By Douglas V. Gibbs
The Pacific Ocean has been rocked by two major earthquakes. A tsunami caused by an 8.0 earthquake near Samoa, centered about 120 miles south of the islands of Samoa (Samoa has about 220,000 people, nearby is the American Samoa, a U.S. territory of 65,000). The earthquake on Tuesday morning sent four tsunami waves 15 to 20 feet high on a collision course with the islands, reaching up to a mile inland. The waves destroyed any buildings that were not concrete or stone, splintering houses and dislocating cars and boats. The Pacific Tsunami Warning Center in Hawaii said it issued an alert, but the rising tsunamis reached the islands so quickly that residents had about 10 minutes to respond.
Searching the wreckage, police estimate that at least 120 people were killed. The death toll is expected to rise as the search for survivors, and bodies, continues. Many tourists were among the casualties.
Three of the major resorts were totally devastated, while the others suffered major damage.
Medical staff are spread thin with the increasing numbers of casualties. Red Cross is providing as much as they can, providing food, clothes and water.
Another powerful underwater earthquake rocked western Indonesia the following day, Wednesday. The 7.6 magnitude quake killed at least 200 people. Then, the following day a 6.9 quake also hit.
The Thursday earthquake struck on Sumatra island, about 180 miles from the epicenter of the quake on Wednesday. Thousands are feared to be trapped under the rubble.
Though the Indonesian quakes triggered tsunami warnings, no waves developed.
One is obliged to ask if these three major earthquakes are birth pains? Or simply a coincidence?
UPDATE: Indonesian Death Toll as of Thursday is 1,100.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Aid flows to tsunami-hit Samoas; death toll at 120 - Associated Press, Yahoo News
Indonesia shaken by another powerful quake - Associated Press, Yahoo News
Indonesian quake toll at 1,100, thousands missing - Associated Press, Yahoo News
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Two Pictures Are Worth a Thousand Words
Here is the National Mall After the Obama Inauguration.
Here is the National Mall After the 9/12 March.
Kind of explains a bunch of things, doesn't it?
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Here is the National Mall After the 9/12 March.
Kind of explains a bunch of things, doesn't it?
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Founding Principles
Chad Kent is putting together a series of videos regarding the founding principles of the U.S. Constitution. Below is the first of this series.
Chad Kent Speaks
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Chad Kent Speaks
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
.jpg)
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Hear Our Cry Obama, Deliver Us Obama?
During a phone conversation with my good friend Joshua P. Allem out there in the great State of Texas, Josh said to me, "Did you hear about that video of people praying to Obama?"
I know that calling Obama the Democrat Messiah has become more than just a hunch. Barry has received praise-like devotion from his followers, and I half expect them to begin building a temple for worshiping him.
Then along comes this video, and to be honest, even I was shocked and amazed. These people are essentially praying to Obama.
We have gone completely insane!
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
I know that calling Obama the Democrat Messiah has become more than just a hunch. Barry has received praise-like devotion from his followers, and I half expect them to begin building a temple for worshiping him.
Then along comes this video, and to be honest, even I was shocked and amazed. These people are essentially praying to Obama.
We have gone completely insane!
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Monday, September 28, 2009
Ignoring The Constitution
By Douglas V. Gibbs
The U.S. Constitution is the law of the land. The document was specifically written to limit the federal government, while also providing a list of what the states cannot do in Article I, Section 10. Otherwise, states have their own constitutions, and are supposed to be able to govern themselves without federal interference. The federal government has jurisdiction over any issue enumerated in Article I, Section 8, or any amendment that specifically grants the federal government such powers. If the U.S. Constitution does not specifically give the federal government any say over an issue, the Tenth Amendment clearly determines that the issue is then a state issue, should the states decide to take up the issue.
The U.S. Supreme Court was created to apply the law. Therefore, in each and every case they see they must apply the U.S. Constitution to the case. If the Constitution does not address the issue as being a federal responsibility, the U.S. Supreme Court cannot take the case, and the decision by a state supreme court would then stand.
Despite a string of court decisions over the last 200 years that proclaims the U.S. Supreme Court is the final arbiter of the U.S. Constitution, beginning with Marbury v. Madison in 1803, the judiciary cannot make law, or interpret the Constitution to say something it doesn't. Law can only be made by the legislative branch, and the judiciary can only have an opinion in regards to the need for a particular law. Ultimately, a law cannot be made unless the U.S. Congress, or the States (in an Article V Convention) proposes it. I don't care how much "precedence" there is, law is not, and can not be, made by the judiciary.
This bring us around to the "birther" debate. The question over Barack Obama's eligibility to be President of the United States has reached monumental proportions. The issue has encouraged a number of debates regarding the exact meaning of "Natural Born Citizen." Some contend that British Common Law influenced the founder's meaning of Natural Born Citizen, while others argue that Vattel's Law of Nations was the primary influence. Whatever the meaning, it is apparent that the understanding of what Natural Born Citizen meant was so obvious that the Founding Father's did not see the need to spell it out.
The words themselves give us clues to what the founders meant. "Natural" means, essentially, not of man. So, being a citizen by law (like as a naturalized citizen) is not acceptable. The person vying for the presidency must be naturally born in the United States. Beyond that, however, the U.S. Constitution does not give us a detailed definition.
Considering the lack of definition provided, it is reasonable to assume that being born in the United States, or outside the United States by two American parents, is sufficient to be a Natural Born Citizen? If there was more to the definition, wouldn't the Founding Fathers have provided it?
I believe the meaning the Founding Fathers had in mind included that both parents be citizens, but where is the proof in the U.S. Constitution that is the case? As much as I hate to say it, until an amendment is proposed and ratified that defines the exact terms of what a Natural Born Citizen is, we cannot assume that it means anything more than a person born on American soil, or to two American parents.
Following that line of thinking, there are a number of issues that can be addressed in a simple manner. Either it is in the Constitution, or it isn't.
Federal intrusion in any way into the Health Care industry is not addressed anywhere in the U.S. Constitution, therefore, Obama's government health care plan is unconstitutional and needs to be stopped on the grounds that it is unconstitutional.
Partial, or full, ownership of private industries by the federal government is not provided as a federal governmental function, therefore the government owning part of General Motors is unconstitutional, and therefore must be rescinded.
The U.S. Constitution does not allow the government to decide the legality of abortion. Therefore, abortion is a state issue, and Roe v. Wade must be repealed - not just because abortion is a state issue, but because it is also an example of the judiciary making law, of which they cannot.
Czars are positions that are appointed without Congressional oversight, and are therefore unconstitutional. The Constitution reads very clearly on this matter. "Article II. Section 2. "He (the President) shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consults, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein provided for, and which shall be established by law; but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments."
And I don't care which party the president is a member of. Either way, czars are unconstitutional because they are appointed without any Congressional involvement.
I can go on and on about how unconstitutional our federal government is in its current form, but I think you get the idea. Ultimately, whenever the federal government tries to do anything, all we really need to do is ask the cockroaches in Washington a simple question: Where in the U.S. Constitution is what you want to do allowed?
As for the fear that Obama and friends wishing to rewrite the Constitution with a Constitutional Convention, not only does Article V not enable them to do that, but understand that the Democrats have no desire to do such a thing anyway. For them, it is much easier to just ignore the Constitution, and conduct their business in an illegal manner.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
The U.S. Constitution is the law of the land. The document was specifically written to limit the federal government, while also providing a list of what the states cannot do in Article I, Section 10. Otherwise, states have their own constitutions, and are supposed to be able to govern themselves without federal interference. The federal government has jurisdiction over any issue enumerated in Article I, Section 8, or any amendment that specifically grants the federal government such powers. If the U.S. Constitution does not specifically give the federal government any say over an issue, the Tenth Amendment clearly determines that the issue is then a state issue, should the states decide to take up the issue.
The U.S. Supreme Court was created to apply the law. Therefore, in each and every case they see they must apply the U.S. Constitution to the case. If the Constitution does not address the issue as being a federal responsibility, the U.S. Supreme Court cannot take the case, and the decision by a state supreme court would then stand.
Despite a string of court decisions over the last 200 years that proclaims the U.S. Supreme Court is the final arbiter of the U.S. Constitution, beginning with Marbury v. Madison in 1803, the judiciary cannot make law, or interpret the Constitution to say something it doesn't. Law can only be made by the legislative branch, and the judiciary can only have an opinion in regards to the need for a particular law. Ultimately, a law cannot be made unless the U.S. Congress, or the States (in an Article V Convention) proposes it. I don't care how much "precedence" there is, law is not, and can not be, made by the judiciary.
This bring us around to the "birther" debate. The question over Barack Obama's eligibility to be President of the United States has reached monumental proportions. The issue has encouraged a number of debates regarding the exact meaning of "Natural Born Citizen." Some contend that British Common Law influenced the founder's meaning of Natural Born Citizen, while others argue that Vattel's Law of Nations was the primary influence. Whatever the meaning, it is apparent that the understanding of what Natural Born Citizen meant was so obvious that the Founding Father's did not see the need to spell it out.
The words themselves give us clues to what the founders meant. "Natural" means, essentially, not of man. So, being a citizen by law (like as a naturalized citizen) is not acceptable. The person vying for the presidency must be naturally born in the United States. Beyond that, however, the U.S. Constitution does not give us a detailed definition.
Considering the lack of definition provided, it is reasonable to assume that being born in the United States, or outside the United States by two American parents, is sufficient to be a Natural Born Citizen? If there was more to the definition, wouldn't the Founding Fathers have provided it?
I believe the meaning the Founding Fathers had in mind included that both parents be citizens, but where is the proof in the U.S. Constitution that is the case? As much as I hate to say it, until an amendment is proposed and ratified that defines the exact terms of what a Natural Born Citizen is, we cannot assume that it means anything more than a person born on American soil, or to two American parents.
Following that line of thinking, there are a number of issues that can be addressed in a simple manner. Either it is in the Constitution, or it isn't.
Federal intrusion in any way into the Health Care industry is not addressed anywhere in the U.S. Constitution, therefore, Obama's government health care plan is unconstitutional and needs to be stopped on the grounds that it is unconstitutional.
Partial, or full, ownership of private industries by the federal government is not provided as a federal governmental function, therefore the government owning part of General Motors is unconstitutional, and therefore must be rescinded.
The U.S. Constitution does not allow the government to decide the legality of abortion. Therefore, abortion is a state issue, and Roe v. Wade must be repealed - not just because abortion is a state issue, but because it is also an example of the judiciary making law, of which they cannot.
Czars are positions that are appointed without Congressional oversight, and are therefore unconstitutional. The Constitution reads very clearly on this matter. "Article II. Section 2. "He (the President) shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consults, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein provided for, and which shall be established by law; but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments."
And I don't care which party the president is a member of. Either way, czars are unconstitutional because they are appointed without any Congressional involvement.
I can go on and on about how unconstitutional our federal government is in its current form, but I think you get the idea. Ultimately, whenever the federal government tries to do anything, all we really need to do is ask the cockroaches in Washington a simple question: Where in the U.S. Constitution is what you want to do allowed?
As for the fear that Obama and friends wishing to rewrite the Constitution with a Constitutional Convention, not only does Article V not enable them to do that, but understand that the Democrats have no desire to do such a thing anyway. For them, it is much easier to just ignore the Constitution, and conduct their business in an illegal manner.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
.jpg)
Cost of Saving The Planet
By Douglas V. Gibbs
The environmentalists are convinced that humanity is a parasite. Earth would be better off without us. They support population control, and reverting humanity back to the days before industry. If you aren't as whacky as the greenies, they argue, then you don't care about the planet. Earth is dying, and we need to send in a green, hybrid driving calvary to save it. From mercury laced flourescent light bulbs, to global efforts to reduce "carbon footprints," the green people intend to do whatever it takes to give Mother Nature a breath of fresh air. After all, every time a human exhales carbon dioxide, and weeping Indian loses his wings.
A phone call from my friendly neighborhood energy provider urged me to become green. The female voice on the other end of the line asked me how old my heating and air conditioning unit is, and I admitted that it was as old as my house. I could almost see her recoil in dismay when she realized that someone was actually willing to keep the same appliance after all these years, and was not willing to apologize about it. The woman went on to explain to me how much energy older units use, and in an attempt to be more "green" we need to replace our older units with newer, more efficient, ones. She then went on to explain how much money I will save with my new energy efficient system, should I decide to make the change.
"How am I supposed to afford buying a new heating and a/c system," I asked, "while in the middle of an extremely trying economic downturn?"
"I am glad you asked," she responded. "In order to assist with the change to Earth-friendly appliances, we can offer interest free financing. . ."
Credit. That's the answer to not being able to afford this new, greener, planet saving unit? Isn't borrowing money without the ability to repay the loan what got us into this economic mess in the first place? And the unit she was offering doesn't come cheap, either.
That's a lot of green to be green.
"Fact is," I explained to the woman, "my energy bills stay relatively low. I rarely turn on my air conditioner. In fact, I have found a fantastic method for keeping my costs down that you may wish to pass on to your other customers."
"Really?"
"Yeah," I said. "You see, I have these square things in my walls, and some of my doors, called windows. I reach for them, unlatch them, and slide them open to let the fresh air in, rather than turning on my a/c. Then, when it gets really warm, I switch on the ceiling fans. The air conditioner only comes on when the temperature gets into the triple digit zone. Windows are amazing. They are super efficient, too. You ought to try them sometime."
I was reluctant to mention the swimming pool. The pool also provides wonderful relief from the heat.
She laughed, realizing I was not going to budge, and thanked me for my time.
I got to thinking later, however, that with Obama's Cap and Trade scheme, if I was an excessive heating and a/c unit user, even with the efficient units, my energy costs were sure to go up, regardless. Opening a window will always remain the most economically sound method, regardless of the rise of energy costs.
The phone call from my energy provider was not about saving me money, or making life easier on me. Their agenda was to sell new units. The selling point was the "green" hysteria, and the mythical "climate change" crisis. They figure even in the most difficult economic times, if they make the need to save the planet sound urgent enough, people will shell out money they don't have, or take loans they can't afford, to save the planet.
Hysteria is an amazing tool for controlling a population's behavior. The government knows that if they convince every one how dire the environmental crisis is, people will be willing to pay money they don't have for increased energy costs in order to save the suffering planet.
Part of Barack Obama's policy of change is to get America to buy into the man-made Global Warming myth (as worldwide temperatures continue to cool). One of his plans to save the planet is Cap and Trade. Planet Saving Cap-and-Trade Costs, however, Could Hit $300 Billion Annually, admits the U.S. Treasury. And, Obama has been saying all along that energy costs will skyrocket should Cap and Trade be put into place.
But why would the U.S. Government spend so much money, and raise costs on you and I, if man-made global warming is not true?
First of all, they have bought into the lies regarding mankind's ability to change global temperature by producing less than one percent of the total greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Secondly, Cap and Trade is a lot like Obama's other proposals. It has nothing to do with "saving the planet," and everything to do with controlling your behavior, and adjusting your behavior by putting a leash on your wallet. That, coupled with crippling the U.S. Economy through inflation-inducing fiat money being fed into the system, is a part of the design to destroy capitalism, and force America into a new, socialistic, global government.
Ultimately, however, the real cost of trying to save the planet that doesn't need saving is applied by creating an outrageous loss of liberty.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Breaking News: Treasury Admits Global Warming Cap-and-Trade Costs Could Hit $300 Billion Annually - Competitive Enterprise Institute, Christine Hall
The environmentalists are convinced that humanity is a parasite. Earth would be better off without us. They support population control, and reverting humanity back to the days before industry. If you aren't as whacky as the greenies, they argue, then you don't care about the planet. Earth is dying, and we need to send in a green, hybrid driving calvary to save it. From mercury laced flourescent light bulbs, to global efforts to reduce "carbon footprints," the green people intend to do whatever it takes to give Mother Nature a breath of fresh air. After all, every time a human exhales carbon dioxide, and weeping Indian loses his wings.
A phone call from my friendly neighborhood energy provider urged me to become green. The female voice on the other end of the line asked me how old my heating and air conditioning unit is, and I admitted that it was as old as my house. I could almost see her recoil in dismay when she realized that someone was actually willing to keep the same appliance after all these years, and was not willing to apologize about it. The woman went on to explain to me how much energy older units use, and in an attempt to be more "green" we need to replace our older units with newer, more efficient, ones. She then went on to explain how much money I will save with my new energy efficient system, should I decide to make the change.
"How am I supposed to afford buying a new heating and a/c system," I asked, "while in the middle of an extremely trying economic downturn?"
"I am glad you asked," she responded. "In order to assist with the change to Earth-friendly appliances, we can offer interest free financing. . ."
Credit. That's the answer to not being able to afford this new, greener, planet saving unit? Isn't borrowing money without the ability to repay the loan what got us into this economic mess in the first place? And the unit she was offering doesn't come cheap, either.
That's a lot of green to be green.
"Fact is," I explained to the woman, "my energy bills stay relatively low. I rarely turn on my air conditioner. In fact, I have found a fantastic method for keeping my costs down that you may wish to pass on to your other customers."
"Really?"
"Yeah," I said. "You see, I have these square things in my walls, and some of my doors, called windows. I reach for them, unlatch them, and slide them open to let the fresh air in, rather than turning on my a/c. Then, when it gets really warm, I switch on the ceiling fans. The air conditioner only comes on when the temperature gets into the triple digit zone. Windows are amazing. They are super efficient, too. You ought to try them sometime."
I was reluctant to mention the swimming pool. The pool also provides wonderful relief from the heat.
She laughed, realizing I was not going to budge, and thanked me for my time.
I got to thinking later, however, that with Obama's Cap and Trade scheme, if I was an excessive heating and a/c unit user, even with the efficient units, my energy costs were sure to go up, regardless. Opening a window will always remain the most economically sound method, regardless of the rise of energy costs.
The phone call from my energy provider was not about saving me money, or making life easier on me. Their agenda was to sell new units. The selling point was the "green" hysteria, and the mythical "climate change" crisis. They figure even in the most difficult economic times, if they make the need to save the planet sound urgent enough, people will shell out money they don't have, or take loans they can't afford, to save the planet.
Hysteria is an amazing tool for controlling a population's behavior. The government knows that if they convince every one how dire the environmental crisis is, people will be willing to pay money they don't have for increased energy costs in order to save the suffering planet.
Part of Barack Obama's policy of change is to get America to buy into the man-made Global Warming myth (as worldwide temperatures continue to cool). One of his plans to save the planet is Cap and Trade. Planet Saving Cap-and-Trade Costs, however, Could Hit $300 Billion Annually, admits the U.S. Treasury. And, Obama has been saying all along that energy costs will skyrocket should Cap and Trade be put into place.
But why would the U.S. Government spend so much money, and raise costs on you and I, if man-made global warming is not true?
First of all, they have bought into the lies regarding mankind's ability to change global temperature by producing less than one percent of the total greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Secondly, Cap and Trade is a lot like Obama's other proposals. It has nothing to do with "saving the planet," and everything to do with controlling your behavior, and adjusting your behavior by putting a leash on your wallet. That, coupled with crippling the U.S. Economy through inflation-inducing fiat money being fed into the system, is a part of the design to destroy capitalism, and force America into a new, socialistic, global government.
Ultimately, however, the real cost of trying to save the planet that doesn't need saving is applied by creating an outrageous loss of liberty.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Breaking News: Treasury Admits Global Warming Cap-and-Trade Costs Could Hit $300 Billion Annually - Competitive Enterprise Institute, Christine Hall
Move America Forward Care Packages for Colonel Mike Howard
Earlier this year I participated in the Troopathon effort to send care packages to our troops.
Now a new round of care packages for our troops is upon us, as a result of a letter from the frontlines of battle in Afghanistan written by Colonel Mike Howard. Colonel Howard is asking for our immediate help, and Move America Forward is answering the call.
Colonel Howard is responsible for some 4,500 troops in the 4th Brigade Combat Team, 25th Infantry which is stationed in some of the most dangerous provinces of southern Afghanistan. The 4th BCT-25th ID is made up of six regiments nicknamed "The Spartan 6" and the brigade's motto is "Sparta Lives!" They are operating in several provinces in southeastern Afghanistan, right on the chaotic border between Afghanistan and Pakistan, where the Taliban are strongest. Col. Howard has asked for our help in providing his troops with care packages and much needed encouragement.
To be a part of this effort, go HERE to send a package!
Thanks for all you do, and God Bless our Troops!
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Sunday, September 27, 2009
ACORN, SEIU, Obama, and the Collapse of a Presidency
Thanks to Andrea Shea King for the tip.
Anita MonCrief knows about ACORN, the SEIU, and the implications and connections they have to Barack Obama. What is emerging is as scandal full of potential to bring down this Admininstration. Below I have the first few paragraphs of Anita's piece titled "Anatomy of a Sharkedown." You may read the remainder of the article on Breitbart's Big Government.
ACORN and SEIU: Anatomy of a Shakedown
by Anita MonCrief
Across America community organizations operate in impoverished, disadvantaged, low-income or minority communities. No matter the phrase used to describe the special interest, a group exists to represent it. Often these organizations initially have good intentions and seek to give back and serve the community in which they operate. When government money, power and influence become part of the equation however, lofty principles tend to fall by the wayside. Other organizations are created to cause chaos and disrupt the system.
The Association for Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) was perceived by many as a well-intended organization, but it appears that the association that Wade Rathke founded was increasingly driven to cause chaos and disrupt the system whenever it could.
BEFORE the Dale Rathke embezzlement finally became last year, John Fund, in "Grapes of Rathke: ACORN, a liberal activist group, comes under scrutiny. About time," reported:
"Current and former Acorn employees say the problems in Kansas City and St. Louis are no accident. 'There's no quality control on purpose, no checks and balances,' says Nate Toler, currently head organizer of an Acorn campaign against Wal-Mart in Merced, Calif. In 2004 he worked on an Acorn voter drive in Missouri, and says Acorn statements aren't to be taken at face value: 'The internal motto is "We don’t care if it's a lie, just so long as it stirs up the conversation."
As various charges and complaints have materialized over the years, it seems that ACORN uses the communities in which they are located as staging grounds for national power grabs. With multiple states and entities receiving federal funds, ACORN plays to win. Aiding ACORN are groups like DEMO’s, the Democracy Alliance, Soros Open Society Institute, and the Service Employees International Union (SEIU). The Washington Examiner has covered ACORN’s: "Muscle for the Money" program. . .
Read the Rest on Big Government
Anita MonCrief knows about ACORN, the SEIU, and the implications and connections they have to Barack Obama. What is emerging is as scandal full of potential to bring down this Admininstration. Below I have the first few paragraphs of Anita's piece titled "Anatomy of a Sharkedown." You may read the remainder of the article on Breitbart's Big Government.
ACORN and SEIU: Anatomy of a Shakedown
by Anita MonCrief
Across America community organizations operate in impoverished, disadvantaged, low-income or minority communities. No matter the phrase used to describe the special interest, a group exists to represent it. Often these organizations initially have good intentions and seek to give back and serve the community in which they operate. When government money, power and influence become part of the equation however, lofty principles tend to fall by the wayside. Other organizations are created to cause chaos and disrupt the system.
The Association for Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) was perceived by many as a well-intended organization, but it appears that the association that Wade Rathke founded was increasingly driven to cause chaos and disrupt the system whenever it could.
BEFORE the Dale Rathke embezzlement finally became last year, John Fund, in "Grapes of Rathke: ACORN, a liberal activist group, comes under scrutiny. About time," reported:
"Current and former Acorn employees say the problems in Kansas City and St. Louis are no accident. 'There's no quality control on purpose, no checks and balances,' says Nate Toler, currently head organizer of an Acorn campaign against Wal-Mart in Merced, Calif. In 2004 he worked on an Acorn voter drive in Missouri, and says Acorn statements aren't to be taken at face value: 'The internal motto is "We don’t care if it's a lie, just so long as it stirs up the conversation."
