Showing posts with label Civil War. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Civil War. Show all posts

March 1, 2014

The GOP is on a Civil War Find Out Who is Winning

                                                                             
If Chris Christie, Scott Walker, John Kasich and perhaps Bobby Jindal—orthodox Republican conservatives all—hope to run for president in 2016, they’ll may have to perform a tricky maneuver: winning the backing of the GOP’s mainstream, big-money donors, including the US Chamber of Commerce, while rallying the electoral support of ultraconservatives who support the floundering Tea Party movement. But it might turn out that the Tea Party isn’t so influential after all.
The Tea Party—the institutional Tea Party, not necessarily the bloc of the GOP electorate that identified with it—continues to have its difficulties, especially in the wake of the 2013 government shutdown. Yesterday, at a conference in Washington, DC, the Tea Party Patriots organization celebrated its fifth anniversary as a force in American politics, but it was decidedly a lackluster event, and even The Washington Times headlined that it is “struggling.” Among other things, its preferred candidates in Republican primaries around the country seem at a loss, as Michael Gerson, a conservative pundit at The Washington Post, noted:
Tea party challenges have fizzled in Kentucky and Texas. They are fading in Kansas, Tennessee and South Carolina. And even in Mississippi—where Sen. Thad Cochran is a vulnerable incumbent—the tea party insurgent struggles to explain his recent skeptical reaction when asked about Katrina relief funding.
Two influential writers who’ve penned articles for The National Interest, both credentialed conservatives, have analyzed the GOP’s ongoing civil war, or civil strife—or as Senator Mike Lee of Utah, a Tea Party favorite, called it yesterday at the Tea Party Patriots meeting, “civil debate”—and, in the articles and in follow-up interviews with Christie Watch, they outlined their takes on where the GOP might be headed.
In the first piece, “The GOP’s Identity Crisis,” Paul Saunders, the executive director of the Center for the National Interest, a conservative-realist think tank in Washington, says that the Tea Party has the support of about 38 percent of GOP voters, but that the Republican party’s mainstream establishment, which historically has had the upper hand, is still the dominant factor. In an interview with Christie Watch, Saunders said:
People have been excited about the Tea Party and the insurgent forces. But the fact that they were able to play such a big role on the debt ceiling doesn’t mean that they have taken over the Republican party or defeated the establishment. Normally, the establishment wins. Looking ahead to 2016, they should be able to incorporate—or perhaps co-opt is a better word—the Tea Party and move on.
Last year, he said, Christie “was in the strongest position to unify the establishment.” And, though damaged, Christie is still “attractive to many people interested in the ‘bigger tent’ approach.”
In a parallel article in The National Interest, “The Four Faces of the Republican Party,” Henry Olsen, a fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, a conservative, “Judeo-Christian” think tank in Washington, breaks down the divisions within the GOP. In it, he wrote, the biggest bloc, representing 35–40 percent of the Republican vote, are the “somewhat conservative” voters who “have a significant distinction: they always back the winner”—successively, Bob Dole (1996), George W. Bush (2000), John McCain (2008), and Mitt Romney (2012). The second largest bloc is the GOP’s “moderate to liberal” one, representing about 25–30 percent of all GOP voters. (In others words, liberals, moderate and somewhat conservative voters represent something like 60–70 percent of the party.) Olsen says that Christie, Kasich, Walker and Paul Ryan are competing for these voters most of all.
On the other hand, he writes, very conservative voters make up the rest, a minority. The “very conservative evangelicals” are about 20 percent, and the “very conservative, secular” bloc is perhaps 5–10 percent of the GOP vote.
In primaries, of course, the true believers, including the most conservative, militant Republicans, tend to turn out more heavily, skewing their influence.
And Olsen makes a crucial point about the future inability of the Tea Party to determine who wins the Republican nomination in 2016. So far, he points out, Tea Party primary victories in statewide contests have come almost entirely in small, inconsequential states, not the delegate-rich ones. He says:
Nor do the Tea Party Senate primary victories appear to presage a sea change in GOP attitudes. They generally have two characteristics unlikely to pertain in the 2016 presidential race. First, they occurred primarily in smaller states in the South and West. While these states hold the balance in the Senate, they do not elect most of the delegates needed to win a presidential nomination. Larger states, especially California and those in the Midwest and Northeast, still have substantial power to influence the nomination contest. As importantly, these victories tended to occur in one-on-one races or races with only two serious candidates. Tea Party candidates fared much worse in multicandidate races. In presidential contests, multicandidate races are the norm until well into March, suggesting a Tea Party candidate will find it difficult to win in the early stages.
In an interview with Christie Watch, Olsen notes that according to polls Christie is “most favored by the moderate-liberals in the party and least favored amongst the very conservative. As a result, he said, he’s most likely to do well in primary states, such as New Hampshire, and less likely to do well in caucus states, such as Iowa—no surprises there. But, Olsen told Christie Watch, center-right, establishment Republicans, which he described as led by “businessmen, managers, entrepreneurs”—i.e., Chamber of Commerce types—are, unlike very, very conservative voters and the Christie right, “spread out and influential in every state.” So that means that Christie, along with Jeb Bush, Paul Ryan and Scott Walker will be pushing hard to appeal to these voters. 

The setbacks that Christie has suffered, says Olsen, mean that—unlike George W. Bush in 2000, who created an aura of invincibility early on—Christie won’t be able to create an early bandwagon for the nomination. “That’s been put on hold by Bridgegate,” he says.
Interested readers can get the latest complete polling data from a New York Times/CBS poll about 2016. What it shows, remarkably enough, is that as many as 59 percent of Republican and independent voters say that they “don’t know enough” about the various possible Republican challengers. Best known, by far, are Jeb Bush and Chris Christie, whose “don’t know enough” numbers ranged from 26 to 35 percent. Of those who did know enough to voice an opinion, 41 percent of Republicans and 33 percent of independents said that they didn’t want Christie to run, reflecting no doubt a mix of Tea Party types who despise and him and others simply turned off by the post-Bridgegate scandals. (Thirty-one percent of Republicans say they want Christie to run.) For Bush, who says he’ll announce whether or not he’s running later this year, 27 percent of Republicans and 44 percent of independents say that they don’t want him to run.

May 14, 2013

Fighter in Syrian Civil War Eating Heart of Dead Soldier

Remorseless: After removing what appears to be the dead man's heart, Sakkar then reaches into the chest cavity and draws a lung into view
"Let me eat your heart. Not enough that you are dead, now I need to eat your heart because that means……not sure, but Im sure it means something. Heartless myself I enjoy civil wars and all wars but civil wars are better because I can kill whoever I want. No generals, no rules, no orders no uniforms. They also supply you with food.  On a civil war I can take the food from anyone I want as long as they are not as armed or as alert as I am.   I am an animal and I am looking from freedom from another ‘animal” “a Mad man’ a “heartless man” that is Assad"
 That is the reason that United States has decided not to get mix up in this civil war. You have animals killing animals and whomever comes out on top it will be an enemy of the United States , Pro Iranian and Probably Russia. We have no man on this fight. Lets try to work with Egypt and as far as the Palestinian goes they need their homeland.  However how can you expect to be allowed to become one when you talk to extinct of at least one in the area. The reason with that is that the palestinians can not get their own leader and government to get their engine started. At the moment there are just facets of autonomous with just one thing in common and is not constructing a country with a centralized government. Is Fighting Israel and blowing up what ever they can. A shame in deed but those are the realities in this part of the world that’s never been for the weak of heart.

Now coming back to the heart eater, there is this awful video which shows the barbaric Syrian war.  There is no mercy for no one and common sense or humanity never even entered this area.
   
A man, said to be a well-known rebel fighter, carves into the body of a government soldier and cuts out his heart and liver.
"I swear to God we will eat your hearts out, you soldiers of Bashar. You dogs. God is greater!" the man says. "Heroes of Baba Amr ... we will take out their hearts to eat them."
He then puts the heart in his mouth and takes a bite.

A group loyal to President Bashar al-Assad posted the video online Monday. The group describes the mutilation as a "crime that crosses all lines."    
It's a sentiment shared by the main opposition alliance, which describes the act as "horrific and inhumane."
"The Syrian Coalition strongly condemns this act, if it is revealed to be true," the dissident group said in a statement.

"The coalition stresses that such an act contradicts the morals of the Syrian people, as well as the values and principles of the (rebel) Free Syrian Army."
Rebel spokesman: There's more to the story

Although CNN cannot independently verify the authenticity of the video, CNN has interviewed a local rebel spokesman who confirmed the incident and said he has spoken to the man in the footage.
Tariq al Sayed, a spokesman from the Homs neighborhood of Baba Amr, said he is a friend of the rebel in the video. He said the incident took place more than two weeks ago, after several rebels and government troops were killed in a battle in western Homs.
Al Sayed said when he saw the video, he told his friend to take it off the Internet because the act was so perverse.

"This was an isolated incident. (His) actions do not represent the FSA. His actions only represent himself," al Sayed said. "This is not just a normal person who sits home. He has had two brothers killed. His mom and dad were detained, and the rest of his family displaced."
The Baba Amr district of Homs, once a bastion of anti-government sentiment, was subjected to a brutal counteroffensive by the Syrian army starting in February 2012, Human Rights Watch said.
Homs came under weeks of relentless attacks by government forces, including indiscriminate shelling on civilian areas.

But the government has repeatedly denied attacking civilians, saying Syrian forces were targeting armed gangs and foreign terrorists bent on destabilizing the government.
Regardless of the horrors suffered in Homs, the atrocious act in the video is inexcusable, Human Rights Watch said.
"It is not enough for Syria's opposition to condemn such behavior or blame it on violence by the government," said Nadim Houry, Middle East deputy director at Human Rights Watch. "The opposition forces need to act firmly to stop such abuses.”
{Adam}

adamfoxie* obtained both the video and report from CNN's Hamdi Alkhshali contributed to this report.

September 26, 2012

22yr Old That Captured Gaddafi Killed by His Country man

omran ben shabaan libya muammar gaddafi

In A Civil War There Are No Brothers, No Neighbors and No friends…lagos 



Omran Ben Shaaban, a 22-year-old Libyan man thought to be instrumental in capturing Muammar Gaddafi, died today after being beaten by the former dictator’s supporters.
Kidnappers abducted Shaaban and three others in July near the Gaddafi stronghold of Bani Walid, The Associated Press reported.
Rebels credit Shaaban with helping find Gaddafi as he hid in a drainage ditch last October during the Arab Spring uprising in Libya.
Shaaban had been hospitalized in France.
Libya’s National Congress said police and the armed forces are authorized to use force to bring Shaaban’s captors to justice, the AP said.
Kidnappers shot Shaaban in the neck and stomach during an escape attempt, his brother Walid Ben Shaaban told AFP.
GNC president Mohammed Megaryef helped negotiate Shaaban’s freedom after almost two months, AFP said.
A private plane flew Shaaban’s body back to his hometown of Misrata today where crowds awaited.
Misrata and Bani Walid are traditional rivals that fell on opposite sides of the uprising against Gaddafi.
Tensions in the area remain heightened.
“We will give the authorities an opportunity to tackle the issue, but if they fail to act, we know how to make our move,” Walid Ben Shaaban, who commands a militia of former rebels, told AFP.
The GNC hailed Shaaban as a hero.


Love And Pride Sale! Up to 70% OFF on Selected Products Buy N

ow!

Amazon SearchBox Use it for All Meerchandise

The Forest Needs help

Summer Athlete

Adamfoxie Blog Int.

Adamfoxie Blog Int.
Amazon

ONE

ONE
Relief World Hunger

Taylor Made 2016 Family Clubs

Click Here To Get Anything by Amazon- That will keep US Going

Amazon EcHo

Blog Archive/White No# Stories per Month/year

Popular Posts

Everyday at the Movies

Orangutans ARE Part of the Forest

The Gay Man in You♥ or Him