Live Conservative Talk Radio Fri., Sat. & Sun. at 10 pm Eastern/7 pm Pacific, HERE.
Douglas V. Gibbs is a proud member of the American Authors Association
Douglas V. Gibbs is a proud member of the Military Writers Society of America. Click the image below to go to the MWSA website.
............
VISIT BCR MINISTRIES - THE MINISTRY OF The Birth, Crucifixion, and Resurrection of Jesus Christ ---------------- ===================== Check out My Favorite Blogs To Visit!
Posts
All Comments
Former Palestinian Terrorist Walid Shoebat is the author of "Why We Want To Kill You," and "God's War On Terror." Tonight he joins the Political Pistachio Radio Revolution to discuss if Islamic Terrorists are behind the Riots in China, and to talk about the rise of homegrown terrorist cells in the United States. Join us live at 7pm Pacific, or listen to the archive later on BlogTalkRadio.com/PoliticalPistachio
If any company or persons, like Insurance Companies, Bankers, Doctors, or Automobile Corporation Executives (to give a few examples) dare to be profit-minded, or gain too much riches or power, they are automatically greedy, unethical, and immoral, according to the Left.
However, if you are a Democratic Politician trying to nationalize America with government-run programs, which in turn will solidify the power of the politicians in place, that is perfectly fine, and moral.
The loss of liberty to the American People is a necessary piece of collateral damage, according to the leftists. No big deal. Uncle Sam, or should that be Uncle Barry, taking control of everything is for your own good . . . or at least that is what the Democrats say.
Anyone opposing the Liberals are the bad guys. Immoral villains, you could say (or in my case, a crazy rightwing extremist).
In fact, the following is what Nancy Pelosi had to say about how the unethical insurance companies are working to kill the plan to create a government-run health plan:
"It's almost immoral what they are doing. Of course they've been immoral all along in how they have treated the people that they insure. They are the villains. They have been part of the problem in a major way. They are doing everything in their power to stop a public option from happening."
I am not saying that the insurance companies are a bunch of angels. And I truly believe that insurance companies are a large part of the problem. Putting anyone between the patient and the provider is a bad idea. But rather than attack the insurance companies, why don't the Democrats address the real problem: Trial Lawyers?
Instead of creating a massive government-run system that wreaks of Marxism, how about Tort Reform instead, which would ensure that frivolous lawsuits suing the doctors for even hiccuping wrong would come to an end?
The answer, my friends, is not because the Democrats wish to improve health care. The answer is that the Democrats wish to replace those immoral, unethical, power hungry insurance companies with themselves, so that they can be the immoral, unethical, power hungry controllers of the American People.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Pelosi lashes out against insurance companies - Reuters
As the Obama Birth Certificate argument reaches the mainstream, and while the Left argues the issue should be over and done with because it has been proven that Obama was born in Hawaii, while the Right argues Barack Hussein Obama may very well not have been born in Hawaii, I propose a third possibility: Despite his birth place, Obama is not eligible because of his dual allegiance, which exists because he does not fall within the parameters of being a Natural Born Citizen of the United States of America.
To understand this argument, one must understand the term, Natural Born Citizen.
Breaking it down, let us first think about the first word, "Natural." The founders used Natural for a specific reason. Natural means, basically, not of man. So, natural would be a condition that happens outside of law, since law is something created by man. Therefore, simply being a citizen by legal means, like naturalization, does not make one a "Natural" born citizen.
The word "Born" pertains to birth. Birth is important not just because of the "where," but because of the "who." Birth is the natural way to be a citizen, outside of the law, giving both place, and parentage, an important role.
"Citizen." A citizen is someone belonging to a particular nation. To be naturally born as a citizen means the person must be a citizen by birth, and by means outside of man's law.
In American society during the time of the founding of this nation, it was not only important to be born in America. Loyalty was an important factor. Dual loyalty was a dangerous thing, especially during a time of revolution. Therefore, a man with a father that was not born in America, but of British birth, would be considered to have dual allegiance. So, in addition to being born in the colonies, and later the states, one's father must have been born an American as well. Women were, at the time, not as important of a factor. Heirs are sons of their fathers. Citizenship was something, in a sense, you inherited from your father. So, to be a Natural Born Citizen was a person born in America of an American father. Later, as the importance of women grew in society, it became important that a person was the child of two American parents in order to be a Natural Born Citizen.
One reader has repeatedly asked what court cases support my argument, as if the judiciary is the end all of legal matters. Before 1803 the courts were not the arbiters of the U.S. Constitution, and were not originally meant to be. The creeping incrementalism of an ever increasingly powerful judiciary followed to the point that today people think the decisions of 9 people in black robes should always overpower the decisions of the Legislative Branch, the Executive Branch, and the People.
The founding fathers never intended for the courts to have that kind of power, which is why law was not made by the courts when these questions arose. In fact, often times they depended on common law which was enforced by the people's actions and voting tendencies. In the case of a Natural Born Citizen, it was apparent to the founders what was meant by the term, so little was done to clarify it. This is not to say there were not writings, and some legal clarifications made. I am only saying that a lot of explanation was not presented because the founding fathers felt that the words, "Natural Born Citizen" was clarification enough.
Now, we find ourselves living with a liberal slant to our society, and with a liberal interpretation of the U.S. Constitution that basically says, "It means what we say it means by our own definition."
I prefer to stick with the original intentions of the founding fathers.
With all of this said, it becomes apparent to me that by the very fact that Barack Obama's father was born in Kenya, and held a Kenyan loyalty, Barack Obama does not fit the definition of Natural Born Citizen.
In short, even though I still believe there is something fishy going on regarding Barack Obama's Birth Certificate, in the end it really doesn't matter.
Obama did not inherit Natural Born Citizenship from his father because it was not his father's to give. If Obama's father had been born on American soil, despite a Kenyan lineage from his grandfather, then it would be an entirely different situation. But in the case of our current President, Obama's father was born in the nation of Kenya, making the elder Obama a non-American.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Defining Natural-Born Citizen - The Federalist Blog, P.A. Madison
OF OUR NATIVE COUNTRY, AND SEVERAL THINGS THAT RELATE TO IT, Section 212, Citizens and Natives - Vattel: The Law of Nations: Book I
Vattel: The Law of Nations: Prefaces to the various editions
When does behavior research become behavior modification?
Simply put, in today's political environment, if you do not agree with liberalism, then there must be something wrong with you. As a result, the powers that be (the Democrats) wish to study your behavior patterns so that they can modify them in order to make you think more like them.
Does that sound like science fiction?
All of us are guilty of saying that there is something wrong with the world today. I am a firm believer that we have moved away from the original intention of the U.S. Constitution, and as a society we suffer from a secular-humanistic drive to immobilize morality, as well as any code of standards that could have anything in common with religion, especially Christianity. In other words, morality based on biblical standards has become a bad thing.
The folks on the Left disagree with me on what is wrong, but like me, believe that in one way, or another, we are doing it all wrong when it comes to government and society. It doesn't matter that we also disagree with each other on what is wrong, or how to fix it. All that matters for the point of this argument is that each and every one of us believes that something is wrong, and to become a better nation it needs to change.
Behavioral science has pinpointed that people like change, and they like to follow change when they think everyone else is doing it too. Hence, the basics on how Obama got elected.
After the successful demonization of the previous administration, and the constant hammering on the American People that anyone that did not believe in Obama's change really didn't want any kind of change, which meant by default they wanted the same old politics of the past, which had been successfully hammered on as a failure; Obama not only won the election, but with a rabid following that was eerily devotional on a near-religious level.
Now that the Democrats have control, they could care less about pesky little things like the U.S. Constitution, or anyone that dares to disagree with them. Dissent is but a minor obstacle. Obama's team has set out to make the changes Barack promised. Problem is, the "change" he wants is not anything like the "change" many of his devotees expect. His change is more than anyone could have ever believed possible. Barack Obama's hope and change is a well orchestrated change to the American Form of Government from a Republic, to a Socialistic Democracy.
he Obama team, however, has this slight little problem. Not everyone mindlessly fell for his rhetoric. Believe it or not, there are those out there that actually disagree with him, and believe what he is doing is potentially harmful to not only the America of today, but to the America we hope to give to our children, and grandchildren.
No problem, says the Democrats. Label them right-wingers as anti-government extremists, get the people to turn on them, and then use behavior research and modification methods to ensure the people begin to believe and act as the government desires.
Excuse me, could George Orwell please stand up, and step up here to the front? It seems your nightmare, Mr. Orwell, is coming true after all.
Where is Winston when we need him?
What is especially sneaky about this plan of behavior research is it will be used under the guise that these researchers, and government, knows what is best for the collective, and to not follow the findings of this research that will be enacted upon the passing of H.R. 3247, you will be found to be against change, against growth, and against the betterment of society. Off to a re-education camp to you.
Are you are phobe? Your time is coming. Islamophobes, Homophobes, Environmentalism-phobes, and Hope and Change Phobes, you are the true enemy, and President Obama's Brownshirts will ensure you cooperate and integrate. Otherwise, you are an enemy of the state.
H.R. 1913 Hate Crimes legislation will be the law that allows the government to lock you away. H.R. 3247 will determine you are an obsolete citizen that is not willing to play ball. The Health Care legislation will determine who lives and dies by who gets treatment - and guess you doesn't get the medical care they need to survive?
It will get to the point that any opinion of dissent will not be allowed, and will be forced to be stricken from the record.
Don't believe me? Think I am being paranoid?
Ken Calvert, California U.S. Representative, had a few things to say about the Left's health care plans in his newsletter, and the Democrats made him remove an Obama quote from it. How dare he not follow their lead. How dare he have independent thoughts. That's right, you have read this correctly. The Democrats are censoring the Republicans. The GOP has even been told they are not allowed to use the words, "government run health care."
Write what we want you to write, or we will do it for you.
The same has happened to Rep. John Carter (R-TX), Kevin Brady (R-TX), and Joe Barton (R-TX). How the censorship was accomplished was through the franking approval system (Franking Commission).
This type of strong arm tactics by the Democrats should even have lefty voters concerned - because once the freedoms start being taken away from one group, other groups are always next.
The thought police will take care of those GOP scum soon enough. You will be next, "whether you like it or not" (Gavin Newsom, Mayor of San Francisco, declaring Gay Marriage was coming to California, November, 2008).
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Changing Consumer Behavior is Crucial to Reducing Energy Use, Baird Says at AAAS - AAAS
Big Goverment Spends Taxpayer Dollars to Study Energy Behavior - The Heritage Foundation
H.R. 3247 - The Library of Congress, THOMAS
How Obama Is Using the Science of Change - Time, Michael Grunwald
Carter & Co. Kick House Censors - Human Events, Connie Hair
Behavioral Science - Glenn Beck Video, Fox News
Gavin Newsom - Whether you like it or not - YouTube
Same-Sex Movement Demands Tolerance But Won't Show Any - Human Events, Gary Bauer
VIDEO
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Douglas V. Gibbs
Neda has become the icon for the drive for freedom in Iran. Neda was a 27 year old woman shot to death on June 20 during the riots in Tehran. Her death was filmed and circulated across the Internet. Now, her name is the rallying cry for the opposition to Iran's brutal government.
Thousands of Iranians were gathered around Neda's gravesite changing "Neda Lives!" As the memorial ceremony grew, Iranian police fired tear gas and beat a number of the protesters in order to disperse them.
This new wave of unrest exhibits the opposition's continued drive for freedom, regardless of the crackdown, using the government's intolerance of their movement as kindling for more eruptions of protests. The episode at Neda's gravesite comes less than a week before President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is inaugurated.
Demonstrations drawing thousands later spread to other parts of Tehran. As in the last string of protests, police fired tear gas, shots in the air and paintballs at the hundreds of protesters.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Police beat mourners in new wave of unrest in Iran - Associated Press/Yahoo News, Nasser Karimi
Walter Cronkite was often called the most trusted newsman in America. Now that he has passed away, I began to wonder if there was a replacement. Is there, now, in today's wide world of news, a name more trusted over all of the others?
Names like Dan Rather, Tom Brokaw, Bill O'Reilly, Larry King, and Charles Gibson are people that come to mind that America may consider. Brian Williams might be an outside shot. My favorite used to be Brit Hume before he stepped down. None of the alphabet network anchors, be them among those listed above, or not, impress me a bit.
In my research, however, the answer to the question was stunning. When I entered the key words "America's Most Trusted Newsman," the name that came up is not even a newsman - or at least he is not to sane people.
According to The Huffington Post, and a myriad of other sites, based on an online poll, the most trusted newsman is . . .
Wait for it . . .
Jon Stewart of the Daily Show.
How many of you slapped your forehead and rolled your eyes?
That's right, the goofy wannabe of Comedy Central topped the poll. The guy is a frickin' idiot. He is a comedian with leftward leanings, and an uncanny ability to say B.S. without tipping his hat that what he is saying is B.S., even though he is out front in telling everyone that everything he says is for entertainment, and has little or no news value whatsoever. I mean, he advertises what he vomits is humor, and a bunch of crap, but people out there actually believe that his broadcasts are somehow newsworthy.
Do people actually tune in to The Daily Show to learn the news of the day?
Heck, I hardly even watch news on television anymore, since it is so biased - and that includes much of the Fox Network too.
I actually had a conversation with a leftist acquaintance recently that told me Steven Colbert was the only conservative he could stomach to watch.
Are some people that stupid? Gosh, I hope that people with that low of a mental capacity does not rank as the majority.
Then again, Obama got elected.
Hoo boy, this is getting scary.
These American citizens, educated by American schools, actually believe the idiocy.
Kids, I know the lunatic public school system ruined you for life, but listen carefully: Colbert is a libtard pretending to be O'Reilly-ish as a joke. Bill O'Reilly isn't even a Conservative, though he is definitely not a far left crazy. And Jon Stewart, your champion of news, is a comedian, and a very liberal one at that. He only got the gig because the other guy, Greg something or other, decided to take a stab at alphabet network late night. Most of what Jon says is idiotic, void of facts, and not meant to be taken seriously. It's a big frickin' joke, and for some reason, you have fallen for it. Take the jar of kool-aid away from your lips, take it back over to the kitchen, and pour it out.
Oh, as an added funny, Brian Williams actually came in second in that poll.
So much for the poll being worth trusting.
Whew, at least the top two weren't one of those major scumbags - Bill Maher, Chris Matthews, or uber-freak Keith Olbermann.
And what a surprise - The number two freakishly liberal website Huffington Post reported this, landing at the top of my Yahoo search when I hit the button. Daily KOS would be the number one freakishly liberal website.
The Daily KOS and The Huffington Post are two of the least trustworthy sites on the Internet. I suppose, then, it would be fitting that those kinds of mental midgets are reporting that Jon Stewart is a king among newsmen.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Online Poll: Jon Stewart Is America's Most Trusted Newsman - Huffington Post, Jason Linkins
What do you get when you put together a Black Harvard Professor trying to get into his home, a White cop told he is breaking into the house, and an ignorant U.S. President that has a history of jumping to conclusions?
You get a joke of a Beer Summit that is obviously being used to elevate Obama once again since everything is crumbling around him.
I just finished watching Sgt. Crowley's press conference after the completion of the Beer Summit between he, Professor Gates, President Barack Obama, and late entry Vice President Joe Biden at the White House. Listening to the broadcasters yapping about it, and listening to the questions and answers by Sgt. Crowley, I realized what a big joke this thing was.
Obama is being portrayed like he is some kind of great moderator bringing together the White and Black halves of America over a beer. A non-racial situation has been turned into one, and the President of the United States is suddenly the great race-arbitor.
The press is making a big deal over whether or not the gal who called dispatch said it was two Black men, or just two people. People are worried about if Crowley and Gates got along at the beer summit too, and what Crowley meant by saying he and Gates agreed to disagree.
My response is, "Who cares?"
By the way, Biden was added because they didn't want nobody feeling like a third wheel.
Like usual, the Democrats are so worried about upsetting someone, or offending someone, because they see America as a nation of groups. They think we are all touchy about race, and Obama wishes America to see him (after his "stupid" remark) as a great mediator in the liberally perceived out of control war on race.
We are individuals. It is up to us to be responsible to ourselves, and to others. There was no race controversy until Gates and Obama decided to make it so. Who cares if the dispatcher said the suspects were black. If she did, it was to better enable the cop to better identify the perpetrator. Stating the color of a person who is believed to break into a home is not being racist - it is simply applying indentifying factors.
Who's fault is it that this became a big issue?
I heard that in a poll it is pretty split. Some say Crowley's, some say Gates, other say both. I think that it really was neither of their faults. It is the fault of the idiot that asked Obama his opinion on it in the first place. Nobody knew much about the situation at that point, and it was simply an attempt to make a mountain out of a mole hill.
Hopefully we are done with this garbage, but I doubt it.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
The most famous volcano outside of the State of Washington (Mt. Saint Helens is pretty famous in America) erupted in 1883. Krakatoa exploded with a force 13,000 times more powerful than the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima, Japan by American Forces during the waning days of World War II. The eruption in 1883 killed over 36,000 people. Anak Krakatoa is a new volcano that is emerging from the remains of the former giant beast which blew itself apart over one hundred years ago.
Steadily growing out of its predecessor's remains since 1927, Anak Krakatoa is currently half the size of Krakatoa was in 1883. The volcano lies between Java and Sumatra on the Sunda Strait, and has recently been providing a light show that reminds us how beautiful nature can be, and how dangerous. A repeat blast seems imminent, and locals are bracing for the worst.
In 1883, Krakatoa destroyed itself when it exploded, causing a tsunami of tremendous proportions while spewing poison gases and hot ashes on the surrounding lands.
Prior to 1883 there are records of volcanic activity in the same area, one eruption during the 1500s is said to have been a factor in global climate changes. In 1927, now underwater, Krakatoa sprang back to life, and a new island rose out of the waters. Three times islands rose out of the water, and was eroded away by the waters. In 1930, a fourth attempt was successful, as the volcano provided lava faster than the waves could erode them. The island was named by locals Anak Krakatau ("Child of Krakatoa").
Since the 1950s the rate of growth of the island has increased, and in 1994 the Child of Krakatoa experienced an episode of eruptions. The island has been constantly rumbling ever since, going through an eruption sequence in April 2008 that released rocks, lava and gases.
The Spring of 2009 began the most recent episodes of rumblings, with lava spewing, and the island growing. So far this year plumes of smoke and the release of lava has contributed to the darkening of the skies, and the growth of the island.
I wonder how long it will take the liberals to find a way to tax the volcano for contributing to the green house gases being added to the air?
For spectacular photos, go to the link below at The Daily Mail.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Fiery images as killer volcano that claimed 36,000 lives stirs once more - The Daily Mail
Barack Obama figured the selling out of America through a Health Care takeover by the government would occur as smooth as silk. He figured he could sell slavery in the guise of "needed assistance" with ease, while convincing the populace that with more slavery comes freedom.
It isn't going as well as King Obama once thought.
Now, this whole health care thing is getting personal.
President Obama's pitch is now that a sweeping overhaul in the health care industry will help the people of America, and will be sure to include consumer protections.
But how do you protect the consumers when the brightest minds in America begin to shy away from medicine because the profitability has been killed by government intervention? How do you protect consumers when insurance companies begin to increase rates because of a severe loss of customers they know they will never get back once more than half of their customer base runs over to Obamacare? How do you protect consumers when bureaucrats in Washington DC begin to issue "priorities" based on your behavior, and can deny you life-saving surgeries so that they can give it to somebody else that just jumped into line, but is more deserving to live? How do you protect the consumer when wait times for critical care increases because there are less doctors, less incentive to give quality care, and a bunch of government workers deciding who gets what, when? How does the government protect the consumer when the government is the problem?
Rather than setting annual caps on how much insurers can charge consumers for out-of-pocket expenses, how about offering them tax breaks for bringing those charges below a certain number? Rather than barring insurers from refusing coverage due to pre-existing conditions, how about granting the insurers incentives to accept such patients into their system by implementing a relaxation in particular fee schedules should the insurer accept these patients, or tax deductions for each patient accepted that falls under this category?
Rather than trying to control the industry, how about incentivising it?
The way to bring down the cost to consumers is not to increase cost to the insurance companies. Increased costs to the insurer will be transferred to the consumer. The way to decrease the cost of medical care for the consumer is the decrease the cost of doing business for the insurers and the health care providers.
Ultimately, in his implementation of a government paid health system, Obama will push the private industry over a cliff, and the government will become the sole provider of coverage. As a result the cost to many will go down, but taxes will rise across the board, and the quality of care will drop like a rock.
In the name of affordability, are we willing to turn the greatest medical system in the world into one that can barely compete with the medical care in Third World Nations?
People will die because rationing (you know, giving people priorities based on their behaviors, age, body type, and benefit to society) will only allow care to be given to the youngest, most productive members of society. Private medical care will only be available to the richest people (so much for closing that gap between the rich and the poor, Mr. President). In the end Government will have the ultimate power over you. They will be able to decide whether you live, or die.
The Democrats know this will be the ultimate result. This is what they want. Obama's stupidity is not by accident. Government control over the populace by putting a socialistic system in place is the goal. They understand that a totalitarian socialistic state must be put into place. Liberals believe, however, that it is essential in the evolution of humanity, and that eventually a big government system will magically melt away, giving way to a world where we won't need government at all - where society becomes some sweet, peaceful place where everybody lives happily ever after - by the way, this utopian society they are striving for is called COMMUNISM.
And we are supposed to believe this socialist state rising in America, which will inevitably become a powerful dictatorship, will happily give up its power and step aside for the liberal utopia?
The goal of Obama with his so-called sweeping reform in the Health Care industry is not to make sure you have better medical care. Your protection is no more the goal of Obamacare than is Cap and Trade to help the environment. All of these policies, from the takeover of the auto industry, to the bail out of any business system they can get their hands on, is about bringing the reins of power into their own hands. The idea of all of this is for the liberal left to seize permanent power of the government. Realizing the American People would never allow this willingly, the Democratic Party (and much of the GOP) has become populated with accomplished liars and thugs. It was no accident when Franklin Delano Roosevelt said, "In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way."
Barack Obama has retooled his speeches, just as he did during his presidential campaign. He was the most liberal candidate in the hunt for the presidency, and we all knew it, yet he fooled a majority of Americans by sounding conservative - offering tax cuts, and even sounding a little less liberal when it came to the social issues. Obama knows from eperience that the truth will not work, so he must now convince folks that Obamacare is good for them, even though in the long haul it will be disastrous for America.
He must use lies to convince us to allow him to implement the disastrous system of socialism.
His speeches about this monstrosity of a health care bill that the legislators aren't even going to read are becoming rosier and more reassuring with each day.
He wants it passed, and he wants it passed quickly, before anyone realizes the long term damage to the American System it will cause.
Remember, this is the same party of Democrats that accused Bush, and the Republicans, of moving too fast with their legislation and war effort.
My, how opinions change when you have the chance to inject more statism into Washington while holding the reins of power as you change America into a socialist state.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
How insane is it that Democrat politicians are arguing that they have no need to read any bills before voting on them?
House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers (D-Michigan) actually said during a speech at a National Press Club luncheon that he sees no point in lawmakers reading the health care bill. Not only is there no time, but they would need to have two lawyers with them to interpret it.
Aren't a large portion of politicians lawyers? Suddenly they can't understand their own bills?
Conyers specifically said, "What good is reading the bill if it’s a thousand pages and you don't have two days and two lawyers to find out what it means after you read the bill?"
Two days? Why rush such an important piece of legislation? Take a load off. Take a few weeks to read it. Voting "yes" on a piece of legislation without even knowing what is in it is asinine one would think.
Then again, liberals have done worse.
Here's Rep. Brian Bilbray's (R-CA) opinion on this:
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Douglas V. Gibbs
I have repeatedly told people that Barack Obama chose Sotomayor as his judiciary pick because she is a perfect reflection of him, right down to the racism.
Don't believe me that Obama is a racist? Have you read "Dreams of my Father?"
My opinion catches a lot of flack, and that is fine. I know what I see. Problem is, many folks think that only white males can be racist. Everyone else has an excuse for their racism.
When someone agrees with me, but come to their conclusion for a different reason, it always catches my attention. When it comes to Obama being a racist, the opinion came from a place I hardly expected. The accusation came from Israel.
The fuel for the racist charge against President Obama comes regarding his policies against Jewish construction in eastern Jerusalem, and the West Bank. In a rally in front of the U.S. conslate in Jerusalem, 2,000 Israelis proclaimed that Obama is a racist, and that Obama's envoy to the conflict over Jerusalem, and outer territories, George Mitchell, needs to go home.
"Obama should not be pressing Israel to compromise and freeze building in Judea, Samaria and eastern Jerusalem," a protest organizer by the name of Yaacov Steinberg told World Net Daily.
The belief is that Obama's policies, if followed by Israel, would show Israeli weakness, and embolden Palestinian terrorists. Obama dictating to the Jews in the area where they can and can't live didn't go over too well either.
Mort Klein, president of the Zionist Organization of America, said of the issue, "It's absolutely an outrageously racist policy. Especially in light of how Obama should be sensitive when it comes to anything that would remotely constitute discrimination of people based on ethnicity or religion."
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu strongly rejected the American demand.
"Imagine what would happen if someone were to suggest Jews could not live in or purchase [property] in certain neighborhoods in London, New York, Paris or Rome," he said.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Obama slammed as 'racist' at Jerusalem rally - World Net Daily, Aaron Klein
A recent post right here on Political Pistachio, Definition Natural Born Citizens, drew a lot of interesting feedback. Within a few hours I had a whole handful of comments, every one of them filled with name calling and profanity. I received Emails too from people angry I was willing to write about such a topic, again.
Interestingly, not a single comment or Email addressed what I actually wrote in the post.
The title of the blog post was enough to anger the hateful liberal tools. But, based on the fact that none of the attacks addressed what I wrote, it told me they were reacting to the subject matter, not about what I actually had to say on the topic. (I will admit, however, that on Facebook one of the commenters doubting my position did address what I had to say directly - therefore, telling me that she, at least, read the entirety of the article).
How objective can one be when at the mere mention of a topic the blood veins in the neck begin to burst, but none of the evidence presented is even considered.
Sounds like Congress voting on the nationalization of the private sector - nobody is reading the bills, they are just voting for them because Obama said to.
Tools.
My favorite commenter, who I normally ignore (I say favorite because of how insane and obsessive he is) because his comments are usualy filled with vile hatefulness, left a comment that is a pretty good example of what all of the outcry against me was like:
"Just a couple days ago, the officials in Hawaii responsible for keep track of such things have stated that the birth certificate is correct, and have affirmed over and over and over again that Obama was born in Hawaii. You people are just f***ing jokes..You do know that.. don't you? We're pointing and laughing at you most of the time.. but every so often, you get irritating as f**k as well. This who stupid-as-f**k "birther" thing is just irritatin now. You're not "touching a nerve". You're just stupid as f**k, pushing the same debunked stupid crap over and over and over."
And this is a person that also likes to criticize my writing skills. His writing is barely intelligible.
Notice, not a word was presented in his inane comment about what I specifically wrote. His offering was just a reactionary, recycled, eye-bleeding, maniacal, angry attack filled with talking points fed to him by all of the other crazy liberals.
The mere mention of the words "Obama" and "birth certificate" in the same sentence makes these people's heads explode. Notice, too, they are now calling folks who question Obama's eligibility "birthers" in an attempt to denigrate the issue (same tactic they use on just about everything else, too - jeez, they never change).
Non-birthers that launch into profanity-laced rants of hate and discontent anytime someone dares to speak out against their precious Obama, I have a message for you: "They have trained you well. You are like a show dog rolling over on command."
How does it feel to no longer be an independent thinker?
I am still wondering what happened to those Hippie Liberals that used to proclaim that they would defend my right to free speech no matter what, despite their disagreement with me. I guess their willingness to defend the freedom of political speech only applies when they say it does.
Now, if conservatives dare to voice a few words of dissent against the Obamessiah, we are attacked in ways that are so vile and hateful that I feel more sorry for these people, than feeling any anger.
The point of view I took in that article that these liberals failed to catch (and I am assuming by this point in this particular post none of them are still reading) was that it may be very well that whether or not Obama was born in Hawaii does not matter. Don't get me wrong. I think there is something being covered up based on Barack's shady response to this issue, but what if the definition of a Natural Born Citizen is such that by having a non-citizen father, it doesn't matter where Obama was born because in order to be a Natural Born Citizen both parents must be American Citizens?
Hmmmm, something to think about.
Having a parent from another country opens up the opportunity for dual loyalties, and the founding fathers desired that the president's loyalties be 100% to the United States of America.
So, what has all this to do with WMDs?
If you will remember, the Democrats claimed that Bush's whole excuse for going into Iraq was Weapons of Mass Destruction. When no actual WMDs were produced, the Democrats and liberals claimed that the absence of WMDs was proof the WMDs never existed. Verbal testimony by General Sada, who was formerly of the Hussein Regime, that the WMDs were moved to Syria in 2002 was rejected by the Left. Verbal verification was not good enough. Then, when evidence was found, primarily mustard gas, the liberals argued that the chemical weapons were not the real thing. They wanted proof of major weapons of mass destruction, not a history of using such weapons, or evidence of mustard gas.
Regarding Obama's birth certificate, note that no actual birth certificate has been produced, but regardless, the Democrats and liberals claim that Obama's word is proof enough of his eligibility. Verbal testimony by Obama's paternal grandmother that she was in the delivery room in Kenya when Barack Obama was born is not good enough, but the testimony of a Hawaii state worker is enough for them to declare that without a doubt Obama was born in Hawaii. When a birth certificate is produced, it was not produced by Obama, but by a liberal website, and it is a computerized short-form that does not include pertinent information such as the name of the hospital, or the name of the attending physician. However, they were willing to accept this questionable birth certificate as undeniable proof of eligibility, regardless of a history, Obama's actions to fight the issue, or mounting evidence pointing to the contrary.
In short, when it comes to WMDs, they need to see the real thing. When it comes to Obama's birth certificate, they don't.
Verbal testimony by a high ranking official in Saddam Hussein's government was not good enough for them regarding the WMDs, nor is the testimony of Obama's paternal grandmother regarding the location of Obama's birth. However, a state worker's testimony that she has "seen" the real birth certificate (while still not producing the real thing) is good enough for the liberals.
Proof of mustard gas weapons of mass destruction was unacceptable to the liberals, but a computerized, incomplete birth certificate provided by a biased liberal web site is absolutely acceptable as the real deal.
The history of Hussein's past use of WMDs was not enough to convince the Democrats that the presence of WMDs in Iraq may have been possible. A lack of history of Obama's past, and the sealing of all of his records, is not enough to convince Democrats that it is possible he is not eligible.
Makes one wonder, doesn't it?
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
.jpg)
Get Liberty
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
I do not believe that Barack Obama is the anti-Christ. In fact, I do not believe the identity of the anti-Christ will be revealed until after the advent of the rapture of the Christian Church. There are no biblical passages that convince me otherwise. Even Satan himself does not know the indentity of the anti-Christ. After all, Satan is not omnipotent, and therefore cannot possibly know the details of the future as does God. Since Lucifer does not know the future, he could not possibly know the identity of the anti-Christ.
That said, I found the following video very fascinating. If the language peculiarities mentioned in the video are true, it makes one wonder deeply about the significance of one, Barack Hussein Obama.
VIDEO
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Growing up one of the truths I learned along the way is that if people start freaking out with hateful responses it means you have probably touched a chord. When you touch a nerve in that manner, more often than not it means there is a speck of truth in what was said. This may not always be true, but often it is.
In an Email thread I am a part of a blog post by Third Wave Dave called "A CHALLENGE TO BILL O'REILLY, ED MORRISSEY, AND SENATOR JIM DeMINT" became the topic of discussion. In the piece Dave simply asks that if Obama's birth records are in order, and Obama is a Natural Born Citizen, then why is it that with the last group of presidents each and every one of their birthplaces are known, to the detail, in the sense of exact address, attending physicians, etc., but with Barack Obama, all we have is a computerized birth certificate provided by websites (rather than by Obama) that gives only the city of Honolulu, Hawaii. Granted, in an attempt to verify Obama's birth in Hawaii, Dr. Chiyome Fukino even recently proclaimed that she has seen the original birth records confirming Obama's birth in Honolulu.
(Turn on Sarcasm Pump #1) - Oh, well, since some Doctor claims to have seen the documents that are not being released, that settles it. He must've been born in Hawaii after all!
Of course nobody is making mention that if Dr. Fukino's statement is true, she broke Hawaiian law by violating Hawaii's Revised Statutes Section 338-18, which pertains to the disclosure of records.
In response to the "A Challenge!!" Email, one of the folks on the list responded with concerns, asking ". . . what if it is proven conclusively that B-HO was not/is not eligible to be president? What then? I know what should happen; I'm asking what will be the consequences? There's the real challenge, and that could be why some are on the right are ridiculing those of us with questions, trying to get us to STFU."
In a short answer, there would be blood in the streets.
But on the Email thread I provided this response:
If Barack Obama is not eligible, every piece of legislation he signed will be null and void, and he will be guilty of criminal actions. After all, it would mean that he willfully lied, and misled the American People. In fact, if Obama was found to be ineligible for the presidency, he could be tried for treason.
I don't know if Barack was born in Hawaii, Kenya, or Mars. I wasn't there when he was born. What makes me pay attention regarding this issue is the fact that Obama's response to the allegations has not been to simply provide proof. Instead a computerized version of a short-form birth certificate appeared on liberal websites, and Obama sealed all of his personal records while hiring a dozen lawyers to fight the allegations. Hardly the actions of an innocent man.
However, something to consider further stems from my conversations with my good friend, the U.S. Constitution expert, Loki. Does it matter where Barack Obama was born? Notice the words: Natural Born Citizen. A citizen is simply someone born in the United States, someone who has been naturalized, etc. Notice the 14th Amendment does not say anything about "natural born citizen" in its definition - it is only about being a citizen. This is because the 14th Amendment was written specifically regarding the expatriated slaves. To understand the true nature of what a natural born citizen of the United States is, one must go back through history, and ultimately, to "common law" of the time period the U.S. Constitution was written.
Common Law, at the time of the founding of this nation, indicated that a Natural Born Citizen was an American born from two American Citizen Parents. The reason for this was to combat any possibilities of dual loyalties. Since Barack Obama's father is Kenyan, based on Common Law of that era in regards to being a Natural Born Citizen, Obama is not a Natural Born Citizen, and no birth certificate from Hawaii will change the fact that Barack's father was a citizen of Kenya.
A reply from a different person in the thread came quick, beginning with the salutation, "Hey, Retards. . . "
Without relaying his complete response, I am sure simply by the greeting it is apparent to you what the reply essentially said.
Why does questioning the legitimacy of Barack Obama's eligibility to be president make me a retard? Should we not question when we believe foul play is afoot? The Left sure didn't hesitate from accusing Bush of much worse during his presidency.
Furthermore, if you understand my explanation of the definition of natural born citizenship, it would also mean that conservative champion Bobby Jindal, a son of immigrant parents, would not be eligible to be president either. After all, the law applies equally to all persons, right?
Why would I inflict that kind of potential damage on one of my own favorite politicians if I didn't believe my assessment to be true?
It is one thing that Barack Obama is asking America to follow him as he steps off the edge of a cliff. But for America to do so following a president that may not be eligible in the first place is astounding. For Americans to go on the warpath, and enter into a rampage of name calling and hateful attacks against people for merely bringing up what I consider to be a legitimate question is downright shameful.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
A CHALLENGE TO BILL O'REILLY, ED MORRISSEY, AND SENATOR JIM DeMINT - ThirdWaveDave
Hawaii's statement on Obama birth record breaks law? - World Net Daily, Dr. Jerome Corsi
(1).jpg)
Get Liberty
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Douglas V. Gibbs
The radio segment I have been asked to be the guest on is being headlined as "The Passions and Persuasions of Political Pistachio Host and Producer, Douglas V. Gibbs." The program is "Ramble and Rumble with Rabbi," hosted by Rabbi D.F. Eukel, the radio rabbi.
The program runs live Wednesday morning (August 29, 2009) at 4:00 AM to 5:30 AM Pacific (7:00 AM to 8:30 AM Eastern), and I have been asked to be on the show as Rabbi Eukel's guest during the final half hour segment.
Visit the webcast of the program on Ramble & Rumble with Rabbi live, or you can catch the archive later.
Hope to see you there.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Douglas V. Gibbs
VIDEO
Give it a rest, Barack. . . .jpg)
Get Liberty
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Douglas V. Gibbs
Israel Regarding Iran: "Whatever It Takes"
The Associated Press is reporting that Israel has announced an even harder stance against Iran's nuclear program.
Israel has continually voiced the opinion that the Obama Administration is naive about Iran's intentions, and so Israel plans to take it upon herself to move on Iran's nuclear facilities. Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak is not ruling out any military action, and says that Israel is considering a pre-emptive strike to take away Iran's ability to obtain nuclear weapons.
"No option should be removed from the table," said the Israeli Defense Minister in a press conference.
The American Government currently has a different opinion on how to deal with Iran's nuclear aspirations, desiring to take a diplomatic road first. Since Israel considers itself the prime target of any eventual Iranian nuclear bomb, it has become apparent to the Israelis that it is up to them to stop Iranian nuclear aggression before it begins.
Iran has continually claimed its nuclear aspirations are for domestic purposes.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Israel on Iran: Anything it takes to stop nukes - Associated Press/Yahoo News, Anne Gearan
In a continuance of the Islamization of Europe, in London the police department will be ensuring that officers used in an investigation are of the same religion as the neighborhood the situation occurred in.
Sharia Courts are already being allowed to supersede British Law in Muslim communities, but now Muslim officers are being added with the intention of investigating "honor" killings and forced marriages with officers that better understand the customs of the religion.
Chief Supt Joanna Young said of the plan, "It's political correctness gone mad. We are talking about the creation of a separate force within a force."
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
MUSLIMS COULD GET OWN POLICE - Daily Express, Katherine French
The United States Constitution was written to limit the powers of the federal government. Protecting the rights of the sovereign states was a primary goal of the founders when they wrote the document. They plainly intended to strictly limit the prerogatives of the federal government to those powers explicitly assigned to it in Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, while reserving to the states all other powers not explicitly forbidden them in Section 10 of Article I.
History is filled with controversy over the concept of state's rights. Prior to the American Civil War one of the arguments in support of the sovereignty of the states was that a state could legally refuse to carry out federal enactments that they regarded as unconstitutional encroachments on their sovereignty, and there was nothing the federal government could do about it.
Constitutional Originalists of today still follow that line of thought.
Opponents of state's rights argue that the U.S. Constitution is more of a set of guidelines that can be liberally interpreted, asserting that the federal government has "implied" powers that are not necessarily explicitly stated, but are in accord with general powers given by certain statements within the U.S. Constitution, such as the duty of the government to "provide for the general welfare."
Approaching the War Between the States, the sovereignty of the states became the primary issue that eventually led to the bloody civil war. Slavery was but a minor ingredient at that point, and was not considered a major issue regarding the war until the Emancipation Proclamation was read by President Abraham Lincoln. The Emancipation Proclamation, while holding no legal powers, was actually a politically motivated move intended to back Britain off from supporting the Confederate States. By making the Civil War a noble war of the abolition of slavery, rather than simply a war over state's rights, Great Britain, who had outlawed slavery long before, bowed out quickly for fear of being criticized for siding with the slave states in a war now labeled as a war to free the slaves.
Abraham Lincoln used strategies that were not constitutional to hold together the union, and he encroached on the rights of the southern states, which resulted in the ultimate move to ensure the sovereignty of the states, secession. He was willing to circumvent the rule of law to achieve victory, which is why among many conservative historians Lincoln is referred to as the "Benevolent Dictator."
Many would argue Lincoln, and the presidents before him, brought on the American Civil War by not abiding by the Constitutional concept of state's rights. After all, an abolition movement had already begun in the southern states, and though it may take an extra decade or so, slavery would have been abolished, most likely, without a shot ever being fired. Following this line of thinking, one could say that the American Civil War was avoidable, from a slavery viewpoint, had the federal government decided not to step on state's rights, and force the hand of the southern states into declaring independence.
Nonetheless, the federal government exercised unconstitutional control over the states, and the American Civil War broke out. During the war it looked as if the Confederacy had a chance to win, though many historians point out that even if the southern states had succeeded in becoming a separate nation, ultimately the United States would have rejoined into a single entity eventually, most probably due to the need to unite for the cause of protecting the states from foreign enemies.
The war, however, after the British blockade was broken through the underhanded political strategy of the Emancipation Proclamation, progressed to its conclusion, ending in the defeat of the Confederacy. This defeat of the southern states in the Civil War was the end of the final attempt, and any future attempts, of states to use their sovereignty to keep the federal government under control. As the twentieth century approached, states seemed to accept the death of their power to veto or otherwise contravene enactments and policies of the federal government.
In 1913 the Federal Reserve Act, implementation of the Federal Income Tax (16th Amendment), and the elimination of state representation in U.S. Congress with the passage of the 17th Amendment (which changed the vote for the U.S. Senate from that of the State Legislators, to a direct vote by the people) represents, according to Constitutionalists, the year the federal government jumped the divide, and moved away from the Constitution's original intent more so than anytime in previous history. With the removal of the state's representation in the U.S. Government via the U.S. Senate, it seemed the only recourse states would have there on out would be an Article V Convention, or a direct declaration of sovereignty.
With the passage of the Federal Reserve Act, the central bankers of Europe realized that, after looking back on their own 220 years of experience with the Bank of England and other European central banks prior, American indebtedness would eventually grow so large that the central bankers would eventually own the American nation, and the federal government would be able to seize control of the populace under the guiding hand of the bankers.
During the first three decades of the 1900s it was difficult to determine if it was the Republicans or the Democrats that were more in favor of a strong, central federal government. Once Franklin Delano Roosevelt took office, however, it became apparent that the ownership of a policy supporting an intrusive big federal government belonged to the Democrats. During his presidency, FDR extended federal powers far beyond what was granted to the federal government under the U.S. Constitution, and these dangerous policies were routinely denounced by conservative opponents of socialist legislation. Roosevelt's policies were seen as intrusive on the American People, and as obvious abridgments of states' rights.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt's successor, Harry S. Truman, continued the policy of expanding the prerogatives of the central government, ignoring the demand of a strict protection of state's rights by many in his own party. The "Dixie-crats," southern Democrats that supported state's rights, left the Democratic Party and joined the Republicans. The Dixie-crats would later demand compromises in the Civil Right's legislation that the Democratic Party was strongly against as well. While the Republican Party was firmly in support of Civil Rights legislation, the newest members of the party, the former Dixie-crats, demanded that such federal legislation not be used to compromise state's rights in the matter of civil rights. Democrats, meanwhile, filibustered against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (after also opposing similar bills in 1957 and 1960), and to appease both the Democrats, and the newly Republican Dixie-crats, the bill was adjusted, and then was passed into law on July 2, 1964. In the end, it was the Republicans that were largely responsible for the enactment of Civil Rights Laws, but it was the Dixie-crats in the party that ensured the laws were written in such a way that federal intrusion on state's rights were at a minimum.
Republicans have since reversed much of the federal entitlement programs, which is also an issue that encroaches on state's rights, by implementing a system of block grants to the states. This conservative approach underlay the landmark welfare legislation of 1996 by the Republican-led Congress. After balking the legislation twice, Democratic President reluctantly signed the Welfare Reform bill in August, 1996.
Now, with the Barack Obama Administration enacting socialist legislation that even Franklin Delano Roosevelt was not foolhardy enough to enact (or maybe he simply ran out of time and support), the issue of state's rights has arisen again. Lawmakers in various states have now introduced resolutions declaring state sovereignty under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution States.
Montana and Tennessee (and possibly Utah to soon follow) have passed laws designed to get the federal government out of their business regarding firearms. In Tennessee, General Assembly Bill 1796 (Tennessee Firearms Freedom Act) states that "any firearms or ammunition manufactured within the state and legally owned and kept within the state by citizens are not subject to federal law or federal regulation, including registration due to provisions in the Second, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments to the United States Constitution." The intention of the legislation is to run and end-around pass the Commerce Clause, of which the federal government constantly uses, against the original intention of the clause, to poke its nose into state issues.
The federal government, completely ignoring the U.S. Constitution, has responded in writing telling Tennessee that the state law, despite the wording of their state law, is not legal. Specifically, the letter stated, "As you may know, federal law requires a license to engage in the business of manufacturing firearms or ammunition, or to deal in firearms, even if the firearms or ammunition remain with the same state. All firearms manufactured by a licensee must be properly marked. Additionally, each licensee must record the type, model, caliber or gauge, and serial number of each firearm manufactured or otherwise acquired, and the date such manufacture or other acquisition was made. These, as well as other federal requirements and prohibitions, apply whether or not the firearms or ammunition have crossed state lines."
The U.S. Constitution dictates that the federal government cannot infringe on the right to keep and bear arms (Second Amendment), and that the issue is up to the states to pass laws regarding. Also, it is illegal for the federal government to overturn or overrule state laws if the state law does not violate Article I, Sections 8 and 10.
In other words, the federal government's position regarding Tennessee's new law is unconstitutional.
Governor Perry of Texas has also raised the possibility of a state's rights showdown over Obama's health care plan, indicating that states and governors need to stand up and say "no" to this type of encroachment on the states with their health care.
What we are seeing, as the federal government under the control of the liberal Democrats, and Barack Obama, makes moves to trample on state's rights, is an increased demand for states to exercise their rights, and to resist the continued federal encroachment on state and local authority.
Many Constitutional Originalists I have spoken to see this as an issue that is destined to explode, and one that will result in a showdown between state sovereignty and federal control over the states.
Some would call that the next American Civil War.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
United States Constitution - Cornell University Law School
Washington drops hammer on state gun plan - World Net Daily, Bob Unruh
Lawmakers in 20 states move to reclaim sovereignty - World Net Daily, Jerome R. Corsi
States Rebellion Pending - Townhall, Walter E. Williams
Credit Where Credit Is Due: The Republicans Passed the 1964 Civil Rights Act - Michael Zak, GOP USA
Perry raises possibility of states' rights showdown with White House over healthcare - Star-Telegram, Dave Montgomery
A Warning From Ronald Reagan and the Rivoli's, Should We Remain Complacent:
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Douglas V. Gibbs
Thanks, Third Wave Dave.
When I first heard about Barack Obama saying a Cambridge, Massachusetts' police officer acted stupidly in an arrest, I did not write about it because, like Obama, I didn't know the full story.
When it turned out the police officer was White, and the suspect was a Black Harvard professor, it made my ears perk up, wondering if racism was going to be evoked for this one. As expected, Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. claimed he was racially profiled. When asked his opinion on the matter in a press conference, Obama had apparently fallen for the racial plea, and jumped to conclusions, basing his answer completely on the testimony of Gates, rather than on the facts.
Still, I kept my keyboard silent on the issue.
When the news that the policeman followed procedure in his arrest of Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr., and that the local police officers union had determined that there was no evidence the arrest was race-based, which made it necessary for Obama to apologize for jumping to conclusions without learning all of the facts, I chuckled. It was a typical move for someone like Obama. After all, being a liberal, it comes as second nature for far left liberals to assume things without having all of the facts in front of them, or even using the facts properly, for that matter.
It was comical watching the Democrats scramble to try to keep their messiah, Mr. Obama, looking good and intelligent - despite his stupid remarks.
Still, I refrained from writing about the situation, though I did mention it a couple times on my radio program.
The straw that broke the camel's back, however, was when I learned that this is not the first time Barack Obama has tangled with the Cambridge Police Department. Apparently, Obama has a history with the department dating from his college years to as recently as the launch of his presidential campaign.
Remembering back to the presidential campaign, I remember when an issue regarding a whole slew of unpaid parking tickets became the subject of many conservative talkers and writers. Specifically, Obama had 17 unpaid parking tickets that he wound up paying just weeks before he announced his bid for the presidency.
The issuing department?
Give you one guess.
One would think that would mean that Obama has no love lost for the Cambridge Police Department. After all, they were a thorn in his side when he was younger, so surely they must automatically be guilty of acting in a racist manner against Mr. Gates, right?
What is really interesting is that while Obama was a law breaker (with all of those unpaid parking tickets), he practiced law in Chicago, served as an Illinois State Senator, and as a United States Senator. As John LeBoutillier of Newsmax commented, Obama during this time as a man that was supposed to be a champion of the law "allowed these almost-two-decade-old signs of his disdain for the law to remain unpaid."
Now, knowing that the Cambridge Police Department was the issuer of those parking tickets, it makes one wonder if Obama jumped to conclusions regarding the department's arrest of Gates based on his past experiences with them.
And if he is willing to jump to conclusions like he did in this situation regarding the Cambridge Police Department, without knowing all of the facts, what other conclusions is he jumping to while in the Oval Office, while pretending to be a capable leader of the free world?
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
'Scofflaw' Obama has history with 'stupid' Cambridge police - World Net Daily
As Sarah Palin's final day as governor of Alaska passed it was interesting listening to the pundits try to figure out her strategy, or reasons for stepping down. My local CBS Television News was proclaiming over and over again that nobody knows why she resigned as governor of Alaska, and then proceeded to play clips of a couple people, one being Sarah's father, saying, "I don't know what she has planned for the future."
Not knowing what Sarah Palin is planning for the future is not the same as not knowing why she stepped down.
Whatever. Typical media spin.
The clips were right, however. Nobody knows for sure what Sarah has planned for the future. Speculation, and the hopes of conservatives, circle around the possibility that her future plans include preparing for a national run for office.
Perhaps.
One thing is for sure, Sarah Palin energized Republicans last year in ways that none of the presidential candidates were able to accomplish. The Republican Party seemed to have purpose again, rather than being satisfied with itself acting like a light beer version of liberalism. Sarah Palin's energy would be a welcome return to the national stage, especially to possibly halt the GOP's continued leftward slide. The Party of Reagan is nothing like it was, and began a deadly journey into self-destruction during George Herbert Walker Bush's presidency, moving leftward ever since.
A little conservatism in the form of a firecracker from Alaska may just be what the party needs. . . again.
You Betcha.
The liberal left Democrats and biased media proclaim that the Republican Party lost the election in 2008 because it has swung too far to the right. It literally cracks me up when liberals and moderates claim that kind of madness. In reality the Republican Party has been suffering from a rapid move away from its conservative roots, becoming more like the Democratic Party with each passing cycle. The Republican Party ceased being the party of original conservative ideas, and has stopped having strong Constitutional stances on the issues.
Critics of conservatism say that the GOP has a better chance to win the presidential election with a wishy-washy moderate, than a conservative. Newsflash, the GOP tried that in 2008, and lost. In fact, if McCain had not have chosen the quite conservative Sarah Palin as his running mate, the loss suffered would have been even more severe.
Part of the leftward lean of the Republican Party can be attributed to both Bush Administrations who believed in something called "Compassionate Conservatism." Compassionate Conservatism is hardly conservative at all, and in reality was just another name for big government spending under the guise of conservatism. In fact in pursuit of such an idea, Dubya teamed up with Teddy Kennedy to create the disastrous "No Child Left Behind" Act, which placed big government even more front and center in an already ailing public school system. Also, the rule of law seems not to mean much to these "Compassionate Conservatives" when it comes to the illegal alien issue.
I am not Bush bashing, but as I did often during George W. Bush's presidency, I recognized that though there were many things I felt he did right, there were also many things President Bush failed at. During 2007 especially, I wrote about these less than desired positions of President Bush often. Honestly, among Conservatives, we all knew that when George W. Bush came into office that despite his claims of conservatism, when it came to the size of government, it was doubtful he was conservative in the least.
Like father, like son.
Luckily for us, Bush at least was wise enough to understand that when faced with an act of war against the nation, as was the case on 9/11, to avoid further attack a nation must spring into military action.
In all honesty, despite the liberal left's claims that the Republican Party has become the party of the "religious right," the GOP hasn't moved to the right in the slightest since the presidency of Ronald Reagan. The Democrat Party, however, has moved drastically to the Left during the same time period. When a party moves as far to the left as has the Democrats, anything not teetering on the edge of communism like they are will look like it is on the extreme right - which explains liberalism's warped view of things. In other words, contrary to popular leftard opinion, the Republicans didn't move to the right, the Democrats moved drastically to the Left - and then as they moved left, the Democrats have erroneously (through vicious propaganda) attributed the wider gap between the parties as being the fault of a GOP shift to the right.
Hence, one of the reasons for Sarah Palin's popularity.
As the Democrats move to the left, so has the GOP.
People say we have a two-party system, but when it comes to the politics of politics, there are few differences among the elitists that hold office in the U.S. Government. Politics is no longer about being a statesman, or about feeling honored to have the opportunity to serve the people. U.S. Politics has become about gaining power, keeping that power, and worrying about the next election. Money and political greed runs rampant through Washington DC in both parties, though the Democrats own it across the board. The federal government has become a growing power-grabbing monster, expanding into our lives in ways never intended by the framers of the U.S. Constitution. Sarah Palin's popularity is more than just her conservative principles, though her conservatism plays a large part in her popularity. She is seen as a person that represents the people because she comes from the people. She is a grassroots candidate not spoiled by the cess-pool of Washington. Her primary concern is serving the people with honor. Her platform is liberty. Her goal is to maintain America's exceptionalism. For Sarah Palin it is all about the will of the people.
As opposed to Nancy Pelosi who is a firm believer in the will of Congress.
It is no accident that Sarah Palin has an 80% approval rating among Republicans, and nearly a 50% approval rating among independents.
So if Sarah Palin is so popular, why did she decide to resign her governorship in Alaska?
The relentless attacks against Sarah Palin, which includes baseless allegations that have cost the Palin Family more than half a million bucks in legal fees (along with $2 million of taxpayer money investigating the more-often-than-not bogus complaints). Amazingly, the attacks have continued, and increased, since her announcement. Such a barrage of negative attention was not what was best for Alaska, Sarah's family, or Palin's political career, so she decided it was time to spare the family, and the State of Alaska, the continued problems, and step down in hopes to either regroup, or make a determination to step down from politics permanently.
What amazes me is that The Left portrays Sarah Palin as a moron, or simpleton, supported by "dimwitted conservatives." If she is so stupid, then why spend all of the time attacking her? Why hire far left writers to do hit pieces on Sarah Palin, as suggested by Bill O'Reilly's piece at Townhall titled "Marginalizing Sarah Palin?" If she is such an idiot, why worry about her?
By your very actions, liberal left, you contradict your words.
Two possibilities have been given to me as reasonable answers to the question about why Sarah Palin has been such a target. Either, liberalism sees how dangerous Sarah Palin is to them, and how capable she is of re-energizing a Conservative Base that could carry the GOP into a landslide victory in the next election, or because of her faith they see this as a major opportunity to eliminate Judeo-Christian traditions by using Sarah Palin as an example of the religious right, and hammering on her, and Christian Conservatives, until like with everything else, they convince the public that their lies are the truth.
All in all, the Left's preoccupation with Sarah Palin is incredible evidence of the corrupt tactics liberals are willing to use. Basically stated: If you dare oppose their ideology, you will be attacked relentlessly with unfounded propaganda until you are destroyed, or until a greater threat rises in your place.
Trust me, us conservative bloggers get trolls that use the same kind of tactics.
If I am so harmless, why do you care enough to attack me? Could it be because you are vile human beings who have no understanding of the words "ethics" or "standards?"
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Palin Faces Questions as She Exits Alaska Politics - Fox News
Pelosi: 'Congress will work its will' - Politico, Daniel W. Reilly
Marginalizing Sarah Palin - Townhall, Bill O'Reilly
Bauer: Palin remains among GOP frontrunners - One News Now, Chad Groening
Palin Says Latest Allegation Shows Need For New Ethics Law - Fox News, Matthew Daly
President Barack Obama: "I'm always worried about using the word 'victory,' because, you know, it invokes this notion of Emperor Hirohito coming down and signing a surrender to MacArthur. . . So when you have a non-state actor, a shadowy operation like Al Qaeda, our goal is to make sure they can't attack the United States."
Imagine an American Football game pitting two of the strongest teams in the league against each other. One is known for its powerful, hard-hitting game, and decisive victories, and the other is known for disrupting offenses and defenses with trick plays and unexpected strategies. In a news conference, before the big match-up, the head coach of the stronger team comes out and says, "I am careful about the word 'victory' because it brings to mind the notion that at the end of the game the other team is down in the dumps as they march into the locker room with their heads down. So, since our opponent is a team that is unlike most of our opponents, using unexpected strategies and trick plays, our goal is to just make sure they don't score a touchdown."
Or better yet, let's imagine going into a game of chess with the intention of not necessarily wishing for the opponent to feel the sting of defeat, should you be victorious. Your strategy, as a result, simply becomes one of just making sure they don't capture your queen.
Could you imagine playing backgammon spending all your time blocking the opponent, but not necessarily moving your own pieces off the board, mainly because you don't want your opponent to necessarily win, but you don't wish to win yourself either because you don't want your opponent to feel the sting of defeat?
What Obama is saying, by his statement regarding the word "Victory," and how we should approach the War on Terror (oops, didn't the Liberals say we have to call it a man-made disaster, or something idiotic like that?) is we should play defense, without the use of its counterpart, offense.
If you play offense, then you might be victorious, and if you are victorious it brings upon the opposition the horrid feeling of defeat, and surely we don't want an enemy that desires each and every one of us dead, or converted to Islam, defeated. It might make us feel guilty that they were beaten. It invokes an image of the poor, murderous crazy people coming down from their caves in Pakistan, or wherever Osama bin Laden is hiding, in a forlorn manner to sign whatever it is that proclaims they've been beaten.
Oh, the inhumanity of it all!
I read a piece recently by Warner Todd Huston that added another dimension, as well. Warner, at the beginning of the piece, asked, "When I say 'victory,' what do you think of?"
The answer to Huston's question, for me, is pretty obvious. Victory is winning, accomplishment over a foe, a "warm feeling of worthy accomplishment and an assumption of gaining the accolades that accompanies victory."
I wonder how many people are like Obama, where upon hearing the word "victory," they immediately conjure up in their mind feelings of how the poor loser was beaten down by defeat. I wonder if they really do feel guilt, if they truly garner such a bad feeling that on the other end of the victory was a losing party - a loser - a beaten down person or group trying to grapple with the horrid agony of defeat.
When there are winners, there are losers. That is a fact of life. Losers, if they don't like losing, need to either learn how to be winners, or go play another game. However, people who think like Obama (we'll call them "liberals"), have the thought process that nobody should feel like losers, even a blood thirsty enemy. And in order for there to be no losers, there can't be any winners.
Preposterous.
If, in a game of chess, you are determined to just make sure the opponent never takes your queen, but you never make an aggressive effort to place your opponent in check-mate, eventually, you will lose. You can only play defense without offense for so long. The enemy, regardless of your feelings about "victory," has the goal to defeat you. Simply making them not attack the United States, but not achieving victory over them, gives them the opportunity to regroup and strike again on another day. An enemy like the Islamic Jihad will continue striking, over and over again, until eventually they are victorious. The only way to stop them from eventually reaching their goal is to defeat them. And when the enemy is defeated, it is called a "victory" for the winning side. "Victory" is the only word one can use. To use anything else is to leave yourself open to future attacks by an undefeated enemy.
Sympathy for the enemy encourages the enemy to rise up and strike again another day, because whether you like it or not, they have no sympathy for you.
On a side note, a point also brought up by Warner Todd Huston in his article, Barack Obama's statement regarding Japan's World War II surrender also shows his ignorance of history. Emperor Hirohito did not sign the document that finalized the surrender of Japan to General MacArthur. The signing of the declaration of surrender was performed by Japan’s Foreign Minister, Shigemitsu, and one of Japan's generals, Umezu.
Will The Press call him on that? I guarantee you if Bush had said such a thing, they'd have been all over it.
Obama's statement about victory is more apologetic than the words you'd expect from the Commander in Chief of American Forces. He can't get his history right, disrespects his own country, and has this guilt-ridden desire to go around apologizing for America's successes. It makes me sick. This attitude places the nation in a very vulnerable position. The enemy, based on the President's statements, are fast realizing that Obama does not desire victory. In other words, he refuses to play the worldwide chess game in an offensive manner. So, all the enemy has to do is keep striking, over and over again, until they eventually break through the line-up of pawns, knights, and bishops. "Victory" will be theirs, I am sure they are beginning to believe, if only they remain persistent, and on the offensive.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Obama: 'Victory' Not Necessarily Goal in Afghanistan - Fox News, Politics
Obama's Anti-America - American Daily Review, Warner Todd Huston
Barack Obama has tried to explain to everyone that it is essential that his government-takeover of health insurance, and ultimately the entire health care industry, happens as soon as possible. Without the passage of the health care bill that is currently being debated we are doomed, says Obama.
Why the hurry?
Is Obama's rush to push through his Obamacare because he wishes to get it passed before people begin to notice how horrific government run plans are with stories like the one about the 22-year-old alcoholic in Britain who died after being refused a life-saving liver transplant because he was too ill to leave the hospital, and was unable to prove he could stay sober?
Isn't that an example of controlling behavior by holding life saving surgeries over one's head?
If the Obamacare plan, in which the government becomes the payer of health care in America, is so wonderful, then why are the Democrats trying to disallow the Republicans from calling it "Government-Run Healthcare?" Isn't that what it is?
When I see a duck, I call it a duck, so why can't we call Obamacare "Government-Run Healthcare?" Does the truth hurt? Are the Democrats afraid that if Obama's socialized medicine is called a name that is in accordance to its true nature they won't be able to get it passed? Isn't that being dishonest?
In the beginning Obama's health care plan is designed to not be like the Universal Health Plans of other nations - but it won't take long to become that, and worse.
Do you remember how the Democrats got angry when McCain called them, and Obama, "socialists" during the 2008 presidential campaign? Now that they are in power they are announcing their socialist beliefs freely and proudly. It was even proudly acknowledged on the cover of Newsweek Magazine that we are all socialists now.
To get his health care legislation passed Obama and the Democrats are demonizing doctors, and are trying to convince folks that Obamacare won't cost a thing - while trying to hide the fact that it is a government-run health system that reaks of socialism.
Tactics like the ones the Democrats are now using sounds like desperation to me. When politicians start lying, and demonizing professionals, even more than usual like Obama is beginning to do, it is a high sign that Obama is realizing he is against the clock, and he is becoming desperate to get it passed - before people begin to tap on their calculators and realize the insanity his health care plan truly is.
What the press won't tell you are the details of the rationed health care on the horizon should this atrocious monstrosity come into reality. Even Obama himself has suggested, in order to control costs, euthanasia of the elderly may be necessary - after all, they've lived a long life - what's the loss of a few more years of life? After all, 90% of health care costs are to keep alive old folks on their way out anyway.
Sick.
Remember what I said about life being cheapened by our willingness to abort our unborn children in a recent article? Could there be a connection? Has human life lost so much value that politicians are willing to kill off the elderly to save a little money?
And after all of the dust settles, of which most of the fight surrounds the astronomical cost of this turkey of a bill, has anyone considered the Constitutional ramifications?
Is it in line with the U.S. Constitution for the federal government to force upon the citizens of the states nationalized health care?
Ultimately, Obamacare, and other pieces of garbage like the Cap and Trade Bill, are about controlling the populace.
Through Cap and Trade your use of energy will be controlled. Through the take over of the auto industry eventually what you drive (or even if we drive) will be determined by government bureaucrats, rather than the tendencies of consumers. And with the health care bill, whether or not you receive treatment, and ultimately whether or not you live or die, will be decided by some faceless bureaucrat in an office somewhere in Washington DC. The decision will be based, as this system evolves, on your value to the common good. If you are less valuable, you will be encouraged to die.
For some reason "Logan's Run" pops into mind.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Man, 22, Dies After Liver Transplant Refused - Sky News
GOP Not Allowed to Say 'Government-Run Healthcare' - Human Events, Connie Hair
Newsweek Says We Are All Socialists Now !?!?!? - Yid With Lid
The fear-mongerer-in-chief - Michelle Malkin
Obama: Greedy doctors are coming after your tonsils or something - Hot Air, AllahPundit
Obama: Euthanasia of the elderly may be necessary - Doug Ross @ Journal
Perry raises possibility of states' rights showdown with White House over healthcare - Star-Telegram, Dave Montgomery
Gaming expert, and screenwriter for the 1990' Chuck Norris family film "Sidekicks," Lou Illar joins Political Pistachio Radio tonight to discuss his latest book, "Believe Me Or Your Lying Eyes, a History of Casinos, Corruption, and Charities in America."
Mr. Illar says that the U.S. Government has taken the place of the mob in the casino industry.
Tonight we will discuss how the government has inserted itself into the casino industry, the Hollywood connection to the gambling industry, Lou's connections as screenwriter in Chuck Norris' film "Sidekicks," Norris' own secret gambling connections, earmarked casino perks attached to President Obama's stimulus package, and the implied threat of litigation by one extremely powerful gambling mogul in what appears to be a battle among gambling entities for control over President Obama's ear.
Join us live at 7:00 pm Pacific, or on archive later, on BlogTalkRadio.com/politicalpistachio.
Tea Party Express dot org
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Douglas V. Gibbs
Curtis Weaver, Vietnam Veteran and author of Creating Customers For Life joins Political Pistachio tonight during the first hour to explain how to make money during a rough economy, with strategies regarding:
- Profitably attracting more quality customers
- Converting customers into advocates who refer you to others
- Determining how much you can afford to spend to get a new customer or retain current customers
- Ethically exploit your customers maximum financial potential
During the second hour Greg, who was born and raised in communist Romania, will discuss the story about how a small group of Christians started the revolution that brought down the Ceausescu regime.
Join us tonight at 7pm Pacific, or on archive later, on BlogTalkRadio.com/PoliticalPistachio
Tune in live, or to the archive, at BlogTalkRadio.com/Founding-Truth
I live in Southern California. I am a Christian. I am a Conservative. And I am surrounded by Fruits, Flakes, and Nuts. Therefore, I live in California's "nutrution bar" region.
I have a number of friends, acquaintances, and fellow bloggers that live around the country who repeatedly ask me, "How can you possibly stand living in that state?"
There are many advantages living in California, especially Southern California between Los Angeles and San Diego as I do. Within a quick driving distance I have mountains, beaches, deserts, amusement parks, rivers, lakes, boating and hunting. Within a reasonable drive I have San Diego's Coronado Beach, Mission Beach, and every other beach I can think of from Imperial to Oceanside. I am also a quick drive to all of Orange County's beaches and Los Angeles' beaches, including the always fun Santa Monica Pier just south of Malibu.
In the summer I can go surfing in the ocean, biking in the desert, and hiking in the mountains, all in the same day if I so choose. In the winter I can go surfing in a wetsuit, biking in the desert, and snow skiing or snow boarding in the mountains, all in the same day if I wish. I can ride a motorcycle or a horse, I can swim in the ocean, a river, a lake, or a swimming pool. From Sea World to Disneyland to water parks to Knotts to Six Flags Magic Mountain to mud runs with the L.A. Sheriff's Department - it is all available.
I was in Malibu, yesterday, as a matter of fact. It is not difficult to admire the quaintness of the Pacific Coast Highway as it meanders up the busy coast west of Los Angeles between Interstate 10 and Highway 101. The beaches are accessible, and the waters are full of surfers. Ocean cities from San Diego to Crescent City offer an assorted array of shopping and restaurant adventures, but Malibu and the Santa Monica Pier to the south have their own special flare. The houses in Malibu sit atop the hills and cliffs over the ocean, overlooking the panoramic coast. Pepperdine University is a green oasis on the south end, and Point Dume splits the area with heart stopping scenery.
Sure, those houses on the cliffs are waiting patiently for the next earthquake to come in order to verify the new earthquake fittings in the home are working. The fires and mudslides make such living precarious, too. But, what a panoramic view.
Sure, there are concerns in the state, in addition to the fact that under liberal leadership the State of California is bankrupt. Building one's house on the side of a hill that could start sliding into the ocean if it suddenly decides to is a concern. Heck, here in California we live with the threat of the long awaited "big one," which some people jokingly saying will be the earthquake to drop So-Cal into the depths of the ocean when it strikes. In addition to that mega-earthquake on the horizon, we also have to deal with the four seasons each year.
Four seasons? California has four seasons? Seems like a year round summer with a few changes tossed in here and there just to confuse the meteorologists.
Four Seasons.
There is the hot season, Santa Ana Winds season, Fire Season, and Mudslide Season.
Four Seasons.
And often, those seasons overlap.
Sure, the state has its difficulties. But like I tell my friends in other parts of the country, "Tornadoes are so bad in the center of this nation that there is a stretch of turf that is called Tornado Alley. And hurricanes are such a problem that hurricanes have their own season, and it seems that season lasts half the year."
Fact is, there are advantages and disadvantages to living just about anywhere. I don't grumble about the things that I have no control over, for dwelling on those things will drive a man loony. However, it is important to take care of the things we do have power over, be it having an emergency plan available for the big quake, or leaving the state if you don't have the stomach for such a possiblity.
The economic slowdown is something else I don't have a lot of control over. I really can't do much about the fact that work in the two businesses I am most trained in is slow. As a trenching machine operator, who trenched the foundations for houses, work has essentially dried up. As a big rig driver that delivers sand and gravel (truck and transfer), considering the industry's connection to construction, work is very light indeed. I live more off of money I have saved in the bank, of late, than I do from money out of my paycheck - and the savings are rapidly becoming slim.
I can stress out over these factors I have no control over, and cannot change, but why should I? These things are beyond my control. Depression, or stress, from these events in my life I have little or no control over is not going to improve my situation.
However, knowing about these factors that are out of my control, and realizing I cannot change them, does not mean I should be without action. Since I believe political factors are involved with the economic downturn that is affecting me, I am involved politically, be it writing and talking about politics through Political Pistachio and Political Pistachio Radio, or attending local city council meetings, public hearings, or tea parties to protest the federal government's unconstitutional expansion. I also get side work when I can to supplement my income. A little extra pay here and there can add up. The tough part is, however, recognizing which things I have power over changing or influencing, and which things I don't.
As I began to write that last paragraph, something triggered inside me like a Geiger counter. I have heard this truth I am relaying before. I just couldn't place it.
How has this nugget of wisdom availed itself to me before?
Above my desk is a plaque. The image on the plague is praying hands, a door, and a shining light. The text is from the Serenity Prayer.
God grant me the Serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
Courage to change the things I can,
and Wisdom to know the difference.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
.jpg)
Get Liberty
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Douglas V. Gibbs
VIDEO
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Douglas V. Gibbs
Get Liberty
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Douglas V. Gibbs
Coming soon to America, preferential treatment for gays, and loss of jobs for Christians for daring to disagree with the lifestyle.
Why not? It's happening in Canada and Britain. In fact, in the United Kingdom a Christian doctor got kicked off an adoption panel because she wished to abstain from voting on cases regarding adoption by gay couples.
Have an opinion deemed unacceptable, get canned.
Dr. Sheila Matthews is no rookie, either. Her service on the panel has lasted 5 years up to this point. A pediatrician in the community, Dr. Matthews dared to believe it is "inappropriate to place children in a household with same sex parents as the best option."
She has previously abstained from voting on same-sex couples. Her feelings on gay couples adopting children, according to the head of the Northamptonshire's Children's Services, Martin Pratt, creates "significant problems" for the adoption service.
Dr. Matthews has pushed to be reinstated to the panel, and her case is being represented by the Christian Legal Centre (CLC).
The director of CLC, Andrea Minichiello Williams, stated that "This is a further example of how a well respected professional who holds conscientious views on sexual practice, informed by Christian faith, is being asked to choose between her faith and her job. Recent anti-discrimination legislation is having the opposite effect and devout Christians are suffering the consequences. This is not the mark of a free and civilised society where freedom of speech and religion is carefully guarded."
The Hate Crimes Bill, and a bill introduced in June by Rep. Barney Frank (H.R. 3017) will bring this kind of garbage to America (not that it doesn't already exist in some forms).
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
British Doctor Kicked of Adoption Panel for Abstaining to Vote on Same-Sex Couples - American Family Association
The 33rd Annual Ventriloquist Convention, just south of Cincinnati in Fort Mitchell, Kentucky, made the news. It is the largest ventriloquism convention in the world, but that is not the reason for the attention. The fact that folks came from around the world to attend the event also had little to do with the sudden fascination with this convention.
The more than 400 performers brought their dummies along for the trip, and when the reference to the dummies was made, one of the conventioneers said, "They're wooden Americans. They don't call them dummies."
Excuse me? Did he just call a dummy, a lifeless puppet, a wooden American?
Since most stuff like this is made in China, wouldn't it be a "Wooden Made In China American?"
This is ridiculous stuff, right?
Maybe we ought to start calling bloggers Information Transfer Specialists.
Sand And Gravel Truck Drivers would be Sand And Gravel Relocation Specialists.
Jeez.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Dummies 'Speak' Out In Fort Mitchell - WLWT Channel 5
Thank you, Call Me Mom (Irate, Tireless Minority) for bestowing the Honest Scrap Award on me on July 21. I couldn't be more honored, especially from a reader like Call Me Mom who visits and comments pretty regularly.
THE RULES
In accepting this award, I need to do the following:
1) Say thanks and give a link to the presenter of the award.
2) Share "ten honest things" about myself.
3) Present this award to 7 others whose blogs I find brilliant in content and/or design, or those who have encouraged me.
4) Tell those 7 people that they've been awarded HONEST SCRAP and inform them of these guidelines in receiving it.
My 10 honest things:
1.) I try to follow God's Will for my life, writing seems to be that direction so far.
2.) I am currently in the midst of many storms in my life - but like the disciples with Christ on the raging Sea of Galilee, I have to remember He never promised the trip would be a smooth one, only that He'd get us to the other side.
3.) My grandchildren are the magic in my life, and they give me joy whenever I am with them.
4.) I am averaging 2-3 hours sleep per night right now due to burning a number of candles at both ends. My wife is worried. Pain medication keeps me going.
5.) My children rebelled greatly, but both have been slowly returning to the foundations I laid for them as young children.
6.) I am excited about the day my wife and I will finally move to our property on the Oregon Coast.
7.) The nice thing about being the primary cook in the family (usually weekends and mid-week) is I usually get to eat my favorite dishes.
8.) The swimming pool has been a God-send during the hot summer months.
9.) The friendships I have made on the blogs and on Blog Talk Radio have become very dear to me - and many of those folks I have met and had lunch with.
10.) I have the greatest wife. I get up at 2:00 am usually and she gets up with me to make a lunch. If I get home later than my usual 6:30 pm, she will have hot food ready for me. When the pain begins to set in, she gives me rub downs and massages. And she does all of this without asking anything in return other than my love. They don't get much better than that. I have been blessed.
My 7 other blogs, in no particular order are:
1.) Radio Patriot - Andrea Shea King
2.) No Sheeples Here
3.) The O Word - Cary Cartter
4.) Gawfer
5.) Third Wave Dave
6.) Right Wing Guy
7.) Texas Darlin'
And I am going to repeat Call Me Mom's verse. . . "A man that hath friends must shew himself friendly: and there is a friend that sticketh closer than a brother." ~Prov. 18-24
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Douglas V. Gibbs
Gaining control of the U.S. Auto Industry is only step one of the liberal Democrat's plans of controlling what you drive, how you drive, and how much you drive. Now that they have control of the automakers, the U.S. Government will dictate to them what kind of vehicles to produce.
Goodbye SUVs, big trucks, and anything big enough to be comfortable to ride in, or pull a boat with ease.
They are licking their chops with the possibilities of the roads covered with sub-compacts (shoeboxes with wheels would be safer) and tracks and tracks of public transportation.
And just to make sure you are behaving, the government is working on placing black boxes under your dashboards to track your mileage, usage, and whereabouts.
At this rate, you might as well slap the UPC symbol on my forehead right now.
What's next? Is the U.S Government going to outlaw big rigs too?
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Will feds use new power to dictate what you drive? - World Net Daily, Drew Zahn
Mainers invited to become track-your-car guinea pigs - The Portland Press Herald/Maine Sunday Telegram, Beth Quimby
The New York Times reported that Barack Obama has said, "I want to be very clear, I will not sign on to any health plan that adds to our deficits over the next decade."
How does he know? He has already indicated he doesn't know what is in the bill. Besides, we are so deep into deficit spending, Obama couldn't go out and buy a hamburger without it adding to our deficits. Everything he is doing is now adding to our deficit.
Obama is making this claim because he thinks he can make sure the rich pay for the whole thing with an added surtax.
What if, like with every other government program, the health care legislation winds up costing more than the Democrats expect?
I believe the President of the United States is lying. He is lying because he knows that if people really understood what this piece of crap legislation was going to cost the American People, there would be riots.
He also claims the plan will cut hundreds of billions of dollars in unnecessary spending, which is another lie, or a severe miscalculation.
If Cap and Trade, and this Health Care Bill, passes, our economy will be so destroyed, Obama won't be able to replace any of his suicidal teleprompters without adding to the deficit.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Obama Says Health Plan Won’t Add to Deficit - The New York Times, Sheryl Gay Stolberg
Morning Bell: Obama Admits He’s “Not Familiar” With House Bill - The Heritage Foundation
The Competitive Enterprise Institute, while the U.S. Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) reevaluates its recommendations for taxpayer funded ocean research, is submitting to the agency a request for them to consider the EPA's recent report (which was suppressed by the EPA itself) which provides evidence that man-made global warming may not be a valid issue.
Although I applaud CEI's efforts, I believe the agency will reject CEI's request because all of the climate change funding and legislation has nothing to do with climate. The truth is not important to these people. This is all another way to tax, and control.
Environmental agencies are more interesting in getting their funding, in any manner they can, and environmental groups are interested in getting their monies, any way they can - and the truth is simply an obstacle that needs not be addressed if addressing it could result in less funding.
If Obama was really a president about "Change" he would look into the accusations that man-made global warming is false, and has no evidence supporting it. However, he will not do so because he, like the rest of the mindless leftward zombies out there, truly believes that our less than 1% contribution of greenhouse gases is enough to alter the entire global temperature.
Never mind the fact that the globe has warmed and cooled many times long before the first industrial smokestack burped out its first carbon, or that the worldwide temperatures have been decreasing over the last half dozen years.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
CEI Injects Suppressed EPA Global Warming Report into White House Science Proceeding - Competitive Enterprise Institute, Christine Hall
The American Public has been outraged about Obama's attempt to force nationalized healthcare them, or for that matter, his poor handling of the economy. In order to try to win a little support, Obama has been sending his people out to conduct townhall meetings, and he has been hosting conference calls. In one such conference call with liberal bloggers, a blogger from Maine said that he kept coming across articles from Investor's Business Daily that claimed Section 102 of the House health legislation would outlaw private insurance. If this was true, it contradicts what Obama has been saying all along about people being able to keep their own insurance if they so desire. What was Obama's response?
Obama said, "You know, I have to say that I am not familiar with the provision you are talking about."
Barack Obama has been quoted as saying a number of times, "If you have health insurance, and you like it, and you have a doctor that you like, then you can keep it. Period."
Yet suddenly he is not sure if there is a provision in his own Health Care Bill that would outlaw private insurance?
The truth is that H.R. 3200 does not outlaw the private health insurance industry. However, the federal government getting into the health insurance game will, in the long run, effectively regulate private individual health insurance out of existence. The cost of private insurance will sky-rocket, and the ability for the private system to compete against a government that does not have to worry about profit-margins will destroy the private industry, and eventually lead to all Americans not having a choice but to participate in the government system. The government system, then overrun with participants, will slowly deteriorate to the point that healthcare will be rationed, quality will lessen, waiting times will increase, and the hope of eliminating such a failed system will be nearly impossible.
The concern here, once again, is not whether or not Obamacare will outlaw private insurance, but if after promising that his system won't outlaw private care, Obama admitting he wasn't sure - meaning he is not fully familiar with a healthcare plan he is pushing.
The reason for his inability to recall anything regarding the bill, even though what he can't recall is in direct conflict with his past promises, is because he really doesn't care. The reason for his Healthcare Plan, Cap and Trade, stimulus packages, or anything else he does, has nothing to do with hoping to fix the economy, or helping he American People. All Obama cares about is ultimately destroying the private system with such policies, and replacing it with his own nationalized system.
Obama is bringing "change" all right. He means to change the American Form of Government to something the Founding Fathers never intended it to be.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
It's Not An Option - Investors Business Daily
Does the House Plan Outlaw Private Insurance? - The Heritage Foundation
Obama Calls On Bloggers To Keep Health Care Pressure On Congress (AUDIO) - The Huffington Post
President Is Set to 'Take the Baton', As Skepticism on Health Reform Mounts, He Will Intensify His Efforts - Washington Post
Poll: Less faith in Obama's economic abilities - USA Today
Morning Bell: Obama Admits He’s “Not Familiar” With House Bill - The Heritage Foundation
The state budget in California has been agreed upon, and in that budget is a plan to reduce the number of inmates in California prisons by nearly 27,000. Some of those prisoners will not be released straight out, but finish their sentences in home detention, and rehabilitation programs. In the case of home detention, the use of electronic monitoring would be in play. Estimates are that about 6,300 could do time this way. The plan will also scale back on parole supervision for less serious offenders.
The proposal is supposed to save a total of $1.2 billion in the coming year, but how much of that will wind up being spent in the long run because the prisoners released become repeat offenders, and word of a more relaxed prison system reaches the streets and encourages more crime?
The plan also includes a proposal to change some felonies to misdemeanors so inmates could go to county jails instead of prisons. In other words, transfer the problem to the local jails, ensuring that local venues that are also already overcrowded will house more serious offenders with those that commit lesser crimes.
Less severe sentences, and less serious classifications for crimes, removes a deterrent that keeps many potential criminals from committing crimes in the first place. One result of these more relaxed sentencing standards will be an increase in the crime rate, and a more severe prison population problem, which ultimately will cost the state more.
Counties are expected to receive a total of $45 million in the coming year, from federal stimulus funds, to keep inmates on probation instead of sending them to prison, as well. Again, creating an environment more apt to increase crime rates, rather than reduce them.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
State budget deal reduces prison inmates by 27,000 - Los Angeles Times, Michael Rothfeld
Tonight on the Andrea Shea King show the guest was U.S. Army reservist Maj. Stefan Cook, accompanied by his lawyer, Dr. Orly Taitz. Major Cook is the military man that balked at deployment with the reason that he shouldn't have to go overseas under the orders of an ineligible Commander in Chief. "Barack Obama was never eligible to be president because he wasn’t born in the United States."
Cook's lawyer, Dr. Orly Taitz, has been one of the folks bringing cases against Obama, asking that he provide proof of his eligibility, as well.
Philip J. Berg, and a host of others, have also brought cases asking for Barack Obama to prove his eligibility to be President of the United States.
There is an alleged fake being produced by the Obama Administration at this very moment to quiet all dissent, says a number of bloggers.
Congressman Bill Posey introduced bill HR 1503 that requires all candidates for President in the future to provide documentation (such as a birth certificate) to prove they are natural born citizens of the United States, which, by the way, is a requirement of the U.S. Constitution.
In each of the previous instances, the persons bringing up Obama's eligibility are being lambasted by the media and late night comics. And the assault isn't only coming from the liberal left. Many Republicans and conservative talkers are hammering these people for even bringing up the question of whether or not Barack Hussein Obama is eligible to be President of the United States.
I remember Michael Medved saying on his show once that the issue "makes Conservatives look dumb."
Whether Barack Obama was born in Kenya, Indonesia, or Hawaii, proof of his birthplace, among other things, is a necessary part of becoming president of this nation. I don't know if Obama was born where he says he was, or somewhere else. I don't know if the birth certificate provided on the Daily KOS is legitimate, or not. I don't even know if Obama cares to prove anything at anytime in the future.
Here is what I do know:
- When the question regarding Obama's eligibility first came up, it was pooh-pooh'd away, and brushed under the rug.
- When the demand for a birth certificate reached a critical point, one was produced. However, the item produced was a short form that did not show hospital or delivering physician, and the document was produced by a liberal website, rather than the Obama team itself.
- When the outcry regarding the authenticity of the short-form birth certificate provided by the Daily KOS reached Obama, all of his records were sealed, and a dozen lawyers were hired to combat the coming wave of legal inquiries. It is alleged that the Obama camp has spent nearly one million dollars to fight the questions about his eligibility.
- The media, despite their willingness to dig deep into the lives of Joe the Plumber, Sarah Palin, and anyone else considered a threat against Obama, has refused to even pay the issue the slightest attention.
The actions of Obama, the media, and those around this issue is enough to send up red flags. The answer to the question is no longer a question. By refusing to address this issue head on, when the U.S. Constitution demands that he does, Obama has made it more and more difficult to believe he is eligible to be President of the United States.
I don't believe this is the last we will see of this issue - especially since now we are seeing members of the United States Military question whether or not they should even follow the orders of this presidential fraud.
- - Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
US ARMY MAJ. STEFAN COOK TELLS HIS SIDE OF THE STORY - The Andrea Shea King Show
Soldier balks at deploying; says Obama isn’t president - Ledger Enquirer
Pentagon orders soldier fired for challenging prez, Army warrior terminated from job after questioning Obama eligibility - World Net Daily, Chelsea Schilling and Joe Kovacs
'Get out of war free' card - World Net Daily, Vox Day
What's the difference? Compare 'long-form' Hawaiian birth certificate with Obama's - World Net Daily
Hospital won't back Obama birth claim, Honolulu's Kapi'olani Medical Center refuses to confirm White House letter - World Net Daily, Jerome Corsi
Obama Birth Certificate Forgery - Political Pistachio, Douglas V. Gibbs
H.R. 1503
Bill Posey's H.R. 1503 Explained - TCPalm
Official Blog for Dr. Orly Taitz Esquire
I am reading for the second time a book called "Heaven Without Her," by Kitty Foth-Regner, which is a memoir about a woman's journey from feministic, leftist atheism to the faith of her mother. Now, Kitty is a passionate Christian who understands that the faith of her mother was more than just a mere belief.
In Chapter 14, Kitty comes to grips with science, and the apparent anti-Christian agenda that science claims to represent. This fervor to prove there is no God has pushed some scientists into conjuring up ideas that are not only ludicrous, but defy the principles of science in the first place. Evolution is one such example.
Kitty writes on page 105: "For one thing, evolution theory broke all kinds of natural laws that modern scientists claimed to agree on - laws that I had actually learned somewhere along the way and had conveniently forgotten. For example: Something cannot come from nothing, according to the law of cause and effect. Yet that's what the evolutionary big bang theory requires. Life only comes from life, according to the law of biogenesis - not from non-life. Yet evolution theory says that it was nonlife that jump-started life in some long-ago, faraway chemical soup. Nothing improves with time, according to the second law of thermodynamics. On the contrary: everything clearly deteriorates. Yet evolution theory requires just the opposite."
She later also explains her discovery about how the major evolutionary evidences associated with the Scopes trial had been bogus, and her realization that no transitional fossils have been discovered.
Evolutionists are so adamant about proving their "theory" that they are willing to lie and cheat to accomplish the feat.
The problem is, some aspects of science ceased to be about science long ago, and the direction they took was simply to disprove God. In the scientific community, religion is the enemy, and religious bigotry is rampant.
Prejudice against anything religious reared its ugly head in the scientific community when President Barack Obama dared to appoint Dr. Francis Collins as the head of the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Collins is the man that led the team of scientists that successfully mapped the human genome. His other professional qualifications and accomplishments, in addition to his part in the mapping of the human genome, makes him a more than qualified candidate for head of the National Institute of Health. Despite his qualifications, however, Dr. Collins has received less than enthusiasm from the scientific community over President Obama's appointment of him. Why all of the skepticism?
Dr. Francis Collins is a Christian, and not just any Christian, but an Evangelical Christian to boot.
oh, the horror of it all . . .
Science has this idiotic belief that science removes the need for a God, and that Christians believe the Bible somehow requires us to reject much of modern science.
In reality, the Bible came up with what scientists are discovering long before science even exhaled its first breath. Verses throughout the Holy Scripture addresses the laws of science regarding biogenesis, the 1st and 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, the Law of Cause and Effect, astronomy, geophysics, geology, Principle of Isostasy, hydrology, hydrolic balance, meteorology, biology, circulatory systems, painless surgery by placing the patient into a deep sleep, the microscopic world, nutrition, and physics to name a few.
The tension between science and "theism" is a relatively new concept, actually, because science first emerged because humanity wished to learn more about the world God had given us. Even the minds of Plato and Aristotle, long taught to be champions of secularism, operated with the attitude that our existence came from the creative workings of a divine being. Theology has long been the engine behind science, and the scientific search for truth has been motivated by the belief that humanity's ability to reason was a gift from God so that we could gain knowledge about him, and the world around us. Some Christian scientists would even tell you that the extraordinary "coincidences" that make intelligent life possible including the fine tuning of physics is one thing; but our location in the universe, in our galaxy, and in our solar system, as well as size and rotation of the Earth, mass of the moon and sun and so forth not only make this a habitable planet, but these conditions also give humanity a well-suited position for viewing and analyzing the universe. In other words, the universe has been literally designed for our discovery.
In this way, it is not only foolish for the scientific community to proclaim that religion and science have no common ground in the quest for knowledge, but their unwillingness to consider biblical belief systems as a possible hypothesis is holding science back.
So, I am going to give credit where credit is due. President Obama not only chose a fantastic head for the National Institutes of Health because of his credentials, but it is to Barry's credit that he was not put off by Dr. Collins' faith while the rest of the scientific community fumes over the audacity of the choice of a Christian scientist.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Francis Collins, Geneticist - Wikipedia
Contrary to beliefs, not all scientists are godless materialists - The Olympian
Why the Fuss About Dr. Francis Collins’ Faith? - Sojourners
Is The Bible Reliable Scientifically?
Whenever the accusation is made that Islam is moving to dominate Europe, and eventually takeover America as well, all kinds of skepticism and argument comes out of the woodwork. In fact, on NewsMax, there was an article making such a proclamation, and the response labeled the writers as scaremongers, and that their assumption about Islam is all wrong.
If that is the case, then why is it Muslims proving the "scaremongers" correct?
Islamic speakers continually make statements like "Shariah Takes Precedence over U.S. Constitution," and that Muslims will fight "Until Islam Becomes Victorious or We Die in the Attempt."
I am taking what they say at face value. I would be a fool not to.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Recovery dot gov exists to show where the money the government is spending is going. Obama has promised us he will cut wasteful spending, and bring fiscal responsibility back to Washington.
On Obama's own website, the truth is clear - the government is spending money irresponsibly.
Note in the website linked below the cost of repairing a door . . . Yes, that is right, nearly $1.5 million.
Recovery.gov
Now, hey, maybe it is a high tech door. . . but is that cost reasonable?
Like I keep saying, the economy and government spending is of no concern to these people - everything they do is simply for the expansion of government in an attempt to "change" the American Form of Government into a system that compromises individual liberty, and ensures that the populace becomes completely dependant upon the federal government.
Worse than Marxism.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Arab Festival 2009, Sharia in the United States
VIDEO
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Douglas V. Gibbs
I was in a heated debate with a far-left liberal acquaintance of mine and he says to me, "That's the problem with you flat-Earth, Bible thumping Christians - you are narrow minded and unwilling to recognize that not only is the Earth not the center of the universe, but that there is nothing special about Earth. Hell, you people even persecuted Galileo for daring to come to scientific conclusions that didn't agree with the Church."
The statement was so laden with untruths, I didn't even know where to start.
People like my liberal friend loves to call Christian Conservatives Narrow-minded, yet these are the people with such a narrow mind that they are unwilling to give God a chance in their lives. Their agenda is about the destruction of Christianity, and the removal of "organized" religion from the face of the Earth. Could you imagine if I went around declaring I wished to force atheism out of the schools, and out of the public square?
These people operate on a double standard.
In order to achieve their goals, facts and the truth get in the way, so they must create lies, and then convince you they are the truth, in order to win their way. Then, what happens is they repeat the lies so many times that even they begin to believe the lies are the truth. My friend's statement at the opening of this piece is laden with those untruths.
For example, he called me a flat-Earth Christian.
The lie that is taught to each and every one of us as children is that the people of Europe believed the Earth was flat before Columbus dared to challenge that line of thinking - and that the flat-Earth theory came from the Christian Church leadership based on some Bible verse that nobody has yet to provide me with.
The truth is, scholars at the time of Columbus knew the Earth was a sphere. The ancient Greeks knew it was a sphere. Christians had determined the Earth was a sphere thousands of years before through biblical text.
Isaiah of the Old Testament, which dates back to a little over seven hundred years before Christ, tells us the Earth is a sphere in plain language. "It is he that sitteth upon the CIRCLE of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in." --Isaiah 40:22
In the original text the word used for Circle in this passage is a Hebrew word: "chuwg", which specifically means "sphere".
Likewise, in the New Testament, Luke 17:34-36 the verses telling of the coming rapture read: 34 I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left. 35 Two women shall be grinding together; the one shall be taken, and the other left. 36 Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
Notice in the first verse it is night, and in the other two verses it is daytime. Only on a spherical Earth could it be night and day simultaneously on different locations of the Earth. If there was any flat-Earth Christians during the years shortly before Columbus made his trip, they didn't know their Bible real well.
Believing the Earth is the center of the universe would also not be a typical Christian opinion. In fact, that would be a belief you would expect from the "enlightened ones" since they were the ones always exalting humanity. Unlike other religions, Christianity does not rely on "self-righteousness." Righteous deeds do not get a Christian to Heaven, according to Christian doctrine. Muslims believe they must pray five times a day, fast, and be a martyr if they desire a fast track to Heaven. Hindus believe you must do things to escape the continuous spiral of reincarnation. Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses also declare that it is only possible to reach the highest level of whatever part of Heaven they deem to exist by your works. Christian's believe that God's standard is impossible for humans to reach because His standard is perfection. We try to do the right thing, but to use our actions as a means to Heaven is like bribing God, and bribery doesn't work with Him. Our imperfection, according to the Christian Faith, makes us unworthy, and it is only because the price for our sin was paid through Christ's death that we even have the opportunity to be in God's presence. Ephesians 2:8-9 (King James Version) 8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9 Not of works, lest any man should boast. Doesn't sound like a bunch of folks that would raise humanity up on a pedestal as the center of the universe, does it?
The age of Enlightenment made man the measure of all things, putting humans at the center of everything. Christian theology never placed man in the center of anything. When it was discovered that the Earth was not the center of the universe as The Enlightenment taught, the story by science was later retold saying the Church, despite evidence to the contrary, put humans in the center. And to this day that little white lie is still taught to our children in schools.
As for Galileo, his condemnation had nothing to do with the Church rejecting Galileo's belief the Earth revolved around the Sun. As you can see from what we have already discussed, the Church was willing to accept such a finding, for the Christian Faith did not place man in the center, and the spherical nature of the Earth and the planets was already understood based on Biblical text. Galileo's problems with the church resulted in a much more complex interplay that involved political circumstances, political ambitions, and huge egos. Galileo insisted the church accept all of his findings without question, of which the church did not. Galileo himself later proclaimed the major cause of his troubles, according to the writings of Historical Researcher Philip J. Sampson, was that he made fun of Pope Urban VIII, partially for not being willing to accept Galileo's demands. As a result, "Galileo suffered an honorable detention and a mild reproof, before dying peacefully in his bed."
Hardly the persecution we are taught.
As for the statement by my acquaintance that there is nothing special about the Earth, many physicists, astronomers, and cosmologists would beg to differ. Science wishes to convince us that the Earth is not special, and that there could be many such planets teeming with life in the universe, in order to discredit the notion of a Creator. Based on science, however, it turns out that Earth is very exceptional, indeed. In Chapter seven of the book, The Case for a Creator, Lee Strobel states that "Earth's location, its size, its composition, its structure, its atmosphere, its temperature, its internal dynamics, and its many intricate cycles are essential to life - the carbon cycle, the oxygen cycle, the nitrogen cycle, the phosphorous cycle, the sulfur cycle, the calcium cycle, the sodium cycle, and so on - testify to the degree to which our planet is exquisitely and precariously balanced."
The Earth is hardly ordinary.
So, to my debate mate, before you say something as ignorant as is quoted in the first paragraph of this post in response, I suggest you learn the truth first, instead of jumping to conclusions based on the subjective lies you have been taught by the indoctrination centers also known as the public school system.
I'm just trying to look out for you.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Douglas V. Gibbs
I was much too young to realize the gravity of the event, but I certainly learned much about the lunar landing on July 20, 1969 as my life progressed.
Minds like those of H.G. Wells and C.S. Lewis wrote books about the possibility of visiting the moon, and some of the earliest movies entertained the awe inspiring thought. The only problem was how we would be able to defy gravity to get there in the first place, be it through some anti-gravity chemical painted on the panels of a giant sphere, or by using an oversize gun to shoot the capsule into space.
Then, along came the rocket.
The race for space became a political one. John F. Kennedy made it his goal to put an American Astronaut into space, and ultimately on the moon.
During Lyndon B. Johnson's presidency, the lunar landing became a reality.
Neil Armstrong was the first to take a step onto the lunar landscape.
I don't remember that moment, but my parents do. I was too busy playing with my link-n-logs, or stacking blocks, probably, to care that history was being made. I wasn't watching the small black and white television screen in our little living room when Neil Armstrong stepped off the Apollo 11 lunar module and onto the moon's surface and said his now famous line: "That's one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind."
But I was alive, and that event fascinated me for the next forty years as I grew to understand the importance of that day.
Today is the 40th anniversary of the moonwalk, and the memories of that historic voyage has ignited the memories, and the imagination, of a generation that dreamed with the astronauts. It was a day of pride. It was exciting to be an American, as that American Flag (with wire in it to make the stars and stripes visible on the windless moon surface) was planted into the moon's soil.
Within a year or two, I was fully aware of the event, and hoped that one day I may be able to do the same.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
America is a nation of winners, despite the federal government, not because of it. - Douglas V. Gibbs
"Why Winners Win," an article by Rich Tucker, got my mind thinking simply by its title. I am an advocate for personal responsibility. I believe that America is great because the Founding Father's had the wisdom to create a system that allows its citizens to keep most of what they earn, and while they were at it, the Founding Fathers were adamant about protecting private property.
Nobody can run my life better than I. My successes, as well as my failures, should belong to me.
There is a belief that success is not the result of personal decisions, hard work, and a little luck along the way. Statists would have you believe that without the community, and the government, you would be destined to land straight in the gutter. As for the truly fortunate, the people who reach the highest echelon of success, as far as the statist is concerned, those people could only have acheived their lofty position in life through ruthless greed and predatory activities.
Except those that support the Liberal Agenda - those folks are all right by the Democratic Leadership.
Winners win not because of the helping hands along the way, although those associations are important. If the individual did not strive for success - if the individual was not willing to rise above the rest - they would not become an acheiver.
Human nature dictates that the status quo is not good enough. Some people desire more, and they should have the freedom to pursue such an opportunity. Should these risk takers achieve, then it should be theirs to keep. Success should not be something punished because others along the way failed.
There are successes and there are failures. Those that fail have the opportunity to try again. All of the achievers are former failures. Success is reached after numerous failures, and a driving desire to keep trying until success is achieved.
Today's federal government wishes to stifle this. Personal responsibility must be punished for not being willing to feel guilty for the losers left behind. Poverty must be nursed, and those not in poverty must pay for it.
Liberals would say that conservatives do not care about the poor because we do not support entitlement programs. Conservatives, however, do care. We practice tough love. Rather than give the downtrodden an excuse for remaining at the bottom, we wish to give them the incentive, and the opportunity, to stick their neck out and succeed. Providing for their every need through entitlement programs does not accomplish that. All it does is teach them to remain dependent upon the state.
Winners win because they do not desire to lose. Losers lose because they have been given an opportunity to depend on the government, rather than try again.
The federal government encourages failure, and then blames the Right on failing to feel sorry for the failed. What a vicious deception.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
By PatriotGreg
The position of Jesus Christ regarding war, it is not clearly specified in the New Testament of the Bible. Jesus Christ always taught love and peace, to the point of telling us that we should even love our enemies. But the times Jesus Christ lived on earth, Israel was an occupied territory by the Roman Empire, and even as He makes some comments and references about it, His position was never a political or military one. To properly appreciate and understand the biblical position regarding war, we must look at the whole Bible and the teachings of God through many prophets, kings and military leaders. The Bible consists of the Old Testament and the New Testament. The Old Testament is full of instances where God Himself has instructed His people, Israel to go to war against its enemies. Furthermore, the manner in which those wars were to be conducted would be considered by today's men's standards, barbaric and criminal, since often God instructed Israel not only to kill the enemies (soldiers) but also their women, children and livestock, and burn down and destroy their homes and settlements, their crops and their lands. Things are different in the New Testament, where the emphasis is made on love, peace, in helping others and even sacrifice for them. And yet, we believe in one God who is the same, yesterday, today and forever, and who changes not.
Read the Rest on The Christian Patriot
July 15th CNBC presented their family hour special, "Porn: Business of Pleasure."
A horrific broadcasting decision, NBC is flaunting the industry of debauchery as if it should be common viewing. This television program on a station that is easily accessible, and is not a Premium Channel, is a symptomatic example of the rapidly deteriorating level of family values and morality in America.
Robert Peters, President of Morality In America, suggests this is just the beginning of a trend that could lead to more obscene programs in the future. What is the next logical step? Legalization of what imprisons one today? Will we be seeing documentaries on CNBC-like cable networks on Child Porn next?
Peters says, "Our nation's constitutional obscenity laws have not been enforced vigorously since the Reagan/Bush administrations, but that doesn't mean they can't be successfully enforced again."
Join us live tonight on Political Pistachio Radio as we invite Robert Peters to explain to us what is going on, and how we can resolve America's rapid descent into the waters of immorality.
We will air live tonight at 7pm Pacific. You may catch the program live, or on archive later on BlogTalkRadio.com/PoliticalPistachio.
Video
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Today at noon Pacific I will be the guest host of Wise Conservatism Radio.
Join us live, I would love to hear from you.
Blogtalkradio.com/wiseconservatism
Montana and Tennessee have both passed laws to get the federal government out of their business regarding firearms. In Tennessee, General Assembly Bill 1796 (Tennessee Firearms Freedom Act) states that "any firearms or ammunition manufactured within the state and legally owned and kept within the state by citizens are not subject to federal law or federal regulation, including registration due to provisions in the Second, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments to the United States Constitution."
Sounds reasonable. It cuts the Commerce Clause completely out of the picture (not that it should have been used in the first place regarding federal gun control).
There seems to be this erroneous belief floating around among some folks that claim to know all about federal law, without understanding the text of the U.S. Constitution, that federal law supersedes state law.
In fact, that is how the federal government responded to Tennessee's law. Tennessee received a response from Assistant Director Carson W. Carroll of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives on July 16 that said, "Federal law supersedes the Act, and all provisions of the Gun Control Act and the National Firearms Act, and their corresponding regulations, continue to apply."
Wrong!
The Second Amendment does not allow the federal government to infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear Arms in any way - meaning the federal government cannot limit ownership of firearms in any way. Gun laws are a choice for the states to make, not the feds.
In the U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8 enumerates the powers of the federal government. Section 10 details what the states cannot do. The Ninth Amendment negates any expansion of governmental power on account of the enumeration of rights in the Constitution. The Tenth Amendment indicates that if an issue is not delegated to the federal government, or prohibited to the States by the Constitution, whatever it is, the issue is a State issue.
Pretty clear. Doesn't take a lawyer to understand it because the Constitution was written for We The People. States have the power to govern over their residents without federal encroachment. The federal government is limited, and if the issue is not mentioned as a power of the federal government, it is a State issue - period.
Then the federal government has this thing about the third clause of Article I, Section 8, also known lovingly as the Commerce Clause. Specifically, the clause reads: "[The Congress shall have power] To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes. . . "
The intention of this clause was to settle disputes regarding trade, not to stick the federal government's hands into anything that crosses state lines.
I am curious what Tennessee's response will be. I hope their response emphasizes state sovereignty. That would be the Constitutional thing to do.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Feds Declare Tennessee Gun Law Invalid - Dprogram.net
Obama handshake is continuously rejected in Russia - funny stuff - look at Barry's face. . . he is clearly confused. He is used to being worshipped, not ignored.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Old Cartoon clears up the isms. . . and defends the Free Market System
Should be required viewing for all Obama voters . . . A dose of truth may "change" their minds.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Cyber Czar to be selected to investigate Cyber Attacks - given the authority to shut down the Internet and private networks. . .
Comedian Al Franken becomes number 60 - providing a historic filibuster-proof supermajority. What kind of economic impact could Franken's presence in the Senate encourage?
Join us tonight at 7 pm Pacific for the answers on Political Pistachio Radio
Could the American Civil War have been avoided? Did Abraham Lincoln follow the U.S. Constitution? Was the War Between the States about abolishing slavery? Or was it about State's Rights?
Answers to those questions, and more, on Founding Truth Radio Show, Tonight.
American Daily Review, the fastest growing political website on the Net, launched January 17, 2009. Since it's debut it has received hundreds of thousands of hits, and has amassed over 50 well-known, level minded contributors.
The site began as an idea between John Barnhart and I nearly a year ago.
As the Co-Founder, Co-Editor, and Senior Writer of American Daily Review, it is my pleasure to announce that American Daily Review will be launching a radio show on Blog Talk Radio co-hosted by myself, John Barnhart, and Jim from Hard Starboard.
Join us as we premiere our first dry-run on Blog Talk Radio at blogtalkradio.com/americandailyreview today at noon, Pacific. Hope to see you there.
A comical look at things to come, should Obama's Healthcare Idiocy become the American way of life:
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
.jpg)
Get Liberty
Well, for the Democrats in control of Washington socialized medicine looks good on paper. . . more control and power for them, and a dependant populace - for those elitist statists, what's not to like?
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Motive? Whenever these politicians do anything, the first question one must ask is why?
And even more interestingly, why wasn't this meeting widely reported?
Why was it a "quieter event?"
The explanation is that the relationship between the Muslim American community and the government has come under strain.
Being a part of an ideology that encourages terrorism tends to do that.
Muslim organizations are worried about investigative tactics by American agencies, as well, calling the FBI's investigations an "infiltration of mosques," and that the FBI uses "agent provocateurs to trap unsuspecting Muslim youth."
Does that mean new concessions are on the horizon?
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Eric Holder makes quiet visit to mosque to meet with Muslim Americans - Los Angeles Times
"And that's the way it is."
One of the most revered newsmen in American history has died. The CBS newsman was considered by Americans of his era to be the "most trusted man in America".
The face of CBS' Evening News, Walter Cronkite was an unflappable voice of the news, providing the current events in an objective manner that led Americans to love him dearly. He covered historical events from JFK's assassination, to the Apollo 11 lunar walk.
Walter Cronkite epitomized journalism as it should have been. He was fair and balanced, and provided the facts in an unwavering manner that helped you to realize that there was no agenda - aside from getting you the information you needed to be informed.
The mainstream media will recognize him as one of the greats, but will never follow in his footsteps. They are unable to. They are too invested in agenda to be as principled as Mr. Cronkite.
Fair thee well, Walter Cronkite. Your memory lives on.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
In July of 2007, Douglas V. Gibbs of Political Pistachio announced the Republican Vice Presidential Candidate, if whoever won the GOP presidential nomination wished to choose the best available candidate, would be Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin. From that point on we followed her career in Alaska, secretly hoping she would be picked, but doubting the wisdom of the Republican Party to be willing to do so.
John McCain shocked conservatives when he chose his running mate. Alaska Governor Sarah Palin ignited the Republican Party when John McCain announced her as his running mate in 2008. The liberal left scrambled for dirt, making things up as they went along. The media demonized her as best they could, despite the fact their arguments were out and out lies.
Then, the Katie Couric interview of Palin, catching Sarah seemingly unprepared, was the ace in the hole the Democrats had been hoping for - and the popularity of Sarah Palin among more moderate Republicans began to wane, though she remained very popular among the Conservative Base of the GOP.
After the election the critiques and attacks by the Left continued, in an attempt to continue to affect public perception of Palin, possibly to discourage her from remaining involved in national politics. Even recently a comment by David Letterman about Palin's daughter's became headline news.
Then, unexpectedly, Sarah Palin decided to resign from the governorship of Alaska.
Katherine Morrison is author of the book, "An Independent Call," which chronicles her work in the 2008 Presidential Campaign and in New Hampshire politics. Regarding Palin, Katherine Morrison during the last few weeks has appeared on Talk Radio News Service, ABC Australia Radio, The Kirby Wilbur Show, KPFK-FM Los Angeles, The Terry Gilberg Show, KBFK-AM News Sacramento, The Morning Zone with Dave Chaffin, KOMO News Radio Seattle, and several others.
Tonight, she is the guest on Political Pistachio Radio. We air live at 7pm Pacific. You may catch the show live, or the archive later, HERE.
As the Democrats say we need to break our dependence on foreign oil, while refusing to drill for oil domestically, it has become more and more apparent that the United States has more than enough domestic oil to supply us with.
The hunch that there is a massive oil field beneath the Dakotas is nothing new, but the evidence that it exists is. Possibly the largest formation of oil in North America, it is only a matter of whether or not the technology has the capability to extract the oil efficiently.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
North Dakota could have a huge new oil field - Associated Press, James MacPherson
Hateful, atheistic graffiti in red spray paint covered the windows and outer walls of The Hope Chapel. The vandalism had some profanity, but was primarily anti-Christian in nature. Some of the 40, or more, phrases included, "end the lies," "think," "end the hate" and "Nietzsche was right" (reference to "God is Dead" and other statements by 19th-century German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche). Symbolism was also used, including anarchy signs, anti-Christianity signs, and anti-religion signs. The damage was estimated at $15,000 to $20,000.
A Hope Chapel elder said of the episode, "I was angry, at first, that someone would do this because we're doing our best to help people and make good news available for people."
The anger is gone and now is the time to forgive.
"You just can't allow that to overcome you to where you're going to respond in the same kind."
Services proceeded on Sunday morning, and the members of the church agreed to update their billboard and send the vandal a message. The message read, "Mr. Vandal, Jesus loves you, too."
The conversations among the members became about finding whoever did this and welcoming him into the church.
The identity of the vandal may not be difficult to discover, according to police. The perpetrator left behind a number of clear fingerprints.
This is not the first time Hope Chapel will need to clean up their building. When the pastor and congregation took over the building ten years ago, it had been a club that featured exotic dancers.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Douglas V. Gibbs
Keene Congregation Carries On Following Vandalism - WMUR New Hampshire
.jpg)
Get Liberty
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Douglas V. Gibbs
‘God Awful’: Black Chamber of Commerce CEO Rips Sen. Boxer for ‘Condescending’ Racial Remarks
Remember, the liberal left sees America in groups, rather than individuals.
Boxer continually uses the word "diverse," meaning members of many groups. How about diverse in the sense of individuals? Who cares what the groups are? Why are liberals so preoccupied with groups, and racial differences? Why can't they see Americans as individuals? Why is the Democratic Party so racist?
Is it no surprise that Barack Obama is racist against Whites (see "Dreams of my Father," and his membership for twenty years to Reverend Wright' church), or that Sotomayor thinks that a wise Latina is a better judge than an old white man? The liberal left Democrats promote hate among the groups, that way, if we are too busy fighting, we won't notice them taking away individual liberties.
Maybe we should rename the Democratic Party the Party of Hate. They always accuse the Right of that, but it seems they may be slinging such accusations in order to get eyes off of their hateful racism, and policies that address groups, rather than individuals.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Two American hotels in Jakarta were rocked by explosions, killing at least nine, and injuring many more. The targets were the Marriott Hotel, and the Ritz-Carlton Hotel.
Indonesia's Security Minister has stated at least 50 were injured in the blasts.
Islamic terrorists are being blamed for the explosions. Anti-terrorist officials have been conducting major crack-downs on terror activities, and this is the first major event in at least three years.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Explosions at 2 Hotels in Indonesia Kill at Least 9 - The New York Times, NORIMITSU ONISHI
Official: 9 dead, 50 wounded in Jakarta blasts - Associated Press/Yahoo News, ANTHONY DEUTSCH
Gryph's Gripes takes a step away from politics tonight for stories of inspiration and testimony. He has asked me to join him to tell some of my tales - join us HERE at 7pm Pacific for two hours, or later for the archive.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Douglas V. Gibbs
Biden: We Must Spend More Money To Keep From Going Bankrupt 
Joe Biden is not saying anything the Democrats haven't been saying all along. That is the purpose of the bailouts and stimulus packages. To spend more money.
When critics of Franklin Delano Roosevelt provides evidence that FDR's policies not only did not slow down the Great Depression, and it in fact worsened it, the liberal response has been that FDR didn't spend enough money fast enough. Even Obama has used this argument.
Think about the insanity of this. They believe to keep from going bankrupt the nation must go further in debt. In fact, what they are doing is doubling the national debt, and then some.
Remember, these are the same Democrats that have been hammering the Republicans for the National Debt for the last few decades.
I could just imagine my wife's response if I walked in the door and said to her, "I have our financial worries solved, my dear. We simply need to go more in debt. In fact, we should more than double how much we owe. That ought to straighten things out, and keep us from going bankrupt."
My wife would have me committed.
But this is exactly what the liberal Democrats are doing. And while they are at it, they are expanding government into every corner of the private sector.
The question is, why would they do that? Isn't it obvious to them that to grow an economy you encourage the components of that economy? Without the growth of businesses, and emerging business should their competitors go under, the economy will remain stagnant, and in the long run, the economic strife will worsen. Failed businesses should be allowed to fail, and eventually be replaced by emerging competitors. It would create a downturn for a short while, but then with pro-growth policies, including easing regulations and cutting taxes, the economy would flourish and prosper down the road as a result - and liberty would reign supreme.
In order to bring about change, the old system must be destroyed. What is the old system? To Obama and the far left, the American Form of Government, and Capitalism, are the old system. A new system of communism, without personal liberty, cannot exist until the old system is destroyed. To destroy the old system it must be riduculed, demonized, and made to be considered obsolete. Then, use government takeover of the private sector using the excuse that it is necessary to save the nation. The private sector must be destroyed, and the middle class must be slapped down to the level of poverty. Misery breeds dependency on the government, and then once in place, there is nearly no way out of it without revolution.
Explains why Obama and the liberal Democrats are working so fast, doesn't it? They want to get the system in place before Obama's brainless disciples realize the truth.
Remember, Barack Obama comes from the cess-pool of Chicago Politics - a place coincidentally that Saul Alinsky, communist and anti-American radical, comes from. In fact, the folks that recruited Obama as a community organizer (a tool of Marxism), were sprung from Saul Alinsky's influence.
Marxism has been a term that has been brought to the table often when describing Obama, but in reality, he is not only a Marxist. I believe he is something much worse. If you dissect what Barack Obama is doing, it is perfectly in line with Saul Alinsky and his Rules for Radicals.
Obama, therefore, is not a Marxist. He is something worse. And what he is doing to America is exactly in line with what Saul Alinsky had planned for America, and eventually, the world.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Joe Biden: ‘We Have to Go Spend Money to Keep From Going Bankrupt’ - CNS News, Penny Starr
Obama Explains FDR's Folly? - National Review Online, Guy Benson
A chilling comparison: Obama & Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals - Brookfield Now, Kyle Prast
Saul Alinsky - yet another Obama mentor from his Marxist past - From The Duke
SAUL D. ALINSKY: Teaching Obama - David Horowitz and Richard Poe
After being urged to support the bailout, a supplier to GM wrote a response that should be read by Congress.
This is GM's letter:
Dear Employees & Suppliers,
Congress and the current Administration will soon determine whether to provide immediate support to the domestic auto industry to help it through one of the most difficult economic times in our nation's history. Your elected officials must hear from all of us now on why this support is critical to our continuing the progress we began prior to the global financial crisis.
As an employee or supplier, you have a lot at stake and continue to be one of our most effective and passionate voices. I know GM can count on you to have your voice heard.
Thank you for your urgent action and ongoing support.
Troy Clarke
President,
General Motors North America
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response from:
Gregory Knox, Pres.
Knox Machinery Company
Franklin , Ohio
Gentlemen:
In response to your request to contact legislators and ask for a bailout for the Big Three automakers please consider the following, and please pass my thoughts on to Troy Clarke, President of General Motors North America.
Politicians and Management of the Big 3 are both infected with the same entitlement mentality that has spread like cancerous germs in UAW halls for the last countless decades, and whose plague is now sweeping this nation, awaiting our new "messiah," Pres. Obama, to wave his magic wand and make all our problems go away, while at the same time allowing our once great nation to keep "living the dream." Believe me folks, The dream is over!
This dream where we can ignore the consumer for years while management myopically focuses on its personal rewards packages at the same time that our factories have been filled with the worlds most overpaid, arrogant, ignorant and laziest entitlement minded "laborers" without paying the price for these atrocities.. This dream where you still think the masses will line up to buy our products for ever and ever.
Don't even think about telling me I'm wrong. Don't accuse me of not knowing of what I speak. I have called on Ford, GM, Chrysler, TRW, Delphi, Kelsey Hayes, American Axle, and countless other automotive OEM's throughout the Midwest , during the past 30 years and what I've seen over those years in these union shops can only be described as disgusting.
Troy Clarke, President of General Motors North America, states: "There is widespread sentiment throughout this country, and our government, and especially via the news media, that the current crisis is completely the result of bad management which it certainly is not."
You're right Mr. Clarke, it's not JUST management. How about the electricians who walk around the plants like lords in feudal times, making people wait on them for countless hours while they drag ass so they can come in on the weekend and make double and triple time for a job they easily could have done within their normal 40 hour work week. How about the line workers who threaten newbies with all kinds of scare tactics for putting out too many parts on a shift and for being too productive.
(We certainly must not expose those lazy bums who have been getting overpaid for decades for their horrific underproduction, must we?!?)
Do you folks really not know about this stuff? How about this great sentiment abridged from Mr. Clarke's sad plea: "over the last few years we have closed the quality and efficiency gaps with our competitors." What the hell has Detroit been doing for the last 40 years?!? Did we really JUST wake up to the gaps in quality and efficiency between us and them? The K car vs. the Accord? The Pinto vs. the Civic?!? Do I need to go on? What a joke!
We are living through the inevitable outcome of the actions of the United States auto industry for decades. It's time to pay for your sins, Detroit .
I attended an economic summit last week where brilliant economist, Alan Beaulieu, from the Institute of Trend Research , surprised the crowd when he said he would not have given the banks a penny of "bailout money."
"Yes, he said, this would cause short term problems," but despite what people like politicians and corporate magnates would have us believe, the sun would in fact rise the next day and the following very important thing would happen.. Where there had been greedy and sloppy banks, new efficient ones would pop up. That is how a free market system works. It does work if we would only let it work."
But for some nondescript reason we are now deciding that the rest of the world is right and that capitalism doesn't work - that we need the government to step in and "save us". Save us my ass, Hell - we're nationalizing and unfortunately too many of our once fine nation's citizens don't even have a clue that this is what is really happening.
But, they sure can tell you the stats on their favorite sports teams.
Yeah - THAT'S really important, isn't it?
Does it ever occur to ANYONE that the "competition" has been producing vehicles, EXTREMELY PROFITABLY, for decades in this country? How can that be??? Let's see. Fuel efficient. Listening to customers. Investing in the proper tooling and automation for the long haul.
Not being too complacent or arrogant to listen to Dr.. W Edwards Deming four decades ago when he taught that by adopting appropriate principles of management, organizations could increase quality and simultaneously reduce costs. Ever increased productivity through quality and intelligent planning. Treating vendors like strategic partners, rather than like "the enemy." Efficient front and back offices. Non union environment.
Again, I could go on and on, but I really wouldn't be telling anyone anything they really don't already know down deep in their hearts.
I have six children, so I am not unfamiliar with the concept of wanting someone to bail you out of a mess that you have gotten yourself into - my children do this on a weekly, if not daily basis, as I did when I was their age. I do for them what my parents did for me (one of their greatest gifts, by the way) - I make them stand on their own two feet and accept the consequences of their actions and work through it. Radical concept, huh. Am I there for them in the wings? Of course - but only until such time as they need to be fully on their own as adults.
I don't want to oversimplify a complex situation, but there certainly are unmistakable parallels here between the proper role of parenting and government. Detroit and the United States need to pay for their sins.
Bad news people - it's coming whether we like it or not the newly elected Messiah really doesn't have a magic wand big enough to "make it all go away." I laughed as I heard Obama "reeling it back in" almost immediately after the final vote count was tallied. "We really might not do it in a year or in four." Where the Hell was that kind of talk when he was RUNNING for office.
Stop trying to put off the inevitable folks. That house in Florida really isn't worth $750,000. People who jump across a border really don't deserve free health care benefits. That job driving that forklift for the Big 3 really isn't worth $85,000 a year. We really shouldn't allow Wal-Mart to stock their shelves with products acquired from a country that unfairly manipulates their currency and has the most atrocious human rights infractions on the face of the globe. That couple whose combined income is less than $50,000 really shouldn't be living in that $485,000 home.
Let the market correct itself folks - it will.. Yes it will be painful, but it's gonna' be painful either way, and the bright side of my proposal is that on the other side of it all, is a nation that appreciates what it has and doesn't live beyond its means and gets back to basics and redevelops the patriotic work ethic that made it the greatest nation in the history of the world and probably turns back to God...
Sorry - don't cut my head off, I'm just the messenger sharing with you the "bad news". I hope you take it to heart.
Gregory J. Knox, President
Knox Machinery, Inc.
Franklin , Ohio 45005
Snopes confirms it
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Douglas V. Gibbs
Paul Krugman, Liberal Marxist Extraordinaire, has decided to use an old analogy that Conservatives have also been using a lot of late. Specifically, he referred to the story of the boiling frog in a recent OP-ED piece for The New York Times.
"Creeping Incrementalism" is the term I have always used for it.
The story is of a proverbial frog that is swimming in a pot of cold water. A fire is under the pot, but the frog never notices. He begins to swim freely in the comfortably warm water, never realizing he is slowly being cooked - until it is too late.
Krugman believes our environmental peril and economic slide into another Great Depression are a couple of cases of "boiling frog" disasters that have been creeping up on us, without us taking notice.
The economic situation is easily blamed on George W. Bush by folks like Krugman, and like all of the other anti-American whackos out there, he does this without being willing to take a look at history. Paul Krugman has joined the Bush-derangement-syndrome crowd, and in fact, an "everything is the GOP's fault" mindset.
I wonder if he is at least able to think clearly at night.
Many factors play into the fact that the economy took a bigger dip than it ought to have. Most of them were based on liberal economic policies (regardless of whether it was Republicans or Democrats applying them). The crisis was in the making many years ago, with that I agree. But it was not the Free Market System that caused the problem. It was government interfering with the system of Capitalism that created the great rises in dips in the rollercoaster ride of financial stability.
The first stimulus package, created by the Democrats, and of which Bush had to be talked into signing, only worsened the economic climate. Obama's latest debacle then lay on top more damage, which included government intrusion into the private sector. Now, even community colleges are on the chopping block - err, uhh, in the bailout reception line. Every few week you'll hear about something else that needs to be bailed out, and the funds of fiat money being forced upon the industry, along with government's input on how to run whatever it is, goes up and up and up.
Americans not even born yet owe taxes on this insanity.
All of these stimulus packages are akin to a household running into a cash flow problem, and so the couple runs out and opens up a bunch more credit cards. Sure, they will be able to buy things for a little while, but eventually, the increase of debt will catch up to them, and then they will end up worse off than if they had just decreased their spending habits until revenue rose, and maybe even lost a car to the repo-man, which would, in the end, eliminate that loan from their outgoing bills. Sounds like a horrible thing to happen, losing cars and houses, but if that is what it takes to start over, and do it right the next time because you learned from your mistakes, then so be it.
It is called personal responsibility.
History is plain when it comes to the effects of overspending versus cutting spending. Franklin Delano Roosevelt (and Hoover, for that matter) increased spending, increased entitlement programs, increased taxes, and increased public works projects. The strategy ultimately extended the Great Depression, and in fact worsened it. Harding and Coolidge averted recession by cutting taxes and cutting spending. The following period was prosperous. The same thing happened after Carter's near destruction of the American Economy. Ronald Reagan's pro-growth, tax cutting measures encouraged the growth of businesses, grew the private sector, and resulted in years of prosperity. Even under George W. Bush's watch we enjoyed prosperity. His tax cuts averted economic difficulties that ought to have followed 9/11. Instead, for six years, our economy prospered - only to fall to ruin when the mortgage industry collapsed (of which both Bush and McCain warned the Congress about, and the Democrats called the Republicans fear-mongers for even muttering that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were becoming unstable).
As for Krugman's hysterical rant about the environment, the prosperity of America has made us one of the cleanest nations on the Earth. Don't get me wrong - I agree, if there is pollution, we ought to maintain its levels at a minimum. But to create a power-grab, and the largest tax-hike in history in a Cap and Trade Climate Bill over a debunked man-made global warming lie is completely outrageous. Does Krugman really believe that humanity spitting out less than one percent of the total greenhouse gases into the atmosphere really had an effect on the environment?
When it comes to the environment, not only is the frog not boiling, it has jumped out of the pot.
I can't believe Krugman is so foolish to believe such poppy-cock.
Then again . . .
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Boiling The Frog - The New York Times, Paul Krugman
I was watching C-Span yesterday, flipping over to the Senate floor while the Sotomayor hearing was on break, and across the bottom of the screen scrolled "debate over F-22 Fighter Jet". I looked more into it, and found that along with disarming missile defense technologies, and working towards disarming America's nuclear capabilities (both are important deterrents against the enemy), Obama now also wishes to stop production of the F-22 Fighters against the recommendations of his military advisers.
Specifically, a couple weeks ago Barack Obama threatened to veto a defense authorization bill because it contained money for the fighter jets.
He is not only destroying the private sector, crippling our economy, weakening our tactical advantage while weakening our defenses, and apologizing to the world for this nation being exceptional (while bowing to a Saudi King, telling the Muslim World this is no longer a Christian Nation, and repeatedly disrespecting the Queen of England), but now he wishes to cut our conventional capabilities off at the knees too?
In addition to stopping the production of the F-22, he also wishes that changes be made to the bill that would delay the fielding of the F-35, while deteriorating our strike fighter inventory.
At this rate, he'll be handing the keys of the White House to some dictator, or maybe even the United Nations.
This president is intent on destroying America - and yet, there are still idiots out there defending him.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Wire: Obama Threatens Veto of Defense Budget Bill Over F-22, F-35 - The Tension Blog
According to the Times Online in the United Kingdom, Israeli warships have moved through the Suez Canal shortly after an Israeli Submarine with nuclear strike capabilities did so ten days earlier. According to The Times Online U.K., this maneuvering by the Israeli Navy is in preparation for an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities.
The British website also indicates Israeli officials have confirmed the Red Sea deployment of vessels, and that this positioning of vessels is a clear sign that Israel is putting its strike force within range of Iran.
While strengthening ties with Arab nations also fearing a nuclear-armed Iran, Israel is hoping the mutual distrust of Iran will enable a successful strike against Iran.
The Israeli air force is also in preparation mode, participating in exercises at Nevada's Nellis Air Force base this month, and at another exercise in Washington.
Concessions by Israel to the formation of a Palestinian State has been the condition of support by neighboring Arab nations. If Israel agrees to the "give up land for support" offer, it is believed by one British official an Israeli strike on Iran could occur within the year.
Such concessions on settlement policy, Palestinian land claims and issues with neighboring Arab states, however, could lead to further problems with the neighboring Arab States in the future. They are simply using this as an opportunity to creep closer to Israel's borders, and place her within a stranglehold of their own. Question is, for Israel: Is the temporary support of some Arab nations in a strike against Iran worth such concessions that could lead to a war with her neighbors later?
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Israeli navy in Suez Canal prepares for potential attack on Iran - The Times Online U.K., Sheera Frenkel
This morning the Space Shuttle Endeavor lifted off. This was the sixth attempt. The previous five launches were postponed due to weather and fuel line concerns. As she lifted off this morning, debris separated from the external fuel tank with at least one of the flying pieces of debris striking the shuttle's underside.
Engineers on the ground are in contact with the astronauts in space, and will determine through examination, and analyzing the damage, to determine if the shuttle will be safe to re-enter Earth's atmosphere.
Images of the dislodged debris was captured by a camera on the external tank. The piece of debris that struck
