DRUMS RATTLE, FLAGS WAVE
ABOUT GUNS: DRISCOLL – Will of the people right.
LEADS: CHALFANT – Dems more liberal; WILL – Ted’s plan; EASLEY – Carson declares war; TUTTLE – 97% Solution; TAHIRI – BO’s the sole participant; THEILMAN – TPP text & expression; FOX – Trump wants Bowe shot; WILLIAMSON – Let’s fight.
SPEAKER: GINGRICH in Devon; ANTLE- Conservative leaders?
HILLARY: STILES – Her scandal grows.
END NOTE: al-Andalus.
“Claiming sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over certain powers, serving notice to the Federal Government to cease and desist certain mandates, providing that certain Federal legislation be prohibited or repealed …” HR 95, Session of 2009. Referred to Committee on State Government, March 23rd.
Drums Rattle, Flags Wave
“Don’t know who gets Glenn Beck but, the other day he and David Barton were discussing what Christians want to hear from their ministers/pastors etc. here is the survey and the outcome. David Barton suggested that we take the survey and results to our clergy. http://www.wallbuilders.com/downloads/WhatChristiansWantPastorstoPreachAbout.pdf
Also, to give them this web site: http://nationalblackroberegiment.com/
Valley Forge Patriots is considering joining with other groups such as Oath Keeper, Delco Patriots, etc. so we have a larger number of people to address the dangers that are coming our way. If you have any thoughts, concerns, ideas please feel free to share them with our steering committee.
We are going to start up our rallies at King of Prussia mall on Saturdays from Noon til 3 starting Oct. 31. Please try to attend and bring chairs, water, and appropriate signs. We rally on Rt. 202 by the Wells Fargo Bank. We reach thousands of people at that site and now that the holidays are coming we will reach many more.
ABOUT GUNS . . .
Robert Driscoll, New Boston Post: “Guns, Congress, and the will of the people”
“. . . Private citizens, unless the transfer is interstate, may sell or give away a gun the way private citizens sell or give away a used refrigerator, a television they don’t need, or anything else. If it makes you feel better to put a law on the books that requires a background check (and a trip to a dealer who has access to the system and presumably the payment of a tax) for each gun transfer from father to son, neighbor to neighbor, or enthusiast to enthusiast, knock yourself out.
“But assuming such a law wouldn’t get struck down immediately as unconstitutional (on what basis would the federal government regulate a purely intrastate transfer of a gun?) how could the federal government possibly enforce such a law? After all, there is no record of who currently owns the 300 million existing guns. Would anyone other than law-abiding gun owners comply with such a law (envision an MS-13 gang initiation including a trip to the local federally licensed firearms dealer to document the transfer of weapons to the newly initiated)?
“The effectiveness of ‘universal background checks’ or similar measures would be marginal, at best. Is it, therefore, surprising that members of Congress from rural states are unwilling to take a political risk to pass a law that would have so little impact (other than increasing costs and hassle on their law-abiding gun owning constituents)?
“It is easy to grandstand and pretend that there is an obvious legislative response to mass shootings; that there exists a legislative blueprint to prevent them, if only the forces of evil in Congress would get out of the way (picture them now, lighting cigars provided by the NRA with flames from burning $100 bills provided by the Koch brothers).
“But over time, and in particular on issues subject to much public discussion, Congress generally does reflect the will of the people. And with respect gun control, notwithstanding our desire to ‘do something’ in the face of tragedy, the people appear to have gotten it basically right.”
LEADS . . .
Morgan Chalfant, Free Beacon: “Study: Democratic Party Becoming More Liberal to Benefit of Republicans”
“Democrats are moving faster to the left than Republicans are to the right, a phenomenon that is benefiting the GOP at the state level, according to a recently published paper.
“The study, conducted by political scientists from Princeton, Georgetown, and the University of Oregon, evaluated the relationship between income inequality and political polarization and concluded that state Democratic parties are becoming liberal more quickly than their Republican counterparts are conservative, thereby producing a “more liberal Democratic party.”
“The American Interest reported:
‘The study’s overall argument is that income inequality has increased political polarization at the state level since the 1990s. But the authors find that that this happens more by moving state Democratic parties to the left than by moving state Republican parties to the right. As the Democratic Party lost power at the state level over the past 15 years, it also effectively shed its moderate wing.
As Democrats become more liberal at the state level, they have lost seats to Republicans and therefore granted more power to the GOP in state legislatures.’
“‘The net result is that income inequality causes an increase in political polarization while simultaneously shifting the overall median ideology of state legislatures to the right,’ the study concluded.
George Will, WaPo: “Ted Cruz’s audacious plan to win the GOP nomination”
“. . . Nonvoting whites, especially those without college experience, are among Cruz’s principal targets. His geniality toward Donald Trump reflects the Cruz campaign’s estimate that perhaps one-third of the Trumpkins have not voted in recent elections. If so, Trump is doing downfield blocking for Cruz, beginning the expansion of the 2016 electorate by energizing people whose alienation from politics has made them nonvoters.
“Cycle after cycle, says Johnson, the percentage of true swing voters shrinks. Therefore, so does the persuadable portion of the electorate. Cruz aims to leaven the electorate with people who, disappointed by economic stagnation and discouraging cultural trends for which Republican nominees seemed to have no answers, have been dormant during recent cycles.”
Jonathan Easley, The Hill: “Carson declares war on the press”
“Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson admonished the Washington press corps Friday, calling the news media “embarrassing” and “insincere” and vowing to “expose” the institutional bias he says runs rampant.
“Speaking at a gathering of reporters and communications professionals at the National Press Club in Washington, Carson lashed out at the press, citing several instances where he believes his views have been misrepresented.
“‘Many in the press will say I’m sensitive and that I should not be thinking about running for office, because I get offended by what they do,’ he said. ‘But the reason I expose the press is because I want the people of America to understand what they’re doing. It’s not because I’m sensitive.’
The retired neurosurgeon said he has no intention of calling a truce with the news media.
“‘I will continue to expose them every time they do something, so that as more people understand what they are and what they’re doing, it will negate their affect,’ he said. ‘Until they have the kind of transformation that’s necessary for them to become allies of the people, we have to know what they’re doing.’ . . . ”
Ian Tuttle, NRO: “The 97 Percent Solution”
“. . .Over and over again, Mair simply says that he’s going to rely on the 97 percent of scientists who say that global warming is happening, it’s caused by man and it’s a huge problem. People of good faith can take Mair’s position on one or all of those particulars. But the 97 percent stat is pure public relations b.s.
“Here’s a good explainer by Joseph Bast and Roy Spencer on where that number — which Barack Obama, John Kerry and countless other politicians and journalists retail uncritically:
One frequently cited source for the consensus is a 2004 opinion essay published in Science magazine by Naomi Oreskes, a science historian now at Harvard. She claimed to have examined abstracts of 928 articles published in scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and found that 75% supported the view that human activities are responsible for most of the observed warming over the previous 50 years while none directly dissented.
“Ms. Oreskes’s definition of consensus covered “man-made” but left out “dangerous”—and scores of articles by prominent scientists such as Richard Lindzen, John Christy,Sherwood Idso and Patrick Michaels, who question the consensus, were excluded. The methodology is also flawed. A study published earlier this year in Nature noted that abstracts of academic papers often contain claims that aren’t substantiated in the papers.
“Another widely cited source for the consensus view is a 2009 article in “Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union” by Maggie Kendall Zimmerman, a student at the University of Illinois, and her master’s thesis adviser Peter Doran. It reported the results of a two-question online survey of selected scientists. Mr. Doran and Ms. Zimmerman claimed “97 percent of climate scientists agree” that global temperatures have risen and that humans are a significant contributing factor. . .”
Amir Tahiri, NY Post: “Obama will be the only person sticking to Iran deal”
His next job . . .
“Sometime this week, President Obama is scheduled to sign an executive order to meet the Oct. 15 “adoption day” he has set for the nuclear deal he says he has made with Iran. According to the president’s timetable the next step would be “the start day of implementation,” fixed for Dec. 15.
“But as things now stand, Obama may end up being the only person in the world to sign his much-wonted deal, in effect making a treaty with himself.
“The Iranians have signed nothing and have no plans for doing so. The so-called Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) has not even been discussed at the Islamic Republic’s Council of Ministers. Nor has the Tehran government bothered to even provide an official Persian translation of the 159-page text.
“The Islamic Majlis, the ersatz parliament, is examining an unofficial text and is due to express its views at an unspecified date in a document ‘running into more than 1,000 pages,’ according to Mohsen Zakani, who heads the “examining committee.”
“‘The changes we seek would require substantial rewriting of the text,’ he adds enigmatically.
“Nor have Britain, China, Germany, France and Russia, who were involved . . .”
Sam Thielman, UK Guardian: “Wikileaks release of TPP deal text stokes ‘freedom of expression’ fears”
“Intellectual property rights chapter appears to give Trans-Pacific Partnership countries greater power to stop information from going public
“Wikileaks has released what it claims is the full intellectual property chapter of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), the controversial agreement between 12 countries that was signed off on Monday.
TPP was negotiated in secret and details have yet to be published. But critics including Democrat presidential hopefuls Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, unions and privacy activists have lined up to attack what they have seen of it. Wikileaks’ latest disclosures are unlikely to reassure them.
“One chapter appears to give the signatory countries (referred to as “parties”) greater power to stop embarrassing information going public. The treaty would give signatories the ability to curtail legal proceedings if the theft of information is “detrimental to a party’s economic interests, international relations, or national defense or national security” – in other words, presumably, if a trial would cause the information to spread.
“A drafter’s note says that every participating country’s individual laws about whistleblowing would still apply.
“‘The text of the TPP’s intellectual property chapter confirms advocates warnings that this deal poses a grave threat to global freedom of expression and basic access to things like medicine and information,’ said Evan Greer, campaign director of internet activist group Fight for the Future. “But the sad part is that no one should be surprised by this. . .”
Fox: “Donald Trump says Bowe Bergdahl should have been executed”
“‘We’re tired of Sgt. Bergdahl, who’s a traitor, a no-good traitor, who should have been executed,’ Trump said to cheers at a rowdy rally inside a packed Las Vegas theater at the casino-hotel Treasure
“‘Thirty years ago,’ Trump added, ‘he would have been shot.’
“It was practically an aside in a litany of complaints at the end of a more than hourlong, free-wheeling speech that included a large dose of media-bashing and a claim that he was behind Rep. Kevin McCarthy’s decision to drop out of the race for House speaker. . .”
Kevin Williamson, NRO: “OK, Let’s Fight”
Could it be the McCarthy was Boehner’s pawn, one that bought him more time?
“The free-for-all over choosing a new House speaker isn’t chaos; it’s democracy.
“. . .The Republicans have decided to have a little bit of authentic democracy within their party, and polite Washington is flipping out.
“John Boehner decided that he no longer wants to be speaker of the House, or a member of Congress, so he is retiring. This in itself confuses and vexes official Washington: Why would a man who worked so hard in his life, rising from very modest origins to become the second-most-powerful man in government, voluntarily relinquish power? That there is a life beyond politics, even for the speaker of the House, is beyond them. “Boehner’s No. 2, Kevin McCarthy, thought he wanted the job, but he didn’t. Facing a revolt on the Right and a Democratic caucus happy to see any Republican discomfited, and having himself made a crude and embarrassing error with his boasting about using the Benghazi investigation against Hillary Rodham Clinton, McCarthy decided that, for the moment, House majority leader is as far as he desires to rise. The decision was “a shocking move that throws the House into chaos,” CNN claims.
“But the House isn’t in chaos. It has a complete leadership structure in place, with Boehner staying on as long as needed. There probably will be another fight with the White House and congressional Democrats about various spending authorizations. In the Senate, Democratic leader Harry Reid already is blocking an energy bill in a purely political attempt to force Republicans to cobble everything together into one big Frankenstein’s monster of a bill that will be too big to stop. There will be a fight over legislation to raise the debt ceiling, which the federal government is expected to hit on November 4, and over general operational funding, which will expire in December. The usual hysterical ninnies will shriek that the United States is about to default on its debt (it isn’t) and that allowing general spending authorization to expire for a few days or weeks will lead to anarchy (it won’t). “What really has the salon set shaking its head is that the Republican party, which has within it a steep disagreement about tactics, priorities, pace, and style, has decided to settle some of those questions through an authentic democratic process. There is, apparently, going to be a real race for the speaker’s gavel, rather than a negotiated settlement among party leaders organized around the question of whose turn it is. A real democratic fight instead of a backroom party-machine process — that is what CNN calls a House in chaos. “Well, bring on the chaos. . .’ www.nationalreview.com/article/425380/speaker-fight-democracy
SPEAKER . . .
Newt & Callista Gingrich will sign books at the Devon Barnes & Noble, October 15th, Thursday, at 7PM.
James Antle, Washington Examiner: “Can House conservatives be leaders, not rebels?”
Conflict of interest . . . a representative is to serve his/her constituents. The “Speaker” is to manage the flow of conflicting ideas. Moving to Speaker status should rankle constituents unless he/she gets them better/bigger deals. . .
“”The lazy narrative is we want a more conservative speaker,” Rep. Justin Amash, R-Mich., a member of the House Freedom Caucus, has been quoted as saying. “But what we want is a more process-focused speaker.”
“To buttress Amash’s point, the House Freedom Caucus’ choice for speaker is Rep. Daniel Webster, R-Fla. Webster’s American Conservative Union rating for 2014 is lower than Boehner’s and a shade lower than McCarthy’s. Webster’s lifetime ACU rating is nearly ten points lower than McCarthy’s.
Lawmakers sympathetic to this approach would like to have the ability to offer more amendments and diverge from leadership without punishment. This last bit is especially relevant to some in the group, because Amash, Rep. Tim Huelskamp, R-Kans., and Rep. Walter Jones, R-N.C. have all lost committee assignment over votes.
“Amash and Huelskamp were both booted from the House Budget Committee after voting against the budget promoted by its then chairman Paul Ryan, the Wisconsin Republican currently running the Ways and Means Committee who many (reportedly including Boehner himself) are pushing as a compromise speaker candidate.
“In his capacity as committee chairman, Ryan has managed to get the party to embrace entitlement reforms elected Republicans were reluctant to touch even during the Reagan administration. Despite accepting a slot on the 2012 GOP ticket with Mitt Romney, he has consistently rebuffed efforts to draft him into House leadership races. It is possible he could emerge as a consensus figure who can articulate conservative ideas, a skill McCarthy was widely viewed as lacking. But there is also a risk that Ryan, who has already sparred with members to his right on immigration and even spending, could be tainted as an establishment figure if he is viewed as leadership’s choice for the job.
“At a time when populist Republican presidential candidates are actively trying to unravel the party’s consensus in favor of entitlement reform and the delineation between RINOs and true believers is fluid, this could endanger more than Ryan’s upward mobility in Congress.
“Some Republicans, including fairly conservative ones, are skeptical the House can be run in the looser fashion reformers appear to want. Others wonder if the folks at home will be happy with process-based reforms if they don’t yield consistently conservative results.
“The race for speaker is an opportunity, however public and messy to hash out these tactical disagreements. It’s also a chance for new blood to succeed where the old guard failed. Will anyone take it?”
John Fund, NRO: “If Favorites Fall, Watch These Dark-Horse Candidates for House Speaker” “. . . Increasingly, House Republicans who think that Ryan won’t run and that Webster can’t win are turning to other members who are respected and could win the votes of 218 GOP members. That number represents a majority of the House, and it’s the minimum any GOP candidate for speaker would have to win on the House floor to avoid relying on Democratic votes to win. “Two names keep cropping up in conversations with GOP members: Representative Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee and Representative Peter Roskam of Illinois. Blackburn is currently the vice chairwoman of the Energy and Commerce Committee and a frequent spokesman for the party on TV. A former businesswoman, Blackburn was an anti-tax tea-party-type candidate before there was a Tea Party. She led the fight against creating a state income tax in the Tennessee state senate in 2002 and swept into Congress in 2004 after winning that fight. While staunchly conservative, she maintains good relations with moderate members; and if elected, she would become the first woman to hold the top leadership job in either the House or Senate. . .”
HILLARY . . .
Andrew Stiles, Free Beacon: “Meanwhile, the Hillary Clinton Scandal Just Got Even Worse”
“While everyone has been focusing on House Republicans and their inability to elect a speaker, the Hillary Clinton email scandal has been growing more troubling by the day.
“A letter released by the House Benghazi Committee last week revealed that Clinton acted to promote the business interests of her “old friend” Sidney Blumenthal, the longtime Clinton loyalist who sent her numerous “unsolicited” memos while running a rogue intelligence operation and earning a hefty paycheck from the Clinton Foundation.
“The letter, authored by committee chairman Trey Gowdy, makes the astonishing claim that “nearly half of all emails sent to and from Secretary Clinton regarding Benghazi and Libya prior to the Benghazi terrorist attacks involved Sindey Blumenthal.” Those email include several message sent in July 2011 in which Blumenthal mentioned the firm Osprey Global Solutions, which was seeking private security contracts from Libyan forces opposed to Muammar Gaddafi. Blumenthal has acknowledged having a personal financial stake in the firm.
“Blumenthal warned Clinton that French companies had visited Libya in an effort to secure security contracts, and suggested it would be in America’s interest if Osprey won the contracts. Emails show that Clinton promoted the idea of using private security firms to protect Libyan revolutionary leaders, and told State Department aide Jake Sullivan that “the idea of using private security experts to arm the opposition should be considered.”
“Even more worrying is the evidence suggesting that an email correspondence between Clinton and Blumenthal included the name of a CIA “human source” that should have been considered highly clas- sified information and should not have been transmitted via an unsecured private email server. . .”
END NOTE . . . 700 Years End
“. . .For much of its history, al-Andalus existed in conflict with Christian kingdoms to the north. After the fall of the Umayyad caliphate, al-Andalus was fragmented into a number of minor states and principalities. Attacks from the Christians intensified, led by the Castilians under Alfonso VI. The Almoravid empire intervened and repelled the Christian attacks on the region, deposing the weak Andalusi Muslim princes and included al-Andalus under direct Berber rule. In the next century and a half, al-Andalus became a province of the Berber Muslim empires of the Almoravids and Almohads, both based in Marrakesh.
“Ultimately, the Christian kingdoms in the north of the Iberian Peninsula overpowered their Muslim neighbors. In 1085, Alfonso VI captured Toledo, starting a gradual decline of Muslim power. With the fall of Córdoba in 1236, most of the south quickly fell under Christian rule and the Emirate of Granada became a tributary state of the Kingdom of Castile two years later. In 1249, the Portuguese Reconquista culminated with the conquest of the Algarve by Afonso III, leaving Granada as the last Muslim state on the Iberian Peninsula. Finally, on January 2, 1492, Emir Muhammad XII surrendered the Emirate of Granada to Queen Isabella I of Castile, completing the Christian Reconquista of the peninsula. Although al-Andalus ended as a political entity, it left a lasting influence that can be seen in the cuisine, architecture, gardens and textiles of Spain and Portugal, particularly in Andalusia . . .” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Andalus