As various charges and complaints have materialized over the years, it seems that ACORN uses the communities in which they are located as staging grounds for national power grabs. With multiple states and entities receiving federal funds, ACORN plays to win. Aiding ACORN are groups like DEMO’s, the Democracy Alliance, Soros Open Society Institute, and the Service Employees International Union (SEIU). The Washington Examiner has covered ACORN’s: "Muscle for the Money" program. . .
Read the Rest on Big Government
Orly Taitz Joins Me for a Short Interview
Orly Taitz is the California attorney behind a number of Obama Eligibility lawsuits. Born and raised in the Republic of Moldova, a country in Eastern Europe that was formerly part of the Soviet Union, she is fully aware of what tyranny looks like, and the Obama Administration, according to Orly, fits the bill. Over the birth certificate issue, she has been at the forefront of the fight, working with military members that question whether or not they should follow the orders of an ineligible president, and traveling the world to gather evidence such as her recent aquisition of a birth certificate from Kenya.
The target of many liberal "birther" hit pieces, she spent sixteen minutes with me today to talk about the issue, and what she is trying to accomplish. With a busy schedule, and realizing we were only touching the tip of the iceberg in our interview, she has assured me a second interview. So, tune in to the Political Pistachio Radio Revolution for the first of two interviews with Orly Taitz. Then, hang around after the interview for a round-table discussion with the listeners on the issues that Orly Taitz has brought to the surface with her suits.
Catch the show live at 7pm Pacific/10pm Eastern, or catch the archive later, on BlogTalkRadio.com/PoliticalPistachio.
Israel: Obstacle To Evolution
By Douglas V. Gibbs
As ridiculous as it may seem, the fight over Israel is not about land. The Palestinian demand for Israel is not about gaining the land for Muslims, but about eliminating Israel from the face of the Earth.
Islamic Nations have repeatedly proclaimed that Israel will be destroyed. Their goal, from day one, has been a world without Jews. Unfortunately, their anti-Semitic rhetoric has not fallen on deaf ears. Progressives share a similar goal with Muslims. They also desire a world without Israel, but for different reasons.
According to A. Ralph Epperson, the following definitions explain how each political ideology views the issues of man's relationship to the world:
Conservatism: The conservative appeals to the spiritual nature of man, believing that man's problems arise because of the nature of man himself. The solution to the problems of the world lies in the changing of man himself.
Liberalism: The liberal appeals to the materialistic nature of man, believing that man's problems arise because of the environment. The liberal's solution is to change the environment so that man will be happy.
When one examines the issues, the above definitions become very clear in regards to the positions of the two political viewpoints currently dominating American politics. For example, when an unwanted pregnancy arises conservatives believe the woman (and man that fathered the child) should own up to their responsibility, and accept the consequences for their actions, taking care to either keep the child and give the child a good home, or put the child up for adoption so that someone else can care and raise the child. This response to abortion appeals to the spiritual nature of humanity. The problem arose because of the person's actions, and therefore the solution is for the person to take responsibility. The liberal sees the unborn child as an unwanted factor in the person's environment, a material obstacle, and sees as the best solution the removal of the problem through abortion.
Another example takes gun control into consideration. Fire arms, according to the Right, are simply tools. Tools are under the control of people. The misuse of these tools caused by the bad behavior of the person wielding the weapon is the cause of gun violence, not the existence of the tool itself. After all, if not the gun, then the nature of the man determined to cause violence will find another weapon. If criminal actions are taken, the individual should meet justice for their violent actions. Liberals see the guns as the cause for problems in society, and sees as the best solution to the problem the removal of all weapons from society. No guns, no violence - or at least until someone decides to grab a baseball bat.
War is the ultimate problem that arises because of the nature of man according to Conservatives. Wars arise constantly, and like it or not, are unavoidable. Conservatives believe that when evil rises up throwing sticks, the nations that embrace liberty should be ready with bigger sticks. Under the threat of retaliation, the individuals in charge of the regimes threatening war will change their behavior for fear of being beat back by the bigger sticks. This view is often referred to as "Peace through strength." Liberals see war as just one great big misunderstanding, and so the cause of the misunderstanding must be removed so that everyone can get along. In the Middle East, according to liberals, the cause of the great big misunderstanding is Israel.
By removing Israel from the equation of the world environment, liberals believe the conflicts will cease. After all, in their version of the truth, isn't everyone fighting over the land of Israel, of which the Palestinians desire to control? If that is the case, removing Israel would remove the cause of conflict.
Liberalism is rooted in the believe that government is the solution to problems, and as government grows, eventually the natural progression is toward world government. To achieve a system of global governance through liberal means it is necessary to remove individualism. After all, a strong central government teeters on the idea of collectivism, or the "common good." Individualism is seen by these people as the selfish drive for profit, while paying no regard to those that can't keep up. Conservatives, however, view such individualism to be beneficial to the "common good" in the long run, because as an individual becomes successful, he will eventually enlist help to become more successful. This in turn results in the creation of jobs, and the teaching to other people what made the first person successful in the first place. Products are then manufactured for consumers to purchase, and as it all grows, the community prospers as a result - all because an individual became successful.
Individualism is a trait that Israel possesses, which is in direct opposition to the collective nature of Islam, which surrounds the tiny nation. Collectivism, after all, is a goal of world governance. Islam, through the collective nature of their political ideology that masquerades as a religion, desire global domination in the form of a caliphate. Their aims are not unlike those of the liberal persuasion, therefore they make for great temporary allies.
Progressivism teaches that nations who believe they are individually better are a threat to the rise of a global political system. The United States, as a super power, poses itself to be an obstacle, then, to the global desires of secular liberalism. America, however, can be reduced through a gradual process of conditioning the citizens. Israel is not so easily altered. The tiny Jewish nation is wealthier than her neighbors, and constantly exhibits superiority over her Muslim counterparts. Israel, according to the Jews, and Christians, is God's chosen people. Such a belief in divine favoritism would never allow Israel to be conditioned in a way that would accept a loss of their national individuality. Islam, in turn, is dead set on destroying Israel, willing to achieve their aims through religious fervor. Therefore, to achieve global governance, and a worldwide environment that is without war in that region, Leftists believe Israel must be removed from the equation.
Israel has been protected by the hand of God, and her success and survival has angered Israel's enemies. As a result, the enemies of Israel have applied greater pressure on Israel. The Muslims are bent on destroying Israel and driving her people into the sea. Repeated attempts by Western nations to negotiate peace deals, or force sanctions on Israel through the United Nations have failed. Therefore, in the minds of people like Barack Obama, and the hard left, Israel is the cause of political unrest in the region, and must be removed.
Understanding that liberalism believes the problems of the Middle East is because of the existence of Israel, and simply removing the Jewish nation will solve all of the problems of the region, the Left's political decisions regarding Israel becomes more clear.
The existence of Israel in its current form on that sliver of property they were given in 1948, according to most historians, can be directly attributed to the Holocaust. Any sympathies for Israel, as far as the Left is concerned, exist because of guilt by Westerners that Hitler killed over 6 million Jews. The Jewish Homeland is sort of like hush money. "Here, Jewish people, have this land, and hush about the atrocities we allowed you to suffer."
If the nation of Israel exists because of the sympathies afforded her because of the Holocaust, then part of the plan to remove the existence of Israel would be to remove the very cause of the guilt among Westerners. If the West is no longer feeling guilty about the death of 6 million Jews, then they won't care if Israel suddenly disappears.
Ahmadinejad, Iran's maniacal president, recognizes this strategy as being one that should be pursued. As a result, he pushes a denial of the Holocaust. If the Holocaust never happened, after all, then Israel doesn't need a nation to call home. No guilt, no nation. And if, in his opinion, the Holocaust never happened, the guilt-ridden Westerners won't care when Israel is driven into the ocean. After all, if Jews were not victims of the Holocaust, then that reduces Israel to an irritation in the Middle East that needs to be dealt with. It would mean that they possess "Palestinian Land" under false pretenses. Islam, then, could be justified for removing Israel from the region, since, if the Holocaust never happened, Israel shouldn't be where she is in the first place. With the sympathies gone, Israel becomes nothing more than a blotch on Muslim land that must be surgically removed, and thrown away.
Barack Obama wants peace at all costs, and if Israel is the cause of war in the Middle East, then like an unsightly mole, Israel must be removed. This is why during his speech to the United Nations General Assembly, Obama threw Israel under the bus. President Obama said in his speech that "America does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements" because it is those settlements, at this moment, according to his Leftist thinking, that is the cause of all the problems in the region. Never mind the fact that Israel gained these lands after victory in wars they didn't even start.
Interesting how Obama told America that the Iraq War was wrong because we were imposing our will on Iraq. He also refused to say a word about Russia's invasion of Georgia because he didn't want us to meddle. Yet, when it comes to Israel, Obama believes it is up to him to change Israel's policies, and force the tiny nation to play by his rules.
Who is Obama to tell another nation that their settlements are legitimate, or not?
More shocking than Obama's stark declaration was the fact that the anti-Israel statement drew enthusiastic applause from the members of the U.N. General Assembly.
Remember, these people see Israel as the cause of all of the war in the Middle East, and true to their belief that man's problems arise because of his environment, they wish to change the environment by removing Israel from the scenario. Or, at worst, at least neutralize them.
You have to realize, these people believe the evolution of mankind is toward an order that does not include trouble-makers like the United States or Israel. A complete control of man's environment cannot take form as a world government with the current organization of the world into nations. Israel is too nationalistic, and would be unwilling to give up her sovereignty to the control of global governance. Plus, war after war has erupted in the Middle East, according to this mindset, because of Israel's existence.
The World Health Organization is on record as stating:
"To achieve world government, it is necessary to remove from the minds of men their individualism, loyalty to family tradition, national patriotism and religious dogmas. . . "
In America Leftism, to achieve the goal of global governance the social fabric of humanity bust destroy man's basic loyalties to family, nation and religion. The Left is conditioning us to believe borders of nations are oppressive, family units do not raise children to understand what is best for the "village," and religion (as in the case of Israel) is the cause of the world's ills. So, the solution is to change the environment: Erase all borders, dismantle the family unit, and eliminate religion from the face of the Earth.
The Left is achieving there goals of a progressive society without nations, families, or religion through the gradual process of creeping incrementalism, which is a process of conditioning the citizens to change their behaviors and belief systems to be more in line with secular globalism. We are not to believe in God, raise our own children, or believe that America is an exceptional nation. As Obama said to the General Assembly, no nation is better than any other nation. No nation should be elevated as being superior, or more prosperous.
The Jews are not willing to relinquish loyalties to their nation, families, Jewish identity, or religion. They refuse to live no better than their Muslim neighbors, or to become citizens of the world. Israel rejects losing her individuality to a world order that caters to the whims of the Islamic community, or a power structure that would allow a one world government to dictate to Israel what she can, or cannot, do. Therefore, according to people like Obama, Israel is not a team player. Her individuality, and national pride, makes her dangerous to the rising global political system. Israel is an obstacle to progress, and the evolution of mankind, and therefore, must be removed.
Barack Obama, like usual, has miscalculated his agenda for worldwide change. You see, despite his anti-Israel sentiments, and pressure on the tiny nation, Israel will not go quietly.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
As ridiculous as it may seem, the fight over Israel is not about land. The Palestinian demand for Israel is not about gaining the land for Muslims, but about eliminating Israel from the face of the Earth.
Islamic Nations have repeatedly proclaimed that Israel will be destroyed. Their goal, from day one, has been a world without Jews. Unfortunately, their anti-Semitic rhetoric has not fallen on deaf ears. Progressives share a similar goal with Muslims. They also desire a world without Israel, but for different reasons.
According to A. Ralph Epperson, the following definitions explain how each political ideology views the issues of man's relationship to the world:
Conservatism: The conservative appeals to the spiritual nature of man, believing that man's problems arise because of the nature of man himself. The solution to the problems of the world lies in the changing of man himself.
Liberalism: The liberal appeals to the materialistic nature of man, believing that man's problems arise because of the environment. The liberal's solution is to change the environment so that man will be happy.
When one examines the issues, the above definitions become very clear in regards to the positions of the two political viewpoints currently dominating American politics. For example, when an unwanted pregnancy arises conservatives believe the woman (and man that fathered the child) should own up to their responsibility, and accept the consequences for their actions, taking care to either keep the child and give the child a good home, or put the child up for adoption so that someone else can care and raise the child. This response to abortion appeals to the spiritual nature of humanity. The problem arose because of the person's actions, and therefore the solution is for the person to take responsibility. The liberal sees the unborn child as an unwanted factor in the person's environment, a material obstacle, and sees as the best solution the removal of the problem through abortion.
Another example takes gun control into consideration. Fire arms, according to the Right, are simply tools. Tools are under the control of people. The misuse of these tools caused by the bad behavior of the person wielding the weapon is the cause of gun violence, not the existence of the tool itself. After all, if not the gun, then the nature of the man determined to cause violence will find another weapon. If criminal actions are taken, the individual should meet justice for their violent actions. Liberals see the guns as the cause for problems in society, and sees as the best solution to the problem the removal of all weapons from society. No guns, no violence - or at least until someone decides to grab a baseball bat.
War is the ultimate problem that arises because of the nature of man according to Conservatives. Wars arise constantly, and like it or not, are unavoidable. Conservatives believe that when evil rises up throwing sticks, the nations that embrace liberty should be ready with bigger sticks. Under the threat of retaliation, the individuals in charge of the regimes threatening war will change their behavior for fear of being beat back by the bigger sticks. This view is often referred to as "Peace through strength." Liberals see war as just one great big misunderstanding, and so the cause of the misunderstanding must be removed so that everyone can get along. In the Middle East, according to liberals, the cause of the great big misunderstanding is Israel.
By removing Israel from the equation of the world environment, liberals believe the conflicts will cease. After all, in their version of the truth, isn't everyone fighting over the land of Israel, of which the Palestinians desire to control? If that is the case, removing Israel would remove the cause of conflict.
Liberalism is rooted in the believe that government is the solution to problems, and as government grows, eventually the natural progression is toward world government. To achieve a system of global governance through liberal means it is necessary to remove individualism. After all, a strong central government teeters on the idea of collectivism, or the "common good." Individualism is seen by these people as the selfish drive for profit, while paying no regard to those that can't keep up. Conservatives, however, view such individualism to be beneficial to the "common good" in the long run, because as an individual becomes successful, he will eventually enlist help to become more successful. This in turn results in the creation of jobs, and the teaching to other people what made the first person successful in the first place. Products are then manufactured for consumers to purchase, and as it all grows, the community prospers as a result - all because an individual became successful.
Individualism is a trait that Israel possesses, which is in direct opposition to the collective nature of Islam, which surrounds the tiny nation. Collectivism, after all, is a goal of world governance. Islam, through the collective nature of their political ideology that masquerades as a religion, desire global domination in the form of a caliphate. Their aims are not unlike those of the liberal persuasion, therefore they make for great temporary allies.
Progressivism teaches that nations who believe they are individually better are a threat to the rise of a global political system. The United States, as a super power, poses itself to be an obstacle, then, to the global desires of secular liberalism. America, however, can be reduced through a gradual process of conditioning the citizens. Israel is not so easily altered. The tiny Jewish nation is wealthier than her neighbors, and constantly exhibits superiority over her Muslim counterparts. Israel, according to the Jews, and Christians, is God's chosen people. Such a belief in divine favoritism would never allow Israel to be conditioned in a way that would accept a loss of their national individuality. Islam, in turn, is dead set on destroying Israel, willing to achieve their aims through religious fervor. Therefore, to achieve global governance, and a worldwide environment that is without war in that region, Leftists believe Israel must be removed from the equation.
Israel has been protected by the hand of God, and her success and survival has angered Israel's enemies. As a result, the enemies of Israel have applied greater pressure on Israel. The Muslims are bent on destroying Israel and driving her people into the sea. Repeated attempts by Western nations to negotiate peace deals, or force sanctions on Israel through the United Nations have failed. Therefore, in the minds of people like Barack Obama, and the hard left, Israel is the cause of political unrest in the region, and must be removed.
Understanding that liberalism believes the problems of the Middle East is because of the existence of Israel, and simply removing the Jewish nation will solve all of the problems of the region, the Left's political decisions regarding Israel becomes more clear.
The existence of Israel in its current form on that sliver of property they were given in 1948, according to most historians, can be directly attributed to the Holocaust. Any sympathies for Israel, as far as the Left is concerned, exist because of guilt by Westerners that Hitler killed over 6 million Jews. The Jewish Homeland is sort of like hush money. "Here, Jewish people, have this land, and hush about the atrocities we allowed you to suffer."
If the nation of Israel exists because of the sympathies afforded her because of the Holocaust, then part of the plan to remove the existence of Israel would be to remove the very cause of the guilt among Westerners. If the West is no longer feeling guilty about the death of 6 million Jews, then they won't care if Israel suddenly disappears.
Ahmadinejad, Iran's maniacal president, recognizes this strategy as being one that should be pursued. As a result, he pushes a denial of the Holocaust. If the Holocaust never happened, after all, then Israel doesn't need a nation to call home. No guilt, no nation. And if, in his opinion, the Holocaust never happened, the guilt-ridden Westerners won't care when Israel is driven into the ocean. After all, if Jews were not victims of the Holocaust, then that reduces Israel to an irritation in the Middle East that needs to be dealt with. It would mean that they possess "Palestinian Land" under false pretenses. Islam, then, could be justified for removing Israel from the region, since, if the Holocaust never happened, Israel shouldn't be where she is in the first place. With the sympathies gone, Israel becomes nothing more than a blotch on Muslim land that must be surgically removed, and thrown away.
Barack Obama wants peace at all costs, and if Israel is the cause of war in the Middle East, then like an unsightly mole, Israel must be removed. This is why during his speech to the United Nations General Assembly, Obama threw Israel under the bus. President Obama said in his speech that "America does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements" because it is those settlements, at this moment, according to his Leftist thinking, that is the cause of all the problems in the region. Never mind the fact that Israel gained these lands after victory in wars they didn't even start.
Interesting how Obama told America that the Iraq War was wrong because we were imposing our will on Iraq. He also refused to say a word about Russia's invasion of Georgia because he didn't want us to meddle. Yet, when it comes to Israel, Obama believes it is up to him to change Israel's policies, and force the tiny nation to play by his rules.
Who is Obama to tell another nation that their settlements are legitimate, or not?
More shocking than Obama's stark declaration was the fact that the anti-Israel statement drew enthusiastic applause from the members of the U.N. General Assembly.
Remember, these people see Israel as the cause of all of the war in the Middle East, and true to their belief that man's problems arise because of his environment, they wish to change the environment by removing Israel from the scenario. Or, at worst, at least neutralize them.
You have to realize, these people believe the evolution of mankind is toward an order that does not include trouble-makers like the United States or Israel. A complete control of man's environment cannot take form as a world government with the current organization of the world into nations. Israel is too nationalistic, and would be unwilling to give up her sovereignty to the control of global governance. Plus, war after war has erupted in the Middle East, according to this mindset, because of Israel's existence.
The World Health Organization is on record as stating:
"To achieve world government, it is necessary to remove from the minds of men their individualism, loyalty to family tradition, national patriotism and religious dogmas. . . "
In America Leftism, to achieve the goal of global governance the social fabric of humanity bust destroy man's basic loyalties to family, nation and religion. The Left is conditioning us to believe borders of nations are oppressive, family units do not raise children to understand what is best for the "village," and religion (as in the case of Israel) is the cause of the world's ills. So, the solution is to change the environment: Erase all borders, dismantle the family unit, and eliminate religion from the face of the Earth.
The Left is achieving there goals of a progressive society without nations, families, or religion through the gradual process of creeping incrementalism, which is a process of conditioning the citizens to change their behaviors and belief systems to be more in line with secular globalism. We are not to believe in God, raise our own children, or believe that America is an exceptional nation. As Obama said to the General Assembly, no nation is better than any other nation. No nation should be elevated as being superior, or more prosperous.
The Jews are not willing to relinquish loyalties to their nation, families, Jewish identity, or religion. They refuse to live no better than their Muslim neighbors, or to become citizens of the world. Israel rejects losing her individuality to a world order that caters to the whims of the Islamic community, or a power structure that would allow a one world government to dictate to Israel what she can, or cannot, do. Therefore, according to people like Obama, Israel is not a team player. Her individuality, and national pride, makes her dangerous to the rising global political system. Israel is an obstacle to progress, and the evolution of mankind, and therefore, must be removed.
Barack Obama, like usual, has miscalculated his agenda for worldwide change. You see, despite his anti-Israel sentiments, and pressure on the tiny nation, Israel will not go quietly.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Saturday, September 26, 2009
Liar In Chief
How many lies by Obama, let me count the ways. . .
Obama knew of the existence of the recently revealed Iran Nuclear Plant before his speech at the U.N. Assembly. . .
Obama put Israel on the chopping block after, during the campaign, proclaiming he supported Israel. . .
Obama claimed to have no relationship with Bill Ayers, and it turns out Ayers helped Obama write his book. . .
Obama and the Democrats are saying the economy is improving, as they drive it into the ground . . .
Listen to an examination of the Obama lies tonight on Political Pistachio Radio, live at 7pm Pacific at BlogTalkRadio.com/PoliticalPistachio.
Foreign Entanglements
Ron Paul, according to most Conservatives, is right about 80% of the time, and crazy the remaining 20%. Part of this determination of insanity is based on his foreign policy. Ron Paul's stance was that Iraq was a foreign entanglement, and not a Constitutional conflict. If the war was in fact a foreign entanglement, how could conservatives be willing to support it?
The U.S. Constitution, however, does not mention "foreign entanglements." So where did the term come from? What did the founding fathers mean when they talked about staying out of foreign entanglements? How did some of the early presidents practice this belief about staying out of other people's wars?
Tonight, on Founding Truth Radio, Loki and I are going to examine this topic during the first segment. During the second segment we will tackle the Nanny-State, and the Constitutionality of such a system.
Join us at 8pm Eastern, 5pm Pacific, for the discussion on Founding Truth Radio.
American Daily Review Radio
At noon Pacific/3pm Eastern, JASmius of Hard Starboard, and I, join forces to bring you the week's news in review on American Daily Review Radio. Join us live!
Democrats to Ban Flavored Cigarettes
By Douglas V. Gibbs
All week I have been hearing about how sweet flavored cigarettes, like cloves, are on the chopping block to be banned by the government (aka Democrat Leftist Regime). The wise government bureaucrats have determined that sweet tasting cigarettes must be banned because they are one of the causes of teenage smoking.
I can see it now: "Hey, dude, let's try cigarettes." "Naw, they all taste like crap, I hear. The government took away the good tasting cigarettes. So, because of the government, I have decided to not learn how to smoke."
Right. I wonder what the Democrats will be saying when the incidents of teenage smoking increases, despite their idiotic, nanny-state, freedom killing plan.
Freedom killing?
Who are they to determine what kind of cigarettes you are allowed to, or not allowed to, smoke? And if they do this, how long before cigarettes are banned completely?
What the Leftist Democrats are doing sort of reminds me of "Demolition Man." Remember that movie with Wesley Snipes, Sylvester Stallone, and Sandra Bullock? In this utopian future all tyhings bad for you, and bad for society, have been outlawed. No cigarettes, no profanity, no guns (bad guys still find a way to get their hands on some), and no physical contact between humans - at all.
Even the high fives are done with no contact.
How long before they put sensors in our toilets so that they can check our urine for contraband?
Interesting thing about the cigarette ban, however, is even in their attempt to save the people from smoking, the government caved to Philip Morris. The cigarette giant promised the Leftists to support their "sweet tasting cigarette" ban if Menthols are left off the chopping block. The Democrats agreed, and Philip Morris is on board.
Menthol cigarettes comprise 98% of sweet tasting cigarettes, leaving the ban to cover 2% of the remaining flavored cigarettes - thus stifling Philip Morris' competition, thanks to a little help from the government.
Kids don't start smoking because of the taste of the cigarettes. And Philip Morris is being given another angle in a business already dominated by the company.
Your tax dollars at work, thanks to the Obamacrats.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
All week I have been hearing about how sweet flavored cigarettes, like cloves, are on the chopping block to be banned by the government (aka Democrat Leftist Regime). The wise government bureaucrats have determined that sweet tasting cigarettes must be banned because they are one of the causes of teenage smoking.
I can see it now: "Hey, dude, let's try cigarettes." "Naw, they all taste like crap, I hear. The government took away the good tasting cigarettes. So, because of the government, I have decided to not learn how to smoke."
Right. I wonder what the Democrats will be saying when the incidents of teenage smoking increases, despite their idiotic, nanny-state, freedom killing plan.
Freedom killing?
Who are they to determine what kind of cigarettes you are allowed to, or not allowed to, smoke? And if they do this, how long before cigarettes are banned completely?
What the Leftist Democrats are doing sort of reminds me of "Demolition Man." Remember that movie with Wesley Snipes, Sylvester Stallone, and Sandra Bullock? In this utopian future all tyhings bad for you, and bad for society, have been outlawed. No cigarettes, no profanity, no guns (bad guys still find a way to get their hands on some), and no physical contact between humans - at all.
Even the high fives are done with no contact.
How long before they put sensors in our toilets so that they can check our urine for contraband?
Interesting thing about the cigarette ban, however, is even in their attempt to save the people from smoking, the government caved to Philip Morris. The cigarette giant promised the Leftists to support their "sweet tasting cigarette" ban if Menthols are left off the chopping block. The Democrats agreed, and Philip Morris is on board.
Menthol cigarettes comprise 98% of sweet tasting cigarettes, leaving the ban to cover 2% of the remaining flavored cigarettes - thus stifling Philip Morris' competition, thanks to a little help from the government.
Kids don't start smoking because of the taste of the cigarettes. And Philip Morris is being given another angle in a business already dominated by the company.
Your tax dollars at work, thanks to the Obamacrats.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Friday, September 25, 2009
Trying To Understand Today's Liberal Hippies
It is 1968 all over again, and the Democrats are singing around the Woodstock mudpit. . .
And tonight on the Political Pistachio Radio Revolution we are going to try and make some sense of it.
Part of this discussion includes "The Coming Nanny State" and the "Hubris, Weakness, and Naivete of Obama at the United Nations." Hmmm, maybe that segment should be renamed: All Hail The President of the World!"
Join us live at 7pm Pacific at BlogTalkRadio.com/PoliticalPistachio
.jpg)
An Answer to all of Obama's Apologies
An Email I received from a friend recently says it all.
----
In Alphabetical Order, An Answer To Arrogance, and Obama's Apologies:
1. American Cemetery at Aisne-Marne, France. A total of 2289 of our military dead.
2. American Cemetery at Ardennes, Belgium. A total of 5329 of our dead.
3. American Cemetery at Brittany, France. A total of 4410 of our military dead.
4. Brookwood, England American Cemetery. A total of 468 of our dead.
5. Cambridge, England. 3812 of our military dead.
6. Epinal, France. American Cemetery. A total of 5525 of our Military dead.
7. Flanders Field, Belgium. A total of 368 of our military.
8. Florence, Italy. A total of 4402 of our military dead.
9. Henri-Chapelle, Belgium. A total of 7992 of our military dead.
10. Lorraine, France. A total of 10,489 of our military dead.
11. Luxembourg, Luxembourg. A total of 5076 of our military dead.
12. Meuse-Argonne. A total of 14246 of our military dead.
13. Netherlands, Netherlands. A total of 8301 of our military dead.
14. Normandy, France. A total of 9387 of our military dead.
15. Oise-Aisne, France. A total of 6012 of our military dead.
16. Rhone, France. A total of 861 of our military dead.
17. Sicily, Italy. A total of 7861 of our military dead.
18. Somme, France. A total of 1844 of our military dead.
19. St. Mihiel, France. A total of 4153 of our military dead.
20. Suresnes, France. A total of 1541 of our military dead.
Apologize to no one. Remind those of our sacrifice and don't confuse arrogance with leadership.
If I added correctly the count is 104,366 dead.
And we have to watch an American elected leader who apologizes to Europe and the Middle East that our country is "arrogant"!
HOW MANY FRENCH, DUTCH, ITALIANS, BELGIANS AND BRITS ARE BURIED ON OUR SOIL, DEFENDING US AGAINST OUR ENEMIES??
WE DON'T ASK FOR PRAISE ... BUT WE HAVE ABSOULUTELY NO NEED TO APOLOGIZE!!
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
----
In Alphabetical Order, An Answer To Arrogance, and Obama's Apologies:
1. American Cemetery at Aisne-Marne, France. A total of 2289 of our military dead.
2. American Cemetery at Ardennes, Belgium. A total of 5329 of our dead.
3. American Cemetery at Brittany, France. A total of 4410 of our military dead.
4. Brookwood, England American Cemetery. A total of 468 of our dead.
5. Cambridge, England. 3812 of our military dead.
6. Epinal, France. American Cemetery. A total of 5525 of our Military dead.
7. Flanders Field, Belgium. A total of 368 of our military.
8. Florence, Italy. A total of 4402 of our military dead.
9. Henri-Chapelle, Belgium. A total of 7992 of our military dead.
10. Lorraine, France. A total of 10,489 of our military dead.
11. Luxembourg, Luxembourg. A total of 5076 of our military dead.
12. Meuse-Argonne. A total of 14246 of our military dead.
13. Netherlands, Netherlands. A total of 8301 of our military dead.
14. Normandy, France. A total of 9387 of our military dead.
15. Oise-Aisne, France. A total of 6012 of our military dead.
16. Rhone, France. A total of 861 of our military dead.
17. Sicily, Italy. A total of 7861 of our military dead.
18. Somme, France. A total of 1844 of our military dead.
19. St. Mihiel, France. A total of 4153 of our military dead.
20. Suresnes, France. A total of 1541 of our military dead.
Apologize to no one. Remind those of our sacrifice and don't confuse arrogance with leadership.
If I added correctly the count is 104,366 dead.
And we have to watch an American elected leader who apologizes to Europe and the Middle East that our country is "arrogant"!
HOW MANY FRENCH, DUTCH, ITALIANS, BELGIANS AND BRITS ARE BURIED ON OUR SOIL, DEFENDING US AGAINST OUR ENEMIES??
WE DON'T ASK FOR PRAISE ... BUT WE HAVE ABSOULUTELY NO NEED TO APOLOGIZE!!
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Netanyahu Slams U.N.
Netanyahu Slams U.N. for Giving Ahmadinejad Forum: ‘Have You No Shame?’ - In other words he said the kind of things our cowardly president should have been saying. Instead, Obama attacked Israel, accusing them of unlawful settlement.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Attention all lazy people. . .
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Paul Blart made the Segway famous, but now the Japanese has the answer to the American Segway Unicycle. Honda's device can travel in any direction, with a battery that lasts about an hour. To get moving, all one has to do is lean.
For some reason the movie "Wall-e" comes to mind. You know, where the citizens got all fat and lazy because techology did everything for them?
I can see it now. Americans riding their Honda unicycle to the gym so that they can get a good workout on the treadmill.
Yes, I understand this device could mean a lot to folks who have limited personal mobility, and I am in no way putting garlic around my windows to keep the sucker out. But since when does technology remain limited to its purpose? I can imagine it now. Honda unicycles plastered to the underside of Americans as they whip up and down our streets as the person sucks on a soda and an ice cream.
In the name of liberty I say let people do that. If we want to have lousy habits, it should be our freedom to make that decision, and to pay the consequences. But just because you can do something, it doesn't mean you should.
Who needs to fear Godzilla, when the Japanese can hit us with unicycles? That way, when the "big one" hits (that would be a huge earthquake in LA), rather than run for cover, we can just zip away on our Hondas, and scuttle away for a sixty minute ride. Then, when the battery dies we can finish the trip by - gasp! - walking.
The U3-X is the name of the vehicle, and it was given a test-run for reporters in Japan. It is small, and easy to store. A single wheel allows the device to move in any direction. But don't get excited yet; it is still just a proposal.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Honda unveils 'Segway-style' unicycle that travels in any direction you want - U.K. Mail Online
Paul Blart made the Segway famous, but now the Japanese has the answer to the American Segway Unicycle. Honda's device can travel in any direction, with a battery that lasts about an hour. To get moving, all one has to do is lean.
For some reason the movie "Wall-e" comes to mind. You know, where the citizens got all fat and lazy because techology did everything for them?
I can see it now. Americans riding their Honda unicycle to the gym so that they can get a good workout on the treadmill.
Yes, I understand this device could mean a lot to folks who have limited personal mobility, and I am in no way putting garlic around my windows to keep the sucker out. But since when does technology remain limited to its purpose? I can imagine it now. Honda unicycles plastered to the underside of Americans as they whip up and down our streets as the person sucks on a soda and an ice cream.
In the name of liberty I say let people do that. If we want to have lousy habits, it should be our freedom to make that decision, and to pay the consequences. But just because you can do something, it doesn't mean you should.
Who needs to fear Godzilla, when the Japanese can hit us with unicycles? That way, when the "big one" hits (that would be a huge earthquake in LA), rather than run for cover, we can just zip away on our Hondas, and scuttle away for a sixty minute ride. Then, when the battery dies we can finish the trip by - gasp! - walking.
The U3-X is the name of the vehicle, and it was given a test-run for reporters in Japan. It is small, and easy to store. A single wheel allows the device to move in any direction. But don't get excited yet; it is still just a proposal.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Honda unveils 'Segway-style' unicycle that travels in any direction you want - U.K. Mail Online
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Obama: Rid The World Of Nuclear Weapons
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Barack Obama is basically a liberal hippie on steroids, with a lot of Marxism tossed in for good measure. He apologizes for America being exceptional every chance he gets. He held a Ramadan dinner at the White House a couple weeks ago, while earlier in the year refusing to say a word on the Day of National Prayer for fear of compromising the mythical separation of church and state. He spends his every waking moment hoping to nationalize America's industries, including banks, the auto industry, credit institutions, and health insurance. Barack Hussein Obama believes that these entities should not be able to roam free without government guidance. Profit is greed, to Obama and the Democrats. Individuality opposes the common good. Obama believes that true freedom is slavery.
In addition to big government controlling every aspect of the collective, Obama also believes that evil exists because of America. American exceptionalism causes enemies to rise. A powerful military, in the mind of Obama, breeds terrorist hate towards America. The enemy pursues nuclear weapons because the United States has such weapons, and because of that, Obama desires to rid the world of nuclear weapons, beginning with the American stockpile.
Democrats blame inanimate objects for the world's ills, not flesh and blood dirt balls. Evil doesn't exist, as far as they are concerned. Any evil that rises up in the world is only due to a misunderstanding, and can be fixed with a few well-placed words, a thoughtful ear, and perhaps a little get together over a few beers at the White House.
For years the Right has been reminding the Left that guns don't kill people. The shooter is the problem. But Democrats, to solve gun violence, wish to regulate, and possibly remove, gun ownership - not willing to admit that what they are doing is restricting, or removing, gun ownership from law abiding citizens while giving free reign to the criminal element.
In the right hands a knife cuts food, frees captives by cutting rope, or can be a deadly instrument of violence in the hands of evil.
In the hopes of ridding the world of nuclear weapons, what Democrats like Obama don't get is the problem is not the nukes. The problem we see arising in the community of nuclear nations is the regimes that are now holding them, or are desiring to possess such terrible weapons. You will never be able to completely rid the world of nculear weapons. The technology is out there, and bad guys will make sure they possess them. The question is, do we want them to possess the weapons alone? Are we willing to allow them to continue to gain access to the technology while removing ourselves as a deterrent? If evil fears no retribution, they will use the weapons freely, on whoever they desire.
President Obama gave his little speech to the U.N. General Assembly echoing his normal plea to "rid the world of nuclear weapons," and the leftist worldwide United Nations delegates ate it up, applauding madly, not realizing that the weapons will never be eliminated. To control the ill use of nuclear weapons we will never be able to simply rid the world of them. The regimes will never voluntarily give them up. They desire power, and death to their enemies, and nuclear weapons are their way to achieve that.
We need to take decisive measures against the dangerous regimes trying to gain nuclear weapons, and the way to do that is not by surrendering our own. Ridding the world of nuclear weapons is simply not possible, and the enemy is best kept under control by fear - fear that a super power like the United States could take them down if they take a bad step.
Like gun control, attempting to rid the world of nuclear weapons will only take the weapons out of the hands of the responsible, while leaving them in the hands of violent insanity.
In the end, if Obama has his way, we all pay the price.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Barack Obama is basically a liberal hippie on steroids, with a lot of Marxism tossed in for good measure. He apologizes for America being exceptional every chance he gets. He held a Ramadan dinner at the White House a couple weeks ago, while earlier in the year refusing to say a word on the Day of National Prayer for fear of compromising the mythical separation of church and state. He spends his every waking moment hoping to nationalize America's industries, including banks, the auto industry, credit institutions, and health insurance. Barack Hussein Obama believes that these entities should not be able to roam free without government guidance. Profit is greed, to Obama and the Democrats. Individuality opposes the common good. Obama believes that true freedom is slavery.
In addition to big government controlling every aspect of the collective, Obama also believes that evil exists because of America. American exceptionalism causes enemies to rise. A powerful military, in the mind of Obama, breeds terrorist hate towards America. The enemy pursues nuclear weapons because the United States has such weapons, and because of that, Obama desires to rid the world of nuclear weapons, beginning with the American stockpile.
Democrats blame inanimate objects for the world's ills, not flesh and blood dirt balls. Evil doesn't exist, as far as they are concerned. Any evil that rises up in the world is only due to a misunderstanding, and can be fixed with a few well-placed words, a thoughtful ear, and perhaps a little get together over a few beers at the White House.
For years the Right has been reminding the Left that guns don't kill people. The shooter is the problem. But Democrats, to solve gun violence, wish to regulate, and possibly remove, gun ownership - not willing to admit that what they are doing is restricting, or removing, gun ownership from law abiding citizens while giving free reign to the criminal element.
In the right hands a knife cuts food, frees captives by cutting rope, or can be a deadly instrument of violence in the hands of evil.
In the hopes of ridding the world of nuclear weapons, what Democrats like Obama don't get is the problem is not the nukes. The problem we see arising in the community of nuclear nations is the regimes that are now holding them, or are desiring to possess such terrible weapons. You will never be able to completely rid the world of nculear weapons. The technology is out there, and bad guys will make sure they possess them. The question is, do we want them to possess the weapons alone? Are we willing to allow them to continue to gain access to the technology while removing ourselves as a deterrent? If evil fears no retribution, they will use the weapons freely, on whoever they desire.
President Obama gave his little speech to the U.N. General Assembly echoing his normal plea to "rid the world of nuclear weapons," and the leftist worldwide United Nations delegates ate it up, applauding madly, not realizing that the weapons will never be eliminated. To control the ill use of nuclear weapons we will never be able to simply rid the world of them. The regimes will never voluntarily give them up. They desire power, and death to their enemies, and nuclear weapons are their way to achieve that.
We need to take decisive measures against the dangerous regimes trying to gain nuclear weapons, and the way to do that is not by surrendering our own. Ridding the world of nuclear weapons is simply not possible, and the enemy is best kept under control by fear - fear that a super power like the United States could take them down if they take a bad step.
Like gun control, attempting to rid the world of nuclear weapons will only take the weapons out of the hands of the responsible, while leaving them in the hands of violent insanity.
In the end, if Obama has his way, we all pay the price.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Obama and the U.N. General Assembly
By Douglas V. Gibbs
The true nature of Obama stood before the U.N. General Assembly, yesterday. The same man that tried to campaign to the world a year ago got the chance to do what he had been wanting to do all along - Speak To The International Community.
And he did it, in his mind, as the leader of the world.
Obama spent the speech apologizing for America. He sold us out, and relinquished our super-power status.
Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi then proclaimed he wished Obama could be in office forever.
Shouldn't it throw up red flags when one of the Muslim leaders that has been a sworn enemy of the United States for decades shows that kind of devotion to an American President?
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
The true nature of Obama stood before the U.N. General Assembly, yesterday. The same man that tried to campaign to the world a year ago got the chance to do what he had been wanting to do all along - Speak To The International Community.
And he did it, in his mind, as the leader of the world.
Obama spent the speech apologizing for America. He sold us out, and relinquished our super-power status.
Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi then proclaimed he wished Obama could be in office forever.
Shouldn't it throw up red flags when one of the Muslim leaders that has been a sworn enemy of the United States for decades shows that kind of devotion to an American President?
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
.jpg)
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
All Those Hateful Signs
We keep hearing from the Left how all of those hateful signs at the Tea Parties creates a danger to President Obama's Safety. Chris Matthews has even said that the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck, and people who encourage the opposition to Obama, are going to pay if violence against the President Obama occurs.
I don't think I have heard any talk of anyone hoping harm comes to the president. If there are idiots out there saying such things, or making signs that say that, they are a small minority and are not in sync with the majority of the folks out there attending Tea Parties.
There is a strong opposition to Obama's policies, largely because of the socialist nature of his proposals. This is part of the reason for the comparisons to Hitler. Nazism was National Socialism, and some of the first acts by Hitler once he took control of Germany was to take over health insurance, register all weapons (so that they could be confiscated later), take control of private industries (GM come to mind?), centralize banking, and so on. So, the comparisons of Obama to Hitler are not because people believe that Obama is a genocidal socio-path like Hitler, but because of the similarities of the policies.
The opposition to Bush also made comparisons to Hitler, but they did it because they falsely believed Bush was a maniac like Hitler.
According to the site "bare naked Islam," The Huffington Post is apparently pretty upset about a sampling of signs they collected. Here's a list of what they considered to be the most offensive:
“Obama’s Plan: White Slavery”
“The American taxpayers are the Jews for Obama’s ovens”
“Our tax $ given to Hamas to Kill Christians, Jews, & Americans”
“Obama: What you talking about Willis? Spend my money?”
“Obama loves taxes, bankrupt USA, loves baby killing”
“Barack Hussein Obama: The new face of Hitler”
“Barack Obama supports abortion, sodomy, socialism, and the New World Order”
“Obama was not bowing [to the Saudi king]. He was sucking Saudi jewels.”
The mainstream media, from all corners, have made a big thing about these crazy, right-wing extremists, and how dangerous they are. After all, in that list of offensive signs it really gives you the feeling that Obama is in danger, right?
Not really.
Honestly, from what I remember the Left was saying during the Bush Administration, what is being said about Obama is quite tame.
Once again, Bare Naked Islam gives us the skinny.
During the protests against Bush we saw the following:
1.One sign exhorted Americans to “kill” the President and “bomb his f—in White House.”
2.Another said, “I’m here to kill” the President.
3.Another urged the powers-that-be to “hang” the President.
4.Another said the President “is the disease, death is the cure.”
5.Another said the President is “the only dope worth shooting.”
6.Another showed a likeness of the President’s face with a bullet hole in the forehead, oozing red blood.
7.Another called explicitly for the “death” of the “pig” in the White House.
8.Another displayed a caricature of the President’s disembodied, bleeding head.
9.Others featured the President’s face accompanied by such captions as: “Wanted: dead or alive,” and “Death to the dictator.”
10.Another showed the President’s neck being fitted with a noose.
11.Still another showed the image of a noose accompanied by a caption urging us to “support” the President (i.e., with the noose).
But don't take my word for it. Check out these:
I don't think I have heard any talk of anyone hoping harm comes to the president. If there are idiots out there saying such things, or making signs that say that, they are a small minority and are not in sync with the majority of the folks out there attending Tea Parties.
There is a strong opposition to Obama's policies, largely because of the socialist nature of his proposals. This is part of the reason for the comparisons to Hitler. Nazism was National Socialism, and some of the first acts by Hitler once he took control of Germany was to take over health insurance, register all weapons (so that they could be confiscated later), take control of private industries (GM come to mind?), centralize banking, and so on. So, the comparisons of Obama to Hitler are not because people believe that Obama is a genocidal socio-path like Hitler, but because of the similarities of the policies.
The opposition to Bush also made comparisons to Hitler, but they did it because they falsely believed Bush was a maniac like Hitler.
According to the site "bare naked Islam," The Huffington Post is apparently pretty upset about a sampling of signs they collected. Here's a list of what they considered to be the most offensive:
“Obama’s Plan: White Slavery”
“The American taxpayers are the Jews for Obama’s ovens”
“Our tax $ given to Hamas to Kill Christians, Jews, & Americans”
“Obama: What you talking about Willis? Spend my money?”
“Obama loves taxes, bankrupt USA, loves baby killing”
“Barack Hussein Obama: The new face of Hitler”
“Barack Obama supports abortion, sodomy, socialism, and the New World Order”
“Obama was not bowing [to the Saudi king]. He was sucking Saudi jewels.”
The mainstream media, from all corners, have made a big thing about these crazy, right-wing extremists, and how dangerous they are. After all, in that list of offensive signs it really gives you the feeling that Obama is in danger, right?
Not really.
Honestly, from what I remember the Left was saying during the Bush Administration, what is being said about Obama is quite tame.
Once again, Bare Naked Islam gives us the skinny.
During the protests against Bush we saw the following:
1.One sign exhorted Americans to “kill” the President and “bomb his f—in White House.”
2.Another said, “I’m here to kill” the President.
3.Another urged the powers-that-be to “hang” the President.
4.Another said the President “is the disease, death is the cure.”
5.Another said the President is “the only dope worth shooting.”
6.Another showed a likeness of the President’s face with a bullet hole in the forehead, oozing red blood.
7.Another called explicitly for the “death” of the “pig” in the White House.
8.Another displayed a caricature of the President’s disembodied, bleeding head.
9.Others featured the President’s face accompanied by such captions as: “Wanted: dead or alive,” and “Death to the dictator.”
10.Another showed the President’s neck being fitted with a noose.
11.Still another showed the image of a noose accompanied by a caption urging us to “support” the President (i.e., with the noose).
But don't take my word for it. Check out these:
What is that called? Double-standard?
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Bank of America removes American Flags Honoring fallen Marine; might offend customers
I could only drop my head in my hands. The insanity is unreal.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Obama Shows Hubris In Middle East
By Douglas V. Gibbs
The latest headline regarding Barack Obama's attempt to bring peace between the anti-Israel forces (also known as Palestinians), and Israel reads: "Stern Obama confronts Israeli, Palestinian leaders."
Stern?
Then the first sentence of the Associated Press article reads: "Bristling with impatience, President Barack Obama sternly prodded Israeli and Palestinian leaders to relaunch Mideast peace negotiations. . . "
Bristling with impatience?
Who does Obama think he is? Their father?
I guess from a media who thinks the president is the political messiah, the wording is not a surprise.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Stern Obama confronts Israeli, Palestinian leaders - Associated Press/Yahoo News, Jennifer Loven
The latest headline regarding Barack Obama's attempt to bring peace between the anti-Israel forces (also known as Palestinians), and Israel reads: "Stern Obama confronts Israeli, Palestinian leaders."
Stern?
Then the first sentence of the Associated Press article reads: "Bristling with impatience, President Barack Obama sternly prodded Israeli and Palestinian leaders to relaunch Mideast peace negotiations. . . "
Bristling with impatience?
Who does Obama think he is? Their father?
I guess from a media who thinks the president is the political messiah, the wording is not a surprise.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Stern Obama confronts Israeli, Palestinian leaders - Associated Press/Yahoo News, Jennifer Loven
Democrats are Losing Control
By Douglas V. Gibbs
The reality that is beginning to sweep across the political landscape is not only that the Democrats may lose the House in 2010, but they will lose it big. Some political analysts are suggesting the Democrats could lose as many as 20 seats. Even Joe Biden is showing concern, proclaiming that if the GOP was to win back the House of Representatives, it would be "the end of the road for. . . Barack and I."
In addition to the failure of the Democrats to convince the American People of accepting their liberal policies, the Left is also experiencing flack for their association with the criminal organizations of ACORN and the SEIU. The Service Employees International Union (SEIU) is even now beginning to experience the same difficulties as their partners at ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now), thanks to their own unscrupulous dealings.
Obama's popularity continues to plummet, as does any hope for support of his prized health care agenda. Barry's speech to Congress, which was supposed to change the tide (and was reported widely as doing so by the adoring media), turned out to be a dud, and the polls remain unchanged. Most Americans do not want the federal government involved in the health insurance industry in any way. Currently, 53% of America opposes Obamacare, and 43% strongly oppose the Obama presidency.
Funny thing about it is that Obama, and the Democrats, don't think these problems are because of their radical agendas. On Face The Nation Obama had the audacity to place the blame on "extremist" blogs and cable news for driving passions.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Charlie Cook: Dem situation has 'slipped completely out of control' - The Politico
More Trouble for the Left: SEIU to Join the Ranks of ACORN? - Health Care Horserace, Ellen Carmichael
Rasmussen: 53% Opposed to Obamacare – Essentially Unchanged Since Before Speech - Health Care Horse Race, Warner Todd Huston
Joe Biden: If the GOP wins the House back in 2010 – its the “end of the road” for the Obama agenda - Stop The Leftist Propaganda Machine
YOU EXTREMIST BLOGGERS. IT'S ALL YOUR FAULT. - Radio Patriot, Andrea Shea King
The reality that is beginning to sweep across the political landscape is not only that the Democrats may lose the House in 2010, but they will lose it big. Some political analysts are suggesting the Democrats could lose as many as 20 seats. Even Joe Biden is showing concern, proclaiming that if the GOP was to win back the House of Representatives, it would be "the end of the road for. . . Barack and I."
In addition to the failure of the Democrats to convince the American People of accepting their liberal policies, the Left is also experiencing flack for their association with the criminal organizations of ACORN and the SEIU. The Service Employees International Union (SEIU) is even now beginning to experience the same difficulties as their partners at ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now), thanks to their own unscrupulous dealings.
Obama's popularity continues to plummet, as does any hope for support of his prized health care agenda. Barry's speech to Congress, which was supposed to change the tide (and was reported widely as doing so by the adoring media), turned out to be a dud, and the polls remain unchanged. Most Americans do not want the federal government involved in the health insurance industry in any way. Currently, 53% of America opposes Obamacare, and 43% strongly oppose the Obama presidency.
Funny thing about it is that Obama, and the Democrats, don't think these problems are because of their radical agendas. On Face The Nation Obama had the audacity to place the blame on "extremist" blogs and cable news for driving passions.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Charlie Cook: Dem situation has 'slipped completely out of control' - The Politico
More Trouble for the Left: SEIU to Join the Ranks of ACORN? - Health Care Horserace, Ellen Carmichael
Rasmussen: 53% Opposed to Obamacare – Essentially Unchanged Since Before Speech - Health Care Horse Race, Warner Todd Huston
Joe Biden: If the GOP wins the House back in 2010 – its the “end of the road” for the Obama agenda - Stop The Leftist Propaganda Machine
YOU EXTREMIST BLOGGERS. IT'S ALL YOUR FAULT. - Radio Patriot, Andrea Shea King
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
No Politicians At Tea Parties
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Frank Rich of the New York Times wrote a piece recently designed to be a hit-piece on Glenn Beck. He aptly titled the editorial, "Even Glenn Beck Is Right Twice a Day." The title is a reference to a broken clock, of which has the right time twice a day.
The first sentence of the article reads: "IF only it were just about the color of his skin."
Mr. Rich obviously has fallen head first into the sewage the Left has been spewing, calling anyone that dares disagree with the great and wonderful Obama a racist.
Despite the ominous tone of the accusation of racism that dominates the early part of Mr. Rich's article, Frank goes on to say that all of the disapproval against Obama is much more than just bigotry, health care, or even Obama.
He's right, for once, sort of. Bigotry has little to nothing to do with the protests. Health care is an ingredient, but not a primary reason. Even Obama himself is not entirely the problem. The policies of Washington, and the willingness of the political establishment to move away from the original intent of the U.S. Constitution, is a larger part of the frustration by The Right, than simply the existence of a bunch of radical Democrats.
Then Frank shoves his head up his butt, again.
In the fourth paragraph of the editorial it reads as follows:
The vast majority of those that oppose Obama's policies do not hate him. I am sure there is a small group of folks that are truly racist, or truly hate the man, but I believe that is a very small crowd, and that the number of those folks is so small, it could very well be considered negligible.
During George W. Bush's presidency just about every Democrat I spoke to poured out hate for Bush. They openly talked about their hopes that Bush would suffer at the hands of an assassin, and they constantly screamed that Bush was a liar.
A single Republican Congressman says that Obama lied, and suddenly the entire non-liberal members of the American population are a bunch of racists.
Rich goes on to say that the folks at odds with the president are not real fond of the Republicans, either. He is right, but for the wrong reasons. Frank Rich believes folks are bothered by the GOP because the "right-wing loonies" have taken control of the party. In reality, it is because the Republican Party has been pushing non-conservative moderates into leadership positions, and has turned its back on Reagan's influence. The Party of Reagan is becoming "liberal-light," and as a result, does not stand very sturdy on any issues.
Then Frank Rich goes into his real error in the paragraph.
The editorial explains how none of the GOP politicians were invited to the 9/12 March on Washington a little over a week ago, and that perhaps only Sarah Palin or Ron Paul would have been accepted. Then Frank goes on to add that the real hero to the crowd was conservative talker Glenn Beck.
In short, Rich is saying the Tea Parties on 9/12 were only populated by a cross-section of the far right crowd who is so crazy they don't even accept their own political party, and were all in reality just a bunch of Glenn Beck followers.
According to Newsmax, when Glenn Beck began breaking viewer records he had about 3 million viewers. The University of Indiana estimates that there were about 1.8 million people at the 9/12 event, and this is not counting the millions of people at other events across the nation. So, if Frank Rich is right, and the Tea Party People are only far-right, Glenn Beck following, fringe loonies, then that means that every single one of Glenn Beck's viewers made it to a Tea Party, and they all brought friends (possibly kicking and screaming)!
A lot of the conservatives at the 9/12 March are no doubt big fans of Glenn Beck, and I would be a viewer too, if he was on the tube at an hour that I am normally home. But many of the Tea Party'rs were not necessarily "conservatives." Many of them were libertarians, not-so-liberal Democrats, and various brands of independents. A lot of them, also, were people who voted for Obama, and are now having buyer's remorse.
"But none of the Republican Politicians were invited," would argue Frank Rich, "so the group must've been something more radical than even the GOP."
There was a very important reason why few politicians showed up, and why none of them were invited. But, if you truly understood the reason for the Tea Parties, you would understand the reason for that.
Ask the average, unknowing person what the Tea Party protests are all about, and the majority of responses will be "taxes."
rrrrrrr - Wrong!
Many folks who at least try to pay attention to the news will tell you the rallies are all about protesting against Obama's health care proposition.
rrrrrrr - Wrong again!
Lately, a lot of the members of the liberal left may tell you the protesters are out there because they are upset that the president is a black man.
rrrrrrr - You can't get much more wrong than that!
The Democrats say that these people are being paid by the GOP and insurance industry to be out there. As far as they are concerned the rallies are all manufactured, and are being controlled by insurance lobbyists, politicians, and conservative talkers.
rrrrrrr - If that were the case, then why weren't the politicians all over the stages? In other words, Wrong Again!
I am sure there are dozens more thoughts about why the Tea Parties are happening, and every last one of them are wrong.
The reason can be summed up in three words: United States Constitution.
And because the rallies across America are about the U.S. Constitution, this is why the politicians Were Not Invited.
Still confused?
The federal government operates outside the U.S. Constitution in many ways. This is nothing new, but the creeping incrementalism of this phenomenon has been increasing speed during the last hundred years. The Obama Administration has the movement of the federal government away from the U.S. Constitution moving at break-neck speed. The people, while being boiled slowly like a frog in the pot by previous administrations, didn't notice, or didn't care. But when today's Democrats decided to turn up the heat, and the hammer and sickle of socialism began to materialize at the end of the tunnel, the sleeping giant was awakened, and the American People cried out: "Enough!"
Any piece of legislation proposed by Congress should have a question attached to it. The question should be, "Where in the U.S. Constitution does it allow the federal government to do such a thing?"
Over 85% of the federal government is unconstitutional, and so the majority of our tax money is going to things the federal government has no business doing. Our income taxes should be all but eliminated, and the government programs that do not abide by the Constitution should be repealed.
Problem is, all of this unconstitutional junk has become institutionalized. Many Americans have come to depend upon much of what the government does. So the elimination of the unconstitutional programs, which includes the entitlement programs, needs to be done in a gradual manner.
Ask yourself a simple question: Where in the U.S. Constitution does it give the federal government the power to get into the health insurance business? Where in the U.S. Constitution does it allow the federal government to own a share of the automobile industry? Where does it allow for bailouts of banks? Where does it allow for government paid abortions? Where does it allow for the federal government to consider changing the definition of marriage? Where does it even allow for the federal government to make the Supreme Court the final arbiter of the U.S. Constitution? Where?
The answer to each and every one of those questions is "no where," and "precedence" is not a part of the Constitution either.
The United States Government has no authority to do any of those things Obama and his Democrat crew wants to do.
Right about now I am going to need to grab the reins of my stallion, and head off a few folks at the pass.
I can hear those voices out there now. "But it is up to the U.S. Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution."
No it's not. It is up to the Supreme Court to "apply" the Constitution. Either the Constitution allows the federal government to do something, or it doesn't. The language is clear, and the limitations against the federal government are many.
Let's use Roe v. Wade as an example. According to the average Democrat, and the majority of Republicans, Roe v. Wade is the court case that made abortion legal in the United States. A Texas State Law outlawed abortion in Texas, and a law suit made its way all the way to the Supreme Court. The United States Supreme Court determined that Texas was in the wrong, and with a single ruling, overturned a state law, making abortion legal from a federal standpoint.
Where in the U.S. Constitution did it allow the U.S. Supreme Court to do that? Abortion is not mentioned anywhere in the U.S. Constitution, and is specifically not mentioned in Article I, Section 8, which is where the U.S. Constitution lists the powers of the federal government. Therefore, as per the 10th Amendment, abortion is a state issue. That means that Texas had a right to ban abortion in her state, and the U.S. Supreme Court had no allowance to even see the case in the first place, much less overturn a lawful state law.
If the U.S. Supreme Court had been following the Constitution, they would have seen that the federal government has no jurisdiction over abortion because it is not a federal issue, and would have refused to see the case.
Instead, the Supreme Court overturned a state law (which is unconstitutional), and made law with their ruling by making abortion legal (which is also unconstitutional).
If the federal government wanted abortion to be a federal issue, they would need to propose an amendment, and get three-quarters of the states to ratify it. Otherwise, abortion is none of the federal government's business.
I have heard another argument so many times it makes my head spin. When I talk about limiting government, and eliminating federal income tax, I always get someone leaving a comment about how insane it is to do so, because then we wouldn't have police and fire protection, and anarchy would ensue.
The U.S. Constitution is written to limit the "federal" government, not local government. Each state has its own constitution as well. Your police and fire services are provided by your local government, as it should be. It is the responsibility of the state, county, and municipal governments to take care of such protective services. Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution does it provide for the federal government to take up such responsibilities.
It's like Obama's health care plan, for example. Whenever I talk about the danger of Obama's proposition, those leftists that have been reading my site long enough remembers how a couple years ago my son had cancer while in between jobs, and he had to resort to using a public option for health care. The state run system provided by taxpayers enabled him to have his surgery, and return to the workforce. He now has private insurance, and would rather not use the county hospital again if he can help it, but the government health care came in handy at a very difficult time.
Liberals like to say, in defense of Obamacare, "Your son was saved by government health care. Do you plan to pay any of that money back?"
I have no problem with people temporarily using the public option which is currently provided by states. My son used a program associated with Medi-Cal, a state run health alternative - and its existence is completely constitutional. The U.S. Constitution does not prohibit the states from providing a public option in relation to health care. However, there is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that allows the federal government to get involved in health care.
Which leads us back to the original question: Why were no Republican politicians, even conservative ones, invited to the 9/12 March on Washington DC?
The reason they were not invited is because they are part of the problem. The March was not for government officials to participate in. They would use it as a platform for re-election, and that is part of the problem. The politicians have stopped being statesmen that serve the people, and have become cockroaches that believe they were destined to be leaders in the U.S. Government, and are willing to do anything they can to keep their power.
A few members of the GOP appeared, like Mike Pence, and it pissed off a lot of Tea Party attendees. The rally was not for the politicians to beat their chests and look good so that they would be looked favorably upon in the next election. The 9/12 event was about the people speaking out against the unconstitutional nature of the U.S. Government. It was an opportunity for citizens to gather together and speak out about how the current administration desires to move even more away from the U.S. Constitution. The 9/12 March was about the people of this nation congregating to voice their disapproval of Washington, and to begin to take back the country, and return it to its rightful place within the limitations of the U.S. Constitution.
The politicians were not invited because the Tea Parties are not about them. The Tea Parties are about the American People, and the sovereignty of the states.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Even Glenn Beck Is Right Twice a Day - The New York Times, Frank Rich
Glenn Beck Smashes Ratings Record - Newsmax
Frank Rich of the New York Times wrote a piece recently designed to be a hit-piece on Glenn Beck. He aptly titled the editorial, "Even Glenn Beck Is Right Twice a Day." The title is a reference to a broken clock, of which has the right time twice a day.
The first sentence of the article reads: "IF only it were just about the color of his skin."
Mr. Rich obviously has fallen head first into the sewage the Left has been spewing, calling anyone that dares disagree with the great and wonderful Obama a racist.
Despite the ominous tone of the accusation of racism that dominates the early part of Mr. Rich's article, Frank goes on to say that all of the disapproval against Obama is much more than just bigotry, health care, or even Obama.
He's right, for once, sort of. Bigotry has little to nothing to do with the protests. Health care is an ingredient, but not a primary reason. Even Obama himself is not entirely the problem. The policies of Washington, and the willingness of the political establishment to move away from the original intent of the U.S. Constitution, is a larger part of the frustration by The Right, than simply the existence of a bunch of radical Democrats.
Then Frank shoves his head up his butt, again.
In the fourth paragraph of the editorial it reads as follows:
- Many of those Americans may hate Obama, but they don’t love the Republican establishment either. Michael Steele, who was declared persona non grata at one of the mad “tea parties” in April, was not invited to that right-wing 9/12 March on Washington last weekend. There were no public encomiums for McCain or Bush. No Senate leader spoke to the gathering, and perhaps only Palin and Ron Paul would have been welcome from the ranks of what passes for G.O.P. presidential timber. If there was a real hero to this crowd, it was the protest's most prominent promoter, the radio and TV talker Glenn Beck.
The vast majority of those that oppose Obama's policies do not hate him. I am sure there is a small group of folks that are truly racist, or truly hate the man, but I believe that is a very small crowd, and that the number of those folks is so small, it could very well be considered negligible.
During George W. Bush's presidency just about every Democrat I spoke to poured out hate for Bush. They openly talked about their hopes that Bush would suffer at the hands of an assassin, and they constantly screamed that Bush was a liar.
A single Republican Congressman says that Obama lied, and suddenly the entire non-liberal members of the American population are a bunch of racists.
Rich goes on to say that the folks at odds with the president are not real fond of the Republicans, either. He is right, but for the wrong reasons. Frank Rich believes folks are bothered by the GOP because the "right-wing loonies" have taken control of the party. In reality, it is because the Republican Party has been pushing non-conservative moderates into leadership positions, and has turned its back on Reagan's influence. The Party of Reagan is becoming "liberal-light," and as a result, does not stand very sturdy on any issues.
Then Frank Rich goes into his real error in the paragraph.
The editorial explains how none of the GOP politicians were invited to the 9/12 March on Washington a little over a week ago, and that perhaps only Sarah Palin or Ron Paul would have been accepted. Then Frank goes on to add that the real hero to the crowd was conservative talker Glenn Beck.
In short, Rich is saying the Tea Parties on 9/12 were only populated by a cross-section of the far right crowd who is so crazy they don't even accept their own political party, and were all in reality just a bunch of Glenn Beck followers.
According to Newsmax, when Glenn Beck began breaking viewer records he had about 3 million viewers. The University of Indiana estimates that there were about 1.8 million people at the 9/12 event, and this is not counting the millions of people at other events across the nation. So, if Frank Rich is right, and the Tea Party People are only far-right, Glenn Beck following, fringe loonies, then that means that every single one of Glenn Beck's viewers made it to a Tea Party, and they all brought friends (possibly kicking and screaming)!
A lot of the conservatives at the 9/12 March are no doubt big fans of Glenn Beck, and I would be a viewer too, if he was on the tube at an hour that I am normally home. But many of the Tea Party'rs were not necessarily "conservatives." Many of them were libertarians, not-so-liberal Democrats, and various brands of independents. A lot of them, also, were people who voted for Obama, and are now having buyer's remorse.
"But none of the Republican Politicians were invited," would argue Frank Rich, "so the group must've been something more radical than even the GOP."
There was a very important reason why few politicians showed up, and why none of them were invited. But, if you truly understood the reason for the Tea Parties, you would understand the reason for that.
Ask the average, unknowing person what the Tea Party protests are all about, and the majority of responses will be "taxes."
rrrrrrr - Wrong!
Many folks who at least try to pay attention to the news will tell you the rallies are all about protesting against Obama's health care proposition.
rrrrrrr - Wrong again!
Lately, a lot of the members of the liberal left may tell you the protesters are out there because they are upset that the president is a black man.
rrrrrrr - You can't get much more wrong than that!
The Democrats say that these people are being paid by the GOP and insurance industry to be out there. As far as they are concerned the rallies are all manufactured, and are being controlled by insurance lobbyists, politicians, and conservative talkers.
rrrrrrr - If that were the case, then why weren't the politicians all over the stages? In other words, Wrong Again!
I am sure there are dozens more thoughts about why the Tea Parties are happening, and every last one of them are wrong.
The reason can be summed up in three words: United States Constitution.
And because the rallies across America are about the U.S. Constitution, this is why the politicians Were Not Invited.
Still confused?
The federal government operates outside the U.S. Constitution in many ways. This is nothing new, but the creeping incrementalism of this phenomenon has been increasing speed during the last hundred years. The Obama Administration has the movement of the federal government away from the U.S. Constitution moving at break-neck speed. The people, while being boiled slowly like a frog in the pot by previous administrations, didn't notice, or didn't care. But when today's Democrats decided to turn up the heat, and the hammer and sickle of socialism began to materialize at the end of the tunnel, the sleeping giant was awakened, and the American People cried out: "Enough!"
Any piece of legislation proposed by Congress should have a question attached to it. The question should be, "Where in the U.S. Constitution does it allow the federal government to do such a thing?"
Over 85% of the federal government is unconstitutional, and so the majority of our tax money is going to things the federal government has no business doing. Our income taxes should be all but eliminated, and the government programs that do not abide by the Constitution should be repealed.
Problem is, all of this unconstitutional junk has become institutionalized. Many Americans have come to depend upon much of what the government does. So the elimination of the unconstitutional programs, which includes the entitlement programs, needs to be done in a gradual manner.
Ask yourself a simple question: Where in the U.S. Constitution does it give the federal government the power to get into the health insurance business? Where in the U.S. Constitution does it allow the federal government to own a share of the automobile industry? Where does it allow for bailouts of banks? Where does it allow for government paid abortions? Where does it allow for the federal government to consider changing the definition of marriage? Where does it even allow for the federal government to make the Supreme Court the final arbiter of the U.S. Constitution? Where?
The answer to each and every one of those questions is "no where," and "precedence" is not a part of the Constitution either.
The United States Government has no authority to do any of those things Obama and his Democrat crew wants to do.
Right about now I am going to need to grab the reins of my stallion, and head off a few folks at the pass.
I can hear those voices out there now. "But it is up to the U.S. Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution."
No it's not. It is up to the Supreme Court to "apply" the Constitution. Either the Constitution allows the federal government to do something, or it doesn't. The language is clear, and the limitations against the federal government are many.
Let's use Roe v. Wade as an example. According to the average Democrat, and the majority of Republicans, Roe v. Wade is the court case that made abortion legal in the United States. A Texas State Law outlawed abortion in Texas, and a law suit made its way all the way to the Supreme Court. The United States Supreme Court determined that Texas was in the wrong, and with a single ruling, overturned a state law, making abortion legal from a federal standpoint.
Where in the U.S. Constitution did it allow the U.S. Supreme Court to do that? Abortion is not mentioned anywhere in the U.S. Constitution, and is specifically not mentioned in Article I, Section 8, which is where the U.S. Constitution lists the powers of the federal government. Therefore, as per the 10th Amendment, abortion is a state issue. That means that Texas had a right to ban abortion in her state, and the U.S. Supreme Court had no allowance to even see the case in the first place, much less overturn a lawful state law.
If the U.S. Supreme Court had been following the Constitution, they would have seen that the federal government has no jurisdiction over abortion because it is not a federal issue, and would have refused to see the case.
Instead, the Supreme Court overturned a state law (which is unconstitutional), and made law with their ruling by making abortion legal (which is also unconstitutional).
If the federal government wanted abortion to be a federal issue, they would need to propose an amendment, and get three-quarters of the states to ratify it. Otherwise, abortion is none of the federal government's business.
I have heard another argument so many times it makes my head spin. When I talk about limiting government, and eliminating federal income tax, I always get someone leaving a comment about how insane it is to do so, because then we wouldn't have police and fire protection, and anarchy would ensue.
The U.S. Constitution is written to limit the "federal" government, not local government. Each state has its own constitution as well. Your police and fire services are provided by your local government, as it should be. It is the responsibility of the state, county, and municipal governments to take care of such protective services. Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution does it provide for the federal government to take up such responsibilities.
It's like Obama's health care plan, for example. Whenever I talk about the danger of Obama's proposition, those leftists that have been reading my site long enough remembers how a couple years ago my son had cancer while in between jobs, and he had to resort to using a public option for health care. The state run system provided by taxpayers enabled him to have his surgery, and return to the workforce. He now has private insurance, and would rather not use the county hospital again if he can help it, but the government health care came in handy at a very difficult time.
Liberals like to say, in defense of Obamacare, "Your son was saved by government health care. Do you plan to pay any of that money back?"
I have no problem with people temporarily using the public option which is currently provided by states. My son used a program associated with Medi-Cal, a state run health alternative - and its existence is completely constitutional. The U.S. Constitution does not prohibit the states from providing a public option in relation to health care. However, there is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that allows the federal government to get involved in health care.
Which leads us back to the original question: Why were no Republican politicians, even conservative ones, invited to the 9/12 March on Washington DC?
The reason they were not invited is because they are part of the problem. The March was not for government officials to participate in. They would use it as a platform for re-election, and that is part of the problem. The politicians have stopped being statesmen that serve the people, and have become cockroaches that believe they were destined to be leaders in the U.S. Government, and are willing to do anything they can to keep their power.
A few members of the GOP appeared, like Mike Pence, and it pissed off a lot of Tea Party attendees. The rally was not for the politicians to beat their chests and look good so that they would be looked favorably upon in the next election. The 9/12 event was about the people speaking out against the unconstitutional nature of the U.S. Government. It was an opportunity for citizens to gather together and speak out about how the current administration desires to move even more away from the U.S. Constitution. The 9/12 March was about the people of this nation congregating to voice their disapproval of Washington, and to begin to take back the country, and return it to its rightful place within the limitations of the U.S. Constitution.
The politicians were not invited because the Tea Parties are not about them. The Tea Parties are about the American People, and the sovereignty of the states.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Even Glenn Beck Is Right Twice a Day - The New York Times, Frank Rich
Glenn Beck Smashes Ratings Record - Newsmax