Political Pistachio

Obama Fails to show up to Eligibility Trial in Georgia

2012-01-27T15:39:00.000-08:00

WHAT HAPPENED AT OBAMA-NO-SHOW TRIAL

Georgia citizens today delivered sworn testimony to a court that Barack Obama is slam-dunk disqualified from having his name on the 2012 presidential ballot in the state, because his father never was a U.S. citizen, which prevents him from qualifying as a “natural-born citizen” as the U.S. Constitution requires for a president.

The historic hearing was the first time that a court has accepted arguments on the merits of the controversy over Obama’s status. His critics say he never met the constitutional requirements to occupy the Oval Office, and the states and Congress failed in their obligations to make sure only a qualified president is inaugurated. His supporters, meanwhile, argue he won the 2008 election and therefore was “vetted” by America.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

John Adams: Learning from History

2012-01-27T11:29:00.000-08:00

"Without wishing to damp the ardor of curiosity or influence the freedom of inquiry, I will hazard a prediction that, after the most industrious and impartial researchers, the longest liver of you all will find no principles, institutions or systems of education more fit in general to be transmitted to your posterity than those you have received from your ancestors." --John Adams, letter to the young men of the Philadelphia, 1798

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Jan Brewer and Obama Confrontation on Airport Tarmac

2012-01-27T07:22:00.000-08:00

AZ Governor Brewer Gives Obama the (Index) Finger

In a state where illegal immigration runs rampant, Mexican drug dealers cross into U.S. land, and the federal government continually tries to crack down on the state's efforts to enforce immigration laws, it's no wonder that Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer has a hard time with Barack Obama. Those feelings were on full display when Obama traveled to Arizona and was greeted on the tarmac by Brewer. Apparently our commander-in-chief is a little thin skinned.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

No Name Calling Allowed in Massachusetts

2012-01-27T03:21:00.000-08:00

Official “No Name-Calling Day” in Massachusetts?

What [CENSORED] came up with that brilliant idea?

Massachusetts politicians, of course. In accordance with the ridiculous and over-reaching 2010 “anti-bullying” law, Gov. Deval Patrick has declared today “No Name-Calling Day” in schools, urging students to wear black as a sign of their commitment to “Black Out Bullying.”

Does anyone really believe a politician can stop school kids from calling each other [EDITED]? Or [EDITED] or even [CURRENTLY BEING INVESTIGATED AS A HATE CRIME]?

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Obama Lied About 3 Million Jobs

2012-01-26T23:13:00.000-08:00

ALG: Obama Claim of 3 Million Jobs Created in 22 Months a Lie

Jan. 26, 2012, Fairfax, VA—Americans for Limited Government President Bill Wilson today in a statement dismissed Barack Obama's State of the Union claim that "[i]n the last 22 months, businesses have created more than 3 million jobs," citing data from the government's own Bureau of Labor Statistics:

"The Obama Administration is entitled to its own opinion, but not its own facts. Since February 2010, when Obama starts measuring his claim that 3 million jobs were created, the amount of people employed has only increased from 138.66 million to 140.79 million, a net increase of only 2.13 million. While that sounds nice, that is a pace of just 96,000 a month, which does not even keep up with the growth of the population, let alone replace the 8 million jobs that were lost in the recession.

"That means, when population growth and the loss of 4 million working age adults from the labor force who have simply stopped looking for work are fully taken into account, the unemployment situation has not improved at all.

"We have an effective unemployment rate of 11 percent, and an underemployed rate of 17 percent. There are over 27 million working age adults who still cannot find full-time work, no thanks to Obama's 'stimulus' policies. To lie about the horrific state of our economy and the plight of 27 million Americans who cannot find work is a crime against humanity.

"It is time for new leadership who will honestly evaluate the situation, and prescribe the pro-growth policies to turn the Ship of State around from sinking into the Abyss."

Attachments:

Number of Persons Employed, Seasonally Adjusted, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Jan. 26, 2012 at www.getliberty.org/files/BLSEmployed2001-2011.xls .

"Obama's Lost Labor Force," Americans for Limited Government President Bill Wilson, Jan. 6, 2012 athttp://netrightdaily.com/2012/01/obamas-lost-labor-force/ .

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Rush Limbaugh Callers Defend Newt Gingrich

2012-01-26T18:20:00.000-08:00

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Rush Limbaugh won't endorse a candidate, speaks favorably of them when they articulate conservatism, and talks about their failings when those faults murk their way to the surface. He is careful to only report as objectively as he can, though he will say things like, "I think Santorum would fight for conservative values."

Nonetheless, callers will still call him to defend their favorite candidates against him, telling Rush he's speaking too favorably of Newt, or Santorum, and one today even accused him of speaking favorably about socialist Romney (though aside from defending Romney's capitalism he has done nothing of the sort).

Today, Rush Limbaugh recognized that there is a coordinated attack going on that is obviously designed to take Newt out before the Florida primary. Rush indicated he didn't know really where this attack was coming from, but it seems to me to be a combined effort by the liberal media and establishment republicans.

Limbaugh was also questioning some sound bites of Newt from 1988 when he seemed to be saying that the era of Reagan was over, and if Bush 41 wanted to get elected he would not run on Reagan's policies. Rush said he didn't remember anything of the sort back then.

Has Newt Gingrich acted less than conservative in the past?

Absolutely, but perhaps not in that case.

Blogger, Dan Riehl, says the comments by Newt Gingrich in 1988 is taken out of context, and one must listen to the whole thing to understand what he was saying.

As expected, the callers that hold Gingrich's banner began to call in, but I thought two of the arguments by the callers deserves consideration.

One caller said that Washington hates Newt, and Washington is the problem. . . which makes Newt even more appealing!

The other said that Newt's association with the establishment decades ago makes sense. To become Speaker, or have any chance of any advancement in the party, he had to play along with the establishment. He had to play their game to get on the inside, and inject conservatism into the Republican Party again. But, they got rid of him in 1998 once they realized they had been duped. Notice it is mainly party hacks that are attacking Newt's conservatism.

As I have said before, Newt has a history of putting party before principles, so I often question his conservatism. However, he has stated that in his past he has made a number of mistakes in both his political and personal life, and he has put it all in the Lord's Hands. He has changed, and grown from his mistakes, he has told us. If we can take him at his word, then he's a good candidate. If he's lying, we are being duped.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

The thing is, Newt is articulating conservatism quite well right now, and if he continues to do so, he may very well win the nomination, and the general election. But, Gingrich can be unpredictable, and say some wild and crazy things that makes you scratch your head (Lunar colonies, anyone?). We will have to wait and see how this all shakes out.

But amid all of this finger pointing at Gingrich, and even the other candidates, let me remind you that a raging Marxist is in the White House, and if he gets re-elected, there is no telling what the lame duck president would do. Without worrying about re-election, he may finish his task of destroying the Constitution, capitalism, and this country as founded.

Quarreling over the GOP candidates like this, as Obama destroys the country, is like yelling at the dog for pooping on the carpet as the house burns down.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Coordinated Avalanche Against Newt Doesn't Match My Memory of Reagan Years - Rush Limbaugh

Video of Newt Bashing Reagan is Bogus - Riehl World View

Newt's Supporters Aren't Swayed - Rush Limbaugh

Voters See Gingrich Fighting for an Ideal and Romney Fighting to Get Elected - Rush Limbaugh

Caller Accuses Host of Backing "Socialist" Romney - Rush Limbaugh

To the Moon, Callista! Newt Gingrich Promises Lunar Colony by 2020 - The Atlantic

Temecula Constitution Class: Authorities Granted, and Not Granted

2012-01-26T15:43:00.000-08:00

Article I, Sections 7 through 10 Tonight. Join us at 6:00 pm in Temecula at Faith Armory.

As covered when we studied Article I, Section 1, all legislative powers belong to the Legislative Branch. According to Article I, Section 7, Clause 2, all bills must be approved by both the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate before they can be presented to the President for signature. Article I, Section 7, Clause 1 indicates that all bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives.

The structure for making law was established by the Founding Fathers in the way that it was in order to ensure that all parts of the system had a voice in the approval, or disapproval, of the law. The people through their representatives in the House of Representatives voted their approval or disapproval of the bill, the States did the same through their voice in the United States Senate, and the federal government’s voice through the executive was the final approval. If the executive did not like the proposed law, he could veto it. However, all did not stop there. If Congress felt strongly enough about the bill, and had enough votes, they could override the veto with two-thirds vote in each House and make the bill a law without the signature of approval from the President.

In 1913, the 17th Amendment changed the process in which United States Senators are chosen. Originally, the State Legislatures appointed the U.S. Senators, making the U.S. Senate quite literally the voice of the States. The Senators at that time voted with the interests of the States, and more specifically with the intent of protecting their State’s sovereignty, in mind. With the House of Representatives acting as the voice of the people, and the Senate acting as the voice of the States, the dynamics of making law was quite different from what it is today.

The process of making a law as originally intended ensured that the people, the States, and the federal government, all each had the opportunity to approve or disapprove the piece of legislation. If either the people or the States did not like the bill, its journey to become a law stopped. If the federal government, via the President, did not like the bill, he could veto the bill. The veto by the President in turn could be overturned with a two thirds vote from each house of Congress. The reason for this system was for the purpose of checks and balances, and to keep the States involved in monitoring the federal government through advise and consent authorities. This gave the people through the House of Representatives, and the States through the U.S. Senate, the ability to check each other, and the ability of them together to check the federal government. The people and the States together, if in agreement, served as a united check against the federal government, or more specifically in the case of making law, the executive branch.

to be continued in class. . .

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

The Danger of Central Governments Lies In Human Nature

2012-01-26T11:42:00.000-08:00

"The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse." --James Madison, speech in the Virginia constitutional convention, 1829

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Our Children, and the History of America

2012-01-26T06:59:00.000-08:00

"Every child in America should be acquainted with his own country. He should read books that furnish him with ideas that will be useful to him in life and practice. As soon as he opens his lips, he should rehearse the history of his own country." --Noah Webster, On the Education of Youth in America, 1788

Unfortunately, in the public school system our children are being taught revisionist history at the hands of the liberal left. . .

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Herman Cain Tea Party Response to State of the Union Speech

2012-01-26T02:45:00.000-08:00

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Gabrielle Giffords Resignation, Standing Ovation From Colleagues

2012-01-25T23:02:00.000-08:00

Rep. Gabrielle Giffords has resigned from the House with a standing ovation from her colleagues, more than a year after she was gravely wounded by a would-be assassin.

The Arizona congresswoman formally resigned after a series of tributes from her colleagues in both parties. She’s stepping down to focus on her recovery from a gunshot wound to the head.

As Giffords sat in the chamber’s front row, lawmakers from both sides of the aisle praised her dignity, grace and perseverance

The Blaze

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Complaining about the flaws of the GOP Candidates

2012-01-25T17:53:00.000-08:00

By Douglas V. Gibbs

A number of so-called conservatives (more often than not they turn out to be libertarian Ron Paul supporters that would even make the anti-federalists blush) have been Emailing me repeatedly hammering me for saying positive things about Newt Gingrich on my radio program and on this website, hammering me for defending the one thing that isn't moderate about Romney (capitalism), and they are even willing to call Santorum a big government guy. They say that they won't vote for any of these candidates because they aren't perfect in every way.

Yet, these same people argue that Obama and his democrat cronies are destroying this nation with socialist policies.

Complaining about the flaws of the GOP candidates as Obama uses Marxism to destroy this nation is like complaining the dog that is not house broken snuck in through the kitchen door while the house is burning down.

At this point I would take Daffy Duck over the Marxist in the White House. And the only candidate that Obama may be able to beat in the general election would be Ron Paul, and perhaps Romney. Newt and Santorum, if they articulated conservatism in a manner similar to how Newt has been of late, would win in a landslide.

The more conservatism, the greater the margin of victory.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Wild Bill for America: Obama the Racist President

2012-01-25T11:46:00.000-08:00

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Man's Best Friend

2012-01-25T06:00:00.000-08:00

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Obama's Last State of the Union Speech

2012-01-25T00:03:00.000-08:00

By Douglas V. Gibbs

I sat and listened to Obama's State of the Union speech tonight.

My first thought after he was done was, "Man, this guy is crafty."

Did he gives us optimism? Or did he reveal more statism?

Obama, during the speech, tried to act like he was sticking it to the Congress, that they were at fault whenever nothing got done, and when things did get done it was because of his executive brilliance.

Clever, and crafty, indeed.

Boehner said that Obama is acting as if this is year one, rather than year four, promising what he promised before, when he promised these things were going to be done over the last few years.

As Obama entered the assembly, the applause was splattered, but the democrats let out a cheer. He hugged and kissed and jived like the narcissist he is, and held his nose in the air most of the time as he worked his way in.

I saw an "Obama 2012" bumper sticker today, and was surprised there was anyone outside the democrat establishment that even still likes the massive failure of a President.

As Obama shook the hands of the Supreme Court justices, it brought back memories of a couple years ago when the man called out the court. Not all of the justices were there, but I thought Kagan was going to burst into flames with excitement.

A much deserved cheer rang out when Obama hugged Arizona Representative Gabby Giffords. It was great to see her there, and smiling. Tomorrow is her last official day in Congress, on which she will tender he resignation. Her presence was the highlight of this event. She still has a long way to go, but her determination is an inspiration to us all.

Obama said thank you after Boehner introduced him, and the applause rang out, and you could see in his eyes he was eating it up as usual.

Obama began the State of the Union speech talking about how last month he was at Andrews Air Force Base to welcome home the last of the troops from Iraq. He spoke of how great the war effort was (you know, the war effort he spoke out against before he was elected), but also how great it was to have the troops home - which he of course took full credit for and failed to mention he had used Bush's timeline. He spoke as if he was the man behind the successes of Iraq. He was right, however, when he said it is the sacrifices of those men and women that makes this a safer world.

Obama then headed straight for the one wartime accomplishment he has that he plans to use until the cows come home: the capture of Osama bin Laden. Of it, he said, "For first time in two decades Osama bin Laden is not a threat to this nation." Of course the democrats cheered and stood for that one.

The President then told us about all of the al Queda leaders that have been getting killed (surely congratulating himself for it), and that the Taliban's momentum has been broken (the same Taliban his Vice President said is not our enemy). Obama then talked favorably of the teamwork of America's armed forces, and how our military exceeds expectations. The applause was long, and it should be. The military is one of the few things the federal government does successfully, and constitutionally.

He said of the military, "They focus on the mission at hand . . . imagine what we could accomplish if we followed their example."

Obama continued by asking us to imagine an America where we lead in education, manufacturing, and where hard work pays off and responsibility is rewarded. We can do this, because we have done it before.

Hardly the words of a raging Marxist liberal. In other words, I don't believe him to be genuine in that part of his speech.

Barry then launched into praises of the WWII generation, saying that his grandfather was a veteran of Patton's army (is this the same grandfather he once said liberated Auschwitz, of which the Americans did not?), and then he tried to sound pro-American. In other words, he was trying to cater to the non-liberal.

Campaign speech extraordinaire, huh?

After explaining how the greatest generation defined American values, he said that the defining issue of our time is keeping that promise alive. . .

Then he said that currently in America there is a shrinking number doing well, and growing number barely getting by.

In Obama's America, everyone gets an equal shot, and their fair share. Equal opportunity is not his thing, it's all about equal results with the liberal left.

But, American values are at stake. Obama said we've got to reclaim them. Then he went through a list of things that has happened before he took office (even though those things accelerated during his presidency), such as jobs leaving our shores. He said, "In 2008 the house of cards collapsed." Obama then proceded to blame it all on regulators and the bad behavior of banks with their bank loans (never mind that it was liberal government policy that required them to do so under the Community Reinvestment Act).

Obama said the banks actions saddled us with more debt (as if his contribution to the national debt is nothing).

"In six months before I took office we lost 4 million jobs. . . those are the facts - now we have created more than 3 million jobs." Cheering democrats stood up, when the fact he offered isn't even a fact. Also, does he not consider that the democrats gained control of Congress in 2006 and the downward spiral was largely due to their policies too?

Then Obama's lies really hit high gear. He said, "American manufacturers are hiring again. . . together we've agreed to cut the deficit. . . new rules on wall street to make sure this doesn't happen again."

Hiring again? In who's universe? And Obma is hardly doing anything to cut the deficit. And notice Obama's only brief mention of the deficit; and he offered nothing on spending cuts or entitlement reform. As for the new rules on Wall Street: since when is it the role of the federal government to dictate to the private market how it is supposed to act? Where in the Constitution are they even given such an authority?

Obama continued by saying that the state of our union is getting strong, and that we've come too far to turn back now (in other words, "re-elect me" - he's campaigning). He said that he won't allow policies that got us in this mess to continue, and got a standing democrat session of applause. Never mind that it was liberal policies that got us into this mess in the first place.

He indicated we need an economy built to last - but isn't that what we had before the liberals grabbed a hold of it?

Obama called for a renewal of american values. I am not sure he understands what American values are. I have always perceived them as being self-reliance, personal responsibility, individualism, and hard work - all of which he has railed against.

Obama then patted himself on the back about how he thinks he saved the auto industry. He said he refused to let the auto industry in the U.S. fall, and that he got the industry to retool and restructure, and now GM is on top as the world's number one auto maker. . . they are?

I think we need to throw the bull crap flag on that one.

He then said that Chrysler has grown faster, and Ford is investing billions (I expected him to say, "and all because of me").

"The U.S. auto industry is back."

Right.

"What's happening in Detroit can happen in other industries. We can't bring every job back that's left our shore, but it is getting more expensive in places like china. . . Business sense to bring jobs back home."

That last set of lies totally contradicts his later call for higher taxes on the successful, and heavier regulations.

Then he went into an interesting call for a change to the tax code. Obama said that as it is now businesses get tax breaks for going over seas. He then was accurate in his claim that the United States has the highest corporate tax. He said if U.S. companies outsource jobs they should be taxed for it. No American company should be able to avoid paying its fair share in taxes by moving overseas. He called for a minimum tax for every company, even overseas. Companies that stay here in America will receive money from that tax. If an American manufacturer, you should get bigger tax cut. You should get a tax cut for building here, and receive government help financing for new plant, training for new workers. It's time to stop rewarding businesses that ship jobs overseas, and reward those that stay. "Send me that legislation and I will sign it right away."

What he was describing sounds good on the surface, but it is protectionism, and historically fails. Besides, is he really going to force taxation on companies doing business overseas? Is he crazy?

Obama then went into how for American companies it is becoming easier to sell around the world. "I will go anywhere in the world to bring American products around the world. I will not stand for those that don't play by the rules." - He won't stand for it? Is he the king?

He named a bunch of moves he claims he made against China and called for the creation of a trade enforcement unit to investigate trade problems in places like China. "No foreign company should have an advantage over American manufacturers." - back to the protectionism again.

You don't win the trade wars by changing the rules, but by producing the best products for the best price.

Bringing the discussion back to our shores, Obama said that American companies can't find workers with the right skills. "Join me in a national commitment to train two million Americans in skills that leads to a job. My administration is lining up companies that want to help. Congress needs to give community colleges more resources to train. Time to turn unemployment system into reemployment system that trains people to get back to work."

The part about changing unemployment into a reemployment system has its pluses. However, going back constitutional authorities, and the role over government, what he is calling for is simply something that is legally out of the hands of the federal government.

Obama moved on to the jobs of tomorrow, saying we must teach even earlier. He said that while other countries double down on education, we are laying off teachers.

The problem isn't money. Education has been crumbling with each passing year as the liberals throw more and more money at it. The Department of Education is a waste because federal monitoring and funding of education is the problem. The problem is federal influence, and a liberal curriculum. Want to improve the schools? Use the curriculum used at the private schools, where the students are doing much better than at the public schools.

Then he said something that about made me choke. Obama said that he is proposing that every state requires kids stay in high school until they graduate or turn 18.

Force them? Under what penalty? If they drop out are you going to haul them off to jail?

What an idiot.

Remember, this president thinks the government is the answer to all of the problems, even though it has been big government that has been causing all of the problems. On top of that, he thinks the Congress is an obstacle and to be efficient they need to just do what he tells them.

Case in point: Obama's next topic in the speech was that "This Congress needs to stop interest rates on student loans from doubling - extend tuition tax credit, doubling work study jobs in next five years."

No, the Congress needs to get out of education, and let it do what it does without governmental influence, or liberal control.

He said that college should not be a luxury, but an economic imperative. But doing that cheapens the value of an education, and besides, nothing beats good ol' experience. Just like the dollar, too many degrees out there makes them worth less. Besides, what good is an education when the school is nothing more than an indoctrination center?

Then he went on to the Dream Act and illegals. Obama said that some folks that are not yet american citizens, but raised in America, live in threat of deportation.

If we enforced the laws, and didn't hand out government handouts to these people, and used things like E-Verify, we wouldn't have this problem. Sure, he's right, we should take on illegal immigration, but not by enabling.

Then he said that at the border we have more boots on the ground in his administration, and illegal immigration has gone down.

What? Damn this guy can lie.

"We need comprehensive immigration reform right now."

No, we need to enforce the laws on the books.

"Send me a law to allow those here to earn their citizenship."

Follow the rules, and the path is there. Besides, he only said these things to pander to the Hispanic vote.

Then the old liberal rhetoric came out. "An economy built to last is one that encourages everyone in the country." Then he went on about "women deserve equal pay for equal work."

That is a no brainer, but not only has our society progressed to a point where that is the way it is, but also it is not up to government to force such a thing. But this speech was not about reality. It was about pandering for votes. First the Hispanics, and then the women.

"We should support everyone willing to work who aspires to be the next Steve Jobs. Most new jobs are start ups and new businesses, we should eliminate obstacles and taxes that keep new small businesses from getting started."

Huh? Did Obama say that? Sure as hell doesn't match his actions or past rhetoric.

Obama discussed innovation, research, and then energy, as if the government makes these things happen.

It is up to the market.

Obama then said he will increase by 75% open offshore oil and gas resources production. This coming for the man that just rejected the Keystone pipeline?

Then the green energy pitch began.

Obama says we need a strategy that is cleaner, cheaper, and full of new jobs. "We have 100 years of natural gas available, let's develop it - we don't have to choose between economy and environment." Then he said something about public money making all of the natural gas stuff possible.

He truly hates the private market, and thinks government is the answer to everything.

Addressing Solyndra, and such, without naming them, Obama said that when it comes to public investments (federal funding and preference politics) the payoffs aren't immediate, some companies fail, "but I will not walk away from promise of clean energy."

Talk about putting all of your eggs in one basket.

"I will not cede the solar or wind or battery technologies to China. Time to stop tax subsidies to oil, and give clean energy tax credits."

Man, he hates oil.

Climate change (mythical and a lie) was his next hit. He used it to call for a clean energy standard that "creates innovation." as if government creates innovation. It is up to the market, not him.

Obama claimed more land will be federally set aside for green energy projects (once again ignoring the constitutional authorities), saying it is a way to save energy. Then he demanded that government also make sure that businesses waste less energy, by doing things like upgrading their buildings. (Is that their decisions, or is he going to force them to?)

Year one returned when Obama then called for rebuilding our infrastructure, claiming we have a need to rebuild crumbling roads and bridges. Wait, isn't that what he promised in 2008? From a democrat point of view, shouldn't those things have been done in the last three-plus years?

To revamp his case, Obama said, "We invested in the Hoover dam and Golden Gate bridge and highway system." All unconstitutional, should have been done privately, and besides, once again he made these promises four years ago. He didn't do it the last few years, so what makes him believe the voters will believe he will do these things now?

Obama said he will use an executive order to clear the way for these new projects (screw Congress and the Constitution on that one, I guess).

Then he says to Congress, "You need to fund these projects, use money from war."

Right. His anti-growth policies have made this all worse and now he is talking about using more money for things we can't afford?

Never been a better time to build, since construction industry hardest hit when this hit.

Yeah, as far as he is concerned, us construction guys are just standing around waiting for Obama to give us jobs.

Home values have declined, he reminded us, and Obama plans to make sure he gives responsible homeowners a chance to save 3k a year by refinancing at historically low rates.

Oh, yeah, like his last mortgage debacle worked so well.

"If you play by the rules, government should do the same."

That was a lie. The rules for government is the Constitution, and he sees that document as the enemy.

"No bailouts no handouts no copouts. We need smart regulations to stop irresponsible lending behavior, or toxic dumping or faulty medical devices. Regulations make free market work better." Then he launched into a comparison of himself to Bush (totally saw that coming). As for this regulations thing, just wait, it gets better.

Obama then launched into how some regulations don't make sense. So, he plans to get rid of bad regulations and replace them with new regulations that do make sense.

How about the federal government backing completely off and letting the market do its own magic?

Obama then told a story about a silly regulation that hammered farmers, considering milk to be like oil, and making it a difficult deal when it came to milk spills. "I'm confident a farmer can contain a milk spill without a federal agency looking over his shoulder."

You are? Wait, this has got to be going somewhere. Oh, wait, this is a chance to hammer on good ol' big oil, right?

He then said, "But I will not back down from the government making sure an oil company can contain their spills."

So back off on a milk spill regulation so that you can go nuts on oil, food safety, water, and insurance companies.

Talk about squeezing Obamacare love into the speech.

Then, "I will not go back to when wall street could play by their own rules."

That was a pander to the freaks that resonate with the Occupy Movement freaks.

"Big bank and financial institutions are no longer allowed to make risky bets." More control over the private industries.

"We will never bail you out again" - (because we will regulate you).

Then he hammered on credit companies, once again believing that heavy government regulation is the answer.

"We'll also create a financial crimes unit. Investigate fraud in banking and credit companies. Make penalties for fraud count. This new unit will hold accountable those that acted recklessly that hurt so many Americans."

Just what we need. . . another worthless, and unconstitutional, federal agency.

Then Obama said to pay down our debt we need to hammer the rich (saw that coming).

And he defended the payroll thing (not a tax cut no matter how much they call it that).

"People cannot afford losing forty dollars out of each paycheck, pass payroll tax cut without delay."

But it was the democrats that demanded it only be a two month cut, when the GOP was holding out to make it a year long cut. But you see, that why. The two month option gave Obama the opportunity to demand Congress go longer. The timing was all a part of the plan.

Back to the deficit, Obama lied when he said, "We have agreed to 2 trillion in cuts and savings." No, there are no spending cuts, the 2 trillion is just deciding to spend less of the planned spending in the future, which they are not held to, and which was still going to be higher than now. Obama is not interested in true spending cuts.

But he is interested in taxing the rich - just like any other socialist Marxist.

Do we want to keep these tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans? Do we want to punish success?

He said that if we are serious about paying down our debt we'll tax the rich because we can't do that and pay into VA, etc, otherwise.

"We can't do both."

"We need to change our tax codes so that rich pays their fair share of taxes."

Fair share? The top .1% pays more than the bottom 80%. How is it they are not paying their fair share?

By the way, taxing the rich (progressive tax scale) is a Marxist idea. Just check the Ten Planks of Communism.

Obama then call for tax reform that follows the "Buffet rule", which is that anyone making more than a million a year should not pay less than 30%, nor should get special tax subsidies.

And he wonders why the are all going offshore and overseas.

"But middle class taxes shouldn't go up."

He's a liberal. Middle class taxes will eventually go up. And has in terms of things like the tobacco tax.

"You can call this class warfare all you want" (because it is), "but asking rich to pay more than secretary is not asking much."

Marxism at work.

"Paying fair share in taxes. . . if rich don't pay, others pay for it. Like those on fixed income, etc."

That was class warfare talk right there. Jeez.

"Shared sense of responsibility" - Marxist terminology once again. He's a communitarian. He does not understand individualism. The community is more important than the individual to Obama.

"People think Washington is broken. The biggest blows to our economy came from over whether or not U.S. would pay its bills or not."

He sees that as Washington being broken. When Congress debates and doesn't jump as the President calls for, I see that as Washington working as intended.

"Who benefited from that fiasco?" Never mind that "paying our bills" was never actually in danger.

Lies, lies, lies.

Then he actually said something that made a little sense. He said this all comes from outside money influence in Washington. "Send me bill that bans insider trading among members of Congress."

Hmm, that one actually makes sense. Surely, his democrat brethren aren't too happy about that one.

"A simple majority is no longer enough to get business done. both parties must put an end to it. I asked senate to pass simple rule simple up or down vote within 90 days."

That's not how Congress is intended to work. Debate is important, and must not be brushed aside for the whims of a dictator.

"Executive branch inefficient and out dated, so give me authority to grant . . ." - more power for executive? He already thinks he's king.

"End notion parties must be locked in campaign of mutual destruction. Government should do for people only what they cannot do for themselves and no more (said he was quoting "republican Lincoln")." Thing is, he doesn't believe that.

that's why we are getting rid of outdated regulations, obamacare works with private, we want a smarter more effective govt. We can make real progress, with or without this congress I will keep taking actions to help this economy grow.

"Ending Iraq has allowed us to strike decisive blows against our enemy. From this position of strength we are able to bring troops home."

Do you think he really believes that?

Obama spoke favorably of the Arab Spring, as if it was his doing. But in reality, it is the early part of the formation of a caliphate.

Then he said something about an oron clad commitment to Israel's security. After all those times he snubbed Israel?

The next line was a favorite of mine because it was a lame attempt to stab at the Right.

"America is back, and anyone who tells you otherwise, that we are in decline, doesn't know what they are talking about."

As long as Obama is president, we are in decline.

He then bragged that the message we get from leaders around the world eager to work with us is we are back. Obama said the opinion of us around the world is higher than it has been in years.

Really? Could have fooled me.

Obama then said we as a nation are the one indispensable nation in foreign affairs, "And as long as I am president I intend to keep it that way."

All by his lonesome? Without Congress?

Then he went back to buttering up the military, even though he has shown time and time again that he hates our folks in uniform.

He said we've increased annual VA spending every year since he's been president.

Really? I'm a patient of VA, and honestly, it's been getting worse.

"We are providing tax credits to companies that hire vets."

Good on the surface, but is the government authorized to do such a thing?

He finally, after an hour of jabbering, said, "Which brings me back to where I began. We can learn a thing or two from the service of our troops. It doesn't matter in that uniform who you are, when you are marching in battle you look out for the person next to you or the mission fails. . . serving one nation, leaving no one behind. My favorite possession is a flag of the SEAL team that got bin Laden, signed by them, some may be republicans or democrats, it doesn't matter, all that mattered that day was the mission. Nobody thought about politics. . . It only succeeded because every single member of that mission did their job, and because every member of that unit trusted each other."

A military unit is different than a society. But he doesn't get that. Besides, since when should a sniveling Marxist that never served a day in the military be lecturing us about what the military is all about?

"No one built this country alone. (anti-individualism). This nation is great because we built it together, as a team, because we have each others backs. As long as we are joined in a common purpose. . . the state of our union will always be strong."

Not with you as president.

..............

The GOP response was by Mitch Daniels, the Governor of Indiana.

He was cordial and respectful, gave admiration even. But, said that when Obama claims the state of the economy is anything but grave, he is not being honest. Then Daniels laid out stats of current conditions.

"The President has put us on course to make it all radically worse."

He then gave statistics on the deficit, which Obama ignored.

Daniels continued, "Obama seems to think we can build a middle class out of government control and taxpayer money."

"This is the first generation in memory to face a future less promising than their parents did."

"2012 is a year of true opportunity . . . not a matter of ideology, but mathmatical with practical answers."

Daniels then explained that our only way out is a private economy, not a government-led one.

Daniels also mentioned Obama's rejection of the Keystone pipeline, calling it, and the President's other policies, pro poverty policy.

If we fail to shift, he reminded us, we will not have the money to continue.

Mitch Daniels then touted individualism, self-government, and that this must be the year we prove the doubters wrong. America is the world's premiere land of opportunity. The government is supposed to serve the people rather than supervise them.

Americans are a people born to liberty. It is time to make our city of the hill shine again.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Angry Liberal Middle Finger

2012-01-24T17:27:00.000-08:00

By Douglas V. Gibbs

The liberal left is an angry lot. They shout, spew profanity, and spread hate far and wide. Then, they project all of their anger upon their opposition, and accuse the "rightwing" of being what they are.

I experienced one of those typical hatred-filled liberal attacks recently while standing at the edge of a parking garage at the local mall.

As sometimes happens, I was on the road to pick up my wife from her place of employment, which she gained over a year ago (less than a month after our youngest finally moved out), while also co-hosting the Founding Truth radio program that Loki and I produce for the purpose of spreading the important details of the United States Constitution. Loki and I were talking about various points of the Constitution, and history, and in fact was discussing the democrat party's racist history, when a woman walked by me, paused, and listened for a while.

Out of the corner of my eye I saw that she had paused, and I noticed when she walked away, approached her car, and pulled out of her parking space. I turned my attention back towards the roadway and my conversation when the woman's car pulled out of the parking garage, and made a left onto the roadway so that she would drive right in front of me with the driver's side window facing me. As she passed, with the window down, she let out a hysterical fit of laughter, and then fully extended her arm in my direction so as to show me her middle finger, of which she did not pull back into the car until our eyes were no longer able to remain connected.

No conservative, after hearing a liberal spew their leftist nuttiness, would resort to such an angry, vile, hateful display.

My first thought was, "Whatever happened to the days of when democrats claimed they would defend anybody's right to their opinion?"

The new liberals apparently believe in ridiculing their opposition into silence, or something like that.

It is interesting, really, how angry they are. The ideology is an angry one, but also feeds on anger.

Conservative optimism and hope for the future must drive them nuts.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Flawed Republicans Are Still Better Than Obama

2012-01-24T11:56:00.000-08:00

By Douglas V. Gibbs

The Democrats don't win by gaining votes, but by convincing the opposition not to vote. That is how Obama won the Illinois Senate seat. . . by knocking his opponent out of the race with personal attacks. That is how Obama won the presidency, too. The democrats, and the liberal media, had convinced the voters to hate Bush with their Bush derangement syndrome campaign, while the schools taught the young to follow a cult of personality like our current president. As a result, they pulled off enough votes to win the election.

Most of the nation, however, is conservative, and the liberal left knows it. They have been working on weakening the GOP candidates to pave the way for another Obama win. They must engage in a campaign of personal destruction if they want to have a chance. The Left also knows that moral character is a big deal with conservatives, and that is why when they attack it is normally through the exposure of a republican's moral shortcomings.

Liberals, because the ideology is for the most part dominated by secularists, also believe that people don't change, and can't change. They hold an ignorant understanding of biblical teachings, and they think that by simply slamming republicans for their immoral mistakes of their pasts they can fool the voters enough to win the election.

The problem is, when it comes to Newt Gingrich, the attacks are not only not working, but he is turning their accusations into a positive for him. The liberals believe Newt is resonating with the conservatives because he is attacking the media, but it is really because he is articulating conservatism.

Is Newt Gingrich the ideal conservative? Of course not. If this was a campaign for sainthood, he would lose miserably. As Tom recently said, with my positive posts about Newt's latest escapades, he thinks I am defending a serial adulterer.

Honestly, I am not a huge Newt fan. I have repeatedly claimed that I think he is a party guy that has a history of putting party, and often himself, before his alleged conservative principles. But if I have to choose between an egotistical "serial adulterer," and a narcissistic Marxist student of Saul Alinsky hell bent on destroying the nation as founded by the Founding Fathers and transforming it into a communitarian-style system that considers capitalism the enemy and the Constitution as an obstacle, I will take the adulterer every time.

Besides, if Newt has indeed sincerely seen the error of his ways, and has reached out to God for forgiveness as he has said, then that actually makes me consider supporting him even more. I would rather vote for someone who has made errors, learned from them, and is a better man for it, than a narcissist who thinks he does no wrong and that it is his elitist responsibility to use government to control everyone's lives.

The run of the mill liberal will of course claim that in the end it is the republican voters choosing the candidates, and to place blame on the liberal campaign of personal destruction is giving their opposition to the GOP way too much credit. But let's not forget that not all voters are well informed, and often fall for the leftist propaganda. Also, the republican primary voters in the States with open primaries are not all republicans. Historically, in Michigan, for example, liberals will often vote in the republican primary for the weakest GOP candidate in the hopes of helping their own democrat party candidate.

The liberal business as usual will probably not work this time. People are sick of Obama, and fearful of what his liberal policies are doing to this nation. Also, in the case of Newt, the voters are resonating with his articulation of conservatism. If Newt keeps this up, or if another GOP candidate was to win by articulating conservatism, it will more solidify a GOP win in the upcoming general election. In other words, the more conservative the candidate, the wider the margin of victory over Obama.

After I had written articles refusing to jump on the anti-Cain bandwagon after the accusations of sexual harassment that had no evidence presented along with the accusations (and they interestingly went away without further pursuit after Cain dropped out), and after I had refused to get all over Paterno when the Sandusky details surfaced (I understood that Paterno had informed his next higher up, and I believe he did not understand that he needed to do more because I don't think he fully grasped that what he had been told was reality, plus he felt he had done what he was required to by telling his supervisor - much less was his inaction beyond notifying his superiors anywhere near illegal), liberal Tom left the following comment:

Who are the Republican primary voters again? Let's see.. liberal Democrats? No.. that doesn't sound right.. Oh.. I know.. Republicans. That's right. It's the Republicans that will not vote for Cain and instead put Romney up against Obama to get his ass kicked. But hey.. if it makes you feel better to blame the Democratic party.. then by all means.. have at it. Strange you've lately been defending child rape enablers and perpetrators of sexual harassment. I'm sure Jesus would approve.

I placed this comment here to show the ignorance of the liberal mind, the vitriol of the average liberal, and to address the final sentence because it truly reveals how ignorant the secular liberals are. He added at the end, when it came to me being willing to defend "alleged" child rape enablers and perpetrators of sexual harassment as he put it, "I'm sure Jesus would approve."

Actually, Tom, Jesus would approve. Christ encouraged us to see the best in people, to forgive them of their transgressions (not justify or condone, but forgive), and to accept repentance as Christ would rather than hammer someone over the head over their past mistakes in life. People do change. People can turn away from their wicked ways and become new creatures in Him. This is why, to the dismay of the Jewish leadership, Jesus forgave the prostitute Mary, and why even a murderer, after truly realizing the error of his ways and submitting to the love of Christ, can even receive salvation from the Lord.

I believe Cain when he said he did not harass those women. I believe Paterno died regretting he didn't do more when it came to bringing Sandusky to justice but also died knowing that he had not purposely done anything wrong, and I am at peace with that. And I believe Newt when he says he has seen the errors of his past and he has turned over a new leaf thanks to his Faith in God.

Besides, as I said before, which should I prefer? A person that has struggled with his morality and has cried out to God for forgiveness? Or a liberal leftist that desires to intentionally destroy the nation as it was founded?

I'll take my chances with the repentant sinner every time.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Conservatives Remain the Largest Ideological Group in U.S. - Gallup

Desperate Democrats Calling for Lower Voting Age

2012-01-24T09:00:00.000-08:00

By Douglas V. Gibbs

With the threat of Conservatism encouraging Republican voters to come in droves to the voting booth, the Democrats are getting desperate. Their demonization of candidates like Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum is not only not working, but these candidates are meeting the attacks by the liberal left head on with a conservative message that includes the inclusion into their plans of all Americans.

In the hope to drum up more votes, Minnesota U.S. Representative Keith Ellison, also the only Muslim in Congress, said last week that the voter age should be lowered to 16.

Ellison argues that if 16 year olds can hold jobs and drive they should be able to vote. But we must consider whether or not at that age these voters are willing to be fully informed, and if they are willing to vote based on careful consideration of the issues and candidates.

16 year olds are not mature enough in the sense of being informed about politics and the various issues this nation faces, and are more likely to chase after cults of personality, which is exactly why democrats are pursuing this idea. Frankly, I am not even sure it was a good idea to drop the voting age to 18 with the 26th Amendment.

The Founding Fathers expected the voters to be as informed as possible, and that is part of the reason that only property owners were allowed to vote in the beginning. Property owners had a stake in who was elected because of their position in society. Those who did not have "skin in the game" as Obama would call it did not vote for any reason other than what goodies politicians could promise them, or based on a Cult of Personality. In reality, one of our biggest problems in this nation is that voters don't spend the time to be informed as it is, and yet the democrats want to add younger voters who are even less likely to ensure they are informed? Why would the democrats do this? The liberal democrats want this because they know that a good liar with a big smile, and politicians that promise more goodies from the treasury, have a better chance to win the vote of the youngsters, making the deceptive style of campaigning by democrats just what the doctor ordered for the younger voter.

In short, it is a very bad idea.

Let's let people season a little before giving them the extremely important duty of voting.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Dem. Rep. Ellison: Let 16-Year-Olds Vote - The Hill

Representative Giffords To Step Down from Congress

2012-01-24T06:00:00.000-08:00

Rep. Giffords to resign from Congress this week

Rep. Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona announced Sunday she intends to resign from Congress this week to concentrate on recovering from wounds suffered in an assassination attempt a little more than a year ago that shook the country."I don't remember much from that horrible day, but I will never forget the trust you placed in me to be your voice," the Democratic lawmaker said on a video posted without prior notice on her Facebook page."I'm getting better. Every day my spirit is high," she said. "I have more work to do on my recovery. So to do what's best for Arizona, I will step down this week."

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Liberal Idiocy Regarding Newt Responded To

2012-01-24T02:38:00.000-08:00

Neurotic Liberal Tom is a real interesting case. I get a kick out of his silly comments, and rarely respond to them because they are so inane that they don't deserve responses. But, this one needs a little clarification, not that he will understand the truth as it is presented.

His comment on my recent Allen West for Vice President post was as follows:

You choice of Palin in 2008 sure paid of dividends for McCain, didn't it? Assuming of course you wanted a landslide defeat. It's going to be really amusing when a serial adulterer or a Mormon goes up against the Christian with 2 kids and 1 wife.. lol By the way.. did you know that Newt is Catholic? Doesn't that make you crazy?

1) McCain's choice of Palin did pay dividends. McCain would have been slaughtered even worse without choosing her. Palin drew in the conservative vote, which is what is necessary to win the general election. However, because McCain was so damn moderate, many conservatives stayed at home while Obama was drawing the youth vote, as well as some dead people, multiple votes, and other fraudulent means.

2) A Serial adulterer or a Mormon is still better than a raging Marxist bent on destroying this country as Obama has been working on.

3) Obama says he is a Christian, but his actions and words say otherwise. Personally, he sounds more like a secularist than Christian, especially when you count the number of times Barry has mocked the Bible.

4) Yes, Newt and Santorum both are Catholics. I am not Catholic. Catholics have a few doctrinal differences than I do. That doesn't make me crazy. Why would it? Am I going to refuse to vote for a candidate because we have a difference in doctrinal opinion regarding Baptism, or confession, or the manner in which Communion should be applied? Am I supposed to be more worried about a Catholic, or even a Mormon, over a straight out Marxist in the person of Barack Obama? I am more interested in the candidates stance on the Constitution, and conservatism, and in both of those categories all four of the GOP candidates beat the hell out of Obama.

Tom's ignorance is astounding.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Rand Paul Detained by TSA

2012-01-23T23:50:00.000-08:00

GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul issued the following statement on his campaign website this afternoon, following his son Rand’s treatment at the hands of the TSA in Nashville.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Solar Storm Striking Earth

2012-01-23T21:22:00.000-08:00

Strongest solar storm since 2005 hitting Earth

The sun is bombarding Earth with radiation from the biggest solar storm in more than six years with more to come from the fast-moving eruption.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Enemy Expatriation Act - Another Assault on Freedom?

2012-01-23T17:05:00.000-08:00

By Douglas V. Gibbs

The PATRIOT Act had many Americans concerned that the federal government was going too far in its war on terror by being willing to secretly monitor Americans' Emails, phone calls, and whereabouts.

The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) signed by Barack Obama on New Years Eve authorizes the indefinite detention of persons deemed to be terrorists on American Soil, including Americans.

Both of these acts are seen by many as being an egregious assault on our liberties, but neither of them goes as far as HR 3166 and S 1698, the "Enemy Expatriation Act," which would give the federal government the authority to take away a person's American citizenship if they are deemed to be "hostile" against the United States.

I understand the intent, and I get that we have to defend the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. But to strip an American of their Constitutional rights by taking away their citizenship, which also means the elimination of due process, is taking it a little too far. The penalty of treason is death, but short of that Americans should still be given every Constitutional courtesy, until proven guilty in a court of law by a jury of their peers.

The bills are sponsored by Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and Charles Dent (R-PA), and are receiving very little opposition. The acts take the concept that America is a part of the battleground in the war on terror that the NDAA presented, and enables the government to decide that if an American is 'engaging in, or purposefully and materially supporting, hostilities against the United States,' their citizenship can be stripped from them.

The Pandora's Box this opens has to do with definitions. Sure, everything is fine while "hostilities" and "terrorism" maintains the current definitions we apply to the terms. But what happens when the federal government decides to broaden those definitions? How long before protesters fall under the those definitions? What about language criticizing the government? Will that also be considered hostile against the United States?

The definitions have been ambiguous and encompassing before, and this act opens up opportunities for the federal government that I think is wise not to entertain. It could get to the point that any action the government sees as in opposition to them could be labeled as hostile against the federal government, or supporting terrorism. This act could be the loophole the supporters of the NDAA were looking for to indefinitely detain Americans. Under the Enemy Expatriation Act to be accused of supporting hostilities could be defined any way the government sees fit. Then, if they decide you are hostile towards the U.S. Government, they could simply strip your citizenship and apply the indefinite detention section of the NDAA without the benefit of due process.

What the Enemy Expatriation Act looks like to me is, combined with the NDAA, a big government opportunity to declare war on the American people.

Simply put, all they have to do is deem you as the enemy, and you will suddenly fall under the tightening grip of the federal government - and with these "Acts" it will be perfectly legal for them to do so.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Text of H.R. 3166: Enemy Expatriation Act - GovTrack.us

Political Correctness: Marxist Tool

2012-01-23T14:30:00.000-08:00

Update: Correction to the author of The Authoritarian Personality: It was Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswik, Levinson and Sanford who wrote the book.

"The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But underthe name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialistprogram, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, withoutknowing how it happened." - Norman Thomas; (1884-1968) six-time U.S. Presidential candidate for the Socialist Party of America. Source: 1948 - from an interview during the presidential campaign. Norman Thomas and Gus Hall, the U.S. Communist Party Candidate, both quit American politics, agreeing that the Republicanand Democratic parties had adopted every plank of the Communist/Socialist agenda and they no longer had an alternate party platform on which to run.

By Douglas V. Gibbs

The List of 45 reveals the communist goals Marxists have pursued to facilitate the internal collapse of Western civilization. In the process, though the Soviet Union fell, they have not let up on their work to take over the U.S., and the rest of the West, from within. The internal madness has been supported in the United States by the democrat party. Through liberalism they are using political correctness to deepen the Marxist hold on America.

It is not difficult to realize that Political Correctness goes hand in hand with Marxism. Political Correctness is cultural Marxism. A politically correct society handcuffs free speech and free press, fuels thought control, and compromises a traditional social order for a more controlled system ruled over by an elite political oligarchy.

The origins of political correctness goes back to the early rumblings of Marxism, with the aim to destroy the Western Culture. It is the goal of the Marxists to penetrate every aspect of Western Culture.

To infiltrate the West the Marxists needed to translate Marxism into economic and cultural terms. The way to do this was to first destroy the moral foundations of the West, for as noted before in history, nations like the United States were great because they were good. Therefore, morality is the enemy of Marxism.

The Marxists assumed that the first world war, because of the anger of the people against the ruling governments, would lead to the workers rising up in revolution in Europe. Instead, the people united within their sovereign nations to fight the enemy. The people were not ready for the wave of communism the Marxists thought was ready to sweep through the West. In 1917 they received their revolution, but it remained contained in Russia.

A Marxist revolution throughout the rest of Europe and the United States would have to be forced through a series of incremental changes to society, including the destruction of a belief system that believed in an authority higher than government. . .Christianity.

Political Correctness emerged as the ideological offspring of The Frankfurt School, as well as from two Marxist theorists, Antonio Gramsci in Italy and Georg Lukacs in Hungary.

Wilhelm Reich, one of the early members of the Frankfurt school, wrote a book entitled The Authoritarian Personality. The book promoted the idea “that the presence in a society of Christianity, capitalism, and the patriarchal-authoritarian family created a character prone to racial prejudice and German fascism.” In other words, everything Western is necessarily prejudiced.

This kind of propaganda is part of the reason that American liberals and Europeans think that fascism, such as Nazism, is right-wing, when in reality the political structure and ideological make-up of fascism is much more like left-wing socialism.

To eliminate the non-Marxist political systems, Reich taught that “the patriarchal social structure would be replaced with matriarchy; the belief that men and women are different and properly have different roles would be replaced with androgyny; and the belief that heterosexuality is normal would be replaced with the belief that homosexuality is ‘normal’.”

But how could such a belief system be initiated? How could the Marxists change the moral makeup of an entire society?

Through the power of the State, which would increase incrementally through regulatory moves designed with the best of intentions to protect the good of the community, an idea of true equality would be initiated. Destroy “all barriers to the introduction of more women and minorities throughout the power structure’.” Then demonize any and all that dare to stand in the way of such "progress." Do so through the threat of lawsuits, intimidation, and a propaganda war against white males, labeling them all as racists and sexists.

One way to achieve this aim was by gaining a foothold in the West's popular media and academia. In other words, teach the youth the party line, and then use the younger generation to silence the older generation through a technique we now call Political Correctness.

What would eventually emerge, hoped the Marxists, is a society where an individual could be arrested for proclaiming sodomy to be a sin, or could be fired from a teaching position for daring to discuss God in or out of the classroom.

As for those two Marxist theorists I mentioned earlier, they also set to work on changing the non-Marxist cultures through strategies that included the destruction of Christianity, and the implementation into society of Political Correctness.

Marxist theorist Georg Lukacs in Hungary believed that society was unable to embrace Marxism because the people were blinded by Western culture, and particularly from Christianity. He said in 1919, "Who will save us from Western Civilization?", theorizing that the greatest obstacle of Marxism was the culture of Western civilization itself.

As the deputy commissar for culture in Hungary in 1919 he introduced sex education into the Hungarian schools as a move to begin the dismantling of the moral and Christian culture that stood in the way of Marxism.

Felix Weil funded a think-tank in 1923 Germany that worked on a plan to translate Marxism from economic to cultural terms, creating Political Correctness as we know it today. Realizing it was not to their advantage to be openly identified as Marxist, the concepts used other titles, and the organization was named The Institute for Social Research. As he wrote in 1971, it was his goal for the institute to contribute to Marxism, and someday be known for it.

One of the methods used to introduce political correctness was through psychology. Director Max Horkheimer was very interested in Sigmund Freud, and combined the Marxist effort with Freudism. This way the Marxists could infiltrate academia and medicine, creating studies departments that were branches of their "Critical Theory." The theory was to criticize, and ultimately to bring down, the West, Christianity, Capitalism, and anything else that stood in the way of Marxism.

Through these techniques they also worked on changing the definitions of society. Marxism became progressive, and progressivism became the drive for a free society. The existing society was redefined as a repressive capitalistic economic order, and religion was redefined as being an authoritarian system ruled over by an oppressive, and imaginary, god.

Everything became a personal right, and to achieve your rights you had to become superior to that which you were critical of. Feminism was encouraged to dominate the oppressive male society, and so forth.

Introduced in the 1930s was the sexual element of political correctness, where gender neutrality was taught. Sexual liberation, where masculinity and femininity was seen as sexual stereotyping, emerged. Sexual differences were taught as being a construct of the evil Western society. We see such madness today, such as in the recent story about a child whose gender was kept secret until recently, at the age of five, because the lesbian parents feared gender stereotyping.

Man's domination of nature was also addressed, placing an emphasis on environmentalism as being a dimension of the battle against materialism, and a way to control society through various environmental regulations, as well as placing "the love of nature" above God himself. The Marxists elevate themselves to God's level as planet changers, and planet savers. To dare speak out against "saving the planet" becomes yet another technique of "political correctness" that can be used to shape the culture, and teach the people to become communitarians under a Marxist system, rather than individuals under a capitalistic system. Through this process of political correctness, the existing capitalistic system is continuously demonized as being one of greed, profit, and materialism. Success is looked down upon, and wealth is viewed as being near criminal.

The boost political correctness received to launch it into today's society occurred in the 1960s, during the student rebellions against the Vietnam War. Searching for concepts they could use to oppose the U.S. Government with, Marxism wormed its way in. Based on concepts in the book "Eros and Civilization," philosophies that taught of the dangers of the capitalistic order emerged. Using Freudian principles, it was argued that the oppressive order was repressing liberation, and freedom could only be reached through a sexual revolution where eros and libido were liberated. The "if it feels good, do it" mantra rose from the protests, and "doing your own thing" became the call for a world of "polymorphous perversity."

Make Love, Not War.

Daring to criticize those freedoms was deemed by the rebellious youth as being immoral, and against the "rights" of the protesters.

Political Correctness then drew the ideological lines. Either you buy in to the insanity, or you recognize the attempt, through political correctness, to insert the "power of the state" into our society. Hate Crimes reach so far into our freedoms as to criminalize unacceptable political thoughts. Affirmative Action is a part of it. The Gay Rights Agenda is using it. Anyone that dares dissent from Political Correctness is ridiculed into silence, or threatened with legal action. In the name of Political Correctness, the very freedoms we fight to keep will be taken from us, and because it is through Political Correctness, we shrug it off as "the right thing to do."

After all, we don't want to offend anybody, right?

Welcome to Marxism in America.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

List of 45 - Snooper Report

Political Correctness: More Insidious and Dangerous Than Most Realize, Say Writers - LifeSite News

The Origins of Political Correctness - Accuracy in Academia

Couple Finally Reveals Child's Gender, Five Years After Birth - Shine from Yahoo

The Means of Communism - Aggressive Christianity

Man and Nature, Part IV: A Marxist Critique of the “Green” Environmental Movement - The Charnel House

EPA – Unconstitutional government agency that is planning a pollution control of Power Plants which will force many to close or to comply to whatever the government wants - Politics, Religion, and Family

Norman Thomas Quote - Liberty Tree

Israel: Palestinians Fire on West Bank Patrol

2012-01-23T10:44:00.000-08:00

Israel has always been a nation surrounded by the enemy. Yet, the safest place to be in the Middle East is Israel. Security is incredible there. Nonetheless, war continues to loom all around her. . .

-----

Palestinians fire on West Bank patrol: Israel army - AFP/Yahoo News

Palestinian gunmen opened fire at an Israeli army patrol near the West Bank city of Ramallah overnight, an Israeli military spokeswoman said on Sunday.

"During a routine patrol during the night, shots were fired by Palestinians at a military vehicle near Ramallah without causing injuries. The vehicle was lightly damaged," she told AFP.The shooters were not apprehended, the spokeswoman said.

Israeli troops routinely patrol throughout the West Bank, often carrying out arrests of Palestinians. Shooting against such patrols has become rare in recent years.

On Sunday morning, Israeli police said a Palestinian man wielding an axe attempted to attack security staff at the Qalandia checkpoint leading to Ramallah.

-----

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Abiotic Oil Means that Peak Oil Is A Lie

2012-01-23T07:18:00.000-08:00

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Oil is not a finite resource.

The idea that oil is not a fossil fuel as we have been told, but that it is a replenishing abiotic substance that originates from the Earth's mantle, is no stranger to Political Pistachio. In 2010, and 2011, I indicated in articles I have written here at Political Pistachio that there is no oil shortage, for oil is abiotic.

The oil crisis is completely made up out of thin air by the politicians because statists need a crisis to do what they want. Otherwise, you would never allow them to act in the tyrannical manner they try to.

Creating oil crisis after oil crisis also assists in the boom-bust cycle the economic engineers have their puppet strings wrapped around.

Now, we are told, due to the limited resource that oil is, and the influence burning oil has on our poor little planet, we must divorce ourselves from what has been the most efficient source of energy for more than a hundred years.

The problem is, the concept of man-made global warming is man-made, and the idea that we are exhausting the fossil fuel resources and have merely decades left before we deplete the supply of oil under the earth's crust, is simply not true.

Amazing how they really expect us to believe what took millions of years to produce, if you believe that oil is a fossil fuel, can be depleted in a mere couple hundred years. And then, these alarmists claim, when the oil runs out, if we haven't found other efficient means of energy, we will suffer the collapse of civilization. Death, famine, war, and a return of humanity to the hunter-gatherers whence we came.

Problem is, for these hysterical leftist statists, is that oil is not a fossil fuel. It is abiotic.

The idea that oil is a fossil fuel goes back hundreds of years, but the biological roots of oil has been challenged by a number of scientists who have concluded that oil, like coal, and natural gas, replenishes from sources within the mantle of earth.

The Russians discovered this truth during the 1950s and 1960s because they had to. The Soviet Union was cut off from the West's oil supply, so they searched deeper. They looked where nobody was willing to. Now, Russia is among the leading oil exporters.

American oil reserves are massive. Shale oil discovered beneath North Dakota is claimed to have more oil than any of the Middle Eastern oil producers. Shale oil, however, is more difficult to extract, and it has only been recently that we've attained the technology necessary to make extraction efficient enough to be cost effective.

The fear of peak oil has the world powers waging war, fighting over prices, and fighting over trade routes. Yet, in the United States alone we not only have plenty of reserves to take care of us for hundreds of years, even if you believe the fossil fuel theory, but if oil is abiotic as believed by many scientists, we have no reason whatsoever to be dependent upon any foreign oil. Our only limitations are placed on us by ourselves, in our willingness to drill, and how quickly we can process the oil into the products we desire. However, our current administration has placed limits on drilling domestically, and on the construction of new refineries.

If oil replenishes itself, and we won't run out, there is no need for the fighting, or the rising prices. Peak Oil is a concept needed, however, by the folks who want to control the population. Limiting energy use is an easy way to control the populace. Everything ties into energy. Transportation, movement of goods, comfort in one's home, production of food, production of all other products, technology, and on and on and on.

Crisis equals control, and without a peak oil crisis, the statists have little to use when it comes to engineering society into the form they desire.

The concept of peak oil enables the planners to create a false consensus that there is a scarcity of oil, no matter how artificial such a consensus may be. The limitations of oil, as taught by these social engineers, enables them to hold the world hostage.

Don't get me wrong. If there are more efficient sources of energy that can be produced more cheaply, and easily, we ought to pursue them. But for the time being, as the market has dictated, oil is our most efficient means of energy. With the realization that there isn't even any limitations on the production of oil, aside from the limitations we place ourselves, there is no reason for us to allow the statists of the world to dictate to us regarding the availability of oil.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Abiotic Oil - Free Energy News

Fossils From Animals And Plants Are Not Necessary For Crude Oil And Natural Gas, Swedish Researchers Find - View Zone

Abiotic Oil: Science or Politics? - From the Wilderness

Abiotic Oil a Theory Worth Exploring - US News and World Report

Another Crisis Goes to Waste - Political Pistachio

Obama's Democrats: Taking it to the Oil Companies - Political Pistachio

Allen West for Vice President

2012-01-23T03:47:00.000-08:00

By Douglas V. Gibbs

The last time we had a presidential election a full year before McCain chose Sarah Palin as his running mate I said that if the nominee was smart they would choose Palin. (July 2007, September 2007, October 2007)

This time, I have been unsure if I think it will be Palin again, Rand Paul, or Allen West. I've been leaning towards Allen West. I interviewed him in 2008, and was impressed with him back then. Now, I think he is ready, and I think the conservative candidate for the GOP ticket (in other words, if it is not Romney) will choose Allen West.

It turns out that I am not the only one that feels that way. . .

Gingrich says Allen West would be considered as his running mate - Tea Party Tribune

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Fast and Furious Gun Scandal Subpoena Issued

2012-01-22T23:55:00.000-08:00

BREAKING on Fast and Furious: Subpoena Issued for Patrick J. Cunningham, U.S. Attorney’s Office in Arizona

by AWR Hawkins at BIG Government

I just received an email from Congressman Darrel Issa’s office, containing a copy of a letter that was just sent Patrick J. Cunningham, Chief of the Criminal Division, U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Arizona. The letter announces that Cunningham has just been subpoenaed for “repeated refusals to testify voluntarily” before the House Oversight Committee, concerning accusations that he relayed inaccurate and misleading information to the Justice Department in preparation for its initial response to Congress.

Wrote Issa to Cunningham:

During the course of our investigation, the Committee has learned of the outsized role played by the Arizona U.S. Attorney’s Office – and you specifically – in approving the unacceptable tactics used in Fast and Furious. Senior Justice Department officials have recently told the Committee that you relayed inaccurate and misleading information to the Department in preparation for its initial response to Congress.

These officials told us that even after Congress began investigating Fast and Furious, you continued to insist that no unacceptable tactics were used. In fact, documents obtained confidentially just last week appear to confirm that you remained steadfast in your belief that no unacceptable tactics were used, even after the Department’s initial response to the congressional inquiry. Given that the Attorney General has labeled these tactics as unacceptable and Fast and Furious as “fundamentally flawed,” this position is startling.The subpoena requires Cunningham to appear on Tuesday, January 24, 2012 for a deposition. And while it’s heartening to see Issa and his committee continuing to pursue those who might be covering up the truth on Fast and Furious, Eric Holder still has his job and has yet to face prosecution for his role in this lawless operation.

The bottom line: the wheels of justice are turning, they’re just moving so slowly that progress is imperceptible.-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Keystone Pipeline Rejection May Prompt Canada to Sell to China

2012-01-22T22:04:00.000-08:00

Obama’s Keystone Denial Prompts Canada to Look to China Sales

President Barack Obama’s decision yesterday to reject a permit for TransCanada Corp.’s Keystone XL oil pipeline may prompt Canada to turn to China for oil exports.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

United States May Close Embassy in Syria

2012-01-22T19:01:00.000-08:00

By Douglas V. Gibbs

The massacres in Syria have evolved into violence against all who stand in the way. The U.S. Embassy has become a target, and among those concerns of violence against Americans in Syria, and the brittle condition of security in Damascus, the U.S. Government is considering closing the U.S. Embassy in Damascus, especially if the Syrian government is unable to guarantee security in the area.

The violence in Syria has been moving closer to the center of Damascus, where the American Embassy is, making the streets surrounding the embassy more and more dangerous for U.S. personnel. Other embassies in the area have also been considering packing up and leaving.

In recent months the U.S. Embassy, and U.S. Ambassador to Syria Robert Ford, have suffered physical attacks. Unlike many of the other embassies, however, the U.S. facility in Damascus sits right on the street, dangerously exposed.

Since the U.S. Embassy in Damascus is Washington's eyes and ears on what's going on inside Syria, the preference is to keep the embassy open and functioning.

Nonetheless, last week, the State Department announced that more U.S. diplomats would be leaving Damascus due to the deteriorating security situation there.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

U.S. Considering Shutting Down Its Embassy in Syria - Foreign Policy

The Death of Joe Paterno, and Final Words About the Sandusky Sex Scandal

2012-01-22T15:14:00.000-08:00

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Joe Paterno, longtime coach of the Penn State Nittany Lions died this morning. He was forced out when the Sandusky sex scandal erupted, but one could say that this may have very well been his final season as coach anyway... or was it? Paterno lived for football. Coaching the Penn State Nittany Lions was his life. Without it, death progressed quickly. His death may have come now because coaching football was no longer a part of his life. They are telling us he died of cancer, and clinically, that is accurate. But I think he died of a broken heart. Cancer advanced because what JoePa lived for was no longer there to hold death back.

The thing about Paterno is that I don't think he truly understood what he had done, or failed to do. As far as Joe was concerned, when he was told about Sandusky's shower room abuse of young boys he went to his next higher up. He used his chain of command, and his hands were clean. He didn't think he should have done more because he expected the people above him that he told to do what needed to be done.

Paterno "was" the football program at Penn State. The Legend had more responsibilities than the average coach because of his legendary status. It's like when sports stars complain because people look up to them, and they swear that they are not role models - yes they are, like it or not, because people are looking up to them, like it, or not. For Paterno, the same dynamics applied. Because of who he was, he should have done more to make sure Sandusky was brought to justice.

The failure of Paterno to follow up as we think he should have, ultimately, was not criminal. It was wrong, it was a failure to protect children, but it was not illegal. He did the minimum required. Paterno reported to the next level up what had happened. End of story.

His death, I hope, was peaceful. As a football coach I respect the man, and from what I understand, he fought death the same way he coached football - with fervor and class. He was not a person outside Penn State football, because to him there was nothing but Penn State football. He failed to follow through when it came to Sandusky, but I honestly believe he never understood the depth of that. He was football, and nothing but football. All of that other stuff, he felt, was better left up to the suits in the offices.

Fare thee well, Joe Paterno. You are still a football legend.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Fired Penn State coach Joe Paterno dead at 85 - Yahoo! News

Are You Ready For Some Football. . . and a great big Taco Salad?

2012-01-22T11:54:00.000-08:00

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Those who know me know that I am a huge football fan. Granted, I am an even bigger baseball fan, but not much beats the conference championship games and the big game two weeks later. Mrs. Pistachio has to work today. She left about an hour ago, and will get back what looks like to be after the second game is over. Yeah, my team is not there, but I am a fan of the game, and I am jazzed about these match-ups. Oh, and what is pictured to the left is the food I will be munching on during the games.

The Taco Salad is simply a ladle full of pinto beans mixed with my favorite canned refried beans, topped with seasoned ground beef, cheddar cheese, finely chopped brown onion, cilantro, green onions, lettuce, tomatoes, and my very own home-made salsa. Top it off with lime juice straight from the lime, and surround it with white corn tortilla chips, and you are ready to munch.

Enjoy the games. I know I will.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Scott Walker Exposes Recall Proponents on Fox & Friends

2012-01-22T11:19:00.000-08:00

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

ABC Even Tries Subtle Approach to Embarrass Gingrich

2012-01-22T07:55:00.000-08:00

By Kevin Price

ABC’s popular reality show, “What Would You Do?” (with John Quinones) took a jab this week at GOP Presidential candidate Newt Gingrich. This came just a couple of days after the network’s interview with Gingrich’s ex-wife, which included a claim that the former House Speaker wanted an “open marriage.” The “What Would You Do?” episode didn’t take a cheap shot at Gingrich’s personal life, but instead attempted, in this writer’s opinion, to embarrass the candidate when it comes to a policy that the candidate holds dear and seems to resonate well with conservative audiences.

If you have watched Speaker Gingrich for long, you know about his views regarding breaking the cycle of poverty and instilling an excellent work ethic in young people. He says things such as “we should shut down the public janitorial unions around the country that our busting the budgets of schools and replace them with students who would work after school to gain some money, experience, and the character to be a successful adult” (this is a paraphrase). Instead of being resistant to such a statement, many audiences give him standing ovations.

I believe Gingrich’s view was irritating to the predominantly liberal media and I think they were bewildered by the audience’s reaction. “Maybe if they saw the policy in action,” I believe they pondered, “they would understand the cruelty of Gingrich’s view.”

The way “What Would You Do” works is fairly simple. The show hires actors to behave in a certain manner in an attempt to get a response from bystanders. For example, on a recent show they hired adult and pre-teen actors to play parent/child in scenarios in which the adult would play drunk and try to get his or her adolescent child to drive them home. The response among bystanders was overwhelming. Rarely did people merely standby and watch them drive away. However, when they got to the “Gingrich thesis,” there was a decidedly different response.

In the scenario they created to prove the error of Gingrich’s philosophy (and, by the way, they referred to the former Speaker's view when setting the stage of the segment), they could not merely have a young person working; he had to be in, what would be described as an abusive scenario. The adult actor that worked with the child as his manager in a grocery store would berate the child, condemning the boy’s “laziness” or “whining” or other inadequacy as a worker. To make matters worse he would say that the child was “stealing from the company by making $5 an hour” (well below the current minimum wage). Ironically (and I am sure to ABC’s surprise), very few people said anything at all and when one finally did, it was not even because the child was “under aged,” but because of the way the adult spoke to the child. There was no problem that these young people were working, but they did not want to see them mistreated. I am sure they would not want to see anyone mistreated!

I was surprised that ABC even ran this segment, because it proved Gingrich’s thesis more than undermined it. Americans are tired of multi-generational entitlement and they want young people to have healthy attitudes about work, and that is best obtained by starting to work as young people. The only one who should be embarrassed by this segment is ABC itself.

--

Kevin Price

Host

Price of Business on KNTH 1070, PriceofBusiness.com

Home of Bloomberg Radio

Publisher and Editor in Chief, USDailyReview.com

Frequently found on Strategy Room at FoxNews.com

Syndicated columnist whose articles appear on a variety of media outlets.

Follow Kevin on Twitter at http://Twitter.com/KevinPriceLive

Like his new Facebook page at

http://www.facebook.com/#!/pages/Kevin-Price/225149017497975

Kevin Price's Profile: http://www.google.com/profiles/PriceofBusiness

Obama: Re-Elect Me Captain!

2012-01-22T06:39:00.000-08:00

Get Liberty

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Constitution Study Radio: Bill of Rights

2012-01-22T03:30:00.000-08:00

Constitution Study Radio - Myth #12: Bill of Rights

by Douglas V Gibbs
in Politics Conservative
Sun, Jan 22, 2012 06:00AM Pacific (use link above to listen to archive of this episode as well)

Myth #12: The Bill of Rights apply to the States. Through the Constitution with Douglas V. Gibbs

John Adams: Perpetual Chicanery

2012-01-22T01:34:00.000-08:00

"Public affairs go on pretty much as usual: perpetual chicanery and rather more personal abuse than there used to be." --John Adams

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Boeing Gets Last Laugh?

2012-01-21T23:20:00.000-08:00

By J.J. Jackson

Organized Labor was all aglow. After the National Labor Relations Board decided it was going to tell Boeing that the company could not shift production from its union shop in Seattle to its non-union shop in South Carolina, there was reason to celebrate. Big Labor had successfully enlisted its allies in Big Government to infringe upon the economic liberty of Americans and a company in order to protect itself. There were smiles all around among the workers and their leaders.

But, as fate would have it, reality would not be denied. As always, when reality is bent, it snaps right back to thwack the knuckles of those who foolishly try such an impossible feat.

Earlier this month Boeing announced that, due to costs, it would shut down its unionized plant in Kansas City . The aftermath? 2,160 employees, including many union employees, are going to be shown the door and given pink slips. It does not escape notice that perhaps some of these jobs in Kansas City might have been able to be saved had Boeing been allowed to go ahead with its original plans for operations in South Carolina and saved money in that regard.

Some of the work from the Kansas City plant will be diverted to Oklahoma City . Boeing operates a non-union facility there according to published reports on the company’s plans moving forward. Sounds to me like, if they are going to be consistent, the NLRB should be prepared to meddle here too. That is if they value the union workers in Kansas City as much as the ones in Seattle . Or was this part of the deal all along? Was it decided that the union workers in Kansas City would be sacrificed to save the union workers in Seattle ? It is hard to say with as secretive as the Obama Administration is. But if the NLRB does not act on behalf of the Kansas City union members it is a very real question that must be asked.

The union machinists and engineers at the Kansas City facility are obviously upset by the news of their plant closing. As are some elected officials in Kansas who went to bat for Boeing over the issue with the South Carolina plant. They thought they could buy them some good will and that this good will would prevent Boeing from touching the local plant.

The tiff between Boeing, the Seattle union and South Carolina was front page news for the longest time. Outside of Kansas, however, the end of an 85-year era with Boeing as a major employer in the State is barely garnering any news. Almost as though the hypocrisy is so blatant that not even the mainstream media wants to draw attention to it. After all, they cannot dare cast President Obama as uncaring about the plight of union workers in America after they spent months pumping him up and trumpeting his interference with Boeing’s “sinister” plans to undercut organized labor. Right?

In the end it seems as though Boeing gets the last laugh. It still gets to cut costs. It still gets to shed itself of untenable labor agreements which it allowed itself to be strong armed into accepting. And most importantly it still gets to make airplanes.

Where is your union now? And where is your messiah to save you all of you? All of you who put your faith in President Obama as the one man capable of distorting reality should ask yourself these questions. The answer will not be to your liking. But you should still ask the question.

----------------
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 Pittsburgh Conservative Examiner for Examiner.com. He is also the owner of The Right Things - Conservative T-shirts & Gifts The Right Things. His weekly commentary along with exclusives not available anywhere else can be found at Liberty Reborn.

Newt Gingrich Wins Big in South Carolina

2012-01-21T19:44:00.000-08:00

Gingrich 41% - 19 Delegates
Romney 27%
Santorum 17%
Paul 12%

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2012/south-carolina-primary-jan-21

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Loki and Doug on the U.S. Constitution: Founding Truth

2012-01-21T16:00:00.000-08:00

Founding Truth of the U.S. Constitution

by HOV Radio
in Politics Conservative
Sat, Jan 21, 2012 05:00PM Pacific

What is our government doing, to the American people, that is not following the Constitution? Listen here and find out!

South Carolina Primary, Supreme Court Decisions, and more on Constitution Radio with Douglas V. Gibbs

2012-01-21T13:00:00.000-08:00

The race in South Carolina has gotten tight, and we'll tell you why.

The courts have decided that they can tell churches how to practice their Christianity, and we will tell you when courts can, and can't, do such a thing.

The Supreme Court has told a lower court that they cannot draw the election maps for Texas, that is up to the legislature. We will tell you the Constitutional angle on that one.

Some republicans are fearful we may wind up with a brokered convention. What is a brokered convention? Why is it a big deal? Why is it not a big deal?

When Obama made his recent recess appointments, the Congress said he couldn't because they were in pro forma session. . . what does that mean, and who was right?

The Stop Online Piracy Act has been getting a lot of attention, and is being called unconstitutional. But, on its face it is completely constitutional. Confused? We'll explain.

Obama says no to Keystone Pipeline. But what if a pipeline is planned upon from the oil rich lands of North Dakota to Texas? Can he stop that one? Where does the federal jurisdiction start and stop?

Thomas Jefferson saw the corruption of corporations and banks coming, but he was not anti-bank or anti-corporation.

The Mexican Border has become more dangerous than Afghanistan. How is that an unconstitutional reality?

A dismembered body was found near the Hollywood Sign.

Obama Administration orders health plans to make contraception free for all!

Plus, we'll have the Book of the Week, 5 Big Stories of the Week, and the Nuts and Nuggets segment.

You don't want to miss this edition of Constitution Radio with Douglas V. Gibbs - on today live at 2:00 pm Pacific at KCAAradio.com. And thank you to the radio stations that carry this show, KCAA, KCXL, and WHTH. Call in with your questions or comments during the live broadcast at 888-909-1050.

You can listen to all podcasts of all past broadcasts of this program at KCAA's Podcast Page.

Special Guest Douglas V. Gibbs sets the record straight on The Many Moods of Vince Daniels

2012-01-21T12:15:00.000-08:00

Douglas V. Gibbs will be the guest on the Many Moods of Vince Daniels today at 12:30 pm Pacific. The segment will simulcast on American Daily Review radio.

Vince has some challenges in store. The last two times he had me debating an anarchist.

Join us live at 12:30 pm at KCAAradio.com.

www.vincedaniels.com

American Daily Review radio previews Constitution Radio with Douglas V. Gibbs

2012-01-21T11:30:00.000-08:00

American Daily Review

by ADR Radio
in Politics Conservative
Sat, Jan 21, 2012 12:00PM Pacific

Welcome to the pre-game show for Constitution Radio with Douglas V. Gibbs (available on three radio stations around the country). Join radio titans Doug Gibbs of Political Pistachio and JASmius of Hard Starboard for today's radio program.

Things Change Just In Time for South Carolina Primary

2012-01-21T09:08:00.000-08:00

By Douglas V. Gibbs

After Iowa everybody was excited because Romney had met his match in Santorum. The popularity for Rick Santorum drove upward nationally as New Hampshire approached. Romney won New Hampshire as expected, and after all the votes were counted, Santorum edged Gingrich. But the press went wild. Two straight wins for Romney with Iowa and New Hampshire. Could nothing stop Romney?

Then Iowa realized Romney had not won after all. Santorum edged him out.

Mitt Romney was still being called the favorite, even with his capitalism being attacked, and questions about his accounts in the Cayman Islands being raised (which have turned out to be completely legal). Romney felt a little down draft with that, but remained ahead, until. . .

Newt Gingrich decided to begin doing something I have been saying all along is the winning recipe. The more conservative the candidate, the bigger the chance to win. In the General Election, the more conservative the candidate, the greater the margin of victory.

Gingrich, in the last two debates, began to articulate conservatism in a "no fear" manner. Political Correctness went out the window. Worrying about rocking the boat with the truth went out the window. As a result, Newt received standing ovations, and the lead.

The poll numbers in South Carolina have shifted. Voters have been changing their minds about Gingrich, taking him past Mitt Romney into a substantial lead among likely voters. The American Research Group poll, conducted Thursday and Friday, shows Gingrich leading Romney by a 40%-26% margin. ARG's last poll, released Thursday, showed a virtual tie with Gingrich at 33% and Romney at 32%.

This makes the Republican Establishment worry, for it shows how brittle Romney truly is. From the establishment's point of view, Romney has shown himself to be too brittle, Newt Gingrich is too unpredictable, Santorum is too conservative, and Ron Paul is too crazy.

What to do, what to do.

Romney's campaign, if it does not win in South Carolina, will really need the next state, Florida, to recapture the lead. But if Florida takes a queue from South Carolina, and if Santorum has a great debate, this race may continue to be wide open, and in fact begin leaning in the direction of conservatism.

- Tune in today at 2:00 pm Pacific at KCAAradio.com for the "Constitution Radio with Douglas V. Gibbs" show, to hear more analysis on the race, a discussion about brokered conventions, and much more.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Romney downplays expectations, Gingrich surges as South Carolina votes - CNN Politics

2012 South Carolina Primary (Track Live) - Fox News

Keystone Rejection Insanity

2012-01-21T01:51:00.000-08:00

Rejecting the Keystone pipeline is an act of insanity

By Robert J. Samuelson,

President Obama’s rejection of the Keystone XL pipeline from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico is an act of national insanity. It isn’t often that a president makes a decision that has no redeeming virtues and — beyond the symbolism — won’t even advance the goals of the groups that demanded it. All it tells us is that Obama is so obsessed with his reelection that, through some sort of political calculus, he believes that placating his environmental supporters will improve his chances.

Aside from the political and public relations victory, environmentalists won’t get much. Stopping the pipeline won’t halt the development of tar sands, to which the Canadian government is committed; therefore, there will be little effect on global-warming emissions. Indeed, Obama’s decision might add to them. If Canada builds a pipeline from Alberta to the Pacific for export to Asia, moving all that oil across the ocean by tanker will create extra emissions. There will also be the risk of added spills.

Read the Rest at Washington Post

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Etta James Passes Away at 73

2012-01-20T21:49:00.000-08:00

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Many, many years ago I had the opportunity to meet Etta James. I was not familiar with her by name, but once I heard her music I realized she had always been there for me. We had a brief encounter, a few words, but she struck me as a genuine human being. What you see is what you got with Etta James, in my opinion.

A powerful blues and jazz singer, I fell in love with her music as I learned more about it after our chance encounter. "At Last" is my favorite, but would anyone expect any less?

In 2010 Ms. James was diagnosed with leukemia. She also suffered from hepatitis C and dementia.

She died in Riverside, California, right up the way from here.

Etta James is now in the arms of the Lord.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Newt Denies Marianne's Accusation He Wanted an Open Marriage

2012-01-20T18:31:00.000-08:00

By Douglas V. Gibbs

The liberal left uses the power of accusation at any chance they can. Their power of accusation knocked Herman Cain right out of the presidential race. No evidence was ever provided. The scenarios were unlikely. All of the women interestingly had connections to Chicago. And then once Cain was out, the accusations went away. The story stopped. It had served its purpose.

Newt Gingrich says his ex-wife Marianne's accusations against him in an ABC interview that he asked her for an open marriage is false. He hammered on CNN with starting last night's debate with the question, and denied he ever made such a request. Is Marianne lying? Everyone assumed it was true. Sure, he did mess around, and Newt's paying some of the consequences now. But how interesting for this to pop up two days before the South Carolina Primary.

Have the democrats no shame?

As with Cain, I am not going to jump on the bandwagon and say what she said is true. I will accept that Newt has denied it, and until I see evidence otherwise, I am going to believe him. But, like I said in the last post, if Newt is smart, he will admit that he made mistakes in the past, that he was unfaithful, and so on and so forth. And there is evidence that Marianne is unstable. One can almost understand Newt's frustration with her. Anyway, Conservatives, if we see that the repentance is sincere, are a forgiving lot. Understand, forgiveness does not justify, nor does it condone, but forgiveness is available. People change, people grow, and we want to believe that Newt is sincere when he says he's turned his life over to the Lord, and that his repentance is true.

One thing is for sure, however; women voters with accusations such as this are not as quick to forgive and forget as male voters. . . the Left is counting on that.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Newt Ally Calls Ex-Wife Unstable, Unhinged - US News and World Report

Marianne Gingrich: Newt Lacks Moral Character To Be President

2012-01-20T15:17:00.000-08:00

By Douglas V. Gibbs

The liberal left knows that the moral character of candidates is important to conservative voters, and that is why they attack republican candidates' "moral issues." That is why they have gone after Romney's family tree, and the presence of polygamy in it. . . as if Mitt has control of what his great-great-grandfather did.

Then there is Newt Gingrich. The liberal democrats are licking their chops on him. Newt's baggage when it comes to past immoralities could fill a freightliner. Now, in a recent interview, Marianne Gingrich (Newt's second wife) revealed that Newt at one point asked if they could have an open marriage that included his mistress - who is now his wife.

You mean like the Clintons? At least Newt asked. Bill just took Lewinski despite what Hillary thought. That, however, didn't seem to phase the left at all. Such a double standard.

If Newt is smart, he'll remember that conservatives not only expect a candidate to have good moral character, especially if they espouse family values, but that also conservatives believe that people can repent and be forgiven.

Newt ought to say that he screwed up. He was wrong. He was younger, foolish, and perhaps even stupid. But, having those experiences behind him, he is a smarter man for it, and he has turned away from such actions.

Liberals don't think people can change. Fact is, they can, and someone who err'd, learned from it, and has grown as a result is actually something that conservatives appreciate.

Newt could easily turn this negative into a positive if he can sincerely convince the voters that he is repentant of his past actions.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Polygamy Prominent in GOP Presidential Hopeful Mitt Romney's Family Tree - Fox News

Surging Gingrich: I won't Criticize my Ex-Wife - MSNBC

Gingrich ex-wife claims he sought 'open' relationship, candidate won't say 'anything negative' - NBC Politics

Exclusive: Gingrich Lacks Moral Character to be President, Ex-Wife Says - Yahoo News

Perry Out, Endorses Gingrich

2012-01-20T10:45:00.000-08:00

Gov. Rick Perry of Texas dropped out of the Republican presidential race here on Thursday and announced his endorsement for the candidacy of Newt Gingrich, a man he called a “conservative visionary.”

With Perry gone it will lessen the division of the conservative vote. In other words, it will hurt Romney. With it turning out that Santorum actually won Iowa, if Newt Gingrich wins South Carolina, it could make things very interesting.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Perry Ends Bid for Presidency - New York Times

Santorum Claims Win in Iowa 2 Weeks after Caucuses - AP/Yahoo News

James Madison: Rights of Property

2012-01-20T06:27:00.000-08:00

"The diversity in the faculties of men from which the rights of property originate, is not less an insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of interests. The protection of these faculties is the first object of government." --James Madison, Federalist No. 10, 1787

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Joe Biden Gaffe: Tells San Francisco Crowd "Giants on the way to Super Bowl"

2012-01-20T01:44:00.000-08:00

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Mercy Warren: Stopping Destructive Tyranny

2012-01-19T22:21:00.000-08:00

"It is necessary for every American, with becoming energy to endeavor to stop the dissemination of principles evidently destructive of the cause for which they have bled. It must be the combined virtue of the rulers and of the people to do this, and to rescue and save their civil and religious rights from the outstretched arm of tyranny, which may appear under any mode or form of government." --Mercy Warren

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Wild Bill for America: Outsmarting Obama

2012-01-19T18:46:00.000-08:00

A brilliant move by China illustrates the foolishness of liberal politics.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Constitution Class in Temecula: Pro Forma and SOPA

2012-01-19T15:03:00.000-08:00

Pro Forma Session was ignored by Obama. . . but what is Pro Forma?

SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act) has a lot of people mad. They see it as an opportunity for the federal government to intrude on free speech rights. But SOPA is constitutional!

We will discuss these topics, and more, tonight at the Temecula Constitution Class at Faith Armory. . .

Join us at 6:00 pm!

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Obama Says No To Keystone Pipeline

2012-01-19T09:50:00.000-08:00

By Douglas V. Gibbs

The liberal denial of the Keystone Pipeline is actually pretty confusing. I get the whole environmentalist thing, and I know that Obama is in trouble so he will do anything to draw back in his base like the nutty environmentalists, but logic doesn't seem to be working here.

Hmmm, did I just use "logic" and "Obama" in the same sentence?

The liberal left is constantly screaming about how we are "dependent" on Middle Eastern oil. We keep buying oil from our enemies, and that is a bad thing. Now, our ally and neighbor to the north, Canada for those of you that are geography impaired, has all kinds of oil they want to sell to us, and all we need to do is build a pipeline (wow, job creation too!) to get it down here. Win-win for everybody. . . except the liberals because the possibility of a leak on a pipeline (don't we have miles and miles and miles of pipeline that isn't leaking?).

By the way, we already import more oil from Canada than any other country.

Anyway, if we don't take it, they will sell it somewhere, and they are talking communist China.

Cheap oil, local oil, and not from the Middle East oil. . . but they won't.

Oh, did I say that it would create jobs to build the pipeline, too?

What is wrong with these people?

"Logic" and "liberals" doesn't seem to work in the same sentence, either.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Obama Rejecting Pipeline, Pokes Back At GOP - National Journal

82nd Quake Since Last Summer Rocks Washington/Virginia Region

2012-01-19T05:00:00.000-08:00

A magnitude 2.5 earthquake struck central Virginia early Wednesday morning, originating from the same area as the 5.8 tremor that shook the region last summer.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Small Quake Rattles Central Virginia, 82nd Since Last Summer - WTOP

Shooting in Texas: Iranian Student Activist

2012-01-19T01:00:00.000-08:00

By Douglas V. Gibbs

During the news break on the radio this story came across about an Iranian medical student well known for being a women's rights activist, and in opposition of the Iranian regime. A woman willing to stand up to Islamism. She was shot and killed in her car in front of her home.

I don't know about you, but the first thing that went through my head is that the hit was because Islamism can't stand a woman standing up for herself like Gelareh Bagherzadeh.

Nothing was stolen. She was simply shot through the window.

I think we will see a connection to her willingness to stand up against the Islamic insanity against women, and a true believer in the nuttiness that is Islam. I will not be surprised if the killer turns out to be an Islamist.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Iranian Student Activist Shot To Death in Texas - ABC News/Yahoo News

Jefferson Saw The Corruption of Banks and Corporations Coming

2012-01-18T20:10:00.000-08:00

"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation then by deflation, the banks and the corporations will grow up around them, will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs." - Thomas Jefferson, from the debate on the recharter of the Bank Bill (1809).

Note that this is not an anti-bank or anti-corporation statement - this is a statement about how banks and corporations can be a problem if the people do not restrain them to their proper place.

In other words, it is nobody's fault but our own. We let it happen. It is up to us to turn things around. . .

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Understanding Eligibility for President of the United States

2012-01-18T15:07:00.000-08:00

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Eligibility

Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 states that the eligibility for President includes the requirement that the individual be a natural born Citizen.

Notice that the Constitution says a natural born citizen, “or” a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. This was to ensure that anyone alive at the time of the adoption of the Constitution who was a citizen was eligible, and anyone born after the adoption of the Constitution had to be a natural born citizen to be eligible. The word “or” gives us a clue that there is a difference between “natural born citizen,” and “citizen.”

Some people will use the Fourteenth Amendment as an argument regarding the definition of natural born citizen. The Fourteenth Amendment says, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

The Fourteenth Amendment, in this clause, as it states, only addresses “citizenship” - not the concept of being a natural born citizen. Therefore, it does not apply when discussing the concept of natural born citizenship. The clause was written as it was to protect the citizenship of the children of the emancipated slaves. The word “jurisdiction” was placed in that clause to mean “full allegiance.” There was a fear during that time, as there had been during the founding of this nation, of divided allegiance, or divided loyalties.

Natural Born Citizen is not defined in the Constitution primarily because it was common knowledge. People understood what the term “Natural Born Citizen” meant.

Today we have a number of terms that are understood without needing to be defined. One of those terms is “fast food.” Without needing a definition provided, most people know what “fast food” is. That does not mean the term will be readily understood by some historian of the future. He may ask himself, when he comes across that term in our literature, “Why is it their food was fast? Did it run quickly away from them?” To understand what “fast food” meant to us, he may have to refer to a number of writings before he finally comes across the definition.

One of the sources the Founding Fathers used when it came to establishing the definition of “Natural Born Citizen” was Vatell’s “Law of Nations.”

Vatell’s Law of Nations is mentioned once in the Constitution in Article I, Section 8, Clause 10, and it is capitalized - which suggests the mention of the Law of Nations to be a proper noun, thus supporting the argument that it is a direct reference to Vatell’s writings.

Recently, it was discovered that George Washington failed to return a couple library books to the New York City Library. One of those books was Vatell’s Law of Nations. Washington checked the book out in 1789, shortly after the Constitutional Convention, probably because of the heavy influence the definitions in Vatell’s Law of Nations played on the writing of the U.S. Constitution.

Benjamin Franklin owned three copies of the Law of Nations - two for the convention, and one for his personal use. He received those copies from the editor, Dumas, in 1775.

Vatell’s Law of Nations Section 212 indicates that to be a Natural Born Citizen both parents must be citizens at the time of the birth of the child. As with the Fourteenth Amendment, there was a fear of divided allegiance.

Article II also establishes that in order to be eligible for the presidency the candidate must be at least the age of 35. This requirement, reasoned the founders, would ensure that the immaturities of youth had passed away. Along with a relatively mature age, the Constitution indicates that the president must also have been a resident of the United States for the last fourteen years. This, once again, was a guard against divided loyalties.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

SOPA: Stop Online Piracy Act HR 3261 Opens Pandora's Box for Federal Intrusion of Internet

2012-01-18T10:03:00.000-08:00

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 gives the federal government the express power 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." In other words, the federal government has the authority to create patent and copyright programs in order to protect intellectual property.

The people behind the Stop Online Piracy Act are sincere enough, and SOPA is constitutional. The federal government has the authority to protect copyrights and patents. However, I do not trust the federal government, so I am torn over SOPA. They say they only want to establish a system to protect copyright infringement, but in turn can take down websites based on their own bureaucratic criteria. That is how tyranny begins. . . with the best of intentions.

The bill is described as being designed to "establish a system for taking down websites that the Justice Department determines to be dedicated to copyright infringement.”

Constitutionally, the federal government can pursue this law, yet I don't trust the federal government. If we give them the power to shut down websites due to copyright infringement, how long before they start shutting down sites over their own arbitrary reasons.

I would prefer that copyrights and patents were protected by individual enforcement, but what if it is a big corporation that stole the copyright of a smaller entity? How does the smaller individual entity survive the rigors of court against a huge corporation?

It is a fine line that SOPA dances on. It is necessary, and constitutional, yet opens the door for the federal government to intrude on the last true frontier of free speech.

The problem is that peer to peer sites, and the like, have disregarded copyright laws, and the piracy of copyrighted material has reached an incredible level. The sites are often offshore, or out of country, making it impossible to legally go after them. SOPA will allow the federal government to disallow those sites from being accessible in The States.

Once again, it is necessary, yet a frightening proposition.

It is not a matter of whether or not the federal government "can" pursue legislation like SOPA. . . it is a matter of whether or not they "should."

I am torn. They can, but I fear what the federal government will do once this power is in their hands.

That is where the American People comes in. It is our duty to police them, make sure the federal government does not go farther than the Stop Online Piracy Act allows. We must not be complacent, or else we will get exactly what we deserve.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

SOPA, Freedom, and the Invisible War - Tech Crunch

Newt Gingrich Nails Conservatism in Fox Debate

2012-01-18T04:57:00.000-08:00

Newt has historically been a party hack, but the other night at the Fox Debate he nailed it. He articulated conservatism in a way that we have been waiting for the candidates to. Has he learned and grown? Is he ready to place his principles before party?

Unlike liberals, conservatives believe all people are capable of self-reliance. People are capable of pulling themselves up by the bootstraps. Are there those that truly can't? Of course there are, and that is what charities are for. It is not the role of the government to be a charity organization.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Jefferson, and the bayonet of the British

2012-01-18T01:03:00.000-08:00

"If our country, when pressed with wrongs at the point of the bayonet, had been governed by its heads instead of its hearts, where should we have been now? Hanging on a gallows as high as Haman's." --Thomas Jefferson, letter to Maria Cosway, 1786

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Ode to the Welfare State

2012-01-17T20:50:00.000-08:00

1949 Poem. . . As much as things change, they stay the same.

click image to enlarge.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Regarding Iran

2012-01-17T17:02:00.000-08:00

U.S. Warns Israel Against Iran Strike

U.S. defense leaders are increasingly concerned that Israel is preparing to take military action against Iran, over U.S. objections, and have stepped up contingency planning to safeguard U.S. facilities in the region in case of a conflict.

Iranians on Friday carried the flag-draped coffin of Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan, a scientist working in Iran's nuclear sector assassinated in Tehran.

President Barack Obama, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and other top officials have delivered a string of private messages to Israeli leaders warning about the dire consequences of a strike. The U.S. wants Israel to give more time for the effects of sanctions and other measures intended to force Iran to abandon its perceived efforts to build nuclear weapons.

Stepping up the pressure, Mr. Obama spoke by telephone on Thursday with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and U.S. Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, will meet with Israeli military officials in Tel Aviv next week.

The high-stakes planning and diplomacy comes as U.S. officials warn Tehran, including through what administration officials described Friday as direct messages to Iran's leaders, against provocative actions.

Read more at Wall Street Journal

Obama, Netanyahu Discuss Mideast, Iran

President Barack Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu have conferred about Mideast peace efforts, including recent Israel-Palestinian talks in Jordan. They also discussed Iran.

This is the first time in a long while that there has been an official White House statement on a telephone conversation between Mr. Obama and the Israeli prime minister.

It was, according to a White House statement, part of their regular communication and cooperation on bilateral and regional issues, with a major topic being the recent talks in Amman, Jordan between Israeli and Palestinian negotiators.

Mr. Obama reaffirmed his commitment to the goal of a comprehensive and lasting peace in the region. The president meets next week with Jordan's King Abdullah to discuss the status of peace efforts.

The Obama-Netanyahu conversation also dealt with Iran and came against a background of a number of events including Iranian threats to close the Strait of Hormuz, and the recent assassination in Tehran of an Iranian nuclear scientist.

Read more at Voice of America News

Iran says it has evidence U.S. behind scientist's killing

Iranian state television said on Saturday Tehran had evidence Washington was behind the latest assassination of one of its nuclear scientists.

In the fifth attack of its kind in two years, a magnetic bomb was attached to the door of 32-year-old Mostafa Ahmadi-Roshan's car during the Wednesday morning rush-hour in the capital. His driver was also killed.

The United States has denied involvement in the killing and condemned it. Israel has declined to comment.

"We have reliable documents and evidence that this terrorist act was planned, guided and supported by the CIA," the Iranian foreign ministry said in a letter handed to the Swiss ambassador in Tehran, state TV reported.

"The documents clearly show that this terrorist act was carried out with the direct involvement of CIA-linked agents."

The Swiss Embassy has represented U.S. interests in Iran since Tehran and Washington cut diplomatic ties shortly after the 1979 Islamic revolution.

Read more at Reuters

IRAN CLOSER TO BOMB THAN WORLD REALIZES?

A report that Iran is about a year away from having the capability to build a nuclear bomb may be too optimistic, contended John Bolton, former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.

“I worry the publicly available information is giving only a very small picture and that Iran is actually even much further along,” Bolton said today in a radio interview.

Bolton was on “Aaron Klein Investigative Radio” on New York’s WABC Radio. The former ambassador was asked about a statement from a former head of U.N. nuclear inspections claiming Iran is now just a year or so away from having enough enriched uranium to assemble a nuclear bomb.

Olli Heinonen wrote in an article published earlier this week that Iran made this advancement after switching production of its higher-grade enriched uranium to a new, underground site.

Reacting to the one-year timeline, Bolton stated, “I think it can be even less than that.”

Read more at World Net Daily

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

U.S. Constitution: Federal Government's Role Regarding Coining Money, Weights and Measures

2012-01-17T12:52:00.000-08:00

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Article I, Section 8, Clause 5 establishes that the duty of coining money belonged to Congress. Note that the Constitution called for coining money, rather than printing federal reserve notes (bills of credit). The coins produced by Congress were expected to be made of metals that reflected the worth of the coins. In other words, the gold in a coin, if taken to a goldsmith, would be worth the same as the value of the coin. Later, the banks realized they could loan on the gold in their vaults backing the currency, leaving less gold as a reserve. They did this by issuing receipts, or bills of credit. When this happened, if there was a bank run, where everyone brought their receipts in to cash it in for gold all at once, the bank would be left in a situation where they did not have enough gold to cover all of the notes.

If one goes back to the Articles of Confederation, it is important to note that under the confederation, there had been no power given to the central government to regulate the value of foreign coin, an omission, which in a great measure would destroy any uniformity in the value of the current coin, since the respective states might, by different regulations, create a different value in each. As a result, the States were prohibited in Article I, Section 10 from coining their own money, thus taking away their ability to manipulate the value of currency as a means of effecting the economies of the other states.

The authority to coin money was given specifically to Congress so that no outside interest could manipulate the value of American money. This included private banks. Nonetheless, we have seen three nationalized banks run by private bankers in the United States issuing the currency. The third is the currently existing Federal Reserve Bank.

Thomas Jefferson was against national banks. Alexander Hamilton created the “Bank of the United States” in 1791 for the purpose of acting as a depository of government funds, issuing paper currency backed by gold and silver, and creating a system of mercantilism in America. The bank’s charter lapsed in 1811. The Second Bank of the United States was formed in 1817, and lasted until President Andrew Jackson vetoed the renewal of its charter in 1836. The bank existed for 5 more years as an ordinary bank before going bankrupt in 1841. In a letter to John Taylor in 1816, Thomas Jefferson wrote, “I sincerely believe, with you, that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies; and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale.”

Article I, Section 8, Clause 5 also establishes that Congress shall have the power to fix the Standard of Weights and Measures. Fixing a standard of weights and measures was important for the reason of uniformity, and the ease of commerce. This clause suggests that before the Constitutional Convention the States were able to independently fix their own weights and measures, which not only added confusion to commerce, but enabled the States of use unsavory trading tactics against each other.

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 6 establishes that the U.S. Congress will provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States. This power would naturally flow, as an incident, from the antecedent powers to borrow money, and regulate the coinage. Indeed, without the ability to provide for the punishment of counterfeiting, the powers of coining money or creating securities would be without any adequate sanction. The word “securities,” in this clause, means: a contract that can be assigned a value so that it may be traded, like a “bond.”

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Commerce Clause: To Put In Good Order

2012-01-17T08:50:00.000-08:00

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 grants to the Congress the authority to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.

Remember, the States did not get along too well. Like siblings, they argued over just about everything. The individual States bickered over the borders between the states, turf, and interstate trade. As sovereign entities, the States continually tried to gain the upper hand on the other States in regard to commerce across State lines. Recognizing that the squabbles between the States were actually hindering commerce across State lines, the federal government in this clause was given the authority to do what was necessary to enable the flow of commerce to be more regular.

When you turn on a faucet full blast you are regulating the flow, just as you are regulating the flow when you restrict it by turning the faucet off. Likewise, the federal government was expected to act as a mechanism that ensured that the flow of commerce between the States was more regular.

The 1828 Webster Dictionary defines regulate in its second definition: “To put in good order.” Some historians state that regulate in the 18th Century meant “To make regular.” The word “restrict” was not used in the 1828 definition until the third and final definition of the word. In today’s dictionary “restrict” appears in the first definition of regulate.

Today, the Commerce Clause has been interpreted to mean the opposite of its original intent. The Commerce Clause in today’s political atmosphere is used as a means to restrict and heavily control commerce between the States. If one was to adopt the progressive definition of the Commerce Clause, one could then surmise that the Founders wrote this clause because commerce was flowing too easily, and needed to be controlled by the federal government. Such a notion is not only untrue, but outside the normal tendencies of the Founding Fathers. The Founders believed in limiting the powers of the Federal Government, so why would they allow the Federal Government the kind of unlimited powers over interstate commerce as suggested by today’s progressive?

The federal government’s role according to the Commerce Clause was to act as a referee, or mediator, whenever the flow of commerce was hindered by disagreements between the States, while with foreign nations and the Indian Tribes the federal government was expected to take a more active role.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Quran against Unbelievers Part 19

2012-01-17T04:46:00.000-08:00

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Thomas Jefferson - Principles

2012-01-16T23:58:00.000-08:00

"I suppose, indeed, that in public life, a man whose political principles have any decided character and who has energy enough to give them effect must always expect to encounter political hostility from those of adverse principles." --Thomas Jefferson

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Martin Luther King: Conservative Republican

2012-01-16T19:47:00.000-08:00

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Conservatism is about individuality. Conservatism is about self-sufficiency. Conservatism is about having enough personal responsibility to fight for what you believe in.

Martin Luther King was a Conservative.

What else could he be?

Martin Luther King Jr. was a registered Republican. He was a member of the same political party that was created to abolish slavery, the same party that was instrumental in passing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 while the Democrats tried to filibuster it, and the same party that believes the way to defeat poverty is not to pay people to stay poor with entitlement programs.

The Democrats fought to keep blacks in slavery. The Democrats were behind the Jim Crow laws. The Democrats created the Klu Klux Klan to be the rough arm of the party.

Historically black colleges were founded by the Republican Party, while Democrats, with brutal force, opposed every effort made by Republicans to educate African Americans.

The Democrats have been in control of the population centers. Their dominance in the large cities have resulted in crime and poverty being as bad as ever. Their policies have failed the people they claim they are in support of.

Propaganda by the Democrats blames the Republicans for all of the things going wrong. They paint the opposing party as being racist and uncaring. The liberal Democrats have convinced blacks to live off government handouts, and to give the democrats their unwavering loyalty. Democrats have offered welfare as a tool of economic slavery.

Would Martin Luther King have approved of such things? Would he have approved of the democrats enslaving blacks with entitlements, and for blacks to give up the American Dream for government intervention in their lives? What would he have thought of the Black Democrats calling Conservative Blacks Uncle Toms?

Martin Luther King would have also not approved of the fact that Obama was voted for by blacks primarily because of his color, rather than the strength (or lack thereof) of his character.

The Democrat Party policies of socialism and dependency on government leads to poverty. The Republican Party principles of self-reliance, hard work, personal responsibility, individualism, getting a good education without it being handed to you, property ownership, and entrepreneurism offers a pathway to prosperity.

Which do you think Martin Luther King Jr. would be in favor of?

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Republicans Founded the Historically Black Colleges and Universities - Hip Hop Republican

Martin Luther King - Black Republican History

Why Martin Luther King was Republican - Douglas County Republican Party

Martin Luther King Jr. was Conservative Republican - Now Public

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Was A Republican — And He’d Be A Pro-Life Social Conservative If He Was Alive Today - Hill Buzz

Corruption of the Obama Administration: 11 More Solyndras

2012-01-16T15:00:00.000-08:00

“Venture [Crony] Capitalism with tax dollars”.

This is an outrage! Good money after bad.

"Every day that you build this expanded facility, as you fill orders for solar panels to ship around the world, you’re demonstrating that the promise of clean energy isn’t just an article of faith -- not anymore." ~ Obama Solyndra Fremont, CA. May 26, 2011

Obama’s energy department didn’t stop with the failed crony company Solyndra. In total; the failing/failed ‘clean energy’ companies were collectively approved for $6.5 BILLION in federal (taxpayer) assistance.

Five have filed for bankruptcy. The junk bond rated Beacon Power, Evergreen Solar, Spectra Watt, AES (a subsidiary of ‘Eastern Energy) and of course Solyndra.

The others are not far behind; Nevada Geo Thermo (NGP) personally endorsed by Harry Reid, the recipient of $98.5 MILLION in loan guarantees, warns of multiple potential defaults, Sun Power received a $1.5 BILLION loan guarantee after a French oil company took it over, now owes more than it is worth, First Solar (the biggest S&P 500 loser in 2011) even though the CEO was forced out, taxpayers were forced to pony up $3 BILLION in loans.

Read More at Ironic Surrealism

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Huntsman Out

2012-01-16T11:30:00.000-08:00

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Jon Huntsman leaving the race will give Romney more support, for Huntsman's moderate followers will go to the next most liberal candidate: Mitt Romney.

Is Perry the next to drop out? Will the conservative support rally around one candidate?

We are only two states into the race. The fight is far from being over.

South Carolina is next, but Romney is leading in the polls.

But, nobody expected the rise of Santorum for the Iowa Caucuses. Will we see a surprise in South Carolina?

We are less than a week away.

Personally, I think Huntsman got into the race because the media had touted him early on as a "real" potential candidate. He was wrong, and so was the media.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Huntsman says he's quitting GOP Race - New York Times

Italy Cruise Ship Disaster: Death Toll Rises to Five

2012-01-16T07:43:00.000-08:00

Scuba divers reportedly have found two more bodies on board the luxury liner that hit a reef off the Italian coast and toppled over, bringing the death toll in the disaster to five people.

The divers found the bodies in the submerged part of the cruise ship, Costa Concordia, the Italian news outlet Ansa reported.

The discovery of the bodies followed better news overnight, as three people were rescued from the ship's wreckage. A crew member of was hoisted to safety by helicopter this morning, and a honeymooning couple was rescued from their cabin overnight, as officials scrambled to locate other missing people and threatened to charge the ship's captain with manslaughter.

The Costa Concordia struck a reef and sank onto its side off of the small island of Giglio, Italy, early Saturday. The U.S. embassy in Rome said Saturday that none of the 126 Americans on board the ship are among those who were seriously injured.

The latest rescue this morning was of an Italian who worked for the ship's cabin service and was hoisted off the ship with a broken leg approximately 36 hours after the accident, according to The Associated Press. It followed the rescue of South Korean newlyweds late Saturday after screams were heard coming from their cabin.Before the latest bodies were found today, 17 people remained unaccounted for -- 11 passengers and six crew members, Tuscany's regional president, Enrico Rossi, told reporters. The number was reduced from an earlier estimate of 40 unaccounted for.

The gleaming ship was carrying 4,234 passengers and crew when it struck rocks off Italy's west coast during the night, tearing a 160-foot long gash in the hull.

Read More at ABC News/Yahoo News

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Dynamics of Making Law, and How the 17th Amendment Damaged Our System

2012-01-16T04:00:00.000-08:00

By Douglas V. Gibbs

In 1913, the 17th Amendment changed the process in which United States Senators are chosen. Originally, the State Legislatures appointed the U.S. Senators, making the U.S. Senate quite literally the voice of the States. The Senators at that time voted with the interests of the States, and more specifically with the intent of protecting their State’s sovereignty, in mind. With the House of Representatives acting as the voice of the people, and the Senate acting as the voice of the States, the dynamics of making law was quite different from what it is today.

The process of making a law as originally intended ensured that the people, the States, and the federal government, approved of the piece of legislation. The bill would be approved by the people (House of Representatives), The States (Senate), and the Federal Government (President). If either the people or the States did not like the bill, its journey to become a law stopped. If the federal government, via the President, did not like the bill, he could veto the bill. A veto by the President, however, does not necessarily stop the bill from becoming law. The people (House) and the States (Senate) are able to overturn the veto with a two thirds vote from each house of Congress. This gave the people through the House of Representatives, and the States through the U.S. Senate, the ability to check each other. The people and the States together, if in agreement, also served as a united check against the federal government, or more specifically in the case of making law, the executive branch.

We The People hold original authority in the process of making law. The members of the United States House of Representatives and U.S. Senate are voted into office by direct election of the people. All of the officials involved with appointing or electing members of the branches of the federal government (as well as the U.S. Senate prior to 1913) were also originally voted into office by the general population. Our original authority also reaches even farther back than the descriptions above, because it was the people, as the sovereign states of the union, who originally held all of the authorities prior to the writing and ratification of the U.S. Constitution. Under British rule, original authority belonged to the monarchy, as per Royal Prerogative.

By Article I, Section 7, Clause 1 establishing that all bills for raising revenue originate in the House of Representatives, the Constitution grants to the voice of the people to power to fund, or defund, any function of government affected by legislative action. The power of the purse strings gives the House of Representatives the ultimate check against the other parts of government, and ultimately gives the House of Representatives a significant amount of power. Should the House of Representatives, for example, disapprove of a military action being carried out by the Commander in Chief, the action can be stopped by the House of Representatives simply defunding the military operation by not including funding for that action in a budget proposal. Refusal to accept the proposal by the Senate, or the Executive, places at risk the funding for other parts of government as well. The Senate, though unable to originate bills raising revenue, may propose amendments to be added to such a bill that originated in the House of Representatives, but no bill raising revenue may originate in the Senate. Upon approval by the Senate, the bill would still need to go back to the House of Representatives for approval. The approval by both houses of Congress must be for an identical bill.

If the President approves of the bill, and signs it after it has been approved with a majority vote in each of the two houses of Congress, the bill becomes law. If the President does not approve of the bill, he may refuse to sign it, or veto the bill, and return it with a written explanation of his disapproval.

Should the Houses of the United States Congress determine with a two-thirds vote in each house to reconsider the bill, the bill will still become law despite the executive objection.

All votes in the two houses of Congress shall be determined by yeas and nays, which will be entered into the respective house’s journal. The journal entry will include the names and votes of the members voting for, or against, the bill.

If the President refuses to sign the bill presented to him, but does not return the bill with his written objection within ten days (excluding Sundays) the bill becomes law as if the President signed it. The exception to this clause is if the Congress does anything to prevent the bill’s return, such as through their adjournment. In that case, the bill remains to be only a bill, and only becomes law should any of the afore mentioned processes be met.

All actions that require the concurrence of the U.S. Senate, and the House of Representatives (except on a question of adjournment, which can also be called for by the President), must be presented to the President, and be approved by the President before such action can take effect. As with bills, any action disapproved by the President must be repassed by both houses with a two-thirds vote.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Operation Torch of David. . . Wild Bill For America

2012-01-15T23:48:00.000-08:00

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Political Mountain of 2012

2012-01-15T19:45:00.000-08:00

By Douglas V. Gibbs

The current field of GOP candidates all have flaws, but to leave Obama in control of our government would spell certain doom. We need a Congress, and President, to tackle problems we have never faced at such an extreme ever before.

Here is what we may face as we pass through 2012:

1: The United States' national debt is beyond $15 Trillion, nine countries in Europe were just had their credit rating downgraded, the major nations of the world are insolvent. There is no choice but for these financial systems to collapse, and for more severe austerity measures to be put into place. It is either severe austerity, or complete and utter chaos.

2: Historically, economic growth stops when such a large percentage of GDP is allocated to paying interest on debt, and "stimulus plans" pump fiat money into the problem. A Stock Market crash is expected by many economists during 2013 (Bob Rinear of InvestYourself.com has also uttered these words on my AM Radio Show - Listen to November 20, 2011 Episode for his chilling prediction), and the 2012 ride towards such a calamity could prove to be a rough ride.

3: As the conditions worsen, and the political elite become more determined to hold on to their power, unrest will erupt in the streets, giving the ruling elite the excuse to crack down on the citizenry. Of course they've brought this all upon themselves because they have trained the populace to be dependent upon government, rather than self-sufficient, personally responsible, and problem solvers. However, an unexpected consequence will result from the fact that the populace is armed.

4: The current actions of stimulus and bail outs are simply delay tactics. In the end, there will be a natural reset despite governmental attempts to stop it. Understand, historically this is not the first time this has happened, and it won’t be the last. Consequences for foolish liberal-socialist policies always rise to the top. Progressivism fails whenever it is tried. Civilization will collapse as has many empires before in history. The question is simply how devastating will the fall be?

As an optimist, however, I believe we have a sliver of a chance to get things turned around. I see us as a raft floating down the Niagra River, and as the roar of the falls begins to rise in the distance, the idiot at the front of the raft says, "Here that? It's Hope and Change!"

We know the roar in the distance is our doom.

A sign is up ahead. It says, "The Point of No Return." Once past that sign, no matter how good of a swimmer, or how powerful a rower, there is no turning back because the current is too strong to go against.

Our task is to throw the idiot up front into the water, and then all grab oars and start rowing in the opposite direction. It can be done. It must be done.

This means Obama must lose in the next election, and fiscally conservative representatives must gain control of both houses of the Congress, and act in accordance to their principles.

If the politicians act like politicians, and the spending is not cut NOW, we will pass that sign, and go over the falls.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Understanding Why Obama's Recess Appointments were Unconstitutional: Pro Forma

2012-01-15T16:57:00.000-08:00

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Article I, Section 5; Procedure

Article I, Section 5 requires Congress to have a minimum number of members present in order to do business. That majority constitutes a quorum, and if the Congress deems it necessary, may set fines for members who do not show up. The houses of Congress may remain in session, during which no formal business is conducted because the house does not have a quorum, so as to prevent executive actions that may be carried out during recess. This kind of session is called a pro forma session.

Section 5 also states that each house may have its own rules, keep a journal to record proceedings and votes, and that neither house may adjourn without the permission of the other. Section 5 also establishes that if a member of a house does not follow the established rules, the house may punish its members for disorderly behavior, and by a two thirds vote may actually expel a member from Congress.

The establishment of rules, holding a hearing in regards to the breaking of those rules, and punishing a member for his behavior, as set forth by Article I, Section 5, was recently used when Charles Rangel broke the rules of the House of Representatives. He faced a panel for his actions, and was punished by censure.

The mandate to keep a journal to record proceedings and votes was included in this section because the Founders wanted government to be transparent, accessible, and accountable to the people.

Terms:

Adjourn: Suspend proceedings to a later time and/or place.

Censure: Procedure for publicly reprimanding a public official for inappropriate behavior. There are normally no legal consequences. Censure is not mentioned in the Constitution, but is a procedure devised by the legislature as a tool for formal condemnation of a member of the congressional body.

Pro Forma Session: A session in either house of the United States Congress at which no formal business is expected to be conducted, so as to fulfill the obligation "that neither chamber can adjourn for more than three days without the consent of the other." Pro forma sessions are also used to prevent the President from pocket-vetoing bills, calling the Congress into a special session, and to prevent the President from making recess appointments.

Quorum: Minimum number of members of an assembly necessary to conduct the business of that group.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Email of the Week: Do you remember January 3, 2007??

2012-01-15T13:23:00.000-08:00

This is just a History lesson. I am sending it to all regardless of party . The day the Democrats took over was not January 22nd 2009, it was actually January 2nd 2007, the day the Democrats took over the House of Representatives and the Senate, at the very start of the 110th Congress. The Democratic Party controlled a majority in both chambers for the first time since the end of the 103rd Congress in 1995. For those who are listening to the liberals propagating the fallacy that everything is "Bush's Fault", think about this:

January 3rd, 2007, the day the Democrats took over the Senate and the Congress:

The DOW Jones closed at 12,621.77

The GDP for the previous quarter was 3.5% The Unemployment rate was 4.6% George Bush's Economic policies SET A RECORD of 52 STRAIGHT MONTHS of JOB CREATION!

Remember that day...

January 3rd, 2007 was the day that Barney Frank took over the House Financial Services Committee and Chris Dodd took over the Senate Banking Committee.

The economic meltdown that happened 15 months later was in what part of the economy?

BANKING AND FINANCIAL SERVICES!

THANK YOU DEMOCRATS (especially Barney ) for taking us from 13,000 DOW, 3.5 GDP and 4.6% Unemployment...to this CRISIS by (among MANY other things) dumping 5-6 TRILLION Dollars of toxic loans on the economy from YOUR Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac FIASCOES!

(BTW: Bush asked Congress 17 TIMES to stop Fannie & Freddie -starting in 2001 because it was financially risky for the US economy). Barney blocked it and called it a "Chicken Little Philosophy" (and the sky did fall!) And who took the THIRD highest pay-off from Fannie Mae AND Freddie Mac? - OBAMA And who fought against reform of Fannie and Freddie? - OBAMA and the Democrat Congress, especially BARNEY!!!! So when someone tries to blame Bush...

REMEMBER JANUARY 3rd, 2007.... THE DAY THE DEMOCRATS TOOK OVER!" Bush may have been in the car but the Democrats were in charge of the gas pedal and steering wheel, while they were driving the economy into the ditch. Budgets do not come from the White House.. They come from Congress, and the party that controlled Congress since January 2007 is the Democratic Party. Furthermore, the Democrats controlled the budget process for 2008 & 2009 as well as 2010 & 2011.

In that first year, they had to contend with George Bush, which caused them to compromise on spending, when Bush, though belatedly, got tough on spending increases. For 2009 though, Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid bypassed George Bush entirely, passing continuing resolutions to keep government running and to increase government spending until Barack Obama could take office. At that time, they passed a massive omnibus spending bill to complete the 2009 budget. And where was Barack Obama during this time? He was a member of that very Congress that passed all of these massive spending bills, and he signed the omnibus bill as President to complete 2009. Let's remember what the deficits looked like during that period:

If the Democrats inherited any deficit, it was the 2007 deficit, the last of the Republican budgets. That deficit was the lowest in five years, and the fourth straight decline in deficit spending. After that, Democrats in Congress took control of spending, and that includes Barack Obama, who voted for the budgets. If Obama inherited anything, he inherited it from himself.

In a nutshell, what Obama is saying is "I inherited a deficit that I voted for, and then I voted to expand that deficit four-fold since January 20th."

There is no way this will be widely publicized, unless each of us sends it on! "The problems we face today exist because the people who work for a living are outnumbered by those who vote for a living."

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

The Birth and Maintenance of Constitution Radio with Douglas V. Gibbs

2012-01-15T10:52:00.000-08:00

My name is Douglas V. Gibbs, and I am the host of Constitution Radio. The radio program is designed to look at the various issues that faces this nation through the lens of the U.S. Constitution. The show airs live on KCAA 1050 AM in San Bernardino, California. The first episode aired August 6, 2011.

The show's debut was actually quite by accident, for I was not planning on moving to terrestrial radio from Internet Radio, where my Political Pistachio radio program had called home for four and a half years. I was simply doing research on what it would take to move my little project to the AM radio airwaves. Slots were open, folks were willing to put some money behind my efforts, so we launched the new show.

At the time we made no profit. The advertising dollars we received even fell just a tad short, so I made up the difference from my own personal funds. The difficulty bringing in advertising dollars was understandable. The country is in an economic down period, and the financial stress of our economy has hammered businesses in ways few of us truly understand. But, we pulled together enough money, and the show launched.

You can listen to podcasts of all of my past episodes on the podcast page for my show at KCAA's website.

The program began broadcasting on Saturdays and Sundays at 1050 AM in the Inland Empire of Southern California, or at KCAAradio.com, at 2:00 pm Pacific. Since the Christmas Season we have had to dial back to Saturdays only.

The show is the natural and logical result of the growth of the Political Pistachio Radio show that adorned the Internet Airwaves at BlogTalkRadio for four and a half years. Much of my international audience that followed Political Pistachio Radio followed me to KCAA, and my "Constitution Radio with Douglas V. Gibbs" program. I appreciate the support.

Last November KCXL in Kansas City, Missouri decided to start carrying the show. Currently, I am talking with WHTH in Youngstown, Ohio as well. The show has been quite successful, bringing in a tremendous amount of listener support, and by picking up these two stations as affiliates. However, funding has been difficult. The drive for advertisers in this economic downturn has been the biggest obstacle the show faces.

Most of the reasons given by potential sponsors have been that they must be tighter in their marketing budgeting due to the economic difficulties we face during this government-induced recession. Some of the potential advertisers also claim that it is just a matter of timing, because for many of these businesses this is the off-season and advertising right now makes no sense.Radio stations function by selling airtime. All hosts on the air everywhere, with only a few exceptions, pay airtime. They make their profit off of the money they bring in from advertisers above the cost of airtime, and other costs.

Currently, we remain way short of what is needed to pay the airtime, and in fact have dropped to just Saturdays to accommodate the drought of funding. With the addition of KCXL, WHTH, and other radio stations around the country sniffing around with interest, the last thing we need is to go off the air due to a slight shortage of advertising dollars.This is where I hope you, the loyal Political Pistachio readers and listeners, come in.I need your help.If you wish to donate, you can do so right here on this site. On the left sidebar there is a PayPal button for contributing to Political Pistachio. Any and all contributions are welcome. Also, if you have a business, you would like to advertise your blog, or you know a business or website you can refer to me as a potential advertiser, contact me at constitutionspeaker (at) yahoo dot com.

Thank you.

Douglas V. Gibbs

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

p.s. feel free to re-post this on your blogs if you think it will help.

Israel: Land For Peace Fails

2012-01-15T06:30:00.000-08:00

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Czechoslovakia stood in the way of German expansion in 1938. Europe feared German aggression, and Britain opted for appeasement. Propaganda was used to convince Europe that the Germans in Czechoslovakia were being treated unfairly. The German army conducted maneuvers near the Czech border. The Czechs ordered partial mobilization. Hitler threatened to invade Czechoslovakia. The allies feared that a military confrontation between Germany and Czechoslovakia may drag all of Europe into a new world war. Hitler addressed the people, renewing his demands for the Sudetenland, the part of Czechoslovakia that served as home to German speakers.

Peace was desired at any cost, and the blame for tensions began to be pointed at Czechoslovakia for refusing to capitulate to the Germans. Hitler promised that Sudetenland was the last territorial claim he would make in Europe. He wanted the region "returned" to the Reich, and then he would be peaceful again.

British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, convinced that if Hitler was not appeased the world would plunge into war, decided he needed to negotiate with Hitler in order to keep the peace. In a meeting that lasted a week, the participants in Prague decided that the Czechs must cede all border areas with more than fifty percent Germans to the Reich. Czechoslovakia was not in attendance, and had no say in the matter.

The "Land for Peace" agreement was believed to guarantee peace. Czechoslovakia was carved up to keep the peace, and if the Czechs refused to play along, the British and the French promised they would not come to the aid of the Czechs.

In the end, Hitler was given everything he wanted, so that he would not take what he wanted through war.

Chamberlain returned to England proclaiming, "I believe it is peace in our time." He was greeted with cheers and relief. By handing over Czechoslovakia to Germany, the ruling elite of England and France hoped that Hitler had received sufficient payment to renounce aggression in Western Europe.

The Soviet Union prepared to help the Czechs by moving a large number of infantry and cavalry divisions, tank corps, armored brigades and aircraft formations. Czech writer, Karel Capek, wrote, "Treaties are made to be kept by weaker nations."

German armies marched into a non-resisting Czechoslovakia. The German Generals couldn't believe Hitler had pulled off another bloodless victory. The new boundaries gave Germany 11,000 square miles of Czech land, and almost 3,000,000 Sudetens and 800,000 Czechs.

To keep the peace, the Western democracies had given away plenty of land. In addition to Czechoslovakia, the quivering allies permitted Hitler to occupy the Rhineland, had given Mussolini free reign in Ethiopia, invoked a non-intervention agreement against Loyalist Spain, and had not lifted a finger for Austria. Hitler made the appeasers do his dirty work for him because he knew they craved peace so much that they were willing to sacrifice others for it.

Not a shot was fired at that point.

German troops, in force, crossed into what was left of Czechoslovakia. The Czechs offered no resistance.

In March of 1939, Czech independence came to an end. In Prague, Hitler wrote, "Czechoslovakia has ceased to exist."

Appeasement began its march in the early 1920s, becoming worse as Germany got rid of the restrictions of the Treaty of Versailles one by one. The victors of World War I made the mistake of dismantling their own treaty, and they failed to see that Hitler wanted war, despite his rhetoric that called for peace.

Hitler counted on the Allies having guilt about Versailles. He counted on them being willing to trade land for peace.

Israel stands in the way of full Muslim domination of the Middle East. The West fears Islamic aggression, and is opting for appeasement. Propaganda is being used to try to convince people that Muslims in Israel, and in the occupied Gaza Strip, West Bank, and Golan Heights, are being mistreated. Islamist forces have conducted maneuvers at the borders of Israel, and have continuously lobbed missiles into Israel. Islam constantly threatens Israel, often using language that proclaims a desire for the complete destruction of Israel. The Palestinians have spoken to the world, proclaiming parts of Israel to belong to them.

Peace in the Middle East is desired at any cost by the Western Appeasers. The unrest is being blamed on Israel. Islam promises that the Palestinian claims are the last they will make in Israel. If land is traded for peace, they say, then the unrest in the Middle East will ease.

The Western Leaders, fearful that if the Muslims are not appeased the world could plunge into terrorism, have decided they need to negotiate with the Palestinians, grant them the Statehood they suddenly desire, and grant them their demands for the purpose of peace.

As The West prepares for appeasement, the forces of jihadism are on the rise in Egypt, Syria, and Iran. Egypt's peace with Israel has been guaranteed by U.S. involvement, and land for peace. The treaty with Egypt was based on the proposition of the Sinai in 1982 for peace. The Islamists moving into position to gain power in Egypt places the treaty at risk. They have no intention of abiding by its provisions.

The concept of land for peace has failed. Islamism does not care about land. Islamism only cares about the destruction of Israel, the destruction of non-Islamic societies, and ultimately the worldwide domination of Islam through a Muslim caliphate.

Israel gives land because they want the Arabs to give peace. Israel craves peace, but deep down knows that it is not possible. Islam has made it loud and clear that land for peace is a one way street. Israeli land giveaways are permanent, but Islamic commitments to peace are revoked at any time.

With the current presidential administration in the United States, and the liberal socialists in control of the U.N. and Europe, Israel stands alone. No one plans to stand up for Israel's right to exist. The Muslim Brotherhood and Salafist parties are working to take an absolute majority in Egypt, but The West has fallen for the propaganda that claims these parties are moderate and pragmatic.

The fact is, the rising Islamist control over the Muslim nations has no intention of respecting treaties, or Israel's right to exist. They are waiting for conflict, and then will blame it on Israel. Talks are doomed to failure. The Islamists want it that way.

Land for Peace fails. Liberalism fails. Only a direct military posture that stands up against the rising threat will succeed. . . but the appeasers refuse to learn from history, and like Neville Chamberlain with Germany, Barack Obama and his fellow appeasers are positioning the world for a new world conflict.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Constitution Study Radio - Myth #11: The United States "is," rather than "are"

2012-01-15T04:00:00.000-08:00

Constitution Study Radio - Myth #11: United States "is"

by Douglas V Gibbs
in Politics Conservative
on Sun, Jan 15, 2012 06:00AM Pacific

Myth #11: The United States "is," rather than "are." Through the Constitution with Douglas V. Gibbs

The Chains of the Constitution

2012-01-14T23:30:00.000-08:00

A friend once told me that the founders realized they needed a lion, but a lion will eat you if not properly restrained. The Constitution is the cage that restrains the lion.

"It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against he dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters." - Daniel Webster

"In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution." - Thomas Jefferson

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Patriotic Rock and Roll - Madison Rising

2012-01-14T19:13:00.001-08:00

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Need More Radio Talking About The Constitution? Founding Truth is Here for you!

2012-01-14T16:00:00.000-08:00

Founding Truth of the U.S. Constitution

by HOV Radio: Douglas V. Gibbs and Loki
in Politics Conservative
on Sat, Jan 14, 2012 05:00PM Pacific

What is our government doing, to the American people, that is not following the Constitution? Listen here and find out!

The Bain Of Our Existence? Hardly!

2012-01-14T14:54:00.000-08:00

By J.J. Jackson

I cannot help it.  I have to defend Mitt Romney from idiocy.  Yes, I know the man is a RINO.  However even a RINO deserves to be defended when the attacks against him are unwarranted and so utterly crackpot in nature that they fly in the face of reality.

Unless you have been living under a rock for the past month, you are now fully aware that Mr. Romney once ran a company called Bain Capital.  The company is a private investment firm which spends its cash on a variety of endeavors from venture capital to leveraged asset acquisitions.  Over the years, Bain Capital purchased or help finance a myriad of companies.  Some of those companies failed.  Most of those companies succeeded.  Some succeeded beyond anyone's wildest imagination.

Despite creating more jobs than most people can even count however, the company and Mr. Romney have come under attack from the far and not so far left.  Why?  Well, because the company engaged in capitalism.  Well, at least when it was not taking federal money apparently.  But I am not here to defend the later because it is indefensible.  However, I am here to defend the former because the former is what is being attacked nonsensically.

The sort of scurrilous attacks on Mitt Romney and Bain Capital for being capitalists which are being thrown around, frankly, I expect from President Obama and the far left.  It is sadly all they know how to do.  But to hear these sorts of attacks also come from Newt Gingrich, Newt’s PAC buddies and even Governor Rick Perry?  Ok, honestly I cannot say that I am totally shocked. Although I am shocked a little.  For them to get involved in them displays a lack of leadership and character.  And while I never really pegged Newt as a real leader or someone with strong character, I had thought much better of Governor Perry before this episode.

The fact is that sometimes companies acquired by Bain Capital had to be reorganized and downsized or even disassembled completely.  Thus, the complaint goes, Romney is a callous bastard who had no qualms about putting people out of a job.  As if having a particular job with a particular company is now somehow a right?   Like I said, I expect this sort of stuff from the dim bulbs that inhabit the White House and the halls of liberalism.  I expect better however of people who want to legitimately call the GOP home.

Bain Capital did, several times, indeed invest in or wholly take over struggling companies.  And as part of their involvement they did at times, either themselves or as part of the rescue deal, force the company to lay off workers who were not necessary to the operations in order that the company would again have a chance to become profitable.  It is also true that Bain Capital took over some companies, quickly that the assets of the company were more valuable than the company itself and turned around, hacked up the company and divested its assets in order to actually make money on the deal.  Oh, how droll!  Do they not know that funneling good money into failing companies to keep them from failing is so much more fashionable?  At least to leftists anyway.

The only people who complain about this sort of activity are those who lost their jobs because of these actions and who had been taught to be victims, liberal demagogues and “conservatives” who forgot to boot their brains before speaking on the matter.  Look, this is the way a functioning economy works.  If you do not like it, move to China , Cuba , Venezuela , France , Greece or Italy . Because those are countries were the creative destruction of nonfunctioning parts of the economy is not allowed to happen. Instead useless, mismanaged companies filled with employees not producing anything which pleases their fellow man are allowed to sputter on.  Usually this is done with the continual infusion of tax dollars into these companies and paid by other people until the entire economy eventually collapses.

Say you have a steel mill that is making, of course, steel.  The problem is that while it is making steel due to a combination of high labor costs and antiquated equipment it cannot make a profit and is running in the red.  The company is going belly up.  A company like Bain Capital comes along.  They look at the books.  They look at the market.  They look at the plant.  Then they make a decision to buy the plant.  Then they make a decision to either liquidate the assets or reorganize to make the company profitable.  The later results in some people losing their jobs as the bloat of exorbitant and unwarranted salaries and the number of people working for a company is trimmed.  The former results in everyone at the plant losing their jobs.

Liberals, and again non-thinking “conservatives”, decry this as Bain Capital destroying jobs.  But the company was going belly up anyway.  Everyone was already going to lose their jobs if such a thing were to happen.  So at worse it is a wash and Bain Capital actually destroyed no net jobs on its own if it opts to close the plant and sell every last bit of scrap it can for whatever money it can get.  At best it actually saves jobs by turning the company around.

Of course this is no consolidation to the trained victims of American society who lost their jobs under the knife of a company like Bain Capital.  They will whine to anyone that will listen.  They will be recruited by political charlatans who seek to exploit their poor condition for their own political gain.  But in reality they are still just whiners who instead of whining should be bettering their lives and taking their skills, which hopefully they actually have, out to the open market.  Failing companies and bad business models cannot be allowed to just continue on indefinitely because someone feels they are entitled to a job at XYX Corp. This is not a fairy tale.  It is real life.

In real life the Soviet style model of unproductive jobs being kept just for the sake of the employee feeling entitled to the job always fails.  And believe me, you will not be happy under such a system.  Just ask anyone who has lived through it.

No one who attacks Bain Capital for engaging in capitalism is fit to lead this nation because they show that they do not understand basic economics.

And what happens when you have such people in charge of anything? Well, you get crazy ideas like the “Jobs Bank”, which GM used to have, where hundreds of unneeded employees sit around all day playing games, reading book and watching television because they just cannot be fired and all maintaining with full benefits and pay.  Remember what happened there?  Do you?  Had GM been allowed to do what Bain Capital knows how to do the government would not have had to step in and “saved” them with billions in unconstitutional spending.

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

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 Pittsburgh Conservative Examiner for Examiner.com. He is also the owner of The Right Things - Conservative T-shirts & Gifts The Right Things. His weekly commentary along with exclusives not available anywhere else can be found at Liberty Reborn.

Obama and the Courts Ignoring Constitution. . . Listen to Constitution Radio with Douglas V. Gibbs to find out how!

2012-01-14T12:50:00.000-08:00

Obama is making Recess Appointments without Congress being in recess!

Senator DeMint says Unanimous Consent used on 94% of the bills that pass through the Senate!

The EPA is going after individuals in Idaho with an unconstitutional wetland order!

New Hampshire Primary wrought with fraud!

Southern California under assault with draconian land grab from private property owners by State and Federal forces under the guise of environmentalism!

Court rules Oklahoma ban on Islamic Law Unconstitutional!

Supreme Court Ruling 9-0 in favor of Religious Freedom from Obama administration's authoritarian attempt to dictate to churches who they are allowed to hire and fire!

Some believe 2012 is the year of the End Of The World. The Doomsday Clock has been moved to 11:55. Obama's arrogant authoritarianism even has the liberals up in arms! Constitution Radio is here to iron it all out for you, and show you that America is about to steer away from the destruction in the distance!

Need to know more? Tune in today to Constitution Radio with Douglas V. Gibbs - AM Radio like you've never experienced before! Listen live at 2:00 PM on 1050 AM in Southern California on KCAA, or you can listen at KCAAradio.com. Shows are replayed later on KCXL, Kansas City Missouri on Tuesday Mornings at 10:00 AM, and will soon be replayed on WHTH, Youngstown, Ohio. Podcasts of all shows are available at KCAA.

The Constitution is the Solution.

Today's Episode Brought to you By:

InvestYourself.com - Visit now for your free Newsletter!

Constitution Quest Game - The Board Game that teaches the Constitution.

FST Sand and Gravel - Buy Directly from the Manufacturer.

JCH Tax Group - Tax Season is upon us! Use who I have trusted for over twenty years.

Prying1Books - Vintage Books at the lowest prices, and the sponsor of the "Book of the Week" segment on Constitution Radio with Douglas V. Gibbs

Health Through Nature 951-251-6246 - Be healthy the natural way, and teach others how to as well!

Catch Me If You Know How - Computer Forensics for any user.

Home Smart Real Estate Agent Janine Matelko - Need to buy a home? Need to sell? Let her know that Constitution Radio sent you!

American Daily Review Tackles the End of the World

2012-01-14T10:31:00.000-08:00

American Daily Review

by ADR Radio
in Politics Conservative
on Sat, Jan 14, 2012 12:00PM Pacific

It's 2012, clock's ticking: Listening to the pre-game show for Constitution Radio on KCAA, KCXL, and WHTH? Join Radio titans Doug Gibbs of the Political Pistachio Radio Network and JASmius of Hard Starboard for the explosive details!

Why Ron Paul is on the Rise

2012-01-14T07:46:00.000-08:00

By Kevin Price

Let me preface to say that in no way, shape, or form am I endorsing Ron Paul. However, there is a phenomenon going on in the mainstream media where they watch the Texas Congressman, see his rise, and they are clueless as to why it is happening. The reason for his growing popularity is obvious, in my opinion.

In 2008 Ron Paul was something of a laughing stock. Supporters of him would immediately go into a lengthy defense of their position which would include a case for their own mental health. In 2012, people are beginning to take Ron Paul seriously. Pundits and journalists are scratching their heads in amazement, but the reason for Paul’s rise is simple, regardless if you believe in his philosophy, he is, without a doubt, the “genuine article.” When you look at the Texas Republican Congressman’s positions — and record — there is virtually complete congruity. Unfortunately, many of those positions stand way outside of the mainstream. The best of examples of this are his views on foreign affairs (we can trust Iran with a nuclear bomb), as well as his very strong libertarian positions (such as his views on drugs). In spite this, he has caught the attention of Republicans in a way few other candidates have. The reasons for this are numerous and should not cause bewilderment at all.

· The congruity factor. Virtually every presidential candidate in the GOP has promised more frugal government and fiscal integrity for years (make that decades). But their words rarely matched their records of governing. None of the current group of GOP candidates — with the exception of Ron Paul and (maybe) Michele Bachmann — have a record of integrity on the issue of less government. Even Bachmann, who is certainly more consistent than most, lacks the ideological purity of Ron Paul in her record and rhetoric.

· Then there is the notion of “realpolitik.” There is the rhetoric you run on and the reality you must govern by. For example, today Paul has argued that it is Iran’s right to have a nuclear bomb to defend itself. However, in the real world, as the problem of a nuclear Iran became more real, I could easily see him take the issue to Congress to give them the opportunity to fulfill their constitutional mandate to declare an act of war. We have not declared war since World War II, which is why we have never cleanly won one since that time (if we had won any at all). I think many voters believe once people see the challenges the US faces internationally, Paul would modify his positions to catch up with the 21st century. It is this area, however, that the rank and file voter fear the most about Paul.

· The “do nothing” factor. There is a very high likelihood that four years of Ron Paul would be four years of accomplishing little, if anything, legislatively. His “extreme” positions may not move in a far more moderate Congress. But that would be so much better than the “do everything” government we suffer from today. One of the cornerstones of a free market economy is a predictable legal environment. If one can expect no major increases in regulations, taxation, expenditures, etc., that is a government in which companies and people can not only survive, but thrive.

· There can (and would be) significant reform without legislation. After decades of presidents governing by edict (also known as “executive orders”), there are plenty of things a free market president can do to get government back in line without passing a single law. There are literally thousands of pages of new regulations under Obama alone that are begging to be modified or eliminated. The scope of reform a President can do without Congressional approval is far reaching indeed.

I think that the voters have grown tired of candidates with empty rhetoric and records of governing that do not match their speech. The vast majority of those running for the GOP nomination or better thermometers than thermostats — they match the temperament of the voters to get elected but go back to “business as usual” when in power. They are looking for someone who will be a real agent of change towards limited government. With Ron Paul, voters are believing that he is for real and what he says, he will attempt to do with passion. They may not agree with his entire agenda, but there is plenty in it that would be better than what they fear they will get with his more pragmatic opponents. The rise of Ron Paul is linked entirely to the fall of empty rhetoric and the disgust of American voters.

--

Kevin Price

Host

Price of Business on KNTH 1070, PriceofBusiness.com

Home of Bloomberg Radio

Publisher and Editor in Chief, USDailyReview.com

Frequently found on Strategy Room at FoxNews.com

Syndicated columnist whose articles appear on a variety of media outlets.

Follow Kevin on Twitter at http://Twitter.com/KevinPriceLive

Like his new Facebook page at

http://www.facebook.com/#!/pages/Kevin-Price/225149017497975

Kevin Price's Profile: http://www.google.com/profiles/PriceofBusiness

The Goal of the Leftist Liberal Elite

2012-01-14T04:25:00.000-08:00

“The technotronic era involves the gradual appearance of a more controlled society. Such a society would be dominated by an elite, unrestrained by traditional values. Soon it will be possible to assert almost continuous surveillance over every citizen and maintain up-to-date complete files containing even the most personal information about the citizen. These files will be subject to instantaneous retrieval by the authorities. ”
― Zbigniew Brzezinski, Between Two Ages: America's Role in the Technetronic Era

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

France Downgraded: The Beginning of the End of the European Union

2012-01-14T01:06:00.000-08:00

S&P has stripped France of its AAA Rating, and has reduced Portugal's rating to Junk Status. Italy has been downgraded two steps.

Read More at the New York Times

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Allen West: Shut Your Mouth, War Is Hell

2012-01-13T22:55:00.001-08:00

Rep. Allen West (R-Fla.), a former Army lieutenant colonel, sent THE WEEKLY STANDARD an email commenting on the Marines' video :

“I have sat back and assessed the incident with the video of our Marines urinating on Taliban corpses. I do not recall any self-righteous indignation when our Delta snipers Shugart and Gordon had their bodies dragged through Mogadishu. Neither do I recall media outrage and condemnation of our Blackwater security contractors being killed, their bodies burned, and hung from a bridge in Fallujah.

“All these over-emotional pundits and armchair quarterbacks need to chill. Does anyone remember the two Soldiers from the 101st Airborne Division who were beheaded and gutted in Iraq?

“The Marines were wrong. Give them a maximum punishment under field grade level Article 15 (non-judicial punishment), place a General Officer level letter of reprimand in their personnel file, and have them in full dress uniform stand before their Battalion, each personally apologize to God, Country, and Corps videotaped and conclude by singing the full US Marine Corps Hymn without a teleprompter.

“As for everyone else, unless you have been shot at by the Taliban, shut your mouth, war is hell.”

The United States is a Center-Right Country

2012-01-13T21:08:00.000-08:00

By Douglas V. Gibbs

When the United States of America was established only a third of the population supported the drive for independence, and the American Revolution. Another third were loyalists to the British Crown. The remainder could care less on who won the war, just as long as their lives changed very little.

In 1787, in order to form a more perfect union, the U.S. Constitution was devised. From a political point of view, the convention was very controversial...to the point that the founders met in secrecy so as not to alarm the public. The Anti-Federalists were scared to death of a centralized governmental system, but the Federalists knew that without it the union would never survive.

The political spectrum that evolved in America is unlike the one in Europe. Europe's emerged based on a model that originated in France where those that supported the monarchy and the State Church sat on the right side of the assembly hall, and those that were demanding change, a secular society free from the bonds of an overpowering established religion, free from the totalitarian rule of the monarchy, and more "democratic", sat on the left side of the assembly.

What emerged from the demands of the Left was the French Revolution - a period of chaos, bloodshed, and ultimately the rise of a dictator.

In the United States we never had a monarchy, or an established religion, so the political spectrum that arose in Europe does not serve us. Our model relies on "amount of government." To the far right is 0% government, or anarchy. To the far left is 100% government, or complete authoritarianism. Based on that model, the U.S. Constitution is dead center, creating a central government, but placing tremendous limits on it.

From the very beginning there has been those that fear the potential tyranny that the federal government poses. There are others that see a central government as the only hope to protect the common good. Anarchy claims that government is the cause of all pain, war, and tyranny. Authoritarians claim that without government the greed and lust of the individual would destroy humanity, and drop society into chaos.

One school of thought fears the concepts of communitarianism and a ruling elite. The other fears the unpredictability of individualism, and personal decisions.

The Federalist Party began to attract those that desired the United States would become an empire guided by a powerful government in which the ruling elite interpreted the General Will and forced the citizens to be subject to a system of statism. The people, however, did not appreciate the Federalists, nor their drive for a big government that disregarded the chains on government provided by the original intent of the United States Constitution.

By the 1820s the Federalist Party fizzled into the distant memories of history. The citizens of the States united under the wisdom of the Constitution cast away the statism the Federalists offered, and in its place arose the Whigs, who sought a stronger legislature, rather than the powerful executive the Federalists sought.

The Democrats emerged from the mess as the party that followed the Constitution, remaining that way throughout the mid 1800s. However, as history approached the Progressive Era, both the Democrats and the Whigs began to move in a direction of supporting the concept of a bigger government. When the Whigs were dashed out of the political realm by a rising anti-slavery Republican Party, the big government mantel was also handed off to the GOP.

Abraham Lincoln, the first Republican President, used unconstitutional powers of a strong executive to force the southern States to relinquish their culture of slavery. The intent was good, and there is no argument here that slavery was a sin that needed to be destroyed forever, but the procedure in which these ends were accomplished were unconstitutional, and therefore illegal. The States needed to come to the conclusion that the bonds of slavery must be relinquished on their own.

The Republican Party was a big government political party that played games of preference with the various corporations, while also attempting to socially engineer the culture through government dictates, and the new powers they perceived as theirs through the newly ratified 14th Amendment. The Democrat Party, however, also began to move in that direction, under the guidance of a new progressive movement fueled by the latest socialist movements in Europe. Progressives like Theodore Roosevelt of the Republican Party, and Woodrow Wilson of the Democrat Party, began the process that would become the downfall of the American system that we are experiencing now.

Through the clouds of darkness arose those that sought to return this nation to the wisdom of the U.S. Constitution. As our nation descended into a recession caused by the high taxes, increased government spending, and unconstitutional actions of the Wilson administration following the first world war President Harding, and his successor President Coolidge, reduced the tax rate, reduced government spending, and worked to return the federal government to the limitations imposed by the United States Constitution. What followed their actions was one of the most prosperous decades in American History, the Roaring 20s.

Unfortunately, a fellow Republican who adhered to a more progressive political ideology, who was elected president because the people figured since he was a Republican like Harding and Coolidge he would have similar policies, acted in accordance to leftism. Herbert Hoover raised taxes, increased government spending, put into place unconstitutional policies that included federally funded public works programs for the proclaimed sake of fixing the national infrastructure, and he unleashed the Federal Reserve to do more damage than even Wilson had perceived possible. What came out of his progressive actions was The Great Depression.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt doubled down on Hoover's policies, worsening the Depression, and moving America closer to the authoritarian system the statists of history had dreamed of.

Those who taste liberty, however, are not so easy to let it go.

Conservatism has risen out of the darkness that blanketed this nation under the name of progressivism. Conservatism has vowed to return the United States to the original intent of the Founding Fathers. The progressive liberal democrats have proclaimed conservatism to be the enemy. Liberalism has gained control of academia, the entertainment industry, and the news media, but the leftists have failed to gain the soul of America.

Through the war being waged on the ideological front the wisdom of the Constitution has emerged. After an onslaught of Marxism by a President that has worked to render Congress irrelevant, and elevate himself as an all powerful executive, a group of citizens that call themselves the TEA Party Movement has vowed to take back America. Over two hundred years of fighting for control of America, the two sides have come to the final chapter. Either this will be a nation ruled by an authoritarian system envisioned by people like Alexander Hamilton, John Marshall, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Lyndon B. Johnson, Jimmy Carter, Bill and Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama; or we will return to a system of self-governance where the local issues are addressed by the local government, and the federal government acts only in accordance to the authorities granted to it by the United States Constitution. . . as envisioned by people like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, James Madison, James Wilson, Samuel Adams, Andrew Jackson, Calvin Coolidge, Ronald Reagan, and Barry Goldwater.

The might of the government versus the constitutional will of the people.

The people choose freedom, liberty, and the principles of limited government as provided on the pages of the United States Constitution.

We have proven to be a center-right nation, rejecting a governmental system that does not abide by the limiting principles of the U.S. Constitution.

If only we would reveal our conservative nature more often at the ballot box.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Conservatives Remain the Largest Ideological Group in U.S. - Gallup

One Nation Under God. . . Ronald Reagan

2012-01-13T15:50:00.000-08:00

'If we ever forget that we're one nation under GOD, then we will be a nation gone under.'-Ronald Reagan

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Who Is The Best Candidate For President?

2012-01-13T11:00:00.000-08:00

"[T]ake care that the laws be faithfully executed ... support the Constitution ... faithfully execute the office of president of the United States, and ... preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." --Article II Section 1, 3, the Constitution of the United States

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

ZoNation: What Ron Paul and Obama has in Common

2012-01-13T06:30:00.000-08:00

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Obama Requests $1.2 Trillion More

2012-01-13T02:00:00.000-08:00

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Barack Obama has sent in another request. He wants to borrow another trillion dollars. $1.2 trillion to be exact.

Obama has borrowed more than all previous presidents combined.

Obama has driven us to a point where our credit rating was downgraded.

Obama has sent billions of dollars into failed investments, and questionable green ventures.

Obama has sent federal dollars to corporations that have contributed to the democrat party.

And now he wants $1.2 trillion more.

Now he doesn't have to wait for Congress to approve a raise in the debt ceiling. Last year the republicans worked out a deal with him that gives Obama free reign. Increases in our debt can now only be stopped with resolutions passed by both the House and the Senate. But if Obama vetoes it, they would then need 2/3 vote to override that veto. In other words, the executive can spend at will, regardless of what the Congress thinks.

Sound in line with the original intent of the Founding Fathers?

Where has past trillions gone?

Solydra, Fisker, Russian steel mills, ACORN, GM, and the list goes on and on and on...

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Obama asks Congress for Debt Limit Hike - Washington Post

U.S. Marine Corps Video: desecration of Taliban corpses is ‘utterly deplorable’

2012-01-12T21:22:00.000-08:00

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Unbecoming of a United States Marine is the thought that first comes to mind. Understand, these actions do not reflect the overall Marine Corps attitude. Unfortunately a few bad apples went beyond being stupid by recording their actions.

What we are talking about is the video that has emerged of United States Marines urinating on the corpses of Taliban soldiers. They were in full combat gear, laughing and joking as they urinated on the three dead enemy fighters.

The Obama administration is pretty angry. If this kind of thing happened under Bush's watch, it was all Bush's fault. . . but this kind of thing was not supposed to happen to "The One."

General James F. Amos, commandant of the Marine Corps, said regarding this situation, "The institution of the Marine Corps will not rest until the allegations and the events surrounding them have been resolved. We remain fully committed to upholding the Geneva Convention, the Laws of War, and our own core values."

U.S. military law and the Geneva Convention prohibit the desecration of bodies of people killed in war.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Panetta: Apparent Marine desecration of Taliban corpses is ‘utterly deplorable’ - Washington Post

Temecula Constitution Class at Faith Armory tackles "A New Government"

2012-01-12T15:34:00.000-08:00

The U.S. Constitution formed a new government, and tonight we will discuss the beginning of that founding document, going through the Preamble, and most of Article I.

Join us at 6:00 pm Pacific on Enterprise Circle West at Faith Armory (next door to Birth Choice) for the class.

Obama Proposes Salary Raise for Federal Employees

2012-01-12T11:32:00.000-08:00

Statists take care of their own. . .

The White House will propose a 0.5 percent pay increase for civilian federal employees as part of its 2013 budget proposal, according to two senior administration officials familiar with the plans.

The modest across-the-board pay jump would be the first increase for federal workers since before a two-year freeze began in late 2010. Raises for within-grade step increases and promotions have continued during the freeze.

Washington Post

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Court Regarding Governor Walker Recall Expects GAB Check Signatures

2012-01-12T07:15:00.000-08:00

Waukesha County, WI - A Waukesha County judge today ruled the Government Accountability Board has to verify signatures on recall petitions against the Governor. The GAB now has to look for bogus names on recall petitions duplicate names and check if a signature is from a valid voter.

GAB Director Kevin Kennedy says they have some re-organizing to do. He said, "We'll go back and look at the procedures to instruct the staff to do what's in line with the court order."

Read More at NBC26

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary