Sunday, January 31, 2010

Obama Using Public Schools To Recruit Agenda Advancing Interns

Tea Parties, the Tea Party Convention, the Constitution, and World Net Daily's Joseph Farah

The Tea Party Movement is just getting started. The Left still can't figure out what the movement is all about, the biased media is discovering that demonizing the movement is not slowing it down, and the Democrats in Washington are only now realizing the strength of the genuine, authentic American movement that is rising up in a grass roots manner to challenge the misguided leftist agenda that Obama and his Congressional cronies are trying to force upon the American People.

The Tea Party Movement rose out of genuine citizen disenchantment with the policies, practices and personalities of both political parties. The membership amassed by this movement has grown in size and momentum at an astounding rate.

The Tea Party Movement is now getting ready to hold its first convention. The event will be in Nashville from February 4-6. The biased media is trying to decipher the movement's intents, determine its direction, ascertain its endurance, and analyze its impact as the convention date nears, and the Left has still failed to fully understand what motivates its members.

The Tea Party Convention is generating a stir seldom seen in history. While critics claimed the cost was too much for such an event, it sold out in days, and the convention has attracted some of the biggest names in the Conservative political sphere.

Joseph Farah, founder and CEO of, though not in any direct affiliation with the Tea Party Movement, is an invited guest speaker at the convention, alongside Sarah Palin. Farah's World Net Daily has followed the movement from its inception, and the World Net Daily founder is delighted to be speaking at the event.

Tea Party Nation President Judson Phillips says that the event organizers are thrilled to have Farah speaking at the event, adding that "He was a tea partier before there was a tea party movement."

With a goal to inspire people, Phillips also states that, "Joseph is a welcomed speaker because he is tremendously inspirational as a person and a speaker, able to fire people up and get them excited about going back to their home states and cities and taking this advocacy to the next level."

Tonight, on the Political Pistachio Radio Revolution, Joseph Farah joins us to discuss the dynamics, drive, and potential direction of the Tea Party Movement. Join us live at 7:00 PM Pacific/10:00 PM Eastern, or catch the archive later, at

UPDATE: Joseph Farah was unable to join the program and will be rescheduled at a later date. The discussion about the Constitution, Tea Parties, and Freedoms was very interesting, nonetheless.

Prosperity Floweth Not From Bills And Washington

Prosperity Floweth Not From Bills And Washington

By: J.J. Jackson

Senator Arlen Specter does what liberals always do when they talk too much; they prove that they don’t have a shred of a clue. By now Mr. Specter’s little tussle with Rep. Michele Bachmann has been the topic of much scorn. In that dustup Mr. Specter, who cannot simply let anything get in the way of his talking points, told Ms. Bachmann in an arrogant voice to, ”act like a lady,” when she dared to interrupt the words stumbling out of his mouth as the Senator was searching for a coherent thought.

That was probably bad enough and it was the topic of many conversations over the past week. But what has been glossed over in most accounts of the incident is a rebuttal of Mr. Specter’s actual claims against Ms. Bachmann. In the interview when asked what she voted for, Ms. Bachmann responded that she voted for, “prosperity.” To that the embarrassment that is the Senator from Pennsylvania scoffed, “She said I voted for prosperity. Well, prosperity wasn't a bill.”

The arrogance of Mr. Specter with this comment shows exactly why he was set to lose the Republican Primary this year against Pat Toomey. That is, until he got too scared to face Mr. Toomey and ran back to his true home in the Democratic Party.

This is the arrogance that has brought us to the cliff over which we look this very day. It is the intellectual vacancy which has corrupted this nation and which has been promoted in full by the Democratic Party and even somewhat by the Republican Party for the better part of the past century. It has corrupted our leaders into thinking that by their hands shall flow the prosperity of this nation when in fact we have witnessed time and again that the opposite is actually truer in that poverty, debt and corruption are the most common things that flow from their fingers and the words they so pen with them. There is no shortage of acts that have all been promoted by our leaders and signed into law all with the intent of increasing the prosperity of this group or that favored interest.

In the name of prosperity we have seen a creeping socialist nanny state where our leaders have constructed a huge bulwark of bureaucracy, taxes and regulations often in the name of saving us from our selves and the decisions that free men and women might make. They are decisions that are certainly not always for the best, but decisions which are our birthright as human beings none the less. These actions from our leaders have however done nothing except to enrich the selected few and punished all others making new and numerous criminals from among the American public and of people who have done nothing wrong but to offend the sensibilities of a legislator who enacted a commandment which they desperately needed to further their own power while appeasing others with funds from the federal treasury.

To even suggest, as Mr. Specter did, that prosperity flows from bills and from Washington is a laughable suggestion! How does prosperity flow from laws that tax one man to pay the way of another? How does prosperity ensue when by law companies are forced to produce products of a quality the public does not demand and with features that free people do not want thus consuming their disposable income faster because of increased costs? How does prosperity spring into being when the labor of citizens is directed by fiat to those who have curried favor enough to warrant the malevolent hand of government to intercede?

For years people like Mr. Specter have passed bills upon bills to lift up the poor, to aid the elderly, to benefit minorities who claim an inherent unfairness in American society and to pad the government payrolls with bureaucrats who would better serve this country if they were unleashed from their current roles and sent to create something of true value for their fellow man. These programs have done nothing except expand in number and scope and cost to the point where the debts that they have brought upon us are crushing to not only this generation but threatening to be even a greater weight around the necks of all generations to come.

How is this prosperity? I ask you Mr. Specter. I ask you how raking up debt as far as the eye can see and without a care for paying it back is prosperity.

The answer is simple. It is not prosperity.

All that the hand of Washington has given us in the name of guiding us to prosperity is a death of such that they tell us they will surely provide! We have cars that cost more than they should because of government regulations on gas mileage. We have goods in stores that cost the consumer more than market value because of taxes on those that produce those things and which are passed on to the end user. We have corporations that send legions of lobbyists to the seat of government power each and every week and who promote regulations to punish their competition while securing special favors and exemptions from these same laws for themselves. We have tax payers who have their wages garnished so that others might benefit and in the process have their own ability to save for their own future irrevocably harmed by such leaving them as scared dependents upon their government masters later in life. We have a society where those who are producing for their fellow man must spend far too many hours fearing the hand of government and that they might be running afoul of some obscure regulation or another so they waste valuable time and money on making sure that they are not going to get an unwelcome visit from Uncle Sam.

Senator Arlen Specter says that Rep. Michele Bachmann could not have voted for prosperity because prosperity was not a bill. This shows his incompetence on where prosperity comes from. In fact considering the actions of our government and its track record of inhibiting prosperity much more often than not with its proposals and plans it is very reasonable to consider Ms. Bachmann’s votes against hideous further encroachments upon liberty as most certainly votes for prosperity.

This sort of stand by so many Republicans, although sadly it is has been selective, has led to the derisive ad hominem attack from the left that they are the party of, “NO!” But in reality when such stands are made by anyone, and any political party, against more government stepping into realms which our federal government was not designed to touch, in reality they are indeed the Party of Prosperity. Because prosperity will only happen when government is peeled back to its roots and the insatiable advancement of its appetite is halted.

And of course that will not happen until poor, deluded souls like Mr. Specter are sent home permanently.


J.J. Jackson is a libertarian conservative author from Pittsburgh, PA who has been writing and promoting individual liberty since 1993 and is President of Land of the Free Studios, Inc. He is the Pittsburgh Conservative Examiner for He is also the owner of The Right Things - Conservative T-shirts & Gifts . His weekly commentary along with exclusives not available anywhere else can be found at

Immigration And The U.S. Constitution

By Douglas V. Gibbs

When asked about the U.S. Constitution and Immigration, I have to concede that the U.S. Constitution does not mention immigration anywhere in its text. However, in Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 the Constitution gives the power to Congress "To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization." While reasoning that Constitutional authority over naturalization exists, and is given to the U.S. Congress, it would make sense that the U.S. Constitution allows Congress to also determine how the immigrants can come into our country in the first place, therefore, making immigration a federal issue.

Further examination of the U.S. Constitution also brings into play Article IV, Section 4, which reads: "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence."

The question that arises, then, is whether or not illegal immigration is an invasion, and does the influx of illegal aliens lead to domestic violence in the states?

The American Heritage College Dictionary defines "invade" as: 1. To enter by force in order to conquer or pillage. 2. To encroach or intrude on; violate. 3. To overrun as if by invading; infest. 4. To enter and permeate, especially harmfully.

In the same dictionary the third definition of "invasion" reads: "An intrusion or encroachment."

By entering illegally, which means the potential immigrants broke American immigration laws, illegal aliens are entering by force, and are violating the laws to do so. In fact, illegal entry into this nation, especially by specific groups, falls clearly within the realm of invasion.

If Article IV, Section 4 tasks the federal government with protecting the states against invasion then once again it is not only a federal issue, but it is the duty of the federal government to protect the borders, and ensure only people who have properly navigated the immigration process enter this nation, and live among the American People.

Since, as established by Article I, Section 8 and Article IV, Section 4 of the United States Constitution, immigration is a federal issue, that would in turn mean that sanctuary cities, and sanctuary states, are not only unconstitutional, but under the provision of the Supremacy Clause (Article VI, Clause 2) the federal government must enforce the law of the land over the states. (Note that the federal government can only do this on issues of which the federal government is given authority by the U.S. Constitution. The Supremacy Clause does not enable the federal government to dictate to the states regarding state issues, as some would erroneously argue. To differentiate between federal issues and state issues one must make the determination based on the enumeration of powers in Article I, Section 8 as supported by Amendments 9 and 10.)

Sanctuary cities, and states, by harboring illegal immigrants, which by definition have broken federal law, are demonstrating contempt for federal laws, which ultimately threatens to undermine the cohesion of the Republic. In fact, such actions by cities and states could be considered treasonous since, if illegal aliens are indeed an invading force, making them enemies of the United States, the sanctuary cities and states are giving the enemy "aid and comfort" (Article III, Section 3). Remember, not all illegal aliens are citizens of Mexico coming to America in search of a free ride, or work that will make them more money than anything they can find in Mexico. Among those that cross the American border illegally are sleeper terrorists, and others whose purpose is to destroy the United States. And, since we are in a war against terrorism committed by the Islamic Jihad, it is obvious that people crossing the American border illegally who are associated with sleeper terrorist cells, or are connected to groups like al-Qaeda, are enemies of this nation.

Considering immigration is a federal issue, as supported by the U.S. Constitution, it is fair, then, to reason that U.S. cities and states that declare themselves to be sanctuaries for illegal aliens are not only "harboring the enemy," but are also acting outside of the U.S. Code, sections 1324 and 1325 which considers it a felony to be "concealing, harboring, or sheltering illegal aliens," as well as violating the Immigration and Naturalization Act sections 274 and 275 which reads similarly.

Illegal entry into the United States — entry without inspection — is a misdemeanor, according to INA section 275, (8 USC Section 1324). Repeated illegal entry is a felony.

Immigration, despite the word "immigration" not being specifically mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, is a federal issue and all immigration and naturalization activities fall under the authority of the federal government. It is the duty of the federal government to protect this nation against foreign invasion. "Amnesty" programs, as well as local government's complete disregard for the enforcement of immigration laws, run contrary to the original intention of the U.S. Constitution. I understand that we are all descendants of immigrants, and I believe that the strength of this nation is largely derived from the fact that we are a melting pot. However, immigration with the purpose of following the law, and going through the process because the immigrant wishes to assimilate into the American culture is one thing; purposeful violation of the law by crossing the border illegally is a federal crime no matter how you slice it, and the offenders must be treated accordingly. After all, the United States prides itself in being a nation that follows the rule of law, and to pick and choose which laws to follow, or to ignore the Constitutional authority given to the federal government to protect this nation against invasion is, in a word, irresponsible.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

When Obama Attacked the Supreme Court

Get Liberty

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

AC/DC Thunderstruck with Army Helicopter Sequences

Thanks Wild Phil

Saturday, January 30, 2010

Elizabeth Coulson Caught Lying About ACORN Contributions and Tax Increases

Dana Walsh Running Against Pelosi in November, and an Expert Joins Political Pistachio Radio for an Analysis of the State of the Union Speech

Dana Walsh Running Against Pelosi and an Analysis of the State of the Union Speech

Dana Walsh is an independent businesswoman who wants to serve her country. The entrenched political elite in Washington, seeking their own power, have grossly mismanaged the nation’s affairs, and will continue to do so without action by responsible citizens. Dana Walsh is standing up to take action at this critical turning point in our nation’s political and economic history. Dana is a citizen willing to retake the reigns from those who misuse power. Dana understands the significant issues of the day. The excessive tax burden, complicated government bureaucracy, and intrusive government regulation must be stopped. Why don’t most people see that we are heading toward socialism?” Dana believes that today’s state of political and constitutional affairs is not what the founding fathers had in mind. Members of Congress were supposed to serve their country as a “Citizen Statesmen,” and return shortly to private life. They were supposed to serve the interests of the citizens, not the interests of the government. Unlike many great leaders before them, most of today’s Congress (especially Nancy Pelosi) put their own careers and interests, and the growth of government, ahead of the country’s best interests. This must stop! Dana launched her campaign to help right the country’s policy culture away from its present collectivist course and back toward our Founder’s constitutional vision of truly limited government. Like the Founders intended, Dana has no interest in staying in Congress forever or making a career out of it. Dana considers the most important objective to be: stop Nancy and her liberal / socialist comrades from destroying the country’s prosperity. During the second hour will be An Analysis of the State of the Union Speech with expert James Lansberry.

1/30/2010, 7:00 PM, 120 Minutes

Join us at 7:00 PM Live, or catch the archive later, on

Obama to Republicans: I Am Not An Ideologue. . . Right, and the Pope's not Catholic

By Douglas V. Gibbs

I am about to send cheese to the White House to go along with Obama's whine.

Barack Obama does not understand how anyone can be opposed to him. Megalomaniacs like Obama believes that all people adore him, and agree with what he is doing, and the few that do oppose him are just a small group of extremists that can easily be silenced.

Scott Brown's election to the U.S. Senate was a wake up call to Obama and the Democrats. They realized that America is opposed to their hard-left agenda, that this is a center-right nation, and despite the bias of the mainstream media, Obama has realized that America has figured out the truth about Obama and his radical ideas for changing the American Form of Government.

During the State of the Union speech Obama's political temper-tantrum exposed itself in a more-than-an-hour long whine and cry session that included him lashing out against all that disagree with him. He attacked the conservatives, the Republicans, the Supreme Court, and even some of his fellow Democrats.

Then, to follow up that embarrassing display of childish whimpering, Obama met with House Republicans at their retreat in Baltimore and attacked them for voting against his radical, and failed, socialist agenda.

Obama called his leftist health care plan "centrist" after accusing the GOP of labeling the legislation "Bolshevik." Barry appealed to the Republicans to "look at the facts of the bill," even though it is those very facts that have them calling him and the Congressional Democrats a bunch of fascists Obama claimed the bill to be similar to what Republicans proposed to Bill Clinton over a dozen years ago.

I don't care if Obama thinks Reagan himself would like his plan, it doesn't make Obama's policies any less radical. The very fact that he is freaking out over the GOP daring to oppose him, and the fact that the Democrats had to bribe their own party members to vote for the Senate version of the bill (which would be illegal in any other setting), is proof enough that the very core of Obama's agenda is flawed, and that he is on his way to being the biggest failure the White House has ever seen.

Obama is angry because he wanted to be the great unifier, and he figured a smile and a few choice words would woo everybody into goose-stepping with his plans.

And then, to top off his angry rant with the Republicans, he proclaimed, "I am not an ideologue!"

Why did Obama feel he needed to say that? Could it be that he actually is an ideologue, and he knows he is, and he's trying to convince everyone he is not?

Actions, Mr. President, speaks louder than words - and your actions are a big fat failure. Go back to your Saul Alinsky bunker somewhere in Indonesia and play with your hammer-and-sickle flags, and let the real Americans lead this country - - - If you don't step aside, you will be made completely harmless by the election in November that will see the Scott Brown phenomenon play out over and over and over again. By the end of the year, the Republicans will have control over the House of Representatives, and the U.S. Senate, and no amount of angry whining will help you then.

As for his comment that The Right, by their opposition, leaves no room for negotiation, negotiation is not an option when it comes to radical, Marxist policies. Obama is not a unifier, and a genuine, authentic American movement at odds with his misguided agenda, that the founding fathers never intended, has arisen. The Democrats do not get to impose their socialist agenda on the American People without the consent of the people. Government is not bigger than the law, and is not bigger than the people.

Government does not solve problems. Government creates problems, and then runs political campaigns promising to fix those problems.

Obama has been exposed for the ideologue that he is - and he is angry that the cat is out of the bag.

The American People is speaking out, and Obama can't stand it.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

ANGRY Obama Lashes Out at House Republicans– Tells Them “I Am Not an Ideologue” (Video) - Gateway Pundit

Republican Response to Obama's Visit With Republicans in Baltimore Yesterday

With Democrat Health Care Can You Keep Your Current Coverage Or Not?

Lawfare: The Fight Against Terrorism Moved To The Court Room By Democrats

Discussing KSM trial moving from NYC and the Obama team's approach to terrorism

Friday, January 29, 2010

Geithner Told To Quit After E Mails Reveal Involvement In AIG Cover-up

California Republican Party Vice Chairman Discusses What Congressional Republicans Must Do in 2010

Congressional Republicans have the opportunity to oppose the leftist Democrat's bad policies, and to demonstrate valor and determination in defeating those measures as if the Constitution depended on it - because it does.

A 2010 Agenda must be developed, or the Republicans will lose an important opportunity. The Agenda must be constantly communicated, and be a consistent message. The message must be one that is very different from the bully pulpit the Democrats use.

Join us tonight as Thomas Del Beccaro joins us to discuss what Congressional Republicans must do in 2010. Join us live at 7pm Pacific, or catch the archive later at

Fact Check: Obama State of the Union Address

By Douglas V. Gibbs

The Cato Institute did some fact checking, and in addition to Obama's foreign corporations remark that made Justice Alito's head shake, it turns out that the State of the Union speech was filled with a few more untruths.

When Obama said that in regards to the stimulus, "Economists on the left and the right say that this bill has helped saved jobs and avert disaster," it turns out that is not completely true. More than 300 economists (Nobel laureates among them) signed a statement saying a massive government spending package was among the worst available options.

When Obama said, "We cut taxes. We cut taxes for 95 percent of working families. We cut taxes for small businesses. We cut taxes for first-time homebuyers. We cut taxes for parents trying to care for their children. We cut taxes for 8 million Americans paying for college. As a result, millions of Americans had more to spend on gas, and food, and other necessities, all of which helped businesses keep more workers." It turns out he was not exactly accurate on that one either. After all, he failed to note that more than 40 percent of Americans pay no federal incomes taxes and the administration has simply increased subsidy checks to this group. Obama’s refundable tax credits are unearned subsidies, not tax cuts.

When Obama said, "Starting in 2011, we are prepared to freeze government spending for three years," he not only contradicted what he said during the campaign a year before when McCain was suggesting the same strategy, but also Obama's idea of a spending freeze is hardly one. The proposed spending freeze covers just 13 percent of the total federal budget, and indeed doesn’t limit the fastest growing components such as Medicare. The freeze also doesn’t cover the massive spending under the stimulus bill, most of which hasn’t occurred yet.

When Obama said his administration has created jobs, saying ". . .there are about two million Americans working right now who would otherwise be unemployed," he is partially right, and partially lying. Yes, jobs were created, but in the public sector. Meanwhile, the U.S. economy has lost 2.7 million jobs since the stimulus passed and 3.4 million total since Obama was elected. More private sector jobs has been lost than government jobs have been added - so how is that creating jobs? Besides, the government doesn't create jobs. Government employees do not create anything. Economies get moving when manufacturing is producing. Without a turn around in the private sector job market, we will continue to be in trouble, no matter how many times Obama lies about creating jobs.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

State of the Union Fact Check - Cato at Liberty

Gay Marriage and the Constitution

By Douglas V. Gibbs

I have strong opinions about gay marriage in America. I receive criticisms for those views often. In America it is just as much my right to have an opinion that sees marriage as being between a man and a woman, as it is the right of a homosexual to believe that gay marriage should be legalized. I voted yes on Proposition 8 in California which amends the State Constitution to define marriage as being between a man and a woman. I am a Christian, and I see homosexuality as an immoral behavior that rips at the fabric of society, and I see the gay agenda as one that does not want marriage as they claim to be theirs too, but to destroy marriage and to alter the concept of the traditional family unit.

A legal case involving the constitutionality of Proposition 8 worked its way up through the state courts, and ultimately found its way into the State Supreme Court where the amendment was found to be constitutional. Now, the case is in the 9th Circuit Federal Court. The case being heard in a federal court, in my opinion, is unconstitutional.

Contrary to popular leftist opinion, I do not want the federal government to ban gay marriage across the land. And contrary to the opinion of most of those same people, I do not wish for the gay behavior to be made illegal. Yes, I know I said I was split on Uganda's anti-gay laws, but not because I believe the behavior should be policed, but because of the provision in Uganda's law that treats AIDS as being no different than a deadly weapon. If someone transmits the HIV virus to another person, and they know they are infected with the disease, it is no different than putting a gun against someone's head - if not worse.

In America, however, we have something called the U.S. Constitution. The Ninth and Tenth Amendments very carefully explain that unless the federal government through enumeration or amendment is given a particular authority, the federal government has no jurisdiction over an issue. Sexual behavior, marriage, or anything remotely close to the gay agenda, is not mentioned as being an issue the federal government has any authority over in the Constitution - therefore, it is a state issue.

If Proposition 8 had failed in California, I would have had three choices. Either lead an effort to change the law, accept the law as is, or move to a state that more closely resembles what I desire. The gay activists in California have those same options. Either change the State Constitution, put up and shut up, or leave the state. That is the beauty of state sovereignty.

Equal protection under the law is not applicable here, either. First of all we are dealing with behavior. Second, government shouldn't even be dictating rules to marriage in the first place, much less threatening to change the definition of language to accommodate a group of people who choose a deviant behavior. Third, the people are treated equally under the law. The law states a definition and all people must equally abide by that definition. The definition does not change for one group or another. Therefore, there is equal treatment.

Marriage is a state issue, and the federal government (including federal courts) has no authority on the issue. I do not wish for a federal ban on gay marriage, nor a federal law to the contrary. The issue must be addressed by the states for themselves. Some states may define marriage as between a man and a woman, and some will legalize gay marriage. If someday all states do one, or the other, then so be it. Whatever the outcome, let's at least address the issue from a constitutional point of view, and do so at the state level.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Freudenthal of Wyoming and the Power of the Governorship

By Douglas V. Gibbs

What can you say about Dave Freudenthal?

He's one of the guys. He's a church going husband and father who loves the outdoors and being with his family. Sounds like a guy who can't wait to finish his term as Wyoming's Governor so that he can do more of hangin' with the family, and doing all of those outdoor things, right?

Except, he likes being a politician, and is fighting to eliminate Wyoming's popular term limits so that he can stay in office.

He doesn't want to go, and he is willing to defy the people of Wyoming to stay in power.

The Wyoming State Statute Title 22, Chapter 5 reads that the governor is limited to serving only eight out of any 16 years. Gov. Dave took office on January 6, 2003.

Maybe he took the same math classes as Obama, and is willing to create his own numbers.

Freudenthal is on the verge of creating a constitutional crisis, and with a federal government just waiting to strike out against a state, that is the last thing Wyoming needs.

Oh, and surprise, surprise! He's a Democrat!

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Thursday, January 28, 2010

Obama The Liar, So Says Wilson, So Says Alito

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Supreme Court Justices are supposed to be all about the law, and nothing about politics. When Supreme Court Justice Alito shook his head and mouthed the words "Not True" during President Obama's State of the Union speech it could be viewed as a break in protocol.

One must ask, however, as Obama cried about the Supreme Court decision that he has decided must be reversed, how would we expect someone like Alito to respond when witnessing an out and out lie by the President?

What we witnessed was a President of the United States taking a swipe at the judiciary in a way that has never been done - ever! The closest would be President Franklin D. Roosevelt's (another raging socialist) criticism of the court in his 1937 address to Congress. But we also witnessed a reaction by a Supreme Court Justice who was supposed to remain apolitical. But was it politically motivated? Or a reaction to an obvious lie?

What was the lie?

Obama stated in regards to the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission case in which the Supreme Court overturned two precedents and identified corporations as being the same as individuals, "With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that, I believe, will open the floodgates for special interests, including foreign corporations, to spend without limit in our elections. I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests or, worse, by foreign entities."

Foreign corporations? Foreign entities? Where in the Supreme Court's ruling was it opened up to foreign corporations? There are numerous laws in place that disallow contributions by foreign nationals to political campaigns, and the Supreme Court ruling did not change any of that. Obama's reference to foreign corporations was a lie, and a scare tactic to scare the American People into believing the Supreme Court had somehow opened us up to foreign control when in reality Obama is the one receiving foreign awards and monies (Nobel Peace Prize).

Alito may have been out of line allowing himself to react as he did - but do you blame him?

I don't.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Tea Party leaders Interviewed by Katie Couric

Watch CBS News Videos Online

Katie Couric interviewed Tea Party leaders Michael Johns and Kellen Guida about the The Tea Party movement and the perception of the movement by those who identify with it.

Notice, by the interview, contrary to some opinions, the Tea Party Movement is described by the guests as being about a whole lot more than taxes, as the name may suggest. The Tea Party Movement is a genuine, authentic American movement that is at odds with a misguided government agenda the founding fathers never intended this nation to fall under the iron grip of. As the current administration attempts to impose an agenda with policies that follow the socialist programs of failed governments of the past, the American People have risen up to exclaim that the Obama Administration and the Congressional Democrats cannot continue to do what they are doing without the consent of the American People. Government is not bigger than the law, and it is not bigger than the people.

Government does not solve problems. Independent, self-reliant people with liberty, and opportunity does.

Michael Johns, one of the persons in the interview in the video above will join Political Pistachio Radio next weekend - don't miss it!

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Katie Couric Interviews Tea Party Leaders - CBS News

Obama's View of Government, and how it should rule over the people

Chris Matthews: I forgot he was black

Apparently Chris Matthews' tingle that used to go up his leg is now pounding around in his race-conscious brain.

It is amazing how the left spends so much time on race, and very little time looking at people based on the strength of their character.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

President Obama's Jobs Speech is all about him. . .So was State of the Union

In the above speech Obama said "I" 132 times.

In Obama's first State of the Union he toned it down just a bit. Obama used the word "I" (including 3 times in the form of "I'll", 15 times as "I'm", 3 times as "I'd", 7 times as "I've") a total of 103 times. "My" was used ten times, and "me" was uttered a mere eleven times.

Could it be that he is seeing his position as less about him, and more about America?

Don't count on it.

I am thinking Obama referred to himself less times in the State of the Union speech because he was spending much more time blaming others, and criticizing others. Hard to talk about yourself when you are doing what you can to demonize the opposition.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Transcript: Obama's first State of the Union speech - CNN

Wednesday, January 27, 2010

Alito: "Not True" to Obama's State of the Union

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Democrats call it the "Joe Wilson" moment of 2010.

Republicans call it a Supreme Court Justice calling it like he sees it.

During his State of the Union speech, Obama criticized the Supreme Court ruling from last week that deemed unconstitutional many campaign finance provisions. Uncle Barry stated that the decision that proclaimed corporations are no different than individuals when it comes to political speech would "open the floodgates for special interests - including foreign corporations - to spend without limit in our elections."

As Obama criticized the Supreme Court's ruling, Justice Alito, considered to be a Conservative Justice, shook his head and mouthed the words "not true."

Interestingly enough, the only site really talking about this is the very liberal Huffington Post.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Alito Mouths 'NOT TRUE' At State Of The Union (VIDEO) - The Huffington Post

ZoNation on Massachusetts, Obama, and Liberalism: Tortoise and the Hare Syndrome

Squeezing The Golden Goose

. . . till it can't lay any more eggs

By Douglas V. Gibbs

The State of Oregon is voting today on whether or not to tax more heavily the highest income earners, and to raise the corporate tax. The special election ballot measures 66 and 67 could be potential veto votes on a $733 million tax hike enacted by the Oregon State Legislature in 2009.

On July 20, 2009 Governor Ted Kulongoski signed two tax bills that will increase taxes in the state by $733 million through increasing the state’s corporate minimum tax, raising taxes on the state’s high-income individuals and raising income taxes on businesses. In response to the legislation a number of Oregon citizen and business groups went to work to use the veto referendum process in the state to try to stop the hikes.

Raising taxes, and making "business" the enemy, is the worst thing a state can do.

Let's look at the liberal paradise of California as an example.

The following is from Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis:

-California has the 3rd highest state income tax in the nation: 9.55% tax bracket at $47,055 and 10.55% at $1,000,000.
-California has the highest state sales tax rate in the nation by far at 8.25%. Indiana is next highest at 7%.
-California corporate income tax rate is 17th worst in the nation with a rate of 8.84%. - However, of the non graduated states, only Pennsylvania at 9.99%, Rhode Island at 9.0%, and the District of Columbia at 9.98% are higher. One size fits all (and a very high one at that) is exceptionally hard on small businesses.

-California ranks 13th best in property taxes. However proposition 13 causes massive distortions for new buyers. (Without Proposition 13 limiting property tax amounts, we would probably be in the number 1 or 2 spot)

-California has the fourth highest capital gains tax 9.55%.
-California has the highest gasoline tax as of January 2010, averaging 65 cents/gallon. The national average is 47.4%.
-California has one of the highest state vehicle license car taxes, 1.15% per year on value of vehicle, up from 0.65% in 2008.

So where's the money going?

-1 in 5 in LA County receiving public aid, nearly 2.2 million people as of February 2009. 20% in Los Angeles County receive public aid.
-California has 12% of the nation’s population, but 36% of the country’s TANF (“Temporary” Assistance for Needy Families) welfare recipients – more than the next 8 states combined. Unlike other states, this “temporary” assistance becomes much more permanent in CA. July, 2009 California has more recipients in key welfare category than next eight states combined.
-California prison guards highest paid in the nation. The maximum pay of California's prison guards is nearly 40 percent higher than that of the highest-paid guards in 10 other states and the federal government, according to a study by the California Department of Personnel Administration.
-California teachers easily the highest paid in the nation.
-California now has the lowest bond ratings of any state, two steps above junk. The new rating affects about $72 billion of general obligation and lease-supported bonds.
-California ranks 44th worst in “2008 lawsuit climate.” Institute For Legal Reform
California, a destitute state, still gives away college education at fire sale prices. California community college tuition is by far the lowest in the nation. Nationwide, the average community college tuition is 4.5 times higher than California CC’s. This ridiculously low tuition devalues education to students – resulting in a 30+% drop rate for class completion. Moreover, 2/3 of California CC students pay no tuition at all – filling out a simple unverified “hardship” form that exempts them from any tuition payment, or receiving grants and tax credits for their full tuition.
-California offers thousands of absolutely free adult continuing education classes. In San Diego, over 1,400 classes for everything from baking pastries to ballroom dancing are offered totally at taxpayer expense. San Diego Continuing Education
-California residential electricity costs 13.81 cents per kilowatthour. The national average is 6.99-8.49. It costs 38% more to build solar panels in California than in Tennessee – which is why European corporations have invested $2.3 billion in two Tennessee manufacturing plants to build solar panels for our state. March 5, 2009 More Solar Companies Producing Elsewhere to Sell to California.

And with all of these liberal taxes and policies, guess what? California is broke.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Wrong time, wrong tax hikes: Vote no on Measures 66, 67 - Oregon Live

Obama's First State of the Union: Nothing to Say

by Douglas V. Gibbs

Today, President Barack Obama will inform the Congress on the State of the Union, as required by the U.S. Constitution. The first year of Obama's presidency has been pretty lousy, and honestly, I am curious about what Barry is going to say.

Obama promised an economic recovery and an unemployment rate of not more than 8%, both of which he has missed his mark.

Obama promised to keep this nation safe, but we've had a number of terrorist attacks.

Obama promised transparency, and the health care negotiations on C-Span. There has been no transparency, and instead closed door meetings. And the representatives and Senators aren't even reading the bills!

Maybe he'll just stand up there and say 2011 will be far better, after all, it can't get much worse (could it?).

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Tuesday, January 26, 2010

Obama Blaming Bush

Get Liberty

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Obama's Budget Freeze: Throwing Away the Scalpel and Grabbing the Hatchet

Faced with criticism from both sides, Barack Obama has decided it is time to do something new. He says that he intends to propose a three-year freeze in spending, accounting for one-sixth of the federal budget. He hopes such a move will satisfy those that have a rising concern over the incredibly massive deficit spending under Obama's watch. The freeze includes limits on discretionary spending unrelated to the military, veterans, homeland security and international affairs. Also untouched are big entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare.

If you will remember back to the presidential campaigns, McCain suggested doing the very same thing, and Obama attacked the idea, calling it a hatchet job, and proposing that it would be better to go through the budget with a scalpel, rather than a hatchet.

Now, it seems, faced with a failed presidency, even Obama is willing to become a hatchet job.

I have a proposition. How about we cut Obama out of the picture (Despite the fact that he is slowly becoming McCain)?

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Budget Freeze Is Proposed - Wall Street Journal

The Hatchet And The Scalpel: A Debate Parable - NPR

Obama Scoffed At McCain's Spending Freeze Proposal During Campaign (VIDEO) - Huffington Post

Glenn Beck: Progressives Changing History

"Let's Set History Straight"

To watch the documentary Glenn Beck refers to in this video, Go HERE

Obama's Arrogance: Difference Is Me!

Writes ADG reporter Jane Fullerton:

Berry recounted meetings with White House officials, reminiscent of some during the Clinton days, where he and others urged them not to force Blue Dogs “off into that swamp” of supporting bills that would be unpopular with voters back home.

“I’ve been doing that with this White House, and they just don’t seem to give it any credibility at all,” Berry said. “They just kept telling us how good it was going to be. The president himself, when that was brought up in one group, said, ‘Well, the big difference here and in ’94 was you’ve got me.’ We’re going to see how much difference that makes now.”


What an arrogant bastard!

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Berry: Obama said "big difference" between '10 and '94 is "me"
- Politico

Understanding Obama

It is interesting, isn't it? Barack Obama, in the first year of his presidency, has given 411 speeches, and 158 interviews - Yet he says the reason the American People rejects his policies (i.e. health care reform) is because they don't understand the message.

My message to Barry is that the American People do get the message, and they understand the proposed change being offered through the Democrat hard left radical programs - that is why Obama's approval rating is plummeting, and the Democrat Party is being seen as a huge joke.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Obama's Numbers Resume Free Falling Plunge - Gribbit's Word

The Best Sports Quote of 2010 Comes From Saints Announcer Jim Henderson

Jim Henderson's voice basically gives out as he screams "It's goooood! It's goood-hoo-hoood!" wailing and laughing, as if it had taken as much out of him to watch and call this game as it had for the players on the field to get through it. Then he says a quote that ranks right up there with Scott Brown's "People's Seat":

"Pigs have flown. Hell has frozen over. The Saints are going to the Super Bowl!"

Interestingly enough, with Peyton Manning's Colts being there as well, it will give Peyton a chance to go up against his dad's old team.

This is the Saints first trip to the big game, and I think they have a real chance to win it.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Monday, January 25, 2010

Ethiopian Airlines Crash off Coast of Lebanon Yields No Survivors

By Douglas V. Gibbs

The reason is unknown. No terrorism is suspected. An Ethiopian Airlines flight crashed off Lebanon's Coast, killing all 90 people aboard.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Bodies found from Ethiopian Airlines crash - CNN

The Execution of Chemical Ali

'Chemical Ali,' Hussein's Cousin and Aide, Is Executed

Ali Hassan al-Majid, who was known throughout Iraq as Chemical Ali for his role in the 1988 campaign that killed as many as 180,000 Kurds, was executed today.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Iraq's 'Chemical Ali' hanged for 1988 gas attack - Yahoo News

Obama Even Needs A Teleprompter to Speak To Kids?

And this guy is supposed to be an intellectual?

thanks Atlas Shrugs

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

The Best Campaigner

Capitol South

Net Right Nation

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Air America in Final Death Throes

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Air America, the liberal talk radio network, set its sights on conservative talk radio. They wanted to challenge the conservative domination of the airwaves, and give liberals a viable alternative. They said it couldn't be done, and it turns out that "they" were correct. It couldn't be done. Air America, struggling from day one, has finally decided to cease operations and file for Chapter 7 bankruptcy protection.

Al Franken, now a U.S. Senator, launched the radio network in 2004. The mainstream media claims the struggles for Air America arose because the network suffered a decline in advertising as a result of the recession - but the funny thing is, conservative talk radio never felt a similar decline.

This is not the first time Air America has filed bankruptcy. In 2006 Air America was forced into bankruptcy to resolve an outstanding debt, and many thought back then the network was dead.

Liberal radio, I suppose, is just too depressing for listeners. The optimism of conservatism seems to do much better on the radio.

Go figure.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Air America to close, files for bankruptcy - Reuters

Under Obama, Are More Terror Attacks Imminent?

By Douglas V. Gibbs

A lot of concern over Barack Obama's weak position regarding the war on terror, and his unwillingness to identify the enemy as being the Islamic Jihad while ordering "profiling" of Muslims between the ages of 18 and 40, leads one to believe that more terror attacks against the United States may be on the horizon. Frank Gaffney served as the deputy assistant secretary of defense for international security during the Reagan administration, and he says that after observing the first year of the Obama presidency, "it's clear there must be a dramatic change of direction in U.S. foreign policy." This includes President Obama's decision to try terrorist suspects in U.S. civilian courts rather than military tribunals.

Frank Gaffney now runs the Center for Security Policy in Washington, DC, and has previously outlined what he labels "the Obama Doctrine," which is: "embolden our enemies, undermine our allies, and diminish our country."

Gaffney argues that the U.S. cannot afford to continue on the same course the remaining three years of Obama's term, otherwise we "will be attacked."

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

'Obama Doctrine' detrimental to U.S. - One News Now

Center for Security Policy

Is The Health Care Reform Bill Dead?

By Douglas V. Gibbs

The Democrats, faced with more set-backs that includes the election of Scott Brown to the 41st Republican Senate Seat, still wish to push "something" through for "Health Care Reform." The bill is already so watered down that far left radicals like Howard Dean believes that it not only will not accomplish what the Democrats originally set out to do, but that it will wind up putting more money in the pockets of the insurance companies.

If they water down the healthcare bill even more, a congressional analyst believes they will have an even more difficult time passing the bill because even Democrats will be unwilling to vote for it.

So how do leftist radicals pass a watered down bill when the opposition has enough votes to filibuster, regardless of what bill is put forth? Sure, they will scale it back in the hopes of winning congressional approval, but if that's the case, what will the bill be like after it is all done and said?

The Heritage Foundation indicates that the smaller bill may include "some insurance market reforms, some things to help small businesses, closing the gap in Medicare prescription drug coverage." The Heritage Foundation also says that Democrats will continue to be forced to scrap major tenets of their original bill.

"The individual mandate, the employer mandate, the public option, the OPM-run plan, the national or state exchanges -- a lot of the big picture stuff is being thrown aside because they just can't move it through [because] they found it to be too unpopular. But, all of that said, what they're proposing is still going to be very hard to do."

In other words, with all of the compromises they must put into it, the bill will be rendered "unworkable."

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Healthcare redo in the works - One News Now

Democrats' Battered Health Plan Enters Critical Care - NewsMax

A Little Fun With Oxymorons

Okay, the group sent me this, and I got such a kick out of it I had to put it on the site:

1. Is it good if a vacuum really sucks?

2. Why is the third hand on the watch called the second hand?

3. If a word is misspelled in the dictionary, how would we ever know?

4. If Webster wrote the first dictionary, where did he find the words?

5. Why do we say something is out of whack? What is a whack?

6. Why does "slow down" and "slow up" mean the same thing?

7. Why does "fat chance" and "slim chance" mean the same thing?

8. Why do "tug" boats push their barges?

9. Why do we sing "Take me out to the ball game"
when we are already there?

10. Why are they called " stands" when they are made for sitting?

11. Why is it called "after dark" when it really is "after light"?

12.. Doesn't "expecting the unexpected" make the unexpected expected?

13... Why are a "wise man" and a "wise guy" opposites?

14. . . Why do we park on a driveway ?

Okay, now back to your regularly scheduled political rants. . .

Sunday, January 24, 2010

Obama's Deficit Reduction Plan

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Spending is out of control, and Obama has heard the concern from the American People. So, he has decided, in order to appease those angry fiscal conservatives regarding all of the spending by the federal government, to put into place a deficit commission plan. In other words,
President Barack Obama has formally endorsed legislation creating an independent commission with the power to force Congress to vote on major deficit reduction steps this year, after the November elections.

The Obama Administration has been losing Democrats right and left, and Barry hopes with this relatively conservative sounding move he can win back over swing Democrats that are running scared so that enough votes can be in place to lift the federal debt ceiling.

That's right - call for a deficit reduction plan so that you can raise the limit to spend more!

The writers of horror stories could not top this one.

The hopes with this move is to make fiscal moderates happy, and to challenge Republicans complaining about Obama's out of control spending.

In reality, however, this is mere lip service.

Without a 60-vote filibuster proof Senate, creativity will now be the key, and Obama is willing to lie in ways that the best creative geniuses could not even muster.

Of course, when talking about this spending problem, despite the fact that Obama's deficit spending in his first year in office is greater than the deficit spending of all past presidents, combined, Barry was not shy to still blame it all on Bush.

President Obama said: "These deficits did not happen overnight (that's the blame Bush part), and they won't be solved overnight. We not only need to change how we pay for policies, but we also need to change how Washington works. The only way to solve our long-term fiscal challenge is to solve it together – Democrats and Republicans."

Notice he said a lot without saying anything at all, other than: It's Bush's fault, and if we work together (that's the community organizer in him) we can change how Washington works (you know, to a socialist style system) and solve it together (government, government, and more government).

Hey, Mr. President, I've got an idea. How about just simply deciding not to spend so much money! Back off with your intrusive federal government policies, allow state sovereignty to reign supreme, and release American businesses from the stranglehold of federal regulations and restrictions, and you'll be surprised how fast the free market can straighten out our troubled economy!

Instead, Obama and the Congressional Democrats would rather give us lip service, while planning their next big spending spree.

Not exactly the change your voters were hoping for, Mr. Obama.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Obama endorses deficit commission plan - Politico

Obama Propaganda Machine Launches Alinsky Tactics Against Anyone Questioning Obama's Eligibility to be President of the United States?

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Birthers. That is the name those that are asking Barack Obama to show valid proof of eligibility (i.e. birth certificate) is being called.

Sure, Obama was born. It's not like he was hatched from an egg - or at least that is what the term "birthers" implies.

But, seriously, though I am not one hundred percent convinced that Obama was born outside the United States, I am concerned about the fact that a valid birth certificate has not been provided, or that his records have all been sealed.

I don't consider myself a birther, per se, but I do consider myself someone who has seen red flags rise up because Obama, and his team, refuse to address the issue properly.

The insinuation is that Barack Obama sees this as a non-issue, and is essentially ignoring it.

Is he?

According to Andrea Shea King's Radio Patriot site, it is getting ugly.

Andrea Shea King writes: "It's getting ugly. And dangerous. And connected. Piece by piece, connecting into a bigger picture. [Looking] at the lawsuit that's been brought by Charles Kerchner, Commander USNR (Retired) and three others against Obama and Congress for not vetting Obama’s credentials prior to the electoral college casting their votes for him as President. . . a bit of discussion has ensued.

". . . American Thinker, Clarice Feldman wrote about Hans Von Spakovsky’s blog expose revealing the Department of Justice’s propaganda machine, wherein DoJ has hired bloggers to work as propagandists and sock puppets. (We've long suspected that some on the payroll are poseurs, "conservative" bloggers who are quick to employ Alinsky tactics, viciously condemning and ridiculing anyone who raises a question re: Obama’s eligibility."

Has the Obama Administration gone to deeper levels to hide the truth? And if they are, what truth are they hiding? Is Obama eligible, or not? And if he is, could it be that something even more damaging is being hidden?

Read more about this fascinating turn of events on Andrea Shea King's Radio Patriot.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Faith Under Fire - Separation of Church and State

Tonight on the Political Pistachio Radio Revolution:

Faith Under Fire: Separation of Church and State - Political Pistachio Radio Revolution

An eight-year-old student in Taunton, Massachusetts, drew a picture of Jesus on the cross for an assignment about Christmas. The school sent the boy home and ordered him to undergo a psychological evaluation. The school allegedly “feared his artwork might be exposing violent tendencies.” The school has since denied the accusation that the child was suspended. Attorney Alan Reinach, President of the North American Religious Liberty Association–West and the Executive Director of the Church State Council, says it doesn’t take away from the fact that more of these types of discriminatory, anti-Christian actions are flaring up in schools across the country. Reinach says there is an indisputable trend of secularists with views about separation of church and state overstepping their bounds and crossing into blatant violations of 1st Amendment rights. In addition to the boy who drew Jesus, we will discuss a story in a New Jersey elementary school where a third-grade girl was forbidden by her teacher from reading the Bible during quiet time. The teacher and the principal both said it was “inappropriate” material that should stay home. Where is this trend line really going? How can this be happening in a nation that was founded on Judeo-Christian principles, on its way to becoming the leader of the free world? What kind of rights do parents of these students really have and how can they exercise them? Join Alan Reinach as tonight's guest on the Political Pistachio Radio Revolution - Conservative News and Commentary

Join us live at 7:00 PM Pacific, or catch the archive later,

Walking With Clay Thibodeau

By Douglas V. Gibbs

For three hours (from 1:00 PM to 4:00 PM Pacific Time Today) I am going to be walking through my neighborhood with Clay Thibodeau to help spread the word about my local Constitutional Conservative candidate. Clay is planning on going up against Mary Bono Mack for the Republican candidacy for the U.S. House of Representatives this November.

I discovered Clay by finding out more regarding the races in my area, and feel it is very important to be involved with money (if possible), and of course giving my favorite candidate as much of my time as possible.

Making phone calls, knocking on doors, or standing at the mall handing out pamphlets - whatever it takes. Conservatism will win back America, and it begins at the ground level.

United We Stand, Combined We Kick Butt!

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Global Warming: The Real Story by Founder of the Weather Channel John Coleman

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Progressive Political Positions

Let me get this straight:

When Bush was president protesting against the government was patriotic - but with Obama in office it is anti-government extremism.

When Bush was president all war was bad, and the troop surge in Iraq was bad policy - but with Obama in office a troop increase in Afghanistan was necessary, and an attack in Yemen was a good thing.

When Bush was president any Democrat that voted across the aisle was a sell-out - but with Obama in office the Republican refusal to vote with the Democrats on things like Health Care makes the GOP the Party of No.

When Pro-lifers try to protect the lives of unborn babies, it is seen as a bunch of religious nuts refusing to give a woman her right to abortion - but Liberals have a real problem with the death penalty because life is precious.

When a Republican politician in South Carolina has an affair against his wife he needs to be banned from politics - but when a Democrat President lies under oath about his affair with an intern in the White House it is no big deal.

When a Republican like DeLay is accused of corruption, even though there is no evidence, and he isn't convicted, his political career was over - but when a Democrat named Jefferson is found with a freezer full of ill-gotten money, he is a shoe-in to win his next election.

When a Republican Senator says a nice thing to a hundred year old politician who was once a segregationist, the Republican Senator is labeled a racist, and is forced to step down - but if the Senate Majority Leader says the first African-American to be voted in as President of the United States only got elected because he's light-skinned and doesn't speak with a "Negro-dialect", or a former president states that ten years ago Obama would be fetching them coffee, it is seen as a moment of misspeaking, and all apologies are accepted.

The liberals proclaim that the insurance companies are evil and that is why they are pushing their health care legislation, then they add a provision to that health care legislation mandating that Americans buy health insurance from those evil insurance companies.

While demanding tolerance, and the justification of immoral behavior the liberal left demands that anything Christian must be removed from the public view, while "tolerant" homosexuals openly proclaim they will destroy the "Christian Movement."

While indicating that they believe in protecting this nation against terrorist threats the liberals refuse to profile Muslims ages 18-40 because they don't want to upset anybody.

Obama bailed out the banks so that they could make a profit, and then decided to hit them with a tax to punish them for making a profit.

Liberals proclaim their aim is to make sure everyone feels safe in their homes, as they work to pass legislation to remove the citizen's right to own a weapon.

They promise hope and change, and then kill hope, and work to change this nation into a socialist state.

Contradictions, double-standards and inconsistencies. I'll take the U.S. Constitution, instead. You can keep the change.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

After One Year of Barack Obama: No Hope, Change We Did Not Expect

But can the GOP point us back towards the Constitution?

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Saturday, January 23, 2010

A Thank You To Our Military

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Experts Bob Rinear and Dr. Jerome Corsi Discuss Scott Brown Win in Massachusetts

Tonight at 7:00 PM Pacific, 10:00 PM Eastern, the Political Pistachio Radio Revolution will be joined by Bob Rinear during the first hour of the program to discuss how the win by Scott Brown in Massachusetts will wreak havoc on President Obama's State of the Union Speech, not to mention the complete disorder of the Democrat Party. While Obama tries to still salvage his first State of the Union address, a collective rebuttal against Obama's liberal policies is rising throughout America. Brown's win against Coakley was a message to the Democrat Party of historical proportions and, as an unquestionable referendum-type statement against Obama and his policies, it will no doubt influence the President's speech next week.

During the second hour we are scheduled to be joined by Dr. Jerome Corsi who says that Coakley's defeat is a referendum on Obama's first year. Barack Obama planned on leaving the United States weakened, diminished, and divided. Obama did not count on the American People, or the voters of Massachusetts, taking action against the radical agenda the Democrats are trying to force into place.

The Political Pistachio Radio Revolution airs live at 7pm Pacific. Listen live, or catch the archive later, at

Reserving Praise For Scott Brown

Praise for Scott Brown Being Reserved
By: J.J. Jackson

Scott Brown’s election to one of Massachusetts’ Senate seats was a foregone conclusion to anyone watching the polls. Martha Coakley did not stand a chance on Election Day. She was a dead woman walking for trying to sugar coat her support of unpopular policies. No number of buses packed with ACORN bought voters or SEIU members could have saved her from her own incompetence.

But I am bothered. In the wake of Mr. Brown’s victory I see a lot of Conservatives acting little better than giddy and foolish Democrats did upon the accession of Barack Obama to the left right hand of Nancy Pelosi Almighty. Many of my fellow patriots on the right and correct side of the aisle have a lot of good things to say about Scott Brown and his successful election bid for one of Massachusetts ’ Senate seats. But at times they are downright deifying this man as the savior of our Republic. While breaking the filibuster proof majority of the liberal Democrats in the Senate may be an important move, need I remind you that there is still Olympia Snowe lurking in the chamber’s shadows for her shot at the limelight. And need I remind you that she can certainly not be trusted to form a coherent thought or support the concept of limited government?

Oh, so I’m sorry. I did not mean to crash you back to Earth so hard. Actually, yeah, I did.

Scott Brown is certainly not Barack Obama and Brown’s ardent supporters celebrating his election are certainly not the same mindless sort of moonbats that flocked to Obama’s feet for a chance that just maybe they would be allowed to touch the hem on his garments. But seriously, some of the praise going on for a man that has not sat in the Senate for one day nor cast a single vote is bordering on insanity. I do not question that Mr. Brown leans to the right. I only question how far. By the looks of things not enough people are using such a skeptical eye and I am.

Call me crazy. Call me old-fashioned. But even though I am not from Missouri I still must proudly sit here and demand of Mr. Brown, “Show me.” That’s right Mr. Brown, you have the spotlight now. But show me what you will do when that spotlight fades and you are just 1 of 100 members of the Senate. Show me what you will do when others approach you to play ball in typical Washington fashion.

Talking the talk is what you have done so far while on the campaign trail. Now show me that you can walk the walk in Washington . I do not care about what you did up in Massachusetts as one of a mere handful of Republicans in State office. I don't care what you said on the campaign trail. The game has changed. State politics are wholly different than national politics with a whole new set of even more limited rules of power to follow. The box of what you can do on the federal level is much smaller and you must show me that you can translate to that role.

If it comes across that I am skeptical, then good. That is my point and I think it is as plain as the marijuana growing in Barney Frank’s love partner's basement. What bothers me with Mr. Brown is that in answering reporter’s questions this week he talked a lot about voting for bills that were good for his state. I did not hear him mention the Constitutionality of the bill being a major part of his decision making process. This has been a major complaint I have with many people who purport to be conservative in order to get elected.

Questions, questions everywhere - and all have yet to be answered.

Will Mr. Brown, now Senator Brown, have the courage to do the things that a true conservative would once he takes his place in the Senate? Will he embrace the Constitution and vote against all laws that, while they might be good for his State, violate that document’s limited mandates of power? Will he have the cajones to vote against any and every bill that comes before the Senate which contains one iota of unconstitutionality snuck into it by wicked people seeking power over our liberty? Will he have the fortitude to stand before his colleagues in the well of the Senate and chastise those who propose powers to our government which are strictly forbidden and do so regardless of party? Will he turn his nose up at spending more than the government takes in and reject burdening our children with obscene debts to lubricate the votes of special interests and a minority of Americans? Will he exhibit the courage needed to start paring back and proposing cuts or outright elimination of unconstitutional programs already on the books? Will he reject the fallacy of bipartisanship when such a tactic requires compromises to limited government?

Or will Mr. Brown be what really passes for a “conservative” in Washington and the Republican Party? Will he simply oppose the most egregious of new usurpations of liberty and only when the American people speak up loudly enough for him to take notice while he helps to pass ones of a lesser nature that he thinks we will not find out about or later object to? Will he cast his vote in favor of yearly budgets that cannot be paid for like so many of his colleagues do? Will he attack only the Democrats but not hold his fire against Republicans who act no better? Will he not have the courage to touch any of the now numerous third rails of American politics? Will he run to embrace those on the other side of the isle even when their proposals are hideous and against all reason in the name of working together?

When these questions are answered I will pass judgment on Scott Brown as a Senator, as a Republican and as a conservative. When he shows me that he is worthy of praise, only then shall I give it to him. But at every instance where he mocks our freedom, violates our federal charter with egregious overreaches of power and scoffs at our founding documents I promise you I will be his loudest critic.

Why should the savior of our Republic who apparently has stopped Obamacare and any number of other heinous abridgements of our liberties be treated any different than I treat any other member of Congress?

J.J. Jackson is a libertarian conservative author from Pittsburgh, PA who has been writing and promoting individual liberty since 1993 and is President of Land of the Free Studios, Inc. He is the Pittsburgh Conservative Examiner for He is also the owner of The Right Things - Conservative T-shirts & Gifts His weekly commentary along with exclusives not available anywhere else can be found at