grassroot organizations throughout the states. Karl Rove, using his Crossroads PAC, started the war several years ago. He attacked conservatives claiming they couldn’t win. He supported Romney against other conservative candidates.

He was successful. Romney lost in 2012, Obama won.

Karl Rove is still here. He continues to stir up division within the party, supporting McConnell, Boehner and other establishment RINOs against conservatives and attacking the primary opponents of establishment candidates across the country.

The establishment isn’t keeping the war secret. No, they’re proud to be known for supporting the democrat agenda saying, “we don’t want to make waves in an election year.” They ignore the political fact that during an election year is the time to make waves, to score points against the dems, else, what difference is there between the dems and the ‘Pubs if the ‘Pubs continues to support the democrat agenda?

The likely result will be a repeat of 2012 when enough conservatives stay home. When there is no difference between the two parties, what difference does it make who wins? The nation will still continue on the path of authoritarianism, and toward a one-party dictatorship like that of the old Soviet Union.

I’m not the only one who has observed the civil war. IBD, in an editorial this week, agrees.

Republicans Shouldn’t Run Away From The Tea Party

Posted 

Politics: Republican Party leaders seem willing, anxious even, to walk away from the Tea Party, certain that such bedrock support will brand the GOP as extremist in voters’ eyes. If anything, polls show, the opposite is true.

With 10 months to go before the crucial midterm elections, Republicans understandably will try to avoid screwing up their chances for victory.

Democrats have taken to vilifying any Republican who actually stands for something — such as Texas Sen. Ted Cruz — as a captive of what they’d like to label as the far-right fringe.

This can be seen in the efforts of Sen. Charles Schumer of New York — the Democrats’ top political strategist — to, in the words of The Hill, “poison the Tea Party by driving a wedge between its rich funders and its blue-collar rank and file.”

This kind of hardball has Republicans in a bit of a panic. And in case you’re wondering, it’s a big reason why they supported the pork-filled $1.1 trillion spending bill this month, and why GOP leaders are talking about legalizing millions of illegal immigrants.

But before they sell their souls to political expediency, they might want to look at a few recent polls that suggest the small-government, conservative ideals of the Tea Party are quite popular. To wit:

• A Quinnipiac Poll finds 53% believe the Obama administration has been incompetent at running the federal government. And 56% oppose ObamaCare, the Democrats’ signature accomplishment since 2008.

• In a recent Gallup Poll, almost two-thirds of Americans said the U.S. government has gotten too big and too powerful, and are unhappy with how it works.

• A Fox News Poll found 62% believing income inequality is acceptable “because that’s just how the economy works.” Another 21% agreed inequality was bad, but that the government “shouldn’t get involved.”

Get the picture? Average Americans show a strong preference for smaller, more-accountable government. And which group most closely fits that description in its basic beliefs? Why, the Tea Party, of course.

Republicans would be wise to heed the people’s clear will and not fall for Democrat ploys to make them feel “extreme.” If anything, it’s the Democrats, now a party of the far left, who are the extremists.

Republicans shouldn’t look at them and say, “Me, too.” As a statesman once said, Americans deserve a choice, not an echo.

“Americans deserve a choice, not an echo.” What a closing statement. I wish I could come up with ones of that caliber.

***

Other news today is a reflection on the liberals new attacks against capitalism in favor of “income equality.” Income, whether to individuals or corporations, is dependent on a single statement: Wages and salaries are dependent on the revenue the individual brings to his employer.

Income has no relationship to individual worth. Everyone has worth. Income is driven by the value an employee provides to his or her employer. The more value an individual provides, the more income he should receive. If not, find another job using the skills and training you received from your prior employer. Note: you aren’t likely to gain any marketable skills flippin’ burgers. Choose a job or career, wisely.

McDonald’s Fighting To Be ‘Relevant’ To Customers, CEO Concedes

NEW YORK (AP) — McDonald’s is losing customers, as the world’s biggest hamburger chain struggles to attract diners with its higher-priced sandwiches and new offerings like Mighty Wings.

“We’ve lost some of our customer relevance,” CEO Don Thompson conceded Thursday on a call with analysts.

The Oak Brook, Ill.-based company reported disappointing sales for its fourth quarter, as fewer customers visited its established restaurants. Guest counts at those locations fell nearly 2 percent globally and 1.6 percent in the U.S. in 2013, according to a regulatory filing. And McDonald’s expects some challenges to persist this year.

There’s more to the article, you can read it here. The point I’m making is this: consider McDonald’s position if the minimum wage is raised to $15, almost twice the minimum wage in most states. How would that increase in the cost of doing business affect McDonald’s plans for more service, more value for the customer’s dollar?

When income, as it is happening to McDonald’s, goes down, the last thing the company needs is more expenses. It matters not if the increased expenses come from higher taxes, federal mandates like Obamacare (when McDonald’s waiver expires) or increased wages, such as would occur if the minimum wage is raised. Increased cost, with little or no improvement in revenue equals reduced or no profits.

McDonald’s employs 1.7 million people around the world. It’s certainly more than those employed in California and the other socialist states in the nation who would rather destroy an employer affecting hundreds of thousands, rather than admit their agenda does not work.

 

No, what income equality creates is not higher incomes, it is less. Why? Because with the increased employee cost, McDonald’s only choice is to layoff people and reduce their cost of doing business to a level that will allow them to remain profitable. Without profits, there is no McDonalds.

But, that is inconsequential according to the levelers who drive income equality. They would rather see McDonald’s cease to exist than admit income equality, like all such socialist schemes, doesn’t work.

Ryan O'Hanlon liked this post

The Word

A word was spoken yesterday, in an open forum, by someone who is not a member of the media’s right-wing, extremist, whack-jobs. The speaker was Michael Cannon of the Cato Institute’s Director of Health Policy Studies. He was speaking before a congressional committee hearing about the constitutional limits imposed on the presidency and the implications of President Barack Obama’s disregard for implementing the Affordable Care Act (AKA, Obamacare – Crucis) as written. His statement was this:

“There is one last thing to which the people can resort if the government does not respect the restrains that the constitution places on the government,” Cannon said. “Abraham Lincoln talked about our right to alter our government or our revolutionary right to overthrow it.” — Mediate.

Revolution. Civil War. Scary words that should make everyone hearing or reading them have second thoughts on the consequences of their current, past and future actions. A second Civil War in the United States would make the Lebanese Civil War of the last century look like a walk in the park among cool breezes and playing children. No one who has seen war takes those words lightly, but they have now been spoken by a credible speaker, before a congressional committee. Once spoken, the words cannot be retracted.

The nation has been on this path for decades. It started under Reagan when the democrat congress passed laws to make differences in foreign policy a crime. An incident occurred call the Iran-Contra Affair. The prosecution of Ollie North was the result. North was convicted of accepting an illegal gratuity, obstruction of a congressional inquiry, and destruction of documents, but the ruling was overturned since he had been granted immunity.

From criminalizing differences of political policy to ignoring, failing to enforce law and selective enforcement of law, the democrat party has lead the country to this point—massive repeal of federal laws, abolishment of federal agencies used by democrats to persecute political opposition, and a restructure of the federal government to restore state sovereignty—or chaos and war.

The Republican Party has been an active partner in many of the actions of the democrats. They have ignored the wishes—the demands, of their constituents to maintain their personal positions of power in Washington. They are not guiltless, either.

Michael Cannon continued to say, before the congressional committee this final statement.

“That is certainly something that no one wants to contemplate,” he continued. “If the people come to believe that the government is no longer constrained by the laws then they will conclude that neither are they.”

“That is a very dangerous sort of thing for the president to do, to wantonly ignore the laws,” Cannon concluded, “to try to impose obligation upon people that the legislature did not approve.” — Mediate.

Have we reached the point in this country when law become irrelevant? Many believe so.

The 5th of July Follies

Yesterday was the 150th Anniversary of the last day of the Battle of Gettysburg. The battle started on July 2nd when elements of the Lee’s Army of Northern Virginia met The Army of the Potomac, under newly appointed commander, George Mead, at Gettysburg, Pennsylvania. The movie, “Gettysburg” released a decade ago, based on Michael Shaara‘s, “The Killer Angels,” provides an accurate accounting of the battle.

Michael and Jeff Shaara‘s historical novels, history written in the form of a novel, provides insight into historical characters and give life to history. One of the purposes of the books, in a statement attributed to Jeff Shaara, was to educate citizens and patriots in history as it really happened, giving life to the thoughts, living conditions of the soldiers and to the philosophies of the times.

Leading up to patriotism, the Gallup Poll conducted a survey earlier last month, June 1-4, 2013, a poll on a subject not often covered: Who is more patriotic, Conservatives, Liberals, Republicans, or Democrats? The poll confirmed long held opinions by Conservatives and Republicans.

Gallup: Republicans more proud to be American than Democrats

By CHARLIE SPIERING | JULY 4, 2013 AT 8:50 AM

The Patriot Poll

The Patriot Poll

In recognition of Independence Day, Gallup has released a poll on whether American citizens are still proud to be American.

Ninety-three percent of Republicans indicate that they are “extremely/very proud” to be American while only 85 percent of Democrats feel the same way.

Eighty-one percent of political Independents indicate they are “extremely/very proud.”

Likewise, 89 percent of poll respondents who identified themselves as conservative are “extremely/very proud,” to be American compared to 76 percent of liberals.

Come on, now, you always knew this, didn’t you?

***

It seems that just about all political pundits have opined, in one form or another, on the George Zimmerman trial. Some pundits attempt to report the facts of the case as they are presented in court. Others, like Al Sharpton, are stirring up controversy to gain more face time on TV.

I’ve not weighed in on this subject other than to note it appears that the Judge and Prosecutor in the case seem to be more interested in convicting Zimmerman than in serving justice. In general, conservatives seem to side with Zimmerman’s version of the events, while liberals side with Al Sharpton and the Prosecutor.

One “conservative” (I’ve put that in quotes because I’m not convinced he is a conservative,) who sides with the prosecution is Michael Savage. On Tuesday of this week, speaking on his radio program, Savage said Zimmerman was guilty of the charges levied against him. Now Savage, like everyone, is free to espouse their opinions on everything or anything. Savage did that and exposed himself as being an ignorant fool.

 

Michael Savage on George Zimmerman: ‘You have to find this man guilty’

Jeff Poor, Media Reporter

On his show on Tuesday night, talk show host Michael Savage said that George Zimmerman, who is currently on trial for the murder of Trayvon Martin, should be found guilty of second-degree manslaughter based on two things: 1) The state of his firearm and 2) The language he allegedly used on a 911 call when he was first reporting his suspicions about Martin.

But first Savage explained why his insight should be valued over others in the media covering the trial.

“I’m about to break an analysis that no one yet in the media has done, as you would expect from me — being the senior member of the American media and possibly the most insightful,” Savage said. “And I have to blow my own horn because everyone else tries to break my horn.”

Savage laid out his case, saying that the murder could have been avoided, but based on Zimmerman’s gun having a round in the chamber with the safety off, Zimmerman intended “to find some he could shoot or intimidate.”

“Zimmerman was carrying a Kel Tec semi-automatic 9mm handgun,” Savage said. “So? Big deal. It is a big deal because he had a bullet chambered in the gun and he had the safety off… Had he not chambered a round prior to meeting Trayvon, and had he not taken the safety off, even if Trayvon, during the altercation even if Trayvon had tried to grab the gun away from Zimmerman — had that gun not been chambered with a round and safety off, Trayvon Martin would have had to use two hands. You can’t do it with one hand.”

Anyone with a Concealed Carry permit or one who is familiar with firearms will immediately notice the errors in that statement. The comments below the article point out the fallacy of Savage’s position.

fltactical

As an owner of the Kel-Tec PF9, I can say that Savage (whom I normally generally like) is a fool. There is no safety on this weapon. It has a 2 stage trigger with a long and heavy trigger pull. This acts as a “safety” and is the most common trigger on concealed carry firearms. Also, I don’t know anyone who carries that doesn’t keep a round in the chamber. If you are attacked, you have no time to rack your slide and chamber the round. I am shocked at Dr. Savage’s lack of knowledge on this subject.

Fltactical is more polite than the next commenter in the queue.

seattle61-> fltactical

Agreed.. I was getting ready to post the same thing. Savage is an idiot

Savage has a history of jealousy with Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Mark Levin. Those three usually ignore Savage as a whiner. That is until this week. Mark Levin let loose on Savage.

Mark Levin blasts ‘transgendering’ ‘snaggletooth’ ‘troll’ Michael Savage

5:44 PM 05/24/2013

On his radio show Thursday night, conservative talker Mark Levin scorched his former radio competitor Michael Savage for attacking fellow conservative talkers.

Levin took on Savage for attacking two of his colleagues, Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity.“I’m thinking of doing a one-hour special on the life and times of Michael Weiner,” Levin said. “Little Weiner, Weiner Nation calls himself ‘Savage,’ changes his name but you can’t blame him. He’s named after male genitalia. He is a real cancer on this business. He is a phony, fake conservative. All you have to do is Google his name and Google ‘Allen Ginsburg’ and Google ‘Fiji’ and all kinds of stuff pops up.”“Now he goes on the airwaves and he trashes a couple of my friends — Rush [Limbaugh], Sean [Hannity] claiming they’re not conservative enough, you know, like him,” Levin continued. “I don’t know, I’ve never seen Weiner Nation at a tea party rally. I’ve never seen Weiner Nation helping the conservative movement.”

“Let me tell you something, you little troll, you little nobody,” Levin said. “I kicked your butt in the ratings head-to-head from one end of the nation to the other. That’s why you’re late night, got it? I’d like you to come back at 6 p.m. against, Eastern of course, so I can do it again, snaggletooth. I know all about you. All your little secrets — how you trash other hosts, how you try to position them to the left of you. You’re a puke. I’m going to tell you something else — I’m not finished on this subject. I am not finished.”

“Ladies and gentlemen, I apologize to you,” he continued. “But this thigh rash — this thigh rash is a hideous person. Yes, I remember what he said about parent’s with autistic children. I remember all of that. Yeah, I think I might do one-hour special: ‘The Weiner we didn’t know.’ You like that Mr. Producer? No, ‘The little Weiner we didn’t know.’ Actually, ‘The transgendering Weiner,’ or something like that. I’ll figure it out. Head’s up there pal.”

Ah, Levin, he certainly has a way with words. I have listened to Savage from time to time when I was out driving and there wasn’t anything else on. Anyone listening to Savage will quickly note one personal characteristic—he’s a hate-filled man.

No, I didn’t watch the SOTU

Unlike many of my political friends, I did not watch Obama’s State of the Union speech. Why? Because I don’t care to be lied to, again. Obama said nothing that would really prevent or even slow our nation’s slide towards a dictatorship. It is one, to a great extent, already. My fears of civil war have not been lessened. In fact when you read articles like this, it supports that fear and supports conspiracy theories that the FedGov is itself preparing for that war. Those fears are not relieved when reputable news organizations like Investor’s Business Daily agree.

Why are the feds loading up on so much ammo?

By Posted 02/08/2013 09:02 AM ET

In a puzzling, unexplained development, the Obama administration has been buying and storing vast amounts of ammunition in recent months, with the Department of Homeland Security just placing another order for an additional 21.6 million rounds.

Several other agencies of the federal government also began buying large quantities of bullets last year. The Social Security Administration, for instance, not normally considered on the frontlines of anything but dealing with seniors, explained that its purchase of millions of rounds was for special agents’ required quarterly weapons qualifications. They must be pretty poor shots.

But DHS has been silent about its need for numerous orders of bullets in the multiple millions. Indeed, Examiner writer Ryan Keller points out Janet Napolitano’s agency illegally redacted information from some ammunition solicitation forms following media inquiries.

According to one estimate, just since last spring DHS has stockpiled more than 1.6 billion bullets, mainly .40 caliber and 9mm. That’s sufficient firepower to shoot every American about five times. Including illegal immigrants.

To provide some perspective, experts estimate that at the peak of the Iraq war American troops were firing around 5.5 million rounds per month. At that rate, DHS is armed now for a 24-year Iraq war.

The perceived need for so much ammunition in federal custody is especially strange given Obama’s double-barreled emphasis in his inaugural address on the approaching end in Afghanistan “of a decade of war.” And he also noted, “We, the people, still believe that enduring security and lasting peace do not require perpetual war.”

The lack of a credible official explanation for such awesome ammunition acquisitions is feeding all sorts of conspiracy theories, mainly centered on federal anticipation of some kind of domestic insurrection. Napolitano has at times alluded to threats from the extreme right-wing.

My concerns become worse when Obama’s rubber-stamp of an Attorney General, Eric Holder, has no problem killing Americans using armed drones. Police departments in liberal cities and states are already using drones to spy on their citizens. There were reports that some California agencies had requested the use armed drones to hunt for Ccp-killer Chris Dorner.

There are others of a like mind, others writing for well-known news and opinion outlets that are more outspoken than me. Here’s a recent column that appeared in The American Thinker. None of us subscribe to the most prevalent conspiracy theories. But…when does coincidence shift to something more than just coincidence? Here’s one opinion.

Just Shoot Me

By William L. Gensert, February 13, 2013

These days, it feels as if a drone has been hovering over my house, and now that it is “legal,” as well as “ethical” and “wise” to kill American citizens from afar, I fear for my life.

Since our president has given new meaning to the phrase drone on and on and on, principled opposition to a president is no longer patriotic, and patriotism is no longer defined as fidelity to the constitution and the nation.

Patriotism, like truth, is now whatever Barack Obama says it is — and if he says it is patriotic to vaporize me and any other human being standing in my vicinity — citizen or not — then, who am I to object?

In any case, I have for years exercised my First Amendment rights of unprincipled opposition to a man I consider — hands down — America’s worst president. I suppose, taking that into account, my inevitability as a target became a foregone conclusion the day the EPA declared CO2 a pollutant. After all, I’ve been known to exhale. In fact, some have labeled me a windbag.

Considering all this, and the recognition that I can only hold my breath for so long, I should have realized that the administration’s implementation of a plan to speed my imminent demise was not only unavoidable, but desirable — for the collective good at least.

…and in the immortal words of Cristina Kirchner – at least, I think it was her — maybe it was another failure whose husband used to be a president:

“What difference, at this point, does it make?”

There has always been a risk in speaking truth to power. I’ve always known this. But to hear the progressives tell it, as a white, former businessman, I am the power.

Funny, it doesn’t feel that way.

When I turn on the television, people like me are always the villain. When I open a newspaper, all I read is that I am the problem, having so bitterly clung to my guns and religion, while practicing unrestrained antipathy to the “other.”

You know, people not like me.

Every presidential address blames me and mine for the lack of success and outright misery his ascendancy has bequeathed upon the nation and its inhabitants, legal and illegal – if there is anyone actually ‘illegal’ any longer — well… except for those who oppose, obstruct and dissent.

You know, people like me.

It’s my own fault. My recent writing has been in support of letting the sequester go forward (an ironic word choice), in the hope (more irony) of helping to prevent the Obama juggernaut from proceeding unabated, and I have been very vocal in opposition to the man for almost his entire presidency.

My postman — previously a wonderful African-American woman named Paula, who coincidentally, lives across the street — has been replaced by a middle-aged, angry looking white man, remarkably, resembling John Brennan.

I have noticed that whenever I see Brennan on CNN, or any of the other Obama networks, he is nowhere to be found on my block.

Coincidence? I think not.

I have tried to avoid Mr. Brennan — he is, after all, the father of the president’s “leading from behind” drone policy — but, he simply will not let me do so.

The other day, he insisted on stopping by to inform me he would no longer be delivering mail on Saturdays. I thought that strange. Did he inform all of the other people on his route or just save personal notification for those who were marked by the president for assassination?

After all, there has to be others. Many people don’t like Obama. He’s Hugo Chavez, without the smarts, charm and poise, but seemingly, also without the expiration date as well. I would really like to see his fifth inaugural address, but by then, I will certainly be dust in the wind.

In any event, I now know that the unprecedented fire and brimstone of hope and change will, unexpectedly, come on a Saturday. The drone operator, undoubtedly a unionized government employee, will get overtime — it’s only fair.

I had better shut my mouth; this is the kind of talk that got me on the “kill list” in the first place. But then, they can’t really kill you twice.

The column is long and continues for a dozen or more paragraphs. Is Mr. Gensert’s opinions extreme? A couple of years ago, I would have thought so. Today, I’m not so sure. Regardless, we have been affirmed to be living under that old Chinese curse—to be living in interesting times.

Wanda Gaddy, Bruce W. Evans liked this post

Another step closer

250px-Gadsden_flag.svgThe big news today is Obama’s threat to use Executive Orders to create more gun [control] regulations.

The executive actions could include giving the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention authority to conduct national research on guns, more aggressive enforcement of existing gun laws and pushing for wider sharing of existing gun databases among federal and state agencies, members of Congress in the meeting said. — The Politico

It’s alarming that one of the changes is to merge state and federal databases (like NICS?) into a consolidated one (registry) of firearms and owners. Exactly the type of registration that the NICS database is forbidden to do by law. At one time, Missouri Sheriff’s had source documents, the old Pistol Purchase Permits. Those documents could, at that time, be used to create such a database of pistol owners. Those pistol permits were abolished when CCW was passed a number of years ago and no longer exists.

What such an Executive Order would do is to attempt to ignore existing federal law and create a national firearms registry through the back door. NICS is “supposed” to purge their data of who is buying a firearm. As I understand it, the call to NICS is just to determine if the buyer—not what he/she is buying, has a criminal record and therefore not allowed by law to buy a firearm.

There has been instances where information has been leaked that the FBI failed to follow the law and purge that buyers list from the database.

The FBI’s NICS E-Check system is capable of accurately tracking and reporting on usage as each case is assigned a unique control number and is associated with a specific user identification number.45 In a conference call between the OIG Inspection Team, NLC staff, and the FBI’s NICS Section, a manager at the NICS Section told the OIG that the NICS data are complete and accurate because, “It’s the system that did the checks and nothing has been purged.” — OIG Report on BATFE use of NICS.

There was a suit that extended the retention of buyer data to six months contrary to the intent and actual language of the law. The court decision was not based on law nor precedent but on an administrative need by the government.

The question then evolves to this. Can Obama force the creation of a national database of gunowners and weapons without violating existing federal law? The government may, in its bowels, have information on weapons from manufacturers, distributors and FFLs. But, without access to individual 4473 forms, NICS is the only existing federal database that has any buyer data. If the BATFE attempts to seize 4473 records from FFL, that is also illegal and we would soon learn of any such attempt.

So what is this announcement of 19 new Executive Orders to “tighten” gun control all about? A real attempt to violate federal law, to infringe on the Constitution right to own and bear arms in violation of the 2nd Amendment? Or, is it just another push, another nudge limiting our basic liberties, hoping the ‘Pubs won’t push back. A plan of incremental tyranny?

Someone asked me last Thanksgiving where our country stood at this time. My response, “The same as the nation was in January, 1860.” My estimate of the date way have been premature. Lincoln was elected in November, 1860. His announcement of sweeping reforms that affected the South pushed South Carolina into secession in December 1860.

Obama was re-elected in November 2012. He has now announced sweeping “reforms” affecting our liberty, economic stability, infringing on our 2nd Amendment rights, and failing to support and defend the Constitution. Examining the parallels between then and now, is our nation at the December, 1860 threshold? Sean Hannity thinks we may.

Firestorm

I created a firestorm in a FB group today. It was not quite…unintentional. I knew there’d be some members who’d not like my post. Wow, was I surprised!

It all started with this:

“I seldom vote straight ticket. This year I am. Why? It’s easy. We need to remove democrats from office at all levels. Voting ‘Pub is the only way to do that.”

That statement was followed with a link to Michael Mahoney’s blog post.

3P Poll: McCaskill Up by 4, Libertarian May Hold the Key

Public Policy Polling’s (3P) last Missouri Senate survey shows Democratic incumbent Claire McCaskill with a 4% point lead over Republican challenger, Todd Akin. Libertarian candidate, Jonathan Dine holds 6% of the Missouri vote.

3P’s survey indicates the Libertarian vote may be the key in a bruising Senate rate.

” Akin’s chances at pulling off an upset comeback victory may depend on whether Dine really gets 6% at the polls on Tuesday,” 3P said in its summary statement.

It appears that few, if any in that FB group, actually read Mahoney’s post. They keyed off my statement supporting voting straight ‘Pub ticket this election. Here’s one comment of several in the same theme.

“I would rather the Dems win the Lt Gov seat then have Peter Kinder win.”

That individual has a right to make that statement. It does, however, indicate why 3rd parties fail. It’s not that the 3rd parties have a better solution. Rarely do they. Instead, it’s more about what they are against. In this case a particular candidate. From the contents of some of the statements, it’s appears to be pure hatred.

The original post discussed McCaskill, Akin, and Dine, not Peter Kinder nor Cynthia Davis. I don’t know much about Cynthia Davis. I know she used to be a ‘Pub and after some flap about something, flipped to the Constitution(?) party. OK, that’s her right. But from my observations, the issue between her and Kinder isn’t political—that I could understand. No, it appears to be personal and those issues have extended to her followers.

The problem is that so many 3rd party candidates have lost sight of the goal—to remove democrats from office at ALL levels. Not just the federal one. Instead, they work harder against a conservative competitor than the dem. To them, it’s not getting rid of the dems. No, it’s blocking the ‘Pub that is more important.  That attitude helps no one except the dems.

Dine is polling 6% in the polls against Akin and McCaskill. If his followers switch to Akin, Akin will win. It all depends on those Libertarians deciding whom they detest more…the dem, Claire McCaskill, or the ‘Pub, Todd Akin.

If this election wasn’t so crucial, I wave my hand at the 3rd parties and wish them well. I’m not a pure ‘Pub myself. I label myself as a Tea Party conservative. However, this election is much, much more important—quite likely whether we can prevent a civil war in the future.

If the dems win or retain control of the Senate, that war will loom much closer. If the ‘Pubs win, we’ll push that event further into the future. Maybe, just maybe, it won’t occur.

I want that.

The War on our Southern Border

I’ve written, from time to time, about the ongoing civil war in Mexico.  Our state media consistently fails to report that war south of the border and rarely when it spills over into the US.  When humans heads were found recently near a school, and bodies were dumped in Vera Cruz, I didn’t see it mentioned anywhere outside of the internet.

Now, it is becoming apparent that the drug cartels have moved troops across the border into the US.  Some speculate it is to allow them a chance to regroup and refit.  Others believe they are here to establish a beachhead in the US.

Last year, General Barry McCaffrey and General Bob Scales, issued a report about the danger on the border.


Mexico’s Narco-cartels Represent ‘Strategic Level’ of War Against US

By: Anthony Kimery
09/27/11 
On Monday, Staples backed up his claims with the release of a comprehensive 182-page report that asserted it’s the first report “to conclude that [Mexican crime] cartels are following a twofold strategic plan” that is the equivalent of strategic-level war against the US.
Commissioned by Staples last June, the report was prepared by retired Gen. Barry McCaffrey, a former US drug czar and Southern Command commander of US troops in Latin America, and Gen. Robert Scales, former commandant of the United States Army War College.
McCaffrey and Scales concluded that “the bottom line” is “Mexican cartels seek to create a ‘sanitary zone’ inside the Texas border – one county deep – that will provide sanctuary from Mexican law enforcement and, at the same time, enable the cartels to transform Texas’ border counties into narcotics transshipment points for continued transport and distribution into the continental United States.”
And this, McCaffrey and Scales emphasized, represents “narco-terrorism at the strategic-level of war” and directly threatens US national and hemispheric security.
The report, Texas Border Security: A Strategic Military Assessment, further concluded that “Texas is the state most vulnerable to the spread of instability and violence in Mexico.”
Staples said the “report is the culmination of  many efforts that started with rural farmers and ranchers bringing pleas for a secure border to me.”
The 82nd  Texas Legislature “recognized this critical issue and the numerous accounts of cross-border violence and tasked the Texas Department of Agriculture via House Bill 4, to conduct ‘an assessment of the impact of illegal activity along the Texas-Mexico border on rural landowners and the agriculture industry and working in conjunction with other appropriate entities to develop recommendations to enhance border security,’” Staples said in announcing the report.
In response, Staples requested that McCaffrey and Scales “develop and recommend a military-style strategy and operational and tactical requirements to secure the Texas portion of the US-Mexico border,” and “requested specific information related to the financial, manpower, technology and other resources needed to secure the Texas-Mexico border; and ways in which the roles and resources of US federal agencies could be optimally deployed to facilitate implementation of these recommendations.”

 I wouldn’t hold my breath.  The dems and liberals in Washington have been quite successful ignoring the issue.  First they fought any measure to secure the border.  Then, under pressure, they agreed to an ineffectual “border fence” and finally, when Obama gained office, cut off funds to build that fence.

The story continues.  In an interview with Greta Van Susteren on FOX News, Major General Bob Scales, the co-author of the report provided more information.

The interview turned to Cartel activity in the US and a report from the El Paso Medical Center documenting the treatment of 150 trauma cases from Mexico for treatment in the medical center.  Greta Van Susteren stated, referring the cartel acitivty on the US side of the border…

VAN SUSTEREN: It’s even bleeding over that (to the US) way.
SCALES: It absolutely is. And it’s not just in the cities along the border. It’s in these border counties that are very thinly populated, where the cartels have established routes of egress into Texas and transshipment points and houses. Ranchers and farmers are having their ranches violated, breaking into their homes, shooting at them. Ranchers are selling their property. Ranch hands are quitting out of fear or from being threatened by the cartels. It’s really becoming increasingly out of hand.
VAN SUSTEREN: It’s my impression that’s United States isn’t taking this seriously, maybe Texas is, maybe Arizona, but the United States is not taking as a country what’s going on in Mexico with the level of intensity I think it should. I know Secretary of State Hillary Clinton described it as Colombia 20 years ago and got rebuked by the president. Am I exaggerating this?
SCALES: I don’t think you are at all. I think part of the problem is we haven’t done a good job of telling the rest of America how Arizona and Texas affects them directly. Remember now, there are 18,000 cartel members operating in Texas, but their –
VAN SUSTEREN: There are 18,000 cartel members operating in Texas?
SCALES: A full army division of gang members, the foot soldiers for cartel –
VAN SUSTEREN: In Texas?
SCALES: In Texas, and thousands more in American cities, all in this scheme to distribute drugs throughout the United States. This is not just a Texas problem. This is a national problem. And we need to make the rest of the nation aware of it.
VAN SUSTEREN: I guess I’ve always been intrigued by the fact that one of the worst cartels are the Zetas. They are ex-military, essentially the special forces who have gone rogue.
SCALES: It’s very sad, and they’re increasingly violent. Two years ago this was a criminal enterprise that was done for profit. Increasingly today it’s just sheer, raw violence inflicted on the citizens of Texas, and that’s why they’re worried.
VAN SUSTEREN: I don’t like to overstate it, but your description, the 18,000 in Texas, the number of people around the city, that it doesn’t differ that much in our mind to our thoughts and fears of Al Qaeda originally, having cells around. I mean, this is not flying a plane into a building or a dirty bomb, but this is drugs, which are killing people, and there’s violence associated with it.

The cartels have the equivalent of a full division of troops in Texas!  If that doesn’t scare you, what will?

Washington’s neglect in protecting our borders is near criminal.  If we cannot be secure within our borders from external threats, we have no national security.  As I’ve said before, the survival of our country is to precious to remain in the hands of democrats and liberals.  They, their party, and their agenda have failed miserably. Their incompetence cannot be allowed to continue.