Political Pistachio

Blog Home of the Writer and AM and FM Radio Host, Douglas V. Gibbs.
- = - = - = - = - = - = -

Thursday, April 24, 2014

GOP Backing Off Support For Cliven Bundy After Racist Remarks

by JASmius

And, thus, the page abruptly turns:

Republican leaders are backing off their support of Nevada cattle rancher Cliven Bundy after he made a series of inflammatory racist remarks reported in the New York Times.

I have to wonder why Clive Bundy agreed to talk to the official house media organ of the Regime that invaded his property, stole and slaughtered his cattle, tasered his son, and made every appearance of wanting to kill him.  On the other hand, I have no doubt as to why the New York Times wanted to talk to Clive Bundy: they wanted to set him up with the easiest play in their propaganda playbook so as to change the subject from federal tyranny to the ten billion and third playing of the race card.

Mission accomplished:

The rancher, who won a showdown this month with the U.S. Bureau of Land Management over grazing rights for his herd, attacked African-Americans for their dependency on government assistance and claimed that they abort their children and end up in jail because they have no jobs.

Bundy, a registered Republican with 14 children, said to the Times, “I’ve often wondered, are they better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things, or are they better off under government subsidy? They didn’t get no more freedom. They got less freedom.”

While claiming that many African-Americans are “basically on public assistance,” he added, “They abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because they never learned how to pick cotton.”

Enough, already.  Clive Bundy is not a politician, and he's not media savvy.  That much is obvious, and was obvious to the Times, which is why they led him to the PR slaughter.  I would characterize Bundy's remarks as ignorant and stupid, not racist.  I can, at a great stretch, even see what he might have been trying to say - that the statist mentality that tried to take his land in jackbooted fashion is the same philosophy that has enslaved so many African-Americans in welfare dependency and family destruction, only the modern version of it is far more insidious than the cotton plantations of the antebellum South, because with the former the "slaves" don't recognize their own chains.

But, not being either politically or media savvy, Bundy was completely unable to articulate that thought, and it came out as the effortlessly exploitable mess that it did.  If Bundy had been at all politically or media savvy, he'd have declined any comment on race issues at all, since they had less than nothing to do with what the BLM tried to do to him.  But he wasn't, and he didn't, and now the page has been turned with extreme, well, prejudice.

And, naturally, Republicans are heading for the tall grass:

Nevada’s Republican Senator Dean Heller had previously claimed that Bundy’s supporters were “patriots,” but following Bundy’s hateful remarks he’s started to “backtrack,” according to Rawstory.com.

His spokesman , Chandler Smith, told the Times that the senator “completely disagrees with Mr. Bundy’s appalling and racist statements, and condemns them in the most strenuous way.”

Senator Rand Paul, the libertarian Republican from Kentucky who may make a run for the White House in 2016, had supported Bundy’s cattle battle with the government.

But in a statement provided by a spokesman for Paul to Business Insider on Thursday, the senator denounced Bundy's comments. "His remarks on race are offensive and I wholeheartedly disagree with him," Paul said.

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott had jumped into the controversy by stating that the BLM was planning to claim thousands of acres in the Lone Star State along the Red River, and he had made it clear that he had told the agency to back off.

But his spokeswoman Laura Bean tried to distance the Republican gubernatorial candidate from Bundy by telling the liberal newspaper that the letter Abbott wrote to the BLM “was regarding a dispute in Texas and is in no way related to the dispute in Nevada.”

See how this sets up?  When the BLM guards tank army returns to Casa Bundy, either his supporters will refrain from standing with him again for fear of being smeared as "racists," or they'll support him anyway, and that stigma will convince most, if not all, LIVs and NIVs that Bundy deserves whatever he gets, up to and including the massacre of himself, his entire family, and any "foolish" enough to stand with him.  And certainly the public policy side of this burgeoning Western range war has been cut down in its metaphorical crib, as even as erstwhile a Tea Party stalwart as Rand Paul has now conceded that Americans are not entitled to their Constitutional rights if they hold a politically incorrect view or two.

Well, bullbleep.  Kevin Williamson sums it up in the Corner today:

There is a time to break the law, and the fact that the law is against you does not mean that justice is against you. The law was against Washington and Martin Luther King Jr., too. That does not mean that what is transpiring in Nevada is the American Revolution or the civil-rights movement; it means that there is a time to break the law. As I wrote, “Cliven Bundy may very well be a nut job, but one thing is for sure: The federal government wouldn’t treat a tortoise the way it has treated him.”

Critics on the left, being an ignorant bunch, may be unaware of the fact, but the example of Mohandas Gandhi is here particularly apt, given that the great man had some pretty creepy ideas about everything from race to homosexuality, for example writing that blacks aspired to nothing more than passing their time in “indolence and nakedness,” objecting to blacks’ being housed in Indian neighborhoods, etc. Americans, many of whom seem to believe that Mr. Gandhi’s first name was “Mahatma,” generally confuse the Indian historical figure, a man whose biography contains some complexity, with the relatively straightforward character from the Richard Attenborough movie. We remember Gandhi and admire him because he was right about the thing most closely associated with him. In the same way, there is more to the life of Thomas Jefferson than his having been a slave owner. The question of standing in opposition to a domineering federal government that acts as the absentee landlord for nine-tenths of the state of Nevada is only incidentally related to Cliven Bundy’s having backward views about race. Mr. Bundy’s remarks reflect poorly on the man, not on the issue with which the man is associated....

There’s no explaining away Mr. Bundy’s remarks, and I abhor them, and am pleased  that Rich Lowry and others have taken the time to address them.

There’s no explaining away the lawlessness of the Obama administration or the crimes of the IRS, either. A nation can survive its cranks, but not a criminal government

Five Alarm iPad Fire

by JASmius


Alarms going off - millennials are too addicted to their mobile devices, like iPads.  Children under the age of four are experiencing difficulty lifting and playing with blocks, because their hands are too used to an iPad.

Hear Bill Whittle explain why this is an urgent, 911 call for change.



<shrug>  I don't have an iPad or a "smartphone".  My tech wonder was satiated by PCs and laptops, both of which I do possess.  I simply lack the desire to keep myself broke buying each new gadget that comes along.  And I don't consider that to be a bad thing.

What baffles me is why kids age 0-4 need iPads in the first place.  What do they use them for, anyway?  Bibs?  Teething rings?  I'm sufficiently into geezerhood that even my kids predated a lot of this technogear, but I can say with utmost confidence that had such devices been on the market when they were that young, it would never have occurred to be to so equip them, because....why burden kids down with adult toys (so to speak)?  Let 'em be kids before they have to grow up and realize that life sucks and dupes you into believing that you have to keep yourself broke buying each new gadget that comes along, and that you have to vote for Democrats, and that there's such a thing as a long, rich, and rewarding career to be had, and other rank follies.

Loud Mouth Harry

by JASmius

Harry (G)Reid is throwing verbal bombshells and setting the stage for violence against patriotic Americans.



I was with Bill right up until the part about "holding Harry (G)Reid accountable" and "investigating" him.  Not whether or not he should be, but, as always, how?  The Obama Regime simply will not do so, and even after they have control of the Senate back, Republicans won't have the power to force any such investigation, and will have so many other crises on their plate cleaning up the messes created by years and years of Donk mismanagement and abuses that bringing Dirty Harry to justice, however cathartically satisfying,  And if the GOP tried, (G)Reid would still have more than enough clout to block any and all probes.

Taking away majority control of the Senate from the Democrats will be a good start, in any case.  Perhaps Senator Pencilneck will finally scoop up his mountain of chips, get up from the table, and call it a career.  Besides, after he's slithered off into the sunset, it'll be Chucky Schumer's or Dick Durbin's turn to be Senate Democrat jackoff.  They'd be even better at it than Dirty Harry.

Governor Perry: "Not A Dare, It's A Promise" Texas Will Defy BLM Land Grab

by JASmius

I don't know if this means that Governor Perry is ordering the Texas National Guard to the southern bank of the Red River, but he's definitely backing up Attorney-General and his gubernatorial successor Greg Abbott to the hilt on Texas's showdown with the BLM:

Texas Governor Rick Perry says his state's Attorney General Greg Abbott wasn't making a dare against the federal government over a land rights dispute; it was a promise.

"He is on the right side of this issue, not just for the people of the State of Texas, he's on the right side of this issue from the private property rights standpoint," Perry said Wednesday on Fox News Channel's "Your World with Neil Cavuto."

"I don't think Americans want to see another one of these exhibitions from the federal government of them coming in with armed troops over an issue that ought to be taken care of with a little common sense," Perry told guest host Stuart Varney.



The fact of the matter is that the feds have no claim to this 90,000 acre parcel of territory, but are opportunistically attempting to exploit a Texas-Oklahoma dispute while (they think) nobody is looking:

The action stems from a dispute between Texas and Oklahoma over the two states' common border. According to the Louisiana Purchase in 1803, the Red River is the border between them, but as the river's course changes so does the border.

Numerous lawsuits between the states and the federal government have arisen over the years, and the BLM wants to solve the issue by federalizing the land, Texas officials say.

"We don't have a clue why their trying to claim it, what basis they have to claim it on," Abbott told Fox News.

But the BLM issued a statement saying it "is categorically not expanding federal holdings along the Red River," Fox News reported.

Abbott said if that is true he's happy, but he added that it contradicts other statements the BLM has made.
Of course it does.  I don't know why the BLM is denying that it's trying to steal those 90,000 acres, other than that pathetic prevarication is both Regime policy and written into its collectivist DNA.  The curious part is why they're presuming to just illegally take it by force.  Couldn't they (1) seek Texas's permission and (2) make generous offers for the land in question?  It's not like these people don't like to spend other people's money or give a tinker's damn about fiscal responsibility or debt incursion.  Simply make ranchers like Ken Aderholt offers they can't refuse without the mafia overtones.

And then you remember - ranchers like Clive Bundy don't necessarily "have a price," as some believe every man does, and won't sell all or a portion of their land for any price.  And the feds want the land.  So....they simply take it, law and Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 be damned.  But in this case Greg Abbott has sounded the alarm, so the BLM has beat a hasty, and temporary, retreat into dishonest denial, the same way that they called off the dogs at Casa Bundy when their Gestapo tactics there attracted too much attention.

But there, as on the Texas-Oklahoma border, they'll be back as soon as they think the coast is clear.  Which means it's the duty of Us, The People, to vigilantly make sure it never is.

Extending that vigilance to the voting booth would be nice, too, but there are only so many miracles to go around.

Wednesday, April 23, 2014

Death Panels: Forty Deaths Result From VA Hospital's Secret Waiting List

by JASmius

And they said death panels don't exist within government healthcare.

CNN's Drew Griffin investigates forty veteran deaths resulting from a VA hospital in Phoenix creating a secret waiting list.



I wonder why the VA kept this waiting list secret.  Do they just want to genocidally liquidate as many veterans as possible, or is it that they are desperately trying to avert handing Sarah Palin another "See, I told you so" gloating opportunity?

Eh, probably both.

Hard Starboard Radio: The Racist Latina



From the fiscal to the familial, conservatives have the right answers; Democrats are the party of inequality because their vision of government requires them to be the gatekeeper to the good life; and despite breaking even on Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, Sonia Sotomayor manages to create a new euphemism for the Left's endless fixation on race.

Dr. King wept at 6PM Eastern/3PM PacificMartin Luther King, that is.

Texas AG Abbott Warns BLM On Disputed Land: 'Come & Take It'

by JASmius

The Great Obamunist-Western Range War is rapidly moving up the ol' food chain:

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott has a message for the Bureau of Land Management about disputed land along the Oklahoma-Texas border: "Come and take it."

Abbott was referring to a potential land grab of 90,000 acres that belong to Texas residents. According to Breitbart Texas, the federal government is considering taking the land, which stretches 116 miles along the Red River.

"I am about ready to go to the Red River and raise a 'Come and Take It' flag to tell the feds to stay out of Texas," Abbott said.

Oh my goodness.  It sounds like the next step is for A-G Abbott - did you know he's the Republican frontrunner to succeed Rick Perry as governor of Texas? - to ask Governor Perry to deploy the Texas National Guard against the Bureau of Land Management if they invade the Lone Star State, or at least pledge to do so next year when he's running the show in Austin.

Or....maybe not:

Abbott wrote a letter to BLM Director Neil Kornze about the matter, expressing his concerns about the government's interest in taking the land from Texans, who have owned it for decades.

That's it?  He wrote a letter?  Sheesh, what a pussy.  I guess we have to relegate Greg Abbott to the RINO preserve right alongside Glenn Beck, right "Patriots"?

But you really should hear him out, because you ought to like what he had to say:

"I am deeply concerned about the notion that the Bureau of Land Management believes the federal government has the authority to swoop in and take land that has been owned and cultivated by Texas landowners for generations," Abbott wrote in the letter.

"The BLM's newly asserted claims to land along the Red River threaten to upset long-settled private property rights and undermine fundamental principles — including the rule of law — that form the foundation of our democracy. Yet, the BLM has failed to disclose either its full intentions or the legal justification for its proposed actions. Decisions of this magnitude must not be made inside a bureaucratic black box."

Abbott expanded on the subject in an interview with Breitbart.

"What Barack Obama's BLM is doing is so out of bounds and so offensive that we should have quick and successful legal action if they dare attempt to tread on Texas land and take it from private property owners in this state," Abbott said....

"This is the latest line of attack by the Obama administration, where it seems like they have a complete disregard for the rule of law in this country," Abbott told Breitbart. "And now they've crossed the line quite literally by coming into the state of Texas and trying to claim Texas land as federal land. And, as the attorney general of Texas, I am not going to allow this."



A-G Abbott didn't say how he's going to stop the BLM invasion, although I'm going to guess that he won't be riding in a tank, Patton style, on the Oklahoma frontier.  I suspect what he is going to do is utilize the legal means the Constitution provides.  Who knows, maybe it'll lead to Texas's second secession from the United States.  It is "like a whole other country," after all.



Sheriff Richard Mack: Glenn Beck Is A RINO

by JASmius

Sheriff Richard Mack Calls out Glenn Beck over his Monday commentary on the Battle of Bundy Hill.



Well, now, of what does Glenn Beck have to be ashamed?  Let's take a look-see:

Conservatives on social media have blasted Glenn Beck for declaring he did not support protesters at Bundy Ranch in Nevada who seemed to want an armed confrontation with law enforcement.

Monday on his radio show, Beck said that as a fellow rancher he had sympathy for Cliven Bundy, who refuses to pay over $1 million in back fees for illegally grazing his cattle on public land. But he denounced militia members and others who threatened an armed confrontation with federal authorities over the ranch.
Well, I'd say that's overstating it a smidge.  Those who traveled to Nevada to "stand with Clive" didn't threaten a confrontation - the BLM did that quite unequivocally - but rather stood their ground and made it clear that the feds were going to have to go through them to get to Mr. Bundy.  That stand is what persuaded BLM higher-ups to back down since that would have been an unspinnable public relations disaster for the Obama Regime, which isn't yet to the point of executing its coup de tat and can't afford to let that cat out of the bag.

And if the standoff had become a twenty-first century Kent State incident, Clive Bundy and his supporters would have become martyrs that would have rallied droves to the Constitutionalist cause.  So I don't think Mr. Beck has quite grasped the full propaganda dynamic of the situation.

However, neither have his detractors, who are Jay Carney's wet dreams come true:

Many of his fans didn’t appreciate him siding with the federal “tyrants.”

“When the possibility of bloody conflict exists does Beck simply roll over and side with the oppressor, the tyrannical State?” one Facebook user wrote on the Glenn Beck fan page.

Another person commented: “Glenn, you are no longer a friend of the Patriots fighting for FREEDOM. Go away and sell some books and your false ‘Bravado’ to other traitors. Hpw about you yourself said this Tyranny was coming and did not stand up. Re-read Article 1 Bundy is a hero. Oh, thats why you are mad, they didn’t invite you to speak?”

“You are wrong Mr. Beck, the Founding Fathers didn’t pray away Tyranny….They shot the Tyrants….Sic Semper Tyrannus,” said another.

There are many things I could say at this point.  "Beck created a monster and it's gnawing on his entrails"; "The historical figure most famous for uttering, 'Sic Semper Tyrannus' is....John Wilkes Booth, and if you think the Dems wouldn't make ample use of that in campaign ad blitzes, you're autistic"; "'Patriots' won't rest until they've turned the entire country against them in 'Thelma & Louise'/'Blues Brothers' fashion".  But suffice it to say, the above is the Ted Cruz-instigated "Defund ObamaCare" intra-GOP food fight from last September writ horrifically large in volume, if not yet in footprint.  And while Beck may be overstating the violent intentions of Clive Bundy's supporters, his detractors are out and out smearing him.

And for what?  To guarantee that the Right will never win another election?  To willfully and gleefully make of themselves the cartoon caricature the Left has always claimed we are?  To so completely discredit Constitutionalism with LIVs and NIVs that the public at large will stampede back into Barack Obama's waiting arms and even applaud his coup as an act of patriotism?

Evidently, all of the above:

A number of Beck’s detractors said on his Facebook page that violence was necessary because Democrats committed voter fraud.

“Not anymore it isn’t. With so much voter fraud going on by the Democrat Party, how is that our weapon? Mounting enough votes that we have to win by an extra 8 to 10% just to pull even is our hope for the future? Hitler was voted into office. I’m all for voting, but I no longer trust it,” one user commented.

“Soon, your vote won’t matter. If you think Hilary won’t rig an election, you’ve lost your mind. it is very likely to be rigged,” another added.

“Get a grip Glenn. My vote didn’t keep Obama out of office. Our country is being destroyed and you and Obama think talk will fix it all. I am not for violence but you can’t use a sign against a fed sniper.”

"You and Obama"?  Sounds like Sebastian Shaw, doesn't he?



Gentles, I would submit to you that these people have given up on the country and everything it used to stand for precisely because with their propaganda obtuseness, they would hand whatever is left of it to Barack Obama gift-wrapped and on the proverbial silver platter.  They are certainly encouraging the BLM and other Obamunist police agencies to come back for more armed confrontations.  And maybe that was Mr. Beck's point.

Exit question: How many of Beck's denouncers would be willing to go out in a blaze of glory themselves?  Something tells me, in cattle rancher parlance, that they are far more sizzle than steak.

Charlie Crist: 'I Am Pro-Life' (But OK With Abortion)

by JASmius

Or, in plain, non-Obamunist English, Sorry Charlie is a Democrat:

Charlie Crist served as the Republican governor of Florida from 2007 to 2011, became an independent in 2010 en route to a losing bid for senator, and then joined the Democratic Party in 2012. Last fall, he announced he was running for governor — as a Democrat — in the 2014 election.

Through it all, Crist, 57, says his views on abortion have not changed — even when pressed during a recent interview with NBC affiliate WPTV in West Palm Beach, Florida.

"I am pro-life by my definition," Crist told host Michael Williams. "And what I mean by that is I'm for life. I think most of us are for life. And I think that's very important to state because even though I am pro-life, which I mean for life, doesn't mean that I want to tell a woman what to do with her body. And I never have."
Um....what?
During the interview with WPTV, Crist was forced to explain his position on abortion. He has historically gone back and forth on several issues, including gay marriage (he now supports it), the embargo with Cuba (as a Democrat, he's now against it), and abortion.

Crist disputes the latter, however.

How can you tell?

"Even as the Republican governor, I vetoed the ultrasound bill on women," said Crist, referring to a law that would have required women seeking abortions to pay for ultrasounds. "So, I'm the kind of guy being raised with three sisters that understands these are very personal decisions that women ought to be able to make on their own, and certainly not have their government injected into the discussion."

Williams continued to press the issue, saying, "On the larger issue, in the prior incarnation politically of Charlie Crist, you supported abortion restrictions. But you have changed the nuance for your view there."

"No, I haven't. That's not true," Crist shot back.

But he also insists he's "pro-life".  For life.  "By his definition".

Glad we settled that.

I'd wager Governor Rick Scott is.  The debate to which Crist has challenged him should be Pay-Per-View quality.



Tuesday, April 22, 2014

The Lost Margaret Sanger Newsreels

by JASmius

In this three part series Trifecta combs through old British Pathé newsreels to bring you forgotten historical footage. In part one, Trifecta unearths a reel of birth control advocate Margaret Sanger arguing for a moratorium on human births. Sound like a hoax? Find out.



"No more babies," hm?  Pity this racist, Naziesque monster's mother didn't feel that way.

BLM Seizes Texas Rancher's Land - Without Compensation

by JASmius

Of course, you know the BLM could always attack another ranch where Tea Partiers aren't standing watch.  In fact, I would bet on that being the Regime's strategy, because they're after a heckuva lot more than just Clive Bundy, and thanks to their militant police state tactics, that name has attracted far too much attention.
-Me, five days ago

And.....here we go again:

Bureau of Land Management seized Texas Rancher Tommy Henderson's land and did not pay the rancher a dime for it.



Only difference between Mr. Henderson and Mr. Bundy, it would appear, is that the Texas rancher didn't physically resist, while his Nevada counterpart did.  And we saw the difference in the BLM's responses.

It raises quite a few questions.  Is civil disobedience and passive resistance the only way to fight back against the Obama Regime's tyrannical reflexes?  How many Battles of Bundy Hill can there be before the defenders shoot first, giving the feds the propaganda narrative they so clearly seek?  Or have they learned their lesson about the efficacy of quietly bleeding ranchers dry in lieu of American Tiananmens?  And in the latter case, how can civil disobedience be mounted in such a way as to draw favorable public attention, particularly when the media is an arm of the White House?

Killing Freedom of Religion

By Douglas V. Gibbs

The progressive takeover of America has been a process, and the liberal left believes the end of that process is in sight.  They are now attacking institutions long thought to be untouchable.  They have now graduated to targeting our God-given rights in ways they have never been willing to before.

In the book, "New Views of The Constitution of the United States" by John Taylor in 1823, the first section begins, "I shall attempt to ascertain the nature of our form of government, and the existence of a project to alter it."

A project to alter it.

In the introduction, Taylor recognizes that what we have is a federal system, not a national government.  "The happiness and prosperity of the United States will be greater under a federal than under a national government."  The difference being a voluntary union of States using a federal system to accomplish the duties needed to be administered by a central government in order to protect, promote, and preserve the union, rather than a consolidated national government that exists to control and regulate the States and the people.

Further into the book by Taylor, he reminds us that the definition of union is stated in the Declaration of Independence, "That these United Colonies are, and right ought to be, free and independent states."

Taylor goes on to explain, "The word 'united' is used in conjunction with the phrase 'free and independent states,' and this association recognizes a compatibility between the sovereignty and the union of the several states."

In "Yate's Notes" on page 39 of Taylor's book, the existence of those that desired a powerful system "with its concentration in one supreme national government" was penned, recognizing the danger of such a system.  Going into the Constitutional Convention, "these gentlemen appear to have been as thoroughly convinced of the superiority of a federal, as other gentlemen were of the superiority of a monarchical or national, form of government; and both left the convention under a conviction that the latter would be established. . . Subsequently to their departure, the plan of government was changed from a national to a federal form. . . They therefore viewed the constitution under the prepossession inspired by the eagerness for a national government, displayed in the convention before they left it."

The Articles of Confederation had been too week, so a drive for a stronger government ensued, but quickly the founders realized they were only approaching an opposite extreme, and a powerful central government would surely lead to tyranny.

James Madison entered the Constitutional Convention desiring a strong national government as did Alexander Hamilton.  Hamilton exited the convention still desiring a powerful and controlling central government, but through the debates Madison had been convinced to believe more like Thomas Jefferson (who was absent from the convention) who believed that a limited government was necessary to protect the sovereignty of the people, and the States.

The new federal government needed to be one that adhered to the rule of law, and recognized the importance of natural law, as spelled out in the Declaration of Independence.

In "An Essay Concerning Human Understanding," John Locke laid out the importance of natural law, and how it defined out rights as sovereign individuals.  The rights of citizens are God-given, and are not for government to take away.

The Declaration of Independence calls our God-given rights, "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God."

These natural rights are, according to the Declaration of Independence, entitled by God, are "self-evident," and "are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights."

In the final sentence of the Declaration of Independence the founders proclaim that the Declaration was accomplished "with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence."

Even Thomas Jefferson, regarded as a Unitarian that often challenged man-made versions of religion, calling the men behind these religions "religion builders", recognized the importance that our rights are natural rights not granted by government, but by the Creator. He wrote, "Nothing is unchangeable but the inherent and unalienable rights of man."

Benjamin Franklin said, "If men are so wicked with religion, what would they be without it?"

Whether a number of the founders had a strong aversion to "religion," it is clear that they did not have an aversion to faith, the freedom of people to worship as they wished, or the formation of a limited government that did not establish its own religious preference.

The founders recognized the importance of the concept of the freedom of religion, for it dwelt in the very foundation of the United States, going all the way back to colonization.  The primary reason for the colonization of the English Colonies, in many instances, was the desire for the freedom of religion.  From the puritans to the pilgrims, the desire was the same.  Among the natural rights, therefore, is the freedom of religion - a natural right by nature's God that cannot be legally taken away by government.

The desire to interfere with religious freedom, or to remove God from the foundations of this nation, is nothing new.  When Benjamin Franklin recommended that the delegates of the Constitutional Convention in 1787 pray before each session, Alexander Hamilton and a number of others that shared his political views, expressed their apprehensions about praying before each session of the convention. Statists tend to have apprehensions about Faith in God. Remember, it was the Democrat Party, the party of big government, that had to vote at their national convention, on whether or not to return God to their platform. And when it was deemed God would be returned, about half of the auditorium booed.

Statists tend to be anti-God. Big Government does not like competition.

After a couple centuries of manipulating language, and perpetuating a myth about the constitutionality of the idea of the separation of church and state, statists have created so much confusion that now the concept of religious freedom has become murky, and society is not sure how to define it.

Religious Freedom is now under attack, and religious freedoms are being taken away on a technicality.

Chief Justice Roberts of the U.S. Supreme Court, in his ruling on the legality of ObamaCare's individual mandate, wrote that the mandate was no different than a tax and therefore legal. If that is true, then mandating payment for birth control as part of that health insurance cannot be viewed as a violation of religious freedom.

A Quaker legally is allowed to avoid military conflicts without violating the law. That same Quaker, however, will go to jail if he refuses to pay the taxes that fund the military. In the same vain, in any state where the government pays for birth control or abortions, individual citizens can choose to not use birth control or to have abortions. They cannot however refuse to pay taxes because these programs violate their religious beliefs.

Obamacare was not supposed to be a tax, and in the language of the law it is stated that the fines for failure to comply with the law are not a tax, yet because Justice Roberts declared it to be a tax, according to the legal world, the federal government, through the health care law, can violate the religious freedoms of business owners.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Hard Starboard Radio: Gaia's Human Sacrifices



Bogusly high enrollments offer no assurance that ObamaCare will work - so will Democrats run on it just because their demigod tells them to?; Solar can never be a reducer of carbon emissions; Geoengineering can turn our long-barren oceans into a bounty; and when your goal is to save the planet, you can’t worry about who will get hurt.

Learning to love The New Primitivism at 6PM Eastern/3PM Pacific, and hoping nobody notices how much it resembles a coerced version of Opposite Worlds.



Muslim Brotherhood Forming Political Party In U.S.

by JASmius

For all of you Tea Partiers who have long been all fired up about third parties, all I can say is, you should be careful what you wish for.



"Jihad from within," indeed.

Seems kind of redundant since the Democrat Party is already pursuing much of the Muslim Brotherhood's agenda, but the more splintered the Left can become, the better our chances of overthrowing them.  At worst....

Well, it's difficult to see how it could get much worse.

Study: Global Warming Boosts Growth, Health

by JASmius

So, in honor of Earth Day, let's all ingest a quart can of Van Camps pork & beans, go outside, and fart for all we're worth:

The modest increase in temperatures observed across the globe over the last century has helped to raise the standard of living of people around the world, according to a report from the National Center for Policy Analysis....

Earth's climate has shifted many times through history and prehistory, from tropical to frigid and back again. Over the preceding century and a half, average temperatures have gone up slightly, though the ongoing warming trend has apparently been on pause for the last 16-year period.

"Contrary to popular belief, climate change thus far has had positive effects, and the net benefits of warming are likely to be positive for the foreseeable future," according to the report by NCPA senior fellow H. Sterling Burnett.

The 0.8 degree Celsius (1.4 degree Fahrenheit) increase in Earth's temperature since 1880 has boosted global economic output by 1.4%, he asserts. It accomplished this by increasing agricultural production, cutting heating costs, and generating many other economic benefits.

Decreasing worldwide temperatures, on the other hand, portends upheaval and death, as they have for millions of years.

"Cooling kills, and that is what is to fear," climate expert Christopher C. Horner of the Competitive Enterprise Institute told Newsmax.

Amazing it is what a complete examination of the facts will turn up.  On "climate change," as anything else in life - at least outside a Roland Emmerich eco-disaster epic - it turns out that, at worst, there are pros as well as cons, to warming as well as cooling.  And it also appears from this study that it is global warming that is "progressive" in its affects on the income scale, and global cooling that is "regressive".  Which is to say, the Left is relentlessly fearmongering against the climatological direction that will most benefit the poor and disadvantaged in the name of expanding their poverty and oppression to the remainder of the planetary population outside of the ruling party elites, which will, naturally, exempt themselves from the ecological prognosis they will force on everybody else.

A self-serving, as well as self-fulfilling, prophecy.  Which does add some context to the ancient Klingon proverb, "Revenge is a dish that is best served....cold."



Montana Congressional Candidate Shoots "Drone" In Ad

by JASmius

John King, Juana Summers and Robert Costa weigh in on another congressional campaign ad, this time out of Montana.



Never mind the gunplay - many would follow Matt Rosendale's example and wind up like Clive Bundy eventually will, which is why the Obama Regime will confiscate all guns, one way or the other - what made my heart skip a beat is that GOP congressional and senatorial challengers are taking their cues from Rand Paul rather than the RNC.  I know what TPers think of the "establishment" and all, and if the Boehner/amnesty rumors prove substantiated, not without reason, but is Paulnutism really the only alternative?  Are Ronald Reagan's footsteps really that difficult to relocate?

Labeling our children with ADD and ADHD

By Douglas V. Gibbs

While waiting in a doctor's office I picked up a magazine to thumb through to give my overworked hand-held devices a long-needed break.  The magazine was "Web MD", the March/April 2012 issue.  On page 77, I came across an interesting piece titled "Mind Quiz: Does your child have ADHD?"

"My son is 6 and in first grade," mom2therescue wrote in the WebMD Parenting Community.  "He is very impulsive and doesn't focus the way everyone else thinks he should  The boy's grades aren't affected, but his behavior disrupts the class."  These are classic symptoms of ADHD.  Do you know the others?

The article then took the liberty to list the symptoms of ADHD.  "Fidgeting, squirming, or moving legs, feet, arms, hands, and fingers frequently.  Walking, running, climbing when he or she is expected to remain seated."

Every child is different, and yes, some have trouble focusing their attention more than others.  Some are more hyperactive, and some children prefer to be quiet and sit with their hands on their knees.  Each child is an individual, and requires a unique style of environment for them to best learn whatever it is they are trying to learn.  Some do well in large settings with a lot of kids, and a teacher writing on the chalkboard, and some need a one-on-one atmosphere where they receive constant attention from the instructor.

Each child is his or her own individual self, and their individualism is not symptoms of some disease, or mental handicap.  Since when must individuality need to be labeled?

It is at this point that the parents of children that have been labeled, and perhaps even drugged, come to the defense of conventional wisdom, and start to hammer on me as an ADD or ADHD denier.  I don't deny that these conditions exist, or that some children need more care and attention than others to ensure they reach their educational potential.  I get it.  ADD and ADHD exists.  But they are not conditions that we must fix, and then force our children into compliance with all of the other children.  They are conditions that must be embraced and celebrated.  They are evidence that your child is an individual, with individual needs, and individual abilities.  Every child learns differently, and it is a wonderful thing.  They don't need to be labeled, drugged, and forced to conform.  That is the way of socialism, to make everyone the same, to force them to fit into a one-size-fits-all pattern of education.  True individuality will never allow for such a thing.

Everyone is brilliant in something.  One child may suffer in a classroom, but be an Einstein in a hands-on situation.  Another may be terrible at both, but excel in a quiet space with one-on-one attention.  It is our responsibility, as parents, to recognize these things about our kids, and adjust our lifestyle to their abilities.

Now, let's pause and think about all of this for a moment.  I am advocating that when it comes to learning abilities, we must not go to some kind of extreme and require all kids to be the same.  There is always going to be a deviance in how each child learns.  There are some things that we should have standards on, or a moral compass, if you prefer.  Societal norms do exist, and we need to conform on some things, but the actual abilities of a child, or their "way to learn," should not be forced into that package.  Individuality is not a disease or a handicap.  Individuality is something that should be celebrated, understood, and worked with.

All kids fidget, daydream, bounce off the walls sometimes, squirm, or move around when they aren't supposed to.  Much of that is just them being a kid.  Some of it is their own individuality trying to make itself known.  Do we squash that individuality, and drug that individuality, or do we nurture it, care for it, and help it develop?

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

The Tyrant That Became President

By Douglas V. Gibbs

He was heralded as if he was a messiah, and a cult-like following mustered around him, ensuring that his presidency was certain.  Everything the country knew about him up to that point was from the book he had written, detailing what he believed in, what his dreams were, and what his future goals for the country were.

A professed Christian, his policies denied biblical teachings, and he buddied up with Islamic factions and leaders.  His signature policies were health care, gun control, environmental issues, taxing the rich, the redistribution of wealth, and using fiat money to bolster the economy.

Determination to unite the nation, and create a prosperous and safer nation through increased government involvement was his campaign cries, but once in the presidency, it became clear his was an agenda driven by lies, and his own narcissism.  He blamed the rich for the woes of the country, and the redistribution of wealth became his promise.

He mocked, defied, and unilaterally changed constitutional law, acting in opposition of the constitution, and worked to render the legislature irrelevant, when he felt it necessary to act without them.  Fear emerged, and nobody was willing to expose him for what he really was, for fear of reprisal from his supporters, the press, and even from one's neighbors, spread throughout the country.

The false promises stacked up, and reality revealed them all to be failures, but the content of the promises were not the reason for their existence, but to create false hope for change that would lead to crisis and chaos so that he may fundamentally transform the country.

The propaganda through the media, politicians, the courts, businesses, educators, science, the entertainment industry, and even churches was incredible, and unstoppable.  They pushed his agenda, protected him at all costs, and even ignored the reality of the presence of his class warfare, division of the classes, and in the end, his racism.  All that mattered was silencing all of the opposition, no matter what it took to accomplish it.

The description above was of Adolf Hitler, President of Nazi Germany (August 2, 1934 - April 30, 1945).

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

IRS About To Impose New Taxes On Work Perks

by JASmius

With all the concern about an over-reaching, over-bearing, over-the-top federal government, here comes the insatiable IRS. What's left that they could possibly tax now? Watch and find out.



Senator Cornyn Slams Eric "The Red" Holder's Push For Gun Bracelets

by JASmius

Or, as I think of them, thrall collars:



Republican Senator John Cornyn of Texas has fired off a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder demanding answers about his plan for a $2 million congressional study on "smart guns."

In Holder's testimony before a House Appropriations subcommittee last week, he said the smart gun research is part of a $382 million government package to pay for a "gun safety" program, according to the Daily Caller.

The futuristic firearms would work only through fingerprint identification or by technology that allows only the owner to pull the trigger when connected to an accompanying electronic bracelet, or by wristwatch, as is the case with the 22-caliber, 10-round Armatix iP1, which is available now.

Okay, I will admit that's kind of cool, as long as such technology was strictly limited to the private sector.....



....but that clearly is not what Eric "The Red" has in mind:

Cornyn, the Senate Minority Whip, wrote in his letter that Holder's plan for potentially forcing people to carry smart guns conflicted with the constitutional rights of Americans.

The letter said, "Your testimony has raised serious concerns for my constituents given President Obama's track-record of acting beyond the scope of his legal authority and your hostility to the individual right to self-defense under the Second Amendment."

Cornyn wanted assurances that the Justice Department would not issue regulations that would mean Americans would have to equip their firearms with costly fingerprint-reading technology or have to link them to biometric bracelets.

Assurances that Senator Cornyn in never going to get.  And why would Holder or O give such assurances?  "Smart" gun technology gives them everything they want: gun registration and gun owner registration and the ability to "turn off" any gun owner's "smart" gun at any time.  It would be tantamount to the firearms having been issued by the feds to American citizens, with the ability to take them back whenever the former chose.  It would functionally repeal the Second Amendment without having to bother with that tiresome constitutional amendment process that a "smart gun" Amendment could never clear.

Senator Cornyn must be aware of this.  So what is the purpose of going through the motions of this protocol-laden artifice?  Perhaps to provoke the Commissariat of Injustice & Revenge to bulldoze ahead with mandatory "smart gun-ization" in advance of the November midterm election?  That would certainly further endear Democrats to the broader electorate.

Which tells us when we can expect this latest jam-down to impact - next year, when even the Senate will be beyond the reach of White House puppetry.

Pity the thrall collars won't come with an Iron Man suit.

Monday, April 21, 2014

PETA vs. The BLM

by JASmius

The Bureau of Land Management is carrying our widespread torture and slaughter of wild animals, according to a Nevada Assemblywoman.

 Michele Fiore has posted pictures on her Twitter account of cattle shot from helicopters by agents of the BLM. These graphic photos show several heads of cattle slaughtered by the government forces, as they attempted to take control of disputed land.

Springtime is the season when most calves are born, making the situation worse. BLM agents used a helicopter to frighten the animals. Young, baby cows were separated from their mothers as the cows ran in a panic.

Bureau of Land Management supervisors claimed the actions at the Bundy Ranch were necessary to save the desert tortoise. But, just months before the standoff, the BLM was slaughtering hundreds of the endangered animals.

In August 2013, the Associated Press reported, "Federal funds are running out at the Desert Tortoise Conservation Center and officials plan to close the site and euthanize hundreds of the tortoises they've been caring for since the animals were added to the endangered species list in 1990."

Tortoises that were not killed by the federal agents were released into the wild.

The bureau has also recently rounded up horses in the wild which were sold to a slaughterhouse in Canada. Although wild horses are protected by federal law, the agency claims the horses were descended from animals released from rodeos.

Animal rights group PETA is reported to be "swarmed with calls" over the revelations of widespread animal abuse by the BLM. In response, they tweeted "These animals shouldn't be killed either by the government, or by the rancher who plans to send the cows off to slaughter. The best thing anyone can do to stop the suffering of animals is to go vegan." 



<emerging from prolonged face-palm>  Well, what were you expecting?  Ideological consistency in the face of blatant hypocrisy from comrades and fellow-travelers?  Remember the One Commandment of Socialism: "Thou shalt not do anything to impede the advance of the socialist agenda."  And also the JASmius corollary: "Right tribe.....wrong tribe".

We return you now to your regularly scheduled Porterhouse.....

Obamedia Shamefully, But Inevitably, Silent On Exploding Bundy-BLM Scandal

by JASmius

This is why I say that every last Republican Senate candidate in 2014, incumbent and challenger, must hang Harry (G)Reid around the necks of their Donk enemies right alongside ObamaCare - because the press isn't going to do it for them.



Hard Starboard Radio: Steyers, Kochs & Political Terrorism



The great ObamaCare disenrollment begins; The great GOP foreign policy civil war, and the greater foreign policy ambivalence of the American people; When it comes to defense and foreign policy, Rand Paul is a menace; For Democrats, the Koch brothers are "unAmerican," but Tom Steyer is a hero for donating millions to anti-Keystone candidates - and did we mention that he made his fortune on....coal?; "The unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property in order to coerce or intimidate the civilian population" - sounds like Harry Greed, whose slanders and lies "may" be part of a deliberate strategy to drive up hard-left turnout in November.

Just another maudlin Monday at 6PM Eastern/3PM Pacific.

UAW Drops Appeal Of Volkswagen Union Vote

by JASmius

Remember when the United Auto Workers tried to organize a Volkswagon plant in Chattanooga, Tennessee, and suffered what the Obamedia guffaw-inducingly painted as a "stunning" defeat?  Remember their defiant, Charlie Brown-esque vow that they'd be back and next time they'd win for sure?:

Shortly after the vote was announced, Gary Casteel, the UAW's regional director, vowed that the union would continue to work to unionize the plant. "We're not quitting on this," he said.

"It's unfortunate that there were outside influences," he added, referring to efforts made by Corker and the Center for Worker Freedom, a group led by conservative crusader Grover Norquist, which put up thirteen anti-union billboards in the area....

Yeah, well, don't tell anybody, but the UAW is....quitting on this.



Which is to say, the UAW will focus on bludgeoning its way into the Mercedes-Benz plant in Alabama or the Nissan plant in Mississippi, and then circle back around to bag VW-Chattanooga.  Or at least that's what they've convinced themselves they're going to do.  Gary Casteel may believe that he's reenacting General William T. Sherman's march through the South, but professionally speaking, he's already gone the way of Stonewall Jackson.

NBCCCP Hires Psychologist To Fix David Gregory's "Meet the Press"

by JASmius

I believe it was the noted shrink Ron White who once said, "You can't fix stupid":

Embattled "Meet the Press" host David Gregory has vowed to fix the "problems" that have resulted in the troubled program slipping to third place among Sunday morning political news shows, according to the Washington Post.

Worried NBC executives have even commissioned a psychologist to interview Gregory’s friends and family in an effort to find a solution to the ratings crisis, the Post reported.

In the first quarter of the year, "Meet the Press" trailed "Face the Nation" on CBS, hosted by veteran 77-year-old Bob Schieffer, and "This Week with George Stephanopoulos" on ABC.

Ratings for the final three months of last year in the 25-54 age demographic, the most coveted by advertisers, plunged to its lowest level since TV’s longest-running program was launched in 1947.

There's not a pill you can take....There's not a class you can attend....Stupid is fo-evahhhh.

I take that back - maybe Gregory can go to a plastic surgeon and trade in his face and hair for that of Tim Russert's, since the latter isn't using them anymore:

Gregory’s three-year plunge in the ratings is a far cry from the heady days of his predecessor Tim Russert, who ruled the time slot for a decade until his death in 2008, often trouncing his rivals by a 40% margin.

"Do I want to be #1 in the ratings?" Gregory said in an interview with the Post. "Every week I want to be #1, and we fight like hell to get there. And it’s tough right now. It’s a fight.

....that, each and every week, he walks into unarmed.

But D-Greg shouldn't feel too bad about himself.  At least he's kicking Fox News Sunday's ass. though far more by dint of taking the "MS" out from in front of the "NBC".  And really, if the truth be told, David Gregory is much more suited to Rachel Maddow's brand of sexually confusing geek Bolshevism than he is genuine network news.  I mean, Tim Russert was a man; and, you know, had some modicum of journalistic credibility.  Bob Schieffer is an old man with a growing inventory of cobwebs lining his mental belfry, but nobody would mistake him for Pajama Androgyne's grandpa.  And George Stephanopoulos.... well, he has that pundit panel to hide behind, I guess.  But Greggy?  He looks like Phil Donahue's ventriloquist dummy every Sunday, for three million Americans with literally nothing better to do than to see.

Maybe they should disinter Russert's corpse and prop it up in the Press The Meat chair Weekend At Bernie's style instead.  Either that or switch Ed Schultz from angel dust to Quaaludes and give him a shot.  Anybody but a guy that also looks like Willie Gilligan fifty years later.

Exit question: Any reason why the network shrink put D-Greg's family and friends on the couch instead of him?  Is it in his contract that nothing can every be his fault?