HR 1913 Hate Crimes Bill Heading To The Senate

With full control over the Congress by the Democrats, they are trying to push through every vile law that they can muster. One such piece of legislation is H.R. 1913, the federal "Hate Crimes" bill. If this freedom killing leglislation becomes law it will give the incentive of federal funding to local and state law enforcement agencies to prosecute cases involving perceived attacks against sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability. This adds to the current law enacted forty years ago which limits federal jurisdiction over hate crimes based on race, color, religion, or national origin.

HR 1913 also lifts the requirement that the attacked victim must be engaged in a federally protected activity for it to be a federal hate crime.

Crimes motivated by race, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability are impossible to prove. Motivations are something that only the owner of the motivation true knows. However, this potential hate crimes law would give the government the right to make a determination on the motivation based on their opinion. In other words, thought crimes, punishable by Big Brother.

However, the insidious nature of this proposed law goes deeper than that. Potential victims can claim that any action that is perceived to fall in these catagories is a hate crime. Simply stating your opinion can land you in jail, if you are not careful what you have an opinion about. In other countries, where similar hate crime laws have been passed, pastors and Christians have been jailed and fined for their adherence to biblical values, and daring to voice such beliefs, even inside the four walls of the church.

The American version of the Hate Crimes laws we are seeing appear globally threatens the rights of Christians, and dangerously goes against the limitation against the government infringing on the free exercise of religion as guaranteed in the first amendment. H.R. 1913 gives protected legal status to perverse behaviors, and makes it criminal to have an opinion contrary to those behavioral deviations. The people targeted to be protected by these hate crimes laws are the same people who spew hate at Christians, and about Christianity, regularly. In short, this is saying that after Proposition 8 passing in California it was perfectly legal for someone to hit me in the side of the head with something they threw at me while I was driving through West Hollywood with a "Yes on 8" sticker on my truck, and it was perfectly acceptable for members of the Gay Agenda to wait on the sidewalk of my church and pound their fists on my hood and windows as I departed from church on a Sunday morning while they used profanity and called me a "hater," but under this new law, in such a confrontation, if I dared to open my window and say "Homosexuality is a sin" I could be fined and jailed for the emotional damage I caused the person for daring to say such a thing.

This bill, HR 1913, also enables double jeopardy, which is unconstitutional. It will allow, if passed, people who were found innnocent of a hate crime in a state court to be reprosecuted in federal court. The argument in support for undermining the Constitutional safeguard against double jeopardy is that "the federal hate crimes bill serves as a vital safety valve in case a state hate-crimes prosecution fails." This runs contrary to the constitutional presumption of innocence, and singles out a single group to be pursued by the courts, namely Christians and those in support of traditional marriage. In essence, the accused is guilty first, and if the state courts don't get it right, they'll be sure to nail the accused in a federal court. In the meantime, as this law seriously limits the freedoms of the group that supports traditional family values, the opposition to traditional views is free to spew any hate they desire without even a blink of an eye turned against them. Fear that the slightest word or action may make someone upset will silence all opposition to the homosexual behavior, an insidious tactic used in the past many times by tyrannical governments and agendas to silence the opposition by force.

A crime is a crime, and with sufficient evidence, a crime can be proven as such. State, or federal government, determination that "motivation" is a crime enables the government to jail and fine based on their opinion of whether or not a crime was motivated by thoughts that cannot be proven.

In addition, this kind of action by the federal government is not enumerated to the federal government by the U.S. Constitution, so in addition to the hate crimes legislation being insanely wrong, and a direct assault on the first amendment, it is severely unconstitututional, as well.

The bill, H.R. 1913 has passed the judiciary, and the House of Representatives. Only the Senate stands in its way, and the probability of it passing is high.

Yet another incremental bite out of the body of liberty, and another incremental step in this nation toward the bonds of tyranny.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

United States Constitution - Cornell University Law School

Federal Hate Crimes Bill Will Erode Civil Liberties and Undermine Constitutional Safeguards Against Double Jeopardy - Stop The ACLU

Hate Crimes Heads to Senate and Overviewing the First 100 Days - Liberty Counsel

Analysis of 2009 Hate Crimes Bill, HR 1913 - Americans For Truth About Homosexuality

HR 1913 Hate Crimes Legislation Vote Coming - Prophecy News Headlines

U.S. House passes "hate crime" bill that Bush opposed - Reuters UK

Final Vote Results for Roll Call 223 - Clerk House .gov

Liberal Pawns Silent About "Scare Force One"

Barack Obama's ability to pass the buck, and delegate responsibility to others for his own actions, amazes even the most seasoned irresponsible nitwit. His ability to imitate a leader while having no idea what he is doing, while surrounded by a group of Democrats nearly equal in their ability to take no blame for anything, is overshadowed, however, by the supreme blindness of the biased mainstream media, and sheep-like liberal voters. Their willingness to accept the slavery of big government while looking the other way when an obvious example of ineptitude by the Obama Administration surfaces is simply astounding.

President Obama earlier this week was "incensed" when he learned that one of the Air Force One 747s flew a thousand feet above New York City for a photo-op. People in New York City, for fear it was another terrorist attack, scrambled madly for cover. The White House, according White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, was not aware of the event, saying he would need to check with the White House on the matter (isn't he the White House mouthpiece that needs to be checked with?). The way it was sounding, the only folks that knew about the plane even being in the air was a handful of folks on staff, and air traffic controllers.

Retired Lt. Col. Buzz Patterson, who served in the Clinton White House from 1996 to 1998, said on the Andrea Shea King radio show, ". . . it's almost certain that the 'highest levels' of the Obama administration knew about and approved this week's stunt in which Air Force One buzzed New York City."

On Political Pistachio yesterday I offered that if the Obama Administration did not know about the scheduling of this event, of which I highly doubt, what happened shows an incredible degree of a lack of communication, and incompetence, among the Obama group of "collective" power rangers.

Personally, I believe that Obama is lying. He knew full well of the event, or at least "his people" did, but somehow nobody in that Ivy League brain trust had enough sense to realize that a low flying jet with fighter jets trailing behind it might possibly cause panic among the natives a mere 8 years after the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon.

Even more amazing than the slimy lies, or incompetence, coming out of the White House over this, however, is the response, or should I say non-response, coming from the Left-sided Obama followers.

It does not take an incredible skill of creativity to imagine what the response would have been should something like this have happened under the Bush Administration a matter of a year or so ago. The press would have been screaming how inept Bush is, and how that was a further example of the idiocy residing in the White House. Liberal Bloggers would have been spewing all kinds of trash regarding this. However, the only offerings I am seeing, for the most part, about the event of Scare Force One's flight of moronic proportions, is how it was a simple mistake, and poor Obama was just so upset when he finally learned about it. Poor guy.

On the liberal Internet angle, where I normally get dozens of "hate e-mail" over what I write, and usually quite a few "unpublishable" comments on the Political Pistachio site, there was complete silence. Not a single peep over yesterday's article regarding Air Force One terrorizing New York City, and the Obama Administration's pre-9/11 attitude. No outrage. Not a single consideration of questioning the Obama Administration over whether or not the president, or at least a considerable number of folks on his staff, ought to know where the 747 that totes the president around is at, nor even a murmur over the incompetence that nobody realized folks on the island of Manhattan might be alarmed by a low flying jet while memories of the 9/11 attacks still linger in the hearts and minds of New Yorkers.

It is bad enough that these leftist sheep have bought into Obama's Marxist policies, government takeover of the private sector one industry at a time, deficit spending that dwarfs the spending of any president before, hate-filled support for freedom killing agendas, and vote blindly at the ballot box because they actually believe what the cockroaches of the Democrat Party tells them because they can't think for themselves. But to then look away when a story of obvious ineptitude regarding the Obama Administration surfaces, it is absolutely shameful, and reveals them for the Liberal Pawns that they truly are.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Air Force One Terrorizes New York: Obama's Pre-9/11 Attitude, and the Administration's Ineptitude - Political Pistachio, Douglas V. Gibbs

DID OBAMA APPROVE AIR FORCE ONE'S NYC PHOTO-OP? DECIDE FOR YOURSELF - ThirdwaveDave

Buzz Patterson on the Andrea Shea King Show - Andrea Shea King

C.S. Lewis on Tyrannies

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under the robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." C.S. Lewis, God in the Dock: Essays on Theology and Ethics, ed. Water Hooper (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1994), page 292.

Face of Freedom - Officer Susan Porcello

Re-Posted from Gazing At The Flag:


Face of Freedom ~ Officer Susan Porcello
Officer Susan PorcelloNew York City Police Department
My friend, Marcus (A Soldier's Perspective) told me about this amazing American, Officer Susan Porcello. She is a finalist in the AMW All-Star competition and we can vote for her HERE. We can vote once a day now through May 4. Her concern for an elderly and lonely veteran is moving and a reminder that we can all do more. Let's say thank you to her!
*****************************
Officer Susan Porcello was responding to a 9-1-1 call regarding an elderly man sick at his home. After assisting him she befriended retired USMC PFC Gasper Musso and for the next six months, she along with her patrol partner provided what he needed to care for himself. He had no other family members alive and so Officer Susan Porcello and her partner took it upon themselves to have the resident honored and received full military burial privileges upon his passing away in November 2008.In addition, she provided for his wake, the mass and final burial at her own expense. In December 2008 Officer Porcello received the Public Servant of the Year Award from Little Italy Merchant Association (LIMA) and she also received the Rocco Laurie Memorial Award for outstanding police work for the demonstration of compassion and dedication to retired USMC PFC Gasper Musso in Life and Death. She recently received THE SHIELDS of Long Island award for Police Officer of the month for her ability, courage and understanding, which have won the respect, confidence and admiration of her fellow police officers.
Officer Susan Porcello became a member of New York finest as a patrol officer in July 1998. After graduating the academy she was assigned to field training at the 68th precinct. Her trainings include cobra auto and motorcycle crime, CIMS, and is currently assigned to the Truancy Community Affairs Division. She is also a liaison between the public schools, district attorney office and the Board of Education. She has numerous memberships that include NRA, My Soldier Program, National Columbia Association, Policewomen's Endowment Association, Fraternal Order of Police Memorial lodge # 100 and she is a PBA union delegate for the Police Department. She is also a member of the polar bear club of Coney Island and the Society of Val Trebbia and Val Nure.
**************************Please vote today at http://www.amw.com/allstar/2009/nominee_detail.cfm?id=7061And while you are there, watch the video of her story.Bloggers - can you help spread the word about this woman who helped a Marine veteran? Feel free to copy and paste.

Aside from his disdain for America, Obama doesn't have a single original thought in his head

Teleprompter Blunder: Obama gets screwed by his teleprompter, again. Interestingly, people used to give George W. Bush crap for his fumbles when speaking. Obama has more blunders, and is never called on it, and he depends on his teleprompter for everything. At least Bush had a few original thoughts that weren't pre-written by somebody tugging on his strings.

The Specter of a Super Majority

From Americans for Limited Government/Get Liberty

Air Force One Terrorizes New York: Obama's Pre-9/11 Attitude, and the Administration's Ineptitude

Have you heard about the latest offering of evidence regarding how inept the Obama Administration is? It involves Air Force One, and a city full of frightened New Yorkers.

On Monday Air Force One was supposed to be a part of a wonderful photo opportunity with the New York Skyline in the background, and a close flyby of the Statue of Liberty.

New Yorkers thought it was some kind of terrorist attack, with 9/11 fresh in their minds. If terrorists were willing to fly planes into the World Trade Center Towers, and into the Pentagon, another attack using similar tactics would not be a surprise.

So, as the 747 flew low, trailed by fighter jets, New Yorkers ran for cover filled with fear.

The New York Times reported that President Obama was "incensed when he learned of the event Monday afternoon."

What? The President of the United States didn't know where one of his Air Force One planes were? Now, I find that very difficult to believe. But, if it is true, it adds to showing how inept the Obama Administration truly is.

What kind of idiots flies a plane around New York City like that in this post 9/11 world? Are they so stupid that they think it is 9/10/01? Are they so inept that it crossed nobody's minds that such an action might cause panic and fear in the city?

And the White House didn't know about it?

How does Obama, or his staff, not know that Air Force One is scheduled for a photo-shoot somewhere? After all, when one Air Force One is in the air, so is the other, normally. By only one being up, it sends a signal to the enemy that either the president is for sure on that plane, or is holed up at the White House without an escape that has a decoy attached.

Anytime those birds are in the air, the president is either on board, or there is a contingency plan to protect him should folks gunning for him figure out he isn't. After all, the President of the United States, regardless of who he is, has to be the most protected person on the face of the Earth. Anything less is unacceptable. And the president, considering it is his life that is in constant danger, is normally abreast of everything regarding these protocols.

Everybody should be informing everybody. The communication among the staff needs to be top notch.

But not with the Obama Administration. The breakdown in communication was horrid.

He's the all-knowing Obama when it comes to international dealings. He claims to know what everyone is feeling, and he knows how to solve the world's problems, he claims to have had a full handle on the Indian Ocean and SEALS situation in saving Captain Richard Phillips, yet he has no clue when his plane is out there terrifying the citizens of New York.

How incompetent this administration truly is.

That is what this situation is. It is an example of the incompetence of the Obama Administration. They can't even coordinate with each other enough to know when one of the Air Force One jets are in the air!

And this guy is running our country? This administration is tasked with keeping this country safe? They can't even keep track of an airplane that is tasked to taxi around the president, or to create a contingency plan to keep the president safe when the plane is in the air without him (which is gone without their knowledge), yet they are supposed to be able to do all the other things that goes along with running this nation.

You can't do the big things if you haven't figured out how to do the little things.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Jet Flyover Frightens New Yorkers - New York Times

A 9/10 Security Mindset - The Heritage Foundation

Plane Dumb - The New York Post

Barack Obama's Horrid Poll Numbers

The Obama followers constantly remind us that Obama has high approval numbers. Heck, his poll numbers were sky-high even before he took office and did anything. Talk about blindly following an empty suit.

Now, the mainstream press is proclaiming Obama's first 100 days to be the most impressive start by any president since Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

You know Barack Obama, as narcisistic as he is, is eating it up.

Except, despite the bias by the media and the poll takers, Obama's approval rating is somehow the second worst among all president's first 100 days in the last 40 years.

Only Bill Clinton has had lower poll numbers by the end of his first 100 days.

According to Net Right Nation, Gallup's April survey puts Obama's approval rating at 56%. Reagan's first 100 days received a 67% approval rating. Hated George W. Bush's was 62% after the first 100 days in his first term, and 58% after the first 100 days of his second term. Yes, that is right, even after four years of being demonized by the Left, Bush was more popular after the first 100 days of his second term than Obama by two percentage points.

Ouch, that's gotta hurt.

But, hey, you lefties can go ahead and continue to blindly praise your messiah. Place him on his pedastool. Suckle from his socialized nipple designed to turn you into dependent peasants.

Oh, by the way, he ranks high among the most polarizing presidents. In fact, from what I've been reading, and noticing, he is the most divisive president on record. . . ever.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Barack's In the Basement - Net Right Nation

Gallup Poll

Arlen Specter Realizes He's a Democrat

Arlen Specter, a United States Senator from Pennsylvania, has decided to switch parties. He is switching over to the Democratic Party, from the GOP. My question is, "What took him so long?"

I wonder if Arlen is willing to take Liberal Republican Senators Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe with him?

The liberal press is loving this. The New York Times is saying how "shocked" the Republicans are. The liberals are slobbering over the opportunity, should Franken finish his steal in Minnesota too, to have a filibuster-proof Senate. The sky's the limit for them, they seem to think. They can pass any legislation they want, with that kind of majority, and there isn't a thing the Republicans can do about it.

"Moderates are abandoning the party," the Left is proclaiming. This is the beginning of the end for the GOP, say the liberals. After all, the Republican Party, as far as liberals are concerned, can only win an election if they move more to the left - and with the moderates abandoning ship, "Those right-wing extremist Conservatives will gain control of the party, and they will never win with that kind of platform."

First, I would like to correct the Left in their assessment of the situation. Arlen Specter is not a moderate Republican. I know, the liberals think that any Republican that isn't a gun clinging, Bible totin', Constitution loving politician automatically falls into the "moderate" category. Specter is not a moderate in any way, shape or form. He was a "Liberal Republican," that so happened to vote conservative about a third of the time. Arlen Specter has always had more in common with the Democrats than the Republicans, anyway. The only reason he became a Republican in the first place, way back in 1966 (he changed parties then, too), was because he felt he would have a better chance of winning an election with an "R" after his name, back then, than a "D."

Hmmmm, looks like a pattern forming.

I heard Specter's explanation for the jump across the aisle. It is his opinion that ever since 1980, when the Reagan Revolution began, the Republican Party has moved too far to the right. Note that the GOP is hardly farther to the Right than it was during the Reagan years. Since 1988, the Republican Party has been steadily veering left, to be honest. Specter, however, disagrees with that. In fact, he pointed out in a statement, that because of the Republican's right-wing lean, over 200,000 Republicans in Pennsylvania became Democrats last year, and like those voters, he is finding his philosophy to be more in line with the Democrats, than the Republicans.

If that is true, then why didn't he have a beef with the party during the Reagan years?

Remember, his explanation is full of hooey. He wasn't about to abandon the winning team in the eighties, regardless of what he thought of them, just like now, since he is so sure the Obama-maniacs are the current unbeatable winners, he wants to join what he thinks to be the winning team.

Like most Liberals, his real reason for jumping parties echoes his reasoning back in 1966. Specter, like any good liberal, is doing what is best for him. He believes he'll have a better chance of being re-elected in 2010 by becoming a Democrat. If changing parties will spell a win for him in 2010, then why not make the jump? Seems like a reasonable gamble. The dice have been rolling well for him so far, so why not bet on the hard numbers now? After all, for Leftists, it's all about power. That is what Liberals are all about. They do what they can to be elected. Everything else is secondary. It's not about what is best for the country, or what loyalties he may have. Liberals never make their decisions for what is best for anyone other than themselves, and their liberal brethren.

With Franken slowly surviving Coleman's appeals in Minnesota, Arlen Specter equals Democrat number 60 in the U.S. Senate. 60 Democrats makes the Senate filibuster proof. But that means nothing, really. They were already filibuster proof, for the most part, because the Democrats know that in a pinch they can depend on Republicans Specter, Collins, and Snowe to vote with them often. Changing a "D" to an "R" just makes it official on paper too.

Arlen Specter was supported by Conservative Rick Santorum in 2004, and some would see this as a burn to Santorum. I understand why Santorum threw his support behind Specter. It wasn't because he necessarily agreed with Specter's politics. It was simply because as liberal as Specter is, Specter's Democrat opponent was more so.

Don't fool yourself into falling for the liberal propaganda, however. Arlen Specter leaving the Republican Party does not spell doom for the GOP. Specter belongs in the Democratic Party. I am happy to see him go. This is what we want, as Conservatives. We don't want Liberals trying to change the Republican Party into a clone of the Democratic Party. Enough damage has been done already by these Lefties. We want them to leave. We desire that they go to the Democrat Party, where they belong. That way, the real Conservatives can turn the Republican Party around and lead it back to a Conservative victory, as it did in 1980 and 1984.

The move by Specter, despite the hoopla by the Left, is actually good for the GOP. Remember, I said that Specter has voted conservative a third of the time, and some would even say 40% of the time. He is against "Card Check," and he supported the war. However, remember that the Democrats skewered Joe Liebermann for his leanings to the right on some issues. Despite how liberal Arlen Specter is, he has a history of having more right-side attributes than Liebermann. This creates a good situation for the GOP.

On April 15th, Pat Toomey announced he will run for the Republican nomination in the Republican senatorial primary in 2010. Toomey was a U.S. Representative from 1999 to 2005, and has gained significant popularity of late. Up to the point of Specter's announcement he was leaving the Republican Party, Toomey has held a lead in the polls over Arlen Specter. This is part of the reason for Specter's decision to change parties. He is under the impression that with the "popularity" of the anointed one, Barack Obama, behind him, re-election as a Democrat into the U.S. Senate should be a lock.

Here is where this works to the GOP's advantage. Not only is Obama's radical policies leaving enough of a bad taste in the mouth of voters that conservative candidates will appear to be appealing in 2010, especially to Republican voters that stayed at home this last election, disgusted by the offerings of the GOP, but also, Democratic voters are not going to be real thrilled about Specter being their "guy" to vote for. After all, remember that though Arlen Specter was essentially a liberal Republican, he still has many conservative leanings. Specter doesn't seem to realize that the Democratic base does not welcome folks that aren't as radical as the rest of the party has become, or at least there in Pennsylvania. I have to admit, there were a lot of blue dog Democrats elected in this last cycle who are very conservative on a number of issues. But, for the most part, the Democrats have moved so far to the left that someone like Specter is darn near a replica of Bush, for all they are concerned. As liberal as Specter is, the base is more liberal than he is. For these reasons, he may not be accepted by a number of Democratic voters. And with a drop in the number of Democrats voting for a Democrat, and an increase in the energized conservative turnout for someone like Toomey, the ride to the left side of the U.S. Senate may not be as smooth for Arlen as he thinks.

Specter is thinking that Democrats, like they normally do, are voting strictly along party lines, and are hardly considering the name, or the political history of the person in front of that "D" in parentheses on their ballot. He is figuring the party in power is getting all the votes, when in reality, if you look at the figures, it is not as one sided as the Democrats think. After all, George Bush won his last election with 51% of the vote in 2004, and McCain lost with 46% of the vote in 2008. This means that Obama won because of a 5% change in the vote. Hardly a landslide, when you look at all the factors aside from the Electoral College. To account for the 5% change, one must consider the number of Republicans that decided not to vote, and a percentage that is probably close to 5% of folks that voted for Bush in 2004, and wound up voting for Obama in 2008 because they fell for the propaganda of demonizing Bush, hence the whole GOP, by the mainstream press.

5%. It was a whole 5% change. I know the liberals say that it was a landslide last November. They have determined in their narrow little minds that the country has somehow suddenly shifted left. 5% of a change in the vote is hardly anything other than a slight change, and is more of a close election, than a landslide.

Arlen Specter is too liberal to be a Republican, and too conservative to be a Democrat. And like most of the Leftists, he has fallen for that "the country has shifted left" propaganda. But he will not win in 2010, and his shift to the Democratic party is not only not a sign the GOP is in trouble, but actually is a blessing for the Right.

In 2010, along with a few other races around the nation, the Senate seat from Pennsylvania will go to a conservative Republican, and the strangle-hold on America by the Democrat-led Congress will be broken.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Specter Switches Parties - New York Times, Carl Hulse

Breaking: Arlen Specter Switching Parties - Net Right Nation, Adam Bitely

SHAPIRO: The card-check deal - Washington Times, Gary Shapiro

Election '08: Presidential Final Results - Real Clear Politics

2004 Presidential General Election Results - US Election Atlas

Pat Toomey - Wikipedia

Swine Flu Nerves Rattled by Mexico City Earthquake

The swine flu outbreak in Mexico City has claimed more lives. The number of cases in the United States has also increased. The virus is now also appearing worldwide, including surfacing in New Zealand and Spain.

While the Obama Administration is urging that we don't panic, and I agree fully, I also believe we should be prepared for the worst should it arise.

In the meantime, as the world is attempting to formulate strategies for dealing with the swine flu, and as Mexico City's nerves are being pushed to the limit, an earthquake jarred Mexico City. Reports have given the quake a magnitude anywhere from 5.6 to 6.0. Two died in the state of Guerrero near the epicenter.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Swine flu epidemic enters dangerous new phase

Quake jars already-nervous Mexico City residents

"The Truth" Painting Places a Crown of Thorns Upon Obama's Head

Artist Michael D'Antuono painted his self-perceived masterpiece of Barack Obama, crowning Obama with a crown of thorns. The messianic imagery inflamed such public outrage that D'Antuono decided to cancel the public unveiling of "The Truth" at NYC's Union Square Park on April 29th, President Obama's 100th day.

This is not the first time an artist, or Obama follower, has depicted Obama in a messianic manner. D'Antuono claims like others in the past who have depicted Obama in Messiah-like imagery, he isn't claiming the man is not a Messiah. He claims he is simply inviting "individual interpretations."

D'Antuono, while claiming that the piece was purely political, said, "The religious reference was used metaphorically and not to insult anyone's religious beliefs. If that is the effect that my art has had on anyone, I am truly sorry."

What did he expect to be the response to such a blasphemous painting?

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

100 days in office, coronated Messiah - World Net Daily

'The Truth': D'Antuono Cancels Unveiling of Obama Painting Due to Public Outrage - Breitbart

No Good Deed Goes Unpunished - Saving Los Angeles from Terror Attacks Deserves Prison Time, apparently

Obama is criminalizing the "torture" (enhanced interrogation methods) that kept our nation safe, and is willing to go after whoever he feels is guilty. . .



Get Liberty

GPS Doorway Census

The Decennial Census in 2010 is around the corner, and technology promises to be of great assistance to the process of counting the number of Americans residing in this great nation. Instead of using paper-based lists, surveys, and the like, however, the United States Government has developed a paperless method to achieve their census goals. Efficiency and accuracy are the promised bi-products of these new technology-based programs, which includes creating Global Positioning System (GPS) coordinates for the front doors of American homes. This way, in addition to the current satellite location and picture of your property from the roof, the government will now have a GPS coordinate for your front door.

GPS coordinates of your front door will make it easier for the government to monitor you. The U.S. Census Bureau is simply an excuse - a harmless looking means of obtaining the front door coordinates. The creation of GPS coordinates for front doors has nothing to do with the Census, in all honesty, no matter how much the United States Government tries to convince you that it does.

Why would the U.S. government desire the exact location of your front door to be entered into their GPS data base when they already have the location of your home in the system?

One explanation I have received in my research is that the collection of front door GPS coordinates are required for our nation's security. After all, protecting this nation is an ongoing responsibility, and the Global War on Terror is a puzzle with continuously changing battlefields, and rapidly changing tactics by the enemy.

I am all for protecting this nation. This is why I supported The Patriot Act, though it took a while for me to come to that conclusion. The Patriot Act, I decided, was simply going to make legal what the government was doing already, and if the tactics prescribed by The Patriot Act would catch terrorists before they could commit another act of terrorism, I was all for it. My reservations, however, included the thought, "What if such intelligence capabilities fell into the wrong hands, like a tyrannical government who saw the citizenry of America as being a larger danger to their position of power than terrorists?"

To collect the coordinates of the front doors of the homes of America, I determined it was going to take a lot of people involved in the process, and the White House would need to coordinate the efforts more directly if the process was going to move ahead smoothly for them.

Connecting the dots followed, for me. I began to recall that the Obama Administration was under fire in early February for indicating that the White House needed to oversee the 2010 census, literally taking control of the Census away from the Commerce Department. At the time I wondered, "Why would Obama desire direct control of the 2010 Census?"

I also wondered how the Obama Administration would be able to recruit enough people willing to do something that the average American would be appalled to do. After all, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize the dangerous implications surrounding the idea of gaining GPS coordinates for the doorways of America.

Barack Obama, as far back as during his campaigns, has pushed for national service. The Obamites, thirsty to serve their new messianic figure, have lost enough of their objectivity to be willingly recruited into such an insidious program like gaining these coordinates for the U.S. Government. They will be willing to accept any explanation. The followers of Obama are ready to believe, whether it is true or not, that going around shooting the coordinates of the front doors of America is good for America, and good for hope and change.

I ask again, what would be the purpose of shooting the GPS coordinates of American doorways? How would having such coordinates be to the government's advantage?

Imagine, if you will, that there are a number of people in a neighborhood that could not find the addresses they are tasked with finding. They are not locals, maybe are unable to read a map, or perhaps do not have the time to pull out a map, and they need to find you with specific GPS coordinates. Their devices would lead them to your front door with these coordinates. Imagine a crisis is afoot, and martial law is put into place. U.S. troops need to round up particular folks.

Let's take this a step further. After all, with Barack Obama desiring to decrease the number of folks in the military, and with forces committed worldwide, we may not have sufficient military forces at home to deal with a rising national emergency. If the government decided to rely on foreign troops, perhaps United Nations personnel, most of which may not understand the street signs, much less know the lay of the land, they could use GPS devices to direct them to your front door.

But why would they need to find your front door?

No trespassing signs won't stop them from shooting the coordinates, either. By using the U.S. Census as an excuse to shoot the coordinates the federal government can use the U.S. Code, Chapter 7, Subtitle 2 of Section 223, Title 13, which outlines the penalties for any citizen refusing to assist a census taker.

Once a field worker is done with your front door, Big Brother has you in sight, using an eye in the sky. Satellites. GPS. Big Brother is Watching You.

On May 3, 2009, my guest on Political Pistachio Radio will be a person with extensive knowledge on this matter. Tune in at 7pm next Sunday night to hear the details.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Big Brother At Your Front Door: Recording GPS Coordinates - Channeling Reality

The next U.S. census will count on a handheld computer - EE Times, Junko Yoshida

Census Bureau Continues Technology Tradition - GeoPlace, L. Scott Tillett

Law Enforcement Associates Awarded $5.7 Million Follow-On Order by U.S. Census Bureau - Marketwire

Harris Corporation Products and Services - National Intelligence Programs

Baker firm lands census GPS work.(Global Positioning System, Bureau of the Census, Michael Baker... - All Business

Homeland Security - Baker Corp.

Defense - Baker Corp.

Census Workers to Verify Addresses in the U.S., First Major 2010 Census Operation to Employ 140,000 - U.S. Census Bureau

Resisting the Politicization of the National Census - Get Liberty, William Warren

Future of Census in question - Jim Brown, OneNewsNow

GOP Threatens Legal Action Against Obama for Plan to Oversee 2010 Census - Fox News

Obama's Secret Army - Douglas V. Gibbs, Political Pistachio

Obama's 'civilian national security force' - Joseph Farah, World Net Daily

Naive and Abroad: Israel and Palestine, tonight on Political Pistachio Radio

Author Marcus Wilder tonight's guest on the Political Pistachio Radio Revolution

Swine Flu Forces U.S. to Declare Public Health Emergency

U.S. Declares Public Health Emergency Over Swine Flu as The World Health Organization Declares International Concern


August, 1998, North Carolina. 2,400 animals fall ill with symptoms similar to the human flu. Almost 10% of pregnant sows lose their litters. Surviving piglets are born small and weak as about 50 sows die. The disease that struck these animals was a new strain of flu. The animals had little immunity to the new swine flu. Influenza strains outside North America experience continuous adaption, but this was the first such sign of a flu virus evolving into a different strain and sickening American pigs since 1930.

Recently, since that initial outbreak, flu viruses have been constantly altering and sweeping through North America's pigs. After years of stability, swine flu viruses have jumped on the fast track of change, providing new strains on a constant basis.

One theory for the surge of the ever-changing strains considers increased vaccination practices. During the last few years researchers have determined that these new swine flu viruses may spell danger for humans as well. Constantly evolving viruses created a better chance that one strain may adapt enough to become transmissible among humans, and cause an outbreak more severe than the recent avian flu viruses worldwide.

Flu viruses experiencing genetic shifts, as are the swine flu viruses in North America, are especially dangerous because humans have no immunity for battling the new virus, and the ability to create a vaccine and get it on the market takes too much time if the virus is spreading rapidly.

The new flus now found in North American pigs have genes from pig, human and bird viruses. Though rare, it is not impossible for influenza viruses to jump the species barrier, and now, it seems, the North American Swine Flu has done just that.

Prior to now only 18 cases of pure swine flu directly crossing into people have been recorded.

A swine influenza strain has killed more than 80 people in Mexico, and the World Health Organization states that it may be too late to contain the outbreak.

Cases have also been reported in California, Texas, and New York. Eight students in a high school in Queens, New York, have been confirmed by the CDC to be infected with the swine flu. Four cases have been reported in Canada, at this point.

Experts have concern that this potential pandemic could reach proportions not unlike the Spanish flu pandemic in 1918-19, which killed at least 40 million people worldwide, including otherwise healthy young adults.

In Mexico, the fear of a pandemic has Mexicans reacting as mounting panic rises with the belief that Mexico City may be ground zero for a new global epidemic of this new flu. Schools and museums are closed, and Mexico's citizens are staying home for the most part. Some of those willing to brave the outside are wearing surgical masks in hopes to protect themselves from the strange swine flu virus.

On Saturday the World Health Organization (WHO) declared international concern, warning countries around the world to be on alert for unusual flu outbreaks. Several Latin American and Asian countries have already begun screening at airports and other points of entry. So far, no countries other than Mexico, Canada, and the U.S. have reported any cases, but there have been reports of possible new cases from the Far East to Europe.

Global air travel may increase the potential of new cases. Asia, with fresh memories of an outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), is being especially efficient in their efforts to intensify health surveillance in all points of entry into their countries.

Today, the United States declared a public health emergency over the swine flu. Twenty cases of the disease have been confirmed in the United States, and though the American officials are urging people not to panic, they are taking great care in ensuring that government resources are being used to diagnose and prevent additional cases.

Though there have been some speculation that the government may use this crisis as an excuse to implement martial law, and increased governmental control over the population, there has been no evidence supporting the theory.

UPDATE: MEXICO - Suspected Swine Flu Death Toll Rises To 103 - Total Infected At 1614 as of 9:30 pm 4/26/2009

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Chasing the Fickle Swine Flu

Students Fall Ill in New York, and Swine Flu Is Likely Cause - New York Times, Donald G. McNeil Jr.

U.S. Declares Public Health Emergency Over Swine Flu - New York Times, Keith Bradsher and Jack Healy

WHO Declares International Concern Over Swine Flu - Yahoo News/Associated Press, Frank Jordans

Fear, anger and fatalism over swine flu in Mexico - Yahoo News/Associated Press, Alexandra Olson

Mexico fights swine flu with 'pandemic potential' - Yahoo News/Assciated Press, Mark Stevenson

Swine flu cases in Calif. worry health officials - Fox News/Associated Press, Mike Stobbe

The Swine Flu Episode and the Fog of Epidemics - CDC.gov/National Institutes of Health, Richard Krause

Swine Flu Map to track outbreaks

Keyes vs. Obama Political News and Conservative Commentary on the Obama Birth Certificate

As President Barack Obama leads the United States of America into the brave new world of "Hope" and "Change," one begins to wonder what kind of change we are in for. The policies President Obama is implementing are not just changes in American policies. Dr. Alan Keyes characterizes Barack Obama's changes as regime change. Barack Obama, according to Dr. Keyes, means to "… change the form of government in the United States away from a system of Constitutional self-government, which is based upon respect for individual rights, to a system of party dictatorship… a government dominated society in which the government controls the resources, it controls the banks, it controls the corporations, makes decisions as to who shall work, and how much they shall be paid… "

By the close of Obama's first 100 days, the Democrats have changed the face of American Politics in ways that may take generations to repair. Barack Obama has delivered on what the Conservatives have claimed he would do. The Democrats are implementing programs that are pervasively dominant in the lives of citizens.

Liberal policies being enacted by the current Congress, and President, are of no surprise. Barack Obama has a history of radical Leftism. Evidence of his far left radical agenda was present even as far back as during his state senate years, to which he was elected without opposition (coincidence?) three times...

Read the remainder of this exclusive, and access the interview I had with Dr. Alan Keyes, on American Daily Review

Founding Truth and Political Pistachio Radio Tonight

Hate Crimes Laws have come to America, discussed between Douglas V. Gibbs and Loki HERE.

Then, Larry Pratt, Executive Director of Gun Owners of America joins Political Pistachio Radio HERE.

Los Angeles Business Owner Refuses to be a Victim of Criminal Violence

Gunfighter Lance Thomas has chosen not to be a victim. The gun owner has protected his store a number of times against armed burglars, one of which where the robbers were linked to one of the deadliest gangs in the East Los Angeles area. He later closed his store when gang members were out for revenge. He now conducts business at an undisclosed location - but because he prepared himself, he was able to survive.

Katrina Pierson at the Dallas Tea Party

"Not all of us are hypnotized."

Selective Memo Release

Interrogation Debate: Left Criminalizing What Made Us Safe



The Democrats set it up nicely with the help of the mainstream press. They played it like they were going to abandon the long-time dream of the far Left lunatics to pursue George W. Bush for war crimes. They waited until the media played it up, stirred the pot, proclaimed falsely that there were interrogation abuses, and that torture ran rampant throughout the Bush Administration's decisions. Then, once the frenzy of demonization through well placed lies and exaggerations were in play, then suddenly Obama came up with the bright idea to pursue an inquiry into these alleged harsh interrogation tactics.

Never mind the fact that Attorney General Eric Holder, and President Barack Obama, assured the American People that they would not selectively release "torture" memos for political reasons. In the Democrat style of lies and hypocrisy, after the biased press set it up for them, they did exactly that - releasing only certain memos. Now, the Left is all excited over the memos, thinking they have their gotcha moment proving the U.S. tortured terrorists. They believe they have the beginnings of a long dream to go after Bush and his administration. The Left has finally begun their witch hunt.

The memos are sort of like that picture where you see an old woman, or a young woman, depending on how you look at it. The liberals see in the memos what is not necessarily there, but as they do in their best fashion, they demonize anyone they can anyway. In truth, however, the image the memos reveals is clear evidence that the Bush Administration did whatever they could to ensure the law was being followed, including having medics in place during the interrogation sessions for the protection of the health of the prisoners.

On top of all of this, Nancy Pelosi herself knew about all of this, raised no objections, and is now denying it. In fact, Pelosi wanted the interrogations to be more severe. Of course, she is denying this as the evidence mounts against her denials.

Dick Cheney, while speaking with Sean Hannity, urged that the remainder of the memos be released. He says the remainder of the memos will show beyond a doubt the success of the interrogation programs - funny that those would be the memos not released by Obama.

Interestingly, the Democratic controlled Congress was approving these interrogation methods, and now suddenly want blood for techniques that kept this country safe?

Barack Obama and gang are stepping into a very dangerous arena. They think they have Bush right where they want him, when in reality, the facts will not only prove otherwise, but reveal the Democrats for the political bigots that they truly are.

Political bigots? You know. Someone who has pure hate for people that disagree with them politically? Most liberals fit nicely into that category.

The Left's deception has been played masterfully. Question is, when their political vengeance is exposed as being nothing more than a witch hunt for the purpose of falsely demonizing their opponents, and criminalizing policy they themselves agreed to, will it come back to bite them?

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Obama Won’t Bar Inquiry, or Penalty, on Interrogations - New York Times

The Torturers’ Manifesto - New York Times

Interrogation Memos Detail Harsh Tactics by the C.I.A. - New York Times

Holder won't selectively release terror memos - Breitbart/Devlin Barrett

Blair: Congress Approved CIA Interrogations - Newsmax/David A. Patten

Presidential Poison, His invitation to indict Bush officials will haunt Obama's Presidency - Wall Street Journal

Pelosi: I didn't know about use of waterboarding - Glenn Thrush/Politico

Janet Napolitano says Illegal Immigration is not a Crime

During an interview with CNN's John King, when asked about Sheriff Joe Arpaio in Arizona, she responded:

"What we have to do is target the real evil-doers in this business, the employers who consistently hire illegal labor, the human traffickers who are exploiting human misery. And yes, when we find illegal workers, yes, appropriate action, some of which is criminal, most of that is civil, because crossing the border is not a crime per se. It is civil. But anyway, going after those as well."

So, according to Napolitano, the real evil-doers are American businesses, and the fact that the illegal aliens illegally came across the border is not illegal at all - it is not a crime, according to her, it is civil.

Apparently Janet Napolitano is not too familiar with the law. Not only is it a crime, but it is punishable by fine, or jail time, or both.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Interview with Janet Napolitano - RealClearPolitics

INA: ACT 275 - ENTRY OF ALIEN AT IMPROPER TIME OR PLACE; MISREPRESENTATION AND CONCEALMENT OF FACTS

Bankruptcy Filing for Chrysler

As the Treasury Department prepares a Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing for Chrysler, the question arises, "What was the point of the bailout?"

Apparently, Chrysler is not viable as a stand-alone company. Without restructuring, no amount of bail-out money is going to save them. Restructuring in a way that the unprofitable aspects of the company is removed may have saved the company. Even if it failed, the void would be filled by other companies, be they American, or not. If the world must exist for a while without American automobile makers for a while, so be it.

I understand the concern over the pensions and other retirement benefits. After all, my dad spent twelve years with Ford, and may need his pension if he wishes to retire anytime in the near future. However, it is these excessive benefit packages that partially contributed to the difficulties of the industry, and led to their failure.

Personally, I think the big three would be saved if the unions were disbanded, and the companies were able to restructure their benefit packages and wage scales, as well.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

U.S. Is Said To Prepare Bankruptcy Filing for Chrysler - New York Times

Grad Student Dismissed for Beliefs Regarding Homosexuality

A lawsuit has been filed against Eastern Michigan University by a graduate student who alleges she was dismissed from a counseling program because of her belief that homosexuality is a sinful behavior. The school intiated a disciplinary program against the student, Julea Ward, despite the fact she followed her supervising professor's advice referring the client to a counselor that did not have issue with the gay lifestyle.

She was informed she needed to undergo a remediation process to change her beliefs. Refusal would result in dismissal from the program. The decision is being based on the belief that non-acceptance of the gay lifestyle is discrimination.

Remediation process to change her beliefs?

Can anyone say "Orwellian?"

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Federal lawsuit claims Eastern Michigan University dismissed grad student from counseling program for her views on homosexuality - Mlive.com (Everything Michigan)

What If Susan Boyle Was A Lousy Singer?

The Susan Boyle story is one that brings tears to the eyes of anyone that watches the video. She is the epitome of a classic underdog story. Susan proves the old saying, don't judge a book by the cover, to be true. When I first placed a link to the video of her singing "I Had a Dream" from Les Miserables for the audience of the television program "Britain's Got Talent," on Political Pistachio Videos (posted April 12th), the response in the form of hits was astronomical. Everyone I talked to about the video was touched deeply, and couldn't say enough about how inspirational of a feel-good story it was.

The video is remarkable in many ways. Susan Boyle is inarticulate in her speech, and almost cartoonish in her image. As she prepares to audition for the show in front of three judges (including Simon Cowell), and an audience that, upon first glance of her are rolling their eyes and laughing at her, she simply smiles and proceeds forward with confidence. Susan Boyle, in her raggy hair, dowdy dress, and with bushy eyebrows, never missed a beat. After proclaiming her dream was to become as big as Elaine Paige, a popular British singer, she delivered a performance that had the crowd cheering, on their feet in ovation, and a performance that elicited one of the judges to say it was the biggest surprise of his lifetime. Tears streamed down the cheeks of some of the folks in the audience. She went from laughing stock to inspirational success story by simply singing a song.

But, what if Susan Boyle was a lousy singer? Would she have been mocked, humiliated, and laughed at publicly?

So much for political correctness working.

Political correctness is selective, it seems. Social pressure to be sensitive apparently only applies to race, gender, religion (unless you are Christian), ethnicity, creed, or sexual lifestyle. Judging by the treatment of Susan Boyle before she began to sing, however, being politically correct does not apply to frumpy white women.

As much as we admire Susan Boyle for proving everyone wrong, the reality of it is that she should not have had to prove anyone wrong. Compassion should not be decided upon by society's attempt to moralize, using secular standards as the guide. I realize that in this world of uncivility it seems necessary to force people to be responsible, compassionate, and fair. But true compassion does not come from political correctness, or governmental programs. True compassion comes from the heart and soul, and from a willingness to love one another as commanded by God.

Susan Boyle does not deserve admiration because, despite her image, she could belt out a powerful performance on a television show. She deserves our admiration because as an individual she took a chance with her remarkable ability, and because the story of her life, which includes caring for ailing parents, is one of pure selflessness.

We should all take a lesson from Susan Boyle.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Thank You for the Birthday Wishes

Yes, today was my 43rd birthday.

I spent the day, after a brief stint working early this morning, working on my lawn, and having lunch with my wife.

Your support is greatly appreciated.

As an added note, my shared site with John Barnhart, American Daily Review, is growing rapidly in popularity. It is considered by many to be the fastest growing political site on the internet. We have over a couple dozen contributors writing for us. The site, like Political Pistachio, is designed to not only provide opinion, but to inform and educate. Give American Daily Review a visit. You'll be glad you did.

Okay, off to bed, up shortly after midnight to fire up my big rig.

God Bless America, and God Bless You.

Ciao,

Douglas V. Gibbs

Obama's Next Victim: Credit Card Companies

Obama has declared war on an enemy he deems to be more vicious than Islamic Jihadism, Venezuela’s socialist dictator Hugo Chavez, Iran, Russia, Red China, Communist Cuba or North Korea. In fact, so far he has done everything he can to sit down and talk nice-nice with each of those enemies, convinced that if we can only convince them to get along with a smile, everyone will be happier in the end for it because surely these enemies simply want a friend to talk to. But there is one enemy so horrid, so dangerous, so unable to be negotiated with - and an enemy so determined to bring down everything Obama and the Democrats love - that they have made their war against this enemy priority number one.

The enemy that the Democrats, led by King Obama, have set their sights on is Free Market Capitalism, a.k.a. The American Dream.

In order to accomplish a takeover of private industry, and to wage war against Capitalism without an uprising by the populace, Obama and gang had to convince America that the Left's war against Capitalism was not only necessary, but that somehow the free market system that has made this nation the greatest economic power in history for over two hundred years is somehow at fault for the latest dip in the roller coaster ride of the financial world.

I've heard that argument before, by the way. The Democrats waging war on Capitalism would have made fantastic party members in the Soviet Union.

Once the populace was convinced of the evils of Capitalism, the Marxists in the Democratic Party (and many of them in the Republican Party when Bush jumped in bed with the Democrats when he proposed his stimulus package) began their manipulation of the market by pumping bailout money into it, and placing controls over any industry that was stupid enough to accept any of the fiat money. Obama and friends dictated parameters to the banking industry, chastising them for handing out retention bonuses, and anything that made it look like they actually made any kind of profit. Of course, the pre-planning worked wonders. After all, convincing Americans that profit equals greed worked well when they began to demonize the oil companies so that people would become more jazzed about the inefficient "clean" energy industry that will inevitably increase energy costs, and drop our economy further into the toilet.

Now that Obama and the Congressional Democrats have sunk their fangs into the financial industry, and the American automobile makers, they have turned their attention to a new enemy: credit card companies. President Obama, today, voiced his support for legislation that would keep banking institutions from imposing higher fees and interest rates on credit card users, as well as demanding that terms be written plainly, as if the notices aren't plain enough as it is.

The argument, as with the mortgage bankers, is that such practices are predatory, and the actions by the federal government are in the interest of protecting the consumer.

The measure may reach the House floor next week, and swift passage is expected.

Opponents, however, state that not only are the proposals unnecessary because the Federal Reserve has already adopted a series of restrictions expected to go into effect next year, but that also such legislation would reduce the amount of lending in the market at a time when the economy needs it most.

A number of moderate Republicans have broken rank to support the measure.

The danger of price controls are not being taken into consideration. One of the basic principles of microeconomics is that price controls, such as what is being suggested in the measure, leads to shortages in commodities, including credit, and in the long run will harm ordinary consumers.

Rules proposed by Congress go beyond the Federal Reserve's restrictions, and sharp limits in the availability in credit may be the result. This is not a prudent move when the need to improve the economy partially depends upon getting credit flowing again.

The predatory practices that the Obama Administration and Congressional Democrats are zeroing in on are the raises in rates and fees given to customers that are not paying their payments on time, or at all. The cost of these practices, if the companies must cease their practices due to this legislation, will lead to the credit card companies spreading the cost around to all card holders, resulting in responsible credit card holders paying the price.

Sounds like what is happening in the mortgage bailout strategies, doesn't it?

Limiting risk-based pricing won't stop with the credit card companies. By enacting this measure, the responsible credit holders, even those that don't pay interest charges because they regularly pay off their balances, will lose out on the return of annual fees, as well as lose out on credit card rewards like airline miles, so that the companies can recoup the costs from the proposed bans on risk-based pricing. In the case of the airline miles, the industry will receive less customers for flights, further hurting the already struggling airline industry. Businesses, traveling less to conduct business, will in turn reduce the span of business they conduct, which will force them to downsize to cover the cost of lost productivity.

The credit card holders receiving these fees and increased rates knew what they were getting into, and decided to allow their credit cards to get beyond their control. Foolish consumers do not make lenders predators, nor give the right to the federal government to take control and further weaken an already struggling market. If there is fraud in the system, then the companies should be punished just as would be any fraud in any kind of business. By enacting "Nanny State" laws like what is being proposed by the Democrats, the economy will be further set back due to the lack of innovation in credit.

In the long run, such actions by a strong centralized government destroys individuality, and turns consumers into mindless automatons following the government's will. As Americans, we are individuals with talents and personal attributes that sometimes cause us to fail. I have the freedom to fail as much as I have the freedom to succeed. If I do something stupid, like allow myself to become a credit risk, it is nobody’s fault but my own, and I will have to learn to be more careful in the future if I wish to survive as an individual. Sometimes the road to wisdom and character hurts. Sometimes, in order to become winners in the long run, we must first be losers for a while. If the government takes away the consequences of poor use of credit, the market will suffer, and the populace will become a gang of unschooled dependents waiting for the government to tell them what to do next.

By allowing the federal government to take control of yet another private industry in this way, eventually, as with other companies the government has gained control of, the White House will begin to dictate terms to the industry. Company leadership will be hired and fired (or forced to resign) as Obama sees fit, and the industry will cease to be a private industry. Then, as the government gains more and more control, they will move on to the next industry. In the end, before it is all over, the private sector will shrink, and opportunity and liberty will die in the hands of big government.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Obama Pressures Credit Card Issuers on Rates - Stephen Labaton, New York Times

The Polarization Effect

As the First 100 Days of the Presidency of Obama come to a close, Barry has achieved a lot more than I expected.

You read that correctly. I attribute Barack Obama with a lot of achievement as president of the United States.

Barack Obama, despite the claims that the polarization crown belonged to George W. Bush, is the most polarizing president in recent history. That is quite an achievement, if I do say so myself. As he works on creating the greatest federal deficit in American history, another wild achievement, while setting his sights on the federal government taking control of private industry, the partisan gap between Republican and Democratic approval ratings for the Leftist messiah stands at 61 points - ten points greater that when the gap was at its worst for Bush.

The great unifier has unified many people, but they are, for the most part, on the Liberal side of politics. Barry, however, has angered everyone else. And he realizes this, which is why he tried so hard to get at least a few Republicans to vote in favor of his Stimulus Package, when in reality, the Democrats could pass it without any help from the Right. Barack Hussein Obama wanted to be able to say he united the parties, and everyone was working together in the Stimulus.

I honestly believe he does not understand why he is not the Great Unifier he thought he would be. Liberals truly do not understand how one of the important factors of liberty is a limited federal government, nor do they understand the Constitutional idea of state's rights. In a nut shell, power is best controlled when divided.

Some people, as they recognize the movement of the federal government in a tyrannical direction, suggest that some kind of civil war may be on the horizon. That Obama's Administration, and his Leftist gang of idiots, will take America into a direction so far to the left, and so close to the communistic system the Soviet Union operated under, that there will eventually be fighting in the streets to preserve liberty.

Though I may not subscribe to such a possibility (while not completely discounting the possibility), I do believe a revolution against Obama's socialism is in the works. Bloodshed is never a desirable end, and armed revolution must always be the last resort when dealing with governmental oppression. There are other ways, however, to conduct a revolution, and the tea parties are the beginnings of that revolution.

One death that may occur during this revolution, should this entity not get its act straight, will be the demise of the Republican Party. The political party, in an attempt to remain competitive in a political battle with rapidly changing rules, and deceptive techniques applied by the Democrats, has determined that moving left is in its best interest. The party leadership is becoming no different than the leadership of the Democratic Party, and as a result, Conservatives are revolting against the GOP. Conservatives do not desire backing a party attempting to become more ideologically uniform with the party currently in power. Despite the idea of "Party First," the conservative voters believe that policies must mean something - and that to abandon principles and values to win an election is akin to selling one's soul to the Devil.

The Obama Administration, as these struggles increase on the Right, is taking advantage of the lack of organization of the Right. The Right has no defined leader, no organizational team, and no front runner backed by the majority of Conservatives. So, as a response, Obama and gang are pushing through as many Marxist policies as possible, as quickly as can be done. They know they must be quick. They must turn America into a socialist entity before those that wish to protect liberty can organize and mount a reasonable revolt.

Democrats could care less if their policies are creating a polarizing gap greater than any other in the modern era. All they care about is changing our country into something the founders did not intend, and stifling liberty for anyone that disagrees with them.

When Obama claimed during the campaign that he was going to be the antidote to the poison of partisanship, as with everything else, he was lying. He knows without Republican influence what they can do to this country is nearly limitless.

The success of the tea parties, however, have the Democrats concerned. They did not expect the rallies to be a smashing success, and they don't understand why they were. However, this kind of organized retaliation by the people can be dangerous to big government socialists, and their attempt to gain complete control of the American way of life. This is why anyone that rejects the Democratic Party's American version of Marxist socialism are being castigated as right-wing extremists. The right-wing bogeyman poses too much of a challenge to the Marxist plans of the Democrats, and must be stopped. This is why Janet Napolitano, and the Homeland Security Department, are specifically targeting conservatives. Conservatism, in their mind, is a greater threat to their version of America than even the Islamic Jihadists.

The Left is alarmed, which is why conservatives must not let up. The polarization effect is only the beginning. The rallies must continue. The education of the masses must increase. The fraud that is Barack Obama must continue to be exposed. Otherwise, it may get to the point that we will no longer have the freedom to unseat him should the American People finally determine that he is as dangerous as the Right has been saying all along.

Polarization in American politics has always been present, but as the Left moves farther left, and Conservatism stands firm on the original intentions of the writers of the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution, Barack Obama, the candidate of unity, has quickly become just another source of division.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Partisan Gap in Obama Job Approval Widest in Modern Era - Pew Research

Americans who reject Marxist socialism are castigated as 'right-wing extremists' - Marie Jon, Renew America

Here we go again: liberals are in trouble, time to haul out the "right-wing" bogeyman- Wes Vernon, Renew America

The Most Polarizing President - Michael Gerson, Washington Post

Over the Counter Abortion Made Available To Kids

The "morning after pill" has been allowed by the FDA to be available, now, to young women age 17 without a prescription. Also known as Plan B, the emergency contraception pill, which is a large burst of birth control pill medication, is essentially now allowing instant abortion in a pill for minors without parental consent.

It won't be long before school nurses will be distributing the pills without parental consent, while still being required to obtain a parent's signature to give an aspirin.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

FDA to allow morning-after pill over the counter for 17-year-olds - CNN Health

Earth Day 2009 from a Conservative's Perspective

We should be good stewards of the planet. If a logger clear-cuts, he ought to plant two trees in the place of each one he brings down. Motor oil should be disposed of properly, not poured into the gutter, or thrown in the trash. We should pursue clean energy sources like nuclear power by building more plants around the nation for the purpose of providing clean and efficient electricity. I recycle because I choose to, not because I am following some fad. I think it is reasonable to reuse materials when we can. If gunk is in the air, or in the water, we should take action to reduce the gunk. It is common sense.

I do not believe, however, that every hair-brained environmental cause should be adopted as a threat by the U.S. government, and funded by the federal government. I don't believe myths like Man-made Global Warming should not be taught as fact. And one wonders why our children fear the Earth will be destroyed before they reach adulthood.

I appreciate those that care about the Earth, but I despise those that use environmentalism as a tool to forward a political agenda, and those that forward their environmental agenda with scare tactics or eco-terrorism.

Take care of the planet, but understand that humanity is not destroying it as Mr. Gore, and the other environmental goons, profess. Take care of the planet, but be reasonable. After all, it is important that we treat God's creation with respect. It is not wise, however, to take irresponsible actions for environmental causes that come a dime a dozen, and are propogated by folks crying wolf.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

One in Three Children Fear Earth Apocalypse - Current/Tree Hugger dot com

Surprising the Liberal Media

The Liberal Media is Biased?! Say it isn't so!!!!!



Thanks for the toon: Get Liberty

Curious about Susan Boyle's vid? Political Pistachio had it linked long before the media caught on - Political Pistachio Videos

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Internet Freedom of Speech in Government's Crosshairs

A proposed bill, if passed, would enable president to shutdown the Internet in event of a cyberattack

The idea behind the bills are seemingly benevolent enough. Understanding that our Internet system is more than just a bunch of folks sending tweets, and under the threat of cyberattacks that may include hostile governments hacking into the American Government's computers, Senate bills 773 and 778 have been introduced as part of what is being called the Cybersecurity Act of 2009.

The concern, however, is that these bills could expand government powers to include restricting freedom of speech on the Internet. Even more alarming is that these bills would place this power in the direct control of the president.

Working copies of the bills do not define what exactly constitutes a cybersecurity emergency, which dangerously leaves the determination in the hands of the president.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Senate Proposal Could Put Heavy Restrictions on Internet Freedoms - Fox News

Will bill give Obama control of Internet? - World Net Daily

Obama to Pursue Bush on Torture

Definition of Torture May Be The Deciding Factor

President Obama has decided it is prudent to pursue the Bush Administration legally for programs that included terrorist interrogations. The question on the table, the fulcrum this entire issue may be teetering on, is simply the determination of the definition of torture.

The Democrats consider the techniques used during interrogations to persuade prisoners to provide important information gruesome, and in short, torture.

Torture used by various enemies normally includes severe physical pain, long-time physical effects or disabilities, the removal of body parts, and often, ultimately, death. None of the methods used by American agents that are in question includes any of those above techniques. In fact, in order to ensure that techniques used were not within the definition of torture, the U.S. Governmental agencies devised techniques that depends heavily on psychological manipulation.

These enhanced techniques, according to White House memos, were a large part of protecting our nation from other terrorist attacks.

One of the techniques, waterboarding, simulates drowning, but the prisoner leaves the interrogation room breathing, alive, and healthy - though a little shook up.

Another technique recently discussed includes placing a caterpillar in a box with a prisoner contained within, and telling the prisoner who fears stinging bugs that the caterpillar contains a deadly sting. Once again, the prisoner left the interrogation room with all of his faculties intact. The techniques may have caused severe psychological discomfort, but they were effective, and saved lives.

Opponents of the techniques proclaim that these examples of "torture" do not represent American values, and that George W. Bush has committed criminal actions by allowing such techniques to be used. For this, they believe George Bush, and all parties involved, should be tried for war crimes as a result.

How is it that the Democrats can come to the conclusion that anything uncomfortable is torture? Should we instead question the prisoners in a Ritz Carlton hotel room as we serve them tea and crumpets? Do they really believe that the information we are receiving using these techniques would be received just as readily by using a manner of questioning that contains no discomfort whatsoever?

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Miss California in Miss USA Pageant: Protecting the right to speak one's mind freely

The question should not have been asked. But, the answer Miss California Carrie Prejean gave came from her heart, and was simply her speaking her mind freely.

Miss Prejean believes her answer may have cost her the crown. The question was on gay marriage, and was given by the hateful entertainment blogger Perez Hilton. Her answer sparked controversy, but she says she's proud she stayed true to her beliefs and wouldn't change the response. Her response was, "I think it's great that Americans are able to choose one or the other ... same sex marriage or opposite marriage. I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman ... that's how I was raised."

Prejean later commented on NBC's "Today" show, saying "I did not want to offend anybody, but I think with that question specifically, it's not about being politically correct, for me it was being Biblically correct."

America overwhelmingly agrees with her, but pop culture does not. But what does it matter if they agree with her or not?

Imagine if the question had been answered in the opposite manner, proclaiming full support for gay marriage. Then, imagine if the audience booed her as they did this time, and she felt her response cost her the crown. Can you imagine the outcry that would have followed? The audience would be dubbed "haters," and the liberal pundits would have been all over it.

In the world where Miss California defended the traditional definition of marriage, Perez Hilton has stated a candidate for Miss USA should offer more inclusive answers.

Apparently, to Hilton, one's right to speak one's mind clearly is only applicable if you agree with him, and the degrading popular culture.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Miss USA controversy: Carrie Prejean says gay marriage answer cost crown, but she'd say it again - Yahoo News, Lauren Johnston