Sunday, November 30, 2008

When a Recession is not a Recession, but merely the possible beginnings of one

Last Spring I optimistically believed that, due to a few positive construction industry signs, the housing market would possibly rebound from its downward spiral. A short burst of activity, spurned on by the industry builders intentions to close their books on projects by the end of the year encouraged a slight, but short, increase in the sales of new homes in some areas around the country. The quick rise of hope, however, was short lived, and immediately afterward the numbers dropped lower than they had been in the months previously.

I never believed the short, but sweet, activity in construction and the real estate market would eventually become a new boom, or that the housing part of the overall economic picture would ever be what it was during the previous housing boom that came crashing down a few years ago. In fact, I am sure there is nobody that truly believes that we will ever reach that level of growth in the real estate market again. I did, however, hope that the activity I saw at that time could possibly be an indication that the bottom had been reached, and a new steady rise of consumer spending in the housing industry may stop the hemorrhaging.

Earlier this year I also indicated in a couple articles that I believe we are not in a recession, nor would we go into a recession should the government stay out of the way and allow the free market to adjust itself naturally as designed by our founding fathers. That is how Capitalism works. Ups and downs historically have created a roller coaster ride of statistics that, through the natural adjustments of the market, partly due to the habits of the consumer, would never allow the system to plunge into a deep depression as long as outside entities such as the government decide to refrain from manipulating the market in order to save us from such an economic catastrophe.

A number of liberals have been sending me messages and comments calling me an idiot and a liar because, as you have probably noticed, the economic downturn has been steadily worsening, and based on my articles of optimism, and the liberal subjectivity and misunderstanding of the written pieces, I obviously (to them) did not know what I was talking about. They have erroneously assumed that optimism considering a possible turn-around on the horizon must mean that I was somehow predicting a one hundred percent increase in the economy, and a return to the glory days of a robust economic engine.

Of course their attacks are an example of a very typical liberal attitude - always looking for that "Gotch'ya" moment.

I, like any other normal human being, understand that nothing is ever "for sure," first of all. Secondly, if these smear merchants of the fringe left were to read what I wrote carefully, rather than with subjective intentions, they would have noticed I repeatedly indicated that we would be fine economically without government intrusion. Capitalism is a self-correcting system, with mild highs and lows that are exaggerated whenever artificial manipulation by government bodies are applied. In short, any government intrusion through bailouts or over-regulation, regardless of the wonderful intention to save us from economic disaster, is literally turning us headlong into economic woes that even Jimmy Carter couldn't create.

Contrary to what the biased media and liberal Democrats are telling you, this is not the worse downturn since the Great Depression, and the Republicans are definitely not at full fault for the current financial difficulties this nation is facing.

However, if the government doesn't step aside right now and get out of the way of the American Free Market, if the weakest links of the economic system are not allowed to fail and fade away or be engulfed by larger and stronger institutions in their corner of the industry, and if the consumer (and government) doesn't stop living beyond their means while gladly accepting government welfare checks, we will be in for an economic disaster beyond imagining.

On the horizon are worse things than a housing downturn, credit crunch, and rising oil prices, should the current move towards more government involvement in the economy continue.

But are we currently in the worse economic pickle since the Great Depression, as the Democrats and Barack Obama proclaim, and ran their campaign on as they crammed unwarranted change down the throats of the unassuming voter?

Let's take a look at the numbers and decide from there.

When it comes to economic statistics, most will tell you the true indicator of a recession is the Gross Domestic Product, or GDP. This number is the output of goods and services produced by labor and property located in the United States. And the Gross Domestic Product did indeed decrease in the third quarter of 2008. . . but this hardly makes for a recession. Aside from a meager 0.2 drop in the fourth quarter of 2007, the last time we have experienced a negative percentage change of the GDP was -1.4 during the third quarter of 2001 - a number nearly triple the -0.5 we experienced last quarter. Negative numbers also appeared during the first quarter of 2001 and the third quarter of 2000. Some may say that those were a residual effect from the Clinton years.

If you compare the third quarter of 2008's drop of -0.5 of the GDP to the -3.0 of the last quarter of 1990, or the -2.0 of the first quarter of 1991, the current strain seems to be a minor hiccup. The numbers after the end of Jimmy Carter's mismanagement of our economy are even more alarming (-7.8 1980 2nd QTR, -0.7 1980 3rd QTR, -3.1 1981 2nd QTR, -4.9 1981 4th QTR, -6.4 1982 1st QTR, -1.5 1982 3rd QTR). Judging by the GDP, this is hardly a recession, and hardly the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. However, in order to convince the people that the Republicans were bad guys, and "Change" was the only thing that could save us, the Democrats had to paint the economy as gloomily as they could.

Some folks quote the unemployment numbers as being an indication of a recession, and that unemployment is spiraling out of control worse than any year since the Great Depression. The current 6.5 unemployment rate seems high if you compare it to the numbers over the last 10 years, even though the percentages remain within a point or two of each other all the way through that period. During the Great Depression unemployment rates topped over 20%, and in some years nearly reached 25%, well above the current 6.5%. In 1975 the unemployment rate was 9.0, in 1982 it reached over 10%. Once again, though the unemployment rate is higher than it has been in the last five years (and among the highest over the last ten years), it is hardly as high as it has been before, and hardly at a point that it will take major government influence to save us from disaster.

My point, I believe, is clear. The media and the liberal left created hysteria about the economy being the worst it has been since the Depression, and they did so soley for political reasons. It turns out that not only is this liberal information not true, if anything, our economy is only experiencing a minor bump in the road and has been essentially healthy over the last eight years of President George W. Bush. However, the bailouts, increases in taxes (business taxes, capital gains taxes, estate taxes, etc.) that Obama has suggested, and other government manipulation can (and will if put into place) send us into an economic direction that could prove to be exactly what the Democrats were swearing we were in the midst of already.
As Ronald Reagan proved after the recessionary years that followed the disastrous Jimmy Carter presidency, Fiscal Conservatism can not only change the direction of the economy, but lead us into years of prosperity. This is why it is so important that we begin now in planning to place Conservative Republicans (not moderates) into Congress in 2010 (as happened in 1992). The last time that happened, during the early 90's, the budget was balanced and the country returned to a few years of economic prosperity. However, if we do not inject fiscal conservatism back into the government, and get liberal government out of the way of Capitalism and the Free Market, then what we are seeing now will continue to worsen, until finally we will wind up in a full blown recession with the Democratic Leadership fumbling around searching for excuses and opportunities to blame someone other than themselves.

Saturday, November 29, 2008

Economic Expert Predicts By 2012 Less Toys Will Be Bought For Christmas - - - So That People Can Buy Food!

As the current economic downturn worsens, and experts predict under Obama's leadership we will see an increase in job loss, crippling taxes, and an increase in the homeless numbers, the basic elements of survival will take precedence over luxuries like Christmas presents. Steve Shenk says that it is a reasonable possibility that Santa Claus may be out of a job by 2012 because Americans will have too many other priorities. . . like eating.

Steve Shenk, the director of eFoods Direct, is my guest tonight on Political Pistachio Radio. He will explain how, under the ever-increasing economic strain, we can take control of our budgets and fulfill our most basic elements of survival in a smarter and more economically way.

Friday, November 28, 2008

George Washington's Thanksgiving Proclamation of 1789

The United States of America was founded on Christian Principles and Values. Though the Founding Fathers never wished this nation to be a theocracy, nor did they desire that the government ever endorse any religion, they still recognized the importance of keeping our eyes on the Creator through Christian Principles and Values. As a result, this nation prospered, and became the most exceptional nation in the history of this planet. For those that doubt that the founding fathers desired this nation to remain trusting in God, read this speech by George Washington from 1789. For those that celebrate the Christian Foundations of this nation, enjoy the following speech.

