Milestones to November

Today’s post is late. I had my quarterly visit with the vampire. That disrupted my daily schedule.  While I was sitting in the waiting room, I scanned some items off the internet.  One, caught my attention. A new poll announced by a Columbia, MO station.

New Poll Has Akin Ahead of McCaskill

Posted: Aug 30, 2012 7:40 AM by KOMU Staff
Updated: Aug 30, 2012 10:18 AM

JEFFERSON CITY – A new poll commissioned by the Conservative Family Research Council finds Missouri Senate candidate Todd Akin beating Claire McCaskill.

The poll has Akin up 45 percent to McCaskill’s 42 percent. Last week, two polls had Akin trailing and one of them was by double digits.

Columbia is a hot-bed of liberalism as is St. Louis and Kansas City.  The story has little info on the poll itself, such as was this the results of registered or likely voters. It was conducted by the Family Research Council a Pro-Life organization.

The Family Research Council poll was conducted by Wenzel Strategies from Aug. 27 to Aug. 28, testing 829 voters for a margin of error of plus or minus 3.38 percent. The sample was 32.7 percent Democrats, 34.1 percent Republicans and 33.2 percent independents.Hot Air.

This poll was slightly weighted towards the ‘Pubs but not excessively so. I would like to see the sampling by region.  If the sampling was heavily outside the liberal bastions, the results would be skewed towards Akin.  Another poll by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch has Akin down by 9 points (50 vs. 41) but Romney up by 7 (50 vs 43). I have more confidence in this poll. You can see the questions and the regional responses. There are still open questions concerning party ratios and whether those polled were registered or likely voters.

Frankly, I don’t trust either of these polls. The Family Research Council is an Akin supporting organization.  The St. Louis Post-Dispatch is a liberal rag like the Kansas City Star.  Any poll sponsored by the Post-Dispatch is questionable.  Rasmussen will have another MO poll out in a few weeks and that one I’ll trust. Rasmussen has a track record of sampling likely voters and equal party ratios for all sides.

The RNC is whining that an Akin loss would prevent the ‘Pubs from taking control of the Senate.

Priebus: Akin could cost GOP chance to win Senate

The Associated Press

Republican National Party chair Reince Priebus says that Todd Akin’s insistence on staying in the Missouri Senate race could cost the party its chance to win control of the Senate.

Priebus says Akin “should put the mission of liberty and freedom ahead of himself” and leave the race.

On the other hand Priebus refused to provide any funding for Akin’s campaign. The RNC appears to be attempting to sabotage Akin’s campaign by stealing his trained staffers. If Priebus was truly concerned about losing the Senate, why did he make this public statement?

It’s pretty clear now that Akin is not going to knuckle under to the ‘Pub establishment. It’s time for the RNC to get over their hissy-fit and back Akin’s campaign. If the ‘Pubs fail to gain control of the Senate, don’t blame Akin. Blame Reince Piebus.

Tuesday’s Notes

There have been a number of items appearing of interest today. Some are significant like the RNC attempting to establish a dictatorship within the party. Some, like the passing of Neil Armstrong, are life events of the changing times.

The RNC, as usual, stumbles along. They continue to associate Ron Paul with the Tea Party when he is not. Ron Paul and the Tea Party agree on a number of items but Ron Paul marches to his own radical drummer while the Tea Party follows another. Paul’s statement about Bin Ladin is a prime example of those differences. Paul fails to understand that the border for national security lies on their shores, not ours.


I received an e-mail today from city hall. It announced that the flags around town would be at half-mast in memory of Neil Armstrong. I watched Neil Armstron step on the moon in 1969 when I was assigned to Keesler AFB. I had just arrived a few days before to begin training. I and some friends were watching the landing in the BOQ dayroom.  It was all in black and white and somewhat grainy. The audio was clear fortunately. The transmission from the moon didn’t have the band-width for color.  All the color shots and videos were on film and brought back to be developed later.

I remember some commentary concerning the fate of the two in the lander if it could not take off. Whether they had “suicide pills.” The supporting technology, while extensively tested, was not really stable. So much of today’s advances were developed during that period as by-products of NASA and the space program.

Neil Armstrong refused to benefit from his feat. For a time he would give away his autograph. Then he discovered people were selling them for outrageous sums. He stopped autographing after that. He didn’t mind giving his signature but he didn’t want others to profit from that gift.

Goodbye, Neil. You’ll be remembered. You’ve left your legacy on Mare Tranquillitatis, beyond the reach of petty politicians here on Earth.


For those of you who’ve read my earlier posts about Ron Paul know I’m no fan.  However, he and the Tea party won a common victory yesterday against the ‘Pub establishment.

The establishment ‘Pubs were pressing a rule change that would disenfranchise any delegate who did not swear fealty to the establishment. The rule would force the state organizations to be puppets of the RNC.  When the proposed rule was published, a Hue ‘n Cry arose and the rule was amended to remove that tyrannical provision.

Republicans reach rules change deal to avert floor fight with Texans, Ron Paul backers

Republican leaders moved Monday to quell an uprising by Texans and Ron Paul supporters that threatened to steal the spotlight from GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney and expose rifts in the party right as its nominating convention got under way.

Under a compromise reached late Monday, Romney supporters and GOP leaders agreed to back down from a proposed rule change that effectively would have allowed presidential nominees to choose what delegates represent them at national conventions.

The proposed change was aimed at muting the power of insurgent candidates such as Tea Party favorite Ron Paul but prompted an uproar from Texas Republicans, who select their delegates through successive votes in conventions at precincts, then districts and finally statewide.

“We believe in Texas as a principle that no presidential candidate nor the RNC should be able to tell Texas who can or cannot be a delegate to the national convention,” Davis said.

“This isn’t Reagan versus Ford, Goldwater versus Rockefeller,” Davis added. “This is George Washington versus King George.”

And Texas Republican Vice Chairwoman Melinda Fredricks had flatly told RNC rules committee members Sunday night that the Lone Star State would stand its ground.

“The Texas delegation considers the new rule . . . an unacceptable infringement on our right to freely choose our delegates to the national convention,” she said in an e-mail to the committee members. “We realize not every state selects its delegates in the same manner we do, and perhaps you find it hard to understand what has us so worked up. Frankly, we find it hard to understand how your delegations would be willing to give away their rights.”

While this rule change was aimed at Ron Paul and his delegates, it also affected those delegates for Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich and others. The delegates who supported the Tea Party would be as affected as those for Ron Paul.

I’ll give Paul credit for this. His organization lead the fight.


I found the following article during my daily scan of internet news.  The Washington Times is a good conservative source of information. However…this article doesn’t ring true.  The Tea Party, of all organizations, studies the Constitution more than the rank and file of the ‘Pubs.

Be that as it may, here is that article. It does bring forth questions. Just how knowledgeable are we?

Embracers of the Constitution are baffled by what’s really in it

Voters see rights they don’t have

By Stephen Dinan – The Washington Times, Monday, August 27, 2012

TAMPA, Fla. — They say they stand for a return to constitutional principles, but it turns out tea party supporters are just as confused as to what rights and powers are in the federal government’s founding document, according to the latest The Washington Times/JZ Analytics poll.

Most Americans say they’ve read all or most of the Constitution, but they tend to see more rights than the document actually guarantees, and struggle over what the Constitution says about the powers and structure of government itself.

For example, 92 percent of those surveyed said the Constitution guarantees the right to a jury trial, but only 40 percent knew that it grants Congress the power to coin money, and just 53 percent said it establishes Congress‘ power to levy an income tax.

And voters thought they had protections that they don’t have — at least not in the Constitution: 71 percent said the it protected the right to a secret ballot and 58 percent said it guarantees a right to education, though neither appears in the document.

“What most studies find is that many people think they know a great deal about the Constitution, but when asked specific questions about our founding document as a country they really miss the mark,” said Doug Smith, executive director at the Center for the Constitution, based at James Madison’s Montpelier home.

But The Times/JZ Analytics poll found self-identified Republicans and self-identified tea party sympathizers often shared the same views as other voters. For example, 66 percent of Republicans and 65 percent of tea party supporters said the Constitution guarantees a right to privacy, which was almost identical to the 68 percent of all voters who said the same thing.

The same held true on Congress‘ power to coin money and the right to a secret ballot.

Republicans, though, were far less likely to say the Constitution guarantees the right to education — which it does not — than the general public. While 71 percent of Democrats and 55 percent of independents said education was in the Constitution, only 47 percent of Republicans did.

He also said civics education has deteriorated, adding that he learned about the Constitution in ninth grade, but his daughter, who just completed that grade, did not.

The Washington Times article continues to a second page. I urge you to read the entire article. It contains some interesting information and implies that the lack of civics education has been driven by the federal government. I can’t speak to that but like the writer above, I was taught the federal and my state constitution as a requirement for graduation from high school.  My daughter, who graduated from a private Christian school, did not. Perhaps we should make this a goal of our new ‘Pub administration?

A Thursday post without a title

I considered using, “Cowards!” and “Twisting in the Wind,” as possible titles but I decided against either. Sometimes ‘Pubs just can’t take reality and those titles would be misunderstood, although highly accurate.

It’s been nearly a week since Akin stuck his foot in his mouth all the way to his knee. The initial cry of the ‘Pubs of, “Unclean! Unclean!” have subsided to…silence. The deadline for Akin to quietly walk away has passed. It will now take a concerted act by the Missouri ‘Pub Central Committee, and a court order, to remove Akin so I’m told.

I doubt that will happen. The Missouri Central Committee hasn’t the guts to take that action. No, they’d rather do nothing and possibly lose the election to McCaskill rather than offend…someone, anyone.

They haven’t the guts to remove Akin. They haven’t the guts to give the finger to the dems and support Akin so they’ll do nothing and lose to McCaskill.

It makes me wanna puke.

I’ve said in earlier posts. If the ‘Pubs continue as they have, the party will go the way of the Whigs.  The example above in the last two paragraphs is proof of that statement.

Would Akin be a better Senator for Missouri and the country than McCaskill? Yes, regardless of Akin’s mistakes. Would McCaskill be a worse Senator for Missouri and the country than Akin? Again, yes.

“But, but, we’ll lose the independents if we back Akin,” they claim. So? We don’t have them anyway. We’ll never have them and setting aside our core principles as conservatives is no way to gain votes.  It’s makes the ‘Pubs no better than the dems.

Acts of gutlessness, such as this, is why the Tea Party emerged.  The Tea Party still exists, don’t doubt that. If the ‘Pubs ignore that support, the Tea Party will leave the ‘Pubs and look for other avenues of politics. The Republican Party will wither.

It’s time for the ‘Pubs to act as adults and make a decision and announce that decision loudly and clearly. Either remove Akin now, or fully back him. Then, come what may, the party can at least show some backbone.

We can no longer tolerate spineless wimps like Boehner and McConnell. Act, ‘Pubs, or get out of the way for another party who will.

Keep focused on the Objective

The time limit has passed.  Supposedly, the option for Akin to resign as the ‘Pub Senate candidate passed yesterday at 5PM CDT.  From what I understand, it will now take a court order to remove him as a candidate. 

There are no good options now but let’s take a look at some of those proposed solutions.

  1. Have Sarah Steelman or John Brunner run for the Senate as write-in candidates.  Unfortunately, they are prohibited by law from running, as write-ins, for an office when they’ve lost the primary for that same office.
    ”write-in candidate” is a person

    whose name is not printed on the ballot (see 115.453(4,5,6) RSMo); and who has filed a declaration of intent  to be a write-in candidate for election to office with the proper election authority prior to 5:00 p.m. on the second Friday immediately preceding the election day. It is not necessary to file a declaration of intent if there are no candidates on the ballot for that office. (see 115.453 (4) RSMo) 

    Frequently asked questions on write-in candidatesCan a write-in candidate be on a primary election ballot? No. (Section 115.453 (5) RSMo)

    If a candidate runs in a primary election and loses, can the person run in the general election for the same  office?
     No.  If a candidate files for nomination to an office and is not nominated at a primary election, that candidate cannot file a declaration of intent to be a write-in candidate for the same office at the general election. (Section 115.453(4) RSMo)

    Are write-in candidates posted at the polling place? No. The election authority shall furnish a list to the election judges and counting teams prior to Election Day of all write-in candidates who have filed a declaration of intent. (Section 115.453(4) RSMo)Are write-in votes counted for every name that is written in?

      No. If a candidate is on the ballot for an office, write-in votes are counted only for the candidates who have filed a declaration of intent to be a write-in candidate with the proper election authority.  (Section 115.453(4), first sentence) If no candidate is on the ballot for an office, it is not required to file a declaration of intent and votes are counted for every name properly written in. (Section 115.453(4) RSMo, last sentence.I am not a lawyer, but running as a 3rd-party candidate could fall under this prohibition as well.  Sarah Palin today suggested that Sarah Steelman run as a 3rd-party candidate.  Sorry Sarah P, that is not a good idea, nor, if the above statutes are applicable, a legal option.

  2. Shift support to another current candidate such as the one from the Libertarian party.Who?

    That says it all. I don’t know who’s running as the Libertarian candidate. I doubt many do since the Libertarians usually are only pull single-digit percentages in the state elections. (I had to look him up. It’s John Dine (L) who is the Libertarian candidate for the US Senate.)

  3. Remove Akin via a court order and the ‘Pub state Central Committee selects a replacement.  Wow! That would really resolve things.  The pro-Akin supporters against the non-Akin supporters. That would guarantee a split party and likely would hand the election to Claire McCaskill.

None of the options above are really viable. Each of those options would split the votes of the Party and McCaskill wins.  THAT IS WHAT THE DEMS WANT!

Let’s not forget the Objective of this exercise, this election.

Remove Claire McCaskill from office and replace her with a conservative Senator. 

I didn’t vote for Akin in the primary. He won without my vote. It’s the fact. Akin won the primary legally.

So. Sarah Palin, as much as I like you, butt out! 

John Dine: find your own supporters. Don’t plan on poaching from the ‘Pubs. 

‘Pubs: Man up. It’s time to pull up your big-boy pants and get on with life. For better or worse, the party has a candidate for Senate and it’s Todd Akin. He didn’t quit. Your hissy-fits didn’t work. Now recognize the reality and rally behind Akin and let’s win! Claire McCaskill must go!

Since Crossroads and the RNC cut funds to Akin, let’s make up the difference.  Any lessening of support will hand the election to McCaskill.

Let’s never forget the Objective: Claire McCaskill must be removed from the Senate and replaced with a conservative Senator.

Valid polls or manipulated polls?

I did not intend to enter the Akin mess. The dems love it and think it will save McCaskill’s senate seat.  The ‘Pubs are mostly running in circles, screaming and shouting with incoherence. And the people of Missouri…still like Akin? That is what one poll seems to say.

By Alexandra Jaffe – 08/21/12 06:55 AM ET

Two new polls suggest Rep. Todd Akin (R-Mo.) is still competitive in his race for Missouri’s Senate seat despite the firestorm over his controversial comments on rape.

A poll released by Democratic-leaning Public Policy Polling (PPP) late Monday still gives Akin a single-percentage-point lead over incumbent Sen. Claire McCaskill (D), the same lead he posted in a PPP poll from late May.

A Survey USA poll, however, finds that a majority of Missourians believe he misspoke and want him to drop out, but that Akin still has support among Republicans in the red-trending state.Akin tops McCaskill by 44 percent to 43 in the PPP survey, nearly identical to their May poll where he led by 45 percent to 44, but the edge is within the survey’s 4-point margin of error.

The new PPP survey was taken between 6 and 9 p.m. Central Time on Monday — after Akin’s comments had been widely publicized and he had been asked by senior Republicans to drop out of the race.

His persistent lead — even as 75 percent of voters and over two-thirds of Republicans in the PPP poll say his comments were inappropriate — is likely due to McCaskill’s persistent unpopularity in the state. A majority, 53 percent, of Missourians disapprove of the senator, and the same percentage of independent Missourians disapprove of her as well, indicating she’ll have an uphill battle to sway voters to back her in the general election.

Still, Akin has a pretty lukewarm rating with Missourians, too, with a full 58 percent rating him unfavorably. Even those who voted for then-GOP presidential candidate Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) in 2008 are largely split over Akin, with 40 percent saying they view him favorably and 39 percent saying they view him unfavorably.

On the other hand, The National Review Online has a contrary piece. They believe the poll above is blowing smoke because it was weighted to favor GOP over dems by a 9 point spread. The NRO postulates the numbers may have been purposely fudged to help keep Akin in the race.

Our friend Jim Geraghty over at NRO has put on the green eye shades this morning to take a look at the poll numbers in the Todd Akin Senate race.

Over at HuffPo and AOL they are hyping a poll purporting to show that even after Akin’s rape comments he’s doing just dandy in the polls — tied with McCaskill.


Jim took a look and discovered that the number of GOP’s versus Dems was…9 points!  Which is to say, the suspicion is that the poll is deliberately weighted to produce a pro-Akin result….so that Akin will stay in the race. Jim also sweetly points out that Public Policy Polling is a Democrat-leaning polling outfit and asks:

“Anyone suspect that the Democrat polling firm might be trying to get the result they want, to ensure Akin stays in, so that he can get pummeled in November?”

I didn’t vote for Akin. But he did win the primary.  If Akin had been a democrat running for the the senate, the dems would have closed ranks behind Akin regardless of his statement. ‘Pubs however, will throw a candidate under the bus at the least provocation. For the establishment ‘Pubs, politics beats principal every time.


I saw the title for today’s post in a Facebook comment Saturday.  My immediate thought was Rail-Road #12?  RR12 didn’t connect until another commenter said it meant, Romney-Ryan 2012.

Oh! Yes, I sleep late on Saturdays and I was still fuzzy. So, lump it if I was a bit slow.

The response from ‘Pubs and conservatives was overwhelmingly positive. From the libs…we got the expected screams. Andrea Mitchell of MSNBC said Ryan was, “not a pick for women.” On that same TV show, the host claimed that he was getting emails from progressive womens groups, who noted that Ryan was unacceptable because he was “ardently pro-life.”

Obama’s campaign manager attacked Ryan’s Medicare reform plan from last year.

Obama campaign manager Jim Messina wrote that Ryan’s “plan also would end Medicare as we know it by turning it into a voucher system, shifting thousands of dollars in health care costs to seniors.” — Washington Examiner.

These responses from the libs and democrats were not unexpected.  It’s their standard operating procedure—demagogue the opposition because the facts supports the ‘Pubs.

On the other, the conservative side, 10,000 people turned out to see and listen to Romney and Ryan in Waukesha, WI, yesterday.

Romney/Ryan in Waukesha, WI

10,000 see Romney-Ryan in Waukesha, WI, August 12, 2012

Perhaps the best response to Ryan’s pick came from John Fund writing for the National Review.

Smart Democrats Should Be Worried

By John Fund, August 11, 2012 11:21 A.M.

Liberal pundits are already fanning out in force to attack and discredit Paul Ryan. Michael Tomasky, who recently wrote a Newsweek cover story calling Mitt Romney a “wimp,” has now decided that Romney’s bold move is “a terrible choice” because Ryan has proven himself to be an extremist on budget issues.

No doubt there are many Democrats rubbing their hands in glee in contemplation of reviving some version of the ad that featured an actor playing Paul Ryan pushing a grandmother in a wheelchair off a cliff. But the smarter ones are worried.

First, if Ryan is an extremist and his proposals are so unpopular, how has he won election seven times in a Democratic district? His lowest share of the vote was 57 percent — in his first race. He routinely wins over two-thirds of the vote. When Obama swept the nation in 2008, he carried Ryan’s district by four points. But at the same time, Ryan won reelection with 65 percent of the vote, meaning that a fifth of Obama voters also voted for him.

Ryan has pointed out to me that no Republican has carried his district for president since Ronald Reagan in 1984. “I have held hundreds of town-hall meetings in my district explaining why we have to take bold reform steps, and I’ve found treating people like adults works,” he told me. “All those ads pushing elderly woman off the cliffs don’t work anymore if you lay out the problem.”

Second, Democrats know that Ryan has Reaganesque qualities that make him appealing to independent, middle-class voters. Take the cover story on Ryan that the Isthmus, a radically left-wing Madison, Wis. newspaper, ran on him in 2009. “Ryan, with his sunny disposition and choirboy looks, projects compassion and forcefully proclaims dedication to his district,” the story reported. “And he’s proved he is not unyieldingly pro-corporate, as when he recently joined in condemnation of AIG ‘retention’ bonuses.”

Third, Ryan’s ideas aren’t that novel or scary. The idea of “premium support” for Medicare, which would change the program’s one-size-fits-all policy to a private-insurance model with public options, was endorsed by a bipartisan commission appointed by Bill Clinton back in the 1990s. Late last year, Ryan announced a new version of his proposal with a new partner signing on: Democratic senator Ron Wyden of Oregon, who first achieved political prominence as an advocate for seniors.

Four, Ryan puts Wisconsin and its ten electoral votes in play. Polls have shown that President Obama holds a five to seven point lead in Wisconsin — significant, but much less than Obama’s 14-point margin in 2008. With Ryan on the ticket, polls show the race is dead even.

Five, if Republicans were looking for a superior candidate, they’ve found it in Ryan. His maiden speech as the GOP vice-presidential candidate was perfectly pitched:

We won’t duck the tough issues . . . we will lead!

We won’t blame others…we will take responsibility!

We won’t replace our founding principles . . . we will reapply them!

Echoes of Ronald Reagan at his best.

Ryan was judged to have already had the better of President Obama in televised exchanges on Obamacare. His debate with Joe Biden this October might well be remembered as cruel and unusual punishment for dim vice presidents. Recall that Sarah Palin fought a much more engaged Joe Biden to a draw in their 2008 vice-presidential debate.

Six, as Democratic consultant Joe Trippi acknowledged today on Fox News, Ryan will bring in a flood of donations from overjoyed conservatives and tea-party members. Romney had a problem with energizing the GOP base. That problem is now solved, and that will make it easier to pump up conservative turnout.

Democrats will no doubt try to make Paul Ryan into a younger version of the devil they’ve tried to paint Mitt Romney as. But they should worry about fighting a campaign on fundamental issues in a weak economy. That’s precisely how Jimmy Carter, the last Democratic president to run for reelection during hard times, wound up losing so badly that it not only cost Democrats control of the U.S. Senate but damaging the liberal brand for years afterwards.

Romney, in one swell foop, reassured the conservatives who were concerned about Romney’s “moderateness,” and gained the favor of the Tea Parties who have supported Ryan’s proposals for Medicare and slashing the federal budget.  Bluntly, Romney could have picked someone a lot worse.

It’s Thursday?

It’s been a busy week. Electioneering and the election earlier this week seemed to just soak up the time. The aftermath yesterday…checking the winners and losers, was busy as well. Some of my favorites won, some lost. It’s been a whirlwind and time has leaped in passing.

I woke up this morning thinking it was Wednesday. I had lain in bed thinking over the election results and some impacts when it occurred to me that I was repeating yesterday. 

That’s when I woke up.


In the run-up to the election, current events has been pushed aside.  Imagine my surprise to learn that Mexico has surrendered to the drug cartels!  Mexico’s PRI party regained control in the last election. Once in office, they promptly surrendered to the de facto government that rules large portions of the country.

Mexico Dissolves Its FBI, Moves to Legalize Drugs

by Chriss W. Street 1 Aug 2012

In a stunning development, President-elect Enrique Peña and his Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI), who won control of Mexico’s government on July 1st, moved to dissolve the Agencia Federal de Investigación (AFI).  

Modeled after the United States FBI, the AFI was founded in 2001 to crack down on Mexico’s pervasive government corruption and drug trafficking. With rival drug cartels murdering between 47,500 to 67,000 Mexicans over the last six years, the move by the PRI represents the total surrender of Mexico’s sovereignty back to the money and violence of Mexico’s two main drug cartels, the Sinaloa Federation and Los Zetas. Coupled with the Obama Administration’s “Dreamer” Executive Order curtailing deportations of illegal aliens, a hands-off policy on both sides of the border foreshadows a huge increase in “narco-trafficking” violence and corruption flooding into the United States.    

The PRI ruled Mexico with an iron fist for 71 years between 1929 and 2000.  Although the PRI claimed they were the socialist peasant’s party, they operated as a corrupt political organization that siphoned off wealth from Mexico’s nationalized oil industry with bribes for protecting the drug cartels that trafficked in marijuana and narcotics into the United States. As a glaring example of the level of official PRI corruption, in 1982 the oil workers’ union donated a $2 million house as a “gift” to President López Portillo. Mexicans often joke: “Our Presidents are elected as millionaires, but they leave office as billionaires.” 

But on December 1, 2000, Vicente Fox, the former Chief Executive of Coca-Cola in Mexico and founder of the Partido Acción Nacional (PAN), was elected President of Mexico. Mr. Fox ran on a platform of reforming Mexico’s pervasive police corruption, and his first move as President was to form the AFI. Under the leadership of President Fox and his party’s successor, President Felipe Calderón, the AFI grew over the next 11 years into a 5,000-member force with an international reputation as a premier drug enforcement agency.  The U.S. provided extensive equipment and training to the AFI. The AFI reciprocated by capturing numerous drug kingpins and extraditing them to face criminal prosecution for murder and drug distribution in the U.S. 

Over the first six months of 2012, the Sinaloa Federation and Los Zetas carried out a vicious war across Mexico to expand their areas of operations and intimidate the local population. Both cartels engaged in “information operations campaigns” by displaying large numbers of dismembered bodies in public places. The shock value of body dumps was designed to broadcast that the cartels are the dominant authority in Mexico. 

The AFI under President Felipe Calderón retaliated against the major drug cartel kingpins’ horrific bloodshed by partnering with the U.S. and Guatemala to capture Horst Walther Overdick in Guatemala, followed by the capture of Francisco Treviño and Carlos Alejandro “El Fabiruchis” Gutierrez Escobedo and the killing of Gerardo “El Guerra” Guerra Valdez in Mexico, along with the capture of José Treviño in the U.S.

Two days after the election, President-elect Peña came to the U.S. to announce that he would “welcome debate on the issue of drug legalization and regulation in Mexico.”  In an interview by PBS News Hour, President-elect Pena clearly stated:

I’m in favor of opening a new debate in the strategy in the way we fight drug trafficking. It is quite clear that after several years of this fight against drug trafficking, we have more drug consumption, drug use and drug trafficking. That means we are not moving in the right direction. Things are not working.

These are “code words” to signal the PRI intends to cut a profitable deal with the cartels to legalize drugs in exchange for collecting tax revenue on drug sales. The month before, Congressman James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) called a Congressional hearing to accuse Peña Nieto of advocating “a reversion” back to the old PRI policies of “turning a blind eye to the cartels” as long as they weren’t perpetrating grisly violence.   

President-elect Peña’s announcement of the PRI’s new cozy relationship with the drug cartels directly followed President Obama’s announcement of his “Dreamer” Executive Order curtailing deportations of “undocumented” aliens. These actions have caused major alarm among rank-and-file border agents that the Sinaloa Federation and Los Zetas are now unrestrained to flood into the United States with drugs and violence. In a joint union press conference by the customs agents and the border patrol unions, Chris Crane, President of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Council (ICE) warned:  

It‘s impossible to understand the full scope of the administration’s changes, but what we are seeing so far concerns us greatly… There is no burden for the alien to prove anything.

No good will come from this. The security of our southern border has just become more critical than ever before.


Claire McCaskill ran an ad prior to the Missouri primary declaring Todd Akin to be, “a dangerous Tea Party extremist,” and, “outside the mainstream.” Various pundits believe she ran the ads because she, McCaskill, believed Akin was the easiest ‘Pub opponent to beat for the Senate.  Whatever her logic, it appears to have helped Akin win some votes in the primary. A quick scan of grassroots websites across the state appeared to confirm the opinions of those pundits.

Personally, I think Ol’ Claire made a strategic mistake.  Breitbart TV has this report.

Claire McCaskill Says Conservatives Are ‘Dangerous,’ ‘Outside of Mainstream’

by Dana Loesch 9 Aug 2012, 2:53 AM PDT

Claire McCaskill’s campaign wasted no time in attacking Todd Akin after his senate primary win. This evening McCaskill sent an email to supporters claiming that Akin is a “dangerous” tea party extremist:

Akin’s Rap Sheet Makes It Clear: Tea Party Congressman’s Outside Of The Mainstream Views, Dangerous Policies Are Wrong for Missouri, From his record to his rhetoric, everything about Todd Akin’s Tea Party policies are outside of the mainstream and dangerous for Missouri families.  

When Missouri Republicans nominated him last night,  they pinned their Senate hopes on a far right,  Tea Party Congressman whose candidacy diminishes the party’s prospects for November.

This coming from McCaskill, a Senator so far removed from the will of her people that after she championed for Obamacare in Missouri, 76% of voters voted to repudiate it via Proposition C. Prop C, or the Health Care Freedom Act, was the first legislative challenge to Obamacare. 

McCaskill again rubber-stamped the Obama agenda when she sided with him against Missouri jobs and coal by voting in favor of the MACT rule and effectively shutting the doors of numerous coal plants. McCaskill once claimed she hated coal, odd considering she represents a big coal state, the industry of which employs thousands. McCaskill has rubber-stamped the Obama agenda on most every policy that would adversely affect Missouri coal and jobs. 

McCaskill cheerleads for an administration that has quadrupled the deficit, run women from the job pool, and devalued the dollar, while trying to persuade seniors that the government knows best how handle their social security. McCaskill has never addressed why government-run social security is the best when that very same government spent it all. The idea that individuals should have a choice between their own responsibility or government irresponsibility is “extremist” to the incumbent. 

McCaskill also attacked Akin over oil subsidies while keeping mum on her support for green tech subsidies. (Akin, in fact, has before said on my show that such subsidies should cease.)

The Democrat incumbent is desperate to cast this race as Harry Reid v Sharon Angle except McCaskill has been trailing in the polls for the past several states, her state repudiated her efforts to cheerlead for Obama, and unlike Reid, McCaskill is attempting to legislate Missouri into the poorhouse with job-killing regulations. Dangerous and “outside of the mainstream?” That sounds like McCaskill.

One way or another, McCaskill will get what she asked for.


The Washington Times has a piece about illegal aliens that is putting to bed the excuse they are all productive and here only for jobs.  Truth be told, almost half are on the welfare rolls.  Just think of the savings that could be made if we just cleaned the rolls and limited welfare to US citizens?  Our parasite class is big enough as it is without importing more.

Slow path to progress for U.S. immigrants

43% on welfare after 20 years

By Stephen Dinan – The Washington Times, Wednesday, August 8, 2012

Immigrants lag behind native-born Americans on most measures of economic well-being — even those who have been in the U.S. the longest, according to a report from the Center for Immigration Studies, which argues that full assimilation is a more complex task than overcoming language or cultural differences.

The study, which covers all immigrants, legal and illegal, and their U.S.-born children younger than 18, found that immigrants tend to make economic progress by most measures the longer they live in the U.S. but lag well behind native-born Americans on factors such as poverty, health insurance coverage and homeownership.

The study, based on 2010 and 2011 census data, found that 43 percent of immigrants who have been in the U.S. at least 20 years were using welfare benefits, a rate that is nearly twice as high as native-born Americans and nearly 50 percent higher than recent immigrants.

The report was released at a time when both major presidential candidates have backed policies that would make it easier to immigrate legally and would boost the numbers of people coming to the U.S.

Federal law requires that the government deny immigrant visas to potential immigrants who are likely to be unable to support themselves and thereby become public charges.

On Tuesday, a handful of Republican senators wrote to the Homeland Security and State departments asking them to explain why they don’t consider whether potential immigrants would use many of the nearly 80 federal welfare programs when they evaluate visa applications.

Neither department responded to messages Tuesday seeking a response to the senators’ letter.

There is more in the complete article. I urge you to read it for yourself.


I read some reports today that Citibank, AT&T, and GE are shifting the majority of their contributions to the GOP.  In addition, so are their employees. Usually these corporations suck up to whomever they think will be the winner. They’ve made cozening an art form. Now, they’re abandoning Obama in the hope to gain favor when Romney is in charge.

Corporations are not the only ones. Unions see the writing on the wall, too. The United Mine Workers Association (UMWA), the coal miners union is sitting this election out.

In politics as well as the inevitable sycophants, self-interest is always the top priority.