Do yourself a favor: don't go to a Seahawks game.

Words cannot adequately explain what a nightmare attending the Seattle/Pittsburgh football game at CenturyLink (AKA, the Clink, AKA, Paul Allen's fun house) turned into today as I went to my first... and last... event at that Castle of Horrors.

In every imaginable way, from $60 parking due to the deliberately inadequate facilities, to the idiotic NFL policies on how big a purse can be (my wife's clutch was two inches too big: the option, we were told, was to pay $20 to store it, or walk back the 3/4's of a mile to our car to empty it, leave it there and then return... which we did.) to the rude, drunken arrogance of the fans... were a major distraction from why, allegedly, we were there.

Ultimately, there may be worse fans in football... but I can't imagine where.

The idiocy of the NFL's moronic rules on purses is just another of the many idiotic policies they have in place, from everything concerning player discipline to on-field conduct to, you guessed it, the stupidity of an inexplicable policy that is a waste of time, effort and energy and a major inconvenience for the fans... you know... the schleps that pay the bills?  Us?

I know that the reader at this point may be asking themselves, "But, what about security?"

Well, what about it?

You see, we had just, two days ago (Friday), attended the outright thumping of the hapless Cougs, 45 to 10, at Husky Stadium.

Some 70,458 (around 1300 or so more fans than the 'Hawks in the Clink) of us managed to get into the Huskyville stadium with ZERO restrictions on the size of the purses of the fans.  In fact, my wife brought a much larger purse into the facility and no one cared... besides inspecting it on entrance.

So, if the Huskies can pull that off... why can't their allegedly professional cousins down the street do the same?

Look... I get that this idiocy has sprouted up a local cottage industry of purse lockers where the charge for holding your oversized bag... something, say, bigger than 7 inches by 10 or so, is $20 for 4 hours.

I get that the criminal lack of parking and the hundreds of open, unused parking spaces around the stadium have enriched area merchants who charge more for parking than the gross national product of Zimbabwe.

But there's no excuse for it.  None.

And after all of that, I have a holster buttpack that I wear on my belt.  While I typically go everywhere armed, I knew that security in the stadium would be heightened and I felt safe enough to go unarmed.  I still had my buttpack on my belt to carry my spare cell phone battery, cable and wallet.

The irony is, that these kids were using hand-held metal detectors and I COULD have brought a fricking HOWITZER into the stadium, the use of that thing was so incompetent.

And THEN, once inside, that place floats on a sea of alcohol.  Our Hawk's Nest seats were a fine vantage... for a little while.  But the 6 foot 5 inch drunk in front of us insisted on standing, when he wasn't getting his next two beers, throughout the entire game, EVEN THOUGH HE HAD A COMPLETELY UNOBSTRUCTED VIEW OF THE FIELD (no one could sit in front of him because of the stadium configuration.) So most of the game I saw was on the outdoor screen over the north end of the stadium.  Think in terms of dragging your big screen out into the front yard right NOW, (it's 11:30 pm and 21 degrees here) and watching a football game.

And oh, yeah... you want that 8 ounce cup of plain coffee to keep from fricking freezing?

That'll be $5.  Want a bottle of water?  $5.  Everything there was, relatively speaking, insanely expensive.

The Seattle fans were, in the Hawks Nest, both drunk and arrogant.  In addition, the cheerful Clink staff kept them liberally beer'd up in that freezing weather.... And the more they drank, the dumber they got.  They also were insulting to Steeler fans, to include getting in their face and screaming at them, etc.

The irony is that those paying $10 for ONE beer don't even know they're getting hosed: (No, *I* didn't buy any.  No, *I* don't drink.)



The fans acted like their average age was 8... with this kind of idiot oil, what other outcome can be expected?

Yes, in the end, the Seahawks played inspired football in the second half and won the game.  Pittsburgh played like mad men but suffered injuries to key personnel that severely crippled them in the late going.

It was a night and day experience, with day being provided by Husky Stadium at the Apple Cup and night being provided by CenturyLink.

On Tuesday, we also both attended a Blazers game (against Chicago) and that went like butter.  The prices were a little high... but the smoothness and professionalism of the staff, the comfort of the seats... the excellence of the operation... the cheapness of the parking ($15 across the street from the Rose Garden) relative to the football scam costs showed that someone in the Allen operation in Portland knows what they're doing.

But then, Allen is having a tougher time filling the Garden up.  That's not so much of an issue with the Seahawks, so it appears treating fans like crap comes with the territory.

But considering that the Clink was built on a lie for MLS Soccer (Rules prohibit us from professional soccer playing on artificial turf, their lobbyists told us when they were setting up the Allen Voting Scam back in the late 90's... and you can't grow grass indoors... the excuse for getting rid of the Kingdome.  Except the Arizona Cardinals find a way, don't they? And, of course, what's MLS playing on now?  The same "turf" we were told they wouldn't play on...) perhaps I just expected far too much.

I was disappointed to say the least... and I will never go back there.  Do yourself a favor as I will... and just watch the game on TV.

You'll save a few hundred bucks, lower your blood pressure, and not have to concern yourself with dealing with morons both on incompetent staff enforcing incompetent rules and fans who spend a bundle on stadium beer and act like they need a hole punched through them.

Post for Monday: the nightmare and insanity of going to a Seahawks game.

Never again.

Obama goes full-on moron mode: ISIS terrorists are not really Pilgrims.

Look, we all know that were cursed with an inept, incompetent liar of a president.  Those paying any attention to this clown's idiocy already know much of what this fringe-left whack-job has lied to us about and destroyed on his path to easily assuming the worst president in American history mantle from fellow whack-job, Jimmy Carter.

I have repeatedly asked if those who buy into the rank stupidity of importing terrorists are prepared to put some skin in the game.

I get no answers.

So, those of you that moronic to actually invite terrorists into this country... if it's such a great idea... then are you going to risk everything you have, own, or ever will have or own to back your play?

Those on the political side of things: will you pledge to resign the moment any of these people commit any criminal or terrorists act of any kind, for example?

See, Obama's open border policy has allowed thousands of criminal illegal aliens to set up shop in our country.  They've been cheerfully slaughtering, raping, robbing, burglarizing and bringing drugs into our country while, for example, Obama plays golf.

He should be held personally liable for these criminal acts.

And he should be held financially liable for these same acts... just as the morons who want to import terrorists into the US under the guise of "refugees" should be held criminally and financially liable for the costs of bringing them here and all the money that goes along with that.

And, by all means, those of you supporting this insanity... knock of the references to the Bible or the base of the Statute of Liberty.

Neither of those works claim that we should turn a blind eye to danger... or import people bent on our death and destruction.  The comparison, then, simply doesn't fit.

Arte we going to have to wait until we, as a nation, have to suffer additional 9/11's or Parises before we get it?

Do most of these leftist morons understand that even if 5% of those proposed to come here... none of whom can ever be properly vetted... have terrorist leanings of the sort that has seen our military personnel be shot and murdered here, in this country, that would mean literally thousands of threats let lose?

And is this where I point out that Major Nidal Hasan, US Army, WAS "properly vetted" before he was promoted to field grade officer rank because my Army was afraid to call him out?

It's not like they didn't know he was a radical.

So, for the ultra-idiot in the White House to, in any way, compare these people with Pilgrims" is typical of the lying hyperbole he's known for.

So, no, Barry: these are not Pilgrims, your slavish devotion and incompetence when it comes to terrorism and so many other things is not cute, and the American people, in an increasingly bipartisan way, are becoming increasingly sick of your antics.

You only have ONE JOB.

If only... at anytime during your sorry joke of a tenure...you would actually do it.

This is not a day for politics... this is what it's for.

I have a great deal to be thankful for.

I have the most beautiful wife, inside and out, that any man could ever ask for.

She is my everything... keeps me sane... keeps me on course... provides my incentive... she is my strength and I am not whole without her.

"Pride" does not begin to describe it.  It's a love I never knew I was capable of.

I would be nothing without her.  Her patience, her strength, her faith... in me and in her Lord... are what makes life worth living

The smile and her laughter is what I need to breathe every day.

And every day, I am thankful for all she has given me and given up to remain by my side all these many years.

I cannot adequately express my depths of love and commitment to this woman, who is everything I've ever wanted in a life mate and a soul mate.

She stands by me in the midst of our storms and travails, against tremendous pressure because I am strong willed, with opinions that I forcefully express... regardless of the fallout.

She disagrees with those who would silence me and puts up with me anyway to my everlasting thanks. 

When it comes to my job, those I work with and for have been the greatest professional joy of my life.  Every day has new challenges and I love what I do.

Additionally, on this day, I am incredibly thankful to have been born in this country, to have served in the military, to have been around the world on their behalf and to have the capacity to continue to hope we can survive the challenges that face us.

We are still among the very best the world has ever known.  I am so blessed to live here, so blessed to be capable of fighting for what I believe in and so blessed to be an American.

Take a moment... count your blessings... know how fortunate you are... Make it a point today to hug those closest to you and tell them you love them and how important they are to you.

If they can't be with you, find some other way... call... write them a letter... Skype... something, some how.

That's what days like this are for.

So... is Russia going to do anything to or about Turkey?

To?

I doubt it, save for, perhaps, a few local retaliatory air strikes/missile attacks. 

About?

His options are extremely limited as are his abilities.  The Russian Bear has NEVER been all that.  He may make noise and fire a few missiles...

But war?

Nope.

A huge part of Russian (Soviet) war-making ability was bluff.

They made everyone believe they were all that powerful... and they do have a nuclear capability to be sure.

But will Putin expend his relatively small military in a land war against Turkey?

Likely about as much as we would if Russia shot down one of our F-16's.

I heard some numbers floating around the ether-sphere yesterday that gave a shocking view of how weak, for example, the Russian air arm actually is.

Their air force has a total of 176 bombers.

Around 800 fighters.  Around 550 fighter-bombers. 

Russian Navy strength is at about 75 combat aircraft, not including around 50 with an anti-submarine mission.

Total. 

They have a single carrier.

One.

NATO/Euro forces have roughly 6000 combat aircraft.  Multiple carriers.

Turkey alone has around 2600 Main Battle Tanks active... Russia, around 800.  Vlad also maintains over 21,000 obsolete or out of date main battle tanks in storage but they're not going to realistically have the troops trained to operate them... or the ability to reactivate and then move them to the region... and how effective can they be against A-10's?

Russia is making a lot of noise.  Some of it is actual attacks; focusing forces in small areas with concentrated attacks in confined regions.  I still do not quite believe that they're as effective as they would want the world to think they are.

Much of it is the impact of press releases by the Russians, who's senior leadership was brought up in the Afghanistan/Soviet era. (79-89)  The Russians couldn't take over Afghanistan.  I find it hard to believe that they could take on Turkey with an even weaker, albeit more modern force unless they went nuclear.

Paper is usually going to be cheaper than bombs.

Part of Putin's "charm" I believe, is his unpredictability and his macho image.  It contrasts well with the clueless, military hating coward in the White House.

But threats and bluster have long been a huge part of the Russian arsenal.  This "Soviet" version of a telenovela simply does not seem to have the horses available to back their play.

Russian military commitments in Georgia and Ukraine weigh on them.  The Ukrainians particularly would love to see Russians forced to weaken their presence in their country to meet new commitments elsewhere.

It is part and parcel of why Obama's efforts to weaken the US military in the middle of these day's strategic and military challenges are criminally inept at best.

While he weakens our military, the threats around us are expanding their capabilities as fast as they can.  But in this instance, Putin has to use the military he has.... and that ain't all that.

But every day Russia fails to react militarily makes it less likely they ever, overtly, will.

Turkey is not helpless here.   Their defensive posture is likely at maximum.

Russia may come at them, depending on how psychotic Putin gets, but Turkey's strategic position and control of local waterways... the Bosporus - Dardanelles entrance to the Black Sea from the Aegean Sea, for example, make it likely that Putin will have other fish to fry before he loses his mind over the loss of a fighter and the destruction, by rebels, of a Russian helicopter sent to rescue pilots.

He has some close version of these same numbers and these same strategic limitations on paper in front of him.

If wishes were fishes...

There's a lot more going on here than meets the eye.  But he can't grow planes and trained, modern armor... or the troops to operate it... out of the ground.  And he will be hard-pressed to severely damage Turkey without it... and the means to get that armor into the area in a timely fashion.

Most of what we've seen here is bluster.  Russian will be hard-pressed to continue to support the Syrian effort with a pissed off Turkey on Syria's northern border.

In the end, I expect a lot of talk.  But there is precious little action available for logistical and strategic reasons.

It's in Putin's best interests to find some other way and some other place to engage in some pay-back.  Meanwhile, he's got a war to run in Syria and the adjacent areas where he gets to do what he loves to do best: killing jihadi muslims.

And Turkey,while a distraction, likely won't rise to the level of a refocusing of his efforts from what he's started.  Turkey is fly-paper.  Turkey is a NATO country and Vlad does not know what NATO will do.

Busting a cap in Turkey is far too much of both a distraction and a gamble.  And as a result, I expect Vlad to stick with the sure thing and stay away from direct confrontation with the Turks.

Billions of our dollars wasted on Loot Rail in Seattle... and this is the best they've got to show for it?

Billions gone.

This stretch of highway in Seattle is among America's worst bottlenecks

By SCOTT SUNDE, SEATTLEPI.COM

Updated 10:25 am, Tuesday, November 24, 2015

Photo: Getty Images 
 

Ever been stuck in traffic here?

Ever driven Interstate 5 through downtown Seattle?

More importantly, have you ever done it without muttering, honking your horn or giving the one-finger salute as lanes narrow and drivers discover at the last moment that they are in an exit-only lane?

Ladies and gentlemen, you have just driven one of the worst bottlenecks in the nation.

The American Highway Users Alliance puts the stretch of I-5 from Madison Street to Lakeview Boulevard as the nation's 17th-worst bottleneck.

The report says a stretch of Intestate 90 in Chicago is the worst bottleneck. Los Angeles has six of the top 10 and nine of the top 20.

The alliance described how it came up with its study this way:

"To identify the bottlenecks, CPCS Transcom Inc. (CPCS), a management consulting firm specializing in transportation strategy and policy, utilized the latest observed vehicle speed data from the HERE/ATRI data set. This is the same data that is processed into the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) National Performance Management Research Data set (NPMRDS), which s then made available to state departments of transportation (DOTs) and metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs). The GPS probe-based data are collected from smartphones, personal navigation devices (PNDs) and vehicles. As part of the analysis, the American Highway Users Alliance and CPCS contacted state DOTs to validate the findings and better understand the nature and precise location of the nation's top bottlenecks."

The alliance says the 1.6-mile stretch of freeway in Seattle causes 1.6 million hours of delay each year. And that amounts to $45 million in lost time and almost 620,000 gallons in wasted fuel.

More:

Robert Dean: "Grossly unfair" to catagorize Ann "Gas Tax" Rivers as a "RINO." Au contraire, mon frere.

Yesterday's post regarding what the RINO's will do in response to a Trump or Cruz nomination apparently lit the oil spilled over our troubled political waters.  Some on the list of those I'd dive into a vat of boiling expended uranium before I would vote for them seemed a bit piqued at that sort of labeling.  Rank hypocrisy on their part and all that.

Robert Dean, one of many far more articulate and informed political commentators than my own meager effort here, expresses his dismay at including my state senator, Ann "Gas Tax" Rivers, on such a list.

He writes:

It is grossly unfair to call Ann a Rino based only on her gas tax vote. She explained how much that pained her but the system (and the Governor) is corrupt. If she had taken a principled stand and sacrificed her career in politics for conservative principles it would have hurt us - we would not get the earmarks and we would be paying for even more infrastructure projects in Seattle

That's a great deal of misinformation in such a short paragraph.

It "pained" her?

The "pain" she's inflicted on us will last years longer than her fake discomfort.

I filled my diesel truck today... 38 gallons.  Of what I forked over to pay for it, more than $20 went into gas taxes.  And of that $20, Rivers is directly responsible For the better part of $5 of it.

Yeah.  It was painful for her, perhaps then.  But by the time her Town Hall meeting in Battle Ground took place 7 weeks later, she was wayyyy past the "pain," and she moved on to the "it was a business decision" scam followed by the "if I hadn't voted for the $700 million in taxes, it would have cost Clark County $7 BILLION" lie.

It's exactly what Gas Tax wants everyone to think, of course.  She wants her constituency to believe she did us a favor by screwing each family of 4 in Clark County with, say, a $6000 in a tax/fee hit over the next 10 years or so.  But to that I say the following:

1.  No one alive around here outside her immediate family knows her on a political level better than I.

2.  There is far more to it than just a gas tax/tab fee increase that she voted for which the last election shows a paltry 70% or so of her district opposed.

3.  She lied.

I have worked with and had a business relationship with Rivers since the 2004 campaign.  I know things about her, including her recent efforts to damage me professionally because I hold her accountable for her actions, that have served to reinforce the RINO characterization in many ways... some, not yet public.

The "Gas Tax" labeling is but a part of the reasoning she completely qualifies for the title "RINO."

I get how she lied about her reasons, such as they were, for voting for this idiocy.  I get how she was the only Republican to vote for the gas tax increase in the 17th and 18th Districts.  I get how all the democrats around here, who she voted with, voted FOR the gas tax and tab fee increases. I get that she opposed a referendum clause, because, God Forbid, we should have a say in this when it's very likely the "say" would have been "no."

How "democrat" of them.  Why even bother to elect Republicans who ignore republican tenets when it suits them?

I get that she supported applying an emergency clause to make it practically impossible for an effort to rise up, put the signatures together and allow us to decide the question of providing $700 million to Seattle... generally, and the people of this state particularly... a vote on the largest gas tax increase in our history.

Like this... was an emergency?

I get all of that.  But most of all, I get how she lied to get elected and then abused the emergency clause and THEN... voted like a democrat... in short, earning the RINO sobriquet.

But I also get where she supported allowing those shilling initiatives to lie to us to get them passed, only to let those millionaires involved off the hook by cutting the promised tax revenue requirement on pot... that we voted into place... in half... reaffirming the message that it's perfectly OK for anyone, be they a government or private entity, to come along and lie to us to get their project built, their law passed... or in her case, getting elected to office.

The system that you characterize as "corrupt?"

That's the system she was/is a part of.

How did going along with this rape improve that system?  How did rewarding that system for being corrupt accomplish anything?  And what does the governor, save providing cover to the GOP Senate with his bogus and obviously false claim that he would, through executive order, do what he's now working to have the Department of Ecology do... namely, implement a carbon tax... have to do with Rivers deciding to ignore and betray her district?

It's not like she didn't know the gas tax would be hated here: and she has ONE JOB.  and THAT job is to VOTE HER DISTRICT.  This district demanded her vote would be in opposition to the extortion she supported... and she KNEW it... and voted for it anyway.

And the result is a $700 million debt to Clark County; of which we get roughly $200 million back; of which $100 million is wasted on rebuilding a perfectly functional and working freeway intersection at Mill Plain and I-5, one of the CRC Scam projects.

Meanwhile, perhaps the worst freeway intersection in the country... going northbound on I-5 from SR 500, goes unaddressed...

And, of course, she lied to get elected.

This is from her campaign web site, which was up for the entire time she was doing this to us until, finally, she took it down in shame at the lies she told to get elected:

The "money quotes" out of all of that are these:

"I will not support an increase in the gas tax."

"I will not support increases in tab fees."

"The people have spoken and I have listened."

Looks fairly straight forward to me.

"I will not," fill-in-the-blank.

"The people have spoken and I have listened."  Well, maybe not.

I knew the language.  I wrote it, if memory serves.

I, for one, am heartily sick of our politicians lying to us to get elected, only to forget their promises whenever it's convenient for them to do so.

Rivers, you see, was supposed to be "different."  She was supposed to be the one who actually listened.  Who actually voted her district.  Who actually was incorruptible.  My assigned job was to keep her "grounded," to make sure she wasn't corrupted and to make sure that first, last and always... her district came first.

Where's the disclaimer?  Where's the "except for this" part of her promises?  Do you see that anywhere?

Would she even BE a senator if she had written what she was TRULY going to do on this?  Can you see her back in 2010, running for the state House, writing a platform that included other things she's done nothing about? 

Where would she have been today if she had written on either her 2010 or 2012 platform, "oh yeah, by the way, when the time comes and under certain circumstances, I AM going to vote for the biggest gas tax and tab fee increases (remember the $30 tab fee limits we, the people, voted in?  I do) in our state's history without giving you voters any say..."

Would she have even survived the primary?

Of course not.  And in your book and the book of so many others politically inclined, her dishonesty is a thing she should be rewarded for.  Brent Boger and Philip Johnson in Battle Ground have been wearing out kneepads in front of her ever since she screwed us, for example.

She used to be rather contemptuous of Boger.  Not so much any more, eh?  Politics sure makes strange bedfellows.

Swell.  But that begs the issue: what else is she lying to us about?  What other promises is she going to make that "circumstances" will somehow "force" her to fail to do what she pledged, or to do what she pledged she would NOT do?

Because if she gets away with this... what lie is off the table?  How does not addressing this here and now send the message that lying to your constituency is not tolerated around here... as opposed to embraced and encouraged... like you are here, Robert?

And Robert, the very idea that taking a "principled stand," in this case, failing to vote the way the last election indicated 70% of her district WANTED her to vote... somehow would result in the "sacrifice (of) her career in politics?"  How do you get THAT?

How does voting the way the overwhelming majority of your district wants you to vote result in "sacrificing" anything?

Does her vote on the gas tax and tab fee increases make it MORE likely or LESS likely that she voluntarily impaled her career when she lied to get elected and abandoned her district in the process, saddling each person in Clark County with a $1500+ gas tax/tab fee increase charge ($700 million divided by the current population) that we are responsible for paying... and all without asking us?

The fact is that a properly handled primary challenge would destroy Rivers.  And if that happens, she has no one to blame but herself.

And the idea that it's perfectly acceptable to lie under the right circumstances... that it's better to get something out of it then noting... the old "when rape is inevitable, relax and enjoy it" dodge... and then wonder what else she's going to be lying about next when circumstances permit... THAT is what's going to be the crux of the sacrifice of her career.

You see, she may very well have achieved that which you feared... the sacrifice of her career by lying and betraying her district... just not in the way you want.

*I* have to live here.  *I* have to live with the knowledge that I spent hundreds... if not thousands of hours into the effort to get her into office and keep her there.

And, of course, *I* have to pay the taxes and fees she helped to jack up when she SHOULD have been doing all she could to get us a vote on this.

But no... she voted with... and like... the democrats... supporting a bogus emergency clause and supporting the effort to keep a referendum clause out of it.

THAT was her job.  And her claims about the "why" she screwed us are no more valid than her promises not to do precisely and absolutely what she did: vote to increase our gas taxes and tab fees... an effort on her part that will hurt us for years and years to come.

So, for me, the choice is simple: do I turn a blind eye to this perfidy?  Do I simply nod like the rest of the sheep and just open my wallet a little wider?  Do I just go along with the program and applaud her rank dishonesty?

Hell, no, I don't.  And, as I recall, you don't live here, so you have the luxury of telling us how to vote and what will "hurt us."

Because I would venture to say that she has hurt us quite enough as it is by voting like, thinking like and acting like a democrat... which, come to think of it, is the very definition of the thing you claim she is not.

Thanks for stopping by.

So... why are we so upset about Syrian refugees?

The left is all aflutter about adding thousands more to the millions of illegals they've allowed to stay here... illegally, I might add... but this time, they're demanding we allow Syrians of unknown origin and unknown ideology (i.e., ISIS) to set up shop here... along with the ISIS cells and camps we already have.

Look.  It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that ISIS will use the refugee flood to infiltrate this country.  We already know their plan which, at its essence, is to use our own freedoms against us as they set about to take over this country, an avowed aim of theirs for quite some time, now.

The president, who has shown himself to be a pathological liar and completely over his head on a wide variety of issues, from his unworkable socialist medical insurance scams to an unthinkably massive public debt... a debt he called "un-American" some ten trillion dollars or so ago... to the worst foreign policy history in, perhaps, the entirety of all American presidents combined.

The president who depended so heavily on the stupidity of the American voter to get his Obamacare scam passed... the "if you like your plan, you can keep your plan" conjob, a man who stared soulfully into the camera and assured us that adopting his pyramid scheme would save each American family $2500 in health insurance premiums... a not even particularly good liar who engages in that practice like he breathes... now assures us that every single Syrian refugee will be as pure as the driven snow and there is absolutely no chance... zero... that ANY of them are terrorists or that any of them will commit any criminal acts of any kind, let alone terrorism.

The problem is that he has zero credibility with the American people.

He has lied so much for so long that he even believes his lies.

And I don't.

He's playing poker with our safety.  He is surrounded by an army of security that we don't have out here in the sticks... and like so many other aspects of the double-standard that is his life, he tells US how WE have to live... while he wouldn't think of living the same way.

WE have to get rid of OUR guns.  But he won't.

WE "cling" to OUR guns and OUR religion.

Like muslims don't.

But he isn't ever going to say that about them?

There's certain words this clown won't even say.... like "radical muslim terrorist," for example. The reality is that he shows much more hostility to those on his political right than he ever has to the terrorist scum who have killed thousands of Americans in combat and wounded tens of thousands more.

And we are supposed to believe him?

I'm still waiting for one of those reporter types to ask him... "So, Mr. President... what happens if you're wrong and one or more terrorists DOES slip through our wholly inadequate screening process and DOES kill one or more of us because we don't happen to be the right variety of muslim, let alone any kind of muslim at all?

You see, dear reader, there is no right of any kind for anyone not born here to stay here.  Even naturalized citizens can have their citizenship revoked after the fact for the right reasons.

The reality is that most of us are well aware of these rules and laws.  And this liar... who can't even walk straight down a crooked road... wants us to believe him.

Fat chance.

With at least 5 Middle Eastern countries refusing to take any of these clowns, we are under zero obligation to take any ourselves.

And we shouldn't.  The fact that our president is a liar... and he's gambling with our chips... is why *I* am so upset about the idea of allowing these people in... as I would be any security risk of any kind... and they all are that.

The anti-RINO test: will RINO voters walk the walk?

(Thanks to all the readers who came by to look at this post... apparently, one of those listed below got a tad butthurt over being included on the list, according to my tracking software.  Don't know who, but the source site for all of this is Facebook.com.

Anything to drive up the readership!

Well, almost anything.)

I don't know how many times I've read from various sources that RINO's won't vote for this conservative or that conservative, this Republican or that Republican.

I don't mind such declarations; I share that type of thing.

There are a variety of RINO types, both locally (Rob McKenna, Jaime Herrera, Marc Boldt, Brent Boger, Jeanne Stewart, Lynda Wilson, Ann "Gas Tax" Rivers, that sort) and nationally (At this point, likely anyone not named Trump or Cruz will get my vote) that I would not only not vote FOR; but would, in fact, vote against by voting for anyone running not named them.

(Many on this list had no problem at all using this very blog when it suited them to do so.  I'm sure at least one of them is likely complaining the loudest, based on the traffic.  Three of the names on that list attempted to get me fired because they hate what I'm saying so much... meaning that, in addition to their many other faults, "Freedom of speech" isn't a tenet they support.)

I am sick of rewarding RINO's who then wiz on conservatives like we're some sort of lower life forms; just one of the many characteristics they share with the left.

RINO's, on the other hand, demand that we suspend disbelief and vote for their candidates, even if they're to the left of Mao... because they have a letter after their names that entitles them to support.

Here, locally, my psychotic brother-in-law didn't even have THAT, plus he was cursed with a voting record that would have made Karl Marx blush.... and the RINO's, showing their well-known hatred of conservatives, bailed on our only real hope of keeping local county government in check, in favor of a democrat with a history of raising our taxes repeatedly, supporting the hated CRC scam... which he STILL supports.... treating the law with contempt (Voting to pay his wife working for a financially troubled contractor... texting while driving a commercial truck...) supporting a guy who would fail 5th grade writing tests.

(Yeah, I know I'm not any great shakes as a writer either... but I don't have the massive ego required to run for office.  I'm reminded of Groucho Marx who once famously said that he "...wouldn't be a member of a Club that would have me.")

As time goes on, however, the possibility of Trump surviving the Establishment assassination efforts and becoming the GOP nominee looms large.

And now... the shoe is on the other foot from the Romney (lack of) effort.

If a Trump... well, if Trump... gets the nomination... will the RINOs rally around him and vote for him?

Or will they stay home based on their hatred of conservatives and their love of milquetoasts like, say, Bush or that no-chance loser Kasich?

They demanded we vote for RINOs like those running the democrat-in-reality, Republican-in-label Senate.

We did.

And look what that got us.

Locally, every time Boldt screws us, I'm going to remind them... and us... that they share in the responsibility for that rape of our rights (Boldt, after all, stupidly voted for a county ordinance that would have confiscated our weapons in the event of a county or state-declared emergency) and our wallets.

The coming election is going to prove to be, perhaps, the most fascinating yet.  I look forward to it for a variety of reasons that will be made known later.

But most of all, I look forward to it because now the RINOs are going to have to reap what they've sown.

The enigma that is Jeanne Stewart

I freely admit I was one of her supporters prior to her announcement that she was taking on Craig Pridemore.  I told her, correctly as it turns out, that her anti-CRC stance would play county-wide and that Pridemore's slavish devotion to that insanity would overwhelm almost everything else.

It was closer than I thought, but when you have abysmal turnout, it's difficult to say what that impact will mean: just look at the recent election of my psychopathic brother-in-law.

The slimeball running the rag and the C3G2 haters were convinced she'd just be Madore's puppet.  They did everything they could to portray her as Madore's lapdog.  This same outfit also once demanded that Boldt resign from the legislature because he was "too stupid" according to Joe King and because he cut the funding for the Gorge Commission.

How quickly they forget.

And, of course, that Pike would not have enabled ownership of her like Wilson and the left own Boldt is besides the point.

How wrong they were.  Just like they were wrong about Pike, but there was no lie these scum wouldn't tell or use to win.  And some liars, like Marc Boldt, are just better at it than others.

Forces I can only guess about have gotten to her; she has long since engaged in the worst aspect of the so-called "more democratic" charter, which is that you focus on your district to the exclusion of the rest of the county, previously a requirement since all of the county used to vote for all of the then-commissioners... and now, you only answer to those in your district.

Although elected only because of votes outside her district, Jeanne smoothly segued into Jim Moeller-light and has become the most divisive, arbitrary and capricious force on the council, as she desperately strives to hang on to her seat in her upcoming election.

Due to that, she needed to reinvent herself by acting as if the Charter was the greatest document in the history of the world, and going so far as to suggest, rhetorically, that county government suspend it's operation until such times as Democrat Marc Boldt and RINO CRC supporter Julie Olson join the council to eliminate the conservative majority on that body.

Which, in reality, is precisely and only what those shilling the scam of the charter wanted.

Meanwhile, Stewart has taken positions on the council that are anything BUT conservative.  She has turned into the water carrier for Lying Lefty Lou Brancaccio, and has become the darling of the C3G2 Hate Group.

Her non-candidacy in the most recent primary was a case in point: the only reason she submitted her name to the ballot was to further fracture the GOP vote, since she effectively did not campaign and, of course, made no effort to fund raise... as a serious candidate would have.

But then, she wasn't serious.  And she never intended to be.  She lent herself $5,000, and had a grand total of 8 people donate to her campaign for $2400.

When she ran in 2014, she raised $131,171 and lent herself $12,500.  She also had 120 donors.

Of the two campaigns, which were serious?  And why didn't she put anything approaching the amount of effort into her last campaign that she did the one before?

Because her job was not to win: she did nothing to indicate that she wanted to win.  No, her job was to take the necessary votes away from the GOP candidates running and she did that very, very well indeed.

That's not all she's done, of course: now she stalls.  Now she's snarky.  Now... her voting record likely would mirror that of Pridemore's.

I believe the reasons for that are not based on governance.

I believe the reasons for that are based on intense, personal, dislike.

And her dislike of anyone is no reason for her to punish all of us.

Boldt, it is rather stupidly said, is going to "heal" us.  Well, how does playing the role of most everything that comes up in a deliberately arbitrary way going to heal anything?

The political divisions in this county, fostered by the likes of Stewart and Boldt are not going to "heal," since in this instance, "healing" means to do it the way the leftists and the RINO's want.

There will be no "healing" as long as there is a large, fringe-left hate group running politics around here.  There will be no "healing" as long as the basis for governance is to ignore the will of the people and to do it the way the minority wants it done.

And that is the governance which, in my opinion, Jeanne Stewart and Marc Boldt and, to a degree, Julie Olson brings to the table.

Now, Jeanne is their fair-haired girl.  Then, she was the scum of the earth to them.  The landscape hasn't changed... but it appears the perception of at least two players has.

Under the rag's puff piece for Stewart, is a commenter, John Burke, who lays it out far more articulately than my meager effort:

John Burke · 

Vancouver, Washington

Why do politicians do what they do?

One simple -- and simplistic -- view has it that they are bought, and thereby controlled, by their political contributors. If this were true, then Jeanne Stewart would not be so oppositional to David Madore, who was a major contributor to her campaign for (what would become) county council.

Another view is politicians seek reputation, and will tend to act in ways that will gain the approval of those who have the power to bestow that upon them. Since these reputation-builders -- the MSM (locally represented by the _Columbian_) and political power brokers (locally exemplified by Identity [Crisis] Clark County) -- favor expansive government, they tend to make this stance the path of least resistance for reputation-hungry politicians.

The contrast of...

-- Jeanne Stewart's treatment by the _Columbian_ when she most recently ran for Vancouver City Council ((VCC) as an opponent of the CRC Project -- so popular with local repution-builders...

...with...

-- this current article, which follows upon actions and statements oppositional to her erstwhile contributor David Madore -- the _bete noire_ and victim of the repution-builers who also function as reputation-destroyers... 

...shows how this works. Behold!...

Like · Reply · 1 · 1 hr

John Burke · 

Vancouver, Washington

That Was Then: 

As an anti-CRC VCC candidate Jeanne Stewart couldn't "get no respect" from the _Columbian_: she was portrayed by this publication as befuddled and unfashionable compared to her younger -- and power-broker connected -- opponent Aleshia Topper ("she can dance!" Lou the B churped). Topper won.

Jeanne Stewart -- her pride now wounded by the power-brokers -- ran for countywide office as a (neo-)conservative who had been "mugged" by the power-brokers' reputation-destroying capacities. This time -- with David Madore's financial support -- she won.

This Is Now: 

The current article shows the rewards that came to Jeanne Stewart from re-aligning herself into the kind of politician the reputation-builders could find useful. 

* Though a Christian -- and though courts have ruled the motto "In God We Trust" to be in no way transgressive to First Amendment rights -- Jeanne Stewart opposes posting the motto in council chambers as "divisive". The _Columbian_ applauds.

* Jeanne Stewar's condemns as contrary to "good government" David Madore's efforts to accommodate the rights of rural property owners in land-use planning. More praise from the Big C!

* Jeanne Stewart enters the race for County Chair at the last minute, splitting the declared Republican vote three ways. What is she thinking? She then makes no serious effort at campaigning or fund-raising. What IS she thinking??? No declared Republican makes it into the "Top Two" -- including the power-broker's _bete noir_ David Madore. Ohh...THAT'S what she was thinking! Yet the _Columbian_ declares this thought to be unthinkable without serious consideration (they do a lot of that, don't they?).

* Former Vancouver Mayor Royce Pollard is now quoted as saying Jeanne Stewart is likable. How wonderful! The current article proclaims that she "sets her own path" -- which just so happens to be in conformity with what the local power-brokers want...but isn"t it always so? Indeed, how long do we have to wait for Jeanne Stewart to be proclaimed "First Citizen" (another reputation-enhancing tool to entice politicians to set their own path in accordance with power-broker informed notions of "independence")?

Like · Reply · 1 · 1 hr

John Burke · 

Vancouver, Washington

Napoleon is credited with the following pungent observation: "A man won't give you his life, but he'll sell it to you for a little piece of cloth".

Likewise, politicians won't give you their souls, but they will gladly trade them in return for a great reputation. 

But don't ask Jeanne Stewart about that -- it would be soo gauche! Instead, just look at what she's done -- and what she is likely to do.

Like · Reply · 1 hr

That is the Jeanne Stewart reality in a nutshell.  But like so many other things the rag doesn't want you to know about, hell will freeze over before they ever question HER motives NOW... as opposed to when they hated her.

Because you know?

When the democratian loves you... they love you.

Just ask Jim Jacks.

I'm sick of it. Aren't you?

The double standard reeks.  Those demanding we have Syrian refugees rammed down our throats are surrounded by men with guns and don't have to concern themselves with what could happen.

I believe we shouldn't have them here.  I'm portrayed as everything from a Nazi to a fascist because of my security concerns that we are enabling a group from a religion with the frequently avowed aim of destroying this country and installing a caliphate in it's place.

To me, keeping these people out is no different than wearing a seat belt in your car:  Millions of us will hit the road today and not be in accident.  Hundreds of us will be in a wreck... and it's too late to put your seat belt on once you've been hit.

Both the state and federal government's are eagerly trying to foist Syrian refugees off on us.  The vast majority of governors, those I refer to as "sane," are not interested in increasing the terrorist threat by adding thousands of possible ISIS types who CANNOT be vetted to our welfare rolls, giving them benefits and support that our own citizens... particularly our homeless veteran population, who are OWED this support... can't even dream of.

The five most well-heeled countries in the Middle East, Saudi, UAE, Qatar, Kuwait and Bahrain refuse to take any of these people.

Why?

Why are they turning their fellow Muslims away?

Their can't be that many reasons, but my guess is their number one concern is the same as mine: security.

As difficult as it is to keep jihadis under control here, it would be a thousand times more difficult in these countries, these rich and regionally powerful plums, those low-hanging fruit who have been paying terrorists off for years... sort of a more violent version of Jesse Jackson.

We have thousands of homeless veterans and additional thousands of homeless non-veterans and tens of thousands of people who need... but cannot get... mental health assistance.

We owe our veteran population because we promised them.  That "free" medical care *I* was promised back in '72 when I enlisted has cost me thousands of dollars over the years.

Our veterans are dying while they wait.  Our veterans are coming back from war shattered, both physically and mentally and we discard them like last week's newspaper.  And yet, we can waste billions on even MORE people who have no right to be here?

And we are going to waste those billions more for people we owe nothing to when their own kind won't even help them?

People who, in some instances, will kill us without a second thought?

And what happens when they do?

What will the president and our governor who both wanted them here so very badly that they'd strip funding from programs that were SUPPOSED to help veterans and citizens.... what will they do?  What will it cost them?

We already know the answer to that.

Those whining and sniveling and reciting the poem on the base of the Statute of Liberty as a reason to eject common sense and welcome these thugs here with open arms... what will it cost them when the blood is spilled in part because of their efforts?

What has allowing millions of illegal aliens to stay here... which include violent felons and other criminals who murder, rape and rob us... cost them?

Nothing.

I don't believe my government.  The same people telling us what a great idea this is applauded Obama care... the, "if you like your plan, you can keep your plan... if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor" scam and lies.

And we're supposed to believe them now while they're lying to us about how well-vetted these scum are going to be?

Not unlike the "refugees" that slaughtered so many in Paris?

No, thank you.

There's a train coming and these clowns insist that WE stand on the tracks and wait to get run over.

These men and their families are surrounded by guns.  They have nothing to fear.

We, on the other hand?

Not so much.

Did the Paris attack put Trump over the top? (Chapter 3)

I am not endorsing/supporting anyone as yet.  But as I suspected, politically, Trump has been the beneficiary of the Paris attack.

Home | News | Campaign

Trump rises in wake of Paris attacks 

9679

By Niall Stanage - 11/19/15 06:00 AM EST

 

Donald Trump has gained political strength since the Paris terrorist attacks last Friday, according to most of the polls released in the aftermath.

Trump’s gains show him once again confounding Beltway wisdom, where the widespread view was that such a grave event would lead voters to look toward White House candidates who are purportedly more mature and sophisticated than the erstwhile star of “The Apprentice.”

Instead, it seems that Republican voters have found themselves drawn to Trump’s emphatic rhetoric.

“You have voters who are saying loudly and clearly that they want a strong leader to run our country, and that leader is Mr. Trump,” the business mogul’s campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, told The Hill. “Some of the other candidates didn’t have that vision. ... They have not had the foresight to predict these problems.”

Trump’s approach, which tends to be vigorous in tone but light on specifics, draws plenty of criticism even within the GOP.

“Trump makes up for his shortcomings with his force of personality,” said one Republican strategist in New Hampshire who did not want to be identified but is not working for any of Trump’s presidential rivals. “I don’t think that, on the global stage, you beat [Russian President Vladimir] Putin by offering up your own Putin, in terms of macho charisma. It’s far more involved than that.”

But many Republican voters seem to welcome Trump’s bravado after last week’s assault on French civilians that left 129 people dead. The Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) claimed responsibility for the massacre.

In a WBUR poll of Republican voters in New Hampshire conducted just after the attacks, Trump’s support had risen 4 points from a similar poll released at the start of this month, and he was ahead of his closet rival, retired surgeon Ben Carson, by a 2-1 margin.

A poll conducted by Florida Atlantic University also found Trump way ahead of his Republican competitors in the Sunshine State. He scored 36 percent support, exactly twice the level of backing secured by second-placed Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.).

And Trump’s strength isn’t just showing up in state-level “horse race” polls. 

A Reuters poll on Tuesday asked voters which of the candidates was best-suited to deal with the threat of terrorism. Among Republican voters, 36 percent opted for Trump. The next most popular response was “none,” at 17 percent. Rubio was again in second place in the survey among actual candidates, but he lagged Trump by 20 percentage points.

Voters’ views may yet shift as they absorb the implications of the Paris atrocity. But for now, Trump’s rhetoric seems to be striking a chord.

In an interview with Sean Hannity of Fox News Channel on Tuesday evening, the real estate mogul insisted that U.S. mosques would have to be closed in response to the threat of terrorism.

“You’re going to have to do something,” he said. “Some bad things are happening and a lot of them are happening in the mosque and you’re going to have to do something.”

In radio ads released Wednesday in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina — which hold the first three contests in the presidential nomination process — Trump insists, “We must address Islamic terrorism and protect our country first. I will lead by example, as I always have, by vowing to defeat ISIS, stop illegal immigration and the Syrian refugee program, secure our border and bring real change to Washington.”

At a rally Monday night in Knoxville, Tenn., he earned big cheers when he insisted, regarding ISIS that, “I’m going to bomb the s--- out of them.”

Even Trump skeptics acknowledge that this style has populist appeal at moments of public anxiety.

“It’s true that his supporters see him as strong and they are not paying a lot of attention to the specifics of what he is saying,” said GOP strategist Matt Mackowiak. “I think people are fearful. They don’t know what to believe but they certainly want a stronger response than [President] Obama has offered.”

But Mackowiak, who writes for The Hill’s Contributors blog, also argued that Trump and Carson would slide as the Paris attack, and possible dangers to the United States, remain in the headlines.

“My sense is that it disadvantages Trump and Carson over the medium-to-long term. Trump — you see it at the debates — he’s not even an inch deep” on foreign policy,” Mackowiak said.

The next Republican debate is almost a month away — scheduled for Dec. 15 in Nevada — and beyond that, there is only one more clash set to take place before the Iowa caucuses at the start of February.

That means Trump’s rivals may need to find other ways to knock him off his perch. On Wednesday, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush delivered a defense-focused speech at The Citadel in South Carolina. 

Bush did not name Trump, but the reality TV star was clearly in his sights when he said that the Paris attacks “remind us ... that we are living in serious times that require serious leadership.”

But such claims will need to resonate more powerfully than they have thus far if Bush is to have any chance. In the WBUR New Hampshire poll, the former governor was mired at 7 percent support, less than one-third of Trump’s 22 percent.

Little wonder, then, that Trump aides evince such confidence.

“If you look at the public polling as to who is strongest when it comes to defeating ISIS, Mr. Trump is the clear winner,” said Lewandowski. “These are not my assertions. These are what the polls say time and time again. People want a person who is strong leader.”

My Putin Problem.

It's too neat.

It's too surgical.

The timing was far too suspect.

And why would ISIS poke a stick in the eye of the Russian Bear, when in real terms, ISIS was, effectively, having it all their own way?

Why would they work so hard to take actions to galvanize the entire Western World against them?

I have no reason to disagree with the conclusion that a bomb knocked that plane out of the sky, kill a couple of hundred people.

But I've been wondering a few days now: was it ISIS that put that bomb there?

Or was it Putin?

What better way for Vlad to eliminate much of the blowback he'd been getting for expanding Russian hegemony in the area?

What better way to force coordination... not with US forces, but just the reverse: forcing the US to coordinate with HIM?

Stalin killed millions of his own people during his regime.

Vlad is a former KGB agent who has been known to have his political enemies assassinated.

What's 200 people sacrificed as pawns on the board of Putin's plans?

Now he can flood the area with his troops and his air power.

And no one will complain.

In fact, Americans are applauding.

I have had concerns that what we've been told is going on actually hasn't been going on, specifically, if the Russians are pounding these scum with the frequency and power we've been told they've been using... then why hasn't ISIS been rolled up?  Why aren't they withdrawing?  Why are they still occupying territory?

Isn't that what happens when your wherewithal to fight is destroyed?

Then why hasn't it happened here?

What's the hold up?

The question Obama and Inslee need to be asked:

"Mr. President, (Governor Inslee) when one or more of these "refugees" who are actually ISIS infiltrators that you are in such a hurry to bring here, actually kill other Americans... will you resign for being complicit in the murder of our people?"

SIXTH SYRIAN with Fake Passport Captured in Honduras...
ISIS threatens NYC in new propaganda video...
Times Square Attack...
SYRIAN COMMUNITY LEADER: ISIS ALREADY IN USA...
Refugees CANNOT be vetted, get 'real' docs from govt...
Coming for years, 'already at work'...
'Throngs' of illegals crossing TX border...
Al Qaeda used refugee program to smuggle operatives into KY...
Report: 827 Somalis resettled in last 6 weeks, only 1 Christian...
Tennessee GOP leader: Round up Syrian refugees, remove from state...
Va. mayor suggests internment camps...
Messaging app used by Islamic State shuts down channels...
Alert for Men After 'Suspicious Activity' Near Pentagon...

8 SYRIANS CAUGHT AT TEXAS BORDER

Another sign that Boldt and Rivers have gone full leftist.

Readers here have long since known that Sen. Ann "Gas Tax" Rivers has been fully co-opted, not only by the system, but also by leftists as a whole.

Having abandoned conservative principles generally and having lied about her pledge not to support gas tax or tab fee increases to get elected, among other things she's done on the issue of "cooperating" with the left, it's not surprising that she would join fellow democrat Marc Boldt; who was a commissioner for 8 years and who voted like democrat Steve "I only speak for Steve" Stuart had Steve's hand up his neck (Think Ahmed, the Dead Terrorist) until we threw him out of office... and elevate the public profile of the leftist front group "Leftist Class Alliance" in the process.

Ran by loser Tim Probst, this will be a whining, sniveling coffee-klatch that beats the hell out of conservatives generally and David Madore in  particular.

Make no mistake about it: collaboration and
moving forward are code words for doing what they, and their fellow leftists, want done.

Dalesandro, the last-second, can't find anyone else to run fellow democrat candidate for county chair, is a non-issue.

Nothing he says will matter because no one cares.

Most there will be as far to the left as Boldt and Rivers and what they say there won't matter in the least.

The rag will be thrilled; Probst will be ecstatic because these two morons paid attention to him like his group, that supports every leftist cause known to man: including the hideous, fringe-left effort where these scum took over the Veteran's Day parade to shill I-735, and the $15 an hour
minimum wage rip off, and lying about being "non-partisan."

THIS is what Rivers and Boldt want.  THIS is what you people who voted for Boldt got.

Non-partisan?

My right butt cheek.

LaBrant should resign.

Any elected official this messed up shouldn't be allowed out without a keeper, let alone be elected to anything.

It's bad enough Steyer owns this scumbag.

But this?

A few days ago, after the Paris slaughter, I asked if Trump had just won the election.

Of course it isn't over and anything can happen... But here's the numbers from Reuters.
















Elections & Politics
Possible Republican presidential candidates in 2016