George Washington's Thanksgiving Proclamation of 1789

WHEREAS it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favour; and Whereas both Houses of Congress have, by their joint committee, requested me "to recommend to the people of the United States a DAY OF PUBLICK THANKSGIVING and PRAYER, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness:"

NOW THEREFORE, I do recommend and assign THURSDAY, the TWENTY-SIXTH DAY of NOVEMBER next, to be devoted by the people of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be; that we may then all unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection of the people of this country previous to their becoming a nation; for the signal and manifold mercies and the favorable interpositions of His providence in the course and conclusion of the late war; for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty which we have since enjoyed; — for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enable to establish Constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national one now lately instituted; — for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; — and, in general, for all the great and various favours which He has been pleased to confer upon us.

And also, that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech Him to pardon our national and other transgressions; — to enable us all, whether in publick or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually; to render our National Government a blessing to all the people by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed; to protect and guide all sovereigns and nations (especially such as have shewn kindness unto us); and to bless them with good governments, peace, and concord; to promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increase of science among them and us; and, generally to grant unto all mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as he alone knows to be best.

GIVEN under my hand, at the city of New-York, the third day of October, in the year of our Lord, one thousand seven hundred and eighty-nine.

George Washington

Source: The Massachusetts Centinel, Wednesday, October 14, 1789

Thursday, November 27, 2008

Wednesday, November 26, 2008

Xerox Thank You Notes To The Troops

Something good that Xerox is doing

If you go to this web site, you can pick out a thank you card and Xerox will print it and it will be sent to a soldier that is currently serving in Iraq. You can't pick out who gets it, but it will go to a member of the armed services.

How AMAZING it would be if we could get everyone we know to send one!!! This is a great site. Please send a card. It is FREE and it only takes a second.

h/t: my good friend, Jim Stewart.

Tuesday, November 25, 2008

Claremont School District Erupts into Battle over Thanksgiving Celebration, and Political Correctness

Remember when you were a little kid and at Thanksgiving you would make turkeys by tracing your hand on construction paper, and dress up as pilgrims and Indians to celebrate the early friendship of the new Americans and the natives that already lived in North America?

For forty years kindergartners in the Claremont Unified School district have done something similar, dressing up as pilgrims and Indians as one school visits another to share a feast.

Today, however, when the kids planned to meet for this tradition, due to the complaint of a single parent, the children's parents were ordered to not allow their children to wear their hand-made costumes, and instead wear their school spirit shirts for the festivities.

The complaining parent, Michelle Reheja, claimed the event was "demeaning" and "inappropriate." Whe wrote to the school board, "I'm sure you can appreciate the inappropriateness of asking children to dress up like slaves (and kind slave masters), or Jews (and friendly Nazis), or members of any other racial minority group who has struggled in our nation's history."

That's right, this college professor claimed that a simple child's depiction of the traditional tale of two peoples giving thanks over a shared meal was a stereotype that would never be allowed of other racial, ethnic or religious groups. "There is nothing to be served by dressing up as a racist stereotype," she claimed.

When word got out that both the Condit and Mountain View campuses were going to be ordered to cancel the event by the school district, infuriated parents argued over the matter at a heated school board meeting. In the end, the decision was to hold the event, but without the costumes. A memo was sent out at the end of last week confirming the decision.

The parents, however, decided that political correctness wasn't going to ruin the fun, or the lesson, for their children, and 90% of the parents dressed their kids up in the costumes anyhow.

In addition to sending their children to school in costume today, the parents also plan to keep their children home tomorrow, costing the district attendance funds to punish them for modifying the event in an apparent bowing down to a single politically correct parent.

One parent declared, "She's not going to tell us what we can and cannot wear. We're tired of [district officials] cowing down to people. It's not right."

During the event Michelle Reheja staged a protest outside with a dozen other University of California colleagues. They held signs, and shouted their anger, calling the parents of the children that dressed up, "haters." At one point the protesters got into shouting matches with some parents.

The children did not know of the protest. They were inside, enjoying a Thanksgiving meal, and sharing with their classmates the opportunity to give thanks.

Internet Suicide Plays Out On Online Video

Abraham Biggs, a 19 year old from Florida, committed suicide on a video site called on Wednesday of last week. During the episode the people in the chat forum egged him on. The video continued to feed into the internet until police and medical personnel broke into Abraham Bigg's room and blocked the camera.

The broadcaster expects the users to report any unsuitable content, and has therefore washed their hands of any wrong doing.

Investigators also have determined that none of the viewers are at fault criminally. They may have been cracking jokes in the forum as the teen was dying from an overdose of pills, but they didn't kill the boy, they didn't tell him to do it, and they didn't believe it was real.

It is my opinion that the viewers had a duty to do whatever they could to stop it - but they didn't - and each one of them had a part in Abraham Bigg's death because all they did was watch, and do nothing.

Please note that I am not crying out for government regulation to make sure this never happens again. Government is not capable of preventing it from ever happening again. I am expecting individuals to take responsibility for their actions . . . or inaction, so that this happens rarely, and hopefully never again. Otherwise, we are opening ourselves up to said government intervention and control.

Monday, November 24, 2008

Zack and Miri Make a Porno proof that Hollywood is flowing into the gutter?

On Sunday night's episode of Political Pistachio Radio, Robert Peters, President of Morality in Media, joined us to discuss the signs regarding Hollywood's dwindling moral standard and how it is affecting society as a whole.

Sunday, November 23, 2008

Walid Shoebat Discusses Muslim and Israeli Reaction to Obama Presidency; Dr. Kenneth Hill Discusses The Danger Of The Fairness Doctrine

Saturday Night Political Pistachio Radio welcomed Walid Shoebat and Dr. Kenneth Hill as guests on the highly acclaimed internet Blog Talk Radio show.

Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran, Syria, and other Muslim countries and organizations are excited about an Obama Presidency, but Al Qaeda has responded in a negative tone. . . Why? And what is the fate of Israel in this new world of Obamaism? These answers, and more, are provided by Walid Shoebat on Political Pistachio Radio.

The Democrats are pushing to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine claiming it is about preserving the right of equal time for opinions on the airwaves. Dr. Kenneth Hill, however, says that the Fairness Doctrine is about "Shutting down the much more popular conservative programming that obviously resonates more with the American Public. . . this law is The Censorship Doctrine."

Listen to the conversations on Political Pistachio Radio with Walid Shoebat and Dr. Kenneth Hill on the Media Player below.

A Follow-up of the Obama Birth Certificate Question on Founding Truth

Loki, a 20 year student of the U.S. Constitution, and Douglas V. Gibbs of Political Pistachio spend two hours discussing the Obama Birth Certificate question in the first of two episodes on this issue. If you missed the show live, listen to the archive on the Blog Talk Radio Media Player below:

Saturday, November 22, 2008

Obama Presidency in the Eyes of the Muslims, and Israel; The Coming Fairness Doctrine

Tonight on Political Pistachio Radio after Founding Truth at 7pm Pacific/10pm Eastern: Walid Shoebat, former Palestinian Terrorist, joins us to explain why Muslims are happy about the Obama win, and why Israel is worried. Will we see vitriolic anti-Semitism in America?

And, also tonight, in the second hour of the show: Is the Fairness Doctrine coming? Will we see the sudden rise of an Orwellian America? Truth Squads? Thought Police? Political Censorship? Dr. Kenneth Hill will explain the real threats on the horizon, and how the Fairness Doctrine will open the door for all of them!

Catch it all tonight on the Political Pistachio Revolution - Conservative Commentary

Founding Truth Examines The Constitutional Questions Surrounding the Obama Birth Certificate Debate

Last Sunday on Political Pistachio Radio an explosive episode that has attracted thousands of listeners regarding Obama's Birth Certificate aired. During that episode, a number of Constitutional questions arose from the relationship of the 14th amendment with Article 2 to who becomes president should Barack Obama be found to be ineligible.

Philip J. Berg's case is heading to the Supreme Court, and the Obama Camp claims they have a Constitutional argument out of it. Do they? Did the 14th amendment change the meaning of Article 2? If Obama is in fact ineligible, who becomes president? Will there be a special election? What if the decision comes down before January 20th? What if the decision comes down after January 20th?

Tune in to Founding Truth tonight at 5pm Pacific/8pm Eastern to find out!

After the episode you may also go to Blog Talk Radio for the archive of the show.

Thursday, November 20, 2008

Will Al Franken Steal The Election in Minnesota?

With a possible filibuster-proof majority on the line, the Coleman/Franken battle in Minnesota has become a very important race. As time has passed, and the recount begins, Republican Candidate Coleman has watch his lead dwindle with each passing day.

Now, Al Franken is even beginning to call what street ballers would call "ticky-tack" fouls. (and that is not even considering the magically appearing car loads of pro-Franken ballots that keep popping up).

As reported by the Star-Tribune in Minnesota, the above picture is of the only so far challenged ballot.

"The bubble beside Norm Coleman’s name appeared to have both an X and a squiggle in it, but the Al Franken campaign wants the state Canvassing Board to rule on whether it should count. . . Eight of the 24 precincts had been counted by 1:45 p.m., and the only challenged ballot, in Engdahl’s view, was clearly a vote for Coleman. Nevertheless, the Franken campaign was allowed to seek a second opinion."

Wednesday, November 19, 2008

Senate Takes The Coward's Way Out When It Comes To Auto-Makers Bailout

Faced with a possibility of being unable to approve the $25 billion bailout plan for the big three auto-makers in the U.S., the United States Senate decided to punt.

U.S. automakers have had low sales, and have been producing products unable to compete with foreign competition. General Motors claims that without the bailout they will go into bankruptcy, and that will cause a tidal wave of economic troubles way beyond what we are currently experiencing.

The federal emergency loan plan, however, stalled in the Senate. The lawmakers in both parties are refusing to take the lead, fearful that the blame will land in their lap should the plan not work. Also, the more conservative Republicans are proclaiming it is a bad plan, just as the other bailout was, and want no part of sending this nation into a socialist direction more so than what it already has gone.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., killed the plans for a vote, and has proclaimed it is up to Bush's team to act, now.

Many lawmakers in both parties believe that bankruptcy of the automobile manufacturing companies might be a better option, and more appropriate, since they have done little to complete with foreign competition, and adjust their products and work forces for the 21st century.

The Big Three have argued that bankruptcy would devastate their companies.

The plan to bailout the auto industry, in my opinion, is typical liberalism. Punish the successful while providing rewards for failure. The American auto industry has failed, and has refused to do what it takes to compete (coupled with the stringent government regulations of the industry, high fees, and tax structure). If the Big Three fail, other companies, like Toyota or Honda, will pick up the slack, pick up many of the workers, and see the opportunity for growth in the absence of the American vehicles. Then, perhaps, a new American company will form - one that has learned the lessons of the failed industry before it.

Will their failure add to the already difficult economic situation in America? Yes. But how will it help the economy if failed businesses are given the capital to continue in their failing ways?

Couch Commerce

Dominoes Pizza has teamed up to give broadband connected TiVo subscribers the ability to order pizza for delivery or pick-up, and track delivery timing, right from their TV sets.

How lazy do you have to be to think that getting up off the sofa to dial for pizza delivery is too much work?

Tuesday, November 18, 2008

The De-Americanization of America

The United States of America was founded on the idea that we are all individuals. We became the land of opportunity where any individual in this nation may have the opportunity to succeed. But as much as you have the freedom to succeed, you have the freedom to fail, too.

Failure, however, is not to be rewarded. When someone fails, it is expected that they "pull themselves up by the bootstraps" and try, try again.

With the recent bailouts and promises of redistribution of wealth, the liberal dream of punishing success and rewarding failure seems to be coming into reality.

The "Big 3" American car makers are demanding a piece of the bailout pie for failing. They are hoping for a $25 billion bailout for producing substandard products, and mismanaging their corporations.

This is how the government seems to work. Tax punitively any company making a profit, and demonize them as greedy and evil, while writing big bailout checks to the losers because their failure just can't be permitted.

Could you imagine if the car makers were making a profit, but the oil companies were failing? Would the automakers be villains, and would the government be cutting checks to the oil companies?

Rewarding failure, and penalizing success, is not the American way - and this socialization of American industries is nothing short of the De-Americanization of America.


Also, read my article: Attacked by Protesting Gay Activists on my Carried By Christ blog.

Peanut Butter And Jelly Socialism

A few weeks ago, while campaigning, Barack Obama accused John McCain of stooping to low tactics by labeling him a socialist.

"I don't know what's next," Obama said at an outdoor rally. "By the end of the week, he'll be accusing me of being a secret communist because I shared my toys in kindergarten. I shared my peanut butter and jelly sandwich."

This statement actually shows either how stupid Obama and his speech writers are, or how stupid they believe the American Public to be.

News Flash for Barack Obama: Your peanut butter and jelly situation is called charity, not socialism or communism - and charity is a common American, and Christian, practice.

Now, had that kid have done something for you to earn that half of a sandwich, then you would have had an example of capitalism.

Socialism would be if the teacher walked up, took that sandwich away from you, pocketed a large portion of it, and then split the rest of the sandwich up evenly for all the kids that didn't have peanut butter and jelly sandwiches. That would be a redistribution of wealth - and an example of the socialism you are planning for these United States of America!

Monday, November 17, 2008

The Liberal Leftist Activist Homosexuals of the Gay Agenda: Anarchy and Thuggery

Today I received word that for the safety of the drivers of the big rigs all "Yes On 8" signs on the back of the trailers must be removed. Too many drivers are being attacked by supporters of "No On 8," and in the latest incident a bottle was thrown at one of the drivers.

One of the arguments in support of Gay Marriage before Proposition 8 won in California was that it won't affect those of you that have a moral obligation to attempt to preserve the sanctity of marriage. "Gays," they said, "only want to have the opportunity to marry. It will not affect you, or your children."

In California the voters approved Proposition 8 which amends the state constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman. Had Prop. 8 lost, the proponents of the proposition would have accepted it and planned for the next attempt through the voters to define marriage as between a man and a woman - and the Gay Community would have proclaimed victory and cried out that they had the will of the people on their side. . . but the homosexual community lost, and they became violent.

After church on Sunday, leaving the parking lot, on the sidewalk Gay Rights Activists slammed their hands on cars, screamed "haters" and profanity, and were flipping us off as we tried to pull out on the street.

Why has the Gay Agenda become an image of thuggery and anarchy?

Is it because Christians, Mormons, and other folks who support preserving traditional marriage, rejected justifying their immoral activity. The gays, who said that gay marriage would not affect us, have decided that either I denounce my faith and turn my back on thousands of years of Biblical teachings, or else I deserve to be painted with profane language, and injured through violent means.

Remind me again who the haters are?

I have not removed the "Yes On 8" sticker on the back of my rig but will out of respect to the company and their concern over the safety of the drivers - and I will place that "Yes On 8" sign/sticker on the back of my personal truck. I will not have my freedom of speech removed by a bunch of violent people bent on moving our society into a direction of degradation.

I would not expect an "Honesty Club" to be forced to admit liars into their ranks, so why should Gays be able to defile the Institution of Marriage, a union blessed by God? And why should I be forced by them to turn my back on my faith because of their violent tantrums?

Homosexuality is a wrong behavior, just as any other behavior (take your pick: lying, cheating, stealing, violent, disruptive, etc.) And it is a behavior that is having adverse affects on our society, and can cause harm to the development of children in our society by them being exposed to such activities.

Political Vindication also had their experiences with the Propostion 8 foes HERE, and have an interesting piece about Christians chased out of a neighborhood in San Francisco while a times trying to physically molest them in the process HERE, all the while shouting "Shame on you."

Shame on us for trying to uphold moral values? Shame on you for trying to force your immorality upon society through violent force and thuggery.


Luke 21:12 - . . . they will lay their hands on you and persecute you. . .

Luke 21:16-17 - You will be betrayed even by parents and brothers, relatives and friends; and they will put some of you to death. And you will be hated by all for My name's sake.

Isaiah 5:20,21 - Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter! Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes and prudent and shrewd in their own sight!

1 Timothy 4:1-3 - Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron, forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.

Romans 1:26-27 - For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.

Micah 3:1-2 - Is it not for you to know justice? You who hate good and love evil.

Strong Earthquake Strikes Southern California

Felt as a strong jolt in the Temecula-Murrieta region in Southwest Riverside County, this quake was centered inland east of Temecula.

Registered as a 4.1, it struck at 4:35 am.

Devastation Revealed in California As The Weekend Closes

As many as 40,000 residents from the Inland Empire, Orange County, and Los Angeles County were ordered to evacuate from their homes as out of control blazes scorched Southern California over the weekend. Hundreds of homes have been destroyed, thousands of acres blackened, lives and nerves have been rattled.

In Corona and Yorba Linda the fires forced the closures of the 91 and 57 freeways as some residents watched helplessly, unable to go home, and unable to gather their belongings.

In Sylmar hundreds of homes burned while 8,000 acres were ablaze. That fire is 40% contained at this point.

On some highways cars were abandoned as people fled the area on foot as the fires came closer to the traffic choked roadways.

Governor Schwarzenegger declared a state of emergency in Los Angeles County a day after he did so for Santa Barbara County, where 183 homes had burned in the Tea Fire near Montecito.

Firefighters from all over California, and some from neighboring states, worked together to battle these blazes, and are now beginning to partially contain the fires.

No deaths or injuries have been immediately reported. Five people were arrested for looting.

Although the Santa Ana winds were part of the problem in enabling the fires to spread quickly, sending embers sometimes miles in the air, only for them to land and start a new fire amidst other areas full of fuel, the Santa Ana winds have also been part of the reason that air quality has remained good.

On Monday it is expected that many of the residences of the fire ravaged areas will be able to return to their neighborhoods.

Sunday, November 16, 2008

Why is Obama's Birth Certificate Still An Issue? Why does the media not report on the lawsuits regarding the Issue?

If you missed the show live, catch the archive here:

Political Pistachio Radio!

Come One, Come All, The United States Government Is Offering Bailouts For All!

When Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson asked Congress for $700 billion for distressed assets, the Democrats in Congress jumped with glee at the opportunity to expand government farther into the private sector, and ultimately into our individual lives. As far as Pelosi, and friends, are concerned, any intrusive, big government plan or program is good to them. Unfortunately, George W. Bush joined them in the approval of a massive socialist push into the American Economy, and ultimately, the nationalization of the Mortgage Industry.

The Democrats were excited about the opportunity to stick more government into your lives because they believe it is government's obligation to "do for you." They are like a nanny running around with giant pillows in their hands ready to throw them under your butt when you are ready to fall - unfortunately, in order to do that, your individual freedoms must be compromised, and the Capitalism that has made this nation so prosperous must be placed six feet under.

George W. Bush, though more reluctant in approving the bailout, used different reasoning than his liberal counterparts. His core belief system is not one of government control, I don't believe, though he has proven not to be a fiscal conservative as evidenced by his ability to spend more than a drunken Democrat during the last eight years. His reasoning for the bailout, however, was coupled with the thought that without it, the economy would falter - AND - it would open up an opportunity to worldwide cooperation on an economic level. That's right, Dubya did it for reasons akin to Globalism.

Now that the Congressional Democrats have experienced bailout fever, they desire to provide bailouts for everyone. The American Auto Industry, guilty of falling behind because they produce inferior products, is slated for a bailout. Credit companies are poised for assistance as well (so go out to dinner and charge it on the credit card! You may not have to pay the bill after all!). Even struggling cities like Atlanta and Philadelphia, all manned by left-of-center leadership, are begging for a piece of the bailout pie as well.

What is the lesson?

I guess it is okay to live beyond your means and finance your life up to your eyeballs - after all, if you can't pay for what you promised to pay for, the government will come along and bail you out too. As for you folks that did the right thing and budgeted and did not over-extend your credit? Sorry, you are out of luck - dig deep into your pockets and pay your taxes so that all of the screw-ups can get a check from the government!

Now, I know on the surface many of you are ready to say that a bad economy is to blame for the perceived need of such a Marxist strategy. A roughed up economy, coupled with decreased consumer spending, I agree, played no small role. But, the real culprit across the board is bad management - in the industries affected, and in the government's handling of regulatory intrusion, as well as the governmental demand to offer credit to folks that had no business getting it in the first place.

Capitalism is self adjusting. Over regulating (I didn't say to strip all regulations, by the way, for those of you who think that de-regulation caused the problems) stifles the growth of business. Business growth needs to be encouraged, not punished with increased business taxes, increased capital gains taxes, and the existence of any estate taxes. Individual drive for success and business growth is what moves an economy, not government checks.

And before you proclaim that Barack Obama is above any notions of bailouts, remember that he wants to provide the ultimate bailout to the entire world in the form of his Global Poverty Bill which would redistribute the wealth from the ashamedly wealthy United States to the rest of the poor world in nations where they have refused to embrace the Capitalism that has made this nation prosperous in the first place.

If a progressive taxation against the successful, and redistributing such monies down to the "less fortunate" is such a great idea, then how come it has failed every time it has been attempted?

Change? The Liberal Left's plans are nothing new. They are only a re-try of old, worn-out, failed policies that has sent us into recessions each time they were tried; and has destroyed other nations when they attempted to use such Marxist ideals.

Saturday, November 15, 2008

It's About Conservative Principles, Stupid!

Human Nature dictates that it is more comfortable to be in a crisis and blame others, than to be in a comfort zone and look inward. People tend to not like to look at themselves. It is much easier to ignore the decisions one has made in their life, and blame others for their predicament instead.

I have accused the Liberal Left many times of ignoring human nature, and that is exactly what they do. However, human desire is hardly ignored by The Left. During this last election, the human desire for any change during a crisis, whether that crisis is real or not, was not ignored at all. During the Obama Campaign, the Democrats were banking on Human Desire to takes its course, and elect the next president on emotional impulse, rather than principles that best serves this nation.

Obama's Health Care plan took advantage of the human desire to have access to health care, no matter what the cost. However, Obama's Health Care Plan ignores human nature when it comes to the human tendency to take advantage (to the point of over doing it) of what seems to be a freebie, even if it is not from a taxation point of view. Barack Obama proclaims that his Universal-style government health plan is completely voluntary. If you have good health insurance, you can keep it. His plan only supplies government paid (taxpayer paid) health care to those who can't afford such plans (mostly illegal aliens). But, as his alleged birth state of Hawaii has proven, such a plan is doomed to fail.

Why did Hawaii's health plan, similar to Obama's in all ways except that it specifically targeted children, fail? Because those who already had health care plans dropped them for the government freebie, which in turn bankrupted the government plan, and after seven months Hawaii had to kill it and proclaim the plan to be a failure. Oh, the idea had a noble ring to it: "Hawaii lawmakers approved the health plan in 2007 as a way to ensure every child can get basic medical help. The Keiki (child) Care program aimed to cover every child from birth to 18 years old who didn't already have health insurance — mostly immigrants and members of lower-income families."

Sound familiar?

But hey, like with all of his other socialist ideas, Obama's attitude is that failed policies need not fail with his messiah-like touch involved. Obamaism will succeed because he will make it so.

And Obama said, "Let there be utopia, and there was."

As stated earlier, Obama and the rest of the liberals, do not take into account human nature when it comes to their programs - that is why their neo-socialism/neo-Marxism is doomed to fail, and by the end of the Obama presidency America will be begging for "Change."

The Democrats, however much they ignore human nature when it comes to governing, definitely recognized the potential of human desire when it came to campaigning.

"Crisis" is an important component to bring about change, and change - any change - can be instituted once humans believe they are caught up in a teeth gnashing crisis.

Knowing this, the Democrats created crisis when they launched their "hate Bush" campaign five years ago, and hammered away at it until they believed that most Americans felt that George W. Bush is the worst president this country has ever seen. Of course, like with any leader, I do not agree with many things Dubya has enacted, but having disagreements with a politician doesn't automatically make him the "worst ever" as a result. If that was the case, every president that has ever been elected (and one that wasn't) has been the worst ever. Heck, I even disagreed with Ronald Reagan a couple times!

Unfortunately, the Republican Leadership got sucked into the "crisis hysteria" as well, and began to believe there must be something wrong with the Republican Brand under the constant deluge of attacks, and often lies, from the Liberal Left Democrats. As a result, the GOP decided it would be prudent to move leftward and become a party of moderates (but sometimes call it conservatism hoping that some of the base may actually believe them).

The Republican Party, in that sense, began to think like the Democrats, and placed Party (and winning the next election) over and above their principles.

Conservatism isn't about power, control, big government, or any of the other things that seems to define today's liberalism or moderate Repubicans. Conservative Principles are about down-sizing the size of the federal government, practicing fiscal responsibility, supporting family values, providing a strong defense, encouraging individual rights and responsibility, keeping taxes and government spending down, and adhering to the United States Constitution.

How can the Republican Party proclaim to be a party of conservatives when government spending has skyrocketed under the control of a Republican President (that convinced many that he's a Conservative), earmarks by Congress just as rampant among the GOP as it is with the Democrats, and a national border left wide open during a time that providing a strong defense has become crucial? How can the Republicans claim to support family values when scandals like Senator Larry Craig's Bathroom Stall antics crop up, or politicians with an "R" after their name, like California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, say things like "The fight for gay marriage is not over in California?"

The image above at the top of this article is the 2008 Election Map by counties. Looks like a Republican landslide, doesn't it? Fact is, the population centers elected Barack Obama for president, while the Conservatives of this nation stayed home and let it happen. As for the other voters, the Democrats saw that their "Bring the troops home from Iraq" plan was losing, and were able to make the economy the number one issue going into the election - and then turned Obama into a tax cutting conservative to win!

It turns out that people did not flock to the voting booths in record numbers as the mainstream media had expected, and by percentage the voter turnout was virtually the same as 2004. However, African-American and Hispanic Voter turnout was up, while White voter turnout was down. Registered Democrats voter turnout increased by 2.6 points from 28.7 percent in 2004 to 31.3 percent in 2008 while Republican turnout declined by 1.3 percentage points to 28.7 percent.

In short, Republicans stayed home while non-Republicans flocked to their voting locations.

The question, then, is why?

The Republican Party erroneously put the party first. Winning the election became more important than sticking to Conservative Principles. A moderate, well known to buck the GOP and leap across the aisle to hang out with Democrats, was the Republican offering. The GOP has become more and more convinced that moving left will win elections for the party, rather than sticking to "believing in something." Therefore, the GOP is being seen by the voters as being a party that essentially stands for nothing. Many conservatives stayed home to punish the Republicans. Now, among the moderates, I am hearing rumblings of how they can brand the Republican Party to appeal to the younger crowd, and the minorities - - - that they must move further to the left in order to win the next election!

In a word, the Republican Party Leadership is now populated by idiots. You don't abandon your principles to gain a handful of votes from voters that have no principles of their own, or maintain leftist leanings. You stick to your principles, you proclaim your principles, and you explain how your conservative principles are good for all Americans. Then, when people understand that Conservatism is not the lies the left puts out, but the idea that not only should one group not be punished for being successful, but that all people should be encouraged to reach such success in this nation of opportunity, people will vote for the party because they wish to vote for the principles the party stands for.

The Republican Party lost this election because it turned its back on Conservative Principles, and allowed the Democrats to proclaim "crisis" successfully, and herd the people in the direction of Socialism. The Republican Leadership believes the lies put out by the left, and reacts to the ridiculous accusations put out by the left, and like cowards abandoned their Conservative Principles under the pressure.

If abandoning Conservative Principles is the recipe for success in elections, then show me the overwhelming success of moderates across the nation?

The two most popular governors in America, at this moment, are Republicans that cling to their Conservative Principles, Sarah Palin of Alaska and Bobby Jindal of Louisiana. The last landslide election win by Republicans for President was Ronald Reagan in 1984 - a campaign run on strict Conservative Principles.

America is the greatest nation on this earth, not the nation to blame for the world's ills as the Democrats paint it out to be. Fiscal Conservatism, as it did in the 80's, can lead us back to economic prosperity. Peace can be maintained in the world with a strong American Military that sends fear down the spines of every dictator and madman abroad. Our moral compass can be righted again with legislation that protects the unborn, protects marriage, and continues to encourage families to be the backbone of this nation. But this can only be achieved if the Republican Party returns to its base. Politics should not be about winning elections and gaining or holding power. It's about Conservative Principles, and sticking to what is right. It is about doing what is best for this nation. It is about standing up for the American Way.


For News on the Tea Fire in California GO HERE.

Friday, November 14, 2008

Palin in 2012?

Many Conservatives are proclaiming that Sarah Palin should run for President in 2012, and that she would be a shoe-in to win.


Realize that in 2012 there will be a crowded field of Republicans, and they will range from moderates to Conservatives without a doubt.

Since Palin recieved so many attacks about her experience (while Obama didn't with less experience) it would seem reasonable that if she desires to run on a national ticket she ought to secure some "Washington" experience.

Considering that the sorry piece of fodder, Ted Stevens (if he pulls off the win - which is looking bleak), will probably lose his Senate seat anyway as they cart him off to prison, many folks think that Palin should enter the special election for that seat (if Stevens was somehow able to win that seat back) and get some "Senate Experience." Then what would the media have to say about her experience? Governor and Senator - with more Senate experience by then than Obama had going into this last race.

Personally, I think the Liberal Left fears that possibility.

Some Conservatives have claimed that they don't want Palin in the Senate. They are afraid that her appeal, being the candidate that can relate to the average American, will be diminished by allowing the sludge of Washington to flow through her veins.

Understand this: Sarah Palin would change the Senate more than the Senate would change her.

But, I don't think Stevens will win the election, so "Senator Palin" will probably not happen. I am surprised the felon even ran for office. But that is fine. Governor Palin, with more governorship experience, will be fine. After all, Mitt Romney and Bobby Jindal are governors too - though from more populous states - and they seem to already be the front runners for the presidential run in four years.

Thursday, November 13, 2008

Empty Promises

The Obama Presidency proves that experience means nothing (or at least if you are a Democrat). All one must do to become president is stir emotions, and make a bunch of empty promises that can never possibly be fulfilled.

Talking to Obama supporters, it seems like to them Barack is some magical creature that, once in office, will merely speak the word, and all will be solved. I wonder how they will react when that doesn't happen?

George Herbert Walker Bush lost his re-election bid because he had lied to the American people about "No New Taxes." The Republicans lost this election partly because many Americans believe (erroneously, of course) that "Bush Lied" when it came to the War in Iraq, the economy, etc. etc. etc.

Will Obama's feet be held to the fire when it turns out that he lied during his campaign and could not possibly fulfill all of the magical goodies he promised?

Or will Obama's feet be held to the fire when he "does" implement some of what he promised, and it fails miserably, and increases the National Debt exorbitantly?

Will his feet be held to the fire when the fears of conservatives come true, and Obama raises taxes across the board, and begins to socialize this nation piece by piece?

I wonder. . .

Christian Cross Taken From Woman and Trampled on the Ground by Gay Protestors

Wednesday, November 12, 2008

Tuesday, November 11, 2008

Obama Supporters Awaiting "The One" to Move Into The White House

As expected, George W. Bush is being gracious as he shows the President-Elect around.

Conservatives prepare to buckle-down and are preparing for whatever opportunities may arise during the coming years.

The Obama supporters, especially those that believe the government is going to take care of them, are looking forward to their lifestyle of dependency upon the government to be expanded. For them, it seems, money does grow on trees - or at least Government Checks will be raining down from heaven and landing squarely in their mail boxes.

Those that are successful in this nation, apparently, are sled-dogs, and no matter how much they work, and how successful they become, they will now be required to drag the rest of America with them. But they shouldn't be too upset that government will be confiscating more of their money to redistribute it to those that have not achieved such a level of success - - - after all, it is patriotic to pay taxes according to Biden.

So, don't forget, those of you that are struggling, hop on the sled! 5% of America will be pulling the load!

Veterans Day Message: In All Things There Is Opportunity

Today is Veteran's Day. The birth of Veteran's Day goes back to the end of World War I in 1918. The Allied powers signed a cease-fire agreement with Germany at Rethondes, France on Nov. 11, 1918, bringing World War I to a close.

Between the two world wars, Nov. 11 was commemorated as Armistice Day in the United States, Great Britain, and France. After World War II ended, the holiday was recognized as a day of tribute to the veterans of both world wars.

Beginning in 1954, the United States designated Nov. 11 as Veterans Day to honor veterans of all U.S. wars.

Veterans have a special understanding of sacrifice, challenges, and gaining opportunity out of situations that seem otherwise to be a dire circumstance.

During my term of military service, and after, I have seen my share of hardships, and difficulties. I died, and was given the opportunity to live again, in 1985. I now have hardships that have risen in my current day to day life. I try not to grumble. I try to remember that these are simply the storms of life.

We go through these storms, and through them we learn, we strengthen, and sometimes opportunity arises out of these difficult storms. In all things there is potential for opportunity.

I think about this Obama Presidency and the Democrat-controlled Congress he is going to have at his disposal. A lot of Conservatives are feeling like we are in some real trouble here, as a nation, and as a people. We are in for some real difficult times.

Already there are signs of the lunacy on the horizon. After the election the Stock Market suffered its biggest losses since 1987 (bonds since the 70's), slowly rising somewhat afterward, but not as much as investors would like. And yes, I know, the media is attributing it to the "economic woes" rather than the Obama win (All Bush's fault? Please. . . this economic situation is a direct result of Democrat policies that finally came to a head).

In the meantime, violence rose in Iraq after the Obama win - - - and yes, I know, the leftists are claiming it is only a coincidence.

Conservatives are convinced we are entering the third level of doom, or something like that, with this Obama win. I agree that there may be irreparable damage to our nation caused by this presidency and Democrat-led Congress, or some problems caused by the Democrats being in control of the White House and Congress (and possibly the courts too) that may take generations to resolve. I understand the fear. I understand the mistrust of the Liberal Left.

We are getting ready to navigate a rough and perilous road ahead. Even though Obama has not articulated all of his plans clearly. Based on his voting history, and his past verbiage, however, you know exactly what he is going to do as president. Based on the people he has surrounded himself with, you know what is going to be done. The Democratic Leadership is going to have their way with him, tugging on his puppet strings. It is going to be difficult times. This nation is heading down a failed socialist path.

But I am not fearful.

I try not to grumble too much.

I know that out of this, good will come. There is always opportunity, and in this, there will be opportunity.

There is opportunity for us to "remind" the Republican Party of the Conservative Values and Principles the party is supposed to stand for. It is an opportunity to show the people of this great nation what happens when our nation is left to liberalism unchecked. I do, indeed, expect a rough road to be before us.

You know that something is up when the Communists and Liberals begin to sound the same. China is now telling the rich, polluting nations to change their lifestyle for the sake of saving the planet (as they spew pollutants into the air and continue to oppress their citizenry).

The mainstream media, which nobody denies has been in the tank for Obama, has actually come out with an article titled, How Obama Can Win Over The Media. Apparently, Market Watch is concerned for this president's chances of making the media like him.

Add that to your list of things that make you go "hmmmmm."

Yes, yes, I know that the article is essentially written from a point of view that Bush was not exactly adored by the media (name one Republican President that ever was? And name one Democratic President that wasn't?), and that must somehow make it difficult for the new president to receive a fair shake from the press. But please, the love affair that the media has for President-Elect Obama is not only obvious, it is disgustingly overflowing with B.S. that even some of their own can't believe.

Of course, there is some hope. Some of those media folks are actually wondering who Obama truly is. . . and are a little nervous about the possible answer. (Then. . . and now! - notice the love of the 60's/and don't forget to read Limbaugh's response to that conversation between Rose and Brokaw).

With the passing of Proposition 8, Gay Rights activists are spreading their hate now by protesting and rioting, and marching in protest in front of churches in California, calling the Christians "haters," of course. Imagine coming out of church after a good Sunday Worship Service only to be verbally attacked by a bunch of people who hate you because you refuse to change your Biblically supported views on a "behavior."

I have a "Yes On Prop. 8" sign on the back of my big rig. I have had a lot of people flipping me off, cutting in front of me and then slamming on their brakes, yelling at me and calling me profane names from their car windows, and a couple times I have even had people throw things at me (one time the item hit me in the side of the head - I have since stopped my practice of driving with my window down).

The hatred that is being exhibited by the left astounds me. The hatred towards Bush. The hatred toward Christians. The hatred towards Conservatives. And they claim to be the champions of tolerance.

I know the next four years are going to be difficult. I know that our economy, with the tax hikes and mismanagement by the Democrats, is in for some rough years. I know that from a political standpoint we are heading into a deep valley (or should I call it the pit of Hell?). But the glass, my friends, is half full. Through adversity and storms there is opportunity. And these opportunities make us stronger, unite us, and give us the opportunity to do things we may not have done otherwise. Imagine the opportunities that are opening up for you - opportunities to become a voice, a strong voice, united with your fellow conservatives.

A voice for America. A voice for liberty. A voice for freedom.

I will never wish ill-will on my nation, so I hope my fears do not come to pass. But even if they do, we have to remember that in all things there is opportunity.

Monday, November 10, 2008

China Earthquake 6.5 Northwestern Region

The U.S. Geological Survey says a 6.5 earthquake struck northwestern China - 100 miles north/northeast of Golud, nearly 2,000 miles north of Beijing.

At this point there are no reports of casualties or damage.

Sunday, November 09, 2008

Chicago Thugs and the Wonderful World of Change

My good friend, Jim Stewart, sent me this gem of an e-mail:

Obama said in Iowa December 27th, 2007: "I'm an outsider and I'm not going to bring people into my administration who have already been in Washington, it would be foolish, that wouldn't change anything whatsoever," and yet his first appointment is Rahm Emanuel as his chief of staff.

Shariah-Compliant Finance: “Jihad with money”

While America struggles with the sub-prime and credit market crisis, Shariah Islamic Finance, also known as Shariah-Compliant Finance, is quickly infiltrating our financial markets – and bringing Islamic shariah law with it. As one leading Islamic authority on Shariah-Compliant Finance has stated, it is “jihad with money.” In a new ACT! for America video, Joy Brighton, ACT! for America’s financial expert on Shariah- Compliant Finance, warns America of this chilling threat.

h/t e-mailer Nathan. . .

Proposition 8, The Equal Protection Clause, and the Coming Wave of Lawsuits

I guess Proposition 8, the State Constitutional Amendment in California defining marriage as being between a man and a woman, angered a few people. Lawsuits against the choice of the people are emerging.

The opponents of the amendment claim that it violates the "Equal Protection Clause" of the U.S. Constitution, as set out in the fourteenth amendment. Since rights apply to individuals, the Equal Protection clause applies to potential state violations of the rights of an individual, based on the individual's status. A law or Constitutional Amendment defining marriage as being between a man and a woman means "any" man and "any" woman. This applies to any man or woman who wish to marry, and are of legal age or have parental consent. So, the law does not prohibit the rights of gays to marry. A homosexual male and a homosexual female are free to marry one another if they so desire.

The right to marry has not been eliminated from anybody. However, marriage is not necessarily a "right" anyways. If I wanted to marry a supermodel, I don't have a "right" to that marriage. Nor would I have a "right" to marry my car, dog, or neighbor's horse.

Not allowing people to marry someone of the same sex is not a violation of the Equal Protection clause. Besides, a state constitution is designed to address "state issues" and cannot be considered in contradiction with the U.S. Constitution if the federal constitution does not address those particular issues in the first place.

The opponents of Prop. 8 claim the Equal Protection Clause was designed for exactly that - to stop the states from violating someones rights based on . . .

Based on what? A behavior? The Equal Protection Clause was a direct result of the abolition of slavery in the United States. The 14th amendment was designed to protect blacks, or any racial group, against unfair treatment. The Equal Protection Clause was written to protect ethnicity and race - not behavior! Since behavior, such as homosexuality, is not specifically addressed in the U.S. Constitution, that means it is not a federal issue, and it is up to the individual states to address the issue - and if a state wishes to ban gay marriage in its state constitution, it is entitled to do so. The federal government cannot (though it has unlawfully in the past) overturn state law or amendments. It is unlawful for the federal government to do so according to the U.S. Constitution!

This very application, in turn, makes the Roe v. Wade decision unconstitutional (Roe v. Wade overturned a Texas State Law). It also makes the practice of the federal government shutting down medical marijuana facilities in California (as long as the drug does not cross state lines the issue remains a state issue) illegal as well. I don't agree with the legalization of medical marijuana, but from a legal and Constitutional point of view, the state has a right to make such law without federal interference.

In reality, like Roe v. Wade did for abortion, the courts legalizing gay marriage with a court decision (and overturning state law) was unconstitutional in the first place. It is not for the courts to "make" law. Making law is the responsibility of the legislature. The courts were tasked by our founding fathers to provide an "opinion," and then it is up to the legislature to act upon that opinion by the courts "if" they choose to.

The U.S. Constitution was written to limit the federal government from dictating law to the states, and the branches were set up as they were to limit the judiciary from having too much power. "States Rights" and "The People" are the central themes of the founding documents. Contrary to the lawsuits coming against Proposition 8, the voters have a right to interpret the Constitution, and change it, with their vote.

The Constitution belongs to "The People." The U.S. Constitution was written for the people, of the people, and by the people. Besides, one does not have to have a law degree to recognize the original intent. However, if the U.S. Supreme Court gets involved, and decides to overturn California's Proposition 8, there is going to be some serious issues rising from it regarding federal intrusion into state issues.

Saturday, November 08, 2008

Sarah Palin: GOP Scapegoat

I keep hearing news that Sarah Palin is being blamed for the GOP loss in Election 2008 - but it is not just the Democrats that are criticizing her! The moderate Republican leadership is essentially throwing her under the bus.

The economy was a large factor in this election, and the GOP refused to hammer the advantages of fiscal conservatism during the campaign. In fact, Barack Obama got to the point that he was beginning to sound more fiscally conservative than John McCain!

Sarah Palin did not hurt the GOP ticket as the mainstream media is reporting. I believe she actually helped the ticket. Without Sarah Palin, the conservative base, or at least portions of it, would not have been energized as it was. She was actually drawing crowds larger than John McCain, for God's sake.

Some would argue that the line of reasoning that conservatism is the recipe for a GOP win is patently false, and that McCain actually lost because he was not liberal enough. This, I believe, is pure poppy-cock. There is a certain advantage to appealing to independents, but not to the point that you base your whole campaign on it.

Proposition 8, the state amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman, won in California (and similar measures won by greater margins in Florida and Arizona - bringing the total to 31 states that currently ban gay marriage) - and realize that California is a state that was overwhelmingly in the tank for Barack Obama. If the country is heading left as some people seem to think, then how do you explain Proposition 8 winning? Is that how a nation heading left votes?

Friday, November 07, 2008

Thursday, November 06, 2008

Project Promise Online Event

On November 7-11, Project Promise will hold an online event to raise money for our wounded veterans. They will post letters and essays, video and audio clips, poems and posts on Veteran's Day and soldiers in tribute to the sacrifice of these American heroes.

Socialism, And The Fate of the Republican Party

Today at 5:30 pm Eastern I was a guest on a show called "Blog Bunker" on Sirius Satellite Radio Channel 110. Since this is a couple days after the election the interview centered around the coming Obama Presidency, and the fate of the Republican Party.

People, I believe, did not vote for Barack Obama, per se. They voted for change.

Conservatives have been growing angry with the Republican Party with each passing year. George W. Bush, as much as he claimed to be, was not a Conservative in the strictest sense of what a Conservative is. The Republicans in Congress have not stood up for Conservative Values and Principles since the early 90's, for the most part. And the candidate the Republican Leadership offered for president in this election, John McCain, is a moderate famous for bucking the party and sitting with his Democrat buddies across the aisle. The Conservatives like myself that did vote for McCain did so reluctantly, primarily because an Obama presidency was just too frightening to imagine. Don't get me wrong, I agree with McCain on many things, but in turn, there are many positions of his I disagree with as well.

This is why Sarah Palin energized the Conservative Base so much. She was drawing crowds larger than what McCain was drawing because the Conservatives of this country saw her as a breath of fresh air. I could almost hear a collective "Finally" being shouted out by the Conservative Base when it was announced she was McCain's running mate.

Now, the Moderate (or should I say Liberal?) Republican leadership is throwing Palin under the bus. Some are claiming she is at fault for the John McCain loss in Election 2008.

Had McCain chosen anyone else to be his running mate, he would have lost the election by more votes.

Now the liberal left is frothing at the mouth at their victory, and people are asking if the Republican Party can survive this defeat, or will the party fade away as did the Whigs in the mid 1800's.

That depends on a lot of variables.

If the party continues to believe, as McCain does, that leaning leftward is what it takes to win elections, the Republican Party will continue to lose. Ronald Reagan won two elections by a landslide because he based his campaigns on Conservative Principles. His campaigns were about raising up America. He understood that peace is achieved through a strong military stance in the world. He brought back our economy from the brink of disaster (a much worse economic situation than what we are seeing today) by cutting taxes and encouraging businesses to grow.

The fate of the Republican Party rests in the hands of Conservatives like Sarah Palin, Bobby Jindal, and John Boehner. If the party does not return to its base, and continues this slide toward "centrism," the Democrats will continue to win elections.

Obama was right about one thing: People do want change. . . But the Republicans are not much of a change from the Democrats. Obama won because Republicans have abandoned Conservatism, and people voted against the Republicans out of anger of that fact. The proof of that is that the Democratic Congress has the lowest approval rating of any Congress in history, yet picked up 25 seats. People are angrier at the Republicans than they are at the Democrats right now, and if change towards conservatism does not occur in the Republican Party soon, the GOP will go the way of the Whigs, and this country will complete its journey to a one party, socialist nation.

Tuesday, November 04, 2008

"I Voted For Change"

I spoke with a number of people today about the election, how they voted, and why. Interestingly, every single person that voted for Obama did not say such. How they responded was, "I voted for change." The person, Obama, was not why they voted for him. It's the change he stands for that attracted their vote. Question is, what change will he enact? The people I spoke to knew no specifics, just like Obama. All they could mindlessly say was that "We need change."

I asked these Obama supporters questions about Obama's policies, and in every single response were the words, "We can't afford four more years of Bush," or "Bush is the worst president in history."

Policy specifics were never mentioned, and when the basics of a policy was uttered, the impact on our country was not a concern.

As for the worst president, I felt their assessment is wrong - in my memory, Jimmy Carter was the worst.

No specifics. No understanding. Just "change," and "Bush hating."

The media smear machine propogated the "I hate Bush" syndrome so well, that people hate Bush without really understanding why, and without realizing that McCain is not Bush, no matter how much the Left tries to convince you of such.

Nonetheless, as I get ready to go to bed, it seems like the rhetoric worked, and Barack Obama is going to be the next president of the country. The last thing I watched before completing this post was McCain's concession speech.

Unlike the left, I won't go around saying that I hate Obama. I disagree with his positions, and I think an Obama presidency with a Democrat Congress is very dangerous for this country, but I don't hate. In fact, I am suprised that the Left, as tolerant as they claim to be, are willing to hate anyone. I will say this, however: As bad as the Carter presidency was for this country, I see an Obama presidency as being much more dangerous. Obama is a radical that, left unchecked, can cause serious damage to this country - some damage that may not be repairable for generations.

By the end of the Obama term, I suspect we will have the same kind of misery as we did by the end of the Carter presidency. The question is, will the Republican Party realize that moderates do not win the hearts and minds of the people. . . the template was presented to us by Ronald Reagan. He ran as a nation-loving conservative that did not back down to the enemy, and was willing to enact conservative ideas without any fear of upsetting the mainstream. The result was two landslide elections, and many years of prosperity and peace through strength.

Still, despite my disappointment that a liberal like Obama has won the presidency, I congratulate him. Despite the fact that I disagree with him on every position, and question his character and integrity, I recognize that his victory is a historic one, and the result of a hard fought campaign.

I wonder, however, if like Robert Redford in the movie The Candidate, Barack Obama is asking, "What do we do now?"

Worth Fighting For

Last Saturday I gave a speech at the BTR Convention. The meat of that speech is as follows:

What is worth fighting for in America is what is worth defending in America. What is worth defending is the gift of liberty we received from our fathers, and their fathers.

Liberty. The freedom to have the opportunity to be great. A gift paid for in blood. An opportunity, if lost, that may be gone forever in America.

A group of rag-tag Americans nearly two hundred and fifty years ago had a dream of independence. But they did not want America to be just another country. They desired that America should be exceptional. And the only way this new nation could be exceptional was if the people had liberty. Britain had other ideas. They wished to control Americans through tyranny and an overpowering government.

This, for Americans, would not do. So, in a bloody war between untrained colonists and professional British soldiers, these first Americans fought for liberty, and paid dearly for it during the long years of war.

Now, a new revolution is upon us. But this revolution of "hope and change" is poised to undo what our founding fathers set into motion so many generations ago. This idea of social and economic justice is hardly justice at all. It is designed to enslave Americans, to strip us of our precious liberty, and dismantle the very system that has made this nation prosper during its short life.

Liberty is at risk.

And with liberty comes responsibility. With liberty comes the responsibility to work hard to defend it. With liberty comes the responsibility to remember that freedom is a God-given right. Free will, not the government's will, was God's gift to mankind.

Liberty is worth fighting for, and liberty will be at risk if leftist politics takes control of the White House and keeps control of the Congress after this election.

Stand with me and fight for liberty. Fight for the gift that was paid for in blood during the Revolutionary War. Fight for the liberty whose payment came due during a number of wars, and the American Military paid it in full gladly with their blood and sacrifice. Fight with me. Fight for liberty. Fight to keep this one nation under God. . . Liberty is worth fighting for.

Monday, November 03, 2008

Why I am Voting For John McCain over Barack Obama

John McCain agrees with me on the following issues (and Obama does not), therefore I am voting for John McCain for President of the United States:

The War on Terror needs to be fought to its conclusion. Whether going into Iraq was the right move or not, we must complete the job in the same way a surgeon must complete the job after opening up a body to remove cancer.

I believe Marriage should be between a man and a woman, and that homosexuality is a bad behavior that should not be justified by bastardizing the sanctity of marriage.

I support school vouchers. The education system will not improve by throwing money at it. The curriculum is in error. We are no longer teaching our kids basic arithmetic and phonics, but instead are using experimental methods of teaching that focuses more on a child's feelings and esteem than success and failure and the three R's. Private schools and homeschoolers are teaching their children the right curriculum - vouchers will create competition, and eventually will help the public school system realize their error.

Abortion should be illegal. The taking of innocent life as we have as a nation is akin to genocide. Murder is not a choice.

We must stop the secret abortions of minors, and transporting minors across state lines to get abortions.

The "Death Tax" must be eliminated.

We must protect religious expression, beliefs and churches.

Politicians in Washington are big spenders. The Democrats, and a number of Republicans, are notorious for creating big government with expensive programs that are unnecessary, and spending without proper controls. McCain originally voted against the Bush Tax Cuts because they did not include controlling spending. I agree with cutting taxes, but I also agree with McCain that cutting taxes without controlling spending is a moot point.

Election 2008 is upon us. Vote!

Understanding the California Propositions

Prop. 1A - High Speed Rail Bond. I am voting no. The cost of this project is extremely high. It could end up exceeding $90 billion - with no proof that the project will be finished in time, or at all . . . and after watching some of the failures of MetroLink, there are no assurances that this rail system will be safer, or actually draw enough passengers to make all of the money put into it worth it.

Prop. 2 - Farm Animals. I am voting no on this one too. The proposition reads that farm animals must be required more space, and time to walk around - specifically directed at hens and the egg industry. It seems everyone is so worried about business leaving the state, but then they wish to put something like this into play that will harm the egg industry here, making it more expensive to run the business in California. As a result this proposition will drive farms out of California, which in turn will increase the cost of the food. For any that stays, the cost will go up to cover the cost of implementing the plan - and allowing the hens to be cageless opens them up to disease from migratory birds like the bird flu, as well as create an environment where Salmonella can breed.

Prop. 3 - Hospital Bond. No on this one too. Private hospital corporations are using children as a front to entice taxpayers to give them a little more funding - this while the state is in an economic pinch, and the funding they are asking for will offset costs unrelated to treating children as the supporters of the proposition claim.

Prop. 4 - Parental Notification of Teenage abortions. Yes! When my daughter was in high school, she could not get an aspirin from the school nurse without my consent. Any dental or medical procedure, from a tooth ache to tonsillitis to surgery, also required my consent. Yet the proponents of this proposition desire that a girl go through a medical procedure, which may be in conflict with a family's moral beliefs, without notifying the parents at all? I expect to be notified if my daughter is stranded at the mall, sick at school, and if she gets into any kind of trouble - a medical procedure to end the life of an unborn child should be no different.

Prop. 5 - Non-Violent Drug Offenses. No. This measure would allow drug offenders to use this for leniency for other non-drug related crimes. It is called the "Drug Dealers Bill of Rights" for a reason.

Prop. 6 - Police and Law Enforcement Funding. I will be voting Yes on this one, but it took a lot of thought. This proposition has a lot of good and bad facets, but the fact that it prohibits the release on bail of illegal aliens charged with violent crimes, creates tougher punishments for gang violence, and ensures funding to increase the number of cops on the streets makes it worth voting yes for.

Prop. 7 - Renewable Energy Subsidies. No. The technology for alternative energy is not ready. Let the market lead us in that direction, don't waste taxpayers money on it that in turn increases electricity prices. A nuclear power plant near Sacramento was shut down by a bunch of anti-nuke groups, and as a result the alternative energy up there produces only ten percent of what the nuclear power plant produced, at twice the cost. Government needs to step aside and let the economy moves us in the direction of alternative fuels as they become more necessary, and the technology catches up with the demand.

Prop. 8 - Defense of Marriage Act. Yes. Marriage is an institution in which a man and a woman form a union ordained by God. Homosexuality is a behavior, not a race or ethnicity. There is no comparison. Failure to pass Proposition eight opens up the possibility of gay lifestyles and marriage being taught to our children in the schools (as has happened in Massachusetts), Churches could be sued for refusing to marry gay couples on the grounds of moral convictions, preaching against homosexuality could be deemed to be "hate speech." Don't forget there have been cases of photographers sued for refusing to photograph gay couples, doctors have been sued for refusing to artificially inseminate gays on moral grounds, and in Colorado a law was passed labeling any literature published that calls homosexuality a sin "hate literature," which has essentially outlawed the Bible - though it has not been challenged yet.

Prop. 9 - Parole Reform. Voting Yes on this one as well. This requires victims to be considered when suspect's bails are being set, or a parole is being determined.

Prop. 10 - Fuel Subsidies. A big No on this one. This is supposed to be a $5 billion bond that is supposed to subsidize alternative fuel vehicles and renewable energy. The bond with interest will wind up costing the taxpayer $10 billion. If someone want to buy alternative fuel vehicles, that is their business to do so, but the government has no business reaching into everybody's pockets in an attempt to encourage such behavior.

Prop. 11 - Redistricting. Absolutely Yes. The politicians currently choose the lines of the districts, giving them the ability to draw the lines in ways that can ensure they remain in office. Being a politician shouldn't be about worrying about the next election - they are supposed to be serving the people. This measure takes the redistricting out of the hands of the legislature and puts it in the hands of the voters.

Prop. 12 - Veteran's Bond Act. Yes. This one is a no-brainer. It is simply replenishing a fund that has been in place since 1921, and has never cost the taxpayers any money. It assists veterans with home purchases, and is repaid with interest, allowing it to be self-sustaining. The only way this could cost the taxpayer any money is if the Veterans began to default on their loans, and historically, they always fulfill their debt.