DOUGLAS V. GIBBS             RADIO             BOOKS             CONSTITUTION             CONTACT/FOLLOW             DONATE

Tuesday, September 30, 2008

Conservative Blogosphere Loses A Great Voice

Kender and I first spoke when I called into his Wide Awakes Radio network. He asked me if I wanted to host a show, and I accepted. After the stream discontinued, I moved over to Blog Talk Radio and began my Political Pistachio Radio show there.

Those that follow WAR have always known of Kender's medical conditions. He was not one to keep this a secret. He has, however, according to his last post, thrown in the towel. If his decision holds, the blogosphere will be without a fantastic conservative voice.

May God be with you, Kender. You are in my prayers.

UPDATE: Kender has been in a bad place, but has not shut down the blog just yet. . .

----------------

Watch the shocking video of Democrats Covering up the Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac Scam that caused our Economic Crisis - In Their Own Words!

Monday, September 29, 2008

American Socialism: George W. Bush's Fatal Error


American Capitalism, the Free Market, an economy based on free enterprise and the "pursuit" of the American Dream, has been abandoned. The Democrats have finally got what they wanted - an economic downturn of their creation that they have been able to somehow, through a plethora of lies and deception, blame on the Republicans, and specifically, the Bush Administration. And there is a bonus for the Liberal Democrats in it too! George W. Bush, the globalist president in search of saving his legacy, has folded once again, and given in to the leftist's socialism, and their demands that he do something about the "crisis" in our economy.

Conservatism is Conservatism, no matter how many people claim to be conservatives, yet are not. Bush calls himself a conservative, as has McCain, but in many ways they are not.

Conservatism is a belief system that holds to moral values, realizing this is a flawed society run by a flawed human species, and we must consciously defend and support morals, no matter how cockeyed society becomes. Reality dictates that we are unable to progress to perfection. Utopia is a pipe dream. Our human flaws will never allow a Socialist Utopia to ever exist, regardless of how much the liberal leftists try to convince you otherwise.

Conservatism also believes that individuals should take responsibility for their lives and their government, partly because they are accountable to God, and partly because in the long run it is in the best interest of the people to do so. A strong centralized government is detrimental to individual rights. However, government will always be at odds with the people, because those in government have "power." Power is a drug. Eventually it becomes a never ending need for more and more, and when government is left unchecked by the people (the people have abdicated their responsibility - and the politicians have been running wild as a result), government becomes a controlling force over the individual, often using Socialist Utopian ideals to convince the people to submit willingly. When federal government becomes too controlling, freedom and liberty is lost, and the citizen becomes enslaved by a government that, using the deception of good intentions, promises to provide everything for the people, but instead oppresses them. Conservatism lives to combat big government, to protect the rights and responsibilities of the individual, and to maintain a balance between liberty and order. Conservatism believes in limiting the federal government, just as our founding fathers did when they wrote the U.S. Constitution.

Liberalism teaches that humanity is progressing toward a perfect state, and as that journey takes place moral values must change to reflect an ever increasing tolerance of values that were once considered not to be moral. The state must take responsibility for the people, to guide them, to apply what is good and decent upon them, and use force to apply these new values if necessary. The state, after all, is accountable to the progress of humanity. Anyone who stands in the way of this progress towards a socialistic utopia is considered to be narrow-minded and weak, and will eventually be eliminated by the Utopian revolution against the moral foundations of the old society, either by force, or by eventual extinction.

George W. Bush, like his father, is unfortunately a globalist. "W" desires progression towards a "New World Order." To reach that goal, sometimes he practices "American Socialism." His pharmaceutical plan, No Child Left Behind, and Amnesty ideas all wreak of socialism and globalism. But none of them hold a candle to the "Bail-out." In fact, the financial bail-out is so socialist, even the Democrats love it! Fortunately, there are conservatives in The House willing to stand up to it, and call it what it is. Those Conservative Republicans, and a handful of Conservative Democrats, stopped the financial package today.

For one more day a major move towards American Socialism has been held at bay.

But what caused this "crisis" to come about in the first place?

I have stated many times that the Free Market System, Capitalism if you will, is a self-adjusting system. Without government manipulation, the economy will take care of itself, and no recessions, or depressions, would enter into the picture.

The Great Depression was partly a result of the creation of the Federal Reserve System, and the new Federal Bank's manipulation of the economy. In other words, government tampering in the economy.

If this is true, then what government tamperings brought on the current economic mess?

It is generally agreed that the primary cause of the economic difficulties we are currently experiencing is result of the bursting of the housing bubble. The housing market enjoyed unbelievable growth, spurned by the government manipulating the market, making the bubble an artificial one. A Capitalistic Economy is a constant roller coaster, with ups and downs occurring in the many different facets of the system. As prices go up, people buy less, forcing prices down, which results in an eventual increase in sales, which drives prices up, and so on. Supply and Demand, and the Movement of Products, is what the American Economic System is all about.

If the government artificially manipulates the system, the ups and downs become more exaggerated - and, like with gravity, what goes up must come down - and. . . the higher something goes up, the farther and harder it crashes back to Earth.

It was government manipulation that created the housing bubble. Government, not capitalism, caused this economic concern - and now the cockroaches in Washington want to use government to fix it.

Many economists claim The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 to be a large part of the problem. The CRA is a federal law passed under President Jimmy Carter that requires banks, and similar institutions, to offer credit to the entire market, including those that under normal circumstances would not be approved for the types of loans encouraged by this act. This specifically means that these lending institutions were required to lower their lending standards so that everyone may have an opportunity to qualify for a home loan, or other loans. The ultimate purpose was to help people obtain "affordable housing." This is an age old liberal tendency. Everyone has a "right" to home ownership (just like everyone has a right to health care, a college education, etc.), so the government made sure it happened.

In 1995, President Bill Clinton's revisions eased restrictions even more with the goal of increasing the number of loans to small businesses and home borrowers that would not otherwise be approved for a home loan. The Government used pressure, and threatened the banks with fines, if they refused to provide bad loans to people with low, or nonexistent, credit ratings.

In 2003, the Bush Administration proposed that Congress set up an agency to monitor Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Bush proposed what the New York Times called the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis. The Community Reinvestment Act concerned him, and Bush believed a weakening of the market may be on the horizon if the subprime mortgages continued.

John McCain co-sponsored with three other Republican Senators a similar effort in 2005. The changes were not acceptable to the Democrats in both cases, and both Bush's and McCain's efforts failed because of Democratic opposition.

The Democrats, with the CRA, and other programs, encouraged risky lending because of their "everyone has a right to affordable housing" chant. The Democrats wish to give, rather than encourage Americans to "earn". Now that their policies have fallen flat, however, the liberal left desires a bailout of the failed system, which will ultimately teach the lending institutions, and the morons that took out the loans they could not afford, that there are no consequences for their actions, regardless of how greedy or criminal said actions are.

In the face of this bail-out attempt, I stand against the moderate Republicans, the Bush Administration, and the liberal Democrats. I believe in conservatism, and a move towards government ownership of the banks, and bailing out failed companies and individuals, is hardly in tune with my conservative beliefs. Should the financial bail out succeed, it will be a major step towards America becoming a Socialist State.

I stand with the Conservative Republicans in The House, led by John Boehner, in their stance against the bailout.

I have been e-mailing my representatives my concerns, and my wishes. Have you?

Sunday, September 28, 2008

Liberal Media and Conservative Movies

Last Monday Night on Political Pistachio Radio a caller questioned my determination that the media is liberally biased. We agreed that television, especially the news networks, are liberal. Newspapers are notoriously known to lean to the left. In Southern California, from San Diego to Los Angeles, from the beach cities to the desert, the only non-liberal daily newspaper is the Orange County Register, and the Orange County Republicans are well known (along with a few niches in the Inland Empire) as being the final bastion of conservatism remaining in the Southern California region. Magazines definitely lean to the left. In fact, in my opinion, the only media outlet that does not lean far left is Talk Radio.

My caller on the radio show disagreed. He claimed that Hollywood is not liberal. I asked him, if that's the case, name one conservative movie (after which I added that for every one conservative movie he could name, I could name twenty liberal movies).

The liberal caller proclaimed Saving Private Ryan to be that conservative movie.

I was in such dismay that there was actually someone out there so misinformed that they actually thought that Hollywood is not in the tank for the far left liberal agenda that I did not respond specifically to the caller's choice of movie.

I later got to thinking about the liberal caller's choice of movie. First of all, I found it telling that the liberal caller had to go all the way back to 1998 to find a film he thought to be a conservative film, and as luck would have it, he chose wrong.

Speilberg wanted Saving Private Ryan to show the atrocities of war, beginning the film with, as the New York Times called it:

. . . mass slaughter of American soldiers is depicted in a compelling, unforgettable 24-minute sequence.

The idea of the film was to (as one commenter at the New York Times put it) be "horrifying" and "convince humankind to make eradicating war its number one priority."

Liberals seem to think that films like "Saving Private Ryan" are conservative films because of their depiction of war. Remember, the liberal left believes that conservatives are "warmongers" and "glorifiers of war." So, with that warped thinking, of course they think that realistic war movies must be Conservative.

I agree that most Americans want the troops to come home. I am one of those Americans that want the troops to come home. Nobody in their right mind is "Pro-War." But, I do not want the troops to come home under the flag of defeat, or without completing the mission. I want the troops to come home as victors. Coming home as anything less than under the banner of victory will encourage the enemy to strike America again, and a retreat in defeat from Iraq will embolden the enemy to step up their worldwide efforts - and that is not even talking about the message we would be sending to our allies when it comes to our dependability and willingness to finish what we start.

The far left will argue that if I don't like war, then how could I support such military endeavors such as the Iraq? If I am not a warmonger, how is it I can support sending our fine young warriors to a foreign shore to fight?

My answer to that is, "War Sucks. War is a horrible thing. But there are other things that suck much more than war, and because of that, sometimes war is necessary. For those that say war never accomplishes anything, remember that it took war to create this nation, abolish slavery, and stop genocidal maniacs like Hitler.

As for the answer to the question about Conservative Movies, there is one getting ready to hit the theaters this week, as a matter of fact. Every once in a while the Hollywood Right gains the opportunity to put out something that is not Anti-Military, or Anti-America. That most recent endeavor will be released October 3rd, and is called: An American Carol.

Friday, September 26, 2008

Needed Sleep

Political Pistachio Radio has changed its schedule - the weekday shows have been temporarily suspended due to the recent increase of my daytime schedule which essentially has me away from home an average 16 hours per day. Performing the show simultaneously with this difficult work schedule became problematic. The consequences manifested as health concerns. As a result, the show will only be on Saturday evenings at 10:00 PM Eastern, with an occasional Sunday evening episode as well.

Thank you for your prayers and concerns.

In the interim, John Barnhart will fill the time slot I have left vacant.

Sunday, September 21, 2008

Barack Obama and His Merry Band of Felons, Violating The Logan Act

The Logan Act is a Federal Law forbidding American citizens not authorized by the President to correspond or meet with foreign governments with the intent of influencing conduct. Violation of the act, which passed in 1799, is a felony, punishable under federal law with imprisonment of up to three years.

There have been no convictions or prosecutions under the Logan Act. The Text of the Act is as follows:

Private correspondence with foreign governments.

Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply himself, or his agent, to any foreign government, or the agents thereof, for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.


During the Vietnam War when Jane Fonda went to Hanoi to meet with the enemy she was guilty of violating the Logan Act. During the Vietnam War when John Kerry secretly met with enemy leaders in Paris, he too was in violation of federal law.

Nancy Pelosi visiting the Syrian leader, and Jimmy Carter's visits to the Middle East talking down America were both in violation of the Logan Act as well.

And now we have running for president, his Lord the Democratic Messiah, Barrack Hussein Obama. During his recent trip to Iraq it is alleged that Obama tried to negotiate with Iraqi leaders to delay the troop withdrawal (of course he wants credit for any troop withdrawal, and if troops begin withdrawing under the flag of victory now, then if he became president it would look as if he was simply continuing to do what George W. Bush had already begun). Word has it that nobody has been willing to follow Obama's plans of delaying the troop withdrawal.

Notice, the Logan Act has been violated a number of times (surprise! by the liberal left!) yet never with indictments. And the cases I have mentioned above are only the tip of the ice berg. I personally believe that Democrats routinely violate the Logan Act, well knowing that nobody will be willing to prosecute, and even if the GOP tried to launch an investigation, the Republicans would probably not be able to make a charge stick.

The McCain campaign, however, is making sure the Democrats know that The Right has noticed what they are up to.

The Obama Camp has responded to it as well, denying the report that Barry has had secretly urged the Iraqis to postpone a deal to withdraw US troops until after November's election.

Now that is what I call a patriotic president, right? - After all, his wife, Michelle, loves this country - becoming proud of America for the first time in her life when Barack received a political promotion.

Saturday, September 20, 2008

300 Episodes, Testimony, and The List of Liberalism



Today will be the 300th Episode of Political Pistachio Radio. The popular Blog Talk Radio Show began February 24, 2007. It began as a weekly show, airing every Saturday at 4pm Pacific. By the end of the summer the popularity of the program convinced me to increase the number of broadcasts eventally to nightly, and to pursue bigger and better guests. Past Guests have included Lee Culpepper (before he joined Townhall as one of their writers), Gary W. Moore (a number of times), Paul Ibbetson (before he became a terrestrial radio host), Governor James Gilmore (to explain why he dropped out of the GOP race for President), Atlas Shrugs, Terry Funderburk (business owner losing business to illegal aliens), Walid Shoebat, Andrea Shea King, Aaron Klein (Schmoozing With Terrorists), The Baron and Dymphna of The Gates of Vienna, William Russell, NBA Basketball Star Doug Christie and his wife Jackie, Sues of Warriors For Innocence, J.A. Konrath, Dr. Jerome Corsi (a few times), Kathleen Willey, Joseph Farah of World Net Daily, Al Garza (National Executive Director Minuteman Civil Defense Corps), Global Warming Experts Holly Fretwell and John Berlau, PCS Portico (during which a U.S. Troop in Afghanistan called into the show), Kitty Foth Regner, Alan Keyes, Rick Davis (Father of Jonathan Davis of the rock band KORN), Author David E. Meadows, U.N. Codex Alimentarius Expert, PUMA Organizer Will Bower, Joel Richardson, Why You're Wrong About The Right authors Joshpe and Cupp, Hollywood Director Tim Chey, The Case Against Barack Obama author David Freddoso, Lt. Col. Alan West, and Iraq War Tank Commander Nick Popaditch (The Cigar Marine) to name a few. Celebrate with us tonight the 300th episode of Political Pistachio Radio!

Tomorrow Night:

July 1, 1985 I fell asleep at the wheel of my vehicle, and what followed was two years of a battle against death, and a harrowing account of recovery. To this day my life is still affected by that dark episode of my life. Tonight I am going to give my full, detailed testimony regarding what happened to me twenty-three years ago. Even if you have heard my testimony before, you have not heard it in such vivid detail before. Catch my testimony of tragedy, hope, and eventual recovery at 6pm Pacific/9pm Eastern on Sunday Night on Political Pistachio Radio.

This Week:

The List of Liberalism by one of my liberal readers is as follows:

1. Americans are pro-choice (67 percent)

2. Americans support the Geneva Conventions with regards to torture (57 percent)

3. Americans don't want the government snooping in their bank and internet records (67 percent)

4. Americans support protecting the environment at the expense of economic growth (55 percent)

5. Americans believe that global warming is happening (86 percent)

6. Americans believe that it's the government's responsibility to provide health care (69 percent)
7. Americans support the decriminalization of marijuana (55 percent) and support the legalization of medical marijuana (78 percent)

8. Americans are opposed to attacking Iran (68 percent, CNN Poll)

9. Americans support labor unions (60 percent)

10. Americans want government funding of embryonic stem cell research (56 percent)

11. Americans believe rich people and corporations aren't paying enough taxes (66 and 71 percent respectively)

And then at the end of the list the person typed: Most Americans Are Liberal and They Don't Even Know It.

This week on Political Pistachio Radio I will spend four days addressing this list, and proving how naive and ignorant the writer is on these topics - The Liberal List series will broadcast Monday through Thursday this week at 10pm Eastern/7pm Pacific each night. Join us for an informative week on Political Pistachio Radio!

Friday, September 19, 2008

National POW/MIA Recognition Day

POW/MIA Recognition



A Pentagon ceremony for National POW/MIA Recognition Day will be held on Friday, Sept.19, 2008. This ceremony will feature troops from each of the military services. The president will issue a proclamation commemorating the observances and reminding the nation of those Americans who have sacrificed so much for their country.

Observances of National POW/MIA Recognition Day are held across the country on military installations, ships at sea, state capitols, schools and veterans' facilities. This observance is one of six days throughout the year that Congress has mandated the flying of the National League of Families' POW/MIA flag. The others are Armed Forces Day, Memorial Day, Flag Day, Independence Day and Veterans Day. The flag is to be flown at major military installations, national cemeteries, all post offices, VA medical facilities, the World War II Memorial, Korean War Veterans Memorial, the Vietnam Veterans Memorial, the official offices of the secretaries of state, defense and veterans affairs, the director of the selective service system and the White House.

HONORING THE PLEDGE

Thanks To My Good Friend, MDConservative, for this one.

Wednesday, September 17, 2008

Obama Parties With Hollywood Elite In A Show Of How He Relates To The Common American

When the crisis of a hurricane hit, the Republicans refused to party during the Republican National Convention in a show of courtesy to the victims of Gustav. When the Democrats claim (falsely) that we are in the midst of an economic crisis, what do they do out of courtesy to the common American? Party, of course:

Tuesday, September 16, 2008

Infanticide, Barack Obama, and a message from an abortion survivor. . .

Devastating Obama Abortion ad -- BornAliveTruth.org's new commercial featuring abortion survivor Gianna Jesson

Monday, September 15, 2008

Iraq Tank Commander Nick Popaditch (The Cigar Marine) on Political Pistachio Radio!





On The Radio Tuesday Night!

ONCE A MARINE - An Iraq War Tank Commander's Inspirational Story of Combat, Courage, and Recovery. Nick Popaditch appeared in an AP photo on April 9, 2003. The striking image was of the Marine tank commander smoking a victory cigar in his tank, the haunting statue of Saddam Hussein hovering in the background. "Gunny Pop" was immortalized forever as "The Cigar Marine." A year later he fought heroically in the First Battle for Fallujah and suffered head wounds that left him legally blind and partially deaf. The United States Marine Corps awarded him a Silver Star for his valor and combat innovation. Coming home, however, is when the toughest fight of his life began - a battle to remain the man and Marine he was. Join Political Pistachio Radio on Tuesday Night at 10:00 pm Eastern Time/7:00 pm Pacific for a riveting interview with Nick Popaditch, a Marine's Marine, a man who embodies everything noble and proud in the Corps' long tradition.

Sunday, September 14, 2008

First Hand Account of Hurricane Ike on Political Pistachio Radio

Tonight on Political Pistachio Radio, realizing the tragedies of Hurricane Ike and the Metrolink Crashes in California (Chatsworth, and a half hour later in Corona) had happened shortly after the anniversary of the tragedy of 9/11, I decided tonight to have a show called "The Face of Tragedy." There are those that come through tragedy as victims, and sit and wait for the government to do something about it more often than not; and there are those that come through the storms of life as stronger and more optimistic people. Regardless of the type of tribulation we face, it is also important to remember that the storms of life are temporary. With optimism and hard work the light at the end of the tunnel, which sometimes seems so far away, can be reached.

On the program, after a short monologue about how to endure the storms of life, I told my testimony. I recounted the story about the night I died, and by the grace of God, survived. The tale was to illustrate the point about the temporary nature of the storms we face in life, and how sometimes these difficult times can strike without warning.

Then I received a call from a regular listener of the program, Dean Philpot of Big Oil Fields dot com. Dean resides on the north side of Houston, Texas. The eye of the storm passed through his town, and Ike was still at hurricane strength when it did.

Dean is currently without power and landline phone service, and actually called into the broadcast on his cell phone so that he could listen to tonight's show. When I pulled him up, he explained he had just survived Hurricane Ike, and was kind of perturbed because his ice had melted so he had to throw away his grocery items in the house. He then gave us, on the program, a first hand account of braving Hurricane Ike.

To listen to the entire episode, you can access the archived audio at Blog Talk Radio.

And Dean?

Enjoy the stars tonight. . .

Community Organizers and Governors and the Messiah Killers




Congressman Steve Cohen (D-TN) confirmed to Conservatives what The Right has believed the Democrats think of Obama.

We joke around, calling Barack Obama the "Obamassiah," and Rush Limbaugh jokingly calls Barack "His Lord, The Messiah."

Why is it we joke so much about the Messiah-like treatment of Obama by the press and his followers? Has anybody actually come out and said it?

Granted, Oprah Winfrey said, "He's the one." There is even a blog addressing how Obama's followers essentially proclaim him to be God-like (it is a satirical site). And there have been various other insinuations by the press and fellow Democrats that Barack Hussein Obama is somehow "holier than thou." His followers, those rabid folks at the Obama Rallies with tears streaming down their cheeks, have been the largest providers of material that keeps the "Obama-Messiah" ball rolling. But nothing had yet been said that specifically compared Obama to a Messianic figure - at least not until now.

That brings us back to Congressman Steve Cohen. On the House of Representatives floor last Wednesday Cohen said, "Barack Obama was a community organizer like Jesus. Pontius Pilate was a governor."

In other words, Cohen compared Obama to Jesus Christ, the ultimate messianic figure in history, and compared Sarah Palin to Pontius Pilate, the Roman Governor that ordered the crucifixion of Christ.

The comment is outrageous, and confirms what Conservatives all along have been claiming the Democrats think of Barack Hussein Obama.

Of course, the statement also shows Cohen's ignorance about Christianity.

Community Organizers are essentially folks that bring together communities using common interests. The Community Organizer may serve as a coordinator with social workers and social planners.

Jesus Christ was born solely to bear the sins of the world. He was born to die. He did teach along the way, but his ministry was short-lived, and it was his death that truly showed us the grace and mercy the Lord has for us. Of course, Christians believe that God has given humankind free will, and we are free to choose the paths we take - but as a just God, rejection of His gift to us must be accompanied with a consequence - and the consequence of the rejection of Christ is separation from God eternally (some would call this Hell, though "Hell" is not a Biblical term. The Biblical Book of Revelations calls this eternal damnation the "Lake of Fire," from which the idea of Hell was obviously drawn from).

Of course, Cohen does not understand that, and that is fine. Because of "free will," he is free to choose his faith. But his statement was an obvious attempt to present Obama as someone divine, a Light Worker (I suppose) as the New Age folks like to paint Obama as. The statement was also designed to show Sarah Palin as evil, somehow, comparing her to the Roman official that made sure the Messiah was killed on the Cross.

All this tells me is that the Democrats are willing to stoop to any level to try to keep the "Obama Hype" rolling, and discredit the GOP choice for Vice President. In other words, a comment that was obviously born from desperation.

So, if I am understanding the Democrats correctly, when McCain and Palin win the Presidential election in November over Obama and Biden, will that make the GOP Candidates Messiah killers?

Saturday, September 13, 2008

Today is the Anniversary of the writing of the Star Spangled Banner


On the morning of September 13, 1814 Francis Scott Key wrote the Star Spangled Banner at Fort McHenry. Below are the words to our National Anthem.

O say, can you see, by the dawn's early light,
What so proudly we hail'd at the twilight's last gleaming?
Whose broad stripes and bright stars, thro' the perilous fight,
O'er the ramparts we watch'd, were so gallantly streaming?
And the rockets' red glare, the bombs bursting in air,
Gave proof thro' the night that our flag was still there.
O say, does that star-spangled banner yet wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?


On the shore dimly seen thro' the mists of the deep,
Where the foe's haughty host in dread silence reposes,
What is that which the breeze, o'er the towering steep,
As it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses?
Now it catches the gleam of the morning's first beam,
In full glory reflected, now shines on the stream:
'Tis the star-spangled banner: O, long may it wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!


And where is that band who so vauntingly swore
That the havoc of war and the battle's confusion,
A home and a country should leave us no more?
Their blood has wash'd out their foul footsteps' pollution.
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight or the gloom of the grave:
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.


O thus be it ever when free-men shall stand
Between their lov'd home and the war's desolation;
Blest with vict'ry and peace, may the heav'n-rescued land
Praise the Pow'r that hath made and preserv'd us a nation!
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: “In God is our trust!”
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

Hurricane Ike Roars Ashore Along The Texas Coast

Hurricane Ike is a massive hurricane. Ike battered the Texas Coast Saturday morning with driving rain and ferocious wind gusts.

Thousands of homes have been flooded. Roads have been washed out. And, tens of thousands of people defied the orders to leave the area and now need rescuing from their submerged homes or cars.

Hurricane Ike is nearly as large as Texas itself, carrying with it 110 mph winds, and packing a punch that has knocked out power for over a million customers.

Even though it is reported that over a million people fled from the coastal communities in Texas, authorities claim roughly 140,000 people ignored mandatory evacuation orders and are now braving the deadly conditions presented by Hurricane Ike.

A storm surge creating a wall of water two stories high (20 to 25 feet) at the coast has been forcast.

My prayers go out to those folks in Texas.

Friday, September 12, 2008

Los Angeles, California Metrolink 111 Crash

Seven helicopters are standing by to medi-vac away the victims of a commuter train collision in Chatsworth, California near Los Angeles. Over a hundred fire fighters responded to this disturbing scene. One of the trains was on fire shortly after the crash and a currently unknown number of passengers were injured. At least seven have died according to the latest report.

A few of the Metrolink cars lay on their sides, some partly torn open. The other train in the collision was a Union Pacific freight train.

The collision occurred at 4:23 pm in the afternoon.

The Metrolink train left Union Station in downtown Los Angeles and was headed northwest to Moorpark in Ventura County. The train during the rush hour is normally carrying 350 passengers.

Thursday, September 11, 2008

I Remember



I remember 9-11-2001 clearly. I remember where I was and what I was doing when I first heard the news. I remember the circumstances that led to my first viewing of the images of those planes flying into the World Trade Center. I remember the pain in my soul. I remember making that phone call in an attempt to re-enter military service, only to be told my time has passed. . . Thank you for your service, but you are not eligible to return to service, Petty Officer Gibbs.

I remember the day the towers fell down, and I remember visiting that site a year later. I remember the story told to me by a man that once worked in those buildings, running late that fateful day, watching the horror of that day from his car as he drove on a nearby roadway. I remember the look in his eyes as he told the story. I remember the silence that fell upon him after he finished telling me about how the New York Skyline just does not look right anymore. I remember how as I walked away how he stared down into the hole that was once the base of the twin towers - searchin - crying. . . for this day I met him was the first day for him to return to the site of the World Trade Center since then towers fell.

I remember my visit to the Pentagon, the people, the lives that mourned the losses on 9-11-2001.

I remember that day in 2001 when a nation joined together to mourn the deaths of fallen Americans. I remember that day as a day the nation united in firm understanding that this nation must be defended, and that any and all nations and peoples that harbor, fund, or support Islamic Terrorism must be brought to justice. I remember the brave men and women that became heroes that day as they did whatever they could to save as many lives as possible. I remember the lives of our military as they sacrifice to keep this nation safe.

I remember the day the towers fell down.

I remember.

A Tale of Two Roses

Two questions. . . 1: Where is Michelle? 2: Why did Obama throw his rose as McCain laid his respectfully down?

Wednesday, September 10, 2008

Attacking Palin - Obama is at the top of the ticket and Palin is the VP nominee

Answer me this: If Sarah Palin is inexperienced as the Democrats are claiming, and as the vice presidential candidate she has no power to help the Republicans as the Democrats are claiming, then why is the top of the ticket (Obama) spending so much time discussing her, and why is the liberal bloggers and newscasters spending so much time attacking her?

Could it be that she is a bigger problem for the Obama Campaign than they are willing to admit? Shouldn't they be spending their time dealing with McCain since he is the person at the top of the GOP ticket instead of spending all of their time trying to discredit Palin who is at the bottom of the Republican ticket?

Sunday, September 07, 2008

American Health Care: To Make It Universal Health, or Not To, That Is The Question

The American Health Care industry is second to none in the world. Seriously ill patients come to the United States for treatment because our commitment to innovation is unmatched, and our research is the envy of the world.

Americans have long believed that one's health is a private matter that should not become the business of government. Therefore, using this reasoning, as far back as 1854 when President Franklin Pierce vetoed a national mental health bill on the basis that it would be unconstitutional to regard health as anything but a private matter in which government should not become, any National Health Care system has been frowned upon.

A member of the Democrat Party, and a major supporter of the socialist agenda, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, favored a national health insurance program and wanted to make it a part of the Social Security Act. He later decided not to follow through with that plan when he realized that opposition to it would likely jeopardize passage of the entire act.

Universal Health Care goes by many names. It is sometimes called Nationalized Health care, Socialized Medicine, and Single Payer Insurance, but in the end, it is still the same - government paid health care, paid for by the dollars of the American taxpayer.

Health Insurance is something that in the early history of this nation was either non-existent, or something the elite could afford. As a result, doctors were subject to the free market, and kept prices affordable and quality high because of the necessity to do so in order to hang on to their customers. Competition was fierce in the industry, and doctors even practiced house calls in order to keep the patients happy.

During the many attempts by the government to make nationalized health care a reality, insurance companies became more willing to reach out to more customers in an affordable manner so that the government wouldn't take their business away from them with a single government paid system. As a result, FDR and Truman were unable to create a national health care system as desired. Truman, in fact, being more conservative than Roosevelt, dropped the pursuit of such a program quickly after becoming president.

As time passed the legal industry became involved, and as lawsuits against the industry rose, so did insurance costs in order to combat the onslaught of litigation they found themselves defending themselves against. And as this happened, insurance companies invested in other markets to deepen their pockets. The medical industry began to charge more in response to the Insurance Company's deep pockets, and began to recommend even unnecessary procedures in a combination of attempting to earn more money, and to cover all of their bases so that legal attacks would be less likely to come to them. Eventually, the cost of medical care became so great that the individual could no longer afford medical care without insurance companies being involved to pay the bills, and this shifted the control of the medical care industry from the consumer/care provider to the lawyers and insurance companies. Long gone were the doctor-patient relationships that kept down prices.

Nonetheless, though American health care can be confusing, impersonal, and more expensive than it needs be, the quality of the American Health care Industry is the best in the world.

It is the cost of health care that has the American public in a quandary, and willing to try just about anything to resolve the nightmare. Apparently, the lawyers, greedy doctors, and out of control insurance industry is the problem. Few deny that. The question is, how do we bring down the costs and make American Medical Care more affordable to the consumer once again?

As expected in a free market economy, it is private enterprise that is making headway in this issue. Entrepreneurs are finding ways to bring innovative, consumer-oriented health care to the market. These entrepreneurs are simplifying medical decisions, and reinvigorating primary care while lowering health-care costs. This health care revolution from the private sector is improving quality, lowering costs, and empowering the people to control their own health care. And the best way for this to move forward, and become successful, is for the government to move out of the way, and make it easier for private enterprise to do what they have always done for this country - provide an answer.

As we learned with the insurance industry, the "payer" becomes the controlling factor, and dictates to the industry what it can and can't do by its decisions on what it will and will not cover. Understanding that part of the equation, why would anyone want the government to have that kind of control over our private matter of health?

The examples liberals have used with me to proclaim the potential success of such a government run system is Medicare (Ken) and the Veteran's Administration medical system (Tom).

Thing is, when compared to private health care, these are both failed systems.

Medicare has become a system that is a failure in all senses of the word. It has become a "complex system of administered pricing and price controls, governed by elaborate statutory formulas and characterized by mind-numbing regulatory micromanagement. In sharp contrast to reimbursement for professional services in other economic sectors, Medicare providers are not paid according to their skill levels, their innovative treatments, the quality of the care delivered to individual Medicare patients, or the specific benefits provided to patients. Moreover, under current government formulas, they can look forward to future reductions in Medicare reimbursement even though they are expected to treat a dramatically larger Medicare population."

The system is going bankrupt before the government's eyes, and so they try to feed more taxpayer money into it to save the beast. Members of Congress have become unhappy with the Medicare physician payment program that they created for good reason.

The VA system for veterans is also heralded by members of the left as a rousing success, and a great example of government paid/controlled health care at its best.

I am a patient in the VA medical system. And I will have to agree that it is heads and tails better now than it was when you compare it to the system in the nineties. I joined VA as a partially-disabled veteran in 1988, and I have seen the best and the worst that the VA system has to offer.

As a veteran I am appreciative of the system. And I don't see it as an entitlement or free system, because VA care has been bought and paid for by the blood of our veterans, and they deserve a system to help them in their post-military years. However, when compared to the private health care system, VA is not exactly the bed of roses the liberal left loonies make it out to be.

To illustrate a couple failings of the VA system, I will use myself as an example.

If I wish to see my doctor at the VA, it usually takes six months. If I push it, I may get in to see him in a few weeks. Immediate care requires a "triage" visit through the emergency room with a doctor not familiar with my case, and all to often once he or she has my record, they do not understand the case. In fact, in two instances the duty doctor prescribed wrong medications that wound up putting me in a crisis situation. With my private doctor in the civilian world, usually I see my doctor the same day. At worse, I see his assistant, or get my doctor the next day.

When a recent ailment arose a few years ago, one that causes me severe pain in certain joint areas of my body, using an internal network of specialists and doctors, VA gave me a diagnosis of what I am experiencing in about six months. I went to my private doctor at the same time, and they had an accurate diagnosis in a couple weeks.

When I go to VA it is usually an all day affair, 5 to 8 hours depending on the tests that need to be run, and the fluids that need to be drawn. At my private physician's office I am in and out of there more often than not in less than two hours, adding another half hour at the place across the street should I need other tests performed, and blood drawn.

Here's my point: Is VA and Medicare a God-send for some folks? Sure it is. And for welfare style health care programs, like what the county hospitals use, use of it by citizens on a temporary basis seems to help in cases of extreme hardship, or bad timing (like if a person becomes injured between jobs and has no insurance at that moment). But considering the government's track record, and the private nature of one's health, do we really desire the government to be the payer (and therefore the controller) of all of our health care in the U.S.? Do we really wish to see our country pursue a system that is a proven failure in Canada and Britain? Do we really wish to see the same entity that runs our Departments of Motor Vehicles with such efficiency (Sarcasm, of course) to run our health care system into the ground while with the private enterprise influence it reigns as currently the best in the world?

I think not.

Government Control Of Failing Banks Inches The U.S. Closer To Becoming A Socialist State

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, along with a boat-load of foolish borrowers, failed to heed the warnings that the huge housing bubble Americans were experiencing through the nineties and early millennium would come to an end. The borrowers, fueled by the greedy hopes of selling their houses for a profit in a couple years, bought homes they could not afford with loans that were destined to increase in cost should they not unload the home in time. The banks failed to raise enough cash to reassure the investment community they would be able to survive a severe downturn in United States home prices.

Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, in order to encourage more buying, and in an attempt to push their profit margin to the limits, relaxed their standards in order to buy more loans. Wall Street banks also lowered their standards in the hopes of cashing in as well. Greed and arrogance carried the wave for a short time, but like with anything, what goes up must go down.

A glimmer of hope popped its head up last Spring when builders began building the final build-outs of projects, and a number of them sold rapidly. Industry experts hoped that the industry would see these few sales as a move back in the right direction, and held their breath for a moment to see if a new bubble would begin to expand. However, cautious in this new housing environment, the builders remained happy to only work on the final houses of their last projects so that they could simply close their books on the projects by the year's end. No new projects emerged, as some had hoped, and the bubble deflated before it had a chance to grow.

Now, the banking industry is in a crisis. As usual, there are those faint little calls by some Americans screaming, "The government has to do something about it!" And so, as some would expect from a President with Globalist leanings, and a Congress with the hopes of America becoming a Socialist Nation, the government has announced that it will take over the two mortgage giants, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.

It is being called a monumental move designed to protect the mortgage market from the failure of the two companies. The intervention will cost taxpayers billions, and the news of this governmental takeover of the banks follows news that more than 4 million American homeowners with a mortgage, a record 9 percent, were either behind in their payments, or in the process of foreclosure.

The two mortgage giants lost $3.1 billion from April to June, half of that coming from risky loans with ballooning monthly rises. While the companies claim to have enough resources to withstand the losses, the belief is that at the current rate of loss their financial cushions are not enough, and the companies will eventually find themselves in a position of not being able to fund their operations.

The result of this "rescue package" is the exposure of taxpayers to billions of dollars of potential losses, a wipe-out of common stockholders, and it could end up being costly to scores of investment, banking, and insurance companies.

Fannie Mae was created in 1938 in an attempt to increase home ownership across the United States, and to enable Congressional Oversight into the industry. The sale of the idea to the American Public was that everyone had a "right" to home ownership, and the government was going to make sure it happened.

Thanks to Franklin Delano Roosevelt's Socialist Programs of the New Deal, the notion that it was an American's "right" to own a home by means of government subsidies was so firmly entrenched in the American mindset, Fannie Mae not only grew, but in 1968, as a part of Lyndon Johnson's societal engineering agenda, Fannie was converted into a private corporation and the ability to guarantee government-issued mortgages was switched from Fannie Mae to the federal government's newest creation, Ginnie Mae (Government National Mortgage Association). This meant that Fannie would begin to operate with private capital on a self-sustaining basis.

In 1970, Fannie Mae was authorized to buy conventional mortgages, and by the 1980s it began to purchase second mortgages and adjustable-rate mortgages. In the 80's it also commenced its mortgage-backed securities scheme.

Between Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (another GSE), the largest source of cash for home buying in the United States was in existence, and they accounted for almost 50% of all mortgage bonds sold through April of 2007. Since the beginning of 2006, however, over fifty mortgage companies discontinued operations, claimed bankruptcy, or sought a buyer. Fannie Mae, however, continued to flourish until recent months. Since the end of March 2007, Fannie Mae's stock price increased by almost 20% whereas the S&P 500 Index had risen only 8.1% by July of that year.

Fannie Mae was a New Deal innovation, created by and for the federal government. This gives it different abilities and freedoms than your usual corporations, which are generally chartered by the states. The sole purpose of this federally chartered, quasi-private entity was to directly intervene in the housing market while avoiding a more conspicuous regulatory apparatus governed by rules. This allowed the government to advance and steer the government's progressive entitlement programs put in place by the New Deal without anyone ever really taking notice. Meanwhile, Fannie Mae expanded into mortgage insurance, sub-prime mortgages, and non-mortgage investments, exposing taxpayers to a massive risk of default or bankruptcy.

The Founding Fathers wrote the U.S. Constitution to limit the powers of the Federal Government, and they were specifically suspicious of judges and banks. The first step toward the centralization of banking through the Federal Reserve Act which was signed into law by Woodrow Wilson, a Democrat. The New Deal Programs by FDR, and the expansion of entitlement programs by Lyndon B. Johnson, were strictly against what the Founding Fathers intended, and these Democratic Party programs are now falling apart because of their unconstitutional characteristics.

As the government now takes another step towards centralizing control over banks, and further expanding entitlement programs, the consequences for poor decisions by individuals are not being paid. Now, with this program to bailout mortgages and save the banks, the taxpayers that were not driven by greed and arrogance are being punished.

Government manipulation is the cause of the problems we see rising in the economy and banking system. And government manipulation, and control, is going to exacerbate the problem. As painful as it may seem, to straighten out this mess the banks need to collapse, the home owners who are currently in foreclosure need to lose their homes and move into more affordable accomodations like apartments, and we need to all buckle down, and get through this together, without government intervention.

If we don't bear the burdens of our mistakes as individuals, before the next dozen years are finished, we will be steamrolling in the direction of socialism, the "privilege" of home ownership will be gone, and it will take a revolution to turn us around to head back in the direction of liberty, and the American Way.

Saturday, September 06, 2008

Macho Sauce Tackles Abortion!

A Question Of Patriotism

The definition of patriotism, it seems, varies from person to person, and from party to party. The official meaning you see in the dictionaries of the world is, "Love and devotion for one's country."

I have an American friend who I know from the Oregon Coast named Dan Bessie, who now lives in France. He is so liberal that he doesn't like Obama much because the Democratic Party Nominee is too conservative for him. This fellow writer, and owner of a small publishing company, is the son of one of the ten blacklisted members of Hollywood in the 50's. He sent me an e-mail today that read:

Palin's Popularity - A Wake Up Call: How accurate this poll is, I have no idea, but since, if it's even close to being reliable, it demonstrates the inability of too many voters to examine the lack of substance behind the glitz, it needs to be taken seriously, and the need for those of us who recognize the dangerous nature of the McCain-Palin candidacy to redouble our efforts to defeat them.

The link to the article he gave me was to an article at Rasmussen Reports titled, Palin Power: Fresh Face Now More Popular Than Obama, McCain.

Another liberal e-mailer friend of mine sent me a picture of Sarah Palin in a Bikini toting a rifle saying, "Is this really the piece of white trash you want to have as Vice President?" The photo, as expected, turned out to be a fake.

Yet another liberal, this one being a blogger that actually commented on Political Pistachio about this, has proclaimed that Sarah Palin is a secessionist and was once a member of the AIP (Alaskan Independence Party). This same individual, Thomas, also then accused me of chasing rumor and conjecture when I posted about Obama's fake birth certificate even though three forensic investigators deemed it a forgery and it wasn't until later that a legitimate Certificate of Live Birth surfaced. Of course, Tom was the one falling for rumor and hearsay with his "Palin was a member of the AIP" claim. Todd and Sarah Palin have never been a part of the AIP, and the information circulating around the internet on that is absolutely false. It is simply another liberal blogging community smear.

Troopergate is another one floating around. Thing is, the more you get to know about this one, the more it makes Sarah Palin actually look good. Adam Brickley of Palin for VP discusses it a little bit on my Political Pistachio Radio Show a week ago, as well. By the way, Adam has been on a number of cable shows and channels including Fox News, and his most recent guest spot was on The Colbert Report.

In fact there are a number of lies and smears floating around out there about Sarah Palin, and of course so far they have all been lies and baseless attacks.

This, my friends, is the way of the liberal left. Unable to argue the issues, they resort to these kinds of attacks often. Then, when a non-liberal even sounds like they may be questioning a liberal's patriotism, they flip out proclaiming the person to be judgmental and a hater.

Okay, let's give those liberal liars a benefit of the doubt, then. Perhaps if a presidential candidate like Barack Obama would prefer to hold his hands over his genitals than over his heart, while refusing to look at the American flag, maybe, just maybe, that means he is patriotic in his own way. And perhaps his refusal to wear an American Flag lapel pin like the rest of the candidates and political figures while on television was not an avoidance of patriotism - perhaps he didn't like the little hole the pin left on his jacket.

Heck, Democrats over all are very patriotic, right? In fact, they are so patriotic, they throw the American Flag, after the Democratic Convention ended, in the garbage!

No, of course not, I won't be judgmental and question the liberal left's patriotism as they call anything written about Obama that doesn't paint him as a messianic figure a smear as they spread all kinds of lies and rumors about Sarah Palin. But I will observe, and offer those observations to others to make their own determinations.

In my, opinion, however, refusing to hold your hand over your heart, avoiding displaying the Stars and Stripes on your person when in a political arena and it is expected that you do so, and tossing our nation's flag in the trash with all of the other rubbage, is hardly a show of love and devotion for the United States of America.

Just an observation.

Friday, September 05, 2008

On Political Pistachio Radio Tonight: MachoSauceProductions!

The star of these You Tube Videos is my guest tonight on Political Pistachio Radio!

Why I'm A Conservative



Gay Marriage



The Diddy Retort



Join us live or on archive HERE.

Thursday, September 04, 2008

McCain's Speech at the Convention, Reaction to Palin's Speech

On Political Pistachio Radio tonight we broadcast live John McCain's speech at the Republican National Convention. After the speech we provided conservative commentary on the speech. I was struck by the speech's theme that proclaimed McCain to be a servant of the people. He considers it a privilege to serve in Washington, and wishes to hold the politicians in Washington accountable. Listen to the audio of the speech by John McCain, and the commentary by me and a few of my listeners: HERE.

As for the Democratic response to Sarah Palin's speech last night, it seems to me that if Palin was a Democrat they would be championing her small town rise to become the most popular governor in the country, and would hail her as a champion of women's rights being that she is a woman that has achieved all of this political notoriety without an ex-president husband or a silver spoon shoved in her mouth. Instead, however, the Left is gritting its teeth over Sarah Palin. They know that this conservative that is sometimes being compared to Ronald Reagan is trouble for them and they don't understand why. They don't get it.

The left has attacked Sarah Palin for her inexperience while the man that is at the top of their ticket has even less experience than her, and no executive experience as a leader. Sarah Palin is being attacked for pursuing her political career with a special needs child at home while those accusing her of this are the same folks that have pushed for abortion (and would have aborted their baby had they been in Palin's place) and who have pushed women to be in the workplace as the children at home become latch-key kids. Sarah Palin is being accused of being a secessionist because of a single speech she gave, while Obama spent over twenty years attending a church headed by an anti-American preacher, and while Obama called Frank Marshall Davis his mentor when the man was a well known communist bent on bringing down American Society.

The hypocrisy of the Left, and the baseless attacks from the leftwing media, on Sarah Palin disgusts me. Rather than recognizing Palin's speech last night for what it was (phenomenal), they are grasping for more straws in a mad scramble to discredit her before she becomes too popular.

After listening to Palin's speech last night, I am excited about this ticket, and no longer feel like I need to hold my nose to vote for the Republican offering for President and Vice President of the United States of America.

If Ronald Reagan could see this ticket, he'd be looking down upon us smiling.

---------

Here is video of McCain's Full Republican National Convention Speech

Wednesday, September 03, 2008

Audio of Sarah Palin Speech at the Republican National Convention On Archive!

After a wonderful conversation with Jean Avery of Moms 4 McCain on Political Pistachio Radio, the entire Sarah Palin speech was broadcast to Political Pistachio listeners. Listen to this powerful speech by the conservative vice president candidate, Sarah Palin in its entirety HERE.

Vicious Attacks Against Sarah Palin - Moms 4 McCain On The Radio!


The attacks from the mainstream media against the Palin family have been vicious and uncalled for. The members of the press, in their attempt to discredit Sarah Palin, are grasping for straws that aren't there. Some on the liberal left, specifically liberal bloggers, will try to compare this as being tactics no different to Conservative articles regarding Obama's eligibility for the presidency, and questions raised regarding the connections he entertains with unscrupulous characters like Frank Marshall Davis, Bill Ayers, Tony Rezko, and Reverend Jeremiah Wright.

The difference is that the questions raised by critics of Obama were raised based on things Obama said, his stance on issues based on what he has said, and on the evidence provided by the Obama Campaign regarding the questions asked regarding his political connections and eligibility. The attacks against Palin are based on rumor and unproven hearsay, and upon family matters that does not concern politics. None of the issues raised regarding Palin should have been politicized.

Palin's husband has not said he is not proud of his country, Sarah Palin's minister is not a radical, anti-American individual teaching an ideology rooted in divisive attitudes, and her family history has been laid out for all to see rather than shrouded in secrecy and uncertainty. Also, the mainstream media has given Obama a pass on every question raised, including his inexperience (which is crucial since he is at the top of the ticket) - yet within the first days of Palin's involvement in the GOP ticket she has been viciously attacked, and her experience has been ruthlessly questioned.

Notice that under the questions raised, by the way, the Obama Campaign responded accusing the Right of being racist, bigoted, and smear merchants for simply raising these questions. Sarah Palin has responded honestly, and graciously - showing her true strength of character - an image of character Barack Obama has failed to unveil.

And in the end, I ask you this: Who do you prefer for your next President and Vice President?

Would you prefer John McCain who is a man who in the face of the horror of being a prisoner of war, when given the chance to be released early, refused because his men and country were more important than himself? A man that has questioned Washington while serving as a politician in D.C., who has vowed to eliminate wasteful government spending? And would you prefer this candidate who is paired with a woman, Sarah Palin, that has worked her way up from the grass roots of real America to become the most popular governor in the country and is known for stamping out corruption and wasteful spending in her state, while being heavily involved in attempting to solve our energy crisis?

Or would you like a President with no foreign policy experience, 143 days of Senate experience before forming a presidential exploratory committee, his main accomplishment is giving a great speech once or twice (which wasn't even written by him, and he needed a teleprompter to deliver it in order to keep from filling the speech with hundreds of "uh"s), who calls a child a punishment rather than a blessing and would snuff out the life of that child should his daughter make the poor decision to allow herself to get pregnant outside of wedlock, whose wife has never been proud of America until her husband got a political promotion in that country, would rather put his hands over his genitals than over his heart when the National Anthem is played, and attended church led by a radical Black Theology teaching pastor claiming that everyone disagrees with his pastor every once in a while rather than recognizing the hate and leaving the church? And do you wish to vote for this man named Barack Obama who fails to answer questions directly, fails to give specifics in his position on issues, and when he does provide any evidence of his positions they contradict his position given the last time he muttered his position? And do you want this inexperienced man known for delivering a great speech he didn't write that he read on a teleprompter, joined by a running mate that, despite the message of "change" by Obama, is hardly anything remotely resembling change, and is instead a 36-year career politician in the U.S. Senate, and is best known for being an attack dog?

--------------------

Moms For McCain says they'd rather vote for the McCain/Palin Ticket. Join Political Pistachio Radio tonight for an interview with the founder of Moms For McCain at 10 pm Eastern Time.

Tuesday, September 02, 2008

Sarah Palin's Character, Experience, and Handling of a Pregnant Teenager (Bristol Palin)

Life is an endless stream of choices. We choose what clothing to wear in the morning. We choose what to eat at mealtime. We choose the best route to drive to our destinations. We choose our behaviors based upon our moral standards. We choose who to love. We choose what to buy. And once every four years we choose who we vote for in a Presidential Election.

When we choose our candidates for political office we vote for the person we agree with most when it comes to political ideals. More often than not the person representing the political party we feel we have most in common with is not an exact match to our beliefs. Sometimes, in an effort to pull in more voters of a particular party, a presidential candidate will choose a running mate with different strengths and different appeal in order to balance the ticket.

In an effort to balance the Republican Ticket, John McCain chose Sarah Palin to be his running mate.

The Sarah Palin pick was no surprise to me. I indicated that whoever wins the nomination would be wise to choose Sarah Palin as their V.P. pick last year. I made this determination because I realized that the stronger candidates running for the GOP nomination were fairly moderate, and in order to balance the ticket they would need someone with executive experience, and someone proven to be more conservative than the top of the ticket. If you really think about it, Sarah Palin is the only pick that appeals to all members of the party, and would draw in the Conservative Base as needed.

A Liberal that E-mails me from France sent me the article "6 Things the Palin Pick Says About McCain." The article explains how McCain, based on his pick of Sarah Palin, is desperate, a gambler, worried about the political implications of his age, worried about his conservative base, and how the pick once again reminds people that McCain being McCain means that he is an erratic egotist.

The E-mailer made sure I understood that the Left, or at least members of the Left that agree with him, also recognizes his pick of Sarah Palin to be a desperate attempt to appeal to evangelicals who helped Bush over the top in the last election (his words, not mine).

Normally, in my opinion, the selection of a running mate has little to do with the outcome of the election. The person at the top of the ticket is who the voters concentrate on. However, in the case of McCain's choice of Sarah Palin, I believe McCain's pick has a lot of influence on the final decision many will make regarding whether or not to vote for the GOP candidate, as opposed to Barack Obama.

I don't believe that the pick of Palin shows that John McCain is desperate. After all, the "Palin for VP" fervor is well over a year old, and he knew it. Think about it. If McCain had chosen Ridge or Leiberman, the Conservative Base would have revolted. Picking Romney would have lost a large part of the Evangelical vote because of his attachment to Mormonism. Huckabee would have further alienated those who are demanding that we strengthen border security. And the list goes on. In the end, Sarah Palin was not a pick of desperation, but was really the only logical choice. Choosing Palin was very strategic, and had little to do with the fact that she is a woman. She draws in the Evangelical vote (hardly a desperate move, but definitely a needed kick), stirs the conservative base into an excited frenzy that was nothing more than angered complacency before, contrasts McCain's moderate stances, is a maverick like McCain (bucking GOP leadership often, but from the right side as opposed to McCain), has domestic experience that McCain does not have, she has executive leadership experience that none of the other three (McCain, Biden, or Obama) has, and also people can relate to her because she is not a career Washington politician who has allowed the D.C. swamp to run through her veins. She is a PTA mom that moved her way up the ladder to the eventual seat of Governor of Alaska. A success story of hard work, conservative ideals, and grass roots America.

McCain has been gaining on Obama in the polls, and the Zogby Poll and Gallup Poll actually showed McCain in the lead during the Democratic Convention (though the Gallup Poll bounced back in the other direction for Obama after the DNC Convention ended). Not only do I believe that this November will not be a landslide for Obama, but now with Sarah Palin as his running mate, Republicans are beginning to feel once again that this presidential election is winnable.

The Republican Brand is hardly a mess as is suggested by the above linked article, and as is suggested by many liberally biased commentators in the mainstream media. The Democratic Party only tries to paint it that way. The Democrats can't win on the issues, so they have villianize Bush, proclaiming that all Republicans and Conservatives are Bush-bots. People are wising up to the dirty tactic, and are beginning to remember that the Democrats didn't win the Congress in 2006 as they claim. The Republicans lost that election because Conservatives stayed home, angry at the Republicans for ignoring the Conservative Base. Palin is stirring that Conservative Base, and if the Conservatives return to the ballots in force in 2008, a McCain presidency is an inevitability. Mind you, that still remains an "if".

Palin is hardly unknown and untested. She is only unknown to the Left because the left does not take the time to look at all angles that exist beyond the edges of the blinders they wear. Palin is the most popular governor in America, with an 80% or higher approval rating during her entire term. In the first 18 months of her governorship she stamped out corruption and stopped the ridiculous flow of pork coming into the state from Alaskan Congressmen. Palin has leadership and executive experience that the other three do not have. Rather than being a Senator that simply follows the group, she has been a leader as a business owner, Mayor, and Governor. She has more experience than Obama has, and she is the second person on the ticket, not the presidential candidate like Obama.

The Republican Ticket is properly balanced. The experienced Washington politician with all of the foreign affairs experience and federal office experience is at the top of the ticket. The less experienced candidate with more domestic and executive experience is the V.P. half of the ticket, and she is poised to learn as Vice President under John McCain in a position that will teach her what she currently lacks.

The Democratic Ticket is not balanced. In fact, as is the normal tactics of the Democrats, it is exactly backwards. The leader of the ticket is a junior Senator from Illinois with less experience than Sarah Palin. He continuously makes mistakes, can't get his stories right, has no budget experience (unlike Palin), failed to produce proof of birth until after a "forgery" surfaced and he felt he "had to" produce a valid document, and has completely based his entire platform on the word "Change" as he nominated Joe Biden to be his Vice Presidential running mate - Biden is hardly "change," being a 36 year career politician in Washington.

The media immediately tried to zero in on Sarah Palin after the pick, proclaiming that her lack of experience made her a bad choice. What this choice is doing, in reality, is drawing everyone's attention to how little experience Obama truly has after all.

Palin is hardly a gamble by McCain. Picking Palin is a swift stroke of genius. This woman has credentials and abilities that the Democrats can't even fathom. And Palin being a woman has nothing to do with the pick, mind you. Her gender may not have even played a factor at all. Her positions on the issues, and strength of character, is what gained her this opportunity. She is Pro-life, a lifetime member of the NRA, a hunter, and a person conservatives feel they can relate to. She's a hockey mom, and a leader. She's tough as nails in the trenches, yet an articulate speaker on stage. She has stamped out corruption in Alaska, and has rejected the pork the Alaskan Representatives have tried to push into the state. She rejected the bridge to nowhere saying that if they needed a bridge, Alaska could build it themselves.

Democrats seem to think that Palin was chosen to appeal to the huge bloc of women, and in reality, she was chosen to appeal to the huge bloc of conservatives.

The talk about McCain's age is interesting. He is 72, not 92. He passes his health exams with flying colors. Reagan died well into his 80s. And when asked if McCain did die would I want this woman to be in charge of this nation, and be Commander in Chief, I respond with a resounding "Yes!" She has executive experience that Obama does not have. I would take her over Obama or Biden any day of the week.

As for Obama's "Change," it is hardly that. If anything, his platform is a rehash of the 1960's hysteria that celebrated drugs debauchery, and an anti-war movement engineered and run by the Marxists - and in the end they won, and a bloodbath of 2 1/2 million people in South Vietnam and Cambodia followed. These are the same folks behind the indoctrination of our children in the schools, and behind the current liberal movement that is a re-hash of the warped celebration of socialism in the 60's. The Democrats are hardly about change. And in the end, the more the Democrats try to paint themselves as the party of change, the more the Republicans prove otherwise. It was the Republicans that put a black man on the bench of the Supreme Court. It was the Republicans that made a black woman Secretary of State. And now it is the Republicans that will put a woman in the White House as the first female Vice President. But what is interesting is that the Republicans didn't do it for the same reasons the Democrats would have done such. The Republicans picked these people because of the strength of their character. Race and gender had nothing to do with it.

McCain has been a lifetime Pro-lifer, a fighter against out of control spending (the reason he opposed the tax cuts was not because he doesn't want to cut taxes, but because he felt spending should be dealt with first), a strong voice in supporting our military and the mission, and one of the last of the long line of Reagan Conservatives. Picking Palin may actually enable the voters to forget McCain's missteps, such as McCain-Feingold and McCain-Kennedy.

The masterful pick of Palin has done something else as well. The biased media is confounded. Rather than talk about Obama, they are all talking about Palin (in essence stealing Obama's thunder after his speech of non-specifics at the Democratic Convention). And as they scramble to find dirt on Sarah Palin, they are realizing there isn't any. They tried to hit her with "Troopergate," but as they pealed away the layers of that they saw that the situation as it happened actually makes Palin look good once the facts of the situation are exposed. McCain chose a conservative, and it has the liberal left shaking in their boots. The last time a conservative like this was on the ticket we enjoyed three straight terms of Republican leadership, and the conservative stirred the party into believing in itself again. That last conservative was Ronald Reagan.

The daily KOS, and other liberal sites, have also tried to attack Sarah Palin in other ways, and none of them seemed to work. And then news came out that Sarah Palin's oldest daughter, Bristol, is pregnant (and a teenager that is unmarried at that). The Liberal Left chomped at the bit. They finally had dirt on Sarah Palin. They waited for her to stumble over he words, have trouble explaining how her dear daughter could ruin the family name doing such a horrible thing. Their hope to pin Sarah Palin down with something finally came into their grasp.

For some reason, since the Conservative Right upholds high standards and moral convictions, the Left seems to think that anyone that does anything that may be out of step should be crucified and treated as if they have the plague. Since Dick Cheney's daughter decided to be gay, Cheney (according to the Left) was supposed to disown his own daughter and burn her at the stake, or something. If he didn't stop loving his own child, they figured that made him a hypocrite. Now that Palin's daughter is pregnant outside of marriage, the Left is grinning about it too, politicizing family matters, and wondering how the Palins will deal with this horrible sin their daughter committed.

Of course the Democrat claim that moral indiscretions makes the parents hypocrites is idiotic. And to avoid being pinned down, the Left just justifies the action, or eliminates it with a swift stroke as unwanted.

Barack Obama already addressed how he'd take care of such a problem. Obama said he would not want his daughter "punished" with a baby - and murdering the unborn child with abortion would be an option.

Granted, Bristol Palin's teen pregnancy outside of marriage will do damage to the message of teaching abstinence because the Left seems to think that if teaching abstinence doesn't work 100% of the time it is proof it is a failure and the Republicans are just a bunch of hypocrites if any of their teenage girls get pregnant. What the Left didn't expect is how the Palin family, in a show of amazing strength of character, handled the situation.

In a moral society, when one does not follow moral teachings and their behavior results in unwanted circumstances, unlike the Left, it is not the Right's desire to just kill the result so that the responsibilities don't have to be met.

In step with conservative ideals and standards of personal responsibility, the Palin family is accepting the situation as an unfortunate event, but nonetheless a blessing. Any child is a blessing, and they have banded together as a family to meet this challenge. In the battle between standards of personal responsibility and the liberal stance of no standards of personal conduct, an indiscretion by Sarah Palin's daughter was met with love and unity.

Notice at no time did the Palins state that she was being "punished" with a child, or that the unborn child should lose its life because Bristol made a poor decision when it came to her personal behavioral conduct.

Sorry, liberals, it is a family matter that is being treated as a blessing - not a dirty little secret as you had hoped.

This is why the pick of Sarah Palin has conservatives excited, and liberals nervous. The media reactions, and groping for straws by the Left in an attempt to find dirt on Sarah Palin, are there for a reason. The tide has turned. McCain picking Palin has united the Republican Party in ways that the Democrats couldn't accomplish. As the protesters in St. Paul showed the world the violent side of the "Make Love Not War" mindset, and as the unpatriotic Democrats threw their American Flags in the trash, the Republicans are showing America what a balanced ticket of Patriotism is supposed to look like.

Sarah Palin was a brilliant pick.

Now the question that is arising is, will Obama's inexperience be able to survive this tidalwave of conservative support for McCain?

We'll see in November.