When the author experiences sensory-overload, one can only imagine the reaction of the recipient;

here, there was so much that had been accumulated during the past 48-hours that it was necessary to
disseminate what had been compiled [particularly noting pledges to people who had entrusted their
personal e-mail addresses+. In any case, this Blast e-mail starts with a recapitulation of its predecessor,
noting myriad topics covered therein; deferred was a focus on the Middle East, which next follows. Also,
review of recipients unearthed a few who had been cut during (manual) cut/paste preparation *no,
still havent signed-on with constant-contact]; anyone receiving duplicates should please so-inform.

The mood was surprisingly upbeat at the annual cook-out for the local GOP last night,
and, even regarding Corbetts polling; everyone harbors a remedy that could prevail
(most prominently, taxation and tying Wolf to BHOs failures). Interviews with two
local candidates (Robin Gilchrist running for State Senate and Dee Adcock for Congress)
were enlightening, for both are very much up-to-speed regarding concepts that have
been IDed and detailed in these Blast e-mails; Robin has tackled the task of flooding
the social media *even The Jewish Right on Facebook+ and has issued policy-papers
[that, alas, the media have ignored], and Dee spoke on-air yesterday with Dom Giordano
and, apparently, his next encounter will occur in debate-format with Brendon Boyle,
next month *although its unclear how many joint-events will occur]. As anticipated,
most feel this will be a party election *as the GOP nationalizes while the Dems try to
maintain a local-focus]; gratifying, from a personal perspective, was concurrence that
voters will weigh BHOs Foreign Policy failures *recalling a hyperlink in the most-recent
Blast e-mail: Former President Bush forewarned Americans about leaving Iraq].

Of the Action-Items covered, consider:
It is of-course prioritized that the Distillation [dating-back to December] be critiqued/vetted.
The portrayal of the Kurds in writings dating-back a half-decade [channeling the heartfelt (and
ignored for far too long) views of Dr. Sherkoh Abbas, President of the Kurdistan National
Assembly] should be compared/contrasted with the newly-discovered prominence of this
culture.
Reviewing primary data by listening to the half-hour presentations of Heritage-Action on
Mondays @ 5:30 [Dial-in number: 1-800-757-3718] empowers the public to know what RINOs
and Dems wish the media would continue to ignore.
The yeoman work of Aryeh-Green @ Media-Central (educating media covering the Middle East
by inter alia instructing proper word-choice) is replete with quiet-victories, but reflects the
potential for one micro-person to influence the course of macro-events.
The Republican Jewish Coalition is also engaged in the struggle to help Jews recognize how
damaging BHO has been to Israel, in conjunction with the larger picture [domestic/foreign].
The attractiveness of the POTUS-16 candidacy of Cruz is increasingly recognized, despite his
having been dissed by the Media and the RINOs; his positions are consistently on-point, enviable
with regard to the other competitors for the nomination.
Chris-Stigall has most-decidedly carved-out a niche in the local media market-place, and what is
most remarkable when listening to him [live and on-radio] is his bouncing-enthusiasm; when
contemplating the evils of BHO, such upbeat atmospherics [absent sugar-coating] are welcome.
Even the more professionally-remorseful pundits are increasingly optimistic regarding the
chance the GOP will flip the Senate; each state seems to harbor its own soap-opera.


The necessity to distrust the leftie-Media [and to help others see-through spinning bias] has
never been greater for, just like a cornered-rat, desperately attempting to rationalize prior
assertions is increasingly self-alienating; for example, the risks of Islamism merit dissemination .
The politics regarding Illegals loom large, not only with regard to BHOs being pressured by
Senate-Dems to delay Amnesty, but also with regard to the potential for RINOs to acquiesce.
BHO's-Scandal-Sheet will, it is hoped, explode prior to the mid-terms; multiple candidates
exist, such as BenghaziGate [noting the just-released narrative of on-the-ground Americans],
Lois Lerners IRS *noting release of e-mails citing a secret program directed against the GOP],
and Fast & Furious [noting the prospect that AG-Holder will be nailed by delayed-release of data
suppressed for years from judicial scrutiny]; of course, each/every Federal Department has been
infested [e.g., Energy Department funding of many projects in addition to Solyndra].
Corbetts prospects must now be confronted candidly recalling that, in my view, he emerged
when he line-item-vetoed pet-projects of the legislature; he must out the pro-union Dems
*owned by unions+ and Republicans *rented by unions+, for they have tied-up his initiatives.
The Iggles are highly-touted [although many will miss DeSean]; the fact that events in England
mirror those in America is fascinating to recognize; the ongoing impact of the unique Joan Rivers
constitutes a vacuum that will never be filled; the Goldberg File should be scrutinized (and
received weekly via e-mail) both for content and style]; and policy-positions of BHO must be
recognized for the damage they have wreaked upon America and the world.
Feedback regarding the issue of a successor to Mike Fitzpatrick was received and is duly recycled intact,
although I was informed of alternatives; it is understandable that anonymity is to be maintained:
Democratic Commissioner Diane Marseglia, who wisely stayed out of the race for PA
Senator against Tommy Tomlinson [is an obvious choice].
The Republicans have no one coming along. State Rep Scott Petri has been positioning
himself to replace Mike. Petri is the best example of a keep your head down politician in
PA so hes noted for nothing. So has State Sen. Chuck McIllhinny but why should he give
up a secure lifetime job for the chance to lose it all in a congressional race. Marseglia
would easily win over McIllhinny but maybe not against Petri. There are no other Bucks
officials who could win against Marseglia. She received more votes than Commissioner
Martin in the last Commissioners race.
The Bucks Democrats are split over State Senate candidate Steve Cickey who has the
very, very strong support of the Courier against McIllhinny. Corsidco wants Cickey to
step aside so he can appoint Shaughnessy Norton who lost to Kevin Strouse in the Dem
Primary. Norton is a very strong candidate whos as Left as she can get but she would
win against McIllhinney because she supports the left agenda against Fracking which far
too many Republicans also support. To McIllhinneys relief, the Democrats really
screwed the pooch over the Cickey issue so McIllhinney will win.
Republican State Senator Tommy Tomlinson has a Dem opponent, Dr. Kimberly Rose
who has the support of the State Democrat Committee. Shes a very attractive blonde
whose best campaign tactic is a large photo of herself on her campaign signs. Shes a
Northampton Supervisor whos stabbed her fellow Dems in their backs but shes a
passable candidate because of her credentials, her Supervisor position and her looks.
Shes good on her feet but very lightweight in her responses. Tomlinson has his
enormous popularity and the Bensalem Republican machine behind him so hell easily


win over the disorganized Democrats. Tomlinson is to old to run for congress two years
from now even though he could easily defeat Marseglia at the moment.
Finally, Fitzpatrick will coast to another win. So will the rest of the Bucks Republicans.
So at this moment the answer to your question is Marseglia and Petri.
Regarding Pennsylvania affairs, Guzzardi is upset that the Republican Senate UNANIMOUSLY voted YEA
to authorizing $27,451,323,000, (about $27 and Billion dollars) in new borrowing; he decried *et tu+
support from Senators Wagner, Eichelberger and Folmer. Forlornly, he noted that, on the heels
of Pennsylvanias bond rating downgrade [which was Detrimental to Taxpayers], House Majority Leader
Mike Turzai declared his intention to ease Pennsylvanians debt burden, representing a necessary step
towards restoring Pennsylvanias fiscal health and credit rating *c/o the commonwealth foundation].
Also, Guzzardi IDed Where the gambling money has gone [rather than providing Property Tax Relief];
for example, Welfare to the Wealthy has included the following: In just six years, more than $1.5
billion has gone to horse owners, race-horse breeders and others in the industry, thanks to a little-
known state subsidy that feeds 12 percent of casino slot revenues to the horse-race industry. And,
capturing the import of what has transpired, he noted that New York-based credit ratings agency
Moodys Investors Service is slapping a lower rating on Pennsylvanias debt for the second time in two
years, as state government grapples annually with built-in budget deficits. This is why hes upset with
the GOP, but Wolfs plan to address the Pension Bomb *float a bond+ is far more ominous *noting that
borrowing constitutes delayed taxation+. Perhaps this will emerge as a campaign issue.
Always gratuitous, note: #4 TED CRUZ - The Texas senator is named #4 in "The POLITICO
50," a new annual list released today by POLITICO Magazine, for destroying the
government in order to save it. This is part of what the most interesting political
thinkers, doers and dreamers have to say about Washington dysfunction, the
presidential campaign and the rest of the world.
Regarding national affairs, as feared by Heritage-Action, the HOUSE GOP is INCHING TOWARD EX-IM
DEAL [short-term reauthorization]; remember that this program would die without reauthorization, but
also recall that the Dems conveyed the plan that they would effectuate another government shutdown
[and blame the GOP, just as occurred last year] without these monies being appropriated. Also, as was
anticipated, Obama will delay plans to issue an executive order to address immigration reform until
after the November election, White House officials confirmed Saturday.
Politico also deferred to BHO when raising 5 questions on Obama's ISIL political
strategy, claiming that Obama has to figure out how to sell Congress and the public on
his ideas for fighting the group before recognizing BHO must first figure-out his ideas.
Regarding Israel, updates from Pamela Geller and Arlene Kushner reflect, respectively, how starkly the
macro Islamist challenge has been framed and how forlornly the micro Israeli land-management
issues have been allowed to fester; meanwhile, note how the right-wing critique of BB omits reference
to BHOs impact *the donkey in the room one might say, a pun reflecting the party and the mind+ and
then note how Debka provides otherwise unavailable info [always cutting-edge, sometimes untrue].
Also note, c/o Yoram Ettinger, that Israel was vindicated by the UN damage assessment in Gaza, and
then note if its true that BB is transferring the sovereignty on the Temple Mount to Jordan in practice
[another potentially-legitimate right-wing critique]. Then skim imra and Daily Alerts [Thursday/Friday]
for corroborative data and note Hamas's War Crimes and Crimes against Islam while wondering How to
Be "A Disgrace to Humanity" in Turkey.



Skim this conjured ISIS speech Obama should have given, for Americans expect their
president to vindicate the victims of terrorism.
Regarding international affairs, scrutinize/memorize/disseminate the entire inFOCUS Quarterly issue, for
it constitutes one-stop-shopping for all the major concepts that inform current [foreign] events; indeed,
explaining why American Exceptionalism has been trampled by BHO, it quotes Hofstadter ,It has been
*Americas+ fate not to have ideologies, but to be one- noting that America embodies a set of principles
about human liberty, rather than allowing herself to be defined by ethnicity, nationality or religion.
Amazingly, this one piece encompasses the entire panoply of American history, stopping only to show
how vacuous the Liberal Critique *manifest by Koh under Clinton+ proved to be, for it has led to BHOs
having led from behind *or, worse, in my view, having followed from behind+, a recipe for disaster,
however, since others expect the United States to stand up first. It ends by savaging the Realist Critique
as superficial, hypocritical and morally bankrupt; again, it ties this faulty paradigm to BHOs activities
*after having quoted Mearsheimer/Walt who had famously decried the Israel Lobby without accepting
the existence of other more potent groups which, famously, have encompassed the interests of Arabists
(via promotion of oil) for a century+. As Rush would say, dont doubt me when quoting favorably two
of the more potent excerpts from this pieceand then wondering how BHO-defenders would reply:
[T]he United States is the only great power, with the possible exception of Great Britain,
that has pursued a policy that identifies its own interests with that of an international
order that promotes security, prosperity and freedom for other nations, not just itself.
"In the half-century following World War II, the United States successfully established,
protected, and advanced a liberal world order, carving out a vast 'free world' within
which an unprecedented era of peace and prosperity could flower." Before that time,
the normal state of affairs was one of hostile powers constantly jostling for better
position, with periodic wars breaking out, many of them devastating. What prevents a
return to this historical status quo is a superpower that recognizes the exceptional
nature of its founding principles and remains determined to apply them in its endeavors
abroad.
The next article decries the impact of Sequestration upon the military, a prediction that I SCREAMED to
Mike Fizpatrick prior to his having voted with everyone else, immediately prior to BHOs having joyfully
departed D.C. to celebrate his birthday in 09; I knew this would be preferentially damaged, and my son
reminded me that the domestic-cuts excluded entitlements. This was a pivotal event in the history of
how BHO has rolled the GOP during the past half-decade, and it suggests that the GOP should stop
holding its breath after the midterms *if not earlier+; as Rush has noted, while the GOP plays the short
game *focusing on elections+, the Dems are devastatingly effective in winning the long game
*instituting socialism+. Thats why its best not to grant BHO amnesty to grant amnesty, for it is a
gimme that hell continue to invoke Discretion when deciding which laws he would want to enforce.
Remaining articles are equally on-point, and the critical reader wont be able to ID error.
Remember, also, that the prior issue included my Kurdistan essay [in good company!].
Although Erick Erickson was wrong yesterday while talking [subbing for Rush] when he claimed low
wage-earners are failuresallowing egocentrism/elitism to emergehe was right when composing:
The President Is Not Checked Out


Many people suggest President Obama has checked out. He treats the ever growing
threat of ISIS as an abstraction. Sources from within the administration are now more
openly admitting that for almost a year intelligence and Pentagon officials have advised
the President of the threat. He has chosen to do very little. Last Wednesday, he said we
would shrink ISIS and make it a manageable problem as opposed to eliminate it.
A few weeks ago, I had dinner with a sitting governor and a dear friend of mine. The
friend leaned over to the governor and me and said Barack Obama is to America as
Clarence the Angel was to George Bailey in Its a Wonderful Life. Barack Obama is
showing the world what it would look like had America never been born. As this friend
later wrote, Unsurprisingly, Bedford Falls is now Pottersville, and its a terrible place.
Unfortunately we do not get to revert to the tolerable if modest status quo at the end of
the lesson: George Bailey will eventually have to shell the town and retake it street by
street from Old Man Potters Spetsnaz.
Consider how far the world has collapsed in the past year. Again, my friend noted, since
Labor Day weekend last year the Chinese expanded their air defense identification zone
to incorporate the territory of other nations, the Russians annexed Crimea, ISIS rose, the
Russians invaded Ukraine, Mosul fell, the Hungarian liberal democracy collapsed into
Russian aligned authoritarianism, a Central American refugee crisis spawned a border
and humanitarian crisis in the United States, the Egyptians and Emiratis attacked Libya
without telling the United States, Iraqi Christians and the Yazidi are suffering genocide at
the hands of ISIS, NATO is scrambling to shore up its eastern-frontier defenses,
mainstream anti-Semitism is re-emerging, the Americans are on the verge of yet
another war in Iraq, middle America is seeing race riots, etc., etc.
Seventy-five years ago this past Monday, German tanks rolled across the Polish border
setting off World War II. Sixty-nine years ago this past Tuesday, World War II ended as
the Japanese formally surrendered. In the nearly seven decades since, the West has
established a world wide peace. Though not flawless, we have lived a relatively stable
and secure existence. In just the past year, Barack Obama has largely undone seven
decades of gains toward peace.
Our peace was balanced on top of two pillars. The first of the two pillars is the idea of
peace through strength. Ensuring the American military could go anywhere at any time
to strike back against any foe, no matter its size, has caused many to give us pause. In
the last twenty-five years, after the collapse of the Cold War, America has consciously
decided to scale back our military. We have handed military actions to FBI agents
serving indictments, signaling our growing complacency.
The other pillar is the moral certainty of the Wests goodness. We have, since the fall of
Nazi Germany and the rise of its kissing cousin the communists, maintained Western
values are superior and right and true. Barack Obama does not believe in the goodness
and superiority of Western values. He sees former old colonialists trying to preserve
their dubious claims on power. What so many for so long took for granted, Barack
Obama sees as oppressive and regressive.
Barack Obama is the first American President who, through his upbringing, writings, and
actions, conveys a deep sense of grievance toward the American experiment. The idea


that we are the last best hope for mankind is anathema to him. Barack Obama thinks
the world, if the American imperial aggressor would just sit on the sidelines, could work
out its problems and would be better off.
In short, the world has descended into chaos these past 365 days because the American
President thinks America is to blame for much of the worlds ills and has chosen not to
check himself out, but to check the United States out of international affairs. The only
question now is how many around the world will die because of it.
This essay by Jim Geraghty dovetails:
Why We Fight
Jonah's always awesome, but this point from yesterday afternoon is really important. He
points to some transcripts of Islamic State members, cheerfully laughing and
appreciating that their rule has reinstated the practice of buying and selling women as
sex slaves.
Then Jonah notes:
. . . the president has done everything he can to claim that his domestic
political opponents are engaged in a "war on women." He won an
election largely because he convinced enough women and pliant
journalists to take this bilge seriously. Just this week the head of his
party went on at great length to claim that the Republican governor of
Wisconsin has been "giving women the back of his hand."
Oh, and let us not forget, the president and his supporters work very
hard to paint their domestic political opponents as religious extremists
because some private businesses and religious groups don't want to pay
for procedures that violate their conscience.
Now compare this to the people who are celebrating the fact their faith
allows them to enslave women.
Just think about it for a moment. The president surely knows about this.
His administration surely knows about this. And yet, the president
this modern incarnation of Lincoln, protector of women, and opponent
of domestic religious extremism defines his goal for ISIS as reducing it
to a "manageable problem." Does this mean that if ISIS renounces any
designs on attacking the U.S. homeland (an impossibility given the
tenets of their faith and ambition for a global caliphate) he will stand by
as they continue to barter women as sex slaves and breeders? This is
the same man who campaigned in Berlin as a "citizen of the world" and
champion of global community.
Forgive me, but the term "Lincolnesque" doesn't immediately spring to
mind.
The disconnect goes beyond mere inconsistency or hypocrisy. It is a
moral sickness that is sickening to behold.


Remember President Kennedy's speech about going to the moon?
We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things,
not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal
will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills,
because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are
unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others,
too.
Whatever else you think of President Kennedy, he grasped that a big part of leadership
is persuading people to do things that they would rather not do, often because those
tasks are difficult. And a good leader gets people to do those things because they're
needed.
Look at what the president insists upon talking about in his fundraiser speeches and
other public events this autumn: Hiking the minimum wage. The "gender pay gap" (that
shrinks dramatically once you account for interruptions in a woman's career for child-
rearing). Climate change and "carbon pollution."
Meanwhile, the Islamic State is planning to murder us.
The quasi-isolationist vibe going through the Democratic party since, oh, late 2003 or so
reflects their desire to avoid doing things that are hard. If we absolutely must intervene
in Libya, we'll "lead from behind." If we absolutely must kill someone, better for the
president to have a personal, secret "kill list" and launch unmanned drone strikes in far-
off lands, so the American people don't have to hear about it and don't have to think
about it.
Are drone strikes enough to contain militant Islam? Look at the evidence around us.
Look at Libya. Look at Syria. Look at Iraq. Look at Pakistan. God forbid, look somewhere
closer someday soon.
But persuading the American people to accept a more aggressive policy would be hard,
particularly after this president spent years assuring them that "the tide of war is
receding" and "al-Qaeda is on the run."
Democrats -- and perhaps almost all of Washington -- shy away from doing things that
are hard.
Stopping Putin? That's hard. Pushing back against the rising tide of virulent anti-
Semitism in Europe? That's hard. Addressing the insufficient skillset of the American
workforce in a rapidly-changing, globalized economy? Really hard. Creating a culture of
opportunity, responsibility, and accountability in the worst neighborhoods in the inner
cities? Nothing's worked wonders yet. Ensuring every child is raised in a loving home?
That's hard.
Entitlement reform? Too difficult to even mention. The national debt? Too big and
difficult to even think about.
Cleaning out the dead wood from the federal bureaucracy and instituting a new culture
of accountability and results? That's really hard.


It's much easier to fume at length about Todd Akin and "binders full of women" and
what Phil Robertson said on Duck Dynasty and sneer at gun owners and religious
Christians. Vast swaths of our public debate revolve around metronomic "Can you
believe what this person said?" outrages. Any ill-tempered comment from any little-
known "GOP lawmaker" anywhere in the country can set off a couple news cycles of
ritualistic denunciation.
Driving the guy at Mozilla out of his job is relatively easy. Making a figure so
controversial that they're metaphorically radioactive is easy.
Considering what liberals claim to care about, they have every reason to focus their fury
upon militant Islam . . . but they don't. Liberals claim to care about underprivileged
children and the importance of education, so they have every reason to lash out at
status-quo-defending teachers' unions and demand public-school choice for every
parent everywhere in the country . . . but most of them don't. Liberals claim to care
about low-income Americans, so they have every reason to oppose allowing more
unskilled or low-skilled workers to enter the country illegally . . . but they don't. Liberals
claim they want to help the little guy, so they have every reason to want to reduce the
amount of red tape and paperwork that a new small business faces . . . but they don't.
All of those tasks would require them doing something difficult -- oftentimes,
confronting a part of their own coalition for the status quo.
Every once in a while, Democrats do try something difficult. "Hey, let's set up a system
that guarantees health insurance to every single American!" Of course, that usually
proves to be way, way, way harder than they expected and creates more problems, or
worse problems, than when they started.
Remember my "Progressive Aristocracy" series, here and here and here and here and
here? The Progressive Aristocracy doesn't want to do that much, other than tell you
how to live your life.
Yes, the Republican party has its flaws. It often earns its nickname of "the Stupid party"
and it has its weak leaders, its loudmouths too much in love with the sound of their own
voices, its craven types eager to find that sweet post-elected office lobbying deal, and its
boring old white men with comb-overs, speaking in legislative-ese.
But by and large, the Republicans are worried about the right problems -- the big
problems: crazy people who want to kill us, a skyrocketing debt, a growing culture of
dependency, an avalanche of red tape strangling the entrepreneurial lifeblood of the
economy, and an unsecure border.
That's why this November, we've got to elect as many of these guys as we can. Not
because they're perfect, or even all that great; not because their ideas are perfect or
even have a good chance of getting past an Obama veto . . . but because they're at least
looking at the real problems, instead of telling us our eyes are deceiving us and it's not
as bad as it looks.
It's Decision Time, Mr. President


President Obama has three decisions to make.
How big do we want our military action in Iraq to be?
How big do we want our military action in Syria to be, presuming we want to fight
there?
When Congress returns next week, Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., says he plans
to introduce a bill to "ensure there's no question that the president has
the legal authority he needs to use airstrikes in Syria."
What, if anything, do we want to do in Libya?
"It seems like the State Department, the Obama administration, is trying
to play down these reports, but the people I talked to were fairly
concerned about them," [Washington Free Beacon senior editor Bill]
Gertz said. "Again, they are trying to locate these jets. I don't think the
CIA has a full handle on where all of the aircraft from the airlines were.
There are a number of airports in the region that are within close
distance to Tripoli International, so they're obviously looking at these
places and trying to get a count of how many aircraft are there."
When co-host Brian Wilson asked specifics with regard to how Gertz's
sources responded to the reports of the missing jets by saying the [sic]
"can't confirm" the reports, Gertz explained that "can't confirm" in this
context was not meant as a denial, but "they're trying to play down by
saying 'well, we can't confirm them.' That's kind of bureaucrat speak
within the United States government."
What a Potential Winner They've Got Up in Rhode Island!
Ken Block, allegedly Republican gubernatorial candidate up in Rhode Island, dismissing
Mitt Romney's endorsement of his rival, Allan Fung:
"Back in January," Block said of his own campaign, "we interviewed the
Shawmut group . . . And in the two months that we interviewed them
and opted not to use them they promised us that if we hired them, they
could bring Mitt Romney in and endorse my candidacy. So I'm not
overly surprised that Mitt came in and endorsed Allan. We kind of
expected that given who the Shawmut group was and what they did."
Then again, maybe Romney actually endorsed Fung because Block has
said publicly that he voted against Romney in 2012 and supported the
passage of Obamacare.
The primary is September 9. Hey, Rhode Island, maybe you want to have an earlier
primary next time?
ADDENDA: Hey, remember this guy?


Al Qaeda has released a video announcing the establishment of a new
branch on the Indian subcontinent, saying it is meant to revive jihadist
activity in a region 'which was once part of the land of Muslims, until
the infidel enemy occupied it and fragmented it and split it.'
In the 55-minute video, which was posted on jihadist forums, Al Qaeda's
leader, Ayman al-Zawahri, addresses listeners in parts of the region with
large Muslim populations, assuring Muslims "in Burma, Bangladesh,
Assam, Gujarat, Ahmedabad and Kashmir that your brothers" in the
militant organization "did not forget you and that they are doing what
they can to rescue you."