DOUGLAS V. GIBBS <---------->RADIO <---------->BOOKS <---------->CONSTITUTION <---------->CONTACT/FOLLOW <---------->DONATE

Wednesday, June 30, 2010

Federal Reserve - Biggest Scam in History

Great article regarding the Federal Reserve.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

More on the Geezer Bandit from Newsy

pp

Multisource political news, world news, and entertainment news analysis by Newsy.com


-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Self-Defense


Get Liberty

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

2nd Amendment According to Jefferson

Though I see the recent Supreme Court decision dangerous because anytime the federal courts okays the federal government to tell cities or states they "must" do something as being something very dangerous, I also recognize the importance of our right to bear arms.

So did Thomas Jefferson

"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." -Thomas Jefferson

Condoms Given to Elementary Children by School District in Massachusetts

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Teen pregnancies have risen drastically ever since sex education was introduced. The attitude of the Left is that they are going to have sex anyway, so let's just make it safer. By doing this, morals have been marginalized. Abstinence has been set aside. And the epidemic will continue to worsen.

Now, the progression of the immoral attitude of the left has gotten to the point where it has become more than just criminal.

It is one thing to give high school teenagers condoms, talk about sex with them, and provide what they believe to be appropriate education on the consequences, and how to protect themselves. The government, through the school system, has determined that parents are not good enough parents, and it is their job to override the parents wishes by forcing sex education on the children regardless of parental consent. But now, in Massachusetts, the actions by the school district is, for lack of a better word, shocking.

In Provincetown, Massachusetts, first graders are being given condoms.

That is not a typo.

But, the question is, why would first graders need condoms?

Under a policy approved by the town’s school committee last week, first graders will be able to ask the school nurse for, and receive, condoms at school with or without their parents’ knowledge. And additionally (are you ready for this one?) the policy also states that the school district will not honor requests from parents that their children not be given condoms.

This seriously concerns me to my core. Why does this school district feel the need to pass such a policy? There is no logic. Kids at this age don't even know what their parts are for when it comes to the sexual end of things, much less what a condom is. And what is horrible about this is if a child decides to go ahead and ask for a condom, I am sure while they are at it, the nurse would be happy to give a lesson in how to use it.

And worse, not only would your child have a sex discussion with the school nurse, but under their policy, as a parent, you would never know about it!

And this may only be the beginning.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Condoms for First Graders? School Board's Decision Sparks Firestorm in Massachusetts - Fox News

Welfare Debit Cards Used On Casino Floors

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Welfare systems incentivize people not to be productive. In California, entitlement programs have been taken to a whole new level.

California welfare recipients can be issued state debit cards that allows the recipient to withdraw cash. The immediate concern is that the recipient will break the rules by purchasing alcohol with the withdrawn cash. However, the welfare recipients have done more than just break the "no alcohol" rule. California welfare recipients have been using the state-issued debit cards to withdraw cash on gaming floors in more than half of the casinos in the state.

$1.8 million so far this year has been withdrawn from ATM machines at 32 of 58 tribal casinos and 47 of 90 state-licensed poker rooms.

Since the late 1990s most states have adopted the debit card system, which has been viewed as a more efficient way of distributing and tracking government aid. Nobody considered that people who have (in the majority of cases) allowed themselves to become dependent upon the state by not being responsible might act irresponsibly with the debit cards.

So as Governor Schwarzenegger works to combat waste and fraud in the state's social services programs, it turns out that fraud is rampant throughout the various entitlements systems.

Imagine that.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary


Welfare Aid Cards Valid at Casinos - Los Angeles Times

No Recovery, Only Keynesian Economic Failure

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Keynesian Economics is a theory of total spending in the economy. The idea is to stimulate the system so that demand creates growth. Problem is, consumerism is not effective without growth in production, and government stimulus is an illusion that makes the economy dependent upon the spending, but it only delays, and worsens, the inevitable.

Keynesian Economics looks to the short run, but disregards the long run. However, in the long run, as the economy is artificially held back from collapse, the fiat money being created for all of the spending deflates the value of the money, and places the economy into a position of collapsing once the ability to spend is exhausted. When that moment is reached, the temporary support of the government spending stops and the total economy collapses, leaving the system catastrophically devastated.

Instead of pumping fiat money into the system, the way to correct economic difficulties is to allow failed companies to fail (the void will be filled by smaller competitors), reduce taxes, reduce spending, and reduce some regulations.

A reduction of taxes leaves more money in the system to utilize for production and consumerism. It has been proven multiple times that whenever you increase the taxes on an activity, you receive less of that activity. Whenever you decrease taxes, revenue increases, and the activity the taxes are attached to increases. Therefore, by increasing spending, which eventually leads to increasing taxes to maintain the spending, the manufacturing sector resorts to less activity to survive in the higher tax environment.

Spending is directly related to the strength of the money. If deficit spending increases, more money is placed into the system without value to accompany it. More currency with less value attached makes the money less valuable in the market, which in turn leads to inflation. Inflationary periods and the deflation of the money then can result in economic depression.

Regulations on businesses have many necessary attributes, but too many regulations has the same affect on business as does too much taxes - more regulations result in less activity. By reducing regulations, and making the private business sector more business friendly, production increases, new business is created, and less companies depart for foreign shores.

Obama's Keynesian economy has led to no recovery, and a continued increase in the unemployment rate. The stimulus has resulted in no recovery, the health care legislation has already resulted in increases in the cost of health care, his Cap and Trade plans will (as admitted by Obama) increase the cost of energy and fuel, and the only increase in employment has been in the public sector. The spending is unsustainable, and the potential of ultimate collapse of America's economy worsens with each policy and each passing month.

How is that good for America's economy?

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Tuesday, June 29, 2010

the Death of Byrd

Senator Robert Byrd has died at the age of 92. The once member of the KKK, the liberal Democrat had the longest tenure as a U.S. Senator in history. His time in the Senate fed untold amounts of federal money into West Virginia. Like most Democrats, he apparently did not believe in term limits, and only vacates his seat through death.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

HOW MUSLIM PIRACY CHANGED THE WORLD

By John J. O’Neill

In my recently-published book, Holy Warriors: Islam and the Demise of Classical Civilization, I argued that it was the coming of Islam, in the mid-seventh century, which effectively brought the Classical Civilization of Greece and Rome to an end and initiated the Middle Ages. There I showed that the Muslim conquest of the Middle East and North Africa, from the 630s onwards, closed those areas to trade from Europe; and the consequent impoverishment of the latter led to the decline of the urban centers which had been the powerhouses of Classical culture.

But it was not war alone that brought this about. After all, from the beginning of history, empires had come and gone around the shores of the Middle Sea, yet trade and economic life had continued. With the rise of Islam, it is clear, this did not happen. All trade between the Christian West (and Christian East) and the newly-Islamic East was terminated, definitively. We know this for certain by the data brought forth by Henri Pirenne and others. Why did it happen? Did the Caliphs forbid merchants to trade with infidels?

The truth is far more disturbing.

One of the fundamentals of the Islamic faith was the acceptability, even the duty, of Muslims to wage war against the infidel. Islam divided the world into two starkly opposing camps: that of Islam, the Dar al-Islam, and that of the unbelievers, which was known as the Dar al-Harb. But Dar al-Harb literally means “House of War”. Jihad or Holy War, as we have seen, was a fundamental duty of all Muslim rulers. Truces were allowed, but never a lasting peace. (See eg. Koran, 8: 40 and 9: 124). In the words of medieval historian Robert Irwin, “Since the jihad [was] … a state of permanent war, it [excluded] … the possibility of true peace, but it [did] … allow for provisional truces in accordance with the requirements of the political situation.” (Robert Irwin, “Islam and the Crusades: 1096-1699,” in Jonathan Riley-Smith (ed.) The Oxford History of the Crusades (Oxford, 1995) pp. 237). Also, “Muslim religious law could not countenance the formal conclusion of any sort of permanent peace with the infidel.” (Ibid.) In such circumstances, it is evident that, when the Islamic forces were in a position of strength, almost all contact between them and the outside world was warlike. And this was not war as is waged between two kingdoms, empires, or dynasties: This was total war, war that did not distinguish between combatants and non-combatants, and war that did not end. In this spirit, Islamic generals launched attack after attack against the southern shores of Europe during the seventh and eighth centuries; and these “official” actions were supplemented by hundreds, even thousands, of lesser raids, carried out by minor Muslim commanders and even by private individuals: For it was considered legitimate that the Muslim faithful should live off the infidel world. Whatever spoils could be taken, were divinely sanctioned.

Thus the coming of Islam signaled a wave of banditry and piracy in the Mediterranean such as had not been seen since before the second century BC, when such activities were severely curtailed by Roman naval power. Indeed, it seems that this new Islamic piracy surpassed in scope and destructiveness anything that had come before. We could mention here, from the seventh and eighth centuries and later, quite literally hundreds of accounts of attacks in Greece, Italy, southern France, Spain, Sicily, Sardinia, and Corsica, carried out by Muslim freebooters and slave-traders. Neither Eastern nor Western Christendom was safe, and Crete, for a long time, was the centre of the Mediterranean slave-trade; a dubious honor she retained till the island was retaken by the Byzantine Emperor Nicephorus II Phocas around 956. (See John Julius Norwich, The Middle Sea, p. 94) These cut-throats, it seems, did not confine themselves to capturing towns and their inhabitants, but plundered churches and monasteries too, putting their occupants to the sword or selling them into slavery. The entire Mediterranean, east and west, was now off-limits for trade and, “In the Occident … the coast of the Gulf of Lyons and the Riviera to the mouth of the Tiber, ravaged by war and the [Muslim] pirates, whom the Christians, having no fleet, were powerless to resist, was now merely a solitude and a prey to piracy. The ports and the cities were deserted. The link with the Orient was severed, and there was no communication with the Saracen coasts. There was nothing but death.” (Henri Pirenne, Mohammed and Charlemagne, p. 184)

The history of Muslim freebooting in the Mediterranean has never, I feel, been properly written. This is a great omission, as its effect upon history and the development of western civilization was profound, even decisive: For it was Muslim piracy, much more than regular warlike activity, that brought classical civilization in the west to an end. This was the force which terminated, once and for all, the cultural and economic contacts between east and west, and which gave birth, as Pirenne rightly saw, to what we now call the Middle Ages. Of the situation at the time, we might agree with the judgment of a Dutch economic historian who wrote: “One could say, in modern parlance, that an iron curtain now divided the Mediterranean, whose littoral had once formed an economic whole.” (B. H. Slicher Van Bath, )

The pillaging and slave-raiding which began in the seventh century never really came to an end. It continued incessantly, with varying degrees of intensity, until the beginning of the nineteenth century, and was to have a devastating effect not only on trade, but on the culture of every society bordering the Mediterranean, and eventually on the whole of European civilization. Both East and West were devastated. Nor was the pillaging confined to the sea and coastal regions. From the mid-seventh century onwards Arab forces struck at Constantinople both by sea and by land, through the Middle of Asia Minor. In the latter case “not once or twice,” as Cyril Mango noted, “but practically every year … for nearly two centuries.” (Cyril Mango, Byzantium, The Empire of New Rome, p. 25) The consequences of this prolonged process, he notes, “are easy to imagine: much of Asia Minor was devastated and depopulated almost beyond repair.” And we should not imagine, as some authors do, that the revival of Europe during the eleventh century and the advance through the Mediterranean of fleets of Crusaders brought Muslim piracy – at least temporarily – to an end. This was emphatically not the case. Large, heavily armed fleets might move safely through the Mediterranean, but it was very different for merchant vessels. These, travelling alone, or in small and lightly-defended groups, were never safe. The Mediterranean remained a very dangerous place for all merchant shipping until the early nineteenth century!

The effects of this incessant pillaging upon the societies of southern Europe, those on the front line of this unofficial and interminable war, are not too difficult to imagine. Large areas of the coastlands of Mediterranean Europe became uninhabited and uninhabitable. The only analogy that springs to mind is to imagine the impact upon Northern Europe if the Viking raids had lasted a thousand years! Those communities which did survive, especially in the most vulnerable regions such as southern Italy, southern Greece, Sicily, Sardinia, Corsica, etc, were changed forever. The constant threat was to produce an almost paranoid suspicion of the outside world, plus a culture in which violence and vendetta were endemic.

Whilst the impact of Muslim piracy was thus decisive in the seventh century in terminating Classical Civilization, it was equally decisive in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries in forcing Europeans out into the Atlantic in search of safer ways to travel to the Far East. With the blockade of the Mediterranean, Europeans were debarred from the rich spice trade with the Indies. For a brief period in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries the Mongols had opened trade to the Orient, at least by overland routes, and Europeans dreamed of a sea-route that would bypass the Muslim territories and the Muslim pirates in the Mediterranean. First, under Henry the Navigator, they sought a way round the southern tip of Africa, and later, under Columbus, they sought a quick route by sailing directly westwards. Columbus believed the earth to be much smaller than Eratosthenes had calculated, and imagined that China and the Indies lay roughly where we now know North America lies.

The Age of Discovery was therefore launched to find a way around the threat of Islamic piracy. Yet these journeys had another, more military, purpose in mind. In his representations to the Spanish King and Queen, Columbus made it clear that the discovery of a “short” route to China might open the possibility of an alliance against Islam. The main purpose of the projected expedition was, in the words of Louis Bertrand, “to take Islam in the rear, and to effect an alliance with the Great Khan – a mythical personage who was believed to be the sovereign of all that region, and favourable to the Christian religion …” (Louis Bertrand, The History of Spain, p. 163) Bertrand was very insistent on this point, which he emphasized in half a dozen pages. The voyage of discovery was to begin a new phase, he says, in “the Crusade against the Moors which was to be continued by a new and surer route. It was by way of the Indies that Islam was to be dealt a mortal blow.” (Ibid.)

So certain was Bertrand of the connection between the exploits of the Conquistadores in the Americas and the war against Islam that he actually describes the conquest of America as the “last Crusade.”

The record of the Conquistadores in the New World needs no repetition here: It is one of cruelty and greed on a truly monumental scale. Yet the habits of the Spaniards here, habits which gave rise to the “Black Legend,” were learned at the school of the Caliphs. In Bertrand’s words: “Lust for gold, bloodthirsty rapacity, the feverish pursuit of hidden treasure, application of torture to the vanquished to wrest the secret of their hiding-places from them – all these barbarous proceedings and all these vices, which the conquistadores were to take to America, they learnt at the school of the caliphs, the emirs, and the Moorish kings.” (Ibid. p. 159)

Indeed all of the traits associated with the Spaniards, for which they have been roundly criticized by Anglo-Saxon historians, can be traced to the contact with Islam.

“The worst characteristic which the Spaniards acquired was the parasitism of the Arabs and the nomad Africans: the custom of living off one’s neighbour’s territory, the raid raised to the level of an institution, marauding and brigandage recognized as the sole means of existence for the man-at-arms. In the same way they went to win their bread in Moorish territory, so the Spaniards later went to win gold and territory in Mexico and Peru.” (Ibid. p., 160)


Holy Warriors: Islam and the Demise of Classical Civilization, is published by Felibri.

Supreme Court's Blunder on Gun Rights


By Douglas V. Gibbs

The U.S. Constitution applies to the federal government except where specifically noted otherwise.

When the Supreme Court decision in the Chicago hand-gun ban case came down that basically guaranteed gun rights in all cities and states, my phone began ringing off the hook. "We won," said the callers.

I said, "I am not so sure we won."

I am uneasy anytime the federal government tells a city or state what they have to do. I do not believe the 14th Amendment is so clear regarding applying the Bill of Rights to the States. Just because I am happy about the protection of gun rights, it does not mean I am in agreement with the constitutional angle used.

Let me put it this way. If we give the federal government the right to tell cities they have to allow gun ownership, what stops them from doing the opposite later? This case creates a precedent of allowing the federal government to dictate to the states and cities what they have to do, and in that I recognize a great danger to state sovereignty.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Riots at G-20


Just curious. . . Why in the hell are the idiots rioting in the streets in Toronto over the G-20 Economic Summit? Not that I think the idiot leaders inside have any brain cells, but . . .

What was interesting to me is as Obama was proclaiming we need to keep spending, the writing on the wall had the European leaders calling for spending cuts. . .

I wonder who the next Greece is. . .

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Obama Standing Up To McChrystal


Get Liberty

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Dearborn Police: Defending Islam against the Constitution



-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Will the US Government take over BP?

By Kevin J. Price

The Obama administration's imagination as to what the government should be doing is without limits. Obama, and those who surround him, seem to honestly believe that the government is the solution to most (if not all) problems. Over the last two years the government has taken over insurance companies, financial institutions, and even auto companies, so why not an energy company? Especially an energy company that is in the process of destroying our Gulf Coast. That is the exact argument being used by former Secretary of Labor (under Clinton) Robert Reich. Reich is also an adviser to President Barack Obama and is the administration's point person for promoting bizarre government agendas. In this situation, Reich is proposing a policy approach Hugo Chavez used in Venezuela of taking over foreign companies in order to meet "national interests." I wonder what BP and the United Kingdom will have to say about this.

Reich seems to be the official tester of strange ideas for the Administration. He comes out with odd policy approaches and writes articles or give speeches in order to see what type of reaction he gets. What a job, but he relishes it. A great example was his comments on the health care reform debate. While speaking at the University of California, Reich talked about what an "honest" politician would say when running for President, if "that candidate did not care about becoming president." Reich, acting as the "sound" leader stated, "Thank you so much for coming this afternoon. I'm so glad to see you and I would like to be president. Let me tell you a few things on health care. Look, we have the only health care system in the world that is designed to avoid sick people. And that's true and what I'm going to do is that I am going try to reorganize it to be more amenable to treating sick people but that means you, particularly you young people, particularly you young healthy people...you're going to have to pay more." This is definitely the case, especially if the government is going to be the one behind the "reorganization." This is also true if it is going to be a government run system, because the only hope for price containment is in competition and there will be none of that in a national health care program. He goes on to say, "By the way, we're going to have to, if you're very old, we're not going to give you all that technology and all those drugs for the last couple of years of your life to keep you maybe going for another couple of months. It's too expensive...so we're going to let you die." Finally he said "I'm going to use the bargaining leverage of the federal government in terms of Medicare, Medicaid---we already have a lot of bargaining leverage---to force drug companies and insurance companies and medical suppliers to reduce their costs. What that means, less innovation and that means less new products and less new drugs on the market which means you are probably not going to live much longer than your parents. Thank you." Nut job? Maybe, but he is also the typical policy type that comes from this administration.

People were not particularly surprised by Reich's speech on health care and I am beginning to question if they will be shocked by what he has to say about BP. In a recent article he wrote, "It's time for the federal government to put BP under temporary receivership, which gives the government authority to take over BP's operations in the Gulf of Mexico until the gusher is stopped. This is the only way the public will know what's going on, be confident enough resources are being put to stopping the gusher, ensure BP's strategy is correct, know the government has enough clout to force BP to use a different one if necessary, and be sure the President is ultimately in charge."

I believe that there is no role for the federal government to own any business. I also believe that it is extremely dangerous for the government to get in the business of taking companies that are from foreign countries. That has a certain "petty dictator" feel to it. I must say, I like Reich's use of the expression "temporary receivership." These words remind me of the late economist, Milton Friedman, who reminded us that "Nothing is so permanent than a temporary government program." A thought to ponder when we contemplate getting the government out of the many businesses it has found itself in.

--------------
Kevin Price
Host, Price of Business, M-F at 11 am on CNN 650 and CBS Radio
Frequently found on Strategy Room at FoxNews.com
Syndicated columnist whose articles appear on a variety of media outlets.
His http://BizPlusBlog.com/ is ranked in the top 1 percent of all blogs by Technorati.
Kevin Price's Profile: http://www.google.com/profiles/PriceofBusiness

Monday, June 28, 2010

Unpopular Kagan Shows Obama's Consistency


Get Liberty

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Another Test For President Obama Looms

By: J.J. Jackson

President Obama gets tested almost daily. Most of these tests he fails so utterly and completely that even a grade of zero is too high of a score. Every now and again he does however barely pass some tests put before him but it is with what could best be deserving of a D and nothing better. Those are just the facts. It is hard for someone that does not understand the very basics of economics and believes in command and control economies to do any better because the answers that are given to the tests are always answers that have been proven time and again not to work. Now there is another test looming for the President and it is coming from his fellow traveler down in Venezuela; Hugo Chavez.

Hugo Chavez is about three steps further down the road when it comes to implementing modern liberal policies than the current administration and Congress in Washington. But do not worry, those who currently sit in the seats of power on the Potomac are frantically trying to catch up. Which is why, with Hugo Chavez asking his National Assembly for approval to seize eleven idled drilling rigs owned by Helmerich & Payne Inc. this will be the potential next test which President Obama will fail.

Helmerich & Payne Inc., a Tulsa based oil services company, has been stuck in contract disputes with the communist dictatorship. They shut down the rigs last year when contracts ran out. At least in public H&P is putting on a startled face that Uncle Hugo would be pushing to nationalize their property. Hopefully in private they are smart enough to not be at all surprised by this considering his track record of similar actions.

If Hugo Chavez gets the permission he has asked for, and being the tyrant that he is the odds are high that he will or some troublemakers will be made to quickly disappear, the test begins. Will President Obama allow a foreign country to seize assets owned by a United States company and U.S. citizens? Odds are yes because so far President Obama has not shown any willingness to confront tyrants. And he will fail yet another test in all likelihood.

Now if we had a real President, one who had even a modicum of respect for America and the rule of law, the first thing that would have been done upon this announcement would have been to mobilize the United States Navy and get at least a battle group headed towards these rigs. After all the role of the United States government is to protect American citizens and their properties from being unjustly infringed. The rigs belong to H&P therefore an attempt by Venezuela to take them would be a violation of basic and unalienable rights. Steeling is, after all, wrong. Chavez’s simple threat to seize the property of U.S. Corporations is a borderline act of war. Should he actually move to seize these assets there would be nothing borderline about it at that point.

Chavez is free to oppress his own people but the second that oppression moves to legal U.S. entities and our citizens he has violated our sovereignty. And he must be held accountable if there is any respect for such things any more by those in Washington.

But we must remember who we have in the White House. We have a man that has little respect for the actual roles of our government while promoting any and all fictitious roles he and his Comrades in Congress can dream up. We have a man who thinks that it is just a simply great idea to meddle with industries and even nationalize them in whole or in part as he gauges the American people will allow him to without lighting up the torches and grabbing their pitchforks. We have a man who has stated that he is uncomfortable with the term victory. We have a man who has smiled in the presence of terrorists, bowed to kings and emperors and who has shunned allies. Heck he even graciously accepted a copy of Hugo Chavez’s own anti-American book when the two met. A book mind you that no one would read without a loaded gun pointed to their head.

Uncle Hugo senses a weak American President residing in the White House. So he really does not fear any sort of action like I mentioned above coming his direction. All citizens should cringe at this prospect. Because when our President fails to fight for the inalienable rights of our citizens, well, you might as well just kiss your liberties good bye.

=====================================

J.J. Jackson is a libertarian conservative author from Pittsburgh , PA who has been writing and promoting individual liberty since 1993 and is President of Land of the Free Studios, Inc. He is the "http://www.examiner.com/x-35438-Pittsburgh-Conservative-Examiner">Pittsburgh Conservative Examiner for Examiner.com. He is also the owner of The Right Things - Conservative T-shirts & Gifts http://www.cafepress.com/rightthings. His weekly commentary along with exclusives not available anywhere else can be found athttp://www.libertyreborn.com

Feinstein Don't Get It



What the people thinks means nothing to these idiots. They just want to dictate to you what you can and can't do, and ration your health care through bureaucracy.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

From McChrystal to Petraeus

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Uh, McChrystal resigned, and Obama replaced him with General Petraeus and was praised for his great decision . . . uh, don't the leftists hate Petraeus?

Didn't they rip Petraeus while he served under Bush?

What about all of those General Betray Us posters?

I suppose it depends on who's president.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

G-20 Summit Toronto: Liars Club

The world leaders at the Toronto Summit have pledged that they will cut deficits since it seems that runaway spending is placing the world economy in serious danger.

No kidding? And they are just figuring this out?

The biggest liar of the whole group, Barack Obama, made his own little speech. The man claimed he was working on cutting our deficit - but note that our deficit has grown more in the first two years of this presidents term than all of the presidents of the past - combined.

The Obama administration, however, has made it clear they believe reducing spending too quickly might set back the fragile global recovery.

It is the spending that is making it worse! The slight improvements are dependent upon the spending. Any reduction sends us back into dire straights. The only resolution is to allow the free market to take hold, hit a few down years, and then let free market forces increase production.

Economies depend on the growth of manufacturing. Cutting taxes, and cutting spending (some of which must be applied to entitlement programs that encourage people not to work) will encourage production, and consumer spending will follow. All of this spending is simply weakening the strength of the dollar, and is pushing us into an inflationary period that will then result in a deflationary depression.

Amazing, listening to Obama speak. He plans to "call the bluff" of those that oppose him.

If he keeps up what he is doing, it won't matter, because we will join the ranks of Greece.

Simple fact, Keynesian economics is a failed theory, and this idiot is doing exactly what it takes to destroy our economy.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

The Government Bailouts Must End - The Heritage Foundation

Obama Calling "Bluff" Of Those Complaining About "Deficits And Debt" - Real Clear Politics

Sunday, June 27, 2010

Extreme Measures and Health Care

By Kevin J. Price

"Extreme Measures" draws attention to how health care is improved.

Recently my wife talked me into watching a little movie entitled "Extraordinary Measures," staring Brendan Fraser and Harrison Ford. The film had "made for TV" written all over, although the story is engaging and the lessons learned, significant. Fraser stars as a desperate father with two seriously ill children fighting for their lives. Ford plays a research scientist poised to make a significant discovery in the treatment of a terrible disease. It is inspired by a true story. The children in the story suffer from Pompe's disease, which, according to the film, those who get it as a child usually die in the 9th year. Pompe is an autosomal recessive metabolic disorder that attacks muscles and nerve cells through out the body.

My wife, Stacy, has a heart for these type of movies. We watched it quietly together and were inspired by the story. Fraser plays John Crowley, a biotechnology executive who works in the marketing side of the industry and, in the quest of saving his own children, partners with a scientist at the University of Nebraska who is on the edge of a breakthrough on treating Pompe. In order to do this, Crowley leaves a lucrative job with a major health care company in order to try and help his children. To do so he gives up a lucrative salary and will depend entirely on his entrepreneurial skills.

The movie is inspiring as Crowley first takes the developing treatment to a venture capital (VC) firm to convince them that it can significantly improve the quality of the lives of Pompe patients and that it is a worthy investment. Early stage development will require millions by the firm and assurances from Crowley that the therapy would be subject to Food and Drug Administration (FDA) review within 18 months. He has two children who are dying, so Crowley does not hesitate to agree to the terms and to make the science catch up later. In order to meet the 18 month deadline, Crowley and company hire a team of young scientists to work around the clock to get the drug ready. It becomes clear that, in spite of the amount invested and the huge amount of energy behind it, they would not meet the deadline without additional help. The VC firm then sales the development to a larger drug company and that is when things really begin to take off. With hundreds of millions of more dollars brought to the treatment, the drug finally gets a chance to face FDA review and to be used on actual patients. Meanwhile, Crowley's daughter has suffered a couple of near death experiences, so there was little time to spare.

The goal of a drug company is to have the most effective results, so the firm decides to limit the type of patient used in the tests to infants. No one under three would be allowed to participate. Furthermore, no employee would be allowed to have his or her child participate because it could undermine the objectivity required in pursuit of such science. This is devastating news for Crowley who is now a part of the company and his children are beyond the age of three. He is desperate -- even willing to steal the drugs in order to save his children. Fortunately he doesn not have to as the head of the research makes a pitch to do a "sibling" test as part of the program because it is so rare to have family members with this disorder, than the company fires Crowley to eliminate the conflict of interest.

In the end, the medicine is very successful in treating younger patients and even leads to many having completely normal lives outside the confines of wheel chairs and respirators. Crowley's own children see an end of the disease's progression and enjoy remarkable improvement. This is a real tearjerker.

I turned to my wife who was in tears and said, "that turned out to be a great movie." She agreed, even if she could not express that verbally. I then said, "You know what impressed me most?" She put together the words to say, "the power of love when parents want to save their children." I paused, but had to get my point out. "Yes, that too, but also the power of markets when it is capable of making money to improve the lives of others." Money, and the prospect of making more money, was behind the development of this drug each step of the way. She did not like it, but that is the most important lesson of this movie for me in the times we live in. More than 90 percent of all health care drugs and treatments come from the United States. It isn't because we have more "love," it is because we have more incentives. And, as we see in the movie, "Extreme Measures," incentives really do matter.

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

Kevin Price
Host, Price of Business, M-F at 11 am on CNN 650 and CBS Radio
Frequently found on Strategy Room at FoxNews.com
Syndicated columnist whose articles appear on a variety of media outlets.
His http://BizPlusBlog.com/ is ranked in the top 1 percent of all blogs by Technorati.
Kevin Price's Profile: http://www.google.com/profiles/PriceofBusiness

Arizona Standing Strong Against Obama Agenda


Tonight on the Political Pistachio Radio Revolution:

Barack Obama is likely regretting his decision to pull his current DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano out of her position as Governor of Arizona. Her replacement there – Jan Brewer – is standing up to the Obama administration as well as to Eric Holder's Department of Justice over a recently signed law that will be tough on illegal immigration. Obama appears to be having a difficult time finding the solution in his Rules for Radicals handbook, authored by his ideological mentor, Saul Alinsky. Perhaps because it isn't in there.

The state of Arizona is increasingly finding itself being alienated on the world stage, many believe with the approval and encouragement of the president of the United States. Whether it's the Assistant Secretary of State apologizing for Arizona to the Chinese or the Mexican president chastising that state in front of a joint session of congress, significant pressure is being brought against Brewer and her state over the recent signing and passage of an immigration law there. Cuba's Castro and Venezuela's Chavez have also expressed vocal opposition to Arizona.

Al Garza, President of the Patriots Coalition and resident of Arizona, has seen this before – in Honduras. Last year interim president of Honduras, Roberto Micheletti stood strong against not only Obama but the United Nations, the Organization of American States, the European Union, and the aforementioned Castro and Chavez.

Micheletti was victorious in defeating virtually the entire world by refusing to compromise his principles; Garza is calling for Governor Brewer to follow the same formula in order to defeat the same tactics.

Al Garza is a national expert on the issues surrounding immigration law, border security and the illegal immigration crisis. While originally serving as Executive Director the of Minuteman Civil Defense Corps, Garza quickly became one of the most well respected national leaders within the border security movement for building coalitions and generating interest for the movement by building dozens of state and local chapters.

He praises immigrants of all nationalities and without prejudice or bias, welcomes everyone to the land of opportunity, but, he also believes in the legal process of immigration, and that no one is exempt from our laws or should receive amnesty for violating them.

Since Fall 2009, Garza founded and serves as President of the Patriots Coalition, a citizen political action group that assists the Border Patrol in defending our Southern and Northern border with Mexico and Canada. Garza is also founder of “America Speaks Out,” a committee of Americans of Hispanic Heritage, adjoined to the Patriots Coalition, whose mission is to monitor pertinent legislation and policy changes, along with challenging open border agendas wherever we find them.

Garza retired in 2003 after a 32-year career as a private investigator in Southern California. He currently resides in Arizona with his wife Lucy. He became involved as an activist shortly after retiring as a result of witnessing the needless deaths in the desert, and the lawlessness occurring on the sovereign borders of the United States.

Throughout the last 6 years, Garza has dedicated himself to setting a new standard for leadership within the border security movement. While elected officials are cavalier towards this national security crisis and regard Al and fellow patriots as vigilantes, he remains busy saving lives and reporting suspicious illegal activity to the proper authorities. This is an endeavor he attributes to one of President Bush's eloquent speeches.

To date, Garza and fellow patriots have peacefully turned over thousands of illegal entrants to the Border Patrol and saved 345 lives without a single incident of violence.

Garza honorably served in the United States Marine Corps during the Vietnam conflict and is a combat veteran. He has a background in hand-to-hand combat, weapons training, and served as a military police officer while stationed at Camp Pendleton. Al has held leadership positions in various Veteran organizations such as the American Legion, Veterans of Foreign Wars, Disabled American Veterans and diligently assisted youth clubs as a Big Brother, counselor and advisor.

Garza has been a favorite guest on hundreds of radio talk shows nationally, has appeared numerous times on Arizona news broadcasts, and has been interviewed on some of the most highly watched television shows including: Good Morning America, Fox & Friends, Tony Snow, CNN–Lou Dobbs, MSNBC and Larry King Live, as well as on various Latino television specials.

Tonight Al Garza joins the Political Pistachio Radio Revolution. Listen live at 7:00 pm Pacific, or catch the archive later, at BlogTalkRadio.com/PoliticalPistachio.

Earthquake Moves California City of Calexico

By Douglas V. Gibbs

A while back, April 4th to be exact, Calexico, California was hit by a 7.2 Earthquake that was felt all the way up to Los Angeles. Calexico is a border city due east of San Diego, and found themselves in disarray after the major earthquake hit their city's region. The damage in the streets was characterized by a twisted infrastructure that the city's emergency fund is desperately attempting to fund the repairs of. Since that earthquake, however, another indication of how serious that trembler was has exposed itself.

According to NASA satellite radar images, the city of Calexico has moved. The earthquake literally relocated the city of Calexico 31 inches southward, and down.

Closer to Mexico? Ah, the travesty of it all!

What did you expect from the strongest quake to hit the region in 120 years?

But this is not the only recent instance of moving cities, thanks to earthquakes.

The massive 8.8-magnitude earthquake that struck Chile earlier this year moved the city of ConcepciĆ³n at least 10 feet to the west. That quake was the fifth most powerful temblor in recorded history.

Hmmm, I know the number of earthquakes for recent years is not necessarily higher than usual, but it does seem to be that they are stronger, and in more diverse places.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Earthquake Moved California City 31 Inches - Live Science, Yahoo News

California's Geezer Bandit Strikes Temecula


By Douglas V. Gibbs

Southwest Riverside County is on the edge of a vernacular region called the "Inland Empire." Temecula and Murrieta are the most populous cities in that area, sometimes lumped in with north San Diego County, considered to be heavily influenced by Orange County which is due west, and is often reminded of their proximity to the Los Angeles basin. Most Californians consider the Temecula Valley as being out in "the boonies," and many don't even realize the bustling cities that Temecula and Murrieta truly have become. They are surprised when they hear that within the city limits of Temecula and Murrieta resides a quarter of a million people, and that doesn't even take into consideration the surrounding county areas, or the smaller communities of Wildomar, Winchester, Menifee, and the like. When explaining the location of the Temecula/Murrieta area, the best way is to say, "Slightly inland, about midway between Los Angeles and San Diego" - though San Diego is closer in the sense of the time it takes to get there.

At least one individual outside of the Temecula Valley has realized that the area has a lot of potential. The FBI calls him the "Geezer Bandit."

Last night on the Political Pistachio Radio Revolution one of my New York listeners brought to my attention that Temecula, California made the news in her neck of the woods. It seems that a bank robber that has been hitting San Diego County banks has made his way across the county line and nailed a Temecula Bank of America. The bank robber is an old man with features that are almost cartoonish in the stereotype of what we would call an old geezer, therefore, he has been dubbed the "Geezer Bandit."

Temecula was his 11th bank, according to the FBI, and his trademark routine remained intact as he struck the Bank of America. The Geezer Bandit walked into the branch, walked up to a teller, and passed the teller a demand note while pointing at a small-caliber revolver that he told the teller he would use if the person did not comply with his demands.

Surveillance camera images of the robbery suspect show an elderly gentleman wearing a white newsboy cap, sunglasses and a crisp, white button-down shirt. He is estimated to be between 60 and 70 years old and is believed to be responsible for 10 bank robberies in San Diego County, in addition to this latest one in Riverside County.

The Geezer Bandit has been at it for nearly a year, launching his bank robbery spree in August 2009, and hitting Temecula last Thursday, June 24th.

As law enforcement attempts to figure out who this man is, and remains stumped, theories and fan pages are abound. Facebook has two fan pages following the exploits of the Geezer Bandit. The theories include one that believes his wrinkles and age spots might be a sophisticated disguise.

There are at least three rewards totaling $16,000 being offered for information or tips leading to the Geezer Bandit's arrest and conviction.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Gun-wielding 'Geezer Bandit' robs Temecula bank - Sign On San Diego

'Geezer Bandit' strikes again! Elderly robber pulls off 11th California bank heist - New York Daily News

Send A Care Package To Our Troops - Troopathon 2010



Go To Troopathon.org to donate

Saturday, June 26, 2010

Flotilla For Gaza Strip Designed To "Set Up" Israel?


John McTernan joins the Political Pistachio Radio Revolution tonight!

Dr. John McTernan, founder of Defend and Proclaim the Faith Ministries, has spent thousands of hours with Jews and Muslims debating and corresponding in defense of the Gospel. During numerous appearances on television, radio and in seminars, he has publicly defended Israel in light of Biblical prophecy.

Since 1975, he has been involved with the Pro-Life movement and is currently a Pro-Life leader in central Pennsylvania. And, in the early 1980s, he co-founded International Cops for Christ, where he serves as an ordained chaplain and evangelist.

John McTernan received his PhD in Biblical studies in 2009 from Calvary Christian College, South Bend, Indiana. He holds an undergraduate B.S. from Virginia Commonwealth University in Richmond, Virginia. He has also served 26 years as a Federal Treasury agent before retiring in 1998.

Dr. McTernan
is author of the acclaimed books, "As America Has Done To Israel," "God‘s Final Warning to America" and "Father Forgive Them." He has also co-authored the bestseller Israel: The Blessing or the Curse. From his experience debating Jews, John wrote the Only Jesus of Nazareth series. This series includes: Only Jesus of Nazareth Can Sit on the Throne of David and Only Jesus of Nazareth Can Be Israel’s King Messiah. Additionally, he has written several tracts, including Muhammad or Jesus: The Prophet Like Unto Moses, and Jesus of Nazareth: Is He the Only Begotten Son of God?

Regarding recent news off the coast of Israel, and Gaza, on cue, when word broke of the Israeli raid on the Freedom Flotilla headed for Gaza that resulted in the death of nine humanitarian activists on board, the reverb through the Arab world, and the liberal internationalists at the United Nations that sympathize with it, was immediate and predictable . . . Israel was once again a perpetrator of war crimes.

Except, as the details continue to emerge, several of the words in the first paragraph of this document are losing their clarity, including “raid,” “Freedom” and “humanitarian.”

Yes, as details emerge about the group behind the flotilla—the Turkish government-supported IHH terrorist organization known to have ties to Hamas in Gaza and al-Qaida—it becomes clear that the true objective of the flotilla was that of provocation to incite the raid and set up Israel for exactly the kind of international condemnation it is receiving.

After all, as the New York Times reports, the IHH isn’t even being all that covert about it:

“ . . . the (Free Gaza) movement has hit on a strategy that, even when it fails in its aims, succeeds in tactical terms: The world sees Israel use military force against civilians.

On Tuesday in a bustling neighborhood in Istanbul, the Turkish (IHH) organization was celebrating a strange success. ‘We became famous,’ said Omar Faruk, a board member of the group, ‘We are very thankful to the Israeli authorities’.”

So, how should we interpret this maddening twist? Where do we go from here?

John McTernan tonight will provide a truly unique perspective on the situation.

John McTernan will take a look at this issue from the point of view of a Biblical scholar and a researcher steeped in the Jewish–Muslim tradition of conflict. With Mr. McTernan we will explore the potential repercussions for all parties involved, particularly from a Biblical standpoint, answering questions related to how the shift in Turkey’s policy toward Israel adds a dangerous element, and how the Obama administration’s detachment from Israel could pose problems for the U.S.

NY Times

Fox News

Join us live at 7:00 pm Pacific to listen to this interview: BlogTalkRadio.com/PoliticalPistachio

Gary Sinise and the 2010 Troopathon



-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Dennis Miller Troopathon 2010 "Standing for Our Soldiers"



-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Dr. Laura Schlessinger for The Troopathon and supporting our military



-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Friday, June 25, 2010

Economic Recovery? Or Great Big Liberal Lie?


Call-in Number: (646) 652-2940

Bob Chapman joins us for his weekly economic update. Hear about what has been going on with the stock market, and other economic indicators. We will also discuss the fact the Feds are keeping the interest rate down (in an attempt to stave off inflation?), and the rumor that there will be no elections in November if Obama and gang have their way. Conservative News and Commentary


Tune in at 7:00 PM Pacific at BlogTalkRadio.com/PoliticalPistachio

Melanie Morgan's Introduction to Troopathon 2010


Troopathon.org

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Thursday, June 24, 2010

Open Primaries and Poll Taxes

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Recently in California a new law was passed that makes our election primaries open to all voters. In other words, you can vote for anyone you want regardless of party during the primary. Though I am not a big fan of a "party system," I realize it is a natural result of human nature. We tend to attract to those that think like ourselves, and parties ultimately form. But to allow voters to cross party-lines in the primaries is dangerous, and nullifies the whole point of the primaries.

I understand that not all States have primaries, and the rules for choosing candidates for a particular party varies from state to state - as it should. States are given the authority to make their own election rules, and maintain the elections in their state, according to Article I, Section 4 of the United States Constitution. This is why the Florida-Chad controversy should have never resulted in the federal courts getting involved. The decision on what to do should have remained at the State level.

Open primaries allow members of opposing parties to vote in their opponent's primary in the hopes of affecting the outcome, and putting the weaker candidate on the ballot so that their own party has a better chance to win. If both parties of a two party system is doing such, the result will always be the two weakest candidates facing off against each other. How is that a good thing?

The main point of this article, however, is that supporters of Open Primaries contend that Closed Primaries are in violation of the 24th Amendment because limiting who can vote in a primary by party membership is a poll tax as per implied law.

Poll Tax: NOUN: A tax levied on people rather than on property, often as a requirement for voting.

A poll tax is a uniformed tax levied on the voters in the community in an effort to discourage or disfranchise voters of the lower income levels. In the United States poll taxes were used in the South as a prerequisite for voting to stop the vote of blacks and poor whites. Few blacks could vote because they had a little money. The poll tax to vote was $1.50.

The poll tax issue wound up in court. In October of 1965, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear Evelyn T. Butts' appeal. In 1966 the Supreme Court of the United States declared Poll Taxes unconstitutional. Their decision was based on the 24th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution ratified in 1964 that made it illegal for a State to use taxes as a requirement to vote in the national elections.

A poll tax is a poll tax, however, and is not being applied in today's primary. One may suggest that the 24th Amendment "implies" that no action can be taken to close any election to any person - but primaries are simply party oriented, and the people who couldn't vote in the primary will be able to in the general election.

Simply put, the law specifically indicates poll taxes, and poll taxes are not in play here. Therefore, closed primaries are not unconstitutional.

Unfortunately, neither are open primaries.

I intend to work tirelessly to be a part of changing California's voting system back to closed primaries, to protect the vote from unethical actions intended to alter the vote through unscrupulous tactics.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Obama's Bill of Attainder

By Douglas V. Gibbs

If the oil well in the gulf is not successfully capped it could continue to spew oil for decades. This little tidbit of information was no doubt provided by the alarmists that want oil drilling stopped, and wish to accomplish that by filling the people with the fear of disaster. These are also the folks that state we are in danger of running out of oil, and because of peak oil we must move towards safer, greener energy alternatives.

If our oil is limited, then why would a single well spew for decades?

Cap and Trade, the argument using peak oil as the catalyst of the fear-mongering, and the Obama handling of British Petroleum (the company believed to be responsible for the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico) has power-grab written all over it.

The 2010 BP Oil Spill is not the first oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, and it will not be the last. In 1979, Ixtoc 1 owned by Mexico's Pemex oil company also blew its top, and it took nine months before the leak was contained. In only 200 feet of water they tried all of the same techniques to contain the gusher, and like now, the methods failed (apparently nobody has learned from history). Now, however, it is even more disconcerting because rather than a couple hundred feet down, the well is 5,000 feet down. Rather than work with BP and find new alternative methods to fix the problem, however, our President has decided to point fingers, threaten, and "motivate" BP to create a $20 billion fund as punishment for their "irresponsible" actions.

The King of England used to do that kind of stuff just prior to the American Revolution. The injustice of the British Government to declare persons or groups guilty of some crime, and then punish them without the benefit of due process angered the Americans, and motivated them to place attainder laws on the books when the nation was born. In fact, the prohibition of bills of attainder appears three times in the U.S. Constitution.

The President of the United States, in his treatment of BP, has acted as a legislature, and the judiciary, and frankly, he does not have that kind of authority.

As I have said before, I am sure that BP was not an angel when it came to the oil spill, and there is also plenty of blame left over for the environmentalists and government for setting up regulations disallowing oil companies from drilling in shallower areas, or on land in, say, Montana, the Dakotas, or Alaska. But if there is guilt, and if BP is in fact a guilty party, it is not the President of the United States' authority to inflict punishment for that guilt - guilt must be determined in a court of law, and the punishment will then be applied.

Obama's actions of inflicting punishment without a judicial trial is both unconstitutional, and an unbelievable overreach of power.

Acts of attainder, no matter what their form, is prohibited, and to act as the President has is downright criminal.

But, then again, what did we expect from a Marxist student of Saul Alinsky?

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Wednesday, June 23, 2010

Of Mosques and Men: Reflections on the Ground Zero Mosque



-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

The Saga of General Stanley McChrystal

By Douglas V. Gibbs

In an article in Rolling Stone magazine, General Stanley A. McChrystal and his aides spoke critically of nearly every member of the president’s national security team, saying President Obama appeared “uncomfortable and intimidated” during his first meeting with the general, and dismissing Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. as “Bite Me."

I don't know all of the details of what happened next, but I do know that McChrystal was criticized for his remarks, and then later resigned.

General McChrystal may be accurate in his description of Obama, and the leftist lunatics that currently run the American government. But. . .

McChrystal is a military man, and a chain of command exists. At the very top of that chain of command is the Commander in Chief. Obama may not act like a competent Commander in Chief, but the fact remains that Obama is that man at the top. As a military man, McChrystal is to respect his chain of command, including the President. He can have all of the opinions he wants about Obama, but as a military man his political opinion must be kept to himself. His role is not politics, it is military in nature.

Even though I may agree with McChrystal's feelings about the President, I believe the uproar was deserved, and the resignation was warranted.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

The neglected areas in the Constitution due to a government out of control

By Kevin J. Price

I feel like a broken record, but the Constitution is explicit about what the federal government can and cannot do.  Article I of that document lists seventeen powers that the federal government can do.  The Tenth Amendment was designed to dismiss any notion that the federal government had broad powers beyond those laid out in Article I.  The founders' agenda was clear -- very restrictive powers for the federal government and vast powers to the states and local governments.  Thomas Jefferson may have summed it up best when he wrote in 1816 that "The way to have good and safe government, is not to trust it all to one, but to divide it among the many, distributing to every one exactly the function he is competent to. Let the National Government be entrusted with the defense of the nation and its foreign and federal relations; the State governments with the civil rights, laws, police, and administration of what concerns the State generally; the counties with the local concerns of the counties, and each ward direct the interests within itself. It is by dividing and subdividing these republics from the great national one down through all its subordinations, until it ends in the administration of every man's farm by himself; by placing under every one what his own eye may superintend, that all will be done for the best."

Instead of doing the things it is suppose to do, the federal government has pursued the role of being a panacea in all areas.  It has abandoned the few -- but necessary -- elements of a strong government capable of keeping its people safe and free.  There are areas in which we daily experience poor governing in several different areas in Article I, Section 8. This article will only focus on a few.

"To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.."  Charles Knobloch, who is a patent attorney in the Houston area (and a partner with the firm, Arnold & Knobloch) is a contributor on my radio show.  Knobloch has stated often on my program that intellectual property rights are among the most neglected areas of the Constitution.  "Three years is the average length of time it now takes to get a patent processed," he noted on a recent program.  In addition to failing to make the protection of intellectual property a timely process, the US has had a spotty record at best when it comes to defending US IP rights around the world.  Intellectual property rights are crucial if you are going to enjoy increased technology, tools, medicines, entertainment, and more.

"To establish post offices and post roads..." Post Offices are on life support and the number of days they are even open or delivering are soon to be dramatically reduced.  The federal government has failed to make this a truly competitive institution and its decline is now looked forward to with anticipation by many (if not most) that support the cause of free enterprise. 

"To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water.."  The founders never intended the US to become an international police force.  Changes in a way foreign policy is conducted has lead to police actions and the deferring to the President powers historically required to be voted on by the legislative branch.  The current approach of regularly deferring authority is cowardly and costly (both in dollars and lives).  This is not to say that the US can afford to be isolationist and pretend it can be a "fortress America," but it does mean that the nation should choose its battles properly.  One way that people will know a war is worth fighting is if Congress has the intestinal fortitude to vote for it.

"To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures..."  Essentially, Congress was responsible for our currency.  Because of the genius of the founders, the federal government really had very little to spend on (for a complete list, see Article I, Section 8).  Meanwhile, the states had huge powers in many areas, giving them the power to spend freely.  But without the power to make money, they were limited in their expenditures.  With such a situation, our government wisely made sure the currency was backed by precious metals and not the "good faith and credit" of a government out of control, as it is today.  We had virtually no inflation from the end of the 18th century until the 1930s, because our dollar was honest and our expenditures were few.  Now the government tries to monetize its irresponsible and unconstitutional expenditures and create a "tax" on all money through inflation.

We were given a very special national government.  One that was small, but strong.  Its purpose was well defined, its objectives were few, and its accomplishments, substantial.  Again, quoting Jefferson, we enjoyed "A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government."  We replaced this with a government that is out of control and does a poor job in virtually every area.

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

Kevin Price
Host, Price of Business, M-F at 11 am on CNN 650 and CBS Radio
Frequently found on Strategy Room at FoxNews.com
Syndicated columnist whose articles appear on a variety of media outlets.
His http://BizPlusBlog.com/ is ranked in the top 1 percent of all blogs by Technorati.
Kevin Price's Profile: http://www.google.com/profiles/PriceofBusiness