Sotomayor The Gun Protecting Conservative

Watching the Sotomayor hearings, it cracks me up how when a liberal wishes to win an election, or be confirmed, they start sounding like a Conservative. They know that in the big picture, Conservatism wins out over Liberalism. Suddenly, Sonia's Godson is a member of the NRA, and she values the American right to keep and bear arms, she suddenly believes judges don't make law (as opposed to her previous statements that the courts make policy), and her racism is forgotten as she becomes this magically impartial justice.

Sounds like Obama during the campaign, doesn't it? Suddenly, he became a tax cutting, increase the war in Afghanistan, religious guy - then he got elected, and he stepped out of the sheep's clothing, and the raging freakish liberal that he is became apparent.

One more thing, it is amazing how much Sotomayor leans on precedent - as if it is impossible that prior rulings could be wrong. It is amazing, however, that when "precedent" doesn't agree with the liberal agenda, suddenly it is not precedent, it is just a wrong ruling.

Sotomayor's dodging and changing her positions when being asked questions by U.S Senator Jeff Sessions (Republican - Alabama) was comical. She contradicted herself continually, and then proclaimed that she wasn't. She backtracked, changed her opinions, and agreed with him when she could. He hammered away on her inability to be impartial, and she grinned and fed him a bunch of bull. Empathy has no business on the bench, and she agreed, as she disagreed.

Sessions also hammered away on the Ricci v. Destefano Case, also known as the Connecticut Firefighters Case, of which the Supreme Court overturned Sotomayor's decision on - a common occurrence for her. The firefighters had been subject to discrimination, and according to Sessions, she willfully did not recognize the discrimination (because they were white?).

Sotomayor, like any good liberal, searched for precedent once again, as well as using language that said a lot without saying anything at all.

It was funny to notice that Sotomayor's smile vanished as her volley with Sessions proceeded, and he didn't let up.

In short, Sotomayor is a racist, freakishly liberal, judge that is on record of having opinion opposite of that of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Believe you me, like with Obama, if Sotomayor winds up on the Supreme Court, she will suddenly stop having her few Conservative thoughts, and will become an activist justice on a rampage determined to change the American form of government, and lash out against anyone she feels inferior (after all, a wise Latina is superior, right?)

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Chariot, and her 89 Year Old Owner

A story of independence, personal responsibility, and it should be an inspiration to us all. Oh, and by the way, pay close attention to why she is not fearful, and her comment about driver's tests . . .



-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Douglas V. Gibbs

Stephen Crowder Shows Us The Joys of Single Payer Health Care

Obamacare? Let's see how it works in Canada:

Can Morality Be Legislated?

One of my colleagues at Blog Talk Radio, CFGA, will be tackling this question, and has asked me to join the conversation. Join us tonight at 7:00 pm Pacific, HERE.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

6,000 Years And Ain't Dead Yet

A few leftward nutcases have been throwing around that some Republican in Arizona, while commenting about whether or not to do something that could have an environmental impact, proclaimed the Earth is only 6,000 years old, and since global warming and other environmental issues haven't destroyed the planet yet, it is okay to go ahead with some mining venture that environmentalists claim could further contribute to destroying our delicate planet that humanity seems to be so good at placing at risk.

Finally, one of the liberals sent me a link to the video.

Watching the video, what they, the Leftists, are saying she says is not necessarily what she said. I mean, yes, she says the Earth is 6,000 years old, and it hasn't been destroyed yet, but not in the way the Left is making it out to be.

Liberals are coming at this with the attitude that anyone that doesn't agree with them on a scientific plane is automatically stupid - therefore, anything else the woman says will be stupid as well. Since they are in firm belief that the Earth was conjured up by accident out of nothing millions of years ago, it is impossible that anything else could be true.

I understand that kind of faith, and honestly, it is commendable that these folks can hold on to such a belief with such a small amount of evidence that isn't even verifiable, and in most cases, turns out to be either a hoax, erroneous, or supports the existence of a Creator after all. It isn't called a "theory" for nothing.

If their system of belief was a religion, the way the lefties fanatically hang on to it, it would make them greater religious zealots than the people they claim are radical religious nuts.

Don't worry, leftards, I don't support government taking away your right to practice you religion of Godlessness. I just have a problem with government promoting it as the state religion.

Is the Arizona Senator correct that the Earth is only 6,000 years old? Perhaps. When it comes to Biblical Text, if you add up the years from Adam to Abraham, from Abraham to Jesus, and from Christ to the present, it equals about 6,000 years. If you consider God, according to the Book of Genesis, created the heavens and the Earth in seven days, then 6,000 years for the entire sha-bang seems reasonable.

I love science, and I believe that science should be about pursuing the possibilities, no matter where they may lead you. Today's scientists, however, if they see their studies leading toward the possibility of a Creator, hit the breaks, and turn the corner. However, even with the ideological subjectiveness of being anti-God, in the case of some, often they make reasonable assumptions.

That being said, it is entirely possible that the Earth is 6,000 years old, or millions of years old. If you think logically, considering that a Christian believes God created everything, then that would mean He created time as well. If He created time, and He formed the universe and the Earth before the 24 hour day was established, who's to say those seven days were really seven days? What is a day to God? Besides, if God is omnipotent, then He could have created it all in an instant, or He could have very well decided to set things in motion and allow millions of years to pass as everything became sufficient for life on Earth.

Personally, I wasn't there, so I don't know for sure. But, I'll tell you what, I will be sure to ask the Maker when I get the chance to meet Him.

When the Arizona Senator referred to the Earth still being around after 6,000 years, I think what she was trying to say is since Global Warming is a natural phenomenon, and not a man-made one as the hysterical fear-monger, Al Gore, makes it out to be, then that means the Earth has endured much worse than what we are seeing now. After all, Greenland was once Green, meaning that the global temperatures were much higher at one point than they are now - and guess what? We lived!

Who is to say that warming is a bad thing, anyway? Maybe we have been too cold for centuries, and the planet was adjusting back up a little? Besides, it has been proven we are in a cooling trend, now, so be on the look out for the next big craze (it will be a repeat of 1972): The Next Ice Age Is Coming!

If Global Cooling takes place, will the crazy environmental whackos start suggesting we pump more carbon into the air? Will suddenly government propose that GM start making monster trucks with diesel engines?

Fact is, Volcanoes and the Oceans spew more green house gases than any other contributor (our contribution to green house gases is less than 1%), and with the ups and downs of warming in the last 6,000 years, the Earth has resiliently made it through with simply a few scratches. Mining operations in the middle of the State of Arizona will be nothing in the grand scheme of things.

This is not to say that someone like myself doesn't take keeping the environment clean seriously. If there is gunk in the air, and gunk in the water, we should be good stewards of the planet and clean it up - but this does not mean we should jump off the deep end, and start worshiping the planet, or start freaking out every time somebody slaps a mosquito on their neck, or eats a nice, big, fat juicy steak.

My thought about Arizona? Go ahead and mine, but be reasonable about it.

Oh, and in case you wish to see that video I was talking about? Here it is:



-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Obama Is Not The Messiah Of The World After All

The media is constantly trying to show how everyone just loves Barack Obama. The adoration by the people of Barry is just so amazing. Even around the world the response is unprecedented. . . or maybe it's not.



DON LEMON, ANCHOR CNN NEWSROOM: Nkepile, I was watching you yesterday on the "Situation Room" with Wolf Blitzer when President Obama was arriving, and they were doing the dancing, and all of the people who were running up to him. For a western leader, I know when presidents come over there, they are usually warmly received. But for a western leader, have you ever seen anything like this? Is this unprecedented?

NKEPILE MABUSE, CORRESPONDENT: It's not unprecedented. When President Bush was here, you will remember, in February, there were people who were drumming, there were dances, and President Bush joined some of them. So, it's not unprecedented. This is a truly African welcome that is given to anybody whether they are from Africa or anywhere else in the world, Don.

LEMON: So, they welcome everyone. It doesn't matter. That's just part of how the people do it, right?

MABUSE: Indeed, Don.


I wonder if by using President Bush as an example, as Ms. Mabuse did, if it was dumbfounding to the Liberals who couldn't imagine anyone liking "the hated" Bush - and were secretly thinking, as was Mr. Lemon, that the whole hooplah in Africa was because Obama was so loved by everyone.

Bush? Leftists had to have felt as if a knife was being twisted in their chest.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Douglas V. Gibbs

I Can Only Imagine - Mercy Me

Was America Founded on Christian Principles?

A listener of Founding Truth, which is a radio program I co-host that studies the U.S. Constitution, and the founding of the United States, sent me a link to a video that was quite fascinating. Knowing, by listening to me on Founding Truth, and Political Pistachio Radio, that I am a firm believer that America has Christian roots, she sent Loki (my co-host on Founding Truth) and I the link to this exceptional video with the following Email (key points):

Doug, I promise the video at this link will excite you. It's of historian, David Barton (Wall Builders), speaking to an audience at Dr. Charles Stanley's "In Touch Ministries." In a presentation entitled "Is America a Christian Nation?" Barton makes the case that the majority of our forefathers were Christians and relied heavily on their faith to form the U.S. governmental structure. He quotes many of the founders as giving credit to God for our successful defeat of the British military, and several of them counsel Patriots to a relationship with Jesus Christ.

[Loki], All of that will be interesting to you, too, and what will **really** float your boat (you, too, Doug) is that Barton brings "visual aids" to the presentation -- artifacts of the founders (Bibles, letters to/from John and Abigail Adams, etc.) Apparently, Barton either owns some of these in his private collection or, perhaps, the documents belong to Wall Builders (Barton's org). He speaks, too, of historical docs, books, and visuals housed in the National Archives. There's a really cool painting of the first naval vessel belonging to a group of colonists.

I learned from the video. You guys probably will be less surprised than I was by some of the facts, but there may be a few nuggets of new knowledge to you, too! For instance, Barton highlights the role several blacks played in the foundation of the nation and even identifies some of them in the iconic paintings/photography of the day.

Video is a smidge over 50 minutes. . . Watch Video Here

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Mysteries In This World

Despite what your mama told you, everyone wants to talk about religion and politics.

Last night's Political Pistachio Radio Revolution broadcast was advertised as one that would explore science, government, and history. In relation to science, I wished to establish that not only is science and religion compatible, but that in the case of creationism, the relationship between religion and science is one that studies, and supports, creation, through more evidence than only the Holy Bible.

The two hour conversation erupted into, thanks to a numerous group of listeners calling in, a philosophical discussion on religion and science, and ultimately, about the existence of God, and His influence on America.

Callers ranging from fellow Christians, to those not sure whether or not the universe is home to a divine being, called in to contribute. One caller, calling himself a pastor, used a confrontational style of forcing faith that had me doubting the sincerity of his claims, and recognizing him as being of the kind that gives ammunition to those that oppose Christianity. Others were simply curious of how I came to my conclusions, while others provided information to support my argument.

My original intent was to explore the mysteries of science and religion, and then draw it all together using various examples of scientific and historical evidence that ultimately drew a parallel to government, and the current state of politics.

Little did I expect, when I mentioned God and science in the same sentence, the fire storm that would erupt.

Political Pistachio Radio is known for its informed guests, and intriguing political discussions. The various guests often bring to the table fantastic points of view, and unexpected revelations. My audience, more often than not, becomes highly involved in the discussion.

Lee Strobel, the atheist journalist that set out to prove the ridiculousnous of Christianity, and then became a Christian as a result of his research, has written a number of books regarding his skepticism, and the evidence that supports the Christian Faith. His book, "The Case For Christ," chronicles his journey to faith. His book, "The Case For A Creator," challenges evolution with scientific evidence received through numerous interviews with some of the greatest minds in science. It is from this book that I drew the inspiration for my show last night.

Amazingly, when one places the words science, religion, and politics in the same description, it attracts more than the normal array of listeners. One of the listeners was a little hostile in the chatroom, challenging faith, and asking questions few could muster an answer to. He later called into the program.

He first asked, "If everything is predestined, then what good is prayer?"

I initially responded, "Who said anything about predestination."

I later explained that it is an answer that has a complex nature. In the sense of the big picture, which includes prophecy, we are essentially predestined to follow a certain path which will climax at Armegedden. In the sense that God uses the Holy Spirit to minister to those that would follow Him, there is a certain feeling that there is a predestination regarding who will become believers. However, Biblical text also teaches free will. We have the freedom to accept Christ, or reject Him. Ultimately, it is our choice. I am choosing to write this, and could very well have decided not to. So, in the sense of predestination, there is a certain sense that both answers are correct. We are predestined, yet, we are not. As for prayer, prayer is an important tool, but prayer is not necessarily answered when our requests are for our own will, rather than His. Considering that a Christian believes the most powerful being in the universe is in their corner, regardless of the reason, wouldn't it make sense to at least talk to Him every once in a while? Besides, prayer is often misunderstood. People act like God is some Genie waiting to grant wishes. Prayer is not really just to relay one's hopes, but to fellowship and thank God for His mercy and love.

The second question posed asked, when it comes to healers, why don't amputees get healed? If healers wished to show the ultimate power of God, who could argue with such a miracle?

I qualified my answer by assuring the listener that I am not real comfortable with the "healing" industry, and that I don't believe God is one of chaos, or that He wishes us to portray Him as a circus act. I also believe healers draw attention to themselves, rather than God, and that makes them hardly appropriate in the message of salvation. That said, I also believe that healing occurs, and miracles are still something we see, even today - but I don't think we are willing to see them for what they are. As for healing amputees, a healer, even if legitimate, could not perform such a feat. Healing an amputee would require the creation of limbs, and only God Himself can create. This is why the Jewish church leaders in Jesus' day were angered when Christ healed a man blind from birth. He didn't merely repair damaged eyes, but created vision from eyes that never had the ability to see. Such an act of Creation was evidence of His divinity.

Miracles do happen today, in our modern world, and on tonight's show I will give testimony of such a miracle - one that contains many miracles, and defies the odds in ways that only God could.

Join us live at 7:00 pm Pacific tonight, or catch the archive later, HERE.

Hate Crimes Hypocrisy

In Akron, Ohio, a family was attacked by dozens of teenage boys after attending a fireworks show. The attackers, all black youths, shouted during the attack, "This is our world . . . This is a black world."

Akron police do not call it a hate crime.

The Marshall family is white, and say that the attack was racially motivated. The attack's affect on the family, which will include the psychological impact, and the thousands of dollars in medical bills, is devastating.

According to the Akron Beacon Journal, Akron police are investigating, and the case is not being classified as a racial hate crime. There were no other reports of victims assaulted by the group that night.

Even though the family fears retaliation at home or when they go outside, all they can do is hope that the assault charges can stick - that is if suspects can be gathered.

This story has not made it to the mainstream media, and it will not be considered a hate crime.

If the family, however, had been a racial minority, and the attackers were white, then it would have been all over the news, and "hate crime" would have been the phrase used to describe the attack.

Once again, selective law making, selective preferential treatment, and an application of liberal views on our laws that is neither "fair" or anything near "equal protection."

I don't like hate crimes legislation. I believe such laws border on "thought crimes" laws because the legislation assumes the court would know the motivations of an attacker - but if the liberal left is going to pass such insane laws, should they be applied equally to all people?

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Akron police investigate teen mob attack on family - Akron Beacon Journal, Phil Trexler

Video on the 1Lt Behenna Case

Thank you Do The Right Thing:

Mother of soldier convicted of executing an Iraqi prisoner is pleading for a retrial after discovering that exculpatory evidence was never presented at the trial.



-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Ginsberg, Abortion, and the Master Race

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg made a very interesting statement recently. The statement was in relation to abortion, and more specifically, the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973.

As a Constitutional Originalist, I recognize that Roe v. Wade is unconstitutional in a number of ways. It overturned a Texas state law, of which it is unconstitutional for the federal government to overturn state law unless the issue falls under federal allowances (see Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, and the Tenth Amendment). Also, with the Roe v. Wade decisions, law was made by the courts, of which is also unconstitutional. It is for Congress to make law. The Supreme Court is supposed to give opinion regarding the application of the U.S. Constitution, and then it is up to Congress whether or not to determine to follow the Supreme Court's decision, or not. This is why, to this day, the Supreme Court dockets begin with the words, "It is in the opinion of the court."

Ginsberg, however, has another angle regarding Roe v. Wade. According to Ginsburg the legalization of abortion was also for the reason of eliminating undesirable members of the populace, or limiting the "populations that we don't want to have too many of."

Sounds Hitleric, doesn't it?

Could the drive for the legalization of abortion be that insidious? Is there more at play than the mere "choice" aspect of the issue?

Abortion is in fact the killing of babies, and the use of abortion to stop the birth of undesirable babies is not some piece of fiction conjured up by pro-lifers. A great example is the fact that 9 in 10 babies who, by pre-natal testing, are determined to have Down Syndrome, are aborted. Isn't that the abortion of what would be considered by some heartless individuals as "undesirable members" of the populace? Isn't that an example of Eugenics?

Ginsburg observed that ". . . at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don't want to have too many of."

Then, when considering the government funding of abortion, and taking into account Harris v. McRae in 1980 in which the court upheld the Hyde Amendment, which forbids the use of Medicaid for abortions, Ginsburg said, "Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion. Which some people felt would risk coercing women into having abortions when they didn't really want them. But when the court decided McRae, the case came out the other way. . . The basic thing is that the government has no business making that choice for a woman."

This is not to say that Ginsburg is becoming a pro-lifer. Her concern is the government's involvement in the decision of whether or not to abort an unborn child. She believes it should be solely a woman's decision without government influence of any kind.

Ginsburg's statements brings to mind the link of Planned Parenthood to Eugenics. Though not ready to give up abortion, and proclaim it as the destruction of innocent lives that it is, Ginsburg's observations about the possible goal of those pushing abortion to be related to population control, and eugenics, has a historical connection.

The founder of Planned Parenthood was Margaret Sanger, who opened the first American birth control clinic in Brooklyn, New York in 1916. Sanger was a racist, and believed that the black population needed to be controlled. Her racism was the motivation behind Planned Parenthood, and her drive for birth control.

Following this line of reasoning, by wishing to limit the population of blacks, this means that Sanger believed that the non-black populations must remain the majority, in control, and ultimately, that the whites were somehow superior human beings. In other words, she believed in birth control because she wished to control the births of blacks so that the "superior" race could remaind the majority.

In other words, eugenics.

Eugenics, defined by Wikipedia, is the "possibility of improving the qualities of the human species or a human population by such means as discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits (negative eugenics) or encouraging reproduction by persons presumed to have inheritable desirable traits (positive eugenics)."

So, using that definition, Sanger wished to limit the black population because she assumed that blacks, by the very nature of their race, were undesirable, and their reproduction needed to be discouraged.

Coupled with Ginsburg's statements, it makes abortion look much more insidious than it is already believed to be by pro-lifers.

Is it possible the initiators of the abortion movement desired its legalization for the reason of eugenics?

Shades of Reverend Wright.

Fascinating to say in the least. In the end, however, regardless of the origins of the movement, or the reasons behind Roe v. Wade, I continue to simply believe that life begins at conception. A baby's time in the womb is simply a human stage of development which only differs from the stages of development outside the womb because of the womb, and that to murder these innocent babies is evil, and wrong.

The eugenics connection only solidifies my belief that abortion was born from evil.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

By Douglas V. Gibbs

'Eugenic Abortion’: With Pre-Natal Testing, 9 in 10 Down Syndrome Babies Aborted - CNS News, Penny Starr

Ginsburg: I thought Roe was to rid undesirables - World Net Daily

Eugenics - Wikipedia

Science, Government, and History

Is Science and Religion able to coexist? How does science explain the Cambrian Explosion? Why did they change from the universe being eternal to it having a beginning (big bang), and how does that support the Creationist view? How has Evolutionists used deception to try to get their point across?

Why was Communism the enemy of America? How does socialist style government systems differ from what the Founding Fathers intended? Why would anyone wish to change a system that has succeeded for 233 years? Why does the Left demonize Capitalism, the very system that has made this nation prosper?

What can history tell us about where we are going as a nation, and the consequences of our decisions? Is what is happening in America a new direction, or is it just the rehash of an old failure? How is it that Obama was able to get elected using that magic word, "Change?" Do people really desire change? Why? What will that desire do for us in the future?

We will discuss this, and more, on tonight's Political Pistachio Radio - Join us live at 7:00 pm Pacific, or by archive, HERE

Car Czar Deese Drives An Old Honda

Brian Deese is Obama's Car Czar, and the world is abuzz about the hypocrisy. Here is this young gun, who has less experience than Obama in fixing anything (and that is saying something), and he is the government's guy in charge of making sure the American auto industry emerges through this time of troubles in a shining blaze of wondrous, mechanical glory. And this champion of American automobiles, the messiah's chosen one who will be an integral part of saving the U.S. auto makers and give the American auto industry the respect it deserves, the leader of Obama's amazing auto industry task force that is going to bring pride back into American made automobiles, drives an old silver Honda Civic two-door hatchback.

Hondas, if you don't know, are Japanese.

Personally, I couldn't give a rat's butt what the kid drives. After all, since when is hypocrisy and idiocy anything new in Washington? How many of those bleeding hearts on Capitol Hill drives hybrids? How many of those mansions that these people own have solar power panels? Do they lower their thermostats? Are they making sure their tires are inflated? Is Obama walking around to ensure the tires of his limo are at the right pressure? Are all of the light bulbs in their homes and offices energy saving, mercury laced, fluorescent bulbs?

What are these disciples of Al Gore doing to save the planet?

You have to understand that the rules they are setting, and the demands they are imposing, are not for them. These rules are for you. Al Gore, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Barry Obama have no intention of living a life less luxurious. They have no intention of living like us peasants. Their only goal is to make sure you stupid people do what their brilliant minds tell you to do.

So much for liberty.

The Czars, even, are a side step around Congress, and the U.S. Constitution. How does the American People (you know, the "We" in We The People?) vote out a czar if they don't like him? How does Congress, if the people asks them to, ensure the czars are removed, or are subject to accountability? Why is it that the President can appoint whoever he wants to these powerful positions without even a peep from the American People or the U.S. Congress?

Government is expanding, and using a rough and tumble economy as an excuse for a massive power grab. They are preaching what you should and shouldn't do, and are demanding to the U.S. automakers what they can and can't do. If business is failing, no problem, government will take it over with a bailout, and then dictate to the industry what they can and can't do, how much they can earn, and the government will make sure the CEOs resign if they don't fully agree with the government's tactics. Then, once in control, the autos produced will only be those that fit into the government's tight regulations. It doesn't matter what you, the consumer, wishes to buy, or drive - all that matters to the all powerful bureaucrats in Washington is that they make sure you spend your money on things they think you should be spending it on.

You, apparently, are too stupid to make your own decisions, so government must make your choices for you.

Foreign automobiles sell better here in the U.S. because they are not basing their products on the demands of environmentalists, and government officials. They build their vehicles based on what sells, and what the consumer wants. Sure, the foreign automakers make a few hybrids for the environmentally brainwashed, but those are the poorest selling models. Trucks, SUVs, luxury editions, and high powered speed-burner sedans are the best sellers. People want size, comfort, and a little harrumph. They want a vehicle that can pull their boats, outrun the neighbor's sports car, and feel luxurious.

And some people, believe it or not, are happy with an old, comfortable little four-banger.

I can relate to Deese. I have a nice truck, and I have owned some nice cars in the past, but the car I drive the most is an old, fading four-banger standard transmission Toyota Corolla. It's ugly and small, but comfy and dependable.

"Old Reliable," is the nickname I have given it.

The wife usually drives the V8, full size truck. Safer to drive when grandkids are strapped in, should the unfortunate event of an accident occur.

So, you might think Deese is a hypocrite for driving a Honda, but my opinion is, it's America, he can drive what he wants. If the American companies had been building kick-butt cars all along, maybe he'd own a car from the big three instead.

As for the czars? The positions created are unconstitutional - but since when has the Democrats ever cared about the law of the land?

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

By Douglas V. Gibbs

New Car Czar Deese Doesn't Drive American - The Washington Post, Mary Ann Akers

Israel and Her Arab Neighbors: The More Things Change, The More They Stay The Same

From the Harry Ransom Center, The University of Texas at Austin:

The Mike Wallace Interview
Abba Eban
4/12/58
As Israel celebrates its tenth anniversary, Abba Eban, Israel's ambassador to the United States, talks to Wallace about Arab nations, the Arab refugee problem, Egypt's President Nasser, Jews in America, and the charge that Israel threatens world peace with a policy of territorial expansion.

Watch Video HERE

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary