At President Barack Obama's behest General Motor's CEO, Rick Wagoner, tendered a surprise resignation. Wagoner resigned after 31 years with GM. However, in the mainstream media, and among the larger Internet news agencies, it is being suggested that this was not a voluntary resignation. The U.S. Government, under the direction of President Barack Obama, forced out Wagoner as CEO of General Motors. His crime? Failure to return GM to profitability. The deal? Resign as a condition for General Motors to receive more bailout money from the federal government.
It's like signing a pact with the devil.
Wagoner's poor management of GM is not being dismissed. Never mind the fact that under strict regulations the American car maker has been pushed and pushed and pushed to produce vehicles that the American People have no desire to purchase. Wagoner, however, is a rebel, in the eyes of the Democrats. After all, he dared orchestrate an SUV revolution by producing those sinful polluters against the very wishes of the Environmentalists, and the The Party - er, uh, Democrats and not-so-conservative Republicans.
I suppose one can say that Rick Wagoner is getting what he deserves. After all, he is the one who went to the government on his hands and knees - well, not quite on his hands and knees, but practically. Actually, it was in a dinky little hybrid, while the corporate jet remained humbly in the hanger. Anyway, he ran up to the great and powerful Oz. . . I mean, Obama, with his hand outstretched, accepting the government bailout. This action alone ensured that the government would have say over the daily functions of the domestic automaker. He should have seen it coming. He who has the money has the power, and in this case, that means the power is in the hands of the U.S. Federal Government.
Wisdom? I wonder how wise is this move to force out the experienced CEO, only to be replaced by some government puppet with less expertise, and whose puppet strings are being pulled by a collection of idiots that have never run a business, and a president that can only claim fame as a great teleprompter reader, and an adequate community organizer.
Bravo, Mr. President. What a wonderful move of authority. You have forced Wagoner to resign. After all, his management record is shotty. But, Mr. President, before you run off to Europe, I wish to ask you this: Is it wise to eliminate such an influential man, despite his management record, and replace him during a time of economic upheaval by a less experienced individual that has not been "in the know" during the recent history of General Motors?
Obama has assured us that he has no desire in controlling the American auto industry. Forcing the CEO of General Motors to resign is hardly evidence of control, right? And, since Obama must be honest about not having any interest in controlling the auto industry, we should not consider his rejection of the turnaround plans by General Motors, declaring the plans need fresh concessions if they are going to convince the federal government to give more long-term federal aid, as anything that even borders on government control of the industry.
The Associated Press indicates that the Obama Administration's rejection of the GM business plan raises the possibility of a bankruptcy. Quick question, Mr. We-don't-want-to-be wastin'-the-taxpayer's-money: What happens to all of those tax dollars given to GM if they go bankrupt like they should have done in the first place without any government involvement in the first place? Where does all that money from the first bailout check go? You promised that the taxpayer would get a return. If GM, after the first bailout, suddenly goes into bankruptcy, what happens to our money? Hmmmmmmm, Mr. President? Where will our money go?
General Motors CEO Rick Wagoner was forced to resign because Obama hates private enterprise, and because Wagoner was a big "SUV" guy. Obama, and the Liberal Democrats, desire American industries to operate under government control. That fact that anyone has reached success via the Free Market System, as far as they are concerned, must be knocked down to Earth. Then, since the greenies have been so good about supporting the socialists in donkey suits, the environmentalists will receive their green vehicles of which nobody wishes to buy. Don't worry, folks, the gas prices will be skyrocketing back up soon, and the government urging our domestic automakers to turn completely green will happen just in time for the sudden need for gas-saving vehicles. Then, while you are blinking your eyes in amazement at how quickly the environmentalists got what they wanted, the Democrats will complete the government control agenda by continuing to run this nation, and its last remaining industries, into the ground with bad strategic decisions by a bunch of politicians that have never run a business in their life, and a president whose only experience is allegedly organizing communities.
The Democratic Party hates Corporate America, and is doing everything they can to bring private enterprise under government control.
By the way, Obama has also stated, according to ABC News, that Rick Wagoner doesn't get his severance package either.
Sure, Obama, we really believe you when you say you want no control over the American automobile industry.
Is this change we can believe in yet?
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Politico: GM CEO resigns at Obama's behest
Yahoo News: Obama asserts gov't control over the auto industry
John Berlau of Competitive Enterprise Institute: CEI Comment on Obama Firing of GM CEO Wagoner
The Heritage Foundation: Our Economic Freedom Has Been Sacrificed
Americans For Limited Government: A New Order Rises: President Fires GM Agency Head
ABC News: GM's Rick Wagoner Gone, but Carmaker's Problems Remain
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Monday, March 30, 2009
Obama Invites Bob Basso To White House To Try To Convince Him To Stop The Avalanche Bob Has Initiated
World Net Daily is reporting that in light of this phenomenal video above that you hopefully just viewed, President Barack Obama has invited its star, Bob Basso, to the White House for a nice little chat. The video urges Americans to stand up against Congress and reclaim their republic now – or perhaps lose it forever. He is encouraging the tea parties that are erupting across the nation. Near the end of the video he suggests that if you don't own a gun, buy one. After all, those who support the 2nd Amendment understand that it was placed in the Bill of Rights not only to secure the right of gun ownership so that we may hunt or defend our personal property, but also to protect ourselves against a tyrannical government should our government become one.
Send your leaders bags of tea, says Basso in the video, referring to the historical Boston Tea Party which was one of the events that led to the Revolutionary War, and an event that was staged specifically to protest unfair taxation and a controlling government entity. Tea Parties are now erupting across the nation. Sunday Night on Political Pistachio Radio Andrea Shea King joined me as my guest, in fact, to discuss one of the largest tea parties to date, the Orlando Tea Party from a week ago.
Bob Basso, the gentleman in the video above who posts videos under the name funbobbasso on YouTube, is creating a number of videos in which he portrays Thomas Paine, author of the "Common Sense" pamphlet (of which Loki and I have discussed on Founding Truth Radio a number of times) that made the case for independence during the American Revolution.
Bob recently indicated that he has been invited to the White House, and the only possible reason is that Obama wishes to convince him to cease his video activity. After all, as critical of Obama's socialistic tactics as they are, it is in this writer's doubts that he could have been invited for any other reason. Obama sees Bob Basso's videos as a threat, and like any good liberal, his goal is to stifle freedom, and silence the opposition.
Understand, I do not agree with everything that Bob suggests in the video, but the core of it is exactly right. And it is this kind of reaction in America, I believe, that is being stirred up because of Obama's radicalism.
Sunday, March 29, 2009
America: Freedom To Fascism
Order this video HERE
Are you aware by May of 2008 the law will require you to carry a national identification card?
Are you aware that there are plans being developed to have all Americans embedded with a Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) computer chip under their skin so they can be tracked wherever they go?
Are you aware the Supreme Court has ruled that the government has no authority to impose a direct unapportioned tax on the labor of the American people, and the 16th Amendment does not give the government that power?
Are you aware that computer voting machines can be rigged and there is no way to ensure that vote is counted?
AMERICA: FREEDOM TO FASCISM
"FOUR STARS (Highest Rating). The scariest damn film you'll see this year. It will leave you staggering out of the theatre, slack-jawed and trembling. Makes 'Fahrenheit 9/11' look like 'Bambi.' After watching this movie, your comfy, secure notions about America -- and about what it means to be an American -- will be forever shattered. Producer/director Aaron Russo and the folks at Cinema Libre Studio deserve to be heralded as heroes of a post-modern New American Revolution. This is shocking stuff. You'll be angry, you'll be disgusted, but you may actually break out in a cold sweat and feel a sickness deep in your gut; I would advise movie theatre managers to hand out vomit bags. You may end up needing one."
America: Freedom to Fascism Opened to Standing Ovations at Cannes!
The international audience at Cannes as well as the European media has been fascinated by Russo’s fiery diatribe against the direction America is heading. The discussion that followed the preview lasted for thirty minutes. Actor Nick Nolte, in Cannes for the premiere of “Over The Hedge,” joined Russo during the event. “The information in this film is something everybody has to know”, said Nolte, who was the lead actor in “Teachers,” a film produced by Russo.
Saturday, March 28, 2009
What Do Warner Todd Huston, Andrea Shea King Have In Common?
Warner Todd Huston and Andrea Shea King are this weekend's guests on Political Pistachio Radio.
Warner Todd Huston's commentary is featured on various websites. He is the owner and operator of Publius' Forum, as well as a well known writer featured on a number of websites like Renew America, Conservative Crusader, American Daily Review, American Daily, Townhall, Opinion Editorials, and News Busters. Huston has also written for several history magazines, and appears in the book "Americans on Politics, Policy and Pop Culture."
Warner Todd Huston Joins the Political Pistachio Radio Revolution tonight! Join us as we discuss Illegal Immigration, the difference between Conservatives and those that claim to be, Labor Unions, Oppression Against The Church, Obama's Arrogance, Socialism (Marxism), Media Bias, The Economy, and your calls HERE.
During the second half of the show tonight we will discuss the 1981 television movie, The Wave, and the parallel to today's Obamaism.
Sunday Night, March 29th, Andrea Shea King is our guest. The "The First Lady of Space Coast Conservatism" was a guest speaker at the Orlando Tea Party last weekend, and also wrote an article on World Net Daily asking why the media is ignoring these events. Listen to that show at 7pm tomorrow night HERE.
Warner Todd Huston's commentary is featured on various websites. He is the owner and operator of Publius' Forum, as well as a well known writer featured on a number of websites like Renew America, Conservative Crusader, American Daily Review, American Daily, Townhall, Opinion Editorials, and News Busters. Huston has also written for several history magazines, and appears in the book "Americans on Politics, Policy and Pop Culture."
Warner Todd Huston Joins the Political Pistachio Radio Revolution tonight! Join us as we discuss Illegal Immigration, the difference between Conservatives and those that claim to be, Labor Unions, Oppression Against The Church, Obama's Arrogance, Socialism (Marxism), Media Bias, The Economy, and your calls HERE.
During the second half of the show tonight we will discuss the 1981 television movie, The Wave, and the parallel to today's Obamaism.
Sunday Night, March 29th, Andrea Shea King is our guest. The "The First Lady of Space Coast Conservatism" was a guest speaker at the Orlando Tea Party last weekend, and also wrote an article on World Net Daily asking why the media is ignoring these events. Listen to that show at 7pm tomorrow night HERE.
When It Comes To The Nationalization of American Industries. . .
The Democrats are changing the rules, and dooming the American Economy.
From Americans for Limited Government
From Americans for Limited Government
Friday, March 27, 2009
The Forgotten War Against Islamic Terrorism
Barack Obama, and his Democrat Gang of Village Idiots (Better known as Pelosi, Reid, Dodd, Schumer, and the rest of the Congressional Democrats), has an uncanny ability to do exactly the opposite of what is the right thing to do when a solution, or change, seems necessary to them. For example, a discrepancy between the percentage that can be written off as a tax deduction between the wealthy and the not-so-wealthy in regards to giving to charity caused Obama and gang to decide the percentages needed to be made the same. So, to solve this perceived inequity, Obama decided to reduce the percentage that can be written off on taxes to 28 percent for families making more than $250,000 - which is in line with the percentage the lower incomes receive for charitable donations. As a result, the possible consequence is that the new limits on charitable tax deductions for wealthy people could dampen the willingness to give to charities at a time when charities are under severe strain because of the economic downturn. In fact, Several billion dollars could be lost in charitable gifts because of the tax proposal, say philanthropy scholars. So, to make the percentages even and fair (fair is one of the left's favorite words when it comes to their dreams of a utopian society), why didn't the Democrats leave the percentage that can be written off for taxes for the wealthy where it was, and raise the percentage of the amount the lower incomes could write off instead? Wouldn't that have had a more stimulative effect? In turn, more people would donate more, and with the increase of donations, in the long run, charitable organizations would have more resources, thus reducing the government's perceived need to do whatever they think they must do for the poor and the homeless. Simply stated, Tax incentives stimulate more giving, encourages involvement of private organizations, and allows the government to reduce spending by getting out of the charity business and into the business of protecting this nation instead. Considering the challenges facing the nonprofit sector in 2009, I am compelled to suggest that this is indeed a good time to provide additional incentives, rather than reduce the value of the tax deduction for high-income households, so that the donors with the greatest capacity to give have more reasons to do so.
The same, do-the-wrong-thing, actions are now being applied by Obama and the "do-the-wrong-thing" gang of Congressional idiots when it comes to the war against the Islamic Jihad. Now, they are even going so far as to deny the existence of the evil behind the Global War on Terror by suggesting that the term be changed to "Overseas Contingency Operation." I realize that the liberal left believes that conflict is the result of misunderstandings, rather than the possibility that the Islamic ideology is poising itself for more terror based on an evil belief that Israel must be eliminated, and The West must be destroyed.
Believe it or not, I understand the argument against the term, Global War on Terror. After all, it is argued that calling this conflict the war on terror would be like calling the Pacific Theater against Japan during World War II the war on aviation since that is the method they used to attack us at Pearl Harbor. But Islamic Terrorism is a unique animal. Over 90% of terrorism against America (and worldwide) is launched by Islamic Jihadists. Terror is the weapon of choice of these radicals. Global War on Terror, in my opinion, is an appropriate term.
Why then, would the Obama Administration desire to not call this ongoing war what it is? Why change the name to some politically correct, warm and fuzzy term that could mean anything, and let the terrorists off the hook in regards to what they are really about?
I do not believe President Obama realizes, or is willing to admit, that Islamic Radicalism is evil, nor that its only desire is to cover the Earth with its Sharia Law madness. In fact, shortly after taking office, President Obama sent a letter to the Iranian Leadership expressing a willingness to open diplomacy in the hopes of easing the tensions between our nations. Under the circumstances of dealing with such a radical leadership, I believe this was not only wrong, but extremely dangerous.
The response was not encouraging, and the Iranian leadership has indicated that President Obama insulted the Islamic Republic of Iran from the first day of taking office. Obama has disregarded the harsh words of Iran's leaders, pursuing what he calls "constructive ties," and noting that he would not allow the process to be advanced or hindered by threats.
In other words, Iran will come to the negotiation table, and like it, whether they like it or not, but with a peaceful smile on Obama's face.
This is not the first time the Iranian leadership has considered Obama's plans to be a sign of U.S. failure. In January the Iranian leaders considered Obama's offer of diplomacy to be a sign that Western ideology is becoming passive, and that the western system has failed.
In August of 2008 Michael Medved even commented on how Iranian leaders were enraged when the Vice President of Tourism, Esfandiar Rahim Mashai, said that Iran is a friend of all the people of the world. The Iranian Parliament voted by an overwhelming margin to denounce these words as an unforgivable mistake, and Ahmadinejad dismissed the official immediately. The reason for the outcry is because the words of friendship included Israel and America. Hardly an attitude that sounds like a willingness to negotiate.
Even here in America Aasiya Z. Hassan was founder and chief executive officer of Bridges TV of which he launched in 2004 hoping it would portray Muslims in a more positive light. Last month, however, the Orchard Park resident beheaded his wife who dared file for divorce. Yet another powerful lesson to those that believe this ideology can be peacefully negotiated with.
I understand that not all Muslims are radical, and there is a cross-section of the culture that does not condone the actions of the Islamic Jihad. However, understand this - I agree with Walid Shoebat when he told me on my radio program that there are indeed peaceful Muslims out there, but they are peaceful despite Islam, not because of it.
So how can we even consider negotiating with an ideology steeped in the use of terror that wants to destroy us and our closest ally, Israel?
Europe, as we speak, is being overrun by Islam. Brussels is a quarter Muslim, and anti-Israeli mobs have been taking to the streets of European cities. Hamas has openly and proudly proclaimed that they are committed to the destruction of Israel, and Hamas is thrilled that Obama is so committed to the two-state solution. Palestine, however, has rejected statehood in the past. But why?
Palestine exists for one reason and one reason only - the destruction of Israel. The anti-semitism in Islam was part of the root of the anti-semitism of Naziism, and that kind of pure hatred still exists, and only negotiates to buy time. Obama's set of policies is emboldening our foes, and weakening the position of the United States in the war on terror.
As far as Islam is concerned, there is no solution but through Jihad. The very existence of Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Taliban (not to mention the goal of every Muslim Nation) is to eliminate the Jewish "Pirate" State - Israel. The violence in the Middle East is a never ending cycle that won't end until Israel and The West has been destroyed.
Who do I believe when it comes to the tyranny of Islam? The Liberal Left who is unwilling to recognize pure, unadulterated evil? Or folks like Walid Shoebat, Brigette Gabriele, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Faisal Malick, and other individuals that were once a part of the Muslim world (or living among the Muslim World), and fully understand the depth of the hate bred into the Muslim people through an indoctrination that begins from the day of birth?
Fact is, even with proclaiming diplomacy until we are blue in the face, Islamo-Fascism will never voluntarily end this cycle of violence and destruction. We must, through military strength, bring them to the point that they have no choice but to do so. Harsh or not, history teaches us that standing up to the enemy of radical Islam, and defeating them, is the only way to stop them.
The same, do-the-wrong-thing, actions are now being applied by Obama and the "do-the-wrong-thing" gang of Congressional idiots when it comes to the war against the Islamic Jihad. Now, they are even going so far as to deny the existence of the evil behind the Global War on Terror by suggesting that the term be changed to "Overseas Contingency Operation." I realize that the liberal left believes that conflict is the result of misunderstandings, rather than the possibility that the Islamic ideology is poising itself for more terror based on an evil belief that Israel must be eliminated, and The West must be destroyed.
Believe it or not, I understand the argument against the term, Global War on Terror. After all, it is argued that calling this conflict the war on terror would be like calling the Pacific Theater against Japan during World War II the war on aviation since that is the method they used to attack us at Pearl Harbor. But Islamic Terrorism is a unique animal. Over 90% of terrorism against America (and worldwide) is launched by Islamic Jihadists. Terror is the weapon of choice of these radicals. Global War on Terror, in my opinion, is an appropriate term.
Why then, would the Obama Administration desire to not call this ongoing war what it is? Why change the name to some politically correct, warm and fuzzy term that could mean anything, and let the terrorists off the hook in regards to what they are really about?
I do not believe President Obama realizes, or is willing to admit, that Islamic Radicalism is evil, nor that its only desire is to cover the Earth with its Sharia Law madness. In fact, shortly after taking office, President Obama sent a letter to the Iranian Leadership expressing a willingness to open diplomacy in the hopes of easing the tensions between our nations. Under the circumstances of dealing with such a radical leadership, I believe this was not only wrong, but extremely dangerous.
The response was not encouraging, and the Iranian leadership has indicated that President Obama insulted the Islamic Republic of Iran from the first day of taking office. Obama has disregarded the harsh words of Iran's leaders, pursuing what he calls "constructive ties," and noting that he would not allow the process to be advanced or hindered by threats.
In other words, Iran will come to the negotiation table, and like it, whether they like it or not, but with a peaceful smile on Obama's face.
This is not the first time the Iranian leadership has considered Obama's plans to be a sign of U.S. failure. In January the Iranian leaders considered Obama's offer of diplomacy to be a sign that Western ideology is becoming passive, and that the western system has failed.
In August of 2008 Michael Medved even commented on how Iranian leaders were enraged when the Vice President of Tourism, Esfandiar Rahim Mashai, said that Iran is a friend of all the people of the world. The Iranian Parliament voted by an overwhelming margin to denounce these words as an unforgivable mistake, and Ahmadinejad dismissed the official immediately. The reason for the outcry is because the words of friendship included Israel and America. Hardly an attitude that sounds like a willingness to negotiate.
Even here in America Aasiya Z. Hassan was founder and chief executive officer of Bridges TV of which he launched in 2004 hoping it would portray Muslims in a more positive light. Last month, however, the Orchard Park resident beheaded his wife who dared file for divorce. Yet another powerful lesson to those that believe this ideology can be peacefully negotiated with.
I understand that not all Muslims are radical, and there is a cross-section of the culture that does not condone the actions of the Islamic Jihad. However, understand this - I agree with Walid Shoebat when he told me on my radio program that there are indeed peaceful Muslims out there, but they are peaceful despite Islam, not because of it.
So how can we even consider negotiating with an ideology steeped in the use of terror that wants to destroy us and our closest ally, Israel?
Europe, as we speak, is being overrun by Islam. Brussels is a quarter Muslim, and anti-Israeli mobs have been taking to the streets of European cities. Hamas has openly and proudly proclaimed that they are committed to the destruction of Israel, and Hamas is thrilled that Obama is so committed to the two-state solution. Palestine, however, has rejected statehood in the past. But why?
Palestine exists for one reason and one reason only - the destruction of Israel. The anti-semitism in Islam was part of the root of the anti-semitism of Naziism, and that kind of pure hatred still exists, and only negotiates to buy time. Obama's set of policies is emboldening our foes, and weakening the position of the United States in the war on terror.
As far as Islam is concerned, there is no solution but through Jihad. The very existence of Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Taliban (not to mention the goal of every Muslim Nation) is to eliminate the Jewish "Pirate" State - Israel. The violence in the Middle East is a never ending cycle that won't end until Israel and The West has been destroyed.
Who do I believe when it comes to the tyranny of Islam? The Liberal Left who is unwilling to recognize pure, unadulterated evil? Or folks like Walid Shoebat, Brigette Gabriele, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Faisal Malick, and other individuals that were once a part of the Muslim world (or living among the Muslim World), and fully understand the depth of the hate bred into the Muslim people through an indoctrination that begins from the day of birth?
Fact is, even with proclaiming diplomacy until we are blue in the face, Islamo-Fascism will never voluntarily end this cycle of violence and destruction. We must, through military strength, bring them to the point that they have no choice but to do so. Harsh or not, history teaches us that standing up to the enemy of radical Islam, and defeating them, is the only way to stop them.
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Montana Plane Crash, Abortion, and an Amazing Coincidence
Third Wave Dave alerted me, and wrote on his blog, about an amazing coincidence that one must read to truly believe.
From Dave's Blog:
MEDIA ADVISORY, Mar. 24 /Christian Newswire/ -- Some of you may have seen the major news story of the private plane that crashed into a Montana cemetery, killing 7 children and 7 adults.
But what the news sources fail to mention is that the Catholic Holy Cross Cemetery owned by Resurrection Cemetery Association in Butte - contains a memorial for local residents to pray the rosary, at the 'Tomb of the Unborn'. This memorial, located a short distance west of the church, was erected as a dedication to all babies who have died because of abortion.
What else is the mainstream news not telling you? The family who died in the crash near the location of the abortion victim's memorial, is the family of Irving 'Bud' Feldkamp, owner of the largest for-profit abortion chain in the nation.--Continue reading.
-------------------
Also, feel free to check out my post, Christian Spectacles, on my Carried By Christ Blog.
Also, check out Marine Mom Deborah Johns in a Political Ad slamming Liberal Democrats on my site Political Pistachio Videos.
From Dave's Blog:
MEDIA ADVISORY, Mar. 24 /Christian Newswire/ -- Some of you may have seen the major news story of the private plane that crashed into a Montana cemetery, killing 7 children and 7 adults.
But what the news sources fail to mention is that the Catholic Holy Cross Cemetery owned by Resurrection Cemetery Association in Butte - contains a memorial for local residents to pray the rosary, at the 'Tomb of the Unborn'. This memorial, located a short distance west of the church, was erected as a dedication to all babies who have died because of abortion.
What else is the mainstream news not telling you? The family who died in the crash near the location of the abortion victim's memorial, is the family of Irving 'Bud' Feldkamp, owner of the largest for-profit abortion chain in the nation.--Continue reading.
-------------------
Also, feel free to check out my post, Christian Spectacles, on my Carried By Christ Blog.
Also, check out Marine Mom Deborah Johns in a Political Ad slamming Liberal Democrats on my site Political Pistachio Videos.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Obama Presidential News Conference Notes
Today Barack Obama held his second Presidential News Conference. More than any other president during the early part of the presidency. I think it is because he sure loves that camera.
During the news conference the questions, and his responses, focused primarily on economic issues. He seemed to be more concerned with domestic issues than anything abroad. There were no questions regarding Iraq or Afghanistan.
I was quick to notice that an American Flag lapel pin was present. . .
Early on in his speech Obama made the comment that he wished to make his presidency a change from a borrow and spend mentality. That caused a slight chuckle with me. He is not only continuing the borrow and spend habits of George W. Bush, but at a highly increased level. Nonetheless, even with the massive deficit spending, Obama likes to remind everyone he inherited this "economic mess" from the previous Administration, never acknowledging that the Democrats have been in control of Congress since 2006, and were also a large part of the Bush Administration spending spree.
When referring to a lack of regulation of businesses, and the suffering financial situation, Obama called it, "Another symptom of the culture that brought us to our knees." What culture is he referring to? The Free Market? Americanism? Does the culture of capitalistic America offend him? I just found it strange he used the word "culture" in that context.
He then went on to say the whole reason for the economic slump was because of a lack of government authority (in other words: regulation and control). But I think it was exactly the opposite. Government regulation enforced on businesses not only encouraged these lending institutions to make bad loans, but demanded it. It is amazing how the Democrats can shift the blame, and everyone buys it.
During the question and answer period of the news conference, President Obama was asked: (paraphrased) Will you sign a budget that phases out the middle class tax cut, because it looks like this newest version does just that? He responded by indicating that he believed heavily in the budget containing healthcare reform, serious energy policies, one that invests in education, and one that starts driving deficit numbers down. Yes, notice that tax cuts are nowhere in that answer. Then, after the question was repeated to him, he said: When it comes to middle class tax cuts, they were in the recovery bill, and will be in place next two years. Cap and trade was also in the question, and he claimed it was a means of moving away from polluting energy resources to clean energy resources. What it really does is punish businesses that do not move to the less efficient energy sources Obama is demanding them to move to. It will, also, by his own admission, result in a spike in energy costs. He also claimed he didn't know the details about middle class tax cuts because he hasn’t seen budget yet. Now, if that isn't a cop-out, I don't know what is.
When he was asked in a question that while running Obama claimed he didn’t run for president to pass on problems to future generations, but that his debt being created by his policies and budget is in fact passing on problems to future generations - - - Obama first blamed Bush, once again claiming that he was given this situation, and Bush was a big spender (what part of "he is spending a hell of a lot more than Bush ever dreamed to" is he not getting?). Then Obama said that the Administration will drive down deficit in first five years. How? With that kind of spending, how is that possible? How do you drive down a deficit as you spend more than any president in the history of America - and in fact, more than all of the presidents combined?
Then, he claims ignorance, saying, "None of us knows what will happen in six years or eight years." He then placed emphasis on investments (in other words: Government Spending on infrastructure and other things he feels are investments in our future) that will create growth (growth is achieved by the private Free Market). Don't get me wrong. I understand that spending must occur on public works projects, and that roads and bridges and such don't get built without government funding. However, first of all it is too much spending all at once, and second of all the U.S. Constitution and notes by the founding fathers is explicit in explaining that the government should only fund routes if they are for the postal service, but that it is up to the States to maintain them.
However, as with most of the questions, he never really answers the question about the ever increasing deficit going up and up and up.
In regards to violence in Mexico, and if it is a National Security Threat should we send troops to the border, Obama said we are sending millions in equipment, and coordinating with the Mexican government. He then claimed that we are not seeing a spill over into the U.S. in violence. Then blames American weapons crossing the border for the violence. What? Really? First of all, the weapons are not the problem. The idiots with the weapons in their hands are. Even if there was a complete ban of weapons in the United States, the criminal element would get their hands on them. That is just a fact. Second, he is completely wrong that violence is not spilling over border. I can't count how many reports I have read of Drug War violence spilling over the border into Arizona and Texas from Mexico. Not sure about New Mexico at this point. I know of a few incidents along the California border. And, as expected, he didn't fully answer the question about militarizing the border, but I guarantee he is against sending military troops to be stationed along America's southern border.
When asked about increasing Veteran’s funding, he said that there is an increase in that funding. I am curious how long that will last. I will have to admit that I received a letter from Veteran's Affairs offering to reevaluate certain aspects of my case with the possibility of an increase. I am aware there are a number of Military Wounded with similar injuries as mine with 70% or higher on their disability rating. Mine is 30%, and I do not plan to pursue increasing it. Though I may be technically due the increase, I am able to fully function with minimal pain, and therefore would not feel right pursuing an increase where there are brothers and sisters out there with worse injuries due that money that I may take away by gaining an increase. No thanks.
When asked why Obama waited to voice his AIG outrage? He never really answered the question (surprise, surprise), but I will tell you the answer for him: Obama and the Democrats were waiting to see what the public’s response would be, then they would act accordingly in such a way as to keep the "adoration" needle buried as far in the "up" position as possible.
Because he did not answer the question, it was asked a second time. Obama said, "Because I like to know what I am talking about before I speak." Translation? See the above paragraph.
Obama was then asked about his worry regarding international opinion. After all, he brought that up often during his presidential campaign. Then, in the question, he was asked, "How do you feel about their opinion you are weakening the U.S. dollar and economy?" Once again, he didn’t answer the question - but he did say, "Somebody has to take the leadership, but not me." Right. Not you? Your arrogance betrays you on that one, Obama. Why in the hell did you visit Europe during your campaign? Because you weren't just running for President of the United States - you have global aspirations - or at least desire to be adored by the world. Just admit it, Obama, it is all about you and the power you wish to gain.
Then Obama said that the dollar is extraordinarily strong right now. I about choked. Obama's policies and bailouts are essentially pumping fiat money into the economy, and that fiat money is weakening the value of the dollar rapidly.
Then he said he is restoring the world’s confidence. Legend in his own mind. Apparently he isn't reading what I am reading about the world opinion about his outrageous spending, and socialistic policies.
President Obama stated he plans to not renew Bush tax cuts (no surprise there), but his reasoning during the speech is that he wishes to do so, so that the top 5% pays more in taxes. On top of that, he has lowered the amount of charitable contributions the wealthier can write off. He believes this will not discourage charitable giving. I disagree.
Regarding the homeless, he said (and I agree) that he is heartbroken when he hears that any child is homeless. However, where I disagree is that, on their behalf, he desires that government makes sure their parents will have a job. Then, the jobs h names are government jobs (police, teachers). I really believe this guy can't stand the private sector, and feels that government should replace charities. Isn't helping the poor supposed to be a voluntary thing someone does from the goodness of their heart - Not some compulsory government mandate taken from the taxes?
He plans to be initiating programs to deal with homelessness. More spending.
Ann Compton of ABC Radio asked about race: Obama said that his number one priority is trying to fix the economy. In other words, race is not an issue (and it shouldn't be - his color means nothing to me - it is all about his policies, and doomed to fail ones at that). He said that the people that were excited about his historical election as president have justifiable pride, but that lasted about a day. Obama said, "I am being judged by if I am taking steps to improve the financial markets, create jobs, and keep America safe." I was surprised he added the last part of that, to be honest - unless he is referring to saving our economic crisis as being a means of keeping America safe.
He was asked about Embryonic Stem Cell research, and the morality surrounding the issue, especially considering the advances in Adult Stem Cell research. In fact, the advances in Adult Stem Cell research blow away the failed science of Embryonic Stem Cell Research. Obama said he wrestles with these issues. He claims it is a hard issue (I don't think it is very hard - the decision is obvious - go with successful Adult Stem Cell Research not only because it is more successful, but because of the morality issues surrounding the embryonic method. Obama then claimed to have strong moral, ethical guidelines (this, coming from a person that has no problem with full term abortion and allowing botched abortions to die on the table gasping for air). He said that his ethics were especially strong in issues regarding cloning, human life sciences, and abortion (in one word: Liar). He then claimed that only embryos to be discarded should be used. These embryos should not have been created in the first place!
Obama said he was glad to see adult stem cell progress, and that he would be happy to go in that direction if it works. He added he would be happy to avoid controversy if that is where the science leads us. Thing is, that IS where the science is leading us!
When asked how realistic his hopes of peace between the Palestinians (a.k.a. anti-Israel Hamas Terrorists) and Israel were, especially given that conservative Natanyahu is now President of Israel, Obama responded, "I don’t know the future (another cop-out), so waiting to see." He then said that he wants to advance the two-state solution ". . .where they can live side by side in peace and security."
This shows his ignorance. Palestine, and any other Muslim nation in the region, have no interest in living side by side with Israel in peace in security. They desire (just read the Hamas Charter) the destruction of Israel, and for the rejected Jordanians (that is actually what Palestinian are) to inhabit Israel's territory. If a two-state solution is achieved, the Muslims will play the game for a moment, then all hell will break loose. Israel pulling out of the West Bank and Gaza Strip did not stop the terrorist attacks against Israel. A two-state solution won't either. In fact, they have rejected the two-state solution in the past. Why? Because in their eyes Israel is not a state. It is a pirate state, according to them, and they will not be happy until Israel is destroyed.
Obama, however, is too blind to recognize that.
In the end, I want to repeat this about Obama. He is the only person I have ever heard of that claims you can reduce a deficit while increasing spending. Idiotic.
During the news conference the questions, and his responses, focused primarily on economic issues. He seemed to be more concerned with domestic issues than anything abroad. There were no questions regarding Iraq or Afghanistan.
I was quick to notice that an American Flag lapel pin was present. . .
Early on in his speech Obama made the comment that he wished to make his presidency a change from a borrow and spend mentality. That caused a slight chuckle with me. He is not only continuing the borrow and spend habits of George W. Bush, but at a highly increased level. Nonetheless, even with the massive deficit spending, Obama likes to remind everyone he inherited this "economic mess" from the previous Administration, never acknowledging that the Democrats have been in control of Congress since 2006, and were also a large part of the Bush Administration spending spree.
When referring to a lack of regulation of businesses, and the suffering financial situation, Obama called it, "Another symptom of the culture that brought us to our knees." What culture is he referring to? The Free Market? Americanism? Does the culture of capitalistic America offend him? I just found it strange he used the word "culture" in that context.
He then went on to say the whole reason for the economic slump was because of a lack of government authority (in other words: regulation and control). But I think it was exactly the opposite. Government regulation enforced on businesses not only encouraged these lending institutions to make bad loans, but demanded it. It is amazing how the Democrats can shift the blame, and everyone buys it.
During the question and answer period of the news conference, President Obama was asked: (paraphrased) Will you sign a budget that phases out the middle class tax cut, because it looks like this newest version does just that? He responded by indicating that he believed heavily in the budget containing healthcare reform, serious energy policies, one that invests in education, and one that starts driving deficit numbers down. Yes, notice that tax cuts are nowhere in that answer. Then, after the question was repeated to him, he said: When it comes to middle class tax cuts, they were in the recovery bill, and will be in place next two years. Cap and trade was also in the question, and he claimed it was a means of moving away from polluting energy resources to clean energy resources. What it really does is punish businesses that do not move to the less efficient energy sources Obama is demanding them to move to. It will, also, by his own admission, result in a spike in energy costs. He also claimed he didn't know the details about middle class tax cuts because he hasn’t seen budget yet. Now, if that isn't a cop-out, I don't know what is.
When he was asked in a question that while running Obama claimed he didn’t run for president to pass on problems to future generations, but that his debt being created by his policies and budget is in fact passing on problems to future generations - - - Obama first blamed Bush, once again claiming that he was given this situation, and Bush was a big spender (what part of "he is spending a hell of a lot more than Bush ever dreamed to" is he not getting?). Then Obama said that the Administration will drive down deficit in first five years. How? With that kind of spending, how is that possible? How do you drive down a deficit as you spend more than any president in the history of America - and in fact, more than all of the presidents combined?
Then, he claims ignorance, saying, "None of us knows what will happen in six years or eight years." He then placed emphasis on investments (in other words: Government Spending on infrastructure and other things he feels are investments in our future) that will create growth (growth is achieved by the private Free Market). Don't get me wrong. I understand that spending must occur on public works projects, and that roads and bridges and such don't get built without government funding. However, first of all it is too much spending all at once, and second of all the U.S. Constitution and notes by the founding fathers is explicit in explaining that the government should only fund routes if they are for the postal service, but that it is up to the States to maintain them.
However, as with most of the questions, he never really answers the question about the ever increasing deficit going up and up and up.
In regards to violence in Mexico, and if it is a National Security Threat should we send troops to the border, Obama said we are sending millions in equipment, and coordinating with the Mexican government. He then claimed that we are not seeing a spill over into the U.S. in violence. Then blames American weapons crossing the border for the violence. What? Really? First of all, the weapons are not the problem. The idiots with the weapons in their hands are. Even if there was a complete ban of weapons in the United States, the criminal element would get their hands on them. That is just a fact. Second, he is completely wrong that violence is not spilling over border. I can't count how many reports I have read of Drug War violence spilling over the border into Arizona and Texas from Mexico. Not sure about New Mexico at this point. I know of a few incidents along the California border. And, as expected, he didn't fully answer the question about militarizing the border, but I guarantee he is against sending military troops to be stationed along America's southern border.
When asked about increasing Veteran’s funding, he said that there is an increase in that funding. I am curious how long that will last. I will have to admit that I received a letter from Veteran's Affairs offering to reevaluate certain aspects of my case with the possibility of an increase. I am aware there are a number of Military Wounded with similar injuries as mine with 70% or higher on their disability rating. Mine is 30%, and I do not plan to pursue increasing it. Though I may be technically due the increase, I am able to fully function with minimal pain, and therefore would not feel right pursuing an increase where there are brothers and sisters out there with worse injuries due that money that I may take away by gaining an increase. No thanks.
When asked why Obama waited to voice his AIG outrage? He never really answered the question (surprise, surprise), but I will tell you the answer for him: Obama and the Democrats were waiting to see what the public’s response would be, then they would act accordingly in such a way as to keep the "adoration" needle buried as far in the "up" position as possible.
Because he did not answer the question, it was asked a second time. Obama said, "Because I like to know what I am talking about before I speak." Translation? See the above paragraph.
Obama was then asked about his worry regarding international opinion. After all, he brought that up often during his presidential campaign. Then, in the question, he was asked, "How do you feel about their opinion you are weakening the U.S. dollar and economy?" Once again, he didn’t answer the question - but he did say, "Somebody has to take the leadership, but not me." Right. Not you? Your arrogance betrays you on that one, Obama. Why in the hell did you visit Europe during your campaign? Because you weren't just running for President of the United States - you have global aspirations - or at least desire to be adored by the world. Just admit it, Obama, it is all about you and the power you wish to gain.
Then Obama said that the dollar is extraordinarily strong right now. I about choked. Obama's policies and bailouts are essentially pumping fiat money into the economy, and that fiat money is weakening the value of the dollar rapidly.
Then he said he is restoring the world’s confidence. Legend in his own mind. Apparently he isn't reading what I am reading about the world opinion about his outrageous spending, and socialistic policies.
President Obama stated he plans to not renew Bush tax cuts (no surprise there), but his reasoning during the speech is that he wishes to do so, so that the top 5% pays more in taxes. On top of that, he has lowered the amount of charitable contributions the wealthier can write off. He believes this will not discourage charitable giving. I disagree.
Regarding the homeless, he said (and I agree) that he is heartbroken when he hears that any child is homeless. However, where I disagree is that, on their behalf, he desires that government makes sure their parents will have a job. Then, the jobs h names are government jobs (police, teachers). I really believe this guy can't stand the private sector, and feels that government should replace charities. Isn't helping the poor supposed to be a voluntary thing someone does from the goodness of their heart - Not some compulsory government mandate taken from the taxes?
He plans to be initiating programs to deal with homelessness. More spending.
Ann Compton of ABC Radio asked about race: Obama said that his number one priority is trying to fix the economy. In other words, race is not an issue (and it shouldn't be - his color means nothing to me - it is all about his policies, and doomed to fail ones at that). He said that the people that were excited about his historical election as president have justifiable pride, but that lasted about a day. Obama said, "I am being judged by if I am taking steps to improve the financial markets, create jobs, and keep America safe." I was surprised he added the last part of that, to be honest - unless he is referring to saving our economic crisis as being a means of keeping America safe.
He was asked about Embryonic Stem Cell research, and the morality surrounding the issue, especially considering the advances in Adult Stem Cell research. In fact, the advances in Adult Stem Cell research blow away the failed science of Embryonic Stem Cell Research. Obama said he wrestles with these issues. He claims it is a hard issue (I don't think it is very hard - the decision is obvious - go with successful Adult Stem Cell Research not only because it is more successful, but because of the morality issues surrounding the embryonic method. Obama then claimed to have strong moral, ethical guidelines (this, coming from a person that has no problem with full term abortion and allowing botched abortions to die on the table gasping for air). He said that his ethics were especially strong in issues regarding cloning, human life sciences, and abortion (in one word: Liar). He then claimed that only embryos to be discarded should be used. These embryos should not have been created in the first place!
Obama said he was glad to see adult stem cell progress, and that he would be happy to go in that direction if it works. He added he would be happy to avoid controversy if that is where the science leads us. Thing is, that IS where the science is leading us!
When asked how realistic his hopes of peace between the Palestinians (a.k.a. anti-Israel Hamas Terrorists) and Israel were, especially given that conservative Natanyahu is now President of Israel, Obama responded, "I don’t know the future (another cop-out), so waiting to see." He then said that he wants to advance the two-state solution ". . .where they can live side by side in peace and security."
This shows his ignorance. Palestine, and any other Muslim nation in the region, have no interest in living side by side with Israel in peace in security. They desire (just read the Hamas Charter) the destruction of Israel, and for the rejected Jordanians (that is actually what Palestinian are) to inhabit Israel's territory. If a two-state solution is achieved, the Muslims will play the game for a moment, then all hell will break loose. Israel pulling out of the West Bank and Gaza Strip did not stop the terrorist attacks against Israel. A two-state solution won't either. In fact, they have rejected the two-state solution in the past. Why? Because in their eyes Israel is not a state. It is a pirate state, according to them, and they will not be happy until Israel is destroyed.
Obama, however, is too blind to recognize that.
In the end, I want to repeat this about Obama. He is the only person I have ever heard of that claims you can reduce a deficit while increasing spending. Idiotic.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Record Debt - More than all Presidents Combined!
President Barack Obama is increasing the debt to increase the size of government. He is claiming to be doing so without needing to raise taxes, but we've heard that lie from Democrats before. What is most alarming, however, is that Obama's budget is projected to add one trillion bucks to our federal deficit each year! If this is so, Obama's $3.6 trillion budget (though we all know that is a low estimate) more than doubles the national debt held by the public, and adds more to the debt than all previous presidents, combined. (How is that a good thing?) Meanwhile, The New York Times is reporting that in Tim Geithner's speech he articulated that he is seeking wider power for government takeovers. In other words, the Democrats that are in control of our government is seeking the ability to regulate and take control of more financial institutions other than banks, regardless of their financial stability.
Does this mean Credit Unions too? Of course it does. The Liberal Left wants control of everything. That is what Marxists do!
With Credit Unions, the Free Market works nicely. The Credit Union invests only in its members. When Credit Unions face failure they either fail, or a larger Credit Union, like Navy Federal Credit Union, will absorb the smaller, failing institution.
But the greed for power by Democrats is so great that they are not only happy to nationalize the "crisis situation" entities, they are going after the whole kit and caboodle.
Conservatives, however, are not surprised, and was warning you that this is exactly what Obama and the Liberal Democratic Congress would do if the American voter was so foolhardy as to vote them in.
Now, the question is, how do we stop the tidal wave of socialism taking hold of this country?
The answer to that question is that the Republican Part MUST return to its Conservative foundation. Principles and Standards must be the party's primary concern and goal - otherwise, the Liberal domination of government, and the downward spiral into a nation not unlike the Soviet Union, is inevitable.
Does this mean Credit Unions too? Of course it does. The Liberal Left wants control of everything. That is what Marxists do!
With Credit Unions, the Free Market works nicely. The Credit Union invests only in its members. When Credit Unions face failure they either fail, or a larger Credit Union, like Navy Federal Credit Union, will absorb the smaller, failing institution.
But the greed for power by Democrats is so great that they are not only happy to nationalize the "crisis situation" entities, they are going after the whole kit and caboodle.
Conservatives, however, are not surprised, and was warning you that this is exactly what Obama and the Liberal Democratic Congress would do if the American voter was so foolhardy as to vote them in.
Now, the question is, how do we stop the tidal wave of socialism taking hold of this country?
The answer to that question is that the Republican Part MUST return to its Conservative foundation. Principles and Standards must be the party's primary concern and goal - otherwise, the Liberal domination of government, and the downward spiral into a nation not unlike the Soviet Union, is inevitable.
Liberty Dying Like the Snow Falls
A few snowflakes does not make a snowstorm. A few puddles does not mean there will be massive flooding. But, unfortunately, a few bad apples can ruin a barrel. On the same token, if you see the tip of the iceberg, it may be possible there is a whole lot more from where that came from.
"Walter Reed" has become synonymous with what people believe to be a failing Military Hospital and Veterans Administration system. It doesn't matter if the connections exist between Walter Reed and any other medical facility in or out of the system. People automatically assume that if an Army Hospital is capable of a breakdown in command and proper leadership, the entire military hospital network, including Veteran's Affairs - in their minds, is a listing ship ready to take a nose dive into the bowels of Davey Jones' Locker. However, nothing could be from the truth. Overall, the military hospitals are top notch facilities manned by military personnel doing all they can to take care of their own. Veteran's Affairs, though it can sometimes become a bureaucratic nightmare, is a fairly stable system with a handful of loose bolts that are constantly being searched out and tightened.
The political game is not much different. When George W. Bush, and a few wayward Republicans, determined that the best way to save the Free Market System was to inject government money, which always includes government regulation and control, any member of The Right that later criticized the Obama Administration for their massive budget and bailout plans was immediately reminded of the socialism injected into the system by the so-called Compassionate Conservative President Bush. As if all folks on The Right have to join into lock-step with anything Dubya did, and to say anything to the contrary is hypocritical.
The political minefield is full of such explosive traps. And I agree with many Democrats that George W. Bush wasn't the greatest president ever to walk God's green Earth. But, because there are a few policies, including his spending tendencies, which is now being dwarfed by the current administration's gluttonous spending spree, that I disagree with, it does not mean that I must then draw a line in the sand and proclaim that Bush is the worst president ever, or that my Republicans are a bunch of screw-ups. In truth, the problem does not lie with Conservatism, anyway, but with Liberalism in the first place.
The Liberal Left is all about party, and all about increasing government involvement in our lives. They proclaim that all Democrats are the greatest beings to ever grace the presence of the United States, while all Republicans were stupid, misinformed oafs that somehow managed not to completely ruin the country. They proclaim, since the Democrats support government handouts to anyone that will take them, this somehow makes the Democratic Party the party that is in the corner of the poor, and therefore, Republicans must only be for the rich, and desire to fill the pockets of the rich with more cash while draining any remaining blood from the poverty stricken masses. This is simply not true.
On the same token, while Liberals proclaim the sainthood of their various historical Democrats, any facts that may not completely fit their mold is conveniently forgotten. John F. Kennedy is hailed as a great Democrat, yet his willingness to fight (using the United States Military) when the enemy stood on the doorstep, or his affinity for cutting taxes, is hardly ever mentioned by anyone on the left, and especially by the bias stricken mainstream media. Franklin Delano Roosevelt is, in the minds of many, the greatest thing to hit economic woes since sliced bread, when in reality if the numbers during the implementation of his New Deal (Raw Deal?) are closely scrutinized, he actually prolonged The Great Depression with his increased taxation, government spending, and creation of socialist programs akin to the practices of the rising enemy, communism. Nations that allowed the Free Market to correct itself maintained lower unemployment numbers, and pulled out of the depression earlier, worldwide.
Though the occasional Larry Craig, or Republican spending spree by the Bush Administration, does not define an entire GOP that is populated largely by Conservatives, a continual track record of tax and spending for the last century by the Democrats does give us a glimpse of what lies beneath the liberal iceberg.
Now that communism lies in disgrace with the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the Chinese decision to inject a little capitalism into their economy, of which the result has been massive economic growth, why is it that liberalism hangs on to the very ideals proven to fail?
Norman Thomas, six-time Socialist Party candidate for president said it best: "The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened."
This is because liberalism, socialism, or if you will - Marxism, is about control. Members of the Democratic Party could care less about the economic stability of the nation, when it really comes down to it. Their greed for power overshadows that, and they are already trying to figure out how they can stay in power during the next election cycle. This is why the Democrats act like classic liberals, but proclaim conservatism (like claiming to give tax cuts to 95% of the people when they have no intention of doing such a thing, and a simple change in income tax withholding is nothing of the sort).
The occasional misstep of a few Republicans is a perfect example of a few bad apples ruining the barrel. The problem with the Democrats is that the barrel is rotten from top to bottom. The Obama budget bill is way over budget, and some members of the left are now proclaiming that conservative bloggers are domestic terrorists, and now to make sure you stay in goose-step with the Liberal takeover of America, H.R. 1388 is moving forward to put into place a compulsory (yet called voluntary - talk about Orwellian Double Speak) civilian national security force requiring community service (in a special uniform) of young Americans. Some would call it Obama's version of The Brown Shirts.
Liberty, unfortunately, usually dies under the guise of security, and is greeted with thunderous applause. The blizzard has arrived, and the onslaught of Liberal Socialism is more than just a few snowflakes.
"Walter Reed" has become synonymous with what people believe to be a failing Military Hospital and Veterans Administration system. It doesn't matter if the connections exist between Walter Reed and any other medical facility in or out of the system. People automatically assume that if an Army Hospital is capable of a breakdown in command and proper leadership, the entire military hospital network, including Veteran's Affairs - in their minds, is a listing ship ready to take a nose dive into the bowels of Davey Jones' Locker. However, nothing could be from the truth. Overall, the military hospitals are top notch facilities manned by military personnel doing all they can to take care of their own. Veteran's Affairs, though it can sometimes become a bureaucratic nightmare, is a fairly stable system with a handful of loose bolts that are constantly being searched out and tightened.
The political game is not much different. When George W. Bush, and a few wayward Republicans, determined that the best way to save the Free Market System was to inject government money, which always includes government regulation and control, any member of The Right that later criticized the Obama Administration for their massive budget and bailout plans was immediately reminded of the socialism injected into the system by the so-called Compassionate Conservative President Bush. As if all folks on The Right have to join into lock-step with anything Dubya did, and to say anything to the contrary is hypocritical.
The political minefield is full of such explosive traps. And I agree with many Democrats that George W. Bush wasn't the greatest president ever to walk God's green Earth. But, because there are a few policies, including his spending tendencies, which is now being dwarfed by the current administration's gluttonous spending spree, that I disagree with, it does not mean that I must then draw a line in the sand and proclaim that Bush is the worst president ever, or that my Republicans are a bunch of screw-ups. In truth, the problem does not lie with Conservatism, anyway, but with Liberalism in the first place.
The Liberal Left is all about party, and all about increasing government involvement in our lives. They proclaim that all Democrats are the greatest beings to ever grace the presence of the United States, while all Republicans were stupid, misinformed oafs that somehow managed not to completely ruin the country. They proclaim, since the Democrats support government handouts to anyone that will take them, this somehow makes the Democratic Party the party that is in the corner of the poor, and therefore, Republicans must only be for the rich, and desire to fill the pockets of the rich with more cash while draining any remaining blood from the poverty stricken masses. This is simply not true.
On the same token, while Liberals proclaim the sainthood of their various historical Democrats, any facts that may not completely fit their mold is conveniently forgotten. John F. Kennedy is hailed as a great Democrat, yet his willingness to fight (using the United States Military) when the enemy stood on the doorstep, or his affinity for cutting taxes, is hardly ever mentioned by anyone on the left, and especially by the bias stricken mainstream media. Franklin Delano Roosevelt is, in the minds of many, the greatest thing to hit economic woes since sliced bread, when in reality if the numbers during the implementation of his New Deal (Raw Deal?) are closely scrutinized, he actually prolonged The Great Depression with his increased taxation, government spending, and creation of socialist programs akin to the practices of the rising enemy, communism. Nations that allowed the Free Market to correct itself maintained lower unemployment numbers, and pulled out of the depression earlier, worldwide.
Though the occasional Larry Craig, or Republican spending spree by the Bush Administration, does not define an entire GOP that is populated largely by Conservatives, a continual track record of tax and spending for the last century by the Democrats does give us a glimpse of what lies beneath the liberal iceberg.
Now that communism lies in disgrace with the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the Chinese decision to inject a little capitalism into their economy, of which the result has been massive economic growth, why is it that liberalism hangs on to the very ideals proven to fail?
Norman Thomas, six-time Socialist Party candidate for president said it best: "The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened."
This is because liberalism, socialism, or if you will - Marxism, is about control. Members of the Democratic Party could care less about the economic stability of the nation, when it really comes down to it. Their greed for power overshadows that, and they are already trying to figure out how they can stay in power during the next election cycle. This is why the Democrats act like classic liberals, but proclaim conservatism (like claiming to give tax cuts to 95% of the people when they have no intention of doing such a thing, and a simple change in income tax withholding is nothing of the sort).
The occasional misstep of a few Republicans is a perfect example of a few bad apples ruining the barrel. The problem with the Democrats is that the barrel is rotten from top to bottom. The Obama budget bill is way over budget, and some members of the left are now proclaiming that conservative bloggers are domestic terrorists, and now to make sure you stay in goose-step with the Liberal takeover of America, H.R. 1388 is moving forward to put into place a compulsory (yet called voluntary - talk about Orwellian Double Speak) civilian national security force requiring community service (in a special uniform) of young Americans. Some would call it Obama's version of The Brown Shirts.
Liberty, unfortunately, usually dies under the guise of security, and is greeted with thunderous applause. The blizzard has arrived, and the onslaught of Liberal Socialism is more than just a few snowflakes.
Monday, March 23, 2009
Political Pistachio Now On Canada Free Press
In addition to my articles being available on my various websites (including Facebook, MySpace, Yahoo 360, Wordpress, and Townhall), and American Daily Review, where I am a Senior Editor and Senior Writer, some of my articles can now also be found on Canada Free Press.
Thank you, regular readers, for your continued support as Political Pistachio, and yours truly - Douglas V. Gibbs, grows to become a widely read conservative voice in the battle to save America.
God Bless, and remember: United We Stand, Combined We Kick Butt!
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Sunday, March 22, 2009
American Daily Review Gone Gang-Busters
American Daily Review is one of the premiere conservative web magazines on the world wide web. In the two month period since its launch it has already nearly surpassed over 100,000 hits. Notable writers from around the net are joining the site as contributors. War has been declared against the mainstream media, and the conservative alternative known as American Daily Review is on the front line.
In reality, the story behind this up and coming star of the conservative internet brigade began with a few phone calls. John Barnhart, the Executive Director behind American Daily Review asked a few people attached to Conservative Solutions (aka Let's Get This Right) what they thought about his idea for a new site geared at Christian Conservative Commentary, and a site that would ultimately go to battle against The Daily KOS and Huffington Post. The folks over at Conservative Solutions listened carefully, understood John's desire to be networked with sites like theirs, yet independent, and his desire to find people with the same talent and fire in their belly as he.
They recommended that John contact me, Douglas V. Gibbs of Political Pistachio.
Our early phone conversations last August began the birthing process of American Daily Review. Slowly, we designed the site, and John became the technical brains behind the outfit. When the site launched January 17, 2009, immediately ADR received a plethora of hits. With the superior content provided by myself, John, and a host of other contributors, the readers began to return for more, and tell their friends.
Now, American Daily Review has become a major force in the battle to return this country to its Conservative roots.
Tonight, live on the Political Pistachio Radio Revolution, John Barnhart, Executive Director of American Daily Review, joins the show to discuss the evolution of American Daily Review, and the issues Conservatives are confronting today as the Liberal Left Democrats dominate our government, and are steering this nation headlong into a socialist mistake.
Join the show live at 7pm Pacific, or catch the archive later: HERE.
Bankrupting America
The American Century Dictionary defines Bankrupt as "Legally declared insolvent." Insolvent is defined as "Unable to pay one's debts."
The majority of Democrats, and a surprising number of Republicans, believe that the Obama Administration is on the right course to save the nation's financial system. The same Democrats that screamed bloody-murder over George W. Bush's spending habits, spending sprees that I also was in grave disagreement with, are now proclaiming that not only will President Barack Obama's massive budget proposal not bankrupt the country, but that deficit spending into the trillions of dollars is what is necessary to save us from a looming sequel of The Great Depression.
Republican House Representative John A. Boehner, the House minority leader, said recently in defense of his idea to freeze government spending that, "We simply cannot afford to mortgage our children and grandchildren’s future to pay for this big government spending spree."
Imagine, if you will, and I will use myself as a hypothetical example, that I had hit some hard times. Investments were going sour, logging and construction downturns placed a burden on my financial well-being, and my wife and I were no longer able to go out to fine places to eat, or attend entertainment venues that we would normally frequent. Cooking at home takes work, after all, and tightening our belts and curbing our spending habits would take away from our ability to participate in a lifestyle we have been enjoying for years.
So, one night I sit down with my wife and say, "You know, the way to help our economic situation is to create in influx of cash so that we can get things moving again. That way, with all of that extra cash, we can go out and buy the things we feel we need to buy, and not have to spend so much time worried about trying to juggle the bills."
She decides to agree in this world of fantasy, and so we max out our credit cards and get more of those little plastic devils so that we can use them for whatever we desire. After all, we need to fix the infrastructure of our lives by buying new cars, adding on to the house, building an additional structure on our property on the Oregon Coast, and pulling out our driveway and replacing it with new concrete - oh, heck, its free money, we might as well lay interlocking bricks. That way, it is more appealing to guest that visit too.
Eventually, the credit cards become too much for us to manage. But, hey, no problem, the 80 acre place in Oregon is paid off, and even with the slow down in real estate it is worth more than one can shake a stick at, so we can just borrow against the property. We'll set up an account that allows us to write checks, that way the equity is fully available, and always at our fingertips.
During the time period of all this money flowing in we go out, buy new cars, and live it up. Those around us proclaim, "Gosh, even with the economic difficulties this nation is facing, the Gibbs' family is doing well. I wonder how they do it?"
What is that you say? Eventually I will have to pay back all of that money I created by financing myself up to my eyeballs? No problem, the creditors will stay off my back just long enough for me to die of old age, and then my kids can worry about it. No worry. They'll figure something out.
Obviously, the high deficit world I created in the above scenario would be a foolish way to run my household. As a business owner, trying to fix an ailing business by going into deeper debt would be foolish as well. So I ask this: If it is the wrong thing to go deeper into debt to create an influx of funds, and if it is wrong to just leave the worries of it to my children and grandchildren, as an individual or business owner, then why would it be the right thing to for the United States Government?
Historically, raising taxes and increasing government spending creates more harm than it helps. Lyndon B. Johnson and Jimmy Carter are great examples of that. And don't give me this "Obama is cutting taxes" bull, either. Taxes are being raised in ways that we don't even recognize them as such. Fees and licenses and fines for regulatory disobedience are all taxes, in my book. Even the simple little Business License is a city business tax, even though the word tax is not present. While quacking like a duck, even though the animal has a name tag that says hyena, does not make a duck suddenly a hyena. Eventually, the Democrat's spending, led by Barack Obama, is going to get so massive, and it is already beyond the abilities of the top 5% to shoulder the full burden, that Obama will tax as Democrats always tax - massively along all points of the economic spectrum. Uh, that means you, too. You will all feel the pain of an Obama Administration frantically trying to gather more funds after everything begins to collapse further.
Early during the last century a recession loomed on the horizon, and Presidents Harding and Coolidge were fiscal conservatives that adhered strictly to the U.S. Constitution. As the economic times were becoming more difficult, as they are now, Harding, and then Coolidge later, cut federal spending and cut taxes. As a result, people were able to do more with more, and their incomes rose, increasing revenue while stimulating the economy. The boom years of the 1920's followed.
President Hoover, a fitting predecessor to the socialist stylings of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, was not anything like his fellow fiscally conservative Republicans. Hoover, as Roosevelt would later, piled up big deficits to support huge public-works projects. Federal spending soared during the final years of the roaring 20's and into the early 1930's. In fact, federal spending increased by more than 50%, the largest increase in federal spending ever recorded during peacetime.
Public projects Hoover decided to undertake included the San Francisco Bay Bridge, the Los Angeles Aqueduct, and the Hoover Dam. Yes, I know these are wonderful projects that we benefit from to this day, and the world is a better place with them, but was this the best thing to do as the nation was entering into The Great Depression? Sure, Hoover became very popular with the labor forces that participated in the projects who were convinced by government to refrain from cutting wages as the economy fell. But was it government's responsibility to correct the market? Or was it the fault of central planning, protectionism (like the Smoot-Hawley tariff), and central banks like the Federal Reserve System controlling the economy (that became known as the New Deal later) that caused the economic upheaval, and extended it well into the 1940s?
Like with the Obama Administration, where the market seems on the surface to have failed, the government stepped in to protect the common citizen, increasing spending to do so, therefore creating debt - and in Obama's case, writing checks on money that doesn't even exist, and in turn devaluing the dollar.
I know that the Liberal anti-truth machine is even now rewriting history, proclaiming that Hoover, contrary to popular opinion and factual historical text, was actually trying to balance the budget by cutting spending, and it was those actions that caused The Great Depression. Robert H. Frank of the New York Times even goes so far to "lie," I mean "say," that Hoover not only actually cut spending, but that there is a consensus out there among economists that cutting spending is a huge mistake.
Do you hear that? Balancing the budget, cutting spending, and essentially being responsible with the American Citizen's tax money is a bad thing? Putting less on the credit cards will harm us? Mortgaging America into bankruptcy so that our children and grandchildren in their lifetimes could never pay it back in full is the right thing to do to stimulate the economy? Are they insane?
Owing more than you have coming in, in other words, deficit spending, is a one way ticket to bankruptcy. It was wrong when George W. Bush did it, and it is wrong now. The Free Market is self-correcting. The people know best, not the government. The size of government has been steadily increasing over the last twenty years under the very moderate Bush Family, Bill Clinton, and now Obama (with a short spurt of a balanced budget that created a surplus that was engineered by the House Republicans led by Newt Gingrich during the nineties, of which The Left loves to give the credit to Bill Clinton on). If an increase in the size of government is such a good thing, and if deficit spending is what helps the economy grow, then tell me: After all of these years of deficit spending and a constant expansion of the federal government, why is it that we are in this financial mess? Could it possibly be that the seems of our economy are busting loose because of government intervention in the Free Market? Could it possibly be that the Free Market is trying to adjust after a decades of artificial manipulation by the United States Government? And since when is ever financing ourselves into oblivion a reasonable thing to do?
The Obama Administration, and the village idiots that populate the U.S. Congress, are bankrupting us. And what is most concerting about it is that a large segment of the U.S. population is actually greeting this destruction of the American financial system with thunderous applause, and mindless approval. Our founding fathers, President Harding, and President Coolidge would be disappointed. We have truly lost our way, and the Pied Pipers of Washington are leading us to a cliff. It is essential that we turn this around with fiscal conservatism, or else in the end, like the rats in the river, we will be drowning as a result of our own stupidity.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Five Myths About the Great Depression by Andrew B. Wilson
When ‘Deficit’ Isn’t a Dirty Word by Robert H. Frank
The majority of Democrats, and a surprising number of Republicans, believe that the Obama Administration is on the right course to save the nation's financial system. The same Democrats that screamed bloody-murder over George W. Bush's spending habits, spending sprees that I also was in grave disagreement with, are now proclaiming that not only will President Barack Obama's massive budget proposal not bankrupt the country, but that deficit spending into the trillions of dollars is what is necessary to save us from a looming sequel of The Great Depression.
Republican House Representative John A. Boehner, the House minority leader, said recently in defense of his idea to freeze government spending that, "We simply cannot afford to mortgage our children and grandchildren’s future to pay for this big government spending spree."
Imagine, if you will, and I will use myself as a hypothetical example, that I had hit some hard times. Investments were going sour, logging and construction downturns placed a burden on my financial well-being, and my wife and I were no longer able to go out to fine places to eat, or attend entertainment venues that we would normally frequent. Cooking at home takes work, after all, and tightening our belts and curbing our spending habits would take away from our ability to participate in a lifestyle we have been enjoying for years.
So, one night I sit down with my wife and say, "You know, the way to help our economic situation is to create in influx of cash so that we can get things moving again. That way, with all of that extra cash, we can go out and buy the things we feel we need to buy, and not have to spend so much time worried about trying to juggle the bills."
She decides to agree in this world of fantasy, and so we max out our credit cards and get more of those little plastic devils so that we can use them for whatever we desire. After all, we need to fix the infrastructure of our lives by buying new cars, adding on to the house, building an additional structure on our property on the Oregon Coast, and pulling out our driveway and replacing it with new concrete - oh, heck, its free money, we might as well lay interlocking bricks. That way, it is more appealing to guest that visit too.
Eventually, the credit cards become too much for us to manage. But, hey, no problem, the 80 acre place in Oregon is paid off, and even with the slow down in real estate it is worth more than one can shake a stick at, so we can just borrow against the property. We'll set up an account that allows us to write checks, that way the equity is fully available, and always at our fingertips.
During the time period of all this money flowing in we go out, buy new cars, and live it up. Those around us proclaim, "Gosh, even with the economic difficulties this nation is facing, the Gibbs' family is doing well. I wonder how they do it?"
What is that you say? Eventually I will have to pay back all of that money I created by financing myself up to my eyeballs? No problem, the creditors will stay off my back just long enough for me to die of old age, and then my kids can worry about it. No worry. They'll figure something out.
Obviously, the high deficit world I created in the above scenario would be a foolish way to run my household. As a business owner, trying to fix an ailing business by going into deeper debt would be foolish as well. So I ask this: If it is the wrong thing to go deeper into debt to create an influx of funds, and if it is wrong to just leave the worries of it to my children and grandchildren, as an individual or business owner, then why would it be the right thing to for the United States Government?
Historically, raising taxes and increasing government spending creates more harm than it helps. Lyndon B. Johnson and Jimmy Carter are great examples of that. And don't give me this "Obama is cutting taxes" bull, either. Taxes are being raised in ways that we don't even recognize them as such. Fees and licenses and fines for regulatory disobedience are all taxes, in my book. Even the simple little Business License is a city business tax, even though the word tax is not present. While quacking like a duck, even though the animal has a name tag that says hyena, does not make a duck suddenly a hyena. Eventually, the Democrat's spending, led by Barack Obama, is going to get so massive, and it is already beyond the abilities of the top 5% to shoulder the full burden, that Obama will tax as Democrats always tax - massively along all points of the economic spectrum. Uh, that means you, too. You will all feel the pain of an Obama Administration frantically trying to gather more funds after everything begins to collapse further.
Early during the last century a recession loomed on the horizon, and Presidents Harding and Coolidge were fiscal conservatives that adhered strictly to the U.S. Constitution. As the economic times were becoming more difficult, as they are now, Harding, and then Coolidge later, cut federal spending and cut taxes. As a result, people were able to do more with more, and their incomes rose, increasing revenue while stimulating the economy. The boom years of the 1920's followed.
President Hoover, a fitting predecessor to the socialist stylings of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, was not anything like his fellow fiscally conservative Republicans. Hoover, as Roosevelt would later, piled up big deficits to support huge public-works projects. Federal spending soared during the final years of the roaring 20's and into the early 1930's. In fact, federal spending increased by more than 50%, the largest increase in federal spending ever recorded during peacetime.
Public projects Hoover decided to undertake included the San Francisco Bay Bridge, the Los Angeles Aqueduct, and the Hoover Dam. Yes, I know these are wonderful projects that we benefit from to this day, and the world is a better place with them, but was this the best thing to do as the nation was entering into The Great Depression? Sure, Hoover became very popular with the labor forces that participated in the projects who were convinced by government to refrain from cutting wages as the economy fell. But was it government's responsibility to correct the market? Or was it the fault of central planning, protectionism (like the Smoot-Hawley tariff), and central banks like the Federal Reserve System controlling the economy (that became known as the New Deal later) that caused the economic upheaval, and extended it well into the 1940s?
Like with the Obama Administration, where the market seems on the surface to have failed, the government stepped in to protect the common citizen, increasing spending to do so, therefore creating debt - and in Obama's case, writing checks on money that doesn't even exist, and in turn devaluing the dollar.
I know that the Liberal anti-truth machine is even now rewriting history, proclaiming that Hoover, contrary to popular opinion and factual historical text, was actually trying to balance the budget by cutting spending, and it was those actions that caused The Great Depression. Robert H. Frank of the New York Times even goes so far to "lie," I mean "say," that Hoover not only actually cut spending, but that there is a consensus out there among economists that cutting spending is a huge mistake.
Do you hear that? Balancing the budget, cutting spending, and essentially being responsible with the American Citizen's tax money is a bad thing? Putting less on the credit cards will harm us? Mortgaging America into bankruptcy so that our children and grandchildren in their lifetimes could never pay it back in full is the right thing to do to stimulate the economy? Are they insane?
Owing more than you have coming in, in other words, deficit spending, is a one way ticket to bankruptcy. It was wrong when George W. Bush did it, and it is wrong now. The Free Market is self-correcting. The people know best, not the government. The size of government has been steadily increasing over the last twenty years under the very moderate Bush Family, Bill Clinton, and now Obama (with a short spurt of a balanced budget that created a surplus that was engineered by the House Republicans led by Newt Gingrich during the nineties, of which The Left loves to give the credit to Bill Clinton on). If an increase in the size of government is such a good thing, and if deficit spending is what helps the economy grow, then tell me: After all of these years of deficit spending and a constant expansion of the federal government, why is it that we are in this financial mess? Could it possibly be that the seems of our economy are busting loose because of government intervention in the Free Market? Could it possibly be that the Free Market is trying to adjust after a decades of artificial manipulation by the United States Government? And since when is ever financing ourselves into oblivion a reasonable thing to do?
The Obama Administration, and the village idiots that populate the U.S. Congress, are bankrupting us. And what is most concerting about it is that a large segment of the U.S. population is actually greeting this destruction of the American financial system with thunderous applause, and mindless approval. Our founding fathers, President Harding, and President Coolidge would be disappointed. We have truly lost our way, and the Pied Pipers of Washington are leading us to a cliff. It is essential that we turn this around with fiscal conservatism, or else in the end, like the rats in the river, we will be drowning as a result of our own stupidity.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Five Myths About the Great Depression by Andrew B. Wilson
When ‘Deficit’ Isn’t a Dirty Word by Robert H. Frank
Saturday, March 21, 2009
Orlando Tea Party A Huge Success
My good friend Andrea Shea King was a guest speaker at today's very successful Orlando Tea Party. Thousands participated. Folks traveled from the Left Coast in order to have the opportunity to attend the Tea Party. Lloyd Marcus was on hand to introduce to the crowd his new song "American Tea Party," and according to Third Wave Dave, the crowd went nuts!! According to Lloyd, he's being asked to perform the song all over the Nation.
All I can say is I wish I could've been there.
Good job, fellow Americans, in protesting the out of control spending and taxing by the rapidly expanding federal government - led by the liberal Democrats in Congress, and the not so smooth talking messiah, Barack Hussein Obama.
Gnosticism, Lost Gospels, and today's Politics
In 1945, near the town of Nag Hammadi, a farmer found a red jar containing 12 papyrus books bound in leather. The writers of these codices were followers of an ancient movement called Gnosticism. The tales in the texts claim to be written by Jesus' first disciples. Five of the Nag Hammadi words call themselves Gospels. Some scholars believe that these documents rewrite the story of Christianity.
The Jesus Seminar wrote a new translation of the Gospels using the Gnostic influence. Writers like Elaine Pagels have written extensively on the "lost Gospels." Before long, the lost Gospels began to be used as a way to undermine Christianity, using a linguistic shell game that has created confusion and doubt among some in society. However, Gnosticism didn't receive center stage until Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code hit the book shelves in 2003.
Fifty million readers of Dan Brown's best selling novel read in The Da Vinci Code that the Nag Hammadi writings are "unaltered Gospels" which present Jesus Christ in "human terms." Dan Brown's book claims that the lost Gospels were rejected by The Church for political reasons, and that the story of Jesus is a much different tale than what is portrayed by Christianity. And with the popularity of Dan Brown's novel, in addition to a number of Hollywood releases using Gnosticism for the stories, the Gnostic Rennaissance is in full bloom.
In 2007, David Marshall published his book, The Truth About Jesus and the "Lost Gospels." The book delves deep into the "Lost Gospels" to answer what they are, where they came from, if they are trustworthy, if they are on par with the Holy Bible, and whether or not we have had wrong perceptions about Jesus all along.
Tonight, during the first hour of Political Pistachio Radio, David Marshall is my guest. In tonight's interview, we will go through a careful comparison of the "Lost Gospels" to the Bible, as well as investigate how Gnosticism has infected our society, and political system.
The Episode Airs Live at 7:00 pm Pacific Time on Political Pistachio Radio - catch it live, or the archive later, HERE.
During the second hour of the show, we will be joined by Augie Sodaro of Special Guests to discuss how agencies like Special Guests work, and how internet radio is influencing todays entertainment industry.
Friday, March 20, 2009
Obama's False Image
.jpg)
In Obama's dream world he is articulate, suave, masterful, intellectual, and can turn rain into sunshine. His flock of followers swoon in his presence. Two town hall meetings in Los Angeles and nearby Orange County distributed tickets for the meetings within 90 minutes to the ravenous crowd - some people camping out a couple days in order to be in line early enough to score these precious golden tickets. Barry is the first sitting president to be interviewed on a late night television show, last night appearing on Jay Leno's Tonight Show. Barack Obama is a rockstar, messiah, and president all rolled into one to these people. He can do no wrong, especially when compared to those idiots George W. Bush and Sarah Palin. Right?
Unfortunately, for those few folks that are still rabid believers out there that have lost all objectivity when it comes to President Obama, he is more like a professional wrestler than a leader of the free world. His public persona is a false image generated by members of his staff, and a, to borrow a word from Bernie Goldberg, "slobbering" media. When his words are chosen carefully by his staff, and when he has somebody else's words flashing in front of him on his teleprompter, usually Obama comes across as a smooth character. However, in his unguarded moments the true Obama emerges, and he becomes a gaffe machine, and an insensitive oaf. Of course, while campaigning, Obama's numerous gaffes were never reported by his adoring press. They found ways to either bury the data, or avert the public's attention to false accusations against Sarah Palin.
Success using these shameful tactics were easy for the mainstream media, after all, for they already had eight years experience demonizing George W. Bush. Of course they would never say anything that may be anything other than flattering about Barack Obama.
Case in point: Remember when Obama and crew gave the thoughtless gift of 25 DVDs to British Prime Minister Gordon Brown? Well, it turns out that not only was the gift thoughtless, but it is useless too. Obama and friends failed to realize that DVDs in America are considered Region 1, and only play on North American Video Players. Britain is region two. So, when Brown tried to play one of his new DVDs from Obama, they didn't play.
Better still in showing Obama's idiocy is his recent non-teleprompter moment on Jay Leno's Tonight Show where he compared his sorry bowling game to the Special Olympics.
Well, so much for Obama being a brilliant academic. Time and time again he keeps on proving he's a bigger idiot than the leftist media tried to make Bush and Palin look like.
Could you imagine if George W. Bush had done either of the above? The media would have had a field day with it. But Obama's latest gaffe was on national television in front of a live audience, and not a peep. . . well, okay, a few peeps, but you know what I mean.
Oh, and if you missed it, here it is:
Ironically, it is Down Syndrome Awareness Day tomorrow. And I am appalled that the Left criticized Palin for birthing little Trig because of his handicap, or that Obama would senselessly say such a thing as he did last night on television, and hardly get called on it. I taught at a school for the mentally retarded (as it was called back then) when I was much younger for a few years, and these kids were hardly anything but the neatest, most loving, enthusiastic people you'd ever meet.
Barack Obama, you should be ashamed of yourself - and your automatically generated apology from someone else's mouth in the White House is hardly an acceptable enough apology.
AIG Debacle Numbers The Days of Obama Administration
Blunder after blunder is beginning to haunt the struggling Obama Administration. The ineptitude of the president and his Democrat henchmen (and women) is becoming the joke of the day. People recognize that the outrageous amount of spending, and the promise to spend more, is no way to do business, or save an economy. The AIG debacle is bringing it all to a head, and as Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner's days become apparently numbered, many are wondering if Obama's days are numbered too.
The bailout was a bad idea when Bush came up with it, and it is a worse idea now. Not only is it going to do nothing to stimulate the economy, the hypocrisy attached is deafening. Thirteen of the companies receiving billions of dollars of federal bailout money owe millions in delinquent federal taxes. The AIG bonuses that the Democrats are now whining and complaining about are the very same bonuses that Democratic Senator Chris Dodd fought to protect with the Dodd Amendment in the Stimulus Bill. A vast majority of the cockroaches in Washington, and this includes a number of Republicans as well, have received a number of contributions from these failing entities, and as much as they are screaming for AIG executives to return their bonuses, you don't see the politicians returning theirs.
The Obama Presidency is a joke. The Administration is incompetent in ways that the Bush Administration couldn't even dream of being. I have compared Obama's presidency to the failed term of Jimmy Carter often, but even Carter's incompetence didn't become apparent, and make him a laughing stock, as quickly as is happening with the laughable Obama Administration.
The so-called "solution" is the problem, and it is accompanied by an inexperienced group of politicians that have no idea what they are doing. Obama has never owned a business, or been an operating officer of anything in his lifetime. The Democrat belief in bureaucracy and regulations is now back-firing. Their massive increase in the size of the federal government is not sitting well with the American People. The government is promoting bad behavior with their bailouts, and digging our nation into a deeper hole.
Obama has proclaimed that more government is the only way out of the vicious cycle of economic upheaval, and in typical government fashion, they are proving themselves to be wrong. The real solution is a limited government that cuts spending and reduces taxes, and the people are beginning to realize this. Every time liberal tactics such as what this Administration is using has been attempted, the tactics have failed spectacularly. Anytime cutting spending and taxes has been used a period of prosperity has followed. The truth is apparent to everyone but the Marxists in power at this moment. The real question, however, is if the Democrats can be stopped before they cause too much damage.
The bailout was a bad idea when Bush came up with it, and it is a worse idea now. Not only is it going to do nothing to stimulate the economy, the hypocrisy attached is deafening. Thirteen of the companies receiving billions of dollars of federal bailout money owe millions in delinquent federal taxes. The AIG bonuses that the Democrats are now whining and complaining about are the very same bonuses that Democratic Senator Chris Dodd fought to protect with the Dodd Amendment in the Stimulus Bill. A vast majority of the cockroaches in Washington, and this includes a number of Republicans as well, have received a number of contributions from these failing entities, and as much as they are screaming for AIG executives to return their bonuses, you don't see the politicians returning theirs.
The Obama Presidency is a joke. The Administration is incompetent in ways that the Bush Administration couldn't even dream of being. I have compared Obama's presidency to the failed term of Jimmy Carter often, but even Carter's incompetence didn't become apparent, and make him a laughing stock, as quickly as is happening with the laughable Obama Administration.
The so-called "solution" is the problem, and it is accompanied by an inexperienced group of politicians that have no idea what they are doing. Obama has never owned a business, or been an operating officer of anything in his lifetime. The Democrat belief in bureaucracy and regulations is now back-firing. Their massive increase in the size of the federal government is not sitting well with the American People. The government is promoting bad behavior with their bailouts, and digging our nation into a deeper hole.
Obama has proclaimed that more government is the only way out of the vicious cycle of economic upheaval, and in typical government fashion, they are proving themselves to be wrong. The real solution is a limited government that cuts spending and reduces taxes, and the people are beginning to realize this. Every time liberal tactics such as what this Administration is using has been attempted, the tactics have failed spectacularly. Anytime cutting spending and taxes has been used a period of prosperity has followed. The truth is apparent to everyone but the Marxists in power at this moment. The real question, however, is if the Democrats can be stopped before they cause too much damage.
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Obama's About-Face on Veteran's Issue
Earlier this week the blogosphere was on fire about how President Obama was going to require our heroes to pay for their treatment at Veteran's Affairs facilities. In the face of the outcry, Obama has decided to drop the budget proposal requiring private insurance payments for the treatment of these military veterans.
Currently, however, the practice of requesting payment from private insurance companies is already in place. However, the insurance companies have the option to deny payment without as much as a peep from VA.
For those that proclaim that Veteran's Affairs is a perfect example of universal health in action, they forget that the payment for that care was paid for by the service of these fine military veterans. Payment as been paid in blood, and it is the least the United States can do in return.
Obama's actions of trying to demand payment for Veteran care, even after the payment in blood paid by our fine military men and women show me how little respect he has for our heroes. How could any sitting president make such a demand unless he had little or no respect for the service provided by these military heroes?
Obama's decision to rescind his decision came shortly after heads of Veteran Service Organizations met White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel voicing their concerns. President Obama scrapped the plan while he was on Air Force One heading to California to appear on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno.
Currently, however, the practice of requesting payment from private insurance companies is already in place. However, the insurance companies have the option to deny payment without as much as a peep from VA.
For those that proclaim that Veteran's Affairs is a perfect example of universal health in action, they forget that the payment for that care was paid for by the service of these fine military veterans. Payment as been paid in blood, and it is the least the United States can do in return.
Obama's actions of trying to demand payment for Veteran care, even after the payment in blood paid by our fine military men and women show me how little respect he has for our heroes. How could any sitting president make such a demand unless he had little or no respect for the service provided by these military heroes?
Obama's decision to rescind his decision came shortly after heads of Veteran Service Organizations met White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel voicing their concerns. President Obama scrapped the plan while he was on Air Force One heading to California to appear on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno.
Obama Teleprompt Blunder
Sky News is reporting that President Obama, not realizing that he was reading Irish Prime Minister Brian Cowen's line on the teleprompter, thanked himself for his presence and speech.
This followed the Prime Minister's own teleprompter mistake when he began to read a part of Obama's speech.
I have a simple question for inquiring minds: If someone snuck in the words, "We're screwed, and I'm an idiot" on a teleprompter, is Obama so teleprompter dependent that he would read the words first before realizing what he said?
Just a thought.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
This followed the Prime Minister's own teleprompter mistake when he began to read a part of Obama's speech.
I have a simple question for inquiring minds: If someone snuck in the words, "We're screwed, and I'm an idiot" on a teleprompter, is Obama so teleprompter dependent that he would read the words first before realizing what he said?
Just a thought.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Obama To Sign UN Gay Rights Declaration
According to Townhall dot com and the Associated Press, the Obama Administration will be signing a U.N. declaration previously rejected by the Bush Administration. The declaration calls for the worldwide decriminalization of homosexuality, and may lead to the criminalization of any denunciation of the homosexual lifestyle.
Gay rights groups criticized the Bush administration when it refused to sign the declaration. George W. Bush voiced concerns that the issue falls under state jurisdiction, and that the federal government has no Constitutional jurisdiction over the matter.
Gay rights groups criticized the Bush administration when it refused to sign the declaration. George W. Bush voiced concerns that the issue falls under state jurisdiction, and that the federal government has no Constitutional jurisdiction over the matter.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
AIG Bonus Bonanza
As President Barack Obama readies himself for appearances in California, and an appearance on Jay Leno's Tonight Show, he is quite upset over the AIG bonuses being handed out - almost to the point of it being a temper-tantrum. He, and Chris Dodd, and I suppose the rest of the Liberal Little Rascals, regardless of contractual terms, and a little thing called The Dodd Amendment, have vowed to put into action plans to try and stop the sinister bonus plans of the evil Darth AIG.
Never you mind that the contract for these bonuses was agreed upon long before any government bailout began to take shape. Do you think these guys in line to receive these bonuses are a little upset at the uproar from Washington D.C.? Of course they are. But what did they expect would happen when the government bailed out AIG, and basically stuck their long nailed claws into the workings of the failing company? Fact is, if you receive government money for anything, and that goes for you folks out there in internet land, as well, it opens up the opportunity for the government to dictate the terms of your business, or your lives, or your health care, or whatever it is they placed dollar signs into.
The AIG bonuses are essentially retention pay, paid to the executives in an effort to convince the talent not to jump ship when the vessel begins to list, or even if it gets nowhere near an iceberg, or endangers a swimming polar bear, but desires to hang on to the talent executives anyhow. Had the all-powerful, Obamacized, Government just let AIG fail like any other poorly run business, the contracts under bankruptcy law would be void, the rats would have jumped overboard, and the world would be without one more failed, and poorly managed, business entity.
All-knowing liberal bureaucrats, however, are convinced that if AIG fails, we are heading headlong into another great depression. After all, they will argue, AIG is interwoven into the entire financial market, and their failure would initiate a domino-effect that would topple financial institution after financial institution, shoving us over a high cliff and into the deep chasm of a horrendous depression that only Franklin Delano Roosevelt's reincarnation, The Great and Powerful Ozbama, could possibly pull us out of.
I was a banker for four years, and a financial agent for two years. I experienced the Savings and Loan debacle. The entire Savings and Loan Industry collapsed, and we didn't wind up in a severe depression. We had a short slow down, and then years of prosperity because the "losers" of the financial world were out of the way so that successful entities could grow and prosper in their place.
Failed businesses are like sick Caribou that limp along and slow down the herd. The healthy caribou don't help them along, or slow down for them. They let them fall, let the wolves eat them, and then the strong, up and coming businesses (err, uh, animals) strengthen the herd.
What is really interesting about this is how "suddenly" the Democrats are up in arms over this, like it is some kind of surprise. The reality is that the Democrats knew all along that these bonuses were coming. These bonuses were the whole reason for The Dodd Amendment which, in the stimulus bill, allows all bonuses contractually agreed upon before February 11 to be awarded. And, of course, AIG is one of the main reasons for that amendment. Senator Chris Dodd, after all, is the largest single recipient of 2008 campaign donations from AIG, along with other politicians, including, but not limited to, Barack Obama, the all-so moderate John McCain, and Hillary Clinton.
Now that these bonuses has surfaced, however, the uproar is more than the Democrats expected, so to cover their butts, and probably also to deflect attention away from Obama's injection of socialism into America, they are acting as if they are angered and appalled by the very audacity of AIG's executive's greed.
After all, the Democrats don't need any more bad publicity, right?
Maybe they are just too stupid to eliminate "mark to market" rules, which will enable some immediate economic growth (of course if they do relax the "mark to market" rules, the temporary jolt to the economy will be proclaimed far and wide as being the result of Obama's brilliant policies - then the whole thing will slump again because of a lack of incentive to invest). Or perhaps they refuse to recognize historical facts like how in 1938 the U.S. unemployment rate was 19%, while the rest of the world (which wasn't pumping government money into the problem like FDR was) was at 11%. Presidents Harding and Coolidge met with a recession and cut taxes while cutting federal spending, resulting in the boom years of the 1920's. Hoover, a big spender and tax hiker (despite the "R" after his name) led us into the Great Depression with his policies (and the assistance of the unconstitutional Federal Reserve Bank), and Franklin Delano Roosevelt worsened it with his socialist programs and "tax and spend" policies.
In the end, Obama's policies will actually prolong this economic downturn, followed by a number of relapses with the introduction of each new "stimulus" package. Throwing stimulus plans at the depression in the 1930's didn't help, and they won't help today.
As for that Obama temper tantrum over the AIG Bonus Bonanza? He's just trying to throw the watch dogs off the scent. And Obama and his ilk will do what they do best to get that bonus money back - they will tax it and tax it and tax it some more.
Take that, you wealthy people.
Now, where is that next townhall meeting or television appearance for Obama? Jeez, he's trying to be a rock star, and the duties (though ill-performed) of the presidency keeps distracting him.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Never you mind that the contract for these bonuses was agreed upon long before any government bailout began to take shape. Do you think these guys in line to receive these bonuses are a little upset at the uproar from Washington D.C.? Of course they are. But what did they expect would happen when the government bailed out AIG, and basically stuck their long nailed claws into the workings of the failing company? Fact is, if you receive government money for anything, and that goes for you folks out there in internet land, as well, it opens up the opportunity for the government to dictate the terms of your business, or your lives, or your health care, or whatever it is they placed dollar signs into.
The AIG bonuses are essentially retention pay, paid to the executives in an effort to convince the talent not to jump ship when the vessel begins to list, or even if it gets nowhere near an iceberg, or endangers a swimming polar bear, but desires to hang on to the talent executives anyhow. Had the all-powerful, Obamacized, Government just let AIG fail like any other poorly run business, the contracts under bankruptcy law would be void, the rats would have jumped overboard, and the world would be without one more failed, and poorly managed, business entity.
All-knowing liberal bureaucrats, however, are convinced that if AIG fails, we are heading headlong into another great depression. After all, they will argue, AIG is interwoven into the entire financial market, and their failure would initiate a domino-effect that would topple financial institution after financial institution, shoving us over a high cliff and into the deep chasm of a horrendous depression that only Franklin Delano Roosevelt's reincarnation, The Great and Powerful Ozbama, could possibly pull us out of.
I was a banker for four years, and a financial agent for two years. I experienced the Savings and Loan debacle. The entire Savings and Loan Industry collapsed, and we didn't wind up in a severe depression. We had a short slow down, and then years of prosperity because the "losers" of the financial world were out of the way so that successful entities could grow and prosper in their place.
Failed businesses are like sick Caribou that limp along and slow down the herd. The healthy caribou don't help them along, or slow down for them. They let them fall, let the wolves eat them, and then the strong, up and coming businesses (err, uh, animals) strengthen the herd.
What is really interesting about this is how "suddenly" the Democrats are up in arms over this, like it is some kind of surprise. The reality is that the Democrats knew all along that these bonuses were coming. These bonuses were the whole reason for The Dodd Amendment which, in the stimulus bill, allows all bonuses contractually agreed upon before February 11 to be awarded. And, of course, AIG is one of the main reasons for that amendment. Senator Chris Dodd, after all, is the largest single recipient of 2008 campaign donations from AIG, along with other politicians, including, but not limited to, Barack Obama, the all-so moderate John McCain, and Hillary Clinton.
Now that these bonuses has surfaced, however, the uproar is more than the Democrats expected, so to cover their butts, and probably also to deflect attention away from Obama's injection of socialism into America, they are acting as if they are angered and appalled by the very audacity of AIG's executive's greed.
After all, the Democrats don't need any more bad publicity, right?
Maybe they are just too stupid to eliminate "mark to market" rules, which will enable some immediate economic growth (of course if they do relax the "mark to market" rules, the temporary jolt to the economy will be proclaimed far and wide as being the result of Obama's brilliant policies - then the whole thing will slump again because of a lack of incentive to invest). Or perhaps they refuse to recognize historical facts like how in 1938 the U.S. unemployment rate was 19%, while the rest of the world (which wasn't pumping government money into the problem like FDR was) was at 11%. Presidents Harding and Coolidge met with a recession and cut taxes while cutting federal spending, resulting in the boom years of the 1920's. Hoover, a big spender and tax hiker (despite the "R" after his name) led us into the Great Depression with his policies (and the assistance of the unconstitutional Federal Reserve Bank), and Franklin Delano Roosevelt worsened it with his socialist programs and "tax and spend" policies.
In the end, Obama's policies will actually prolong this economic downturn, followed by a number of relapses with the introduction of each new "stimulus" package. Throwing stimulus plans at the depression in the 1930's didn't help, and they won't help today.
As for that Obama temper tantrum over the AIG Bonus Bonanza? He's just trying to throw the watch dogs off the scent. And Obama and his ilk will do what they do best to get that bonus money back - they will tax it and tax it and tax it some more.
Take that, you wealthy people.
Now, where is that next townhall meeting or television appearance for Obama? Jeez, he's trying to be a rock star, and the duties (though ill-performed) of the presidency keeps distracting him.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Shackles of Liberalism
The Liberal Left's demonization of all who proclaim Conservatism with hateful scorn is something that dismays The Right. When Sarah Palin was selected to be John McCain's running mate it set off an almost comical reaction of contempt. When Joe the Plumber got Obama to reveal his Marxist hand with the words "redistribution of wealth," The Left did what it could to discredit the aspiring plumber, spending more time digging into Joe's background and history than they would ever do when it came to their savior, Barack Obama. When 13-year old Jonathan Krohn spoke at CPAC, the Leftists tossed a few snide remarks about how The Right was placing the helm into the hands of a kid, but surprisingly restrained themselves for the most part - perhaps it was because he's a kid, and they didn't want to get into a kid-bashing tailspin that might make them look bad.
What these Conservative figures have in common, however, is something that the Democrats loathe. They are real Americans. Each of these people are flag waving, God fearing, patriotic Americans without an elitist bone in their body. They are not Harvard and Yale Graduates with a flare for being pious about government control of the common citizen. The hockey mom from Alaska, Plumber challenging the future President of the United States, and young conservative with a set of standards that the wisest Liberal could never understand are conservatives that share the common sense of America's foundation.
The dividing line between these Conservatives and Liberal Elites is that the Conservatives recognize the truths that The Left remains incapable of understanding. Rather than possessing intellectual arrogance and a belief that government can be all things to all people, these common patriots recognize the importance of individual liberties and responsibilities and how they go hand in hand. Rather than believing that we are so progressive that we are somehow better than the past, and all history is to be forgotten, the Conservative recognizes the importance of learning from the lessons of history, and the wisdom of the founding fathers of this nation.
In the pursuit of fairness, the Liberal Doctrine makes life unfair. Success is somehow an evil, and must be limited. The weakest links must be carried and rewarded for their failures, rather than encouraged to continue pursuing the opportunities this nation has to offer no matter how difficult that struggle may be. Liberalism has forgotten that this is a Republic, and have decided to try and make it a Democracy instead, and eventually into a tyranny where government elites administer to a populace dependent upon governmental programs and hand outs.
Achievement in business and culture is what fuels the Free Market. Hope to better one's life is the engine. Ambition turns the key. The desire to curb such ambition by the Liberal Left is pure evidence that they wish the common man to fail, to become just another sprocket in the machinery of Socialism. To drive home their desire they have made it practically a crime to earn too much profit, and a joke to be patriotic. Prosperity is for the elites, according to The Left. They do whatever they can to have nice homes, cars, and private planes - while dictating to you that your home uses too much energy, your car uses too much gas, and successful business owners need to refrain from their use of private jets, unless of course they are a member of the Liberal Elite. This is not freedom as they claim it to be, but bondage, bondage that the founding fathers of this nation would never encourage.
Liberalism achieved its lofty position not by the hard work of ambition, but by the accusations that everything Republicans and Conservatives stand for is evil, wrong, and the very essence of stupidity. Whenever anything in the world arose that did not meet with complete satisfaction of The Left, it was automatically George W. Bush's fault. His actions were wrong and evil, no matter if there were liberals doing the same thing. Obama's speeches, when he rarely sounds less than liberal, are somehow brilliant - even when he says things similar to what Bush was saying.
Politics are no longer about politics, but about power. The Republican Party cannot find its Conservative Values because it has determined that the only way to win is to abandon what is right and become more like the Democrats. The Democrats are steeped with Socialism and arrogance. It is understood that in the end the truth will surface, and the nation will throw off its socialist shackles. The question is, will the American People realize such a necessity too late to save this generation from the bonds of American Socialism?
What these Conservative figures have in common, however, is something that the Democrats loathe. They are real Americans. Each of these people are flag waving, God fearing, patriotic Americans without an elitist bone in their body. They are not Harvard and Yale Graduates with a flare for being pious about government control of the common citizen. The hockey mom from Alaska, Plumber challenging the future President of the United States, and young conservative with a set of standards that the wisest Liberal could never understand are conservatives that share the common sense of America's foundation.
The dividing line between these Conservatives and Liberal Elites is that the Conservatives recognize the truths that The Left remains incapable of understanding. Rather than possessing intellectual arrogance and a belief that government can be all things to all people, these common patriots recognize the importance of individual liberties and responsibilities and how they go hand in hand. Rather than believing that we are so progressive that we are somehow better than the past, and all history is to be forgotten, the Conservative recognizes the importance of learning from the lessons of history, and the wisdom of the founding fathers of this nation.
In the pursuit of fairness, the Liberal Doctrine makes life unfair. Success is somehow an evil, and must be limited. The weakest links must be carried and rewarded for their failures, rather than encouraged to continue pursuing the opportunities this nation has to offer no matter how difficult that struggle may be. Liberalism has forgotten that this is a Republic, and have decided to try and make it a Democracy instead, and eventually into a tyranny where government elites administer to a populace dependent upon governmental programs and hand outs.
Achievement in business and culture is what fuels the Free Market. Hope to better one's life is the engine. Ambition turns the key. The desire to curb such ambition by the Liberal Left is pure evidence that they wish the common man to fail, to become just another sprocket in the machinery of Socialism. To drive home their desire they have made it practically a crime to earn too much profit, and a joke to be patriotic. Prosperity is for the elites, according to The Left. They do whatever they can to have nice homes, cars, and private planes - while dictating to you that your home uses too much energy, your car uses too much gas, and successful business owners need to refrain from their use of private jets, unless of course they are a member of the Liberal Elite. This is not freedom as they claim it to be, but bondage, bondage that the founding fathers of this nation would never encourage.
Liberalism achieved its lofty position not by the hard work of ambition, but by the accusations that everything Republicans and Conservatives stand for is evil, wrong, and the very essence of stupidity. Whenever anything in the world arose that did not meet with complete satisfaction of The Left, it was automatically George W. Bush's fault. His actions were wrong and evil, no matter if there were liberals doing the same thing. Obama's speeches, when he rarely sounds less than liberal, are somehow brilliant - even when he says things similar to what Bush was saying.
Politics are no longer about politics, but about power. The Republican Party cannot find its Conservative Values because it has determined that the only way to win is to abandon what is right and become more like the Democrats. The Democrats are steeped with Socialism and arrogance. It is understood that in the end the truth will surface, and the nation will throw off its socialist shackles. The question is, will the American People realize such a necessity too late to save this generation from the bonds of American Socialism?
Monday, March 16, 2009
Over The Deep End
The sixth sense, common sense, seems to be on vacation. The liberal left launches vicious attacks against anyone that dares expose who they really are from a Marxist standpoint, or says anything deemed less than complimentary about their own. Business owners dare not be ostentatious, while Pelosi uses government aircraft as if they are her own private fleet, and Obama throws wild parties in the White House. In an attempt to save the economy President Obama has decided to abandon the Free Market, which has made this nation the most prosperous nation on the face of the Earth, and is now declaring war on Investors, Entrepreneurs, Businesses, and Capitalism as a whole. Most surprising is that they are waging this war with the excuse that they are trying to save us from the financial crisis that they created. While proclaiming that parents need to be more involved in their children's lives, the left is launching attack after attack against parental rights, even going so far as removing children from home school environments and forcing them into the public school system. While faced with a hunter that desires death to America, Obama wants to negotiate with an ideology that has only the desire to destroy us.
Narcissistic Barack Obama, however, requires adoration to survive, so as more and more Americans wake up to his ineptitude, he is planning to warm his cult of personality under the spotlight of the Jay Leno Tonight Show.
Have we gone over the deep end? How is it that the Conservatives that are proclaiming the truth are considered nuts while the Liberal Left systematically destroys this nation's Liberty and Prosperity?
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Pelosi's Private Airline - the USAF at Gribbit Online.
White House nightlife under investigation at World Net Daily.
Obama Declares War on Investors, Entrepreneurs, Businesses, and More at CNBC.
Obama's Relentless War on the American Dream at Human Events.
What Do You Do When The Guy Across The Negotiating Table Wants To Destroy You? at Human Events.
How Government Created the Financial Crisis at The Wall Street Journal.
Obama To Make Leno Appearance in Los Angeles at Fox News.
Boxer: The UN Knows Better Than You How To Raise YOUR Child at Gribbit Online.
Wake Judge Orders Home Schoolers Into Public Classrooms at WRAL dot com.
Narcissistic Barack Obama, however, requires adoration to survive, so as more and more Americans wake up to his ineptitude, he is planning to warm his cult of personality under the spotlight of the Jay Leno Tonight Show.
Have we gone over the deep end? How is it that the Conservatives that are proclaiming the truth are considered nuts while the Liberal Left systematically destroys this nation's Liberty and Prosperity?
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Pelosi's Private Airline - the USAF at Gribbit Online.
White House nightlife under investigation at World Net Daily.
Obama Declares War on Investors, Entrepreneurs, Businesses, and More at CNBC.
Obama's Relentless War on the American Dream at Human Events.
What Do You Do When The Guy Across The Negotiating Table Wants To Destroy You? at Human Events.
How Government Created the Financial Crisis at The Wall Street Journal.
Obama To Make Leno Appearance in Los Angeles at Fox News.
Boxer: The UN Knows Better Than You How To Raise YOUR Child at Gribbit Online.
Wake Judge Orders Home Schoolers Into Public Classrooms at WRAL dot com.
Sunday, March 15, 2009
Global Governance
I am not one to believe that black helicopters are hovering in the skies above choice locations around the United States, or anywhere else in the civilized world. But, the desire for a One World Government by certain powerful groups, I believe, is fast becoming a reality. Christian scholars recognize that the rise of such global governance is a probable symptom of a rapidly arriving end times scenario that will be followed by a great and terrible period of tribulation. The United States, however, in my past humble opinion, placed too much importance of sovereignty and liberty to ever allow such a global system of cooperative governments to ever become a reality any time soon.
Global Governance was once considered to be the simple babblings of whacked-out conspiracy theorists. My first memories of mutterings of such a rising system of a worldwide power included groups like the Illuminati, Tri-Lateral Commission, and the Bildebergs. Years ago a friend gave me a book titled "The Unseen Hand" by A. Ralph Epperson, and I read the nearly 500 page book in a weekend, astonished by the extent some people would go in believing that a bunch of men in black suits with black brief cases shadowed by a fleet of black helicopters were somehow poised to control the world with a sinister global government, and that the people of the world would somehow blindly accept it without a peep of opposition.
At the time, I considered it one of the funniest things I had ever heard, to be brutally honest. Oh, don't get me wrong, I believed that a one-world government was on the distant horizon, but I didn't believe it would materialize during my lifetime, and it would probably not begin to take shape until the rise of the Christian prophesied anti-Christ was eminent.
I had the occasional inclination that the United Nations may play a part in the creation of a global governance system, and that it was remotely possible during my lifetime. Perhaps someday in the future the rapid moral degradation of the United States would allow her to birth the coming global leader during a period of great upheaval that would rise from the chaos of a desperate planet searching for peace and safety. A European Union, which was not a reality at the time I was considering these things, was foreseen by many - some considering it to be the face of a new Roman Empire. At the time, however, few intellectuals truly believed the grand European experiment would attract more than eleven nations, nor become more than a desperate attempt by Europe to remain economically competitive with the United States and Japan. As for the possibility of a preview of an anti-Christ cult of personality, I believed that the people of the world would not be so foolish as to suddenly drop to their knees for a single charismatic personality. A New World Order was not something that could make its appearance during the near future because, as far as I was concerned, the United States was far too financially stable to warrant the need for a system that would essentially place all nations of the world on identical footing, and in the position to need to be dependent upon a grand global system.
Such a global system would require full cooperation among the nations of the world. A Super European Union, I suppose. A sudden joining of forces by the nations of the world would probably be preceded by some kind of global threat. An environmental catastrophe, a global meltdown of the financial structure, and a common enemy that would force the world into another World War would be needed to allow the people of the world to cry out for the dangers of global governance.
At the time environmentalists were simply old hippies who were looking for a new target to protest since the Vietnam Conflict had been recently abandoned, and was now no longer a current event. They needed a new cause to follow. A new movement. A new reason to become involved. However, unless some cataclysmic episode like the sun expanding, or some unexpected space or atmospheric catastrophe created a sudden, apocalyptic environmental nightmare, a global environmental event was not seen as anything possible on the horizon. It would need to be created in order to exist, suggested some scholars.
A global financial crisis was not likely either, many wrongly assumed. Even with the downturn in the late 70's and early 80's, the United States remained financially strong and stable. The U.S. economic system would need to be dropped to its knees for any kind of global financial system to emerge. Sure, some speculated that a global currency may arise from the advent of electronic banking, making national currencies eventually obsolete, but no nation would voluntarily let their economies become a puzzle piece in a global financial masterpiece, right?
As for an enemy that could plunge the world into a World War, that was considered to be highly unlikely. The world learned hard lessons about dictators after World War I and II, and would never allow something like the rise of Naziism and fascism to happen again. Sure, at the time the Communist threat from China and the Soviet Union were a reality, but the Soviet System was corrupt, and sure to collapse sometime in the near future. And as expected by many conservatives, shortly after those thoughts of mine emerged Ronald Reagan engineered a strategy that indeed made the Iron Curtain fall. During Reagan's successor's presidency the Soviet Union collapsed and the Berlin Wall was torn down. So much for the possibility of a worldwide threat from the Soviet Union. Aside from China (who many considered to be "the good communists"), the only people that seemed to be a thorn in the side of the United States was a few radical Muslims in Iran, but surely the people of that ideology were not organized enough to pose any real threat. Islam, as far as I was concerned, was a problem to be monitored, but would probably never be anything more than a constant irritation to the Free World. Besides, why would they jeopardize the good thing they had going with oil?
Amazingly, many of those theories that I once thought to be laughable have become headline stories in today's rapidly changing world. And those global threats that I was not sure would ever transpire? All it took were a few manipulations, a few lies, and a lot of hysteria to bring them about. The man-made hysteria of Global Warming and the Global Economic Crisis (which is grossly overstated) created by liberal policies over the last thirty years (and really set in motion even before that) have satisfied the first two criteria needed to set into motion the emergence of a one world government. As for that global enemy that would jeopardize peace and safety, nobody ever realized that the same radicalism that handcuffed the Carter Administration by taking hostages in Tehran in 1979 would develop the ability to strike at the United States on September 11, 2001, killing 3,000 Americans, and plunging the world into a World War under the name of The Global War on Terror.
How quickly the worldwide political atmosphere changed - and right into the hands of those dreaming of global solutions administered by a global governing body. It was almost as if it was engineered. As if an unseen hand slammed shut the progress of liberty, and opened a Pandora's Box of globalism - mixed with the sudden acceptance of radical socialism.
Interestingly, rather than battle against the possibility of a global system in order to protect its sovereignty, the United States has opened its borders, joined the worldwide frenzy, and is leading the charge towards a one world government. It is almost as if the powers that be in the United States are welcoming the possibility of an international governing body.
Barack Obama, as the proverbial feces hits the fan, appeared on the world stage in the nick of time. A man of the world with a love for international agreements and treaties. An international code of conduct exists, according to Obama, and it is time for the United States to fall in line with the rest of the nations of the world. The pieces for a global government are falling into place, and the elitists of the United Nations and the American Democratic Party are poised to lead the charge.
Sovereignty and Liberty is dying while accompanied by the roar of thunderous applause by the people who voted Barack Obama into office.
Voices like mine are hardly a concern of these people. They have control of both parties, now. Like the Democrats, the Republican Party has been infiltrated by globalists and socialists. Though a few Conservatives remain in the GOP, many Conservatives are prepared to write of the Republicans as well. After all, it was the George Herbert Walker Bush that coined the term New World Order among American politicians.
Washington has proclaimed that the greatest threat to our nation is the failure of the Free Market and all of the Capitalist Pigs that have been running it. Nationalizing our banks and currently private industries are the subject of political conversation. As Islamic Jihadists cross the borders in record numbers, the concern is on the warring drug cartels in Mexico whose violence is spilling across the border. While Constitutionalists and Originalists are being considered as domestic terrorists, the Democrats are printing fiat money and spending it on endangered rats in San Francisco, AIDS in Africa, and abortions worldwide.
Russian and Chinese scholars are watching America's downward spiral towards hardcore Marxism and are shaking their heads. They have written us off. We are rapidly heading for the great dustbin of history. The Worldwide socialists are already counting their chickens, and preparing for a world dominated economically by socialist Europe, Russia, and China.
Only one thing stands in the way of total internal collapse here in the United States. Reaganism. Conservatism from the fiscal point of view. A Conservative takeover of the Republican Party.
War has broke out, and Obama is leading the charge to destroy America - and it is up to us to stop him.
United We Stand, Combined We Kick Butt.
The conspiracies are conspiracies no more. Global oppression is knocking on America's door. Every hiccup is a crisis, according to the Left. Every crisis deserves a global remedy, they say. A Great Crisis presents a wonderful opportunity for change.
Until conservatism grabs hold of the reins and steers America back in the direction of the U.S. Constitution, the plan for a one world government will continue to march forward, and alter our world as we know it. The enemy has arrived and are overtaking us from within. We have seen the enemy, and indeed, the enemy is us.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Tonight Political Pistachio Radio will address this issue.