By Douglas V. Gibbs
The Christian minority in Iran is about 3% of the population. Concerned over Muslims converting to Christianity, the Iranian Parliament has voted in favor of a bill stipulating the death penalty for apostasy, specifically regarding Muslims converting to Christianity.
Moments after the vote the Iranian Parliament's website removed the decision from their website, apparently to hide their decision from the outside world. Iranian news agencies, however, published the news freely.
A backwards step for human rights, the new law would mean death to anyone claiming Christ to be their Savior in Iran. The bill is expected to pass a final vote, which is expected after it is debated by a Legislative Commission.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Iran: Parliament votes in favour of punishing apostasy with death - Christian Persecution Information
Thursday, December 31, 2009
Iran on the Brink
By Douglas V. Gibbs
As the protests in Iran continue to send a message to the government that the people are ready for change, the leadership has a message of their own: "Go inside or be crushed," or so says Police chief Gen. Ismail Ahmadi Moghaddam.
The leadership of Iran has indicated that there will be no mercy, the protests in the streets would not be tolerated, and that anti-government demonstrators would be crushed.
Anti-Government?
The Obama Administration is being accused by Ahmadinejad's regime of encouraging such "anti-government" protests by their mere support of the people in the streets. Obama, and his gang of idiots (Congressional Democrats), have done nothing of the sort, for the most part. Barry has merely said that the U.S. stands on the side of freedom.
Could Iran be at a breaking point? Could the tyranny, corrupt government, and fraud in the elections be putting fight into the opposition?
During the turmoil in Iran, the minority Christian population in Iraq is receiving its own share of violence. Though Christianity still stands as the fastest growing religion in Iran, violence that forced most Christian Churches in Iraq to shut their doors on Christmas shows that Muslim extremism is beginning to grow again in Iraq. This is not to say that Iraq has returned to the seething pit of hell it was prior to the U.S. invasion, but it does signify that Iraqi forces are falling short in protecting the people - all the people.
So while Iraq fails to protect its citizens, Iran is threatening to crack down on its own populace.
A segment of the population in Iran may not know exactly where they want to go from here, with their protests of the government, but they know that they are tired of the iron rule of the mullahs, and Ahmadinejad. For their willingness to speak out against tyranny, they are being crushed by the government in a brutal fashion. The death of opposition leader Mousavi's nephew serves as a stark reminder of who the demonstrators are up against.
Obama seems to think that these Iranian leaders who are brutally mistreating their citizens for rising up in the streets are those same people who will let go of their nuclear ambitions by the power of a friendly negotiation with no pre-conditions.
The sanctions and blockade are long overdue.
Oh, and remember when I pointed out the term "anti-government," and how it was being used to describe the demonstrations in Iran? I was just finding it interesting that the tyrannical government was using the same term to describe the people crying out for freedom that the mainstream media was using to describe Tea Party participants here in the United States.
Just an observation.
Coincidence?
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Iran battles reinvigorated opposition - Washington Post
Iran Police Vow to Crush Protests - USA Today
Iranian official: Arrest anti-government demonstrators - CNN
Mousavi Nephew Killed in Tehran Protests - American Power Blog
Christians terrorized on Christmas in Iraq - Examiner
As the protests in Iran continue to send a message to the government that the people are ready for change, the leadership has a message of their own: "Go inside or be crushed," or so says Police chief Gen. Ismail Ahmadi Moghaddam.
The leadership of Iran has indicated that there will be no mercy, the protests in the streets would not be tolerated, and that anti-government demonstrators would be crushed.
Anti-Government?
The Obama Administration is being accused by Ahmadinejad's regime of encouraging such "anti-government" protests by their mere support of the people in the streets. Obama, and his gang of idiots (Congressional Democrats), have done nothing of the sort, for the most part. Barry has merely said that the U.S. stands on the side of freedom.
Could Iran be at a breaking point? Could the tyranny, corrupt government, and fraud in the elections be putting fight into the opposition?
During the turmoil in Iran, the minority Christian population in Iraq is receiving its own share of violence. Though Christianity still stands as the fastest growing religion in Iran, violence that forced most Christian Churches in Iraq to shut their doors on Christmas shows that Muslim extremism is beginning to grow again in Iraq. This is not to say that Iraq has returned to the seething pit of hell it was prior to the U.S. invasion, but it does signify that Iraqi forces are falling short in protecting the people - all the people.
So while Iraq fails to protect its citizens, Iran is threatening to crack down on its own populace.
A segment of the population in Iran may not know exactly where they want to go from here, with their protests of the government, but they know that they are tired of the iron rule of the mullahs, and Ahmadinejad. For their willingness to speak out against tyranny, they are being crushed by the government in a brutal fashion. The death of opposition leader Mousavi's nephew serves as a stark reminder of who the demonstrators are up against.
Obama seems to think that these Iranian leaders who are brutally mistreating their citizens for rising up in the streets are those same people who will let go of their nuclear ambitions by the power of a friendly negotiation with no pre-conditions.
The sanctions and blockade are long overdue.
Oh, and remember when I pointed out the term "anti-government," and how it was being used to describe the demonstrations in Iran? I was just finding it interesting that the tyrannical government was using the same term to describe the people crying out for freedom that the mainstream media was using to describe Tea Party participants here in the United States.
Just an observation.
Coincidence?
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Iran battles reinvigorated opposition - Washington Post
Iran Police Vow to Crush Protests - USA Today
Iranian official: Arrest anti-government demonstrators - CNN
Mousavi Nephew Killed in Tehran Protests - American Power Blog
Christians terrorized on Christmas in Iraq - Examiner
Dangers of Socialized Medicine
By Douglas V. Gibbs
As the Democrats push their beloved health care legislation on a citizenry that is against such a program, it occurred to me to consider the results, and consequences, of socialized medicine in other countries.
In order to pay for these programs, governments are required to increase taxes (despite the Democrat's claim to the contrary). If you will notice in all of the nations that have socialized medicine, none of these countries have a thriving middle class. The lack of a thriving middle class in countries with socialized medicine is because the cost of running these programs take so much money in taxes that discretionary spending by the populace goes way down. In other words, so much money is taken in taxes to cover the health care programs that there is nothing left for people to live on other than the bare necessities.
Also note that in all cases the government health care has had to resort to rationing care to try to keep their costs down.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
As the Democrats push their beloved health care legislation on a citizenry that is against such a program, it occurred to me to consider the results, and consequences, of socialized medicine in other countries.
In order to pay for these programs, governments are required to increase taxes (despite the Democrat's claim to the contrary). If you will notice in all of the nations that have socialized medicine, none of these countries have a thriving middle class. The lack of a thriving middle class in countries with socialized medicine is because the cost of running these programs take so much money in taxes that discretionary spending by the populace goes way down. In other words, so much money is taken in taxes to cover the health care programs that there is nothing left for people to live on other than the bare necessities.
Also note that in all cases the government health care has had to resort to rationing care to try to keep their costs down.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Opening for Global Indentification System?
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab, the terror suspect who tried to blow up Detroit-bound Northwest Flight 253 on Christmas Day, is the son of a Nigerian banker who alerted U.S. authorities that his son had been "radicalized" months ago. In fact, the father went to a U.S. Embassy with the news of his son's extremist views.
The father was concerned enough to tell U.S. authorities, yet we weren't concerned enough to put him on a watch-list.
Are we insane?
If he was concerned enough to tell us, shouldn't we have been concerned enough to be on the look out for his son?
We can't be too careful when it comes to these kinds of tips.
As a result of the attempted terror attack, in the hopes of stopping future attempts before the person even gets on an aircraft, many government officials are calling for technology that would quickly identify travelers. An assumption would be that they would like to see some kind of international identification system.
Though I understand the necessity for security measures that extend beyond looking for implements that may be buried deep within the body via the plumber's crack, I wonder if there is any concern that such a global identification system, as is being seriously considered, could be used as a means of keeping tabs on citizens by a global governance body?
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Father of Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab, Nigerian terror suspect in Flight 253 attack, warned U.S. - New York Daily News
Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab, the terror suspect who tried to blow up Detroit-bound Northwest Flight 253 on Christmas Day, is the son of a Nigerian banker who alerted U.S. authorities that his son had been "radicalized" months ago. In fact, the father went to a U.S. Embassy with the news of his son's extremist views.
The father was concerned enough to tell U.S. authorities, yet we weren't concerned enough to put him on a watch-list.
Are we insane?
If he was concerned enough to tell us, shouldn't we have been concerned enough to be on the look out for his son?
We can't be too careful when it comes to these kinds of tips.
As a result of the attempted terror attack, in the hopes of stopping future attempts before the person even gets on an aircraft, many government officials are calling for technology that would quickly identify travelers. An assumption would be that they would like to see some kind of international identification system.
Though I understand the necessity for security measures that extend beyond looking for implements that may be buried deep within the body via the plumber's crack, I wonder if there is any concern that such a global identification system, as is being seriously considered, could be used as a means of keeping tabs on citizens by a global governance body?
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Father of Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab, Nigerian terror suspect in Flight 253 attack, warned U.S. - New York Daily News
Baja Earthquake Felt All The Way To Murrieta
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Early Wednesday a 5.8 Earthquake rattled Northern Mexico's state of Baja California. A hundred miles away San Diego experienced swaying buildings. The rolling motion was felt even further north into Riverside County by residents in Murrieta, California.
The quake was followed by a nearly as strong after-shock, and a number of much smaller aftershocks.
Considering the number of earthquakes on the opposide side of the tectonic plate in the South Pacific earlier this year, it seems reasonable that a flurry of quakes will begin to strike North America's west coast.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Early Wednesday a 5.8 Earthquake rattled Northern Mexico's state of Baja California. A hundred miles away San Diego experienced swaying buildings. The rolling motion was felt even further north into Riverside County by residents in Murrieta, California.
The quake was followed by a nearly as strong after-shock, and a number of much smaller aftershocks.
Considering the number of earthquakes on the opposide side of the tectonic plate in the South Pacific earlier this year, it seems reasonable that a flurry of quakes will begin to strike North America's west coast.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
Who's That Liberal?
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Kristin said (one of my facebook commenters, and an occasional commenter here on Political Pistachio), "Just an observation that your default in describing anyone who disagrees is that they have adopted a 'liberal' view."
Really?
New York Times Bestselling author Orson Scott Card on The Political Pistachio Radio Revolution stated that he believes there should be more restrictions on gun ownership. To folks on the right, he said, that makes him some kind of liberal. He said he also believes in a strong national defense (and in fact he defended George W. Bush's war footing on the radio program), which makes liberals think he is some kind of right wing extremist.
An old friend of well over thirty years tells me he's a social liberal, and a fiscal conservative. While supporting the "choice of abortion," and the "right for gays to marry," he also believes Washington should cut spending and reduce taxes. He is struggling with the health care issue because, while he believes government should help out the uninsured in some way, he doesn't believe it should be done with a system that will endanger the private market, or increase an already out of control national debt.
What do you call these people who are liberal in some of their thinking, and fairly conservative on other issues? Are these those coveted moderates the politicians are too afraid to upset by taking a specific stance on something? And since these folks disagree with me on a few issues, are they just a bunch of liberals as Kristin suggests?
As George W. Bush essentially said when Cindy Sheehan was leading a protest out in front of his ranch while he was at Camp Davie, "Isn't this a great country, where we can protest the government, and even the president, if we so desire? I welcome all opinions."
Though I am not a huge fan of labels, I recognize their necessity for simplified clarification of political stances. By calling myself a conservative it is understood that I believe in a limited federal government, a value-based social issues policy, and place the United States Constitution in high regard and as the supreme law of the land. When my friend told me he is a social liberal, and a fiscal conservative, without having to explain his positions in detail, he relayed his feelings on the issues in simple terms.
So, to answer Kristin's question, and accusation, if someone disagrees with me on the core principles of an issue, considering that I am pretty conservative across the board, that would probably make that person a liberal on that issue. The remainder of their politics, at that point, would still remain to be debated. If they are a liberal, it would be safe to assume they believe in big government, do-what-you-want social issues policies, and consider the U.S. Constitution to be a living, breathing document that can be interpreted at will to mean whatever they desire.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Kristin said (one of my facebook commenters, and an occasional commenter here on Political Pistachio), "Just an observation that your default in describing anyone who disagrees is that they have adopted a 'liberal' view."
Really?
New York Times Bestselling author Orson Scott Card on The Political Pistachio Radio Revolution stated that he believes there should be more restrictions on gun ownership. To folks on the right, he said, that makes him some kind of liberal. He said he also believes in a strong national defense (and in fact he defended George W. Bush's war footing on the radio program), which makes liberals think he is some kind of right wing extremist.
An old friend of well over thirty years tells me he's a social liberal, and a fiscal conservative. While supporting the "choice of abortion," and the "right for gays to marry," he also believes Washington should cut spending and reduce taxes. He is struggling with the health care issue because, while he believes government should help out the uninsured in some way, he doesn't believe it should be done with a system that will endanger the private market, or increase an already out of control national debt.
What do you call these people who are liberal in some of their thinking, and fairly conservative on other issues? Are these those coveted moderates the politicians are too afraid to upset by taking a specific stance on something? And since these folks disagree with me on a few issues, are they just a bunch of liberals as Kristin suggests?
As George W. Bush essentially said when Cindy Sheehan was leading a protest out in front of his ranch while he was at Camp Davie, "Isn't this a great country, where we can protest the government, and even the president, if we so desire? I welcome all opinions."
Though I am not a huge fan of labels, I recognize their necessity for simplified clarification of political stances. By calling myself a conservative it is understood that I believe in a limited federal government, a value-based social issues policy, and place the United States Constitution in high regard and as the supreme law of the land. When my friend told me he is a social liberal, and a fiscal conservative, without having to explain his positions in detail, he relayed his feelings on the issues in simple terms.
So, to answer Kristin's question, and accusation, if someone disagrees with me on the core principles of an issue, considering that I am pretty conservative across the board, that would probably make that person a liberal on that issue. The remainder of their politics, at that point, would still remain to be debated. If they are a liberal, it would be safe to assume they believe in big government, do-what-you-want social issues policies, and consider the U.S. Constitution to be a living, breathing document that can be interpreted at will to mean whatever they desire.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Rush Limbaugh Rushed to Hospital in Hawaii
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Rush Limbaugh, conservative radio talk show host, has been rushed to the hospital in Hawaii during his vacation due to chest pains. He is currently listed as being in serious condition. No other information at this time. Updates will be added to this article as information becomes more available.
UPDATE: Rush Limbaugh's hospitalization remains a mystery in USA Today's report. Due to privacy, little information is being released.
UPDATE: Friday morning the Associated Press is reporting that Rush Limbaugh is resting comfortably after the chest pains he suffered while on vacation in Hawaii. He is currently in the hospital in the city of Honolulu.
UPDATE: New Years Eve guest host Dr. Walter E. Williams confirmed that Rush Limbaugh is resting comfortably, and is undergoing tests to determine what the chest pains truly were. So far, however, we still have no word on the details. Prayers continue to go out for Rush, and this writer can only simply say: "Dittos, Rush."
UPDATE: Tests reveal nothing wrong with Rush Limbaugh's heart.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Rush Limbaugh in Serious Condition at Honolulu Hospital - KHON2
Report: Rush Limbaugh taken to Hawaii hospital - USA Today
Rush Limbaugh admitted to Honolulu hospital - Associated Press, Yahoo News
An Update on Rush's Condition - Rush Limbaugh dot com
No Heart Disease for Rush Limbaugh - ABC News
Rush Limbaugh, conservative radio talk show host, has been rushed to the hospital in Hawaii during his vacation due to chest pains. He is currently listed as being in serious condition. No other information at this time. Updates will be added to this article as information becomes more available.
UPDATE: Rush Limbaugh's hospitalization remains a mystery in USA Today's report. Due to privacy, little information is being released.
UPDATE: Friday morning the Associated Press is reporting that Rush Limbaugh is resting comfortably after the chest pains he suffered while on vacation in Hawaii. He is currently in the hospital in the city of Honolulu.
UPDATE: New Years Eve guest host Dr. Walter E. Williams confirmed that Rush Limbaugh is resting comfortably, and is undergoing tests to determine what the chest pains truly were. So far, however, we still have no word on the details. Prayers continue to go out for Rush, and this writer can only simply say: "Dittos, Rush."
UPDATE: Tests reveal nothing wrong with Rush Limbaugh's heart.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Rush Limbaugh in Serious Condition at Honolulu Hospital - KHON2
Report: Rush Limbaugh taken to Hawaii hospital - USA Today
Rush Limbaugh admitted to Honolulu hospital - Associated Press, Yahoo News
An Update on Rush's Condition - Rush Limbaugh dot com
No Heart Disease for Rush Limbaugh - ABC News
%2520(500).jpg)
Where's President Obama?
After we have an attempted terrorist attack(s) against the United States, and our national security measures are now in question, Where is President Obama?
Oh, yeah, still on vacation.
[America is shaking their heads in dismay - except for the far left radicals who will defend the incompetence of their party regardless of the facts]
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Oh, yeah, still on vacation.
[America is shaking their heads in dismay - except for the far left radicals who will defend the incompetence of their party regardless of the facts]
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Islamic Terrorists Training In America
Jihad USA: Muslim Terror Training, Hancock, New York
This video was sent to me by my friend Ryan Mauro, the founder of WorldThreats.com, the National Security Researcher for the Christian Action Network, and the Director of Intelligence for the Asymmetric Warfare and Intelligence Center (AWIC).
The video shows Muslim converts at a compound called "Islamberg" in New York engaging in guerilla warfare training.
Ryan asked me to pay special attention to the converts shooting into a lake, scaling fabricated walls, marching in military fatigue, practicing stealth maneuvers, and learning combat involving swords and knives, including how to slit someone’s throat. He also told me to watch for the excerpts of a separate propaganda tape from the same organization where two of its leaders declare the U.S. is a Muslim country and that they will "not sit idly by and let our country be destroyed by this hidden hand," referring to evil forces attacking the Muslims.
I asked Ryan Mauro to come on my Political Pistachio Radio program in the near future to discuss the video, the happenings in Yemen and Iran, and the Fight 253 terror attempts over Christmas weekend - and he said "yes."
Watch for the post regarding the date he will be on the show, which should be in the next week or two.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
This video was sent to me by my friend Ryan Mauro, the founder of WorldThreats.com, the National Security Researcher for the Christian Action Network, and the Director of Intelligence for the Asymmetric Warfare and Intelligence Center (AWIC).
The video shows Muslim converts at a compound called "Islamberg" in New York engaging in guerilla warfare training.
Ryan asked me to pay special attention to the converts shooting into a lake, scaling fabricated walls, marching in military fatigue, practicing stealth maneuvers, and learning combat involving swords and knives, including how to slit someone’s throat. He also told me to watch for the excerpts of a separate propaganda tape from the same organization where two of its leaders declare the U.S. is a Muslim country and that they will "not sit idly by and let our country be destroyed by this hidden hand," referring to evil forces attacking the Muslims.
I asked Ryan Mauro to come on my Political Pistachio Radio program in the near future to discuss the video, the happenings in Yemen and Iran, and the Fight 253 terror attempts over Christmas weekend - and he said "yes."
Watch for the post regarding the date he will be on the show, which should be in the next week or two.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
Failed National Security
By Douglas V. Gibbs
After the Nigerian terrorist scare on board Northwest Flight 253 caught the attention of the world, and reminded us that terrorism still lurks out there ready to strike, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano proudly proclaimed that the system of security around our airlines works. She later, after an outcry that reminded her that the system failed miserably by letting the terrorists on board the flights in the first place, backpedaled.
The System failed, and it failed miserably.
As with liberalism's gun control mentality, the Democrats in power are too busy worried about "things," and not people. Government politicians of all stripes have been banning nail clippers, box cutters, bottles of liquid, and the like, which is all well and good since these items can be used as implements of terror, but the mindless bureaucrats fail to get at the root of the problem.
I am sure you have heard the old saying, "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." The same principle applies with terrorism. A box cutter in the hands of someone like me on board a plane poses no threat, but a box cutter in the hands of someone bent on terrorist actions does. The box cutters do not commit the terrorism, the people with the box cutters in their hands commit terrorism.
In response to the events over the skies of Detroit initiated by Nigerian Muslims, more security measures have been put into place. The wise security forces are looking for more "things," and have also increased the number of in flight rules as well. Now, thanks to their onslaught of security measures, you must keep keep your hands on your lap, hold your urine, and put that Bible away (Korans, I am sure, will seek an exception to the rule).
Terrorists will always find ways around the rules.
The heart of the problem lies in our unwillingness to accept who our enemy is, and recognize them as such. Political Correctness has handcuffed our common sense. At Fort Hood Nidal Malik Hasan gave us every warning short of writing "I am a terrorist" on his forehead, and yet because of fear of offending the poor Muslim, and all kinds of other symptoms of Political Correctness, a dozen-plus soldiers are dead. Though all Muslims are not terrorists, nearly all terrorists we are encountering in today's world are Muslim. Therefore, in addition to our current security measures that seem to be missing something, why not pay extra special attention to Muslims as well when they come through security?
The bleeding hearts of multi-cultural, make-love-not war, we've-got-to-be-tolerant leftists is rising in the distance. I can hear their eruption now. "How awful! You can't profile! That's discrimination!"
Would you rather be dead?
When Great Britain was having terrorist problems with the Irish Republican Army do you think their security was frisking folks of Japanese descent? Were they checking the purse of a little old woman from Switzerland while allowing the Irish man with a scowl to walk on by?
Of course not.
Britain recognized who the threat was, and zeroed in on members of that group.
When the L.A. Gang Unit is patrolling the streets of Los Angeles do you think they pay special attention to the old guy in the beat-up pick up truck, the old woman pushing the shopping cart, or the young males loitering in front of an old building with bandannas wrapped around their heads?
The obvious answer is obvious because you, like the LAPD, are willing to recognize who the problem is, and the signs that identify the potential trouble-makers. The police are willing to profile the most common traits of gang members.
In a murder investigation the detective doesn't make the entire city a group of suspects. He looks for persons of interest that fit the profile of the murderer.
Yet, for our national security, we look the other way when Muslims get on board a flight, and then pat down some old gal for daring to bring sewing needles on the flight because they can be used as instruments of violence.
Not only does our security system fall flat on its face, but it will continue to be a failed system until we are willing to say who the enemy is. National Security will continue to be a failed effort until we do more than zero in on "things," and pay attention to the people too.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Absurd Flight From Reality - New York Post
After the Nigerian terrorist scare on board Northwest Flight 253 caught the attention of the world, and reminded us that terrorism still lurks out there ready to strike, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano proudly proclaimed that the system of security around our airlines works. She later, after an outcry that reminded her that the system failed miserably by letting the terrorists on board the flights in the first place, backpedaled.
The System failed, and it failed miserably.
As with liberalism's gun control mentality, the Democrats in power are too busy worried about "things," and not people. Government politicians of all stripes have been banning nail clippers, box cutters, bottles of liquid, and the like, which is all well and good since these items can be used as implements of terror, but the mindless bureaucrats fail to get at the root of the problem.
I am sure you have heard the old saying, "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." The same principle applies with terrorism. A box cutter in the hands of someone like me on board a plane poses no threat, but a box cutter in the hands of someone bent on terrorist actions does. The box cutters do not commit the terrorism, the people with the box cutters in their hands commit terrorism.
In response to the events over the skies of Detroit initiated by Nigerian Muslims, more security measures have been put into place. The wise security forces are looking for more "things," and have also increased the number of in flight rules as well. Now, thanks to their onslaught of security measures, you must keep keep your hands on your lap, hold your urine, and put that Bible away (Korans, I am sure, will seek an exception to the rule).
Terrorists will always find ways around the rules.
The heart of the problem lies in our unwillingness to accept who our enemy is, and recognize them as such. Political Correctness has handcuffed our common sense. At Fort Hood Nidal Malik Hasan gave us every warning short of writing "I am a terrorist" on his forehead, and yet because of fear of offending the poor Muslim, and all kinds of other symptoms of Political Correctness, a dozen-plus soldiers are dead. Though all Muslims are not terrorists, nearly all terrorists we are encountering in today's world are Muslim. Therefore, in addition to our current security measures that seem to be missing something, why not pay extra special attention to Muslims as well when they come through security?
The bleeding hearts of multi-cultural, make-love-not war, we've-got-to-be-tolerant leftists is rising in the distance. I can hear their eruption now. "How awful! You can't profile! That's discrimination!"
Would you rather be dead?
When Great Britain was having terrorist problems with the Irish Republican Army do you think their security was frisking folks of Japanese descent? Were they checking the purse of a little old woman from Switzerland while allowing the Irish man with a scowl to walk on by?
Of course not.
Britain recognized who the threat was, and zeroed in on members of that group.
When the L.A. Gang Unit is patrolling the streets of Los Angeles do you think they pay special attention to the old guy in the beat-up pick up truck, the old woman pushing the shopping cart, or the young males loitering in front of an old building with bandannas wrapped around their heads?
The obvious answer is obvious because you, like the LAPD, are willing to recognize who the problem is, and the signs that identify the potential trouble-makers. The police are willing to profile the most common traits of gang members.
In a murder investigation the detective doesn't make the entire city a group of suspects. He looks for persons of interest that fit the profile of the murderer.
Yet, for our national security, we look the other way when Muslims get on board a flight, and then pat down some old gal for daring to bring sewing needles on the flight because they can be used as instruments of violence.
Not only does our security system fall flat on its face, but it will continue to be a failed system until we are willing to say who the enemy is. National Security will continue to be a failed effort until we do more than zero in on "things," and pay attention to the people too.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Absurd Flight From Reality - New York Post
Monday, December 28, 2009
Constitution Commerce Clause, Regulate: To Make Regular
By Douglas V. Gibbs
The excuse used by the federal government for restrictions on gun ownership, the disallowance of health insurance being sold across state lines, or the restrictions placed by the feds on anything else that crosses state lines is in the U.S. Constitution. Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution, also known as the Commerce Clause, reads that the Congress shall have power "To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian Tribes."
When faced with the question under what Constitutional authority does Congress have the right to create a public option for health care, or to regulate carbon emissions with Cap and Trade, the response by the Democrats is "The Commerce Clause." After all, the Commerce Clause says that the Congress can "regulate" interstate commerce, right?
The United States Constitution was written with the specific purpose to "form a more perfect Union," which was lacking under the Articles of Confederation. The Articles of Confederation, in an attempt to limit the size of the federal government, and enable state sovereignty, went too far, and did not give the federal government enough power to protect the union. But, when writing the U.S. Constitution, though the founding fathers desired to give the federal government a little more power than granted in the Articles of Confederation, they were still very wary about giving the federal government too much power.
One device used to limit the federal government's power was to divide the power among three branches of government, and to continue to give the states sovereignty over their own operations. The authorities granted to the federal government were few, and well defined in Article I, Section 8. Considering that the founder's aim was to limit the federal government's powers, it is difficult to accept the notion that the founding fathers meant for the Congress to have regulatory powers over interstate commerce to the point that it even contradicts other parts of the Constitution.
By what authority does the Congress have to do what they are doing if the Commerce Clause does not mean what they think it does? Or, does the Congress truly have the Constitutional authority to regulate interstate commerce as they claim?
As President Clinton once said, "It depends on what the definition of is is."
If the word "regulate" gives the Congress unlimited powers, then the argument stops there, and the American People are at the mercy (or lack thereof) of Congress. However, if the definition of the word "regulate" means something different, then it could be entirely possible, despite their argument to the contrary, that what the federal government is attempting is unconstitutional, and in turn, illegal when applied to the Law of the Land.
The states of the union, according to the founding documents, were expected to operate as independent sovereign states. The Unity of the states is made possible by the protective umbrella of the federal government. The federal government, however, is limited to protecting the states, acting as a referee in any disputes between the states, establishing post offices, and so forth. When it comes to the commerce between the states, considering the founding father's aim of enabling the states to work together freely, it seems against the original intent of the Constitution for the government to be able to restrict commerce between the states as current liberal thinking suggests. In fact, considering the conditions of the nation after the Revolutionary War that demanded the states be able to trade with each other without obstruction, it seems highly unlikely that commerce was supposed to be restricted by federal regulations at all.
Upon tireless research it becomes apparent that one's assumptions that the founding fathers did not mean for regulation to be restrictive are true. Commerce, or the trade and transportation of goods or services across state lines, was an important aspect of the economy of the young nation. Regulate, a word that means "to control" in today's language, contained an entirely different meaning during the days of the founding of this nation. With the need of commerce to remain unimpeded, the word regulate was used to ensure the federal government enabled commerce, not restricted it. During that time period, consistent with one's assumption that the founding fathers would not desire to limit commerce through federal interference, it turns out that "regulate" meant "to make regular." In other words, the Commerce Clause was designed to make regular the exchange of goods between the states and to bring parity between the states regarding interstate commerce. When a dispute arose concerning commerce between the states, the federal government could help settle the dispute, but the movement of commerce was supposed to commence and continue without federal governmental interference.
Knowing that the purpose of the Commerce Clause is to make regular interstate commerce, it is glaringly clear that the federal government not only does not have the Constitutional authority to do much of what it does in the name of the Commerce Clause, but it is actually acting in an opposite manner of what was originally intended. In fact, if the federal government was to follow the original intent of the Commerce Clause in the case of Health Insurance, they would not be creating a nationalized system, but would instead follow the advice of the Republicans and open up the ability to sell insurance across state lines. To do so would create competition, reduce the price of policies, and make regular the interstate commerce of such products - as the founding fathers originally intended.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Private Regulation: A Real Alternative for Regulatory Reform - Cato Institute
What Happened to our System of Limited Government? - Price of Liberty
The Original Meaning of the Commerce Clause - The University of Chicago Law Review
Ruth Marcus, the Health Care Reform Bill, the Commerce Clause, and the Ensuing Nonsensical Result - Canada Free Press
The excuse used by the federal government for restrictions on gun ownership, the disallowance of health insurance being sold across state lines, or the restrictions placed by the feds on anything else that crosses state lines is in the U.S. Constitution. Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution, also known as the Commerce Clause, reads that the Congress shall have power "To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian Tribes."
When faced with the question under what Constitutional authority does Congress have the right to create a public option for health care, or to regulate carbon emissions with Cap and Trade, the response by the Democrats is "The Commerce Clause." After all, the Commerce Clause says that the Congress can "regulate" interstate commerce, right?
The United States Constitution was written with the specific purpose to "form a more perfect Union," which was lacking under the Articles of Confederation. The Articles of Confederation, in an attempt to limit the size of the federal government, and enable state sovereignty, went too far, and did not give the federal government enough power to protect the union. But, when writing the U.S. Constitution, though the founding fathers desired to give the federal government a little more power than granted in the Articles of Confederation, they were still very wary about giving the federal government too much power.
One device used to limit the federal government's power was to divide the power among three branches of government, and to continue to give the states sovereignty over their own operations. The authorities granted to the federal government were few, and well defined in Article I, Section 8. Considering that the founder's aim was to limit the federal government's powers, it is difficult to accept the notion that the founding fathers meant for the Congress to have regulatory powers over interstate commerce to the point that it even contradicts other parts of the Constitution.
By what authority does the Congress have to do what they are doing if the Commerce Clause does not mean what they think it does? Or, does the Congress truly have the Constitutional authority to regulate interstate commerce as they claim?
As President Clinton once said, "It depends on what the definition of is is."
If the word "regulate" gives the Congress unlimited powers, then the argument stops there, and the American People are at the mercy (or lack thereof) of Congress. However, if the definition of the word "regulate" means something different, then it could be entirely possible, despite their argument to the contrary, that what the federal government is attempting is unconstitutional, and in turn, illegal when applied to the Law of the Land.
The states of the union, according to the founding documents, were expected to operate as independent sovereign states. The Unity of the states is made possible by the protective umbrella of the federal government. The federal government, however, is limited to protecting the states, acting as a referee in any disputes between the states, establishing post offices, and so forth. When it comes to the commerce between the states, considering the founding father's aim of enabling the states to work together freely, it seems against the original intent of the Constitution for the government to be able to restrict commerce between the states as current liberal thinking suggests. In fact, considering the conditions of the nation after the Revolutionary War that demanded the states be able to trade with each other without obstruction, it seems highly unlikely that commerce was supposed to be restricted by federal regulations at all.
Upon tireless research it becomes apparent that one's assumptions that the founding fathers did not mean for regulation to be restrictive are true. Commerce, or the trade and transportation of goods or services across state lines, was an important aspect of the economy of the young nation. Regulate, a word that means "to control" in today's language, contained an entirely different meaning during the days of the founding of this nation. With the need of commerce to remain unimpeded, the word regulate was used to ensure the federal government enabled commerce, not restricted it. During that time period, consistent with one's assumption that the founding fathers would not desire to limit commerce through federal interference, it turns out that "regulate" meant "to make regular." In other words, the Commerce Clause was designed to make regular the exchange of goods between the states and to bring parity between the states regarding interstate commerce. When a dispute arose concerning commerce between the states, the federal government could help settle the dispute, but the movement of commerce was supposed to commence and continue without federal governmental interference.
Knowing that the purpose of the Commerce Clause is to make regular interstate commerce, it is glaringly clear that the federal government not only does not have the Constitutional authority to do much of what it does in the name of the Commerce Clause, but it is actually acting in an opposite manner of what was originally intended. In fact, if the federal government was to follow the original intent of the Commerce Clause in the case of Health Insurance, they would not be creating a nationalized system, but would instead follow the advice of the Republicans and open up the ability to sell insurance across state lines. To do so would create competition, reduce the price of policies, and make regular the interstate commerce of such products - as the founding fathers originally intended.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Private Regulation: A Real Alternative for Regulatory Reform - Cato Institute
What Happened to our System of Limited Government? - Price of Liberty
The Original Meaning of the Commerce Clause - The University of Chicago Law Review
Ruth Marcus, the Health Care Reform Bill, the Commerce Clause, and the Ensuing Nonsensical Result - Canada Free Press
Sunday, December 27, 2009
Shoveling Global Warming Blizzards
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Record breaking snow falls in the early days of Winter are striking the plains states, and the Midwest.
Slippery roads are being blamed for at least 21 deaths this week. Massive snow drifts and blustery winds are causing whiteout conditions, and the residents of the affected areas were hardly prepared for the cold weather, or the significant amount of snow that they've received.
The storm has grounded flights at South Dakota's biggest airports, as well as at the Will Rogers World Airport in Oklahoma City.
The 14 inches of snow in Oklahoma City broke a record of 2.5 inches set back in 1914. Duluth also has experienced unexpected amounts of snowfall, reporting more than 22 inches in two days, shattering the record of 3 inches in 1893. In Nebraska, a total of 7.8 inches of Christmas Day snow fell at the Central Nebraska Regional Airport in Grand Island. The previous record for Christmas Day snowfall was 3.0 inches in 1941, making 2009 the "'snowiest' Christmas on record for Grand Island."
Once again, as predicted by those that have been saying that man-made global warming is a hoax, and that the warming trend stopped a decade ago, we are now experiencing a cooling trend.
I wonder how long before the old hippies from the 70s reappear, proclaiming that we are headed for the next Ice Age, and it is all humanity's fault!
I do believe the Earth warms and cools, but the trends are natural, and humanity couldn't affect the weather, as idiots like Al Gore proclaims, if we wanted to. Sunspot activity, and solar flares, are a primary reason for Climate Change. The push to control carbon emissions has nothing to do with the weather, and everything to do with pushing a progressive agenda worldwide, and controlling the energy usage of industries and populations. By controlling energy use, all other aspects of economies are controlled. After all, energy directly affects a nation's production of goods, manufacturing, transportation of goods and services, and other industries.
To say it plainly, those of you that have been deceived by the environmental radicals are being fooled. The leftist agenda to give global control to a handful of elites is in full swing, and the foolish sheep of the left have been greeting the slavery with open arms.
What we are experiencing is a corruption of the scientific community, for the sake of a political agenda.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Plains blizzard warnings continue, Midwest digs out - USA Today
Holiday Blizzard Breaks Records in GI, Hastings - 1011 Now
Corruption of the science establishment: causes and cures - Renew America
Record breaking snow falls in the early days of Winter are striking the plains states, and the Midwest.
Slippery roads are being blamed for at least 21 deaths this week. Massive snow drifts and blustery winds are causing whiteout conditions, and the residents of the affected areas were hardly prepared for the cold weather, or the significant amount of snow that they've received.
The storm has grounded flights at South Dakota's biggest airports, as well as at the Will Rogers World Airport in Oklahoma City.
The 14 inches of snow in Oklahoma City broke a record of 2.5 inches set back in 1914. Duluth also has experienced unexpected amounts of snowfall, reporting more than 22 inches in two days, shattering the record of 3 inches in 1893. In Nebraska, a total of 7.8 inches of Christmas Day snow fell at the Central Nebraska Regional Airport in Grand Island. The previous record for Christmas Day snowfall was 3.0 inches in 1941, making 2009 the "'snowiest' Christmas on record for Grand Island."
Once again, as predicted by those that have been saying that man-made global warming is a hoax, and that the warming trend stopped a decade ago, we are now experiencing a cooling trend.
I wonder how long before the old hippies from the 70s reappear, proclaiming that we are headed for the next Ice Age, and it is all humanity's fault!
I do believe the Earth warms and cools, but the trends are natural, and humanity couldn't affect the weather, as idiots like Al Gore proclaims, if we wanted to. Sunspot activity, and solar flares, are a primary reason for Climate Change. The push to control carbon emissions has nothing to do with the weather, and everything to do with pushing a progressive agenda worldwide, and controlling the energy usage of industries and populations. By controlling energy use, all other aspects of economies are controlled. After all, energy directly affects a nation's production of goods, manufacturing, transportation of goods and services, and other industries.
To say it plainly, those of you that have been deceived by the environmental radicals are being fooled. The leftist agenda to give global control to a handful of elites is in full swing, and the foolish sheep of the left have been greeting the slavery with open arms.
What we are experiencing is a corruption of the scientific community, for the sake of a political agenda.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Plains blizzard warnings continue, Midwest digs out - USA Today
Holiday Blizzard Breaks Records in GI, Hastings - 1011 Now
Corruption of the science establishment: causes and cures - Renew America
On the Radio: Another Nigerian Terrorist Arrested, The Gift of America, Catholic Celibacy Rules, and more!
More Terror on Flight 253, Gift of America, Catholic Church Changes Rules, Political Pistachio
Another arrest for Northwest Flight 253's Sunday Trip, Remembering the Providential Gift of America, Catholic Church adjusts: Celibacy No Longer Required, The LGBT Agenda opens the door to polygamy and incest, Paganism goes mainstream, Scientology Revealed, Will Americans Accept Islam? - Political Pistachio Radio Revolution, Conservative News and Commentary
Catch the program live at 7:00 PM, or catch the archive later, at BlogTalkRadio.com/PoliticalPistachio
Fannie and Freddie Uncapped
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are GSEs. GSEs are Governmental Sponsored Enterprises. They were created by Congress to assist in keeping money flowing from those who have it to those who are asking for it, essentially providing liquidity to the mortgage market. These entities gave the federal government a portal into the private sector, and allowed the GSEs to hold a monopoly on the secondary mortgage market.
Through the GSEs, and the federal reserve, the federal government imposes its will on the banking industry, while claiming Fannie and Freddie to be private entities. Through the secondary mortgage market the federal government is able to keep the private sector on a short leash. This is part of the reason the feds were so quick to want to bail out the GSEs. Without them, manipulation of the market would be more difficult.
The GSEs have been a topic for corruption in the past, and it was no surprise when they ran into trouble. Under the pull-strings of the federal government a housing bubble was created, and despite the warnings by George W. Bush and the Republicans during Bush's first term, and early on in his second term, that Fannie and Freddie were headed for a collapse, the leftists continued to proclaim that the GSEs were too big to fail.
As predicted by conservative economists like Peter Schiff, the housing bubble burst, and the economy found itself in a downward spiral.
If, at the early moments of the economic downturn the free market forces had been allowed to adjust naturally, the recession would have never commenced, and the unemployment rate would not have jumped to double digits. Large failures like AIG, and the GSEs, would have collapsed, and smaller players would have filled the void as lenders began to prosper under new clear skies devoid of the government's iron fist through the GSEs. Instead, the Democrats began running around in circles screaming we were headed for the worst depression since the Great Depression, tried to create a panic with their fear-mongering, and demanded that our economy's only salvation was for government to spend untold trillions, and to gain fascist-like control over the private sector.
Failed entities were saved with bail-out money so that they could continue to practice their failed policies, and as a result our economy is tanking further, our national debt is rising at an unprecedented pace, and our choices (a.k.a. liberties) are being plucked up by the federal government through policies like Cap and Trade and the Health Care legislation under the guise that it is good for us, and for our own good - when ultimately the policies kill liberty, and enslave the people.
Pelosi has requested that the federal borrowing limit be raised, and the U.S. Treasury has unconstitutionally (unconstitutional because only Congress can make such decisions) eliminated the cap for how much funds can be fed into Fannie and Freddie.
How far will this go? How many times will the federal government ignore the Constitution as they continue their quest of bankrupting the country? We are seeing wage controls and price controls being imposed on bailed out corporations - how long before those Marxist policies like those limits are applied across the board? How long before America stops being the land of opportunity, and becomes a Marxist state enslaving the people with radical socialism?
How long?
A revolution is rising. In 2010 the leftists will lose in a landslide. The big question is, have the Republicans learned their lesson? Or will they continue to ignore the need for Constitutional-style leadership? How long before they return to their roots, and work to move America back to the Constitutionally based idea of a small federal government?
The lessons being learned by handing the reins over to a bunch of socialist radicals will be wasted if we don't turn this mess around with conservatism.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
US uncaps Fannie/Freddie support, announces during Christmas holiday - Hot Air
Democrats to seek higher limit on the federal debt - Washington Post
Shocking Video Unearthed Democrats in their own words Covering up the Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac Scam that caused our Economic Crisis - You Tube
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are GSEs. GSEs are Governmental Sponsored Enterprises. They were created by Congress to assist in keeping money flowing from those who have it to those who are asking for it, essentially providing liquidity to the mortgage market. These entities gave the federal government a portal into the private sector, and allowed the GSEs to hold a monopoly on the secondary mortgage market.
Through the GSEs, and the federal reserve, the federal government imposes its will on the banking industry, while claiming Fannie and Freddie to be private entities. Through the secondary mortgage market the federal government is able to keep the private sector on a short leash. This is part of the reason the feds were so quick to want to bail out the GSEs. Without them, manipulation of the market would be more difficult.
The GSEs have been a topic for corruption in the past, and it was no surprise when they ran into trouble. Under the pull-strings of the federal government a housing bubble was created, and despite the warnings by George W. Bush and the Republicans during Bush's first term, and early on in his second term, that Fannie and Freddie were headed for a collapse, the leftists continued to proclaim that the GSEs were too big to fail.
As predicted by conservative economists like Peter Schiff, the housing bubble burst, and the economy found itself in a downward spiral.
If, at the early moments of the economic downturn the free market forces had been allowed to adjust naturally, the recession would have never commenced, and the unemployment rate would not have jumped to double digits. Large failures like AIG, and the GSEs, would have collapsed, and smaller players would have filled the void as lenders began to prosper under new clear skies devoid of the government's iron fist through the GSEs. Instead, the Democrats began running around in circles screaming we were headed for the worst depression since the Great Depression, tried to create a panic with their fear-mongering, and demanded that our economy's only salvation was for government to spend untold trillions, and to gain fascist-like control over the private sector.
Failed entities were saved with bail-out money so that they could continue to practice their failed policies, and as a result our economy is tanking further, our national debt is rising at an unprecedented pace, and our choices (a.k.a. liberties) are being plucked up by the federal government through policies like Cap and Trade and the Health Care legislation under the guise that it is good for us, and for our own good - when ultimately the policies kill liberty, and enslave the people.
Pelosi has requested that the federal borrowing limit be raised, and the U.S. Treasury has unconstitutionally (unconstitutional because only Congress can make such decisions) eliminated the cap for how much funds can be fed into Fannie and Freddie.
How far will this go? How many times will the federal government ignore the Constitution as they continue their quest of bankrupting the country? We are seeing wage controls and price controls being imposed on bailed out corporations - how long before those Marxist policies like those limits are applied across the board? How long before America stops being the land of opportunity, and becomes a Marxist state enslaving the people with radical socialism?
How long?
A revolution is rising. In 2010 the leftists will lose in a landslide. The big question is, have the Republicans learned their lesson? Or will they continue to ignore the need for Constitutional-style leadership? How long before they return to their roots, and work to move America back to the Constitutionally based idea of a small federal government?
The lessons being learned by handing the reins over to a bunch of socialist radicals will be wasted if we don't turn this mess around with conservatism.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
US uncaps Fannie/Freddie support, announces during Christmas holiday - Hot Air
Democrats to seek higher limit on the federal debt - Washington Post
Shocking Video Unearthed Democrats in their own words Covering up the Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac Scam that caused our Economic Crisis - You Tube
Time Warner Cable To Drop Fox Without Resolution to Negotiations
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Time-Warner Cable is the second largest cable provider in the nation. Negotiations with fees are not going well, and it is possible that the cable company will be dropping FOX, the Weather Channel, and Scripps Networks from their lineup. Broadcast channels were once offered to cable carriers for free, but not in the struggling market FOX is asking for a per-subscriber fee to be paid by Time-Warner for the privilege of carrying the FOX Network.
Come the first of the year, if an agreement does not materialize, Time-Warner subscribers will be missing their favorite shows, and some of the NFL playoff games.
There has been some rumblings that Congress should get involved, which is a mistake. Not only is it unconstitutional, but giving the federal government any say over the private sector right now is already a worry, and we don't need to be handing the feds another part of our lives. Besides, Time-Warner and NewsCorp are entitled to their business dealings, and as a private corporation, Time-Warner can make any decision they wish. After all, the best regulators of business is not government, but is the people, and if Time-Warner drops FOX, they will drop like a rock, and the next cable system will take their place at number two.
That is how the free market works. Survival of the fittest, and survival of the businesses that make the consumers happiest.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Time Warner Cable, Fox negotiations near 11th hour - CNN Money
Time-Warner Cable is the second largest cable provider in the nation. Negotiations with fees are not going well, and it is possible that the cable company will be dropping FOX, the Weather Channel, and Scripps Networks from their lineup. Broadcast channels were once offered to cable carriers for free, but not in the struggling market FOX is asking for a per-subscriber fee to be paid by Time-Warner for the privilege of carrying the FOX Network.
Come the first of the year, if an agreement does not materialize, Time-Warner subscribers will be missing their favorite shows, and some of the NFL playoff games.
There has been some rumblings that Congress should get involved, which is a mistake. Not only is it unconstitutional, but giving the federal government any say over the private sector right now is already a worry, and we don't need to be handing the feds another part of our lives. Besides, Time-Warner and NewsCorp are entitled to their business dealings, and as a private corporation, Time-Warner can make any decision they wish. After all, the best regulators of business is not government, but is the people, and if Time-Warner drops FOX, they will drop like a rock, and the next cable system will take their place at number two.
That is how the free market works. Survival of the fittest, and survival of the businesses that make the consumers happiest.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Time Warner Cable, Fox negotiations near 11th hour - CNN Money
Historical Example of Liberalism: Argentina
From: Doug Ross @ Journal
In the early 20th century, Argentina was one of the richest countries in the world. While Great Britain 's maritime power and its far-flung empire had propelled it to a dominant position among the world's industrialized nations, only the United States challenged Argentina for the position of the world's second-most powerful economy. It was blessed with abundant agriculture, vast swaths of rich farmland laced with navigable rivers and an accessible port system. Its level of industrialization was higher than many European countries: railroads, automobiles and telephones were commonplace.
In 1916, a new president was elected. Hipólito Irigoyen had formed a party called The Radicals under the banner of "fundamental change" with an appeal to the middle class. Among Irigoyen's changes: mandatory pension insurance, mandatory health insurance, and support for low-income housing construction to stimulate the economy. Put simply, the state assumed economic control of a vast swath of the country's operations and began assessing new payroll taxes to fund its efforts. With an increasing flow of funds into these entitlement programs, the government's payouts soon became overly generous...
Finish Reading this Fantastic Piece at Doug Ross @ Journal
Second Nigerian Suspect in Custody in Detroit
By Douglas V. Gibbs
A second incident on the same flight number, Northwest/Delta 253, has erupted today. The plane was returning from another trip from Amsterdam when the pilot radioed for emergency help. The suspect boarded in Nigeria as did the Christmas Day terrorist, and has been apprehended. The suspect barracaded himself in the bathroom for an hour before he was brought out. It is unclear, at this time, if there is a connection of this disturbance with the attempt to blow up the plane on Christmas.
This is the second attempt at a terror attack over the Christmas Weekend.
UPDATE: I have been reminded by readers on facebook that Flight 253 is an Amsterdam to Detroit flight - however, the terrorists are boarding in Nigeria, but the carrier and plane is changed at Amsterdam to Northwest/Delta flight 253.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Police Arrest 'Disruptive' Passenger Aboard Plane at Detroit Airport - Fox News
A second incident on the same flight number, Northwest/Delta 253, has erupted today. The plane was returning from another trip from Amsterdam when the pilot radioed for emergency help. The suspect boarded in Nigeria as did the Christmas Day terrorist, and has been apprehended. The suspect barracaded himself in the bathroom for an hour before he was brought out. It is unclear, at this time, if there is a connection of this disturbance with the attempt to blow up the plane on Christmas.
This is the second attempt at a terror attack over the Christmas Weekend.
UPDATE: I have been reminded by readers on facebook that Flight 253 is an Amsterdam to Detroit flight - however, the terrorists are boarding in Nigeria, but the carrier and plane is changed at Amsterdam to Northwest/Delta flight 253.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Police Arrest 'Disruptive' Passenger Aboard Plane at Detroit Airport - Fox News
White House Christmas Ornaments
By Douglas V. Gibbs
What kind of crazy, radical, hard left Marxist narcissist would have ornaments with a picture of themselves added to Mount Rushmore, Mao Tse Tung and a transvestite hanging on their tree?
You guessed it! Barack Hussein Obama.
Now, before you formulate your response about how Obama is trying to reach out to everyone equally, ask yourself: What would have been the media response if Bush had a communist leader on his tree, or had an ornament that added his head to Mount Rushmore?
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
What kind of crazy, radical, hard left Marxist narcissist would have ornaments with a picture of themselves added to Mount Rushmore, Mao Tse Tung and a transvestite hanging on their tree?
You guessed it! Barack Hussein Obama.
Now, before you formulate your response about how Obama is trying to reach out to everyone equally, ask yourself: What would have been the media response if Bush had a communist leader on his tree, or had an ornament that added his head to Mount Rushmore?
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Airlines Respond To Terrorist Attack Attempt
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Northwest Flight 253 nearly became a fiery ball of destruction over Detroit, Michigan. The passengers, in heroic fashion, took action, getting out of their seats, diving over seats where necessary, and stopping the Nigerian Muslim from igniting the incendiary device, and destroying the wide body jet.
Barack Obama, on vacation, was informed about it and did nothing. George W. Bush, I have no doubt, would have been immediately on his way to Washington to deal with the situation, and address the American People about the episode.
In the absence of Presidential leadership, the airlines have taken their own actions, and in the tradition of liberal thinking, has created new rules that not only will not do much in the sense of stopping terror, but will actually impede any attempts by passengers to stop such events.
Gun control takes the position that it is the guns that causes gun violence, rather than the individuals. Simply said, if a conservative doesn't like guns, they don't buy one. If liberals don't like guns, they want to make sure no one owns one.
Terror in the skies, like in the case of gun violence, is caused by individuals determined to cause terror. The individuals most often guilty of such terror are Muslim males, of which the airlines refuse to profile at the airports. Rather than zero in on the group behind terrorism, which is more often than not Muslim males, the airlines have decided the best way to fight terror attempts on board flights is to restrict the movement of the passengers - hence, literally limiting the very abilities of the passengers to stop terrorism as they did on Flight 253.
The regulations in response to the terrorism incident on Christmas Day include new rules designed to limit on-board activities by passengers and crew in U.S. airspace. During the final hour of flight passengers must remain seated, and they won't be allowed access to carry-on baggage, or to have any items on their laps, including laptops and pillows.
The expected increase in extra security at the airports was announced by Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano as well, but once again, they refuse to profile. I agree that increased security is necessary, and it would be irresponsible not to increase security in light of this latest attempt of terror against the United States, but even with the heightened security persons fitting the terrorist profile are literally walking by security, and onto the plane as these politically correct idiots frisk old women because they dare have their medication on them.
Profiling, I guess, is too predictable to them. So the airline industry, and U.S. Government, would rather look the other way as Muslim males get on board. The theory is that if the measures are designed to be unpredictable, it will keep the terrorists from recruiting average looking folks to do their dirty work.
While checking the bags of law-abiding passengers, terrorists fitting the profile walk by with material for terror strapped to their legs, or inserted in their posterior. And with rules limiting movement on the flight, the terrorists activities will actually be easier for him. Besides, like with gun control, when was the last time you saw the bad guys follow the rules. As with gun control, the new rules do not limit the terrorists. The new rules do limit the law-abiding citizen's abilities to take action against the terrorists should they see suspicious behavior.
Sure, the Flight 253 terrorist went to the bathroom to probably remove the bomb from its suppository position, and the airlines think if they can keep him from going to the bathroom that will stop terrorism. Then, with the new rules he'll do it at his seat, under a blanket, or earlier in the flight.
Take my gun away, and you are only disarming the potential victim, not the perpetrator. Take away movement on board an aircraft, you are not limiting terrorism, you are limiting the law-abiding citizen's ability to stop terrorism.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Airlines: New Rules in Place to Keep Passengers in Seats - Fox News
Flight 253 jihadist's device part of "body bomb" trend from Arabian Peninsula - Jihad Watch
Napolitano Says “The System Worked” - Sweetness and Light
Northwest Flight 253 nearly became a fiery ball of destruction over Detroit, Michigan. The passengers, in heroic fashion, took action, getting out of their seats, diving over seats where necessary, and stopping the Nigerian Muslim from igniting the incendiary device, and destroying the wide body jet.
Barack Obama, on vacation, was informed about it and did nothing. George W. Bush, I have no doubt, would have been immediately on his way to Washington to deal with the situation, and address the American People about the episode.
In the absence of Presidential leadership, the airlines have taken their own actions, and in the tradition of liberal thinking, has created new rules that not only will not do much in the sense of stopping terror, but will actually impede any attempts by passengers to stop such events.
Gun control takes the position that it is the guns that causes gun violence, rather than the individuals. Simply said, if a conservative doesn't like guns, they don't buy one. If liberals don't like guns, they want to make sure no one owns one.
Terror in the skies, like in the case of gun violence, is caused by individuals determined to cause terror. The individuals most often guilty of such terror are Muslim males, of which the airlines refuse to profile at the airports. Rather than zero in on the group behind terrorism, which is more often than not Muslim males, the airlines have decided the best way to fight terror attempts on board flights is to restrict the movement of the passengers - hence, literally limiting the very abilities of the passengers to stop terrorism as they did on Flight 253.
The regulations in response to the terrorism incident on Christmas Day include new rules designed to limit on-board activities by passengers and crew in U.S. airspace. During the final hour of flight passengers must remain seated, and they won't be allowed access to carry-on baggage, or to have any items on their laps, including laptops and pillows.
The expected increase in extra security at the airports was announced by Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano as well, but once again, they refuse to profile. I agree that increased security is necessary, and it would be irresponsible not to increase security in light of this latest attempt of terror against the United States, but even with the heightened security persons fitting the terrorist profile are literally walking by security, and onto the plane as these politically correct idiots frisk old women because they dare have their medication on them.
Profiling, I guess, is too predictable to them. So the airline industry, and U.S. Government, would rather look the other way as Muslim males get on board. The theory is that if the measures are designed to be unpredictable, it will keep the terrorists from recruiting average looking folks to do their dirty work.
While checking the bags of law-abiding passengers, terrorists fitting the profile walk by with material for terror strapped to their legs, or inserted in their posterior. And with rules limiting movement on the flight, the terrorists activities will actually be easier for him. Besides, like with gun control, when was the last time you saw the bad guys follow the rules. As with gun control, the new rules do not limit the terrorists. The new rules do limit the law-abiding citizen's abilities to take action against the terrorists should they see suspicious behavior.
Sure, the Flight 253 terrorist went to the bathroom to probably remove the bomb from its suppository position, and the airlines think if they can keep him from going to the bathroom that will stop terrorism. Then, with the new rules he'll do it at his seat, under a blanket, or earlier in the flight.
Take my gun away, and you are only disarming the potential victim, not the perpetrator. Take away movement on board an aircraft, you are not limiting terrorism, you are limiting the law-abiding citizen's ability to stop terrorism.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Airlines: New Rules in Place to Keep Passengers in Seats - Fox News
Flight 253 jihadist's device part of "body bomb" trend from Arabian Peninsula - Jihad Watch
Napolitano Says “The System Worked” - Sweetness and Light
.jpg)
Saturday, December 26, 2009
We The People By Ray Stevens
A Message To Those In Congress Voting For Obamacare:
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Political Pistachio Radio Addresses the Terror of Flight 253, and the Terror of the Marxist in the White House
Terror in the Skies, and in the White House - Political Pistachio Radio Revolution
Northwest Flight 253 brings terrorism back to the skies over American Soil, the Senate Health Care bill receives 60 votes, Corruption of the science establishment, U.S. Government uncaps Fannie and Freddie support, mythical man-made global warming blizzards striking the U.S. -
Join the popular Internet Radio Program for your weekend Talk Radio fix on Political Pistachio, your Blog Talk Radio source for the best Conservative News and Commentary
We will be on the air live tonight, 12/26/2009, at 7:00 PM for 120 Minutes on Blog Talk Radio.
Join us live, or catch the archive later, at BlogTalkRadio.com/PoliticalPistachio.
Buying Off Democrats
The deals that were made to bribe Democrats to vote for the Senate Health Care bill reminded us of who the Democrats really are. . .
.jpg)
. . . dirty rotten rats that can be bought for a price.
Get Liberty
.jpg)
. . . dirty rotten rats that can be bought for a price.
Get Liberty
Obama Signs Executive Order To Give Interpol America on a Silver Platter
From Andrea Shea King's Radio Patriot
Of Executive Orders and Trojan Horses
Originally Published December 22nd, 2009
By: Terresa Monroe-Hamilton
With Obama, always, always look at the other hand…
Yesterday, it was brought to my attention by Pierre Legrand that President Obama signed an Executive Order on December 17th that no one and I mean no one, reported on. Cue the crickets… As horrifying as the health care legislation is and I personally believe it is worthy of revolt, this Executive Order has the potential to be monstrous.
Here is the Executive Order:
The White House
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
December 17, 2009
Executive Order — Amending Executive Order 12425
EXECUTIVE ORDER- – – – – – -AMENDING EXECUTIVE ORDER 12425 DESIGNATING INTERPOLAS A PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION ENTITLED TOENJOY CERTAIN PRIVILEGES, EXEMPTIONS, AND IMMUNITIES
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act (22 U.S.C. 288), and in order to extend the appropriate privileges, exemptions, and immunities to the International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL), it is hereby ordered that Executive Order 12425 of June 16, 1983, as amended, is further amended by deleting from the first sentence the words “except those provided by Section 2(c), Section 3, Section 4, Section 5, and Section 6 of that Act” and the semicolon that immediately precedes them.
BARACK OBAMA
Nudge, nudge folks… This seems a minor change but let us break it out for you as we see it. Let’s look at the section from Executive Order 12425.
Here’s the text of 2(c), which this Executive Order now has applying to Interpol:
(c) Property and assets of international organizations, wherever located and by whomsoever held, shall be immune from search, unless such immunity be expressly waived, and from confiscation. The archives of international organizations shall be inviolable.
This now says that Interpol is no longer subject to the Freedom of Information Act. Their premises or staff can no longer be searched either. Their files are not subject to legal subpoena or discovery. Our government could just hand documents and files over to Interpol and Americans would no longer have access to them. Interpol can legally keep files now on all citizens of the US with no right to redress.
In reality, we have just handed over our sovereignty. Interpol headquarters in the US is currently headquartered in the Department of Justice. A ‘separate’ Interpol agency has been created in the DOJ – let that sink in for a moment. Interpol has been granted diplomatic immunity now by Obama – they have exemption from being subject to search and seizure by law enforcement, US taxes and immunity from FOIA requests, etc. This action could also be used to divulge American military secrets and a whole host of horrific practices having to do with going after our military. It’s the road to internationalism on steroids.
I contend this is the foundation for an international governing and policing body. A modern day SS here in the US if you like. Remember how Obama wanted to create a civilian police force? Well, it’s here, just from a direction I never saw it coming from. I really believe you will see Interpol police forces on US soil in the near future. It will resemble the Gestapo and their intelligence gathering techniques. This police force would not be subject to our normal Constitutional oversights – remember, no search and seizure etc. You have to admire the evil genius behind all this. Just stunning.
For a great overview of all this, listen to Steve Schippert’s radio broadcast:
http://takethatradio.com/index.php/2009/12/22/the-steve-schippert-show-december-22-2009/
The Patriot Room also has a great article: Obama exempts INTERPOL from search and seizure on US lands
INTERPOL, an international criminal police organization, is now poised to reside above the United States Constitution – in a place of sanctity beyond our FBI, CIA, DIA, and all other criminal investigatory domestic organizations.
President Obama has just placed our Constitutional rights under international law.
Paul Dickopf in German Army Uniform. Interpol President in the early 1970s.
Garry Hamilton has this to say:
It is well to know who these people are, and where they’ve been. Though the expression “modern day SS” sounds like a hyperbolic metaphor, an examination of Interpol’s roots shows that it is, in fact, more literally true than that.
I was in Europe in 1973 when an expose was published, revealing that many, if not all, of the presidents of Interpol from the late 1930s or early ’40s until at least 1972 were Nazi Gestapo and SS officers. Reinhard (”The Hangman”), Heydrich (also head of Nazi SS Intelligence Service) and Gestapo chief Ernst Kaltenbrunner. By 1942 Interpol was consolidated with the Nazi Central Police, run by the Gestapo. As the Nazis invaded cities throughout Europe, police files from each were seized and evidently integrated into Interpol’s files. In 1972 the sitting Interpol President was Paul Dickopf, former Nazi SS officer (SS #337259).
The source on this? The Simon Wiesenthal Center. Simon Wiesenthal is pretty much the most famous of the post-war Nazi hunters, having impressively thorough files.
Interpol isn’t just any old bunch of thugs. They are rooted in one of the most effective and ruthless gang of thugs anywhere, ever.
If there is anything at all that can be done to nullify this Executive Order, it needs to be done soonest.
The idea of an American President enlisting the aid of both old Communists and old Nazis to bring about the fall of the United States is the stuff of rejected bad novel plots. No one would ever buy a plot that cheesy. I mean, really, would you go see a movie about a President who rose to power through voter fraud and union thuggery, and then brought in the survivors of the two most virulent enemies the country has ever had in order to deliver the knock-out punch to our
culture and nation?
No, you wouldn’t. It would be the stupidest piece of modern fiction on record. It’s totally unbelievable as a story line.
Yeah, it’s really lame fiction.
It makes for even worse reality.
Interpol are not the good guys. Nothing good can come from giving them any domain at all in our country.
And Garry is so very right…
Before we let you go, I want to remind you of some of the ‘civilian army’ items that we have showcased before:
Remember, Obama did this while no one was looking and while they were distracted. No media outlet is looking into it. No one is ringing alarm bells. This is happening and it is here. The Trojan Horse of health care for all was definitely a pig with lipstick. The Interpol Executive Order is a shiny Trojan Horse that has the potential to grind America beneath Obama’s bootheel…
Of Executive Orders and Trojan Horses
Originally Published December 22nd, 2009
By: Terresa Monroe-Hamilton
With Obama, always, always look at the other hand…
Yesterday, it was brought to my attention by Pierre Legrand that President Obama signed an Executive Order on December 17th that no one and I mean no one, reported on. Cue the crickets… As horrifying as the health care legislation is and I personally believe it is worthy of revolt, this Executive Order has the potential to be monstrous.
Here is the Executive Order:
The White House
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
December 17, 2009
Executive Order — Amending Executive Order 12425
EXECUTIVE ORDER- – – – – – -AMENDING EXECUTIVE ORDER 12425 DESIGNATING INTERPOLAS A PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION ENTITLED TOENJOY CERTAIN PRIVILEGES, EXEMPTIONS, AND IMMUNITIES
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act (22 U.S.C. 288), and in order to extend the appropriate privileges, exemptions, and immunities to the International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL), it is hereby ordered that Executive Order 12425 of June 16, 1983, as amended, is further amended by deleting from the first sentence the words “except those provided by Section 2(c), Section 3, Section 4, Section 5, and Section 6 of that Act” and the semicolon that immediately precedes them.
BARACK OBAMA
Nudge, nudge folks… This seems a minor change but let us break it out for you as we see it. Let’s look at the section from Executive Order 12425.
Here’s the text of 2(c), which this Executive Order now has applying to Interpol:
(c) Property and assets of international organizations, wherever located and by whomsoever held, shall be immune from search, unless such immunity be expressly waived, and from confiscation. The archives of international organizations shall be inviolable.
This now says that Interpol is no longer subject to the Freedom of Information Act. Their premises or staff can no longer be searched either. Their files are not subject to legal subpoena or discovery. Our government could just hand documents and files over to Interpol and Americans would no longer have access to them. Interpol can legally keep files now on all citizens of the US with no right to redress.
In reality, we have just handed over our sovereignty. Interpol headquarters in the US is currently headquartered in the Department of Justice. A ‘separate’ Interpol agency has been created in the DOJ – let that sink in for a moment. Interpol has been granted diplomatic immunity now by Obama – they have exemption from being subject to search and seizure by law enforcement, US taxes and immunity from FOIA requests, etc. This action could also be used to divulge American military secrets and a whole host of horrific practices having to do with going after our military. It’s the road to internationalism on steroids.
I contend this is the foundation for an international governing and policing body. A modern day SS here in the US if you like. Remember how Obama wanted to create a civilian police force? Well, it’s here, just from a direction I never saw it coming from. I really believe you will see Interpol police forces on US soil in the near future. It will resemble the Gestapo and their intelligence gathering techniques. This police force would not be subject to our normal Constitutional oversights – remember, no search and seizure etc. You have to admire the evil genius behind all this. Just stunning.
For a great overview of all this, listen to Steve Schippert’s radio broadcast:
http://takethatradio.com/index.php/2009/12/22/the-steve-schippert-show-december-22-2009/
The Patriot Room also has a great article: Obama exempts INTERPOL from search and seizure on US lands
INTERPOL, an international criminal police organization, is now poised to reside above the United States Constitution – in a place of sanctity beyond our FBI, CIA, DIA, and all other criminal investigatory domestic organizations.
President Obama has just placed our Constitutional rights under international law.
Paul Dickopf in German Army Uniform. Interpol President in the early 1970s.
Garry Hamilton has this to say:
It is well to know who these people are, and where they’ve been. Though the expression “modern day SS” sounds like a hyperbolic metaphor, an examination of Interpol’s roots shows that it is, in fact, more literally true than that.
I was in Europe in 1973 when an expose was published, revealing that many, if not all, of the presidents of Interpol from the late 1930s or early ’40s until at least 1972 were Nazi Gestapo and SS officers. Reinhard (”The Hangman”), Heydrich (also head of Nazi SS Intelligence Service) and Gestapo chief Ernst Kaltenbrunner. By 1942 Interpol was consolidated with the Nazi Central Police, run by the Gestapo. As the Nazis invaded cities throughout Europe, police files from each were seized and evidently integrated into Interpol’s files. In 1972 the sitting Interpol President was Paul Dickopf, former Nazi SS officer (SS #337259).
The source on this? The Simon Wiesenthal Center. Simon Wiesenthal is pretty much the most famous of the post-war Nazi hunters, having impressively thorough files.
Interpol isn’t just any old bunch of thugs. They are rooted in one of the most effective and ruthless gang of thugs anywhere, ever.
If there is anything at all that can be done to nullify this Executive Order, it needs to be done soonest.
The idea of an American President enlisting the aid of both old Communists and old Nazis to bring about the fall of the United States is the stuff of rejected bad novel plots. No one would ever buy a plot that cheesy. I mean, really, would you go see a movie about a President who rose to power through voter fraud and union thuggery, and then brought in the survivors of the two most virulent enemies the country has ever had in order to deliver the knock-out punch to our
culture and nation?
No, you wouldn’t. It would be the stupidest piece of modern fiction on record. It’s totally unbelievable as a story line.
Yeah, it’s really lame fiction.
It makes for even worse reality.
Interpol are not the good guys. Nothing good can come from giving them any domain at all in our country.
And Garry is so very right…
Before we let you go, I want to remind you of some of the ‘civilian army’ items that we have showcased before:
Remember, Obama did this while no one was looking and while they were distracted. No media outlet is looking into it. No one is ringing alarm bells. This is happening and it is here. The Trojan Horse of health care for all was definitely a pig with lipstick. The Interpol Executive Order is a shiny Trojan Horse that has the potential to grind America beneath Obama’s bootheel…
Terror On Northwest Airlines Flight 253
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Northwest Airlines Flight 253 took off from Lagos, Nigeria with an al-Qaeda terrorist on board. His plans were to bring the plane down as a fiery ball of destruction over Detroit, Michigan. The journey included change in carrier and a change in aircraft in Amsterdam.
The passengers transferred to the wide body jet in Amsterdam without incident, flying over the Atlantic Ocean, and over U.S. soil, as any other flight would. Upon final approach, however, Nigerian Islamist Abdul Farouk Abdulmutallab decided it was time to bring the plane down. The passengers, possibly with the memories of 9/11 still fresh in their minds, noticed the potential Islamic Terrorist lighting an incendiary device, and converged on him before any destructive actions could be completed. The suspect's legs were burned where the device was strapped, along with a few minor burns of the passengers.
The thwarted terror attack of Flight 253 is yet another in a series of events under Barack Obama's watch. The frequency is increasing as each event becomes more bold in nature.
In addition to terror attacks, or attempts thereof, we are also seeing an increase in radical behavior by Islamists abroad. The Taliban is becoming entrenched in Pakistan, Turkey is experiencing an increase in Jihadist rumblings, and al-Qaeda is making a stronger appearance in regions like Yemen. Iran is becoming bolder in its threats of increasing its number of nuclear facilities, testing missile systems, and attempting to take control of oil wells in Iraq.
Northwest Airlines Flight 253 joins a long list of terror attempts against the United States since Barack Obama has taken office. Fort Dix, and the murder of soldiers on base at Fort Hood (to name a couple), in addition to the increase of Islamic terrorist activities overseas, is a portrayal of an emboldened enemy. Islam is testing the waters, making sure Obama is as weak of a president as they believe him to be. The Jihadists know that Barack Obama views these transgressions against non-Muslims as simply criminal actions, rather than acts of war in an operation against the West the Muslims consider as part of an ongoing Holy War.
The frequency of attacks will increase. The devastating nature of the attacks will worsen. The enemy knows that unlike George W. Bush, this president will not take the war to them. The fear of retaliation is waning, and that poses to be a very dangerous position for the United States.
Showing weakness, when dealing with Islam, emboldens the enemy, and Bush realized this. George Bush kept the pressure on with troops, military operations, and language that was crystal clear about his intentions of defending the United States, and moving against anti-American terrorism wherever it is bred.
Leftists like Barack Obama will invariably decide that the increase in terror will be our fault, blaming it on our continued presence in Afghanistan, and ultimately do exactly what the Jihadists desire, and turn tail. Barack Obama is not listening to his commanders, as he said he would during his presidential campaign, putting less troops into Afghanistan than General McChrystal requested. He has moved terrorists from Guantanamo Bay to non-military locations, and plans to try Khalid Sheikh Muhammed, the mastermind behind the September 11 Attacks, to a civilian federal court for trial, turning Muhammed (in the eyes of the enemy, and the world) into a common criminal, rather than a military prisoner facing trial in a military tribunal for war crimes.
Image is what is important to Islam, and an image of weakness is an invitation to them.
Barack Obama has been clear that "victory" is not a term he wishes to use. His refusal to treat the terrorism against the United States for what it is, acts of war, sends a message to Islam that Obama does not see this fight as a war, but as nothing more than a simple misunderstanding. The result is renewed vigor among the enemy, a renewed belief that that their war to bring down the "Great Satan" can be won by them sooner, rather than later.
The attempted terror attack on Flight 253 is being treated as an isolated event by the media, as is the killings at Fort Hood. But even independent actions by unattached Islamists is a part of the whole. Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, Nidal Malik Hasan, and the Northwest Airlines Flight 253 terror-attempt are all a part of the global war by the Islamic Jihad against non-Muslims. It is all a part of their consolidated effort to bring about an Islamic Caliphate. What we are seeing is only the tip of the iceberg. What happened aboard Flight 253 is only a sign of things to come. The rumble of war is alive and well among the jihadists, and Obama's weak National Security policies are fanning the flames of Jihad. We will be seeing more events like Flight 253. They will grow in frequency, and intensity. The war machine of Islamic Jihadism has been reawakened from its fearful slumber, and Obama is not willing to do a thing about it.
Enslaving the American People under Nationalized Health Care, and giving up our national sovereignty to an international panel of mythical man-made global warming alarmists, is more important to Obama than saving American lives with a strong national defense, or the willingness to admit that we are at war with Islamic Jihadism.
Obama is destroying America within, while leaving the doors wide open for attack from outside. Northwest Airlines Flight 253 is evidence that the enemy has been emboldened by Obama, and the Democrat's, weakness - and the attempted attack is only one in a growing series of attacks that will increase as time passes.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Merry Christmas from Terrorists: NW Airline Terror Attack - Snooper Report
Christmas Is Over (in Texas): Onward to Squelch The Obamatronish - Snooper Report
Terrorist Attempt Update: Bomb Was Incendiary, Comprised of Mixed Liquids; Obama Only Notified Three Hours After Incident - Ace of Spades
Passengers help foil attack on Detroit-bound plane - Associated Press, Yahoo News
Nigerian arrested in failed plane attack claims links to al-Qaeda - Washington Post
Iraq accuses Iran of border violations - AFP, Yahoo News
Iran Missile Test Draws Western Condemnation - New York Times
Iran vows to expand its nuclear program: 10 uranium-enrichment sites announced after international rebuke - Washington Post
Northwest Airlines Flight 253 took off from Lagos, Nigeria with an al-Qaeda terrorist on board. His plans were to bring the plane down as a fiery ball of destruction over Detroit, Michigan. The journey included change in carrier and a change in aircraft in Amsterdam.
The passengers transferred to the wide body jet in Amsterdam without incident, flying over the Atlantic Ocean, and over U.S. soil, as any other flight would. Upon final approach, however, Nigerian Islamist Abdul Farouk Abdulmutallab decided it was time to bring the plane down. The passengers, possibly with the memories of 9/11 still fresh in their minds, noticed the potential Islamic Terrorist lighting an incendiary device, and converged on him before any destructive actions could be completed. The suspect's legs were burned where the device was strapped, along with a few minor burns of the passengers.
The thwarted terror attack of Flight 253 is yet another in a series of events under Barack Obama's watch. The frequency is increasing as each event becomes more bold in nature.
In addition to terror attacks, or attempts thereof, we are also seeing an increase in radical behavior by Islamists abroad. The Taliban is becoming entrenched in Pakistan, Turkey is experiencing an increase in Jihadist rumblings, and al-Qaeda is making a stronger appearance in regions like Yemen. Iran is becoming bolder in its threats of increasing its number of nuclear facilities, testing missile systems, and attempting to take control of oil wells in Iraq.
Northwest Airlines Flight 253 joins a long list of terror attempts against the United States since Barack Obama has taken office. Fort Dix, and the murder of soldiers on base at Fort Hood (to name a couple), in addition to the increase of Islamic terrorist activities overseas, is a portrayal of an emboldened enemy. Islam is testing the waters, making sure Obama is as weak of a president as they believe him to be. The Jihadists know that Barack Obama views these transgressions against non-Muslims as simply criminal actions, rather than acts of war in an operation against the West the Muslims consider as part of an ongoing Holy War.
The frequency of attacks will increase. The devastating nature of the attacks will worsen. The enemy knows that unlike George W. Bush, this president will not take the war to them. The fear of retaliation is waning, and that poses to be a very dangerous position for the United States.
Showing weakness, when dealing with Islam, emboldens the enemy, and Bush realized this. George Bush kept the pressure on with troops, military operations, and language that was crystal clear about his intentions of defending the United States, and moving against anti-American terrorism wherever it is bred.
Leftists like Barack Obama will invariably decide that the increase in terror will be our fault, blaming it on our continued presence in Afghanistan, and ultimately do exactly what the Jihadists desire, and turn tail. Barack Obama is not listening to his commanders, as he said he would during his presidential campaign, putting less troops into Afghanistan than General McChrystal requested. He has moved terrorists from Guantanamo Bay to non-military locations, and plans to try Khalid Sheikh Muhammed, the mastermind behind the September 11 Attacks, to a civilian federal court for trial, turning Muhammed (in the eyes of the enemy, and the world) into a common criminal, rather than a military prisoner facing trial in a military tribunal for war crimes.
Image is what is important to Islam, and an image of weakness is an invitation to them.
Barack Obama has been clear that "victory" is not a term he wishes to use. His refusal to treat the terrorism against the United States for what it is, acts of war, sends a message to Islam that Obama does not see this fight as a war, but as nothing more than a simple misunderstanding. The result is renewed vigor among the enemy, a renewed belief that that their war to bring down the "Great Satan" can be won by them sooner, rather than later.
The attempted terror attack on Flight 253 is being treated as an isolated event by the media, as is the killings at Fort Hood. But even independent actions by unattached Islamists is a part of the whole. Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, Nidal Malik Hasan, and the Northwest Airlines Flight 253 terror-attempt are all a part of the global war by the Islamic Jihad against non-Muslims. It is all a part of their consolidated effort to bring about an Islamic Caliphate. What we are seeing is only the tip of the iceberg. What happened aboard Flight 253 is only a sign of things to come. The rumble of war is alive and well among the jihadists, and Obama's weak National Security policies are fanning the flames of Jihad. We will be seeing more events like Flight 253. They will grow in frequency, and intensity. The war machine of Islamic Jihadism has been reawakened from its fearful slumber, and Obama is not willing to do a thing about it.
Enslaving the American People under Nationalized Health Care, and giving up our national sovereignty to an international panel of mythical man-made global warming alarmists, is more important to Obama than saving American lives with a strong national defense, or the willingness to admit that we are at war with Islamic Jihadism.
Obama is destroying America within, while leaving the doors wide open for attack from outside. Northwest Airlines Flight 253 is evidence that the enemy has been emboldened by Obama, and the Democrat's, weakness - and the attempted attack is only one in a growing series of attacks that will increase as time passes.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Merry Christmas from Terrorists: NW Airline Terror Attack - Snooper Report
Christmas Is Over (in Texas): Onward to Squelch The Obamatronish - Snooper Report
Terrorist Attempt Update: Bomb Was Incendiary, Comprised of Mixed Liquids; Obama Only Notified Three Hours After Incident - Ace of Spades
Passengers help foil attack on Detroit-bound plane - Associated Press, Yahoo News
Nigerian arrested in failed plane attack claims links to al-Qaeda - Washington Post
Iraq accuses Iran of border violations - AFP, Yahoo News
Iran Missile Test Draws Western Condemnation - New York Times
Iran vows to expand its nuclear program: 10 uranium-enrichment sites announced after international rebuke - Washington Post
Charlie Sheen, Jail, and Domestic Violence
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Christmas Day's time behind bars is not the first time Charlie Sheen has spent time in a jail cell, and I am guessing it won't be the last. The majority of his Christmas celebration was spent in a jail in Colorado for. . . drum roll please. . . domestic violence allegations.
Between Sheen's past cocaine use, and yes, past domestic violence against girlfriends, wives, and the girl-of-the-week, he is an old hand at this getting into trouble thing. Remember, back in December of 1996, Charlie Sheen was arrested and charged with attacking a girlfriend at his Southern California home, later pleading no contest and was placed on two years' probation.
One wonders if the 44-year-old actor, son of Martin Sheen, and brother of Emelio Estevez, will ever grow up (or gain control of his obviously explosive temper).
The "alleged" woman-beating episode took place in a ski resort town about 200 miles west of Denver. Whoever accused Charlie Sheen of the abuse, uh, violence, uh, misunderstanding? had an ambulance show up for her, but she was never taken to the hospital. Apparently the injuries were not severe enough - but the actions by Sheen were - Sheen was booked for investigation of second-degree assault and menacing, both felonies, along with criminal mischief, a misdemeanor. He was released later when the chump-change for Hollywood types like him, $8,500 bond, was posted.
Charlie Sheen's lawyer says this was "much ado about nothing."
Sure, when you are loved by millions, a little violence against women is nothing much at all, right?
Shameful, in the least.
Court has been set for February 8.
Although there is no indication that the alleged victim is the wife of Charlie Sheen (Brooke Mueller Sheen, who is also the mother of Charlie's twin boys born in March), one can assume. Actually, if it was his wife, it will be yet another bitter divorce and custody battle for Charlie Sheen after this episode (you know, like the lovely divorce he experienced with previous wife Denise Richards). If the accuser is not his wife, then we will see an even more interesting bitter divorce and custody battle for Charlie Sheen.
Unless, of course, Brooke is one of those "I am willing to forgive you and give you a second chance despite your spotty history and inability to break from your violent consistencies" types.
Only time will tell.
Hey, now Charlie Sheen and Tiger Woods can do a commercial together - for that show, Cheaters!
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Actor Charlie Sheen arrested in Colorado - Los Angeles Times
Christmas Day's time behind bars is not the first time Charlie Sheen has spent time in a jail cell, and I am guessing it won't be the last. The majority of his Christmas celebration was spent in a jail in Colorado for. . . drum roll please. . . domestic violence allegations.
Between Sheen's past cocaine use, and yes, past domestic violence against girlfriends, wives, and the girl-of-the-week, he is an old hand at this getting into trouble thing. Remember, back in December of 1996, Charlie Sheen was arrested and charged with attacking a girlfriend at his Southern California home, later pleading no contest and was placed on two years' probation.
One wonders if the 44-year-old actor, son of Martin Sheen, and brother of Emelio Estevez, will ever grow up (or gain control of his obviously explosive temper).
The "alleged" woman-beating episode took place in a ski resort town about 200 miles west of Denver. Whoever accused Charlie Sheen of the abuse, uh, violence, uh, misunderstanding? had an ambulance show up for her, but she was never taken to the hospital. Apparently the injuries were not severe enough - but the actions by Sheen were - Sheen was booked for investigation of second-degree assault and menacing, both felonies, along with criminal mischief, a misdemeanor. He was released later when the chump-change for Hollywood types like him, $8,500 bond, was posted.
Charlie Sheen's lawyer says this was "much ado about nothing."
Sure, when you are loved by millions, a little violence against women is nothing much at all, right?
Shameful, in the least.
Court has been set for February 8.
Although there is no indication that the alleged victim is the wife of Charlie Sheen (Brooke Mueller Sheen, who is also the mother of Charlie's twin boys born in March), one can assume. Actually, if it was his wife, it will be yet another bitter divorce and custody battle for Charlie Sheen after this episode (you know, like the lovely divorce he experienced with previous wife Denise Richards). If the accuser is not his wife, then we will see an even more interesting bitter divorce and custody battle for Charlie Sheen.
Unless, of course, Brooke is one of those "I am willing to forgive you and give you a second chance despite your spotty history and inability to break from your violent consistencies" types.
Only time will tell.
Hey, now Charlie Sheen and Tiger Woods can do a commercial together - for that show, Cheaters!
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Actor Charlie Sheen arrested in Colorado - Los Angeles Times
Friday, December 25, 2009
Special Radio Christmas Message from Political Pistachio
Marvelous Love of Christmas on Political Pistachio Radio. . .
Tonight, instead of two hours of political talk, I have prepared a one hour Christmas message for my readers, and the listeners of the Political Pistachio Radio Revolution. In the message I discuss the real reason for the season, and I convey four tales of gift giving that you will probably need a box of Kleenex for.
In Africa a child gives a missionary a gift that contains more than a shell. . .
In Korea on a cold Christmas Eve in 1952 a mother gives the ultimate gift for her child, so that the baby may live. . .
In a bedroom somewhere in America an old man dies with his head on Jesus Christ's lap. . .
On a small farm an old man's inner turmoil is soothed by an unexpected gift from his daughter - that turns out to be God's answer to a once believed unanswered prayer. . .
Join the program live on Christmas Evening at 7:00 Pacific Time, or catch the archive later, at BlogTalkRadio.com/PoliticalPistachio.
A Soldier's Christmas
A Father Meets A Phantom Soldier on Christmas Eve.
He's reminded of our military history, founding of our country. He's called to defend freedom at home. Six minute featurette based on Michael Marks' poem. Poem was made popular by LCDR Jeff Giles, CS, USN, stationed in Al Taqqadum Iraq.
He's reminded of our military history, founding of our country. He's called to defend freedom at home. Six minute featurette based on Michael Marks' poem. Poem was made popular by LCDR Jeff Giles, CS, USN, stationed in Al Taqqadum Iraq.
Thursday, December 24, 2009
The Savior Has Been Born
Luke 2:8-14 (New Living Translation)
The Shepherds and Angels
8 That night there were shepherds staying in the fields nearby, guarding their flocks of sheep. 9 Suddenly, an angel of the Lord appeared among them, and the radiance of the Lord’s glory surrounded them. They were terrified, 10 but the angel reassured them. “Don’t be afraid!” he said. “I bring you good news that will bring great joy to all people. 11 The Savior—yes, the Messiah, the Lord—has been born today in Bethlehem, the city of David! 12 And you will recognize him by this sign: You will find a baby wrapped snugly in strips of cloth, lying in a manger.”
13 Suddenly, the angel was joined by a vast host of others—the armies of heaven—praising God and saying,
14 “Glory to God in highest heaven,
and peace on earth to those with whom God is pleased.”
Health Care Soap Box: Enough is Enough!
By Douglas V. Gibbs
The talk of Swatstikas, Naziism, and Hitler is an often used technique to demonize the policies, or the character, of American political figures. Anti-war activists made use of the fascist label plenty of times to describe their distaste for George W. Bush, and his policies in Iraq. Any support of war efforts can be construed as Hitleric by those that exist in the realm of "peace, love, and coexistence." The comparisons to Nazism, however, are not usually accurate. The whole point, in most cases, of even making the comparison in the first place is for the shock value attached. Hitler, and his Nazi regime, was so horrifyingly evil that the mere off-hand comparison is believed to be devastating, especially if those observing the rhetoric believes it.
Conservatives are often called Nazi-like because some people erroneously believe that fascism exists on the right side of the political spectrum. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi went so far is to point out the existence of signs with swastikas on them at Tea Party events. She made the statement, it seems to many, to come across as one who thought the swastikas at the event were a symbol of the belief system of the Tea Party participants, rather than recognizing the Hitleric symbolism was actually designed to characterize the National Socialist similarities between the policies of the Democrats, and those of Hitler's Third Reich. After all, with all of the past rhetoric by the liberals to call anyone who supported any of the policies of George W. Bush, especially his war policies, a bunch of Nazi-fascist-war-mongers, and then for those same people to show up at a "conservative" event with swastikas on their signs, surely it must be a confirmation, right?
Only in the mind of a leftist.
When making any comparisons to Hitler, or Stalin, it is easy to drag into the conversation the atrocities committed by those persons. Each of those historical figures are responsible for the deaths of millions from genocidal rampages of their governments. That is part of the reason making such comparisons to today's political voices is so effective. The very thought of having anything to do with either of those genocidal maniacs is horrifying, at the least. And if you can convince folks there is any truth in the comparison, it can be devastating to a politician, or a political party.
With all of the silly name calling, and tomato throwing, set aside, it would seem reasonable to understand that behind the genocide, and totalitarian military rule, were socialist political ideologies. Both Stalin and Hitler believed in the power of the government. They believed it was their duty to organize the people, provide for the people, and to weed out any possible dissent where possible. Their supporters truly believed that what was being instituted was for the good of the country, and for the good of the people. Some individuals were unable to keep up with the competition that daily life offered, and these socialist leaders accepted the role of being the provider of "rights" to these poor, downtrodden people. But to do so for only certain groups could be seen as favoritism by the government, so it was reasoned that government must provide these entitlements across the board, to all citizens, just to be fair - whether the other people wanted it, or not.
Nationalized Health Care, in both Nazi Germany, and the Soviet Union, were important policies for those governments. The leaders told the people that they believed it was important that all people in the nation have access to health care, and that is a very reasonable motive, one would think. But like all examples of nationalized health care, bureaucrats began to realize that "all services to all people" was not possible as much as they had hoped. Cuts would have to be made, and decisions on who gets care were cast. Those who carried bad behavioral habits that may have brought on their medical problem to themselves were pushed to the back of the line, since their unwillingness to be healthy, or have healthy habits, was the cause of their sudden need for health care. People who were less productive, and unable to provide for the "state" were also delayed treatment. Eventually, nationalized health care led to more complex social systems, and the practice of rationing, euthanasia and eugenics.
For the leaders, nationalized health care became a means of controlling the people. Knowing that care could be refused by the government for poor health behaviors, or for dissent, the people began to openly portray their love for the ruling system, while doing all they could to keep the regime approving of them. And as the leaders had hoped, the government became the focal point in people's minds. They worked, played, and practiced their habits for the sake of the leadership - to keep the government happy.
The Democrats in power during this time period may not have such insidious motives behind their push for a single payer system that eventually places the government in full control of all things associated with health care. But by ultimately removing the private choice, which is what always eventually happens once a nationalized system is put into place, the government will be enabling themselves access to power never before seen in America. Why would anyone wish to allow the government to have that kind of power over the people, and give the populace no alternate choice if the government system becomes either poor in its working model, or used by a future leader to manipulate the system and take control over the people as was the case in Nazi Germany, or the Soviet Union? Even if the Democrats in power now have no desire to control the people in such a way, and even if they truly do have benevolent motives, what is to keep a future administration from using a nationalized health care system in ways similar systems were used by totalitarian dictators?
There's an old saying about putting all of one's eggs in one basket. Isn't that what nationalized health care ultimately does?
The private health insurance system may have many flaws, and I am convinced that the system needs to be fixed, or reformed. But after the reform is over, I would rather have thousands of slightly flawed insurance companies to choose from, than a single choice that, if flawed, leaves me nowhere else to go.
This is why the Founding Fathers, in their wisdom, wrote the U.S. Constitution with the aim to limit the powers of the federal government. After all, if they believed in the wonderful benevolence of nationalized health care, don't you think they would have given the government the authority to enact such a plan in Article I, Section 8?
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
The talk of Swatstikas, Naziism, and Hitler is an often used technique to demonize the policies, or the character, of American political figures. Anti-war activists made use of the fascist label plenty of times to describe their distaste for George W. Bush, and his policies in Iraq. Any support of war efforts can be construed as Hitleric by those that exist in the realm of "peace, love, and coexistence." The comparisons to Nazism, however, are not usually accurate. The whole point, in most cases, of even making the comparison in the first place is for the shock value attached. Hitler, and his Nazi regime, was so horrifyingly evil that the mere off-hand comparison is believed to be devastating, especially if those observing the rhetoric believes it.
Conservatives are often called Nazi-like because some people erroneously believe that fascism exists on the right side of the political spectrum. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi went so far is to point out the existence of signs with swastikas on them at Tea Party events. She made the statement, it seems to many, to come across as one who thought the swastikas at the event were a symbol of the belief system of the Tea Party participants, rather than recognizing the Hitleric symbolism was actually designed to characterize the National Socialist similarities between the policies of the Democrats, and those of Hitler's Third Reich. After all, with all of the past rhetoric by the liberals to call anyone who supported any of the policies of George W. Bush, especially his war policies, a bunch of Nazi-fascist-war-mongers, and then for those same people to show up at a "conservative" event with swastikas on their signs, surely it must be a confirmation, right?
Only in the mind of a leftist.
When making any comparisons to Hitler, or Stalin, it is easy to drag into the conversation the atrocities committed by those persons. Each of those historical figures are responsible for the deaths of millions from genocidal rampages of their governments. That is part of the reason making such comparisons to today's political voices is so effective. The very thought of having anything to do with either of those genocidal maniacs is horrifying, at the least. And if you can convince folks there is any truth in the comparison, it can be devastating to a politician, or a political party.
With all of the silly name calling, and tomato throwing, set aside, it would seem reasonable to understand that behind the genocide, and totalitarian military rule, were socialist political ideologies. Both Stalin and Hitler believed in the power of the government. They believed it was their duty to organize the people, provide for the people, and to weed out any possible dissent where possible. Their supporters truly believed that what was being instituted was for the good of the country, and for the good of the people. Some individuals were unable to keep up with the competition that daily life offered, and these socialist leaders accepted the role of being the provider of "rights" to these poor, downtrodden people. But to do so for only certain groups could be seen as favoritism by the government, so it was reasoned that government must provide these entitlements across the board, to all citizens, just to be fair - whether the other people wanted it, or not.
Nationalized Health Care, in both Nazi Germany, and the Soviet Union, were important policies for those governments. The leaders told the people that they believed it was important that all people in the nation have access to health care, and that is a very reasonable motive, one would think. But like all examples of nationalized health care, bureaucrats began to realize that "all services to all people" was not possible as much as they had hoped. Cuts would have to be made, and decisions on who gets care were cast. Those who carried bad behavioral habits that may have brought on their medical problem to themselves were pushed to the back of the line, since their unwillingness to be healthy, or have healthy habits, was the cause of their sudden need for health care. People who were less productive, and unable to provide for the "state" were also delayed treatment. Eventually, nationalized health care led to more complex social systems, and the practice of rationing, euthanasia and eugenics.
For the leaders, nationalized health care became a means of controlling the people. Knowing that care could be refused by the government for poor health behaviors, or for dissent, the people began to openly portray their love for the ruling system, while doing all they could to keep the regime approving of them. And as the leaders had hoped, the government became the focal point in people's minds. They worked, played, and practiced their habits for the sake of the leadership - to keep the government happy.
The Democrats in power during this time period may not have such insidious motives behind their push for a single payer system that eventually places the government in full control of all things associated with health care. But by ultimately removing the private choice, which is what always eventually happens once a nationalized system is put into place, the government will be enabling themselves access to power never before seen in America. Why would anyone wish to allow the government to have that kind of power over the people, and give the populace no alternate choice if the government system becomes either poor in its working model, or used by a future leader to manipulate the system and take control over the people as was the case in Nazi Germany, or the Soviet Union? Even if the Democrats in power now have no desire to control the people in such a way, and even if they truly do have benevolent motives, what is to keep a future administration from using a nationalized health care system in ways similar systems were used by totalitarian dictators?
There's an old saying about putting all of one's eggs in one basket. Isn't that what nationalized health care ultimately does?
The private health insurance system may have many flaws, and I am convinced that the system needs to be fixed, or reformed. But after the reform is over, I would rather have thousands of slightly flawed insurance companies to choose from, than a single choice that, if flawed, leaves me nowhere else to go.
This is why the Founding Fathers, in their wisdom, wrote the U.S. Constitution with the aim to limit the powers of the federal government. After all, if they believed in the wonderful benevolence of nationalized health care, don't you think they would have given the government the authority to enact such a plan in Article I, Section 8?
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Holiday Greetings for Democrats and Republicans
. . . Brought to you by ROAR USA
To My Democrat Friends:
Please accept with no obligation, implied or implicit, my best wishes for an environmentally conscious, socially responsible, low-stress, non-addictive, gender-neutral celebration of the winter solstice holiday, practiced within the most enjoyable traditions of the religious persuasion of your choice, or secular practices of your choice, with respect for the religious/secular persuasion and/or traditions of others, or their choice not to practice religious or secular traditions at all. I also wish you a fiscally successful, personally fulfilling and medically uncomplicated recognition of the onset of the generally accepted calendar year 2010 , but not without due respect for the calendars of choice of other cultures whose contributions to society have helped make America great. Not to imply that America is necessarily greater than any other country nor the only America in the Western Hemisphere . Also, this wish is made without regard to the race, creed, color, age, physical ability, religious faith or sexual preference of the wish.
To My Republican Friends:
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year! :)
To My Democrat Friends:
Please accept with no obligation, implied or implicit, my best wishes for an environmentally conscious, socially responsible, low-stress, non-addictive, gender-neutral celebration of the winter solstice holiday, practiced within the most enjoyable traditions of the religious persuasion of your choice, or secular practices of your choice, with respect for the religious/secular persuasion and/or traditions of others, or their choice not to practice religious or secular traditions at all. I also wish you a fiscally successful, personally fulfilling and medically uncomplicated recognition of the onset of the generally accepted calendar year 2010 , but not without due respect for the calendars of choice of other cultures whose contributions to society have helped make America great. Not to imply that America is necessarily greater than any other country nor the only America in the Western Hemisphere . Also, this wish is made without regard to the race, creed, color, age, physical ability, religious faith or sexual preference of the wish.
To My Republican Friends:
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year! :)
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Kat's Carnival of Christmas is Up!
Thoughts about Christmas all in a tidy package (and one of those thoughts is by me!) - Visit Kat's Carnival of Christmas on her site to enjoy it all!
Third Quarter GDP Revised Downward
Like usual, the left can't get their numbers straight, proclaiming false numbers while the people are listening, and then stealthily adjusting the numbers while nobody is looking.
The Democrats have adjusted the third quarter GDP numbers, of which they had originally boasted had grown at an annualized rate of 3.5%. After the Obama administration excitedly hailed it as a sign that their economic policies were spurring growth, they have since revised the number downward to 2.8%, and then again down to 2.2%.
Fact is, if you examine the GDP numbers carefully, there has been no growth in the private sector. All of the growth has been in the public sector - the expansion of big government.
False GDP numbers show no private industry growth, the unemployment rate is over 10% (and the real number is around 20%), and consumer spending remains anemic - yet the doucebags are proclaiming the recession has ended.
I don't know what they are smoking, but whatever it is, it is making them lie.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Q3 GDP revised sharply downward-again - Hot Air
The Democrats have adjusted the third quarter GDP numbers, of which they had originally boasted had grown at an annualized rate of 3.5%. After the Obama administration excitedly hailed it as a sign that their economic policies were spurring growth, they have since revised the number downward to 2.8%, and then again down to 2.2%.
Fact is, if you examine the GDP numbers carefully, there has been no growth in the private sector. All of the growth has been in the public sector - the expansion of big government.
False GDP numbers show no private industry growth, the unemployment rate is over 10% (and the real number is around 20%), and consumer spending remains anemic - yet the doucebags are proclaiming the recession has ended.
I don't know what they are smoking, but whatever it is, it is making them lie.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Q3 GDP revised sharply downward-again - Hot Air
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Ensign and DeMint: Health Care Bill Unconstitutional
By Douglas V. Gibbs
While the Democrats call their actions a sign of desperation, Republicans are challenging the Constitutionality of the Senate version of health care legislation. Senator John Ensign, R-Nevada, is calling on the mandate in the bill that requires Americans to purchase health insurance under threat of a fine or jail to be examined in regards to its constitutionality. Senator Jim DeMint, R-South Carolina, is raising concerns over the constitutionality of a section of the health care bill that disallows repeals or changes in the future.
Ensign and DeMint are not alone in their challenges however. An additional challenge is being launched by Senator Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina, who is asking for a legal review of the Democrats giving states special treatment over others with their bribes, such as the pay off of Senator Ben Nelson, D-Nebraska, who received concessions for his state as a condition for his support of the health care bill.
Part of the argument being used by the Democrats in defense of the constitutionality of health care legislation is that the Constitution allows Congress to tax, borrow, spend, declare war, raise an army and regulate commerce, among other things. Specifically, the supporters of the insurance mandate point to the Commerce Clause as being the authority for Congress to require health insurance and dismiss such potential legal challenges.
The Commerce Clause, using the language of the time period, expects Congress to "make regular" interstate Congress, not restrict it, or take control of the industry. Following the Commerce Clause would be better achieved by Congress opening up the allowance of selling insurance across state lines. By such a move, competition among the different companies would increase, and invariably push down the prices of health insurance.
One of the arguments in support of the health care mandate compares it to the laws requiring drivers to obtain auto insurance. However, in the case of auto insurance, if one does not own a car, one does not have to have the insurance. What Congress is trying to do with compelling people to buy health insurance under the penalty of law is like expecting people that have no car to also own auto insurance. Also, auto insurance allows the drive to pick the policy. Health insurance regulations by the government do not allow the insurance companies to create policies more in line with what the consumers desire. Besides, there is no constitutional authority for the federal government to get into the health care business, much less to destroy the private insurance industry.
Some Conservatives are seeing the challenges as a moot point, since the Democrats will simply use their majorities to shoot down the challenges. However, I believe the challenges are significant because they not only show that the Republicans are willing to stand up against the proposed fascism, but there will be a public record of their opposition, and their opinion that the legislation is unconstitutional.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Health Care Bill Could Face String of Legal Challenges - Fox News
While the Democrats call their actions a sign of desperation, Republicans are challenging the Constitutionality of the Senate version of health care legislation. Senator John Ensign, R-Nevada, is calling on the mandate in the bill that requires Americans to purchase health insurance under threat of a fine or jail to be examined in regards to its constitutionality. Senator Jim DeMint, R-South Carolina, is raising concerns over the constitutionality of a section of the health care bill that disallows repeals or changes in the future.
Ensign and DeMint are not alone in their challenges however. An additional challenge is being launched by Senator Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina, who is asking for a legal review of the Democrats giving states special treatment over others with their bribes, such as the pay off of Senator Ben Nelson, D-Nebraska, who received concessions for his state as a condition for his support of the health care bill.
Part of the argument being used by the Democrats in defense of the constitutionality of health care legislation is that the Constitution allows Congress to tax, borrow, spend, declare war, raise an army and regulate commerce, among other things. Specifically, the supporters of the insurance mandate point to the Commerce Clause as being the authority for Congress to require health insurance and dismiss such potential legal challenges.
The Commerce Clause, using the language of the time period, expects Congress to "make regular" interstate Congress, not restrict it, or take control of the industry. Following the Commerce Clause would be better achieved by Congress opening up the allowance of selling insurance across state lines. By such a move, competition among the different companies would increase, and invariably push down the prices of health insurance.
One of the arguments in support of the health care mandate compares it to the laws requiring drivers to obtain auto insurance. However, in the case of auto insurance, if one does not own a car, one does not have to have the insurance. What Congress is trying to do with compelling people to buy health insurance under the penalty of law is like expecting people that have no car to also own auto insurance. Also, auto insurance allows the drive to pick the policy. Health insurance regulations by the government do not allow the insurance companies to create policies more in line with what the consumers desire. Besides, there is no constitutional authority for the federal government to get into the health care business, much less to destroy the private insurance industry.
Some Conservatives are seeing the challenges as a moot point, since the Democrats will simply use their majorities to shoot down the challenges. However, I believe the challenges are significant because they not only show that the Republicans are willing to stand up against the proposed fascism, but there will be a public record of their opposition, and their opinion that the legislation is unconstitutional.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Health Care Bill Could Face String of Legal Challenges - Fox News
Orson Scott Card Joins Political Pistachio Radio
New York Times bestselling author, Orson Scott Card, will be the guest on the Political Pistachio Radio Revolution on a special Tuesday Night edition of the renowned Internet radio program. The interview will coincide with the release of Card's latest book, Hidden Empire.
Hidden Empire picks up where "Empire" left off, revisiting a near future world where America is an imperial tyranny, and a political scientist has taken control of the presidency.
In addition to the book, we will also be discussing with Orson Scott Card:
- The link between extremism and the seeds of war
- How war is instigated
- The danger of Democracy
- Heroism, humanitarianism, and sacrifice
- The concept of charity
- Dangers of Technology Dependence
- Preventing Evil
- The role of the national media elite
- The future possibilities for peace
- The reality of America's future
Join us for this explosive interview Tuesday night at 7pm Pacific, 10pm Eastern, at BlogTalkRadio.com/PoliticalPistachio.
Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI): Health Care Opponents are. . .
. . . "birthers, fanatics, the people running around in right-wing militias and aryan support groups . . . the bad behavior you see on the Senate Floor is the last thrashing throes of the health insurance industry as it watches its business model die."
Quite telling, isn't it? First of all, the final sentence reminds us that the "removal of the public option" from the bill is a lie. The Democrats plan to eventually kill the private sector when it comes to health insurance (and ultimately health care), and have government take complete control of the medical industry. Whitehouse said it as clear as can be. Second, name calling and demonization is a tactic used by many tyrannies of the past to silence dissent. And that is what they are trying to do with their silly verbal attacks. They are trying to silence the opposition.
I could have sworn during the last presidency Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton saying something about dissent being patriotic. Hmmm, must only be patriotic when it agrees with the leftists. Otherwise, to them, dissent is criminal.
Could you imagine if a Republican Senator during the Bush Administration had called the leftists those kinds of names?
These radical leftists have lost their minds.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Quite telling, isn't it? First of all, the final sentence reminds us that the "removal of the public option" from the bill is a lie. The Democrats plan to eventually kill the private sector when it comes to health insurance (and ultimately health care), and have government take complete control of the medical industry. Whitehouse said it as clear as can be. Second, name calling and demonization is a tactic used by many tyrannies of the past to silence dissent. And that is what they are trying to do with their silly verbal attacks. They are trying to silence the opposition.
I could have sworn during the last presidency Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton saying something about dissent being patriotic. Hmmm, must only be patriotic when it agrees with the leftists. Otherwise, to them, dissent is criminal.
Could you imagine if a Republican Senator during the Bush Administration had called the leftists those kinds of names?
These radical leftists have lost their minds.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Obama's Monopoly Money
Says the guy that is spending, and borrowing, us into economic collapse:
"In the long run we can't continue to spend as if deficits don't have consequences, as if waste doesn't matter, as if the hard earned tax dollars of the American people can be treated like monopoly money, that's what we've seen time and time again, Washington has become more concerned about the next election than the next generation."
President Obama, if we can't continue to spend as if deficits don't have cosequences, then why haven't you stopped spending? Didn't you just say not to long ago that you are trying to spend our way out of the recession? Which is it? Is spending good, or bad?
Interesting, isn't it, how Obama projects like that?
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Obama: We Can't Treat Tax Dollars Like "Monopoly Money" - Real Clear Politics
"In the long run we can't continue to spend as if deficits don't have consequences, as if waste doesn't matter, as if the hard earned tax dollars of the American people can be treated like monopoly money, that's what we've seen time and time again, Washington has become more concerned about the next election than the next generation."
President Obama, if we can't continue to spend as if deficits don't have cosequences, then why haven't you stopped spending? Didn't you just say not to long ago that you are trying to spend our way out of the recession? Which is it? Is spending good, or bad?
Interesting, isn't it, how Obama projects like that?
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Obama: We Can't Treat Tax Dollars Like "Monopoly Money" - Real Clear Politics
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)