Saturday, October 31, 2009

The American People Opted Out of Government Health Care

Get Liberty

Obama's Arrogance is Becoming his Nightmare

The following video was produced over a year ago, and rings more true with each passing day - accurate, and relevant. Think about, as you watch this, how Obama is hesitating on listening to the generals, and how the defense budget for ammunition, armor, and equipment has been cut. Consider, also, that the troop numbers he has increased in Afghanistan are primarily support personnel, which are essential, but that the infantry force numbers have not increased a significant amount. Political posturing, and numbers for the sake of numbers. And this, also coming from a man that has decided "War on Terror" and "Victory" are words that we cannot use anymore when referring to the military effort overseas.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Halloween Radio, Discussing the Frightening World of Politics

Founding Truth at 5pm Pacific,

Then The Political Pistachio Radio Revolution at 7pm Pacific.

News That Needs To Be Covered, But Mainstream Media Won't

Sometimes the news comes in faster than I can write, so rather than write a post for each, I have written a post for all.


Push to Legalize Marijuana Gains Ground in California: It probably wouldn't change the number of people smoking Marijuana in California, it would just give the state the right to tax it. I am not in favor of the legalization of Marijuana, but you have to admit, it would probably help the economy. Think about it, with that many people having the munchies, fast food joints and convenience stores will increase their business. Admittedly, I smoked a "J" a few times in my youth, but it did little for me, only giving me something to do with my friends. It did, however, serve as a launch pad into my desire to find a drug that did more for me than make me giggle and hungry. Therefore, afterward I found myself searching out a better "high." This search led me to speed, coke, and LSD. This is one of the many reasons I believe Marijuana is a "gateway" drug, and should never be legalized. "Progression" is another reason that legalizing Marijuana is a big mistake; once Marijuana gets legalized it will lead to the push that other drugs are legalized too.

Obama Cannot Accept Nobel Without Congressional Approval - Is it true? Does Obama need Congressional approval before receiving his Nobel Peace Prize? According to the article by Big Dog, it's a Constitutional fact: Article I, Section 9, of the Constitution, the emolument clause, states: "And no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince or foreign state." Yeah, right, like Obama and the Democrats give a care about the U.S. Constitution. Besides, wasn't the prize just the next step in making Obama the Emperor of the World?

Bullet hits Lou Dobbs' NJ home with wife nearby - When I first heard about this, it was treated as if it was an assassination attempt, or something. It was even suggested that the gunfire may be the result of folks upset at Lou Dobbs' willingness to hammer on illegal aliens in his commentary. Then I heard that the bullet hit the siding of his home, did not penetrate, and fell to the ground. Small game hunter? I halfway think it was just a pellet from a pellet gun. Okay, I understand the seriousness of what it could have been, and there is no excuse for pointing any weapon of any kind at a home like that, but for God's sake, the bullet hit the siding and fell to the ground. I am thinking that if someone actually wished to shoot Lou Dobbs, they would've done a more thorough job than shoot a low caliber bullet at his house from so far away that the bullet died upon reaching the region. I think the media over-hyped this one just a little bit.

STIMULUS WATCH: Stimulus jobs overstated in report - How do you determine how many jobs were created? Hell, they can't even figure out where all the money they are spending goes, and we are supposed to believe they are on top of how many jobs they've created? It sounds like a kid picking arbitrary numbers for something. "I rode my tricycle a hundred thousand miles!" - "Hey, he said so, it must be true." My question is, how can you brag that you've created all kinds of jobs while the unemployment rate reaches a level higher than what you said it would as a result of your economic plan? Meanwhile, consumer spending is tanking, and the value of the dollar is rapidly dropping - and these idiots are saying the recession is over.

DC sniper Muhammad set to die by lethal injection - My wife and I were in the Washington DC area in 2002 when the sniper was doing his thing. We were unaware of the sniper until one night we were watching the news and they were reporting that a shooting occurred in Virginia near DC at a gas station at such-and-such time, and it turned out we had gotten gas at that station only an hour before the shooting. Oh, and by the way, I am totally cool with the dirtball being put to death. However, I think his execution should be with a shot in the head from a sniper rifle - lethal injection is too humane for a piece of crap like that.

Obama honors fallen Americans at Dover - I salute Obama for honoring our fallen, but I wonder if it is sincere, or if it was a political move. In the article I read about this the writer criticizes Bush for never doing the same, nor allowing the media to cover the return of fallen soldiers - Bush did not allow the media to cover such events because at the time any dead soldier was used as propaganda by the media, and Bush desired to spare the families of the fallen from the idiocy of the media.

Pressuring Israel To Sign A Peace Agreement Will Not Bring Peace To The Middle East - The world seems to think that the unrest in the Middle East is due to some great misunderstanding. They believe that a nice meeting over a cup of tea will solve everything, so an army of Neville Chamberlains have appeared to appease the Muslims, and condemn Israel. Some would even argue that eliminating Israel's presence would bring peace. Another argument sees the solution as being as simple as solving the Palestinian question by giving them their own national status. But how do you create a two-state solution when Palestinians don't desire one? They have rejected state-hood before because they don't desire a nation of their own on the territories they inhabit. Palestinians desire the elimination of Israel, and for the Holy Land to be in their sole possession - and they are willing to kill every Jew to achieve it. How do you come to a peace agreement with a people who believes peace will only come when their enemy is wiped off the face of the Earth? And once they get Israel, who's to say they will stop there? Africa and Europe is currently under the Islamization process - and ultimately, the entire world is expected to follow. Muslims not only believe that Israel does not have a right to exist, but they also believe that all non-Muslims do not have a right to exist, and the extermination of the opposition begins in Jerusalem.

Obama signs 'hate-crimes' bill into law - I have already touched on this topic a couple times, but the importance of understanding the Pandora's Box being opened here is paramount. "Progression" dictates that once any group is given preferential treatment under the law, they will use it to gain more power. That is how human nature works. This is why big government is so dangerous - power begets the push for more power. In the case of hate crimes legislation, the law has given militant minorities and gays a powerful legal weapon that can be wielded to silence the opposition. The ACLU has taught us that simple accusations, even if cases are dismissed, apply enough pressure to silence the opposition for fear of being accused. Eventually, however, after a number of dismissals, one of the hate crime cases will result in victory, and from there the tool will be used often. The basis of what a hate crime is hinges on motivation. But what if the accused never voiced their motivation? Is the government going to decide what the person was thinking, and proceed from there? Will hate crimes be accused, eventually, for the mere thought of opposition to a protected group?

Obama's War on Fox Is Liberalism's War on Dissent - I never thought I would see the government try to silence a news outlet in my lifetime. Obama, and the Congressional Democrats, are waging war against Fox News because the "editorial" section of the network is not to their liking. When every network except FOX was demonizing George W. Bush with hateful rhetoric, Hillary Clinton proclaimed it was patriotic to question the government. Dissent is the highest form of patriotism, proclaimed Nancy Pelosi. Now that only one television news channel is showing dissent, suddenly it is not only not patriotic, but they must be silenced? Whenever critics attacked Bush, he declared, "Isn't this a great country, where citizens can openly protest the government, and even the president?" Whenever critics question Obama's abilities, the response is different. The liberal intolerance for political dissent has reared its ugly head. And the funny thing about it is Fox News is not even conservative. There are as many non-conservative hosts and guests as there are of the conservative nature appearing on that network. The war against Fox News is being waged simply because the network dares not to swoon over Obama, and is willing to say it like it is, rather than follow the liberals in their goose-step toward tyranny.

Americans alarmed at attacks on free speech - There's an old saying that basically says not to be too excited when freedoms are taken away from the other guy, because you are probably next. From President Obama's attempt to cut Fox News out of an interview opportunity, to his advocacy for "hate crimes" legislation that could hinder Christian pastors' sermons, free speech is under attack under this hard leftist administration (regime?). Americans are fast realizing that not only are the Democrats trying to silence dissent, but that they may not be willing to stop there. Internationalist Barack Obama is also in support of a United Nations resolution that encourages governments worldwide to clamp down on free speech when it is used to criticize certain religions. I may not like it when Christianity is attacked verbally, for example, and as a citizen I believe I should do all I can to stop such speech by voicing my opinions, and being involved. But there is no way I would ever support governmental legislation to silence such criticisms. Free speech is a two-way street, and the very fact that this topic is even on the table is disturbing. What to say, or not to say, is the individual's decision - that is one of fundamental truths of liberty. For any governmental agency to proclaim they know better on what should be allowed to be said is a dangerous path, and a Pandora's Box that opens up into an opportunity for those willing to use it to change this world into a tyrannical place where the only speech allowed is the speech the elitists deem acceptable. Orwell's 1984 comes to mind.

Green World Government a la Copenhagen Climate Treaty - One of the tools to control the population by the hard left is through environmental legislation. Environmental alarmism, however, has become so hysterical, that the whole planet has fallen under the spell of their lies. Now, under the guise of "saving the planet," the environmental agenda is being exploited to compromise the national sovereignty of America. The vessel through which the liberal Democrats plan to give away U.S. sovereignty is through the Copenhagen Climate Treaty, which is scheduled to be discussed and signed in December. The text of the treaty does not hide its agenda, and is directly aimed at redistributing the wealth from the richest nations to the poorest, using the regulation of carbon emissions as the excuse, creating a "global carbon budget" for each country. This would allow the internationalists to dictate to countries what they can and can't do in regards to energy and emissions, in effect giving control to this international body a nation's manufacturing, transportation, travel, agriculture, mining, and energy production. Fear is the weapon, and total worldwide control under a global body of governance is the goal. The argument is that in order to save the planet, society must be changed fundamentally from individual liberty to universal control by an international governing body - whether you like it or not.

Arizona Muslim ran his 20 year old daughter and her roommate over with his car for becoming too 'Westernized' - The Muslim father put his daughter in the hospital for refusing to live according to their traditional Islamic values. The goal was to kill her. If he didn't want her to become "Westernized", then why come to America? Most would answer, "to make a better life for his family," but that would be an admittance that the infidels know how to run a country better than Islamic leadership. So, then, why would he came to America at the risk of his family becoming Westernized? Could it be to help in the Islamization of America? Just a thought.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Mrs. Pistachio's Birthday

Halloween is not celebrated in this house in the same way everyone else celebrates it. Today is my wife's birthday. So instead of Tricks and Treats based on the holiday, we spend the day together in celebration of the birth of Mrs. Pistachio.

We have been married 25 years, so this is an extra special birthday celebration. That, and that fact that she is now the big 4-5.

So off to lunch, and then back for the trick-or-treaters later.

Today also marks the 27th anniversary of us meeting at a Halloween Party.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

We Are Insane: the Global Warming Myth, Cap and Trade, and Copenhagen

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Global Warming, or at least man-made Climate Change, is a hoax. Big government is using the lie, of which many gullible people still believe to be true, to enact legislation to place controls over the people, and your energy usage. Cap and Trade laws have passed in a number of countries, and Obama and gang would love to pass such a monstrosity right here in America. Worse, yet, in Copenhagen this December Obama plans to sign a treaty that places our environmental well-being in the hands of internationalists - essentially signing away our national sovereingty in the name of an environmental myth called Global Warming - and leading to the formation of a World Government. Technically, the treaty is not legal until the Senate ratifies it - but the global community could care less about our Constitution, and will see the treaty as binding regardless of whether or not it is ratified.

In related news, A House of Representatives hearing had originally invited Chris Horner (The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism) to appear and give testimony - then later decided all dissenting views would be locked out. Rather than a hearing, the event became a global warming discussion without the opposing view being allowed to participate.

This is how the Left works: if you disagree, you are shut out, and they attempt to silence you. Just ask Fox News, the Chamber of Commerce, and the conservative congressional Republicans (yes, not all of the GOP members of Congress are RINOs).

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Lord Monckton Warns UN Copenhagen Treaty Would Impose World Government - John Birch Society

AstroTurfing and Global Warming: The Testimony You’re Not Supposed to Hear - Big Government, Christopher Horner

Friday, October 30, 2009

Arguing About Hate Crimes, Health Care Reform, and other Radical Leftist Agendas

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Perhaps I wrote my posts about the new "hate crimes" provision in the defense bill, and the radical health care reform being proposed by the House, a bit hastily. Maybe I didn't take into consideration the liberal left's inability to understand anything unless it is carefully laid out, with meticulous attention paid to how I come to my conclusions (and even then it is a crap shoot on whether or not they will "get it").

The left tends to not read conservative writings to understand, but to find something to attack.

Considering that the left uses "progressives" as one of the labels they go by, one would think that the leftists would recognize when a writer was suggesting a possible progression of political events based on a new policy, while also realizing that the speculation regarding the suggested progression of events is in fact "speculative."

Definitive opinion is an oxymoron. Opinion of political futures are no more definite than the opinion that I will not die in my sleep tonight. I am pretty sure I will survive the night. I am healthy, and I have a history of waking up in the morning, but I can no more guarantee I will not meet my Maker while sleeping any more than a political opinion can guarantee that the chain of events they foresee should a particular piece of legislation pass happen as expected. Knowing this, I use words like "may," "could," and "alleged" sometimes when writing articles about my opinions. Using those words aren't a cop-out. Using those words are a sign that I recognize reality.

No human knows the future, but based on historical evidence, political models, and common sense, I believe I have a pretty good idea of the likelihood that certain political policies will be successful, and others will fail. Nonetheless, that does not mean that all speculation will come to pass as expected.

Obama's economic policies, for example, will result in a worsening of our economic troubles. I am as sure that his policies will damage our economy in the long run as I am that I will wake up tomorrow morning. It is possible, however, that unexpected factors currently unknown to any of us, like a new information technology emerging and taking the world by storm, could invigorate our financial system, creating jobs and a new avenue for moving goods in an inexpensive and quick manner, could take our economy to a new level - despite Obama's attempts to create inflation, and destroy America's economy. Therefore, when I write that Obama's plans will create further havoc in an already distraught economy, I do it realizing that maybe the right word to use is "may."

The opinion that Obama's economic policies will be disastrous to the American financial structure is not a conclusion I came to just because I don't like Obama, or whatever other warped reason the left would like to throw on the fire (racism, hate, ignorance, stupidity, party lines, parroting conservative talkers, etc.). My opinion that the Democrat's economic decisions, including a disastrous health care reform proposal, is dangerous to the future of America was formulated by careful examination of his policies, while understanding history, and how political and economic systems function. Based on all of that data, and my own gut feelings, I believe that everything Obama is doing is detrimental to the stability of the United States of America.

Barack Obama, and the Democrats, are putting into place policies that in a number of ways are consistent with European Socialism, which is a proven failure. The leftists will not admit that is what they are doing because they know the American People would never willingly except changing the American form of government into something Karl Marx would be proud of. Therefore, they are giving these socialist policies new names, and are sprinkling them with promises of "choice" and "Americanism" that they do not intend to keep. In the health care legislation, though their full intention is to lead America to a government controlled system (single payer), they say things like "you can keep your insurance if you like it," or "we are simply using the public option so that there can be competition," so that you are willing to accept it. They have no intention of keeping their word, nor can they. The new system, should it be put into play, will slowly be converted to the government controlled health care you are fighting against. It may take a decade or so, but after the private system is completely eliminated, and you won't have a choice. Government-controlled health care is all you will be allowed to have - and the quality of care in America will deteriorate as a result.

Why would the progressives do such a thing?

The basic tenet of liberalism is diametrically opposed to the basic foundation of conservatism. While conservatives believe liberty is best protected, and economies best thrive, when the federal government is limited, power is divided, and markets are allowed to function freely, the liberals believe that increased government involvement in your lives is necessary. Big government, according to the left, is the solution to all of our problems. People are too stupid to individually take care of themselves, as far as the leftists are concerned, and monetary success is unfair when there are so many people out there that are in poverty. Therefore, in the spirit of fairness, the left believes in equity - forced equity by the government. Of course those in charge don't see themselves as part of the mix. They are elevated elitists, not required to participate in the policies they put into place. I guess in their opinion, some people are more equal than others.

Just look at the health care legislation - members of Congress are exempt from the requirement to take part in government sponsored health care.

Human nature will never allow liberal programs to run as they do on paper. The progression of events will eventually lead to abuse, and corruption. Health care under governmental control will become too expensive, and then the government will begin to pick and choose what they are willing to cover, and who gets the care. Your choice will be eliminated, and a bureaucrat in Washington will make the decision on whether or not you will get health care, and ultimately, whether or not you get to live or die.

And they call that "Progression."

Progress is not always progress when you are progressing toward a dead end.

The same progression that isn't progress, based on human nature, and studying history here and abroad, applies when discussing the issue of "hate crimes."

In a prior post I made what the left considered to be an outrageous claim of what will eventually transpire if we allow hate crime laws to run amok. I indicated that pastors will be arrested for preaching that homosexuality is a sin, and that the eventual result of hate crime laws will be the illegalization of the Holy Bible.

The hate crimes legislation the Democrats slipped into a defense bill as a provision because they couldn't get the bill passed on its own (which is a practice that needs to be stopped, by the way) was influenced heavily, they say, by the Matthew Shepard story. Shepard was a homosexual who was brutally beaten and left for dead back in 1998. The attackers allegedly attacked Matthew Shepard because he was gay, and society recoiled from such a heinous act. The outcry was massive, and Hollywood put out a mess-load of films depicting the tragedy.

The crime was horrendous, and the attackers got what they deserved, regardless of Matthew's sexual orientation. Why would "hate crime" need to be added? Was the killing of Matthew Shepard more heinous than the murder of another because he was gay? Does hate crime legislation give preferential treatment to some groups, while not to others?

Hate Crimes Legislation does no curb "hate crimes," but gives the groups the laws are designed to protect a legal weapon against those that oppose them, or even a legal weapon against those that they think oppose them, even though it may not be the case.

Wherever hate crimes legislation has been enacted, some members of the minority groups and homosexual community the laws are designed to protect begin to use the law to silence, or scare, their opposition. In Canada, for example, Mark Steyn's book "America Alone" placed him into serious legal trouble because of the facts he wrote about regarding Islam. James Dobson's "Focus on the Family" ran into trouble in Canada for their stance that homosexuality is a sin, so the program stopped running the show in some areas, and edited the shows to be more "politically correct" where they do broadcast so as to not bring about more legal inquiries. In a different scenario, a pastor in Canada at one point was investigated for preaching inside his church the sins of homosexuality, and in Sweden a similar case played out. In both cases, ultimately, the cases were dismissed, but the fact that hate crimes laws were used to arrest these pastors and put them before a judge is undeniable.

Once the more radical members of a group realize they can use hate crimes legislation to silence their opposition, they will use it, and eventually one of the attempts will stick. Ultimately, freedom of speech will be eradicated as a result, thus forcing Christians to only say what they believe inside the four walls of a church. Eventually, even the church will not be safe, for a pastor will preach the sins of homosexuality, and a militant gay in the audience (in the hopes of catching a pastor disobeying the hate crimes law), and be arrested for such.

One of the arguments is that hate crimes legislation doesn't work that way - a crime must be committed, and then it must be determined if the motivation of the crime was against (insert minority or sexual lifestyle here).

Who is the government to determine what a motivation is? Isn't motivation something one keeps in their mind? That makes hate crimes legislation very Orwellian - think about it - Thought Crimes.

But how long before the crime itself is the willingness to speak out against the protected groups? Then what? If it becomes a crime to criticize the homosexual fetish by merely speaking a word, or writing a word, in opposition to the behavior, wouldn't that then make a pastor's sermon, or even the Holy Bible, unlawful?

A quick response to the quip by one of my leftist commenters about a Catholic Church in Ireland wanting to make it unlawful to criticize Christianity is that the Church in Ireland is being ridiculous. Think about it. Christians are under fire daily, and have been for two thousand years - and we tend to be defenders of freedom, and specifically freedom of speech. . . Do you really think we desire to become as tyrannical as the leftists are by limiting the speech of others, even when that speech is critical of Christianity?

Unlike Obama and gang, who has been trying to silence critics by going after the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, and the Chamber of Commerce, Biblical Christians do not wish to silence anyone - only share the good news of Christ with them. After all, we understand that we are all sinners, and have no room to be anything but humble about our faith - and it is a good thing that God doesn't expect us to come to Him as perfect beings, or to be perfect beings even as Christians - otherwise we'd all be heading South when eternity arrives.

I am more sure of that than I am that I will wake up when the sun rises.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Scary Property Tax Secrets: How to Save Thousands This Halloween

"The Sexy Assessor" joins Political Pistachio Radio tonight to discuss how you might be paying thousands in extra property taxes. These tricks can be resolved because there are many treats and financial loopholes that can be utilized with assessors that can help you start saving right now!

Property Tax Expert Valerie Faltas, a former Los Angeles County Assessor, understands, and reveals, the scary truths about property taxes and more at her Sexy Assessor website.

Tonight we will scare up tons of tax facts with her Property Tax Little Black Book - join us live at 7:00 pm Pacific for the frightening truth about taxes, and then in the second segment listen to me tell it like it is regarding hate crimes legislation and the insane health care bill now making its way to the Senate.

Alexander Hamilton and the General Welfare Clause

Here Hangs Lady Liberty By J.J. Jackson

Two words struck fear into the hearts of Americans after their fight for Independence had concluded, and during the formation of the great Constitution
under which we have since prospered despite the best efforts of those in Washington. Those dreaded words that caused consternation were none other than “General Welfare”. It did not matter for most Americans which side they were on when the thought of a new Constitution was being discussed to replace the failed and impotent Articles of Confederation. Whether they were for or against the proposed Constitution both the majority of Federalists and the anti-Federalists knew how two
simple and clear words would be taken by those that desired neither liberty for the people or limited government power. Those words, they knew, would be taken by such people to mean that Congress when assembled would have the power to tax the public
and spend their money on any object of benevolence or pet project that they would dare justify as helping to “promote” the “general Welfare.” It was also known that these cads would get away with such diabolic actions too unless the people were
educated as to the proper meaning and application of the term.

Make no mistake, in those early years of our history there were even then those who believed that such a term should be broadly applied and without any restraint. Those alive today who wish to ascribe a meaning other than the clear and obvious one to these two words found within our Constitution tout Alexander Hamilton as the pivotal point for their arguments. I dare say that I must defend Mr. Hamilton for he has been much maligned by ignorant sorts. His opinions of the Constitution and the powers that it granted have been greatly misrepresented by those that desperately seek a prominent figure to help with their cause. He was far from perfect but he was not the fiend that he has been turned in to.

History shows that Alexander Hamilton was certainly in favor of the Constitution and those two and very often misused words. However it also shows as well that he believed their meaning and definition to be limited. In Federalist 32 when discussing the general powers of taxation the following in support of a strictly written Constitution he clearly wrote:

"An entire consolidation of the States into one complete national sovereignty would imply an entire subordination of the parts; and whatever powers might remain in them, would be altogether dependent on the general will. But as the plan of the convention aims only at a partial union or consolidation, the State governments would clearly retain all the rights of sovereignty which they before had, and which were not, by that act, EXCLUSIVELY delegated to the United States. This exclusive delegation, or rather this alienation, of State sovereignty, would only exist in three cases: where the Constitution in express terms granted an exclusive authority to the Union; where it granted in one instance an authority to the Union, and in another prohibited the States from exercising the like authority; and where it granted an authority to the Union, to which a similar authority in the States would be absolutely and totally CONTRADICTORY and REPUGNANT."

In Federalist 83 he said further that:

"The plan of the convention declares that the power of Congress, or, in other words, of the national legislature, shall extend to certain enumerated cases. This specification of particulars evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority, because an affirmative grant of special powers would be absurd, as well as useless, if a general authority was intended."

Those that today seek greater meaning to his words take Mr. Hamilton out of context. They pull quotes of his from thin air and attribute a new meaning to the terms by citing writings such as his "Opinion on the Constitutionality of the National Bank,"
where he stated that such powers as those granted under the Constitution, "ought to be construed liberally, in advancement of the public good." However it should be noted that Hamilton was not advocating a broader scope for the general Welfare
clause and the addition of powers. He had already clearly spoken against that and was merely debating and putting forth his interpretation of another often abused clause known as the Necessary and Proper Clause which states under Article I, Section
8 which is:

“The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”

His argument was simple; that to place too much of a limitation upon the government and prohibiting it from doing ancillary things that would allow it to fulfill its obligations under Article I would neuter the powers of Congress and prevent it from
actually providing for the common defense and promoting the general Welfare as charged. For example, Congress has the power to build post offices and post roads. But does it have the power to staff those offices and deliver the mail that
accumulates in the post offices that it builds? Do it have the authority to demand that others, perhaps the States, do so if it is not allowed? Hamilton’s claim of “liberally” applying the powers of Congress was meant in this vain and his argument was that it makes little sense to give Congress the power to do something but not the other powers necessary and required to actually do it effectively.

Likewise the federal government is also granted the power to coin money. But nowhere in the Constitution is it explicitly given the power to put the money it coins into circulation. By implication under the necessary and proper powers granted the federal government it must also have the power to do this otherwise the money would just pile up never to be used. And technically the government or its agents would not even have the authority to pile up the money either since such a power was not granted explicitly if such a severe restriction on authority were adopted. It would,
literally, without the necessary and proper clause, be required to let the coins fall where they may and never touch them once they had been minted. There are a myriad of things that go into the coining of money that the government is not
expressly given the authority to do but without doing them the government could not fulfill this obligation. This is precisely what the debate over the “liberal” interpretation of the necessary and proper powers of Congress entailed.

This, Hamilton explained clearly as such in his 1791 opinion. Forgive me while I reprint several whole sentences so that the context cannot be misconstrued or my representations claimed to be false:

“The only question must be in this, as in every other case, whether the mean to be employed or in this instance, the corporation to be erected, has a natural relation to any of the acknowledged objects or lawful ends of the government. Thus a corporation may not be erected by Congress for superintending the police of the city of Philadelphia, because they are not authorized to regulate the police of that city. But one may be erected in relation to the collection of taxes, or to the
trade with foreign countries, or to the trade between the States, or with the Indian tribes; because it is the province of the federal government to regulate those objects, and because it is incident to a general sovereign or legislative power to regulate a thing, to employ all the means which relate to its regulation to the best and greatest advantage.”

Further in his paper on the topic of the National Bank, often cited by those seeking desperately for something to support their unconstitutional desires, he clearly again states that the Constitution is a limited set of powers:

“... the foundation of the Constitution is laid on this ground: “That all powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited to it by the States, are reserved for the States, or to the people.”

Whence it is meant to be inferred, that Congress can in no case exercise any power not Included in those not enumerated in the Constitution. And it is affirmed, that the power of erecting a corporation is not included in any of the enumerated powers.

The main proposition here laid down, in its true signification is not to be questioned. It is nothing more than a consequence of this republican maxim, that all government is a delegation of power. But how much is delegated in each case, is a question of fact, to be made out by fair reasoning and construction, upon the particular provisions of the Constitution, taking as guides the general principles and general ends of governments.” – Alexander Hamilton (emphasis mine)

Again, he returns to a citation of the principle of necessary and proper powers which are expressly given to the federal government.

Another often cited document by those that wish to abuse the meaning of the General Welfare Clause is Hamilton’s “Report on Manufacturers”. A quick reading of this document without proper context leads them to conclude that the General Welfare Clause expounds an unlimited power to tax and spend by the Congress of the United States.

They shall cite quotations from this document such as, “The terms “general Welfare” were doubtless intended to signify more than was expressed or imported,” and lay a hearty dose of reliance upon passages such as, “The only qualification of the generality of the Phrase in question, which seems to be admissible, is this – That the object to which an appropriation of money is to be made be General and not local; its operation extending in fact, or by possibility, throughout the union, and not being confined to a particular spot,” to support their contention.

However, once again, in this very document Hamilton expressly scolds those that think his words meant more and slaps shut the federal treasury on their grubby fingers! He stated boldly:

“A power to appropriate money with this latitude which is granted too in express terms would not carry a power to do any other thing, not authorised in the constitution, either expressly or by fair implication.” (emphasis mine)

Again I show you that he returns to a discussion of his previous contentions and not an open ended and unlimited power.

Clearly based upon all this it as has been shown
even Mr. Hamilton did not believe in the radical expansion of the power of the federal government to the point where we have seen it encroach upon liberty today. Was he perfect in every argument or desire? Certainly not. But his opinion is
certainly clear and I believe that I have now unbastardized what has been bastardized.

The anti-Federalists however still had a right to be wary of the new Constitution in their own day. As I previously stated, even though it was well formed they were well aware that among the Federalists there existed those who were sinister in their plans and that would gladly abuse simple and plain wording to their own ends. Politicians have changed little over the years and even in the young United States many politicians were interested in power rather than other nobler things. Today we still fight this same battle even though we are many years removed from the late Convention and the great minds therein that worked tirelessly to form us into a more perfect union.

Justification is a dangerous tool which each man who seeks political power possesses and many of those that seek justification twist and distort the historical record in order to obtain such power. One can justify just about anything if given the chance, the right audience ignorant of the truth and ultimately enough words or even the sly omission of centain other terms. History is replete with master orators whose ideas were hideous to any sense of reason. Yet these men and women were able to weave a tapestry of words that united the masses against the common good, against liberty and against God given rights and limited government.

Because of such persons the debate about the meaning of two simple words written into our Constitution over two hundred years ago still rages on to this modern day and is ultimately a question of does the term “general Welfare” mean what those who twist Hamilton’s words suggest? Should the term be used in conjunction with enumerated, clear and limited powers to confine the federal government as he and others clearly said or should the term be used “liberally” to allow for the limitless expansion of federal powers to tax, monitor and regulate as a sort of Constitutional loophole to strip slowly every right retained by the States and the people?

You will well note that even as Hamilton promoted what was to be the Supreme Law of the Land he sought the aid of others among the populace with high amounts of clout to bolster his own and whose words would ease the minds of the wary. And it was for good reason. Putting the record straight was of the utmost importance because distrust ran high.

When it came time to defend the words and make clear the manner in which they were used it was James Madison who stepped up and was to put forth a further explanation that was to be accepted widely by those promoting the new federal Constitution. In Federalist 41 Madison stated that objections to the new foundation of our government based on a broad interpretation of the two words previously mentioned ad nauseam were not valid and that it was natural to read the words as pertaining only to the specific list of functions that followed them. Then in Federalist 45 he reiterated this point much more succinctly saying that the powers of the federal government were, “few and defined.”

But we can dig deeper and further bolster the truth on this issue. We can quote a myriad of founders of high influence who all promoted just such an idea. Thomas Jefferson is but one and in his 1817 letter to Albert Gallatin he was quite blunt saying, “Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated.” Further evidence is best found by reading the Constitution in its total context. Such an approach does more to illuminate the clear meaning of what the term “general Welfare” means than any other tactic. Especially that of taking a mere two words out of any reasonable context in an attempt to make them mean what one wants them to in the unreasonable pursuit of power and the destruction of liberty.

Further, while doing this important step, to simultaneously cast even more light on the subject logic dictates that there is no middle ground option. So let us cast aside such a silly notion. Either the term is narrowly and precisely defined
or it is indefinite in scope. Either Madison, Jefferson and Hamilton in their strict
interpretation are correct or those with devious purposes and who promote their liberal interpretation are correct. Obviously one cannot legitimately make the claim that the term “General Welfare” applies both to a list of enumerated powers as well as some (but not all) non-enumerated ones outside of what is obviously necessary and
proper to carry out these enumerated duties. Such however would be the acceptance of those that would promote such a bizarre idea; that it is possible to determine which authorities out of a nebulous soup of infinite powers would be considered as included
within the “general Welfare” and which would be discarded and not intended by the founding fathers. Neither Madison, Jefferson or Hamilton believed this and if such a broad meaning were true one would expect to find language such as “that among these are” preceding any list of powers and similar to what was written in the Declaration of Independence to denote the unalienable rights of man which were well defined at the time through various writings including the numerous constitutions of the individual states.

I wish to once again reiterate that the necessary and proper clause is not meant to be used for the argument of bolstering an indefinite scope of the “general Welfare” clause or meant in the same manner as saying, “that among these [powers] are.” Once again I remind the reader that this particular clause is clear in that it only applies to those authorities previously enumerated and may not be used in such a broad context.

To proceed, having now beaten this horse thoroughly to death twice over, we know that by reading the Constitution in its full context that the vast majority of the founding fathers agreed that the nation was formed for specific reasons and that among those reasons was the primary one of securing the blessings of a concept known as liberty. Liberty is a very broad term encompassing the concept of individual persons being free to do as they choose while only being constrained in so far as their actions cannot interfere with the liberty and rights of another.

Such is not a radical position. It was not more than a few years prior to the formation of the Constitution that Thomas Jefferson wrote that, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.” Such equality begets by default that liberty is bound only by a restraint that as equals our rights are everyone else’s rights and our rights cannot trample upon anyone else’s in perfect equality.

When two rights appear in conflict, one must ultimately not be a right and simply a bastardization of one’s rights made to justify one’s actions. You would not be allowed, for example, to murder your neighbor and steal his land because you claim a desire to pursue happiness and own land yourself would you? No. Because you have infringed upon your neighbor’s liberty by taking his right to life and his right to own property acquired through free and open transactions in order to do so.

So then we must return to the modern day Hamiltonian's view of an open ended and broad general Welfare clause understanding this. Does such an interpretation support or destroy individual liberty, the equality of all mankind where rights do not conflict and that is bulwark of limited government control?

Under this liberal view of general Welfare and with a keen tongue one could begin justification of nearly anything without much trouble and, dare I say, everything without much more of an effort. With such a distorted take on the general Welfare clause everything and anything, even if it violates the basic tenants of liberty, can and will be justified as a legitimate function of government and constitute a need for taxes and regulation out of Congress.

Such misinterpretation has already been used numerous times by modern day fiends that hoist up perversions of Hamilton to justify time and again taxes for acts of benevolence performed by government that benefit a predetermined and favored few and not the whole. Programs from Social Security to Welfare to Medicare to Food Stamps have all been created with one justification or another under the auspices of bettering the general Welfare despite the groups that these programs serve having survived with their true liberties intact prior to such government creations. But the facts remain. With these programs, all created under the auspices of furthering a liberal and open-ended interpretation of the general Welfare clause which was never envisioned, the liberty of one is regularly taken for the benefit of another in the end making slaves of the taxpayer to those that receive the benefits of such programs and also slaves of those that receive the benefits of such programs to the government itself.

Although some will shy from this comparison, such use of the power of government is not a far cry from the hideousness of the slavery that was rampant within the United States at the time of our founding and where people were brought from Africa to labor as forced servants having the fruits of their work taken by dictate to enrich others. The concept that any group of Americans should be allowed to take the property, land, life, wealth, time or possessions of another group under threat of punishment by government solely for their own benefit is so alien to the concept of liberty that it cannot be squared with its basic tenants and certainly not included in any reasonable discussion of the general Welfare of any nation. Such actions may, for certain, be for the betterment of someone’s specific Welfare, but not the Welfare of our nation in general which was founded upon the concept of equality and freedom; Liberty. But the extent of the desire within those who wish to expand by leaps and bounds the powers of the federal government beyond its Constitutional limits does not cease at direct redistribution of wealth. No, they would also lay and collect taxes to meddle in the affairs of citizens and regulate behavior
that neither physically harms anyone nor infringes on the rights of others in order to sway their interactions. From determining the number of gallons of water allowed in one’s toilet to the wages that employers must pay their employees to regulating the content which may be broadcast or that is otherwise shared by private individuals
with other private individuals each of these are just a cursory glance at how expanding government has impeded our liberties. No liberty or general welfare is protected by such acts, but such certainly are infringed under the auspices of
promoting both.

Other whole parts of the Constitution are cast aside by this ideological malfeasance and the fallacious expansion of the meaning of the general Welfare beyond a simple and confined set of powers to which it should rightfully be constrained. From the freedom to contract without interference and by free choice as well as the sundry terms of those contracts between freemen to the right to private property and the right to be free from unreasonable searches, all rights begin to fall by the wayside as we expand the role of government into realms that true Federalists did not imagine.

We know there was a real fear that some would abuse the Constitution and seek to expand its powers based on the debate and correspondence over the document’s wording. So deep was this fear that the founding fathers attempted to reinforce the idea of a federal government with limited powers by adding the Tenth Amendment which specifically states, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

It does not get much clearer than this that the Constitution is a set of limited powers not to be expanded upon based on whim and desire. For if the general Welfare clause was designed to grant the unlimited power to tax and spend to our federal
government on any issue or cause Congress decided was in the interest of the general Welfare then what powers would possibly be retained by the States after enough time should pass and Congress had slowly brought all powers under its wings like a mother bird huddling her chicks? The answer to this question is none! And the Tenth Amendment would not have been needed because all power would reside within the federal government under such an interpretation. All that would be required would
be for Congress to claim each power at a time when they so desired.

To the relief of Lady Liberty, Madison’s words helped win the day all those years ago and the Constitution was ratified even though she and the Founding Fathers knew that it was with the help of those who desired to liberally interpret the general Welfare clause and at some later point play upon the ignorance of some and the simple search for power of others. The battles started early and were fought often over the expansion of the term “general Welfare” from a small, defined set of government powers. Sometimes the battles were won and other times they were lost as justification for such expansion was not in short supply and both Madison and Jefferson, each while President, vetoed and admonished those legislators that tried to raise revenues and spend tax dollars outside of the powers in Article I. Although they were also not without fault in this matter either. Jefferson, for example, appropriated funds to purchase large tracts of land with no authority for Congress to approve such an expenditure. Even Jefferson himself conceded that such was not constitutional but did the deed anyway.

Since those early days of our Republic it has become fashionable to accept broad infringements upon our liberties by federal authorities and agents as they expand their grasp and the role of government. We, the people, allowed all this to
happen despite knowing better. We have done this and in essence covet that which is our neighbor’s when it is material in nature and infringe upon their liberty when their ethereal acts may indeed bother and offend our sensibilities but cause no
true harm to be done to anyone else’s rights and liberties.

The blatant examples of unconstitutional government brought forth based on the bastardization of the General Welfare Clause are numerous. They have piled up over the decades to form an enormous mountain whose destruction would be a monumental, but necessary task if we still desire liberty. From enforced government retirement savings plans (Social Security) to imposed “charity” for the poor (Welfare) these abominations are impossible to avoid and impossible to claim as valid when that all important phrase used to justify them is put into context and the lies are stripped away.

With the dawning of every new day and with every new Congress and President elected, each with their own plans for appeasing their constituents using the money of others, more and more such hideous violations of our Constitutional Republic are witnessed. All under the premise that people “generally” will not take responsibility for their own “Welfare” and that because of this the government should act to hold their hands and cast a safety net for them beneath their feet. Of course the obviously fallacious nature of such claims is clear. For when looking at history each of these programs do nothing except supplant already existing liberties and charitable acts that existed prior to such programs with government and its administrative hand now taking the lead.

Once again we see this repulsive ballet playing out as our Congress at the behest of President Obama struggles to manipulate, warp and ultimately circumvent the federal constitution with the passage of legislative controls over the health care and insurance systems used by many Americans to cover expenses which may occur in their own lives. Of course there is clearly no such power granted under the already proven limited powers of the general Welfare clause. By corollary there can also be no such power under the necessary and proper clause either because such only grants authority to do what is necessary and proper with relation to those foregoing powers.

Disciples of big government say that it is in the best interest of the general Welfare that certain, if not all Americans have money provided for them
from the government in order for them to obtain health insurance to cover medical care. They also claim that those not granted such a special favor due to arbitrary factors, such as having too great of an income, etc., should simply accept the government’s hand in dictation of what is covered, by whom, how and where. The justification, after enough words have been spewed, is that it would not
be in the interest of the nation to have in existence a group of people who have no insurance to cover feebleness or other maladies which may strike at any time and that such a group would be a drain on the resources of society and that said
group would suffer needlessly in times of illness. It is also further, and quite magically, reasoned that the family, friends and local neighbors of such people would simply not care for these persons and aid them and that they are so isolated and despicable in their personal lives that none would lift a finger to help even though for decades and centuries prior to such programs being concocted they had. It is reasoned that since it is in the interest of the general Welfare that these people
be helped that government should be the agent of that help. They then propose to either extend existing taxes or levy new taxes or fees on other productive Americans currently earning wages determined to be in excess in the marketplace to pay for said program or worse – to sell our children into bondage and at the feet of government by spending money that we do not currently have. They stretch even further and claim that all Americans, even those that could afford health insurance, should gladly accept government restrictions upon what plans they may be allowed to
buy, what ills such plans should cover and regulations upon how care shall be doled out. Then they perform the most sick and twisted power grab of all and force those that are wealthy enough to not need insurance because they can pay all expenses for their own health care out of pocket to buy into the system in order to bolster it. All for the sake of the general Welfare. But what about the fact that such taxes, fees and debt takes the property (i.e. wages) of one person and gives that property to another by arbitrary force? What about the fact that such restrictions to be imposed violate our written covenant with the federal government? What about the fact that the free interaction between individuals to contract for their own lives as they see best is impeded? Is this liberty? I reiterate again that it is certainly not! And I will say that boldly and take all the stones you will hurl at me if you so
dislike hearing the truth of this matter!

The long train of facts from human history reveals the truth of not just this but other sinister plots to overthrow just government. The elderly in America got by prior to the invention of programs like Social Security and Medicare by getting the aid of others through the glory of charity. The poor managed without Welfare and Food Stamps while getting the aid of charity from churches and their communities. We know this for a certainty! Just as we know that the sick have rarely gone without care for their conditions if they so sought it out. While there will always be failures of any system, those miniscule examples do not damn it as so imperfect that it should be torn asunder and granted to the authority of government. Each year the cost of free care to those that cannot afford treatment is highly noticeable. Companies, hospitals and doctors and nurses donate time, sweat and their own treasure to treat patients without health insurance and who have taken no responsibility for their own well being and assumed risks they have decided to take. Health care has never been in shortage for those that need it although often those that need it do not seek it out. So there is no way that helping such persons could be justified as a legitimate function of limited government considering these facts.

All that will be accomplished by government imposed mandates on health care, and has been accomplished by similar acts in the past, is that instead of families, churches, communities and individuals handling these issues with accountability it will now be the federal government that does so without any semblance of such. All that has changed is the hand which cares for these groups and not the fact that they are cared for. Except that now the hand that cares for them will be another faceless bureaucracy siphoning off its own fees to perpetuate its own and growing existence and that, if we are to be honest, cares little to nothing about any of those they half-heartedly proclaim to help but only that the bureaucracy itself exists. And those within the bureaucracy care about the bureaucracy’s own existence only inasmuch as that there is a continuing existence of their bureaucratic posts and positions and that such will continue on in perpetuity so that they might continue to draw salaries paid for by tax payer dollars collected by force rather than having to exert effort to earn those dollars through convincing others that their cause is just and that they are good stewards of said money.

By partaking in such acts, those that believe in a broad and nearly all encompassing power under the general Welfare clause have violated the basic tenants which the Constitution was established to protect. At this point those Americans that are taxed no longer have the liberty to spend their money, which is their property, as they see fit to help those that they deem to be in need. Other Americans are forced to accept standards not of their own choosing but of a bureaucrat’s desire and have their own personal liberty shrunk. Instead government forces the expenditure of independent wealth on programs that profit not everyone but instead singular groups of people which those in government can warn would surely lose such benefits if the kindly and wise bureaucrats were ever deposed from power. People are no longer free to choose ultimately how or even if they will expend their fortune and are instead forced to do so in a manner dictated by the federal state for unconstitutional powers conjured out of thin air. They are not only made to act as dictated but also
told that their wages will be garnished today to pay for the benefit of others and not themselves and that the punishment for not abiding will be fines, detention or even perhaps loss of their own life for their defiance.

Whatever government welfare program you choose, this same model holds true; one American is taxed to better another and not the general Welfare of the nation. We have in the most very basic of sense turned the Constitution on its head! We have tracked down, bound and hanged Lady Liberty exchanging her blessings for a yoke that confines us and binds us to an unkind master who tells us when and how to expend our efforts by mandate, what crops to sow and when to reap them. We have divested ourselves so far from the basic principle of liberty as a cause that is to be championed and ignored the history laid bare before us about where such actions lead. We have ignored the very first and most basic principle of good government; it’s limited nature to treat all under its care equally before the law and preserve individual liberty and rights which are beyond the reach of any man. And as we do this dastardly deed? Look up friends! Look up! See what is happening! Lady Liberty hangs from a tree choking out her final breaths, grasping as the noose that we have looped around her neck tightens!

That noose has been fashioned from the words of those that have lied to us and sought to deceive us for their own power with wicked tongues. And we have let them continue to lie to us. But for what? For the false perception that if we add just one more knot in the rope, one more restriction to Liberty, one more false mandate for government to perform under the auspices of the “general Welfare,” one more link in the chain that we can somehow attain a higher state of freedom? That the quicker we kill Liberty the quicker we shall attain such?

How sick and twisted an idea this is! How are we to accept that by allowing our inalienable rights to be taken and our bodies to be bound by more and more rope that we will find more liberty in our lives? Will no one free Lady Liberty? Will no one step up and cut her loose? Has no one the courage to stand up and unsheathe their knife and defy our government masters and the hordes of loyalists to them who seek to have our monies placed within their palms? Or will we just be content to carve Liberty's epitaph into the bark of the tree on which she will now surely die? And will we have the courage to write that epitaph truthfully if we choose not to act?

Beware for that epitaph sadly will read: “Here hangs Lady Liberty, choked out by the general Welfare!”

Laus Deo!

J.J. Jackson's weekly articles can be found at Liberty Reborn and he is a contributor to several internet websites. He writes in the defense of individual liberty and limited government as the best way to secure the blessings of freedom for all people.

It's ALIVE!!!!!! Health Care Legislation - like it or not!

By Douglas V. Gibbs

The Health Care Bill(s), despite being unpopular with the American People, and being fought against by both the Republican Party, and a number of Democrats, is moving forward with a big smile on Pelosi's face, and cheers from Obama. Despite accusations that the proposed legislation is unconstitutional, and despite the evidence that the legislation will place America deeper in debt, destroy the private industry, and cannot be passed through traditional means, the Democrats are full-speed ahead.

The House bill that the leftists are applauding is an $894 billion (but will really cost trillions) "public option" proposal that will ultimately result in health care being taken over by government, a rationing of care to those considered to be in preferred groups by bureaucrats, a rise in taxes across the board, a deepening of the national debt, and a liberty killer that will be the first step in this nation heading headlong into a socialist tailspin that we will not be able to pull out of for generations - if ever.

The plan proposed by the House will also raise taxes by hundreds of billions of dollars, cut Medicare by hundreds of billions, and generate deficits that will make the current spending spree look like a walk in the park. And all of this damage because the Democrats proclaim that millions are uninsured.

90% of Americans are insured, and are happy with their insurance. So the Democrats want to completely destroy our system for a minority of people with a plan that will ultimately ruin the health care system for everyone?

Watered-down, below average health care rationed out to those that the government determines to be most deserving is what is coming if this monstrosity of a health care bill passes. According to Rasmussen Reports, most people believe government intrusion into the health care industry will result in higher costs of care, and that the quality of care will worsen.

But the Democrats don't care. They will have their health care plan in place, whether you like it or not. Their greed for ultimate power demands it.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Democrats' Unhealthy Reform Plans - Real Clear Politics

Health Care Reform - Rasmussen Reports

House Health Care Bill Threatens Patient Care - CEI, Christine Hall

The House Health Care Bill: The Mandates - The Heritage Foundation

Honorable James David Manning and Obama's false peace prize

Reverend Manning presents a few points to ponder. I don't know about Obama being the son of Satan, but most of the argument presented by Reverend Manning carries some serious points to ponder.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Newsy Chimes in on H1N1 "National Emergency"

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Thursday, October 29, 2009

Dithering Heights - To send troops, or not to send troops. . .

Get Liberty

Hate Crimes Legislation Slipped in Under Everyone's Noses

By Douglas V. Gibbs

The Democrats will have their way, no matter what it takes. If you don't like what they propose, they'll change its name and say it is something different. If they still can't get something through Congress, they slip it into a totally unrelated bill, and get it passed without anyone knowing what hit them. In other words, whether you like it or not, if the left supports something, they'll find a way to force it upon you.

After all, it's not like Congress reads the bills they vote for, or anything.

After years of failing to become law, hate crimes legislation has finally come to America, by being slipped into the language of a defense spending bill. Obama signed the defense authorization bill, that also includes cutting funding on critical defense projects, on Wednesday.

The "hate crimes" provision is specifically Obama's way of sucking up to the gay crowd that has been so pissed off at him since he hasn't done a thing for them he's promised. Now, with the "hate crimes" provision passed, homosexuals and transgender folks will receive preferential treatment, giving them unprecedented legal avenues against "breeders."

This "hate crimes" legislation does not at this point contain provisions that are contained in hate crimes laws in other countries, but as has in the other countries, it won't take long for the legislation to evolve into anti-straight, anti-Christian laws that are used readily to silence anyone who dares oppose the immoral lifestyle.

As it stands now, if you were to get in a fight with someone, and it turned out they were gay, you could be in for some serious jail time. However, if a mob of gays jumped you and beat you to a pulp, they would be safe, because hate crimes legislation does not apply to them.

And thanks to this new hate crimes provision, in the near future it will become possible for your pastor to be arrested for preaching homosexuality is a sin, and the Bible could be outlawed for containing anti-gay text within it.

Of course we must be tolerant of Muslims who hang gays by the neck - or at least that is what the hard left tells us.

Interestingly, the bill is being considered by gays as being a step in the direction of "equality for all."

Isn't that something? If one decides to have a homosexual behavioral fetish, suddenly they can do just about anything to anyone, and if the other person dares to retaliate, all the gay has to do is scream "hate crime," and the other person is suddenly labeled a criminal.

Heck, what's next? Redefining traditional sanctitites for their own purposes, regardless of who they are stepping all over to do so?

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Obama Signs Bill Violating ‘Equal Justice Under the Law,’ Critics Say - CNS News

Shootout With Radical Islam Leader. . . in Michigan

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Remember what the little girl said in that poltergeist movie? "They're Heeeeeeere." Violent shootouts with radical Islamic groups is happening right here in the United States. And as the Muslim population grows, the violent episodes will increase in size, and frequency.

Dearborn, Michigan has become one of the early Islamic strongholds here in the United States. Muslims would love to see an Islamization of America that rivals what is happening in Europe. Remember, the goals are simple - destroy all who oppose Islam, and set up a worldwide caliphate (global domination).

In countries where the Muslim population is rising rapidly, such as in Britain, France, and Germany, the population growth brings with it increased crime and violence. France, in particular, seems unconcerned as the Muslim population increase within the French borders. The Muslim population in that country is rising so fast that France is at risk of losing its European identity. As the rapidly increasing Muslim population commits more and more violent acts, because they are beginning to believe they can impose the will of Islam on the French people because of their sheer numbers, Islam is beginning to transform the European nation into a Muslim nation being ruled under sharia law. France's Islamic population is currently fast approaching five million, and when the percentage of Muslims in that nation reaches over 50%, she will be lost, and all of those "peaceful" Muslims will be in the streets demanding Islamic rule.

Roughly 2 and a half million Muslims live in the United States, and many of those are American converts. The percentage, in comparison to the total population, is less than one percent, and has not been a concern to many people. Islam knows this, and is using the complacency of Americans against the United States, demanding concessions, and operating anti-American organizations under the radar. In areas like Deerborn, Michigan, where the percentage of Muslims in comparison to the rest of the population is much higher, however, the Muslims are bolder, and are willing to push the limits.

When emboldened by sheer numbers, the willingness to begin preparation for a Jihad in America through illegal activities is rising. The liberal attitudes of "live and let live" in regards to the Muslim populations further emboldens these people to increase their activities, and plot for the fall of America.

Federal authorities arrested a number of Islamists in Deerborn, Michigan, killing one of the leaders in what turned out to be a shootout, yesterday. The Muslim leader that was killed was Luqman Ameen Abdullah (also known as Christopher Thomas), who advocated, and encouraged his followers to commit violent acts against the United States. He was a leader of a radical group who advertised that their primary mission is to establish an Islamic state within the United States. He told his followers it was his duty to oppose the FBI, and the American government, and that death did not matter. His violent actions against American authorities ultimately resulted in his death - an event that will likely become a rallying cry, and place Abdullah among the list of early martyrs in the Islamic attempt to convert America.

One of the arguments against Obama wishing to close Guantanamo Bay was where to put the prisoners. One of the suggestions by Democrats has been in American prisons. The opposition to Obama's plans proclaimed that the prisons would hasten the increase of the numbers of Muslim converts, and the left dismissed such an opinion as foolish. Yet, Abdullah's followers consisted of a number of individuals that converted to Islam while in prison. It is in the prisons, and the neighborhoods where Islam's number is high, that people are being taught anti-American rhetoric. The writing is on the wall. The number of Muslims in America willing to fight for the collapse of America is rising, and our future is being played out in a number of European nations like France. President Obama, in his naivete, wishes to hasten the Islamization of America, by integrating hardened, Islamic terrorists from Guantanamo Bay into our prisons - a growing breeding ground for anti-American Islamic Jihadists.

What is even more alarming is this particular group, as explained by Jimmy Jones of Manhattanville College, ". . . is very much American born and bred." In other words, the Jihad is not coming to America - it is already here, and it is being born and bred within our borders.

The immediate leftist response will be for us to be more tolerant, and to give concessions to these Jihadists. My willingness to condemn the violence by the rising Muslim population in America, in the eyes of the left, makes me insensitive, and discriminatory.

Meanwhile, the very same leftists cheer when Christians are targeted by atheist hate-groups, and an anti-Christian sentiment in a misplaced attempt by people and businesses to be "politically correct," such as in the case of the Florida Home Depot employee who was fired for refusing to remove a button on his apron that says "One nation under God."

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Feds: Leader of radical Islam group killed in raid - Yahoo News, Associated Press

Mapping the Global Muslim Population - Pew Forum Research

How France Has Fallen; Muslim immigration has overwhelmed permissive French institutions - Limits to Growth dot org

Fla. man says Home Depot fired him over God button - Yahoo News, Associated Press

Wednesday, October 28, 2009

Doug Hoffman Under Attack By "Accountable America" Organization

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Doug Hoffman, the conservative independent running against two liberals (one with an "R" for Republican after her name) in New York's 23rd District is making a lot of friends, and a lot of enemies.

Many Republicans don't like Doug Hoffman because his campaign is taking a lot of votes away from Dede Scozzafava - and for those Republicans, the issues don't really matter, it is all about party. Democrats don't like Doug Hoffman because he has surged into the lead and may beat both Scozzafava, and Democrat Bill Owens, in the upcoming special election, thus taking away a vote that will coddle Obama's big government proposals.

Conservatives love Doug Hoffman because he is a true Reagan Conservative, and would be running as a Republican if the GOP hadn't picked pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, pro-tax hikes, pro-Cap and Trade, pro-Obamacare, pro-ACORN, pro-stimulus, pro-bank bailout, pro-big government Dede Scozzafava to be the Republican choice on the ballot.

Party hacks are endorsing Dede, while true conservatives have been throwing in their hat for Doug Hoffman. And with all of the attention, Doug Hoffman has surged into the lead, and has a serious opportunity to win this thing.

A true test on how dangerous you are to the Leftists is to monitor their reactions. The louder, and more vicious, they get in their opposition to you is usually a good indicator you are on the right track, and have them shaking in their boots. Being attacked by the left is a badge of honor, and proves you are hitting a chord.

"Accountable America," a hard left, radical leftist organization started by former MoveOn official Tom Matzzie, has taken up the mantle, and is firing away at Doug Hoffman with both barrels blazing (wait, liberals don't fire guns - hmmm, with both flower vases bloomin'? Both unicorns prancing?), beginning with an attack ad they plan to be playing all weekend during college and professional football games in the upstate New York district.

The video, which is at the bottom of this post, accuses Doug Hoffman of being in cahoots with the enemy that caused all of this financial crisis we are going through, the banks. You see, the left has decided that the banks caused all of the economic problems we are encountering (or when that argument doesn't work, then it's all Bush's fault), and anybody that is not a hard left radical liberal and has any association with the banking industry is automatically the enemy too. Never mind Barney Frank's, or Chris Dodd's, or any other number of Democrat's hands in the pot in the banking industry (including shady dealings with Fannie and Freddie). Therefore, Doug Hoffman, because they say he's a banking industry ally and investor, should not be elected. Instead, upstate New York deserves a leftist who desires increased government control over anything and everything that touches our lives.

errrrrr - wrong answer!

Even if everything they said about the banking industry being the sole factor of the economic collapse, and Doug Hoffman's involvement in the industry, was true, I would still vote for him over a Marxist like Scozzafava or Owens.

But, for the sake of argument, let's take a look at the financial meltdown, and see if those evil banks are the cause - and note: I know that "bankers" of the international persuasion are dangerous folks, and are pushing for a system of global governance, but let's not get the evil international bankers, and bankers pushing for a centralized national bank, mixed up with the not-so-evil local banks that have been so regulated by the government that making a profit has become dang-near impossible, shall we?

Our economic crisis has a number of causes, and the blame-game has been used aplenty. The leftists, and a number of Republicans, believed that immediate action was necessary to stabilize the banking system as the feces hit the oscillating air mover. So, in short, their solution was to pump government money into the banking system to save the very businesses they believed to be at fault for the crisis - and then allow more government intervention into the system when it was government tinkering that was one of the major causes of the meltdown in the first place.

Depression-era regulatory structures, coupled with the kind of thinking that brought about the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 (which encouraged risky lending practices because "everyone deserves to own a home"), placed rules upon the banks that was outside safe lending practices. The credit community, in the interest of being fair to those less fortunate, were encouraged (and actually sometimes mandated) to extend credit to people that were high risk, and may ultimately cost the banks dearly in the long run.

As the government continued to place strict controls and rules on the banking industry, essentially dictating to the banks on how to run their business, the regulations of banking and financial markets did not place the global market into the line of thinking, while dividing the regulatory jurisdictions and authorities into a number of separate agencies that do not share information, and operate on outmoded assumptions.

Congressional involvement then created a conflict of interests. How could people like Chris Dodd, Maxine Waters and Barney Frank, for example, investigate and find errors in Fannie and Freddie when their tentacles were buried deep into the pot with various investments and interests? Then, when in 2003, George W. Bush and the Congressional Republicans suggested changing the regulations that governed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac because Bush, and his advisers, saw the possibility of a problem arising that could lead to a financial collapse, the same Barney Frank that had his tentacles deep into the pot slammed the Republicans, calling Fannie and Freddie a sure thing, and too sound to have any problems.

In fact, at that time, Barney Frank stated: "I do not think we are facing any kind of a crisis. That is, in my view, the two government sponsored enterprises we are talking about here, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are not in a crisis."

So, part of the cause of the collapse was poor lending practices, which were mandated by the CRA of 1977. Another part of the problem was ignoring the possible problem erupting, of which the Democrats poo-pooed in 2003 when the Republicans tried to take action to avert the coming crisis which wound up striking us in 2007. Ultimately, one of the primary causes was mistakes of government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs like Fannie and Freddie), some private companies, and Congress. Then, after government intrusion, and government failure to recognize and take action when the potential problem was brought to their attention in 2003, destroyed the system, and caused our economic slow-down. Big government Democrats says it is through their intervention, and take over of the banking industry, that can fix the problem. It was they that blocked the free market from going through its natural ups and downs, and it was they that made sure the next down-slope on the roller coaster ride of the economy was extreme - then, the left lied about their involvement, and now dares attack Doug Hoffman for being involved with bankers when it was the leftists that were the primary cause of the financial collapse.

It's like a fox accusing the farmer of stealing the chickens from the hen house because they caught him inside with a chicken in his hands, while the fox has feathers sticking out of his mouth.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

h/t Simon Owens

Barney Frank on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 2003 - Tax Foundation

Swine Flu Doorway to Single Payer Health Care

Get Liberty

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Obama, and the hard left, radically socialist, Democrats will do anything to put into place their health care reform. Back doors are opening everywhere, and they are testing the waters in any of them. You see, America won't accept willingly what the Left has to offer, so they have decided to use every deceptive avenue they can. I guess if you throw enough darts at a wall, eventually one will hit the bulls eye.

Freedom equals choice, and a government run health insurance program will eventually limit all choices, and give way to a single payer system. So, to counter the argument that nationalized health care equals a loss of liberty, the Democrats are claiming the government public option won't cost anything, nor increase the deficit. In fact, with the Left's rhetoric being as thick as it is, a lot of people actually think that Obamacare will be free.

Nothing in life is free. Government health care is many pronged in costs, from the cost of choice, to the cost of increased taxes to cover the creature that will ultimately cost more than the Leftists dreamed it could. Ultimately, that means increased taxes for everyone, and a sky-rocketing debt - all for a government fix that not only won't work, but will destroy the private industry, and ultimately destroy any semblance of the superior medical care we currently have in this nation.

All we have to do is look at history. Lieberman recently said, regarding the costs of government run healthcare: "Well all the history we have of health entitlement programs, including the two big ones that I dearly support, Medicare and Medicaid, is that they end up costing more than we're prepared to pay, and they add to the debt, and then they add to the burden on taxpayers."

According to The Heritage Foundation, "in 1967, the experts predicted that the new Medicare program would cost about $12 billion in 1990. Actual Medicare spending in 1990 was $110 billion—off by nearly a factor of 100. The leftist TPM shot back noting that the government run health company is supposed to be 'financed by premiums, and unable to draw on federal funds.' The statement would be comically naive if the stakes weren't so high. Does the left really expect the American people to believe that the same government that bailed out General Motors, Chrysler, and scores of highly unpopular banks, would not bailout the already-government-run insurance company they fought so hard to create?"

Whether the Democrats are willing to tell you, or not, the goal of programs like the proposed health care reform bill are to destroy private systems and replace such industries with government-run programs. And the reason for the government wishing to maintain control over these industries is ultimately to control the American People. So, once again the question over cost rises to the top - the real question is: Is the cost of losing liberty through governmental broken promises and failed programs worth it?

My answer is a resounding NO!

Think about it: if their health care reform was so wonderful, why are they trying to fool us into receiving it?

The Democrats truly believe that if they can look like stars in their handling of the "H1N1 National Emergency," it'll be all the proof the people need that we need government health care, and that the leftists are just the government bureaucrats to handle it.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Morning Bell: Is Government Run Health Care Inevitable? - The Heritage Foundation

U.N. Building Attacked by Taliban in Kabul, Afghanistan

By Douglas V. Gibbs

The Taliban has taken responsibility for an attack against a guest house used by U.N. staff in the Afghan capital of Kabul. Early reports place the death toll at seven. The Taliban claims it was an assault on the upcoming presidential election, of which they have also threatened any Afghanis that are willing to vote.

The attack was carried out by three gunmen wearing suicide vests, grenades and machine guns.

The attack shows that the terrorists don't see any difference between appeasers like the United Nations, and forces willing to stand up and fight against them. Therefore, it seems it would be wise to confront the enemy, rather than try to appease them. At least in a fighting posture, you have a chance to stop the madness, or at least defend yourself.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Afghan Police: 7 Dead in Attack on U.N. in Kabul - Fox News

Tuesday, October 27, 2009

Liberal Fantasyland Denies They Are The Minority

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Once every once in a while the Democratic Party, understanding they don't have a chance in the arena of ideas, pulls enough deception and demonization against a handful of Republicans to win some power. Their attacks were in high gear while George W. Bush was in office, bringing back memories of their insane liberal hippy, McGovern craziness, from half a century ago. During the last eight years the lies were enough to convince a fairly large segment of voters (while the GOP succeeded in alienating their conservative base) to give the Democrats the Congress in 2006, and the presidency in 2008. And ever since the hard left liberals hi-jacked the Democrat Party, and turned it into the circus it has become, the attacks have become more vicious, more frequent, and more widespread.

In a true example of their stupidity, the liberal left then decided that they were the majority, and that the nation is heading left, and that nobody likes the brand of constitutional conservatism brought to the forefront by people like Ronald Reagan, and Barry Goldwater (and originally made popular by the founding fathers of this nation).

A recent poll on Gallup, of which has remained consistent since the beginning of the poll a couple decades ago, shows 40% of Americans claim to be conservative, 35% moderate, and a whopping 20% liberal.

In support of my theory that the left has their heads so far up their butt they have to open their mouths to see, James Carville tonight on Anderson Cooper's 360, when faced with the reality of the Gallup Poll, proclaimed "I thought it broke down 40-40-20."

The Left is out of touch with reality. Unfortunately, they found a way to drag America along with them into their carnival house of horrors.

Fact is, most people in this nation consider themselves conservative, and most moderates identify more with the Republican Party than the Democrat Party. Obama's approval rating is tanking, and the Congressional approval rating is locating all-time lows. CNN and MSNBC have less viewers combined than does Fox News, and CNN has fallen to the bottom of the stack again.

On top of all the bad news for the Left, their wonderful Barack Obama is a worthless turd. His proposals are so radical that America is recoiling from him - yet, Obama is pretty much matching his past political record (remember how he was always voting "present"?, but never really taking any position, or voting on anything that could come back and bite him later?). In other words, Obama has accomplished nothing. His cornerstone issue, Health Care, despite having enough Democrats to vote it into law, is still being debated. Energy bills have not been passed. His promise to the gays to end "Don't Ask Don't Tell," and other pro-gay issues, have been pushed into the corner. He has failed to be decisive when it comes to the war in Afghanistan, while his generals beg for more troops, and as his hesitation kills the troops and leads the American death toll in the month of October to be the worst month since the beginning of the war. Meanwhile, Obama has campaigned worldwide in the hopes of at least remaining popular with the international community (and he got a Nobel Peace Prize out of it, though nobody can figure out what he did to deserve it), gone out on dates with Michelle, had a burger with Biden, shared a beer with a professor and a cop, spent a large share of time and taxpayer money on vacations, and has golfed more in his first ten months in office than Bush did during his entire eight years.

No wonder this idiot gets nothing done - he's not in Washington (and especially the Oval Office) long enough to get anything done, except maybe wipe Nancy Pelosi's nose.

Well, at least he works on his putting. He's already good at putting America into a hole.

Now if only the GOP can get their act straight, otherwise the Republicans may see more scenarios like what is playing out in New York's 23rd District.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Conservatives Maintain Edge as Top Ideological Group - Gallup

Gallup Daily: Obama Job Approval - Gallup

CNN Falls to Last Place in Cable News - Politics Daily

Generic Congressional Ballot, GOP Holds Lead for Another Week on Generic Ballot - Rasmussen Reports

Obama swings it to play even more golf than Bush (and all in less than a year in office) - Daily Mail Online, U.K.

Deadliest Month in Afghanistan ....again: 55 American troops killed in October - Atlas Shrugs

New York District 23 and Doug Hoffman - Political Pistachio