Former Texas governor Rick Perry has stepped aside, the first Republican to bow out of a pack of 17 presidential candidates.
The pack is now at 16.
In your opinion, who will bow out next and why? Or perhaps, who should bow out next and why?
BZ
That means: Obama is lying. Along with every other person who addresses the subject of the Mexico/US border on behalf of the current administration.
From the IndependentSentinel.com:
Border Patrol Agent Testifies That We’d Be Lucky If 40% of the Border Is Secured
by S. Noble
Brandon Judd, president of the National Border Patrol Council, testified Wednesday that we’d be lucky if 40% of the border is secure and, of the illegal aliens they have captured, one out of five is a felon.
We’d be lucky if one out of five is a felon?
Mr. Judd, who has been an agent for 18 years, testified on behalf of the National Border Patrol Council before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
During his testimony, he reviewed recent crimes resulting from the escalating violence on the border and warned of the growth of the drug cartels. Twenty years ago, the Zeta, Sinaloa, Gulf, and Knights Templar cartels did not exist or were not widely known, he said, adding that cartels now are “well organized, heavily armed, and pathologically violent.” The death toll from drug cartels in Mexico is officially 60,000, unofficiallly 120,000 with 27,000 missing and presumed dead.
Brandon Judd said that one in five arrests last year – 20% – was of a criminal alien. Half of these criminals were convicted of “murder, rape, sexual assault of a child, and drug and weapons trafficking.” Most had been previously deported. And they came back, as all they had to do was get their ankles moist and/or know which portions of the border are not under “operational control.”
The “security” of our border?
It’s all a lie.
BZ
Time and again I hear on the Michael Medved show that the Republicans have fought bravely on behalf of the American Taxpayer. I enjoy listening to Mr Medved but with the caveat that he is clearly a GOPEE supporter.
The GOPEE is starting to wear on me as it is on those who support Donald Trump.
The backlash which has manifested itself in the success of Donald Trump? I understand it. I don’t think it’s fruitful or will hold water in the end when the chips are down, but I understand the source of the frustration and its resulting orange hair.
And it is because of things like this that Trump continues to resonate despite his pettiness, his childish behavior and lack of insightful substance.
Because of things like this from Breitbart.com:
Republicans Thwart Boehner Plan To Move Forward On Obama’s Nuclear Arms Deal With Iran
by Matthew Boyle
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A full-scale revolt against House Speaker Rep. John Boehner (R-OH) —including a looming resolution that could come up for a vote at any time that would remove him from the speakership—has thrown into disarray the House GOP leadership’s previously carefully laid plans to push President Obama’s nuclear arms deal with Iran through Congress without a fight.
The Boehner GOPEE is at work once again, “going along to get along” with Obama..
I term it the GOPEE because Boehner represents the GOP Establishment Elite, the same people who, at the end of the day, meet their good Demorat friends at local watering holes for expensive name drinks, backslapping all around, laughing prevalent at having screwed the American Taxpayer over another day.
Amid a rebellion in the House GOP conference meeting on Wednesday morning, leadership canceled a previously scheduled rule vote that would have set up the House putting through a resolution of disapproval of the president’s Iran deal under the terms of legislation previously signed into law from Sens Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) and Ben Cardin (D-MD).
This all happened as a result of an argument furthered by Reps. Mike Pompeo (R-KS) and Pete Roskam (R-IL) that Congress shouldn’t even vote on the Corker-Cardin resolution, either approving or disapproving of the Iran deal, since the president has not yet complied with the law regarding the release of text of the deal including “side deals” cut with Tehran.
In other words, Obama and his sycophants are insisting that Congress vote for something the likes of which they haven’t even seen in totality. There are a host of “side deals” as yet unrevealed even to Congress.
Sound familiar?
Besides being an idiotic idea — supporting something that so very few have apparently even read in totality much less the “side bets” — the parts that are known make no sense for the security of the United States, for Israel, or the world. We are giving nuclear weapons to Iran with essentially no monitoring of their program whatsoever.
The Iranians are laughing, sending out Tweets (Iran’s Khameini is on Twitter, for God’s sake) that Israel will be gone in 25 years. They are singularly pleased that the United States and the West could be such abysmally stupid dupes.
Iran’s Ayatollah Khamenei takes pleasure in the fact that Iran will not negotiate any further with the US unless it is in their favor — as with the nuclear deal. Trump is correct: this is roughly the worlds worst negotiation.
It is action like this, endorsed by Speaker Boehner, that makes people like me, actual Conservatives, upset.
In four words, we are fed up.
Boehner and Republicans like Boehner have got to go.
Hence: the popularity of Trump.
Right or wrong, the popularity of Trump.
BZ
When it comes to criminals and law enforcement, it’s good common sense to curtail activities of the police rather than those of the criminal when there appears to be any form of conflict.
So sayeth Christopher L. Kutz, C.William Maxeiner Distinguished Professor of Law at University of California, Berkeley.
A Los Angeles Times Op-Ed piece on August 13th by Mr Kutz indicates:
For a safer America, curtail traffic stops
by Christopher Kutz
In one video after another this year, we’ve seen police stops of African American drivers go violently, terribly wrong. Think of Walter Scott, killed by a police officer in North Charleston, S.C., after a traffic stop for a broken tail light. Or Sandra Bland, pulled over for failure to signal a lane change, and after a confrontation with a Texas state trooper, hauled off to jail, where she died. Or Samuel Dubose, fatally shot by a University of Cincinnati police officer after being pulled over for a missing license tag.
They should never have been stopped by police at all. Nor should the vast majority of Americans pulled over in our national ritual of the traffic stop.
Right now I can the enamel flecking off the teeth of America’s motor and traffic officers nationally.
But minor traffic violations, by definition, pose no significant immediate threat and represent only a marginal increase in risk to road safety. On the other hand, every stop brings a substantial danger to the law enforcement officer: Car and motorcycle accidents and being struck by vehicles are a leading cause of death in the line of duty. Stops also produce a significant risk of escalation and confrontation, with tragic outcomes.
Stay with me. And please read the entire editorial for the full context. Mr Kutz is moving towards a point here. Let’s continue.
We do not need to accept the traffic stop as the price of public safety. I have driven many miles in other countries, and I have never seen a traffic stop of the sort that I witness nearly daily in California. While precise data are difficult to secure, Americans experience police traffic stops at a rate of about 9,900 per 100,000 citizens, according to a Justice Department survey. By contrast, government reports in England and Wales show traffic stops occur at a rate of only about 2,200 per 100,000; and in France, 2,760 per 100,000. My calculations for Spain, based on its raw number of citations, is about 3,000 per 100,000.
One reason for this divergence is that these countries, like many others, enforce their speeding laws primarily through radar systems that automatically generate tickets. Red-light cameras also account for a significant proportion of fines. The benefit of camera systems is not only that they permit more extensive enforcement of laws against genuinely dangerous driving behavior, but they do so without racial bias. No camera has ever Tased or shot an unarmed driver.
Those pesky humans, let’s just remove them from the equation. Further, since we’re eliminating the traffic stop, we’d best eliminate the police pursuit altogether. In order to enable that aspect, we could logically save more governmental money by doing what European forces do, and that’s to downsize police vehicles. Ford Explorers, the Dodge Charger and Chevrolet Impala, all with 300+ hp, could be replaced by the Ford Fiesta, Chevrolet Spark or Sonic. Fleets could also include the Toyota Prius or Nissan Leaf.
Mr Kutz argues that we are “out of step” with other nations and, because of this, we need to revamp our foundational policing models. Let us not forget that our US Constitution and Bill of Rights are likewise out of step with other nations.
Now the real but unspoken goal of Mr Kutz: the gradual elimination of a serious portion of the number of law enforcement officers across the nation, to be replaced by technology — a semi RoboCop scenario mixed with Chappie and OCP (or perhaps ideally not replaced at all). But if the “educational elite” think they’ve seen pushback, just wait until each corner features a camera and tangent aspects of roadway are festooned with radar cams for speed.
There’s a saying: “those who make enemies of the police had better make friends with the criminals.”
I think perhaps I may have retired at just the proper time.
BZ
Salem Radio Network radio host Hugh Hewitt interviewed Republican presidential candidate Donald J. Trump on Thursday, September 3rd, for the Hugh Hewitt Radio Show.
Trump believed he’d been ambushed with a series of “gotcha” questions regarding the situation in the Middle East, and called Hewitt a “third rate radio host” the following day, despite the fact that he’d sent a note to the show thanking them for the opportunity to 
speak — a fact made evident by co-producer Marlon Bateman, himself a US military veteran, something that Mr Trump is not.
In my opinion, the questions asked by Hugh of Mr Trump were not “gotcha” insofar as they were asked of pretty much every other GOP candidate appearing on Hewitt’s show. These same questions were posed on the same show of Carly Fiorina, for example, who managed to field them and appeared familiar with most of the territory, also including some personal experiences.
For background, Hugh Hewitt will work alongside Jake Tapper on the next GOP debate, September 16th, at the Reagan Library in Simi Valley (to now include Carly Fiorina), hosted by CNN. Tapper will moderate and Hewitt will pitch the questions.
Once this became known, many GOP brokers who formerly disdained any appearance with Hewitt somewhat soiled their shorts in order to line up a segment on his radio show. As a result Hugh has interviewed Chris Christie, Jeb Bush and any number of GOP presidential contenders.
That’s why Trump appeared on Hewitt’s show last week.
That information, therefore, was the requisite set-up for the newest article on Breitbart today, taking a swipe at Mr Hewitt.
From Breitbart.com:
Hugh Hewitt, GOP Debate Questioner, Sides with Establishment, Not Voters
by Julia Hahn
Hugh Hewitt, the moderator picked by GOP leaders for the upcoming candidates’ debate, is firmly on the establishment’s side in its struggle against outsider Donald Trump.
Hewitt is going to be asking the questions in the Sept. 16 debate, and he’s already made clear he doesn’t like Trump—he doesn’t like his populist priorities, and he prefers establishment candidates, such as Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), who has tried since 2012 to boost the migration of lower-wage, profit-boosting foreign workers into the United States.
“No. no, he doesn’t” have the “temperament” to be president, Hewitt said about Trump, to NBC host Chuck Todd Aug. 9.
The thrust of the article is that Hugh Hewitt hates Trump, and that Trump was correct in his labeling of Hugh as a “third rate radio host.”
Mr Hewitt certainly doesn’t need me to fight his wars for him; he’s more than capable of defending himself in any venue. However, some have said — and I am tending to agree — that Breitbart is becoming a bit of Trump Central, where persons or entities that don’t pull the Trump line are run through the Breitbart Ringer.
Frankly, I find that rather disappointing on any number of levels since I utilize Breitbart not only as a valid news source but a form of reference for the blog.
Yes, Hugh pulls a good deal of water for the Republican Party but not all the water imaginable. There are times when I disagree with Hugh (one of those areas being some areas of immigration). But I find that Hugh isn’t selective in terms of how he treats his on-air guests. He particularly attempts to treat those involved in politics in an egalitarian fashion. He did so with Trump, Fiorina, Bush and with Ben Carson — whose interview likewise did not go what could be quantified as “swimmingly.”
I don’t expect Trump or other interviewed pols appearing on the Hugh Hewitt radio show to be perfect; far from it. What I do expect is that presidential candidates have staffs.
And with those staffs, I would expect candidates to have paid for consultation services, and to have researched those places and points where the candidate will interview.
I would expect those staffs to have researched every place I would speak and to have at least a semblance of understanding of that potential interviewer.
Paying a consultant for these considerations should be the last thing Trump is thinking about. That advice to each candidate should already have been made and been in place prior to each interview. Shame on the candidates and their staffs if that hasn’t happened.
It isn’t Hugh’s job to do their job.
Further, you have to be smart enough to realize that the questions Hugh asks, when you appear, may be remarkably similar to the questions he’ll pose on CNN’s September 16th GOP debate.
Hello? (taps on mike) Any of you candidates getting a clue here?
This isn’t “gotcha,” folks. This is called “show prep.” For Hugh and you.
BZ
