By Douglas V. Gibbs
Flooding on the scale New England is seeing right now is rare. Hundreds of people have been driven from their homes and businesses. The storm has overwhelmed flood control systems, and has washed out bridges.
The record breaking rains have lasted for three days, leaving behind flood waters that have not been this bad in over 200 years. These rains complete a month's worth of record rainfall, being called by many as being the worst rainfall and flooding in the area's history.
The question is, will the people of the area act like the people of New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina and stand with their hands out in hopes for a federal salvation plan? Or will they act like the folks along the Mississippi Coast after Katrina, and act in a responsible manner as they take individual actions to repair the damage, and rebuild their communities?
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
New England flooding drowns homes and dreams - Yahoo News
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Obama's Hidden Motive Behind Offshore Oil Drilling
By Douglas V. Gibbs
During his presidential campaign Obama claimed that drilling for oil domestically was a terrible idea, and that it would not solve any of our energy crisis problems.
As with just about everything else, that campaign rhetoric is turning out to be a lie too.
Today Obama announced that limited areas along the East Coast, off Florida, and near the coast of Alaska will be opened for oil and gas exploration. His reasoning was that, like it or not, more than green energy strategies are needed to address America's energy concerns.
Obama's strategy enjoys many of the same elements that George W. Bush's oil drilling plans entailed, though Barry's remains much more narrower. Most of Alaska, and the west coast, remains off limits, as well as other areas that could provide affordable energy if tapped.
What Obama is doing here has many variables and motives, but is mostly designed to harness more energy without necessarily admitting he was wrong, and to appeal to much of his opposition at a time when his approval ratings continue to plummet (some say he enjoyed a bump after the passage of health care, but of all the polls, only Gallup showed such a bump).
In 2008, President George W. Bush opened up new offshore energy development and the Department of the Interior prepared a five year offshore leasing plan. The Democratic Congress assisted in that move, only to join Obama last year in suspending the Interior plan and delaying a planned lease auction scheduled for 2011. The new plan released today by Obama is much more limited.
Before those that cried out for off-shore drilling thinks to themselves, "Hey, Obama did something right for once," remember that Barry supports energy-rationing policies as associated with the global strategy to save the planet from mythical man-made global warming. Obama's energy plans, along with Cap and Trade of which he is ready to spring on us any day now, will cause electricity prices to skyrocket. This alone will cause gas prices to go up because the cost of producing, storing and providing gasoline will go up.
Could it be that since he knows the taxation and production costs will go up, he's hoping to drop the cost of the material itself by using domestic oil, that way the rise won't be nearly as shocking?
I suppose, after all of this goes down, when gasoline hits six or seven dollars a gallon, we will all stand together to sing Obama's praises, because though our gas prices went up, at least it's good ole American gas. (That was sarcasm for those of you with little brains)
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Recharging debate, Obama expands offshore drilling - Associated Press, Yahoo News
Obama Oil Drilling Plan Draws Critics - New York Times
During his presidential campaign Obama claimed that drilling for oil domestically was a terrible idea, and that it would not solve any of our energy crisis problems.
As with just about everything else, that campaign rhetoric is turning out to be a lie too.
Today Obama announced that limited areas along the East Coast, off Florida, and near the coast of Alaska will be opened for oil and gas exploration. His reasoning was that, like it or not, more than green energy strategies are needed to address America's energy concerns.
Obama's strategy enjoys many of the same elements that George W. Bush's oil drilling plans entailed, though Barry's remains much more narrower. Most of Alaska, and the west coast, remains off limits, as well as other areas that could provide affordable energy if tapped.
What Obama is doing here has many variables and motives, but is mostly designed to harness more energy without necessarily admitting he was wrong, and to appeal to much of his opposition at a time when his approval ratings continue to plummet (some say he enjoyed a bump after the passage of health care, but of all the polls, only Gallup showed such a bump).
In 2008, President George W. Bush opened up new offshore energy development and the Department of the Interior prepared a five year offshore leasing plan. The Democratic Congress assisted in that move, only to join Obama last year in suspending the Interior plan and delaying a planned lease auction scheduled for 2011. The new plan released today by Obama is much more limited.
Before those that cried out for off-shore drilling thinks to themselves, "Hey, Obama did something right for once," remember that Barry supports energy-rationing policies as associated with the global strategy to save the planet from mythical man-made global warming. Obama's energy plans, along with Cap and Trade of which he is ready to spring on us any day now, will cause electricity prices to skyrocket. This alone will cause gas prices to go up because the cost of producing, storing and providing gasoline will go up.
Could it be that since he knows the taxation and production costs will go up, he's hoping to drop the cost of the material itself by using domestic oil, that way the rise won't be nearly as shocking?
I suppose, after all of this goes down, when gasoline hits six or seven dollars a gallon, we will all stand together to sing Obama's praises, because though our gas prices went up, at least it's good ole American gas. (That was sarcasm for those of you with little brains)
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Recharging debate, Obama expands offshore drilling - Associated Press, Yahoo News
Obama Oil Drilling Plan Draws Critics - New York Times
Employment Non-Discrimination Act to put Transexuals and Cross-Dressers into Classrooms as Teachers
By Douglas V. Gibbs
The Employment Non-Discrimination Act, expected to be proposed in the next few weeks, and put to a vote by the end of April, would force schools and businesses with over 15 employees to hire transgendered and homosexual employees. This federal mandate would unconstitutionally override any and all state laws in place designed to protect Christian businesses, and our children from being traumatized by this unbelievable kind of behavior.
Teachers are included in the bill, which would give the promoters of "alternative lifestyles" free rein to indoctrinate our children in the schools, as well as force Christian employers to hire people not suitable for their place of business. What's worse is that states, and you, will have no recourse in the matter.
Religious freedoms are their target, and the liberals are doing all they can to try to suppress religious liberty with their incremental attacks. One way Obama is ensuring the vicious people behind these kinds of manipulative moves against people of faith are placed into prominent positions was his end-around recess appointment last Friday of radical lesbian lawyer Chai Feldblum (the author of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act) as a member of the powerful Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Feldblum's bizarre views on marriage and religious liberty not only would have hurt any confirmation for her should she have been appointed the right and proper way, but now that she is in place she will be able to use her authority to suppress religious freedoms, and bring moral chaos to our schools.
As the author of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, and the supporter of like bills, Chai Feldblum will make your children primary targets of recruitment by LGBT activists that are pushing for the normalization of their sick and twisted behaviors, and the destruction of the traditional family unit.
Andrea Lafferty, the executive director for the Traditional Values Coalition, appeared on the CBN Newschannel's Midday program to talk more about this bill. Go to CBN News' article Group Starts Campaign Against 'Transgender' Bill to see the video.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Obama's EEOC Nomination Chai Feldblum: Society Should Not Tolerate Private Beliefs, Including Religious Beliefs - Political Pistachio, January 23, 2010
The Employment Non-Discrimination Act, expected to be proposed in the next few weeks, and put to a vote by the end of April, would force schools and businesses with over 15 employees to hire transgendered and homosexual employees. This federal mandate would unconstitutionally override any and all state laws in place designed to protect Christian businesses, and our children from being traumatized by this unbelievable kind of behavior.
Teachers are included in the bill, which would give the promoters of "alternative lifestyles" free rein to indoctrinate our children in the schools, as well as force Christian employers to hire people not suitable for their place of business. What's worse is that states, and you, will have no recourse in the matter.
Religious freedoms are their target, and the liberals are doing all they can to try to suppress religious liberty with their incremental attacks. One way Obama is ensuring the vicious people behind these kinds of manipulative moves against people of faith are placed into prominent positions was his end-around recess appointment last Friday of radical lesbian lawyer Chai Feldblum (the author of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act) as a member of the powerful Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Feldblum's bizarre views on marriage and religious liberty not only would have hurt any confirmation for her should she have been appointed the right and proper way, but now that she is in place she will be able to use her authority to suppress religious freedoms, and bring moral chaos to our schools.
As the author of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, and the supporter of like bills, Chai Feldblum will make your children primary targets of recruitment by LGBT activists that are pushing for the normalization of their sick and twisted behaviors, and the destruction of the traditional family unit.
Andrea Lafferty, the executive director for the Traditional Values Coalition, appeared on the CBN Newschannel's Midday program to talk more about this bill. Go to CBN News' article Group Starts Campaign Against 'Transgender' Bill to see the video.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Obama's EEOC Nomination Chai Feldblum: Society Should Not Tolerate Private Beliefs, Including Religious Beliefs - Political Pistachio, January 23, 2010
Obama's Surprise Trip To Afghanistan
By Douglas V. Gibbs
President Obama arrived in Afghanistan after dusk for a surprise visit, and his first, with the troops in that region. The President's speech was strong, and proclaimed "America doesn't quit."
I agreed with most of his speech, and found it refreshing, until I began to consider what he has said in the past.
Obama believed America should quit when he called for America's withdraw during his presidential campaign. He said in 2007 that there is "no military solution," and later indicated that the surge was not working, and would not work.
His speech in Afghanistan, in other words, was a brazