Political Pistachio

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

Sunday, May 31, 2009

National Security, Obama, and Hamburgers

As Commander in Chief, and the person in charge of our nation's security, it is of the utmost importance that the President of the United States be fully aware of what all of the intelligence agencies duties are, and the current projects they are working on - or he should at least know they exist.

Remember when President Obama spent oodles and oodles of taxpayer money so that he could go out and have a hamburger with Biden at a local burger joint? The media loved it, proclaiming that it was an example of how this president wanted to be close to the American People. All I know is that, in the sense of all the money involved to keep these men safe so that they could go out for that burger, it better have been a damn good hamburger - because that was one expensive hamburger as far as the taxpayer is concerned.

At the time of the story, my first thought was: Doesn't the White House Chef know how to make a good burger?

Now, and of course the mainstream media didn't report this, we are learning that it turned out to be a good thing President Obama went out for that hamburger. Otherwise, he may never have known about the existence of the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency.

"Uh," said Obama, "so, explain to me exactly what this National Geospatial . . . "

"We work with, uh, satellite imagery," said the fellow burger patron.

Whew, good thing Barry went out for that burger, or he may not have ever known about one of the valuable tools at his fingertips he may need in the intricate and complex duty of keeping this nation safe.

Maybe he didn't read the Oval Office manual, or fell asleep during those national security meetings. After all, the messiah always has an excuse that pleases the press, so it couldn't possibly be his fault.

He has more excuses than . . . well, he can wiggle out of just about anything.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

In which the president discovers an American intelligence agency at Five Guys - Politico, Ben Smith

Suicide Government Spending Needs To Stop!

The Tea Parties were "intriguingly successful," according to Bob Rinear, founder of InvestYourself. The reason for their success is because the American People are in full belief that the government needs to be back in the hands of the people. In fact, there are some promising developments since the Tax Day Tea Parties that certainly appear as though they got Washington's attention.

"If nothing else, those thousands of people gained the attention of prominent Republicans, who know they blew it during the Bush years with unsustainable budgets."

People may not be able to stop the current Obama spending spree, but they've sent a message to the GOP.

Tonight's guest on Political Pistachio Radio is Bob Rinear, and he will explain why we need to stop this suicide spending, and save "We The People." Tune in live at 7pm Pacific, or catch the archive later, HERE.

Killing of Abortionist George Tiller

Late-term abortion doctor, George Tiller, was murdered today. As a prominent advocate for abortion, and a doctor that has been accused on 19 counts of illegally aborting viable babies, he is no stranger to people being angry with him. Today's shooting that took the doctor's life while he was at church, however, was a foolish act by a dangerous individual. As a Christian, and a member of the human race, I abhor this kind of violence.

We don't know, at this point, if the shooter gunned down Tiller because of his active role in the killing of unborn children, or if the incident was carried out for other reasons. The danger, however, is that pro-abortion advocates are going to use this as further reason to call pro-lifers "extremists." The pro-choice movement has its martyr, and I have no doubt they will milk it for all it is worth to them. That is a shame, because regardless of the political angle, a man is dead, gunned down in cold blood by a coward who made a personal decision to cause the death of another fellow human being.

While I do not tolerate violence against abortionists, I also do not tolerate violence from the other side, and the pro-abortion lobby has created their own violence against pro-lifers in the past as well (in addition to supporting the killing of children in the womb). In other words, before jumping to the conclusion that pro-lifers are violent because a single idiot decided to put a few bullets into Tiller, take a look at your own track record as well, and realize that actions like this are performed by individuals - foolish individuals who have decided to take matters into their own hands, rather than follow the rule of law.

In reality, the pro-life movement is a large, and very peaceful, movement. The goal is to save the lives of unborn children. If pro-lifers believe children in the womb have a right to live, then why would someone of the same mentality destroy an adult life in the violent fashion that George Tiller was gunned down?

Violent methods of putting across a message in a civil society don't work. Peaceful methods regarding this issue are the most effective. Acting as this shooter did only gives the child killers fuel to say that pro-lifers are violent, when nothing could be further from the truth.

This is not the right moment to be demonizing the pro-life movement. This is a time to mourn the death of a fellow human being, gunned down without the ability to defend himself - killed in cold blood.

Tiller's death, however, should not turn eyes away from what he did. He killed children. Abortion is mass-genocide of the unborn.

One wonders, with the death of George Tiller (of which I am adamantly opposed to his murder), how many children will live as a result of him no longer performing abortions.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Abortion doc George Tiller gunned down at church - My Way News, Roxana Hegeman

Abortionist Tiller shot, killed in church - World Net Daily

Sotomayor, Reflection of Barack Obama

Barack Obama is committed to dividing America over Race, Class of Wealth, and Gender - The Democrat Party's power comes from making groups war against each other, and stifling individualism. The Democrats have been using race to intimidate The Right for years. - Rush Limbaugh

The leftward thinkers of the mainstream media are confused about the reasons that Sonia Sotomayor's racist comments against Whites are being brought up by Conservative Talkers and bloggers. An editorial from The New York Times, "Judging Sonia Sotomayor," even takes the argument to a higher level, claiming that Sotomayor is being attacked as not being smart enough, and for being too abrasive, adding a little quip about that being a description often applied to women who speak their minds in public life. The editorial in The New York Times even refers to a ridiculous criticism that critics have taken aim at her taste for Puerto Rican food, as if that represents the mainstream of conservative writers and talkers.

The Times' Writer then writes: "It is time to elevate the discussion to where it belongs: the Constitution and the role of the judiciary."

The United States Constitution and the role of the judiciary is exactly why the characteristics of Judge Sotomayor, portrayed through her past verbiage, which wreaks of racism, liberalism, and support of judicial activism, are being addressed. The Constitution, and the role of the judiciary, demands that we address these issues.

Leftists are appalled that Conservatives have picked out something said by Sotomayor in a 2001 speech: "a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a White male who hasn't lived that life." The liberals are indicating that she has somehow been taken out of context, and that Sotomayor was simply pointing out White racists throughout history who failed to uphold race and gender discrimination.

She was speaking in the here and now. There is no way that anyone can argue that recognizing her statement to be a racist statement against Whites is somehow taking her out of context. She said what she said, and she meant every word of it.

I agree that one's life experiences, be they due to individual choices, or environmental factors like race, gender, or level of wealth, influence one's perception of the world around us. I agree that when cases of discrimination come up, judges who have experience with those kinds of tensions will view the case from a "humanity" point of view more clearly than one that hasn't. But the Left fails to understand why what Sotomayor said is being so criticized. She did not say that her life experience would enhance her abilities to judge by the rule of law. She said, in a nut shell, that a Latina is better able to judge than a White male. That, any way you slice it, is placing a superiority of one race over another due to simple genetics and experiences of ethnicity. In a word, that is blatant racism. Besides, is a justice supposed to perform their duties based on their feelings about "humanity?" Or are they supposed to reach their decisions based on the rule of law?

Let's explore deeper why her alleged "racism" is such a big issue by reminding ourselves of what the New York Times writer said in the aforementioned editorial: it is time to elevate the discussion to where it belongs: the Constitution and the role of the judiciary."

What is the role of the judiciary?

One of the roles of the judiciary is to see cases from an impartial point of view. In fact, the oath they take to become judges specifically mentions impartiality. How can someone, however, be impartial if they believe that one gender and/or race is better qualified to judge than another? Is she going to be ethnically intolerant when she sees cases, too? Will she discard any racism claims by Whites, while supporting any racism case brought forth by Hispanics or Blacks, as she did in the Connecticut Firefighter Reverse Racism Case? Is one race more deserving than the other to her? And I won't even go into the details of her association with the National Council of La Raza, which is a racist, anti-White hate group that proclaims the superiority of Hispanics, practically calling themselves "The Master Race."

The New York Times writer also took a shot at the "too abrasive" criticism, a criticism I haven't seen out there coming from The Right. Honestly, I could care less if she is abrasive. Her ability to play nice-nice with other people has nothing to do with her qualifications to be a Supreme Court Justice. Nonetheless, I wish to examine the sentence that followed the "too abrasive" comment in the Times' Editorial. The next sentence proclaimed that being too abrasive is "a description often applied to women who speak their minds in public life." Is this an accusation against Conservatives that we somehow wish our women to be seen, not heard? Is that the insinuation? If that is the case, then how do you explain the popularity of Sarah Palin among Conservatives? Palin is, in fact, a very abrasive woman that has no problem speaking her mind in public. I seem to remember while Palin was shaking up the presidential race last year, liberal writers and talkers were saying that she needed to be at home with her kids, and that she was too simple-minded to be able to handle Washington.

Liberal double standard?

The sentence in that New York Times Editorial about Conservatives essentially saying that Sotomayor is abrasive because she speaks her mind in public life was only added to the article to be a cheap shot, and to attempt to portray The Right in the very same light The Left always tries to portray Conservatives: Bible thumping, gun clinging, extremists who want to keep their women barefoot, pregnant, silent, and in the kitchen.

While trying to prove The Right to be a bunch of knee-jerking simpletons, The Left is showing the world how intolerant and unwilling they are when it comes to understanding their opposition.

Shame on you.

The discussion regarding Sotomayor's failure to understand the Constitution and the role of the judiciary doesn't stop there, however. She has also made the statement, in the past, that the "Court of Appeals is where policy is made." Sotomayor attempted to backpedal once she realized she proclaimed her true feelings out loud so that everyone could hear, and then said, "I know — I know this is on tape and I should never say that, because we don’t make law. I know, OK, I know. I’m not promoting it and I’m not advocating it."

Too late, she let the cat out of the bag. Besides, why was she backpedaling? The Democrats have always believed that the judiciary can legislate from the bench. That is why Roe v. Wade was able to unconstitutionally overturn a Texas State law regarding abortion, and why before Proposition 8 in California passed as a State Constitutional amendment the State Supreme Court was able to overturn a law defining marriage as being between between a man and a woman without argument from The Left - thus, the judiciary "making law."

She backpedaled because she was worried about the response from the people who truly do understand the Constitution, and understands that the court rulings on Constitutional matters are supposed to be "opinions," not laws or policy. Specifically, she was trying to appease non-liberal Constitutional Originalists.

Do not think for a moment that Barack Obama, the attendee of Reverend Wright's racist church for twenty years, was not aware of Sotomayor's racist opinions, or unconstitutional mindset when it comes to the courts. In fact, the opposite is true. He not only chose Sonia Sotomayor in the hopes that she would be a person that would once again make him look historic (First Hispanic on the Supreme Court), but also someone that thinks as he does. Like Obama, Sotomayor hates Whites, supports big government, believes the courts should legislate from the bench, and is a militant liberal activist that will not stop until all of liberties are stripped away from the individual, and rationed out by the all-knowing, government - because after all, they just want what is best for the common good, right?

Oh, by the way, I really don't mind if she likes Puerto Rican food. I am partial to Mexican Food, myself - but that does not automatically mean I support Illegal Aliens coming into this country (regardless of nationality).

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Is Sotomayor A Racist? - Real Clear Politics

Judging Sonia Sotomayor - The New York Times

Sotomayor: Courts Where Policy Is Made - Sweetness and Light

Barack Obama The Racist - In His Own Words

American Decent into Marxism


". . . the American decent into Marxism is happening with breath taking speed." - Pravda.

The trajectory of America has been changed. Obama has changed our path away from national optimism, and American exceptionalism. Barack Obama is centralizing the Federal Government, which in turn stifles the individual's drive to thrive, and destroys the free market system of Capitalism. Genuine hope has fallen victim to Obama's policies of out of control government spending, a big government intrusion upon the private sector, and massive taxation disguised as saving the planet in the form of Cap and Trade. He plans to overhaul the tax code which will create business uncertainty. His massive spending is poised to trigger runaway inflation. And the federal government has begun the nationalization of banks, the auto industry, and the credit card industry (to name a few). We are witnessing the largest expansion of government ever, and it is happening so fast, even the Russians are surprised.

In the coming months the Obama Administration plans to hit us with a trillion dollar energy tax in the form of Cap and Trade, which will devastate the energy industry, and punish the same people he promised a tax cut to with increased energy costs that will eventually affect everything - forcing prices up in all corners of life's expenses. In the coming months the Democrats plan to rewrite our nation's labor laws which will devastate what is left of our dying economy. And the crown jewel of it all is his precious health care plan that will essentially nationalize health care, destroying the private leg of the industry, and will create a system that will wind up rationing health care, and destroying the innovation America is so proud of in the medical industry.

Interestingly, when it comes to Obama's drive for health care legislation, like with his other policies, a rush notice has been put on it. He has proclaimed that health care reform must be accomplished by the end of the year, or else it won't get done. Obama believes if we don't get socialized health care passed now, it will become a missed opportunity. His reasons for the rush order is that escalating prices may make it impossible to implement such a system later.

Obama's reasons for rushing this through are all lies. His reasons for rushing through health care legislation is the same reason he is rushing to get all of his other policies in place as quickly as possible. Obama knows that his health care bill will draw a fight, and that his policies must be put into place quickly before a proper opposition can be mounted. Obama wishes to cram through as much socialism as he can before the American People truly realize what he is up to. He needs to hurry because, as has happened historically, the opposing party stands to pick up a lot of seats in Congress during the next election. In other words, he has only a year and a half to get his policies in place before the Republicans pick up a whole slew of Congressional seats in 2010. He knows that reversing the damage he is doing will take a lot longer than implementing it, and if he can get all of his Marxist policies in place fast enough, America will not be able to recover for generations, if ever.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

American capitalism gone with a whimper - Pravda, Russia

Obama urges health care reform by year's end - Yahoo Health

Health Care Reform: "Urgency and Determination" - Free Republic

The Largest Expansion of Government Ever - The Heritage Foundation

Saturday, May 30, 2009

Cap and Trade Explained

John Spisak, President of SolaRover, says that Cap and Trade will punish the Middle and Lower Class consumers. In reality, from a president that promised tax cuts for most Americans, Cap and Trade is a great big tax. The irony is, according to Mr. Spisak, that Cap and Trade will actually push the idealists's vision of mainstream renewable resources further away from reality.

"To think that Cap and Trade's carbon taxes will drive everyone into wind and solar [power] is folly," says Spisak. "What proponents of the plan either don't understand, or don't care to think about, is that Cap and Trade will cause the prices of all commodities that go into the development of solar and wind projects (steel, copper wire, glass) to skyrocket, making these projects even more expensive."

- So, is Cap and Trade really just a diversion - a front for what is another Democrat attempt to pass a huge tax package?

- How crippling could it potentially be to the American economy, as we struggle to be price competitive with Asia?

- Are biofuels safe from the Cap and Trade model?

- What is the best way to bring renewable resources into the mainstream?

- Is it time to put the global warming issue on the shelf?

- What does a sound U.S. energy policy really look like?

John Spisak is tonight's guest on Political Pistachio Radio. He will discuss the bad science that rules Congress on tonight's program, and we will learn more about Cap and Trade from an individual who won't give us the typical talking points of the Left as does the mainstream media. Join us live at 7pm Pacific, or on archive later, HERE.

An Evening With Terrorists

Left to Right, Douglas V. Gibbs, Walid Shoebat, Kamal Saleem, Mama Pistachio

Last Wednesday night I spent my evening at the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) at the invitation of Walid Shoebat to see Shoebat, and Kamal Saleem, speak before a couple thousand college students about the danger Islam poses to this world.

Jack Marino, director of the film "Forgotten Heroes" joined my modest group for lunch in Westwood Village prior to the start of our evening at UCLA. We discussed politics, religion, Jack's film, and my cousin's visit to California from Arkansas. She recently graduated from high school, and her graduation present was to come to California to meet with family she has not had the opportunity to meet, or spend time with, before. Armed with her high speed camera (a photography enthusiast, after all) she was excited about the evening that lay before her.

Upon arrival to Royce Hall on the UCLA campus, where the event for the evening was scheduled to take place, I greeted Keith Davies (Walid Shoebat's close friend) with a firm handshake. Keith's contact with the Bruin Republicans had made the event possible, and Keith's graciousness was the reason I had tickets waiting for me at the Will Call window.

Entering the auditorium, I called Annie Hamilton on my cell phone. She waved so that I could locate her, and I shook her hand gladly as we met in person for the first time. Annie is one of my fellow writers over at American Daily Review, as well as a well-known conservative voice across the Internet.

I asked her regarding the where-abouts of General Paul Vallely, and she directed me to his location. Upon meeting the General, he was thrilled to see that I had made it. We had spoken on the phone the day before, and he had been eager to meet the second half of the partnership of the quickly rising site, American Daily Review.

Major General Vallely is retired U.S. Army, and was a Military Anylist for Fox News from 2002-2007. He still frequents Fox News, as well as other television and radio programs, while also writing for American Daily Review, and serving as Founder, and Chief of Operations, for Stand Up America.

After a brief conversation with General Vallely, my companions and I found our seats near the front of the auditorium.

General Vallely took the stage and introduced our speakers. Walid Shoebat was the first to stand at the microphone, and as always, he delivered a presentation that held no punches, and contained no political correctness.

Walid Shoebat, no stranger to Islam, was born and raised in Bethleham, Israel by his Arab father, and American mother. He grew up a terrorist, reminded by his father that his paternal grandfather was an associate of Haj-Ameen Al-Husseni, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, who was an ally of Adolf Hitler who conspired with the Nazis during the holocaust. The Grand Mufti is a man of whom many believe was the inspiration for Hitler's anti-semitism.

Originally a member of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), searching for a more radical organization, Walid Shoebat joined The Muslim Brotherhood (for-runner of Hamas). He came to America to begin a terrorist cell, and for cover, he married an American woman. His wife, a Mexican-American Catholic, defied Walid's attempts to convince her to convert to Islam. When Shoebat explained to her the errors in the Bible, and how the Jews had influenced passages to the point of them being untruthful, Walid's wife challenged him to examine the Bible, provide her with evidence of the errors, and compare it to the Quran to show that the Islamic scripture was the actual truth. While taking up his wife's dare in 1993, Walid came to the conclusion that the Bible was the true Scripture, and that he was "On the wrong side." Now, Walid professes, "Only biblical truth has transferred my way of thinking from being a follower of Muhammad and idolizing Adolph Hitler to believing in Jesus Christ. From believing lies, to knowing the truth, from being spiritually sick to healed, from living in darkness to see the light, from being damned to saved, from doubt to faith, from hate to love, and from evil works to God's grace through Christ. The wonderful thing about God is that when someone sincerely and humbly cries out to Him to help him or her find the truth, He always answers that prayer. Today I am a Christian."

On stage Walid Shoebat answered the criticisms he receives regarding his change to Christianity from Islam. The attacks normally charge him of speaking out against Islam for money, or fame. Walid's opponents accuse him of trading one extremism (one of terror) to another extremism (Christian Fundamentalism). "Christians and Muslims," said Walid, "are hardly the same. While Christians may give liberals a headache, Muslims would cut off their heads."

Walid discussed the tenets of Islam at length, explaining the indoctrination of death Muslim Children receive, the hatred for America and the Jews prevalent in Muslim society, and the lessons on how to kill non-Muslims taught to children while at an early age. He described the death and hate filled lyrics of the songs he learned as a child, and the message of Islamic superiority that could only be fully realized in a world where Islam dominates as the one and true religion, and sole political ideology.

In the last days the nations described in the Bible as coming against Israel, if you read biblical text carefully, are all today's Islamic nations. How could the Bible be so accurate on which nations would be Muslim, and therefore against Israel, long before Islam even existed?
All descriptions in the Quran of Islam's role run parallel to the teachings in the Bible that describes the darkness that will blanket this planet. In Biblical prophecy, every portrayal of Christ's return to the Earth is of Christ fighting a nation that today is Muslim.

Walid poses the question, "If Allah and the God of the Bible are one and the same, then why does the Bible constantly portray God on the side of Israel, and against the Muslims?"

In 1993 Walid read in Isaiah 10:34 that "the Lord, Jehovah Almighty would lop off the boughs of the 'great cedar' with great power, and Lebanon will fall before the Mighty One." Walid took this to mean that Hezbollah (the party of Allah) would gain a foothold in the once dominantly Christian country of Lebanon. Today they have infested the whole nation.

Islam desires to destroy Christianity, America, and to exterminate every Jew on the face of the planet. Then, when those enemies are gone, they will turn on the rest. They will eliminate "enlightenment," hang homosexuals by the neck, and reverse centuries of progress that manifests itself in technology, civil rights, and women's freedoms. They will build mosques and Islamic centers by the thousands across this planet, and will enforce Sharia law everywhere. They have been patient, waiting for this opportunity since the seventh century. There's is a holy war against Christianity and Judaism, and as The West abandons those faiths, they are turning away from the only spiritual defense they have against the coming world caliphate. Trading land for peace, or peace treaties, may work in the short run, but in the long run Islam believes that Israel must be destroyed, and the world must fall completely under Islamic rule. No amount of diplomacy, or appeasement will stop them. The only defense is to understand the nature of the enemy, and fight against that enemy with an understanding that they must be stopped, by any means.

Hamal Saleem echoed a similar message, relaying the stories of his youth in a descriptive, and often physically articulated, manner. Hamal was all over the stage, discussing his childhood, and the training he received to hate Israel, and to hate America, dropping to his knee, at one point, to demonstrate training as a terrorist.

Saleem explained how everything for the Muslims are going according to plan. They taught him as a child that the goal was to infiltrate The West from within, and to beat the infidels by pure numbers. Having babies is their most powerful weapon. Eventually, Islam will outnumber the Europeans and Americans, and simply vote them out of power - enslaving and killing the remaining people that reject Islam.

A Sunni Muslim from Lebanon, as a young boy Hamal Saleem sought refuge in a mosque that eventually led him to a terror training camp run by Yasser Arafat's Fatah organization. His journey in terrorism led him around the world, where his goal was the eventual one world under Islam. When he came to America, however, the clash of cultures forced him to reevaluate his understandings of truth and faith. Saleem became a member of the Christian faith he once tried to destroy, and realized he needed to speak out against the dangers of radical Islam.

After two hours, the presentation came to an end. Keith and I met up, and he led me, and my group, back stage so that we could meet with Walid and Kamal. One of Walid's assistants, as the group approached us, was urging Walid to hurry up because dinner reservations were nearly upon them, and they hadn't even departed from Royce Hall, yet. Keith, at that time, spoke up and announced to Walid, "This is Douglas, from Political Pistachio."

Walid's eyes opened wide. He grinned, as if more excited to meet me than I was to meet him. After all, Mr. Shoebat has been a guest on my radio program a number of times. As we firmly shook hands, he said to me, "So you are the man behind the mike. I enjoy it when I appear on Political Pistachio. I remember when you allowed my son on the show as well, and I greatly appreciated that. Your blog is also mine, and my son's, favorite. We read it often."

A fervent conversation broke out as Walid's assistant kept glancing nervously at his watch. My mother, standing beside me, told Walid that she and my dad visited Israel last year, and it provided memories that would last a lifetime. Walid then asked my mom, "When you arrived in Israel, did you feel like you were coming home?"

Mom responded, "I felt like my spirit had finally come home."

Listening to the discussion, and eager to say something as the assistant that was pointing at his watch forced an end to the meeting, Kamal Saleem says to me, "Political Pistachio? I have heard a lot about you. Can I please be on your show."

We exchanged cards, and I promised him I would be calling his Director in the coming week.

My cousin snapped a few pictures with her massive camera that reminded me of the ones the press uses, and then the former terrorists departed, waving enthusiastically as they walked away. Keith patted me on the back and thanked me for coming. Walid smiled as a friend does to a fellow friend.

Jack Marino, my mom, and my cousin exploded into conversation. They were excited about the evening, and the opportunity to meet these great men. I was thankful to the Lord for providing me with the opportunity, as well. This was only a small, initial step in understanding what has come upon us as a nation. The need to inform the public of the grave dangers we face as a nation has become a dire one. I thank God for great men like Walid Shoebat and Kamal Saleem, and their willingness to spread the word.

As we turned the corner to rejoin the rest of the mob, the protesters out front of Royce Hall had dispersed. In the main hall that leads to the back side of the building, and the path to our parking location, we once again bumped into Major General Paul Vallely. He stopped, and we shook hands once again. My mom told the General about my nephew, Branden, who desires to grow up and become president someday. Branden wrote President Bush a letter a year ago, and a personally written, and signed letter, from the president came back, along with a photograph of Bush. The kid watches Fox News as often as he can, to the point that my brother doesn't allow it in his house anymore - forcing Branden's Fox News viewing opportunities to be when he visits his grandma. Vallely got a kick out of the story, and was more than happy to write a note, and autograph it, to Branden. Then, after a quick snap of a picture, General Vallely bid me farewell, and joined his waiting group farther down the hall.

Jack Marino, still with us after all of that, thanked me for the invite. He then climbed into his vehicle and drove away, leaving me smiling, and waving, standing with my mom and cousin in an empty parking garage at UCLA.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
A Final Farewell to General Vallely (center)

D-Day Anniversary: Queen of England Not Invited


Next weekend the 65th anniversary of the D-Day liberation of France from the Nazis will be celebrated. In the planning of the event, despite the fact that she represents the history of the war, and was Queen of 22,771 soldiers buried there, the Queen of England was not invited. Perhaps Obama and Sarkozy didn't wish to be upstaged by royalty.

Why leave out any heads of state, or figurative heads? Why not invite everyone? That's what Jacques Chirac did for the 60th anniversary of the Normandy invasion. It is the proper thing to do. If they choose to decline, fine, at least they were invited.

Obama's choice of location for delivering a D-Day speech at Buchenwald is politically motivated, and apparently not inviting the Queen to Normandy is politically motivated as well. If the reason for not inviting The Queen to an event celebrating a major turn in World War II, and to honor heroes killed defending freedom, is indeed for a political reason, this is no the place for such politicizing.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Queen Not Invited to Obama-Sarkozy D-Day Date - Human Events Online, Rachel Marsden

Obama's Uncle: He's Using Buchenwald for Political Purpose - NewsMax

Hugo Chavez' Gift to Obama: Learn More About Lenin

Hugo Chavez, the Castro wannabe dictator of Venezuela, likes to bestow gifts upon the new American President, Barack Obama. His last offering a little over a month ago, the anti-American book by Eduardo Galeano (a Uruguayan writer of socialist leanings), "The Open Veins of Latin America: Five Centuries of the Pillage of a Continent," was received graciously, with a promise by Barry to read it. Such a promise was encouraging to Chavez, so the next gift of a book from Hugo would need to be something truly in line with what Obama is trying to accomplish in America.

President Hugo Chavez has revealed what his next gift to Obama will be. The new book he has for Barack Obama is "What is to be Done?" by communist Vladimir Lenin, the founding tyrant of the Soviet Union.

I fear, however, Hugo Chavez will probably be disappointed. Barack Obama not only probably already has the book, but he is implementing its recommendations into the American form of government at this moment.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Chavez: Next Gift for Obama Authored by Vladimir Lenin - Fox News/Associated Press

Chavez Gives Obama Book on Latin American History - The Washington Post, Scott Wilson

Friday, May 29, 2009

2nd Amendment Rights Victory - Alan Gottlieb, Publisher of Gun Week

Alan Gottlieb says:

- Four Local Lawsuits against local gun-control regulations challenge opinions regarding the scope of the 2nd Amendment.

- Gun Rights advocates slipped a pro-gun measure in the Credit Card reform bill before Congress.

- Gun Control attempts by Democrats, and gun-rights advocates defenses, are heating up because of the political landscape in Congress.

- The gun show loophole, in thirty states, allows for buying and selling without background check.

- Sotomayor says the 2nd Amendment does not apply to the states, but Alan Gottlieb disagrees.

- Sotomayor has stated that gun ownership is not a fundamental right.

- Montana is laughing in the face of the Commerce Clause, and is flexing their muscles as a sovereign state.

We will tackle these issues, and more, as the 2nd Amendment is front and center on Political Pistachio Radio tonight. Join us live at 7pm Pacific, or on the archive later, HERE.

Guantanamo Detainees in American Prisons

Watching the liberal talkers on television, it has become apparent that they really don't understand the Conservative reasoning for opposing the closing of Guantanamo Bay. In order to close the prison housing the worst of the worst in terms of terrorists, the United States will have to determine what to do with the detainees. Obama, not wishing to open another Guantanamo Bay style facility that is open for the exclusive reason of housing terrorists, has quickly realized that he can't release them into the general population, or send the terrorists home to their own countries, either. After all, reports have been coming out repeatedly showing that a percentage of them, when freed, return to their terrorist ways, and only one of them becoming a Jihadist killer again is one too many.

The Democrats have come up with the great idea of putting these hardened terrorists into American Prisons, and immediately, the GOP has argued against it as a bad idea. The Left, in their ignorance, keeps arguing that the prisons can hold them. The terrorists won't escape. Jon Stewart even made a comparison of the bad construction of Guantanamo compared to the inescapable American prisons.

The argument against placing these terrorists into American Prisons has nothing to do with the potential of escape. The argument has to do with the Islamic Terrorists converting prisoners to Islam, and then upon release those new converts joining the general population.

The Left does not understand the danger of mixing these Jihadists with anyone other than each other. The liberal left can't recognize that by putting these individuals into our prison system, we are doing exactly what the Islamic Jihadists wish. We are enabling them access to individuals that can be easily converted, and unleashed on America.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Thursday, May 28, 2009

Sotomayor Can't Hide Her Racism

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life. I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage." - Sonia Sotomayor, 2001 - University of California Berkeley School of Law, Law and Cultural Diversity Lecture.

Could you imagine if a White male Supreme Court nominee said something along the lines of what Sotomayor said in 2001, but worded to say something like, "I would hope that a wise White man with the richness of his experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Hispanic female who hasn't lived that life." He would not be confirmed, and would probably be destroyed professionally.

Sotomayor didn't stop there, however. She also said, "Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging."

I am a firm believer that we are products of our life experience. The experiences of our lives help mold our character, moral clarity, and understanding of the world around us. Racial, or gender, indentities, however, do not change how the law should be interpreted. The law is the law, regardless of any external factors. Empathy should never play a part in a judge's decisions.

Reading Sotomayor's statements confirms in my mind that Sonia Sotomayor judges based on race and gender, not on the merits of a case, of which she has proven repeatedly in the past. In the case of 20 non-black New Haven, Connecticut firefighters who were denied promotion because no blacks passed the test, she approved reverse discrimination, based on the idea of disparate impact, meaning the test was unfair because it did not take into account cultural upbringing. The test, however, when reviewed, revealed no such details.

Sonia Sotomayor is also a member of "La Raza," a radical anti-White group that contends that the American Southwest belongs to Mexico, and that Hispanics are superior. La Raza, translated, means "The Race."

In a word, she is a "racist."

Barack Obama did not choose Sotomayor for her impartial judicial positions, because she is not impartial. He picked Sotomayor because she embraces indentity politics. She believes that judging should be done by taking into consideration the person's plight based on their gender or ethnicity, rather than sticking to the letter of the law.

The mainstream media, meanwhile, is proclaiming that Republicans are fearing the fight over Sotomayor because they don't want to lose more members of the Hispanic voting block. I don't seem to recall, however, Democrats worrying about upsetting black voters over their opposition to the nomination of Clarence Thomas.

Empathy. Obama believes a Supreme Court Justice should weigh people's "hopes and struggles" when applying the law, which is in direct opposition to the oath taken which demands impartiality. What about the U.S. Constitution? What about the rule of law?

Once again, we are seeing an example of the Democrats viewing America in groups. Gender, ethnicity, income level, behaviors, and whatever else they can think of, are the groups that Americans inhabit. Republicans, also, have fallen for the poor habit of thinking in groups, which explains why they are trying to be careful so that they don't upset the Hispanics. The GOP, if they were to return to their roots, would cease to see America in groups as the liberal left does. Instead, the Republicans would recognize that America consists of Americans, individuals with individual desires, hopes, and dreams. While Obama and Sotomayor views us as groups that needs the government to pander to, Americans desire to be seen as individuals. Republicans shouldn't worry about upsetting anyone, because if they continue to play the game of groups, in the long run, they will lose the most important voting group of all, Individuals.

For this reason, the GOP needs to realize Sotomayor for the racist that she is, and judge her based on her past judicial record, which is spotted with decisions that reveal her as a racist that bases her decisions on racial and sexual differences, and is incapable of impartiality.

It is no surprise that in the past Sotomayor has been repeatedly overturned by the Supreme Court for misinterpreting the law. This is because she consistently disregards the notion of judicial impartiality, a tendency fueled by her racist viewpoint, and tainted view of the American judiciary system.

Sonia Sotomayor will probably get confirmed, however, after all is said and done, because Republicans will foolishly cave because they fear angering Hispanic voters.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

JUDGE SONIA SOTOMAYOR, A JUDGE TOO FAR! - National Black Republican Association

Sotomayor Video: Judges Make Policy, Latinas Better Than Whites - News Max, Kenneth D. Williams

Identity Politics on the Supreme Court - Townhall, George Will

Limbaugh: Obama's judicial pick a 'racist' - World Net Daily, Bob Unruh

Gingrich: Sotomayor 'Racist,' Should Withdraw - NewsMax

Sotomayor ‘La Raza member’ - Stop the ACLU

Supreme Court nominee supports reverse discrimination - American Family Association, Donald E. Wildmon

Sotomayor Faces Scrutiny on Controversial Firefighters Ruling - NewsMax

For Republicans, Court Fight Risks Losing Hispanics to Win Conservatives - The New York Times, Adam Nagourney

On Sotomayor, Obama Can’t Hide Behind the Bushes - Townhall, Ken Blackwell

Empathy v. Impartiality - Townhall, Jonah Goldberg

I Feel Your Pain. Not Theirs. Yours. - Human Events, Ann Coulter

'Empathy' in action - One News Now, Thomas Sowell

Pat Robertson: Sotomayor Nomination an 'Outrage' - NewsMax, Rick Pedraza

Extremist Offensive American Flag


Coming to America as an immigrant used to be motivated by the wish to become an American, and assimilate into the greatest free society in the world. The Stars and Stripes have always represented Liberty, and the greatness of the United States. When my wife naturalized, the new Americans waved small American flags enthusiastically, as tears of patriotism and joy ran down their faces.

If you don't like America, or you find our way of life offensive, feel free to go back to your country where you belong. It is a privilege to be an American, and if you find America offensive, common sense dictates that you should return to a place where you find yourself less offended.

Political Correctness, unfortunately, has people jumping in fear every time a single person, or group, makes a complaint, even if that complaint is ridiculous beyond belief. The Liberal mindset in this nation preaches that America must be apologetic for its exceptionalism, that somehow we should be ashamed for being the greatest nation on Earth.

In Texas, a woman's American flag was removed from the office she worked in because an office worker originally from Africa complained that Old Glory was offensive to her.

Insanity.

How insane is it that a national symbol of America, and a symbol of the liberty this nation stands for, is considered offensive to someone, and the management actually complied with the complaint and removed the flag?

A later statement indicated the complaint was over the size of the flag. This is obviously a false statement since earlier a comment that "the flag outside" should be adequate. Somehow, the President of the United States bowing to a Muslim leader in Saudi Arabia in an apparent show of subservience, and the nomination of a lifelong racist like La Raza member Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court, is not considered to be anti-American in the least, but a request by a non-citizen in the United States for the removal of the American flag is followed without question. Do these people want us to be apologetic for displaying our own flag too?

It's bad enough Barack Obama spent his entire trip overseas apologizing for America, but we should not. There should be no apologizing for being an exceptional nation.

If foreigners think America is such a bad nation, don't come here in the first place.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Texan Woman Told to Remove 'Offensive' American Flag From Office - Fox News

Sotomayor's Skeletons in the Closet

Racist and a Militant Liberal, Sonia Sotomayor is the Potential Supreme Court Justice the Founding Father's Most Feared Would Someday Hold a Gavel:



Get Liberty

Wednesday, May 27, 2009

Sotomayor: Constitution? What Constitution?



Get Liberty

U.S. To Own 70% of General Motors

U.S. Government Power Grab of Private Sector Continues

Perhaps GM should change its name to Government Motors. The United Automobile Workers, one of the culprits destroying the American Car Industry, is expected to own 20% of General Motors by the time the Chapter 11 Bankruptcy proceedings are complete. The U.S. Government will own a 70% share, creating a conflict of interest when it comes to governmental decisions regarding fuel standards, technology initiatives, and so forth, let alone the fact that the move toward nationalizing our private industries is dangerous, and a literal move in a direction of communism.

President Obama states the government has no plan to have an operating role in the company, but such claims come way too late. Obama has already shown his willingness to dictate to the company their policies by ensuring the resignation of GM's CEO in late March.

Government control over Chrysler is already beginning to pay dividends for the Democrat-led Government, since every single one of the dealerships forced to close, save for one, gave contributions to the GOP. Coincidence? I think not.

I am just wondering after which magnificently run government program is the running of General Motors going to be modeled after? Bankrupt Social Security? Bankrupt medicare? Or will the autommaker be run much like the magnificently efficient state run Departments of Motor Vehicles where you never have to wait long at all, and they never make any mistakes!

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

U.S. Expected to Own 70% of Restructured G.M. - New York Times

GM CEO resigns at Obama's behest - The Politico

Did anti-Obama Campaign Contributions dictate which Chrysler dealers were shuttered? - Director Blue/Doug Ross @ Journal

Bomb Blast In Pakistan Kills At Least 23


Nuclear-armed Pakistan is another step closer to collapse, and falling under the rule of Sharia Law. The Taliban and Al-Qaeda now control the majority of the country, and have been waging attacks against Punjab, Pakistan's most populous province.

The Obama Administration has been urging Pakistan's government to move against the militants, worried their success in the country will encourage Taliban forces in neighboring Afghanistan against U.S. Troops. It is believed that Taliban insurgents are teaming up with local militant groups, and this alliance creates a grave risk that could enable the radicals to gain control of Pakistan in the near future.

General Petraeus suggested a couple weeks ago that Pakistan was within weeks of collapse.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

At Least 23 Are Killed in Huge Bomb Blast in Pakistan - The New York Times

Bomb in Pakistan's Lahore kills 24 - Reuters

US general says Pakistan could be just two weeks from collapse - The Telegraph U.K.

California Supreme Court Upholds Constitutional Amendment Defining Marriage as Between a Man and a Woman


As expected, the California Supreme Court upheld the voter-approved marriage protection amendment, though allowing the gay couples that married during the short time the law allowed gay marriage under a court decision to remain married under the law. The decision was 6-1, rejecting the argument that the amendment was a "revision" of the California Constitution.

The law is now Constitutional, so the courts were required to uphold it. Only a new constitutional amendment to repeal Proposition 8 can change the law in California.

The battle is not over, however. Gay rights activists promised to place a new proposition on the ballot next year.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

California high court upholds gay marriage ban - Modesto Bee

North Korea Threatens Military Strikes on South Korea


In pure totalitarian fashion, North Korea is railing against any American-led operations in her area. Knowing that the Obama Administration is weak, and will back down, North Korea issued a warning that military strikes will be launched against South Korea should the U.S. operational forces intercept any North Korean vessels suspected of carrying weapons of mass destruction.

Any hostile act against North Korea, according to the nation's spokesman, will be considered a declaration of war. A hostile act will be defined as any search and seizure.

The North Koreans have also stated they "no longer feel bound by the armistance" that ended the Korean War in 1953.

South Korea has stated that if the North stages a provocation, the South will respond resolutely. China has been silent on the issue.

I fully expect North Korea to continue to be more and more bolder as time passes, and to walk into South Korea in an effort to unify the two countries under communist rule, and the Obama Administration will do nothing but offer talks. This, in turn, will signal to other regimes around the world that the Obama Administration does not have the courage to stand up to evil, and worldwide clashes will ensue, possibly including a move against Israel.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

North Korea Threatens Military Strikes on South - The New York Times, Choe Sang-Hun

No Freedom Of Religion, Even At Home

Hold Bible Studies At Home, Be Fined
In San Diego County a pastor and his wife have been fined for holding Bible studies in their home. The couple was interrogated by a county official who asked them questions like: "Do you have a regular weekly meeting in your home? Do you sing? Do you say 'Amen'? Do you say 'Praise the Lord?'" As a result of their "yes" answers to the questions, they were advised they must stop holding "religious assemblies" in their home until obtaining a Major Use Permit from the county with studies involved that could cost upwards to tens of thousands of dollars. Escalating fines would be charged until they complied.

I am willing to bet the local Cub Scout Meetings, Wife Support Meetings, and all the other "assemblies" that go on in neighborhoods weren't targeted.

First, the secular humanists take prayer from school. Then they try to remove any religious expression from the public square. Then, with hate crimes legislation, inside the four walls of a church pastor's must be careful what to say. Now, we can't even hold Bible Studies in our homes?

Why should we have their religion of Secular Humanism forced upon us, and our religious rights taken away at the same time?

The California State Constitution specifically gives freedom of religion rights to citizens. Religious expression cannot be prohibited. This move by the county is illegal, and the Western Center for Law and Policy is on the case.

As the Left cracks down on Conservatives by labeling us "Extremists," and tries to take away our right to worship as Christians, we must stand up and declare our rights under the U.S. Constitution, and the State Constitutions.

Remember, the colonies were founded on the idea of religious freedom, and the founding fathers of this nation used Judeo-Christian values as the foundation of this great nation.

The 1st Amendment reads: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . .

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Home: No place for Bible study - World Net Daily, Drew Zahn

Tuesday, May 26, 2009

Sotomayor Nominated for the United States Supreme Court


Twenty days ago I suggested that Sonia Sotomayor might be Obama's pick to replace retiring Justice Souter. The prediction was easy to make. Barack could care less about the integrity of the court, or whether or not a Supreme Court Justice is a Constitutional originalist. He doesn't believe the justices should interpret the law according to its original meaning, or that judges should not make law from the bench, as has been the habit of the Supreme Court. His concerns are more in line with making history (again), pandering to what he perceives to be under-represented groups, finding a judge that rules based on "understanding and identifying with people's hopes and struggles" (aka Empathy), and grabbing the most liberal judge he can put his hands on as an addition to the court. Sotomayor fills all of these requirements for him.

Justice is supposed to be blind, but Barry wanted a judge that would uphold the same Marxist ideals he holds close to his socialist heart. Obama was looking for empathy, rather than a judge that understands justice. He desired a judge that recognized the same abstract humanity that demands uniformity, rather than the free will of individuals.

In Sonia Sotomayor, Obama has a Hispanic woman who ruled on the Second Circuit Appeals Court panel that the Second Amendment is not a fundamental right, supports the killing of unborn children, and has a special fondness for seeing big government intrude on the lives of Americans - and she is willing to use the courts to ensure it happens, whether We The People like it, or not.

In other words, Sotomayor is the perfect militant left-wing Supreme Court Justice of Obama's Leninistic dreams. Adding her to pair up with Justice Ginsburg who has a fondness for international law, and believes the U.S. Constitution should be set aside so that America can run more in line with the bidding of other countries, and we have the most dangerous pair of women in American History.

Senator Jon Kyl, the Senate's second highest ranking Republican, made a statement over the weekend that if Obama chose a nominee that placed empathy over the letter of the law, and the U.S. Constitution, he was going to encourage a filibuster, and employ a procedural delay.

Whatever they do, it better be effective, or else we will have on the Supreme Court a very dangerous liberal activist, who places the liberal agenda way ahead of the U.S. Constitution.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Replacing Judge Souter - Political Pistachio, Douglas V. Gibbs

Sonia Sotomayor Nominated for Supreme Court - Net Right Nation, Ed Morrissey

Obama Picks Sotomayor For High Court - NPR/Associated Press, Nina Totenberg

Obama Hails Sotomayor as 'Inspiring' - The New York Times, Peter Baker and Jeff Zeleny

You Guessed It. Obama's Pick for Supreme Court Is Liberal Reconstructionist with a Chip on her Shoulder - Pro Life Blogs

SOTOMAYOR NOMINATION AN OBAMA SLAP AT SECOND AMENDMENT - Second Amendment Foundation

Justice Ginsburg illustrates the problem of a liberal judiciary - Annuit Coeptis: Standing Guard Over Liberty, James Shott

Kyl Threatens Filibuster Over Court Pick - NewsMax

Extremist Opposition

Silencing The Opposition By Labeling Them Extremists is Nothing New, and an Apparent Play By The Left in their Search for the Retention of Power

When George W. Bush was president the Liberal Left media, urged on by the politicians of the Democratic Party, led a campaign of demonization against the GOP of which we have never seen in the history of this nation (though some may say they were remeniscient of the Anti-War Movement of the 60s and 70s). Anti-Bush and Anti-War rallies erupted, some at the Nation's Capital. The protests were stirred by anger of a war they erroneously believed was not legal, and the anger erupted into confrontational rallies, and acts of civil disobedience. Cars were overturned. Memorials desecrated. The locales of the protests were usually trashed, a mountain of garbage left behind in the wake of the rallies. One could call it job security for public employees tasked with keeping the cities of America clean. Others may deem it an example of lack of control portrayed by The Left, or at least an unwillingness to uphold standards they may not even recognize as existing.

America was founded on dissent against a tyrannical government, and a grass roots revolution designed to bring liberty to the colonies. Spirited debate is a staple of the American system of checks, balances, and freedom of speech. In America, we have the right to disagree with our leaders, and even the duty as a people to be in visible opposition to actions of the federal government should they restrict our freedoms, or should the government overstep its Constitutional limitations.

I defended the liberal's right to disagree with Bush. I never called for the government to silence them, or for folks to be arrested or fined for wearing shirts that read "Abort Bush," or Bumper Stickers that proclaimed "F**k Bush." My problem with their opposition to George W. Bush was not the fact that they were opposed to the president's policies. I, myself, opposed many of his policies, including the expansion of government, and the fact that Bush never met a spending bill he didn't like. I will defend the Left's right to disagree with governmental actions to my dying day. However, I strongly disagreed with the despicable actions portrayed by the opposition when they gathered at rallies, or other gatherings. Their portrayal of "hate" for The Right during the Bush years was disgusting, and a very unpatriotic way to carry themselves. They acted like people who didn't care about anything beyond their anti-Constitutional message. Their civility went out the window once the anger grabbed hold of them, and their profane actions took to the streets in ways that was embarrassing to Americans watching them act like that.

The people chaining themselves across the entrances of military recruiting offices, pissing on Memorials, and physically harassing anybody that disagreed with them ultimately achieved their goal. Barack Obama was elected President, and the Democrats now have full control of Congress. After decades of domination, with a short interruption in the 90s, the GOP has lost both the White House, and Congress. Their crime? Losing perspective, letting go of their principles, and standing for nothing. The Republican party leadership has become not much different than the donkey riding opposition. As the Republican Party has moved to the left, their appeal has waned, and "Hope and Change" was given an opportunity.

The American People voted for change by a narrow margin when the popular vote is considered, but they weren't sure what kind of change they were in for. Perhaps they were expecting a few government hand-outs, a troop withdrawal from Iraq, and maybe a move in the direction of green energy propositions. Nobody, except Conservatives, saw coming the swift actions of the Democrats to implement all of their wildest dreams, and literally begin to change the entire American form of government from a representative Republic to a socialist state eager to nationalize everything they can get their hands on. Barack Obama's drive for a more liberalistic government is the realization of a government willing to limit choice, restrict individual liberty, and do whatever it takes to silence the opposition.

Freedom is a choice, and when choice is taken away, freedom is lost.

Railing against the Democrat's attempt to limit choice and limit freedom, Conservatives are being met with an age old strategy used by those tyrannical governments in the past desperately attempting to maintain their power. Any opposition, dissenters, or those daring to have an opinion different than the liberal regime are being labeled as extremists, and the campaign to silence the opposition has taken a dangerous turn for the worse.

The Democrats, with their constant demonization of anyone who opposes them, have created the illusion that the American people are in despair. The Obama voters desired change from a seemingly collapsing economy, and the Pied Piper of Illinois promised to play his magical flute of "Change" and lead them to the promised land. The supporters of Obama see him as the wave of the future, when in reality he is leading America to an unsteady future of economic collapse and bondage.

Obama is not the first leader to rise to power as a nation experiences duress. He is not the first to use charisma to transform his followers into zealous devotees. His party is not the first to demand of the devoted followers to use any means, including force, to silence the opposition.

As Barack Obama pushes policies designed to undermine the Republic, and alter the United States into a socialist state, the realization that the power of the Democrats may come to an end if the opposition continues to voice an opinion that is heard by the populace is becoming apparent. The primary dissent is coming from Conservatives, and the Christian community. State sovereignty is being declared, which is not secession, but the understanding that the states have the right to autonomy from the federal government, except where powers to the federal government are enumerated by the U.S. Constitution (Specifically in Article I, Section 8). A return to the original intent of the founding fathers is being demanded, and the symbology of the American Revolution among those that disagree is rising to the surface as a result.

One of the symbols of the founders is the Boston Tea Party, where colonists threw English tea into Boston Harbor to protest the taxation and unfair intrusion upon colonial life by the strong, centralized, government of the English Monarchy. In the spirit of that day, Conservatives took to the streets on Tax Day, April 15th, and staged their own tea parties. Final count realized that over a million American's participated in this grass roots effort that was birthed on the Internet in the conservative blogosphere. As the word for the event got out, conservative talkers on terrestrial radio and television joined in, adding their weight to the events, and assisting in the attempt to get the word out. Another Tea Party event across America is planned, appropriate enough, for July 4th, Independence Day.

Those who oppose President Obama's policies have been labeled extremists, and potential domestic terrorists. Conservative talkers and bloggers were blamed for a shooting in Pennsylvania, and for past events in Oklahoma that have nothing to do with politics, or today's political environment. In Missouri a motorist was pulled over for daring to have a sign on his vehicle stating "Abort Obama," and in Louisiana a motorist was detained because of his bumper sticker reading "Don't Tread On Me." I suppose the motorist's portrayal of the Gadsen Flag, which is a historical flag, and carries a reference to our founding father's battle against the tyranny of England, was offensive to a few snakes somewhere.

A Tea Party Protester was visited by Joint Terrorism Task Force members of the FBI for daring to write letters to Presidents Bush and Obama during their terms to voice dissatisfaction. The letters to Bush garnered no response, but one of the letters to Obama deemed the person a danger to the government, and the FBI determined the citizen should be investigated as a potential domestic terrorist. Apparently, complaining about the Obama Administration's horrendous spending habit is more dangerous to Obama than the terrorists that are hell-bent on killing Americans at Guantanamo Bay, and deserves a much stronger response.

The attempt to silence the opposition of Obama is nothing new, of course. Within days after Obama won the election last November, during a Barack Obama Victory Rally, a man was arrested for daring to wear a McCain/Palin T-shirt at the "Yes We Can" celebration. The Philadelphia Police claims the individual was arrested for disorderly conduct and public drunkenness, but whether or not the charges were accurate was challenged by a video of the incident, which fails to support the Police Department's assertion. The rabid crowd, before the man was arrested, surrounded the McCain supporter, chanting "Oh-Bah-Mah! Oh-Bah-Mah!" while circling around him and closing in. I don't seem to remember any such treatment of the opposition at the Tea Parties. Do you?

Mainstream Media outlets are assisting the bloodless coup, calling any non-liberals that refuse to be "moderates" like Colin Powell "Extremists." One example of such a label is in the very first sentence of an editorial titled "The Land That Republicans Forgot" in The New York Times. The sentence reads: "Colin Powell, one of the few Republicans with enough fire in his belly to stand up to his party's extremists. . . "

Apparently, daring to disagree with the Left, and the left leaning leadership of the "moderate" GOP, is good enough reason to be called an extremist, which in a sense, is like calling Conservatives "enemies of the state."

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Man Detained for Displaying “Don’t Tread on Me” Bumper Sticker - Atlas Shrugs

Tea Party Protester Visited by Joint Terrorism Task Force of the FBI - Patriots For America

McCain T-shirt gets man cuffed, stuffed - World Net Daily

The Land Republicans Forgot - The New York Times

House Democrat Crafts Alternative on Probe of DHS 'Right-Wing' Report - Fox News

Barack Obama's Failed Foreign Policies

Pakistan, Iran, North Korea, Hamas, and Cuba Serve To Remind That Evil Exists, No Matter How Much Dialogue One May Offer

North Korea conducted its second nuclear test with an explosion bigger than the first device created. The test is another sign of aggressive behavior exhibited by a country that not only shows disdain for America, but has a loose connection with Iran.

Iran claims to have no such relationship with North Korea (like they can be believed). Last week Iran test-fired a medium range missile capable of reaching Israel. This coupled with Iran's nuclear aspirations, and the impending collapse of Pakistan, creates concern regarding Iran's intentions.

Pakistan is rapidly adding nuclear arms as the day of collapse approaches. The Taliban and Al Qaeda have gained control of a large part of the country. Pakistan's drive to spend heavily on new nuclear arms, as North Korea and Iran also move into a direction of nuclear capabilities as well, is a cause for grave concern, especially when considering Israel's vulnerability should Pakistan and Iran reach their nuclear goals.

Netanyahu has been pressured by the Obama Administration to come to an agreement over a two-state solution with the Palestinian Territories. Palestinians have rejected the two-state solution every time it has been offered because they do not wish to have a two-state solution. They desire a one-state solution, meaning that Israel is destroyed, and they take the land. Hezbollah and Hamas have repeatedly indicated they desire the destruction of Israel verbally, and in their manifestos. Iran, The Taliban, and Al Qaeda (of which are gaining control of Pakistan) have also voiced that they desire the destruction of Israel. In fact, the entire Muslim World desires the destruction of Israel, and the very existence of Israel is the sole stabilizing factor in The Middle East. By asking Israel to again retreat into appeasement, and give up land for peace, President Obama is literally pushing Israel into the direction of Destruction.

Cuba, the communist nation 90 miles off the coast of the United States, has a history of anti-American rhetoric and aspirations to destroy the liberty that America holds so dearly. A former ally of the Soviet Union, Cuba has remained a communist nation, and is now aligning itself with other leaders of nations that hold animosity toward the U.S., including Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, and Ahmadinejad of Iran. Obama's response for Cuba's many decades of hostility towards the United States is to open talks with Cuba, and open up operational relations with the nation that have been closed since the rise of Fidel Castro, and the realization that Cuba considered the United States to be an enemy they desired the destruction of.

Barack Obama is making an anti-nuclear push, hoping to bring the world into a unifying agreement under The Test Ban Treaty, which will ban all nuclear testing. One obstacle to his plans is that eight nations have refused to ratify the treaty. Those nations are China, North Korea, India, Pakistan, Indonesia, Iran, Israel, and Egypt. Israel realizes the absurdity of the treaty, and that it will not be followed by rogue nations, no matter what treaty they may sign. Limiting the capabilities of nations to protect themselves against countries that will refuse to abide by the treaty is insanity.

It is time for President Obama to realize that all of the good intentions in the world does not take into account reality. Reality dictates that evil exists, and evil does not play by the rules, even if the rules are dictated by a signed treaty. Obama's soft touch has encouraged the nations who have America's demise in their plans to increase their move toward nuclear capabilities. Obama is being perceived by these nations and ideologies as weak, and that is all they need to be emboldened to move up to the next level, and plan the demise of America and The West.

President Obama is failing as a Commander in Chief, and is placing this nation, and our allies, in grave danger with his show of weakness.

Ronald Reagan proclaimed, "Peace Through Strength." History confirms he was right. Obama fails to understand the truth, and as a result, is failing this nation's security, and moving us in a direction of destruction.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

North Korea Conducts Second Nuclear Test - Wall Street Journal

Iran: no nuclear, missile cooperation with N.Korea - The Star Online

Mr. Obama and Mr. Netanyahu - The New York Times

Have We Already Lost Iran? - The New York Times

Obama, With Help, Makes Anti-Nuclear Push - The New York Times

The Test Ban Treaty - The New York Times

U.S. Signals Willingness to Talks With Cuba - The New York Times

Netanyahu May Endorse Palestinian State - NewsMax

Is Israel On The Eve of Destruction? - GM's Place

Netanyahu to get pressured to OK Palestinian State - Yahoo News

Pakistan Is Rapidly Adding Nuclear Arms, U.S. Says - The New York Times

Obama Says North Korea nuclear test a grave concern - Reuters

Monday, May 25, 2009

A Hole In My Heart

My Memorial Day Reflections Led To Personal Journeys Of The Heart
Upon approaching my grandfather's grave at Riverside National Cemetery, I laid a single rose along the right edge of the plaque that identified his grave as one belonging to a World War II Veteran, United States Army-Air Corps. I planted two small American flags, one at each top corner. They waved slightly under the force of the light breeze. I removed my hat, knelt to a single knee, closed my eyes, and prayed a silent prayer.

I remained silent after my prayer, and remained knelt down for an additional moment, also remembering his brothers in arms that had died on the battlefield so many years ago, and recently in the Middle East. As I rose, placing my hat back upon my head, I looked around, and caught the momentary glance of Dad. The other members of my extended family were standing around talking to each other, conversing with my cousin visiting from Arkansas, and sharing stories about Grandpa. My dad stood off to the side, no longer looking in my direction. Perhaps he was in thought. Maybe he simply decided not to talk at that moment. Nonetheless, like me, he understands Grandpa's service to our nation in ways the others in our party may not. After all, Dad is a Vietnam Veteran, and a United States Marine. We, the ones that took an oath to give our lives for liberty during our service to this nation, feel our patriotism in our soul. It lives and breathes inside of us. It begs for a tear when we look upon Old Glory, and remember the lives of the fallen that gave the ultimate sacrifice on the battlefield.

As much as I desire to recognize the taste of freedom as my Grandfather and Dad did, as a peacetime veteran I will never fully understand their experiences on the battlefield. Grandfather served in France during the 1940's, and Dad in Vietnam during the 1960's. I served in the Pacific Ocean during the Reagan years. The most action I saw was when a Soviet vessel followed the Guided Missile Destroyer I was stationed on for thirteen miles.

My cousin, happy to meet me for the first time in person, shook my hand. I gave her a hug when it came time to depart later. Like my Grandfather and Dad, my cousin and I share a bond that few understand. We both have a hole in our heart, one that will never be filled, one that will never be satisfied.

Dad has been my dad since I was two years old. I rarely refer to him as my step-dad since he has been more of a father to me than most biological fathers are capable of being. Mom ensured our lives were grounded in faith and moral clarity, and Dad made sure our lives were grounded in ethics and strong work habits.

Father, the biological one, was not one to spend a whole lot of time with me during my life. I know that he loved me in his own way, but his ability to show that emotion was somehow limited by a lifestyle that he placed an importance upon that overshadowed any semblance of a sound fatherhood. Usually, I received the privilege to see him once a year, with the occasional deuce when he decided to pop up in my life at Christmas and my birthday during the same year. The time I spent with him was fun, a nice change from my otherwise doldrum existence. He bought me things, took me to movies that my parents may not have, and he had a BETA Machine, which played movies on tape - something my parents did not possess, nor could afford. His was a life funded easily through his businesses, and family heritage. Money was something the Gibbs Family was not short of.

Dad, the step-dad, provided everything he could, sometimes working a couple jobs to maintain his household. He poured his energies into keeping a roof over our heads, and food on the table. Dad never treated me as a step-son. As far as he was concerned, I was no different than the two children he and my mother produced after they married. He did everything to make my life normal, and to ensure I didn't notice the hole in my heart.

Even my grandparents, Dad's folks in Arkansas, got to the point where I was so much a part of the family they even forgot the fact that I was not blood related. Grandma often made remarks saying something along the lines of, "Oh, you got that from your dad," referring to her son, of whom I share no genetics with.

He was twice the Dad I could ever hope to be, yet after that once a year visit with my father I would come home with the attitude that the biological version was the best guy in the world. The attitude lasted about two weeks, usually, and it surely hurt the feelings of the man that was doing all the work to raise me, and love me. But Dad never said anything about it. If it bothered him, I never knew. He understood, I believe, that it was the hole in my heart talking. The hole was acting out. The hole in my heart wished it did not have to suffer an abandonment issue caused by my father by blood. What I didn't understand at the time was that the man who was my biological father never really thought about fatherhood, never expected to have an heir, and didn't know how to be anything else other than a once or twice a year visitor.

As an adult, now, I understand the hole in my heart. I recognize that it is simply a natural occurrence for children who never knew one of their parents as much as they hoped. Throughout my childhood I strove to earn the pride of a man that didn't know how to be proud of a son he accidentally fathered. I secretly imagined him sitting in the stands during my baseball games. I wished, after he vanished during my teenage years, that he would appear just in time to see me finish a running race and receive a medal, or grin at the fact that I was a Letterman. I hoped that he would surprise me by showing up to my high school graduation, or appear just in time to see me off to boot camp when I joined the U.S. Navy. I wondered how much like him I truly was, even though any environmental factors that may mold my personality to be like his did not exist. I wondered if I was anything like him, and secretly feared that I might be.

He reappeared in my life after my aunt, his sister, passed away. I was beyond my teenage years, and married long enough to have a son. His appearance was long after the accident that left me in a coma, and hospitalized me for months. He appeared long after I needed him to. He missed the right moments. He failed to live up to my expectations.

During our reunion, I introduced him to his grandson, and asked my father about his feelings regarding my child. He responded, "I don't like children."

I suppose I should have figured out at that moment that my attempts to win a relationship with him were more or less futile, but as hard headed as I am, I continued to pursue getting to know my father better.

In the Fall of 1998 our relationship finally began to grow. I called him every Saturday, visited him a few times up on the Oregon Coast. He died six months later, before the relationship could truly grow.

His friends say he had a heart attack while driving up the main road to the house. The alcohol level in his blood told me otherwise. He was a drinker, and had always been one. He took a turn too fast and drove his car right off the road, over a long drop, and into the Chetco River. The head injury he received when the car slammed into a multitude of trees on the way down killed him instantly. A lucky break, I suppose, since the car wound up under eight feet of cold water when the vehicle finally came to rest.

Again, he had abandoned me.

My mother, his ex-wife, drove up to Oregon with me to tend to his body. During the 16-hour drive we exchanged a few thoughts about the man who had fathered me, but the conversation never left the realm of the surface. Emotions were carefully tucked away, and sensitivities were respected.

In Oregon, when it came time to view his body, I did not wish to do so. My mother urged me to, explaining that I needed closure. So, reluctantly, I entered the room and sat down. I could have sworn I saw movement in his lifeless body. A twinkle in his closed eye. A smile.

I wiped my tears, walked up to the man, and placed my hand on his stiff body. The tears returned, and I spent the next twenty minutes telling the man everything I ever wanted to say. I spilled my heart out, emptying the aging hole that resided deep in my angry heart. I poured all of my emptiness upon the corpse that lay before me, often approaching the threshold of yelling at him. Then, afterward, when I had said all that shored the hole in my heart, I sat down on the bench across from him and wept. I wept for him. I wept that he didn't know the Lord. I wept that he never understood me. I wept that he was incapable of caring about anyone other than himself. I wept for my own self-pity, that he didn't fill the hole in my heart as I desired, that he refused to live up to the hopes I secretly held deep in my soul.

Today, on Memorial Day, after the memories of my biological father forced a couple tears to well up in my eyes, I looked over at the man that has been "Dad" most of my life. Some would call him my step-dad, but to me he is Dad. He was happy to be with his family. He was surely remembering fond thoughts of his father-in-law that lay in the grave below the plaque that was adorned with my rose and two flags. He was there to love me as his son, even though the hole in my heart sometimes made me say things that broke his heart. He hugged me, and told me he loves me.

The hole in my heart remains, and I suppose it will never be filled, but the love of the ones around me, many of whom "decided" to love me, regardless of whether or not their blood runs through my veins, and the love of Christ, makes living with that hole in my heart a little bit easier.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Memorial Day, Honoring A Debt We Cannot Repay

More Than A Day Off, or a Day for Picnics and Bar-B-Ques

When I entered the cemetery I removed my hat out of respect and honor. The flags were waving in the slight breeze, each one placed on the edge of the plaque of the grave of each fallen hero. The resting place of my grandfather is at the Riverside National Cemetery in Southern California, a location of many graves of brave men and women who gave voluntarily for liberty, and the American Way. Line after line of simple grave makers mark the final resting places of the brave. The graves are alone, yet among their brothers and sisters in arms.

Standing over his grave marker, it brought back the memories of my visit to the Arlington National Cemetery in Virginia near Washington DC, my visit to the tomb of the unknown soldier, and the rows and rows of crosses and grave markers I observed there.

My memories also harkened back to the first time I stepped into the USS Arizona Memorial at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. As with Riverside National, I removed my cap as I stepped upon that sacred ground. I read the names in silence, tears welling up in my eyes. The dead called to me, asking me not to weep, for they gave their lives willingly, so that others might live, and live with the promise of freedom.

There were those at the USS Arizona Memorial that were less respectful, leaving their caps on, talking loudly, letting their children run around the solemn place. It made me desire to shout out, "Hey, show some respect!" But I didn't. Perhaps they didn't understand. Maybe they didn't know the price for freedom that veterans like myself have experienced. Perhaps they didn't view the fallen as brothers and sisters, and as heroes that gave the ultimate sacrifice so that our liberty might live.

My grandfather fought in World War II, and though he survived the war to live a long life, many of his fellow soldiers did not. Many of his friends and fellow troops lie in foreign lands. Many lie in graves, much like my grandfather's, in National Cemeteries across America. All of these heroes are owed a debt of unspeakable gratitude by Americans, and Memorial Day is that opportunity to do so.

With the recent war against the Islamic Jihad, and the continuing service of our fine military personnel, yet another generation of those who have proudly served and died in the service of our country is owed our thank you, and deserves our prayers.

Some ask how we can repay this debt, and show our gratitude.

One way to thank these fallen is to pause on Memorial Day to remember their sacrifice, and to thank them with our prayers for paying the cost of our freedoms. After all, our liberty has been bought and paid for with the blood of these brave heroes.


1.2 Million Americans have given their lives for our freedoms across more than two centuries and in more than a dozen wars and armed conflicts.

At the cemetery a small American flag is planted in the ground next to each grave's plaque. May they stand tall, and wave reverently.

Never forget. Keep the faith. Remember those fallen in service to the country, and to preserve the liberty of you and I.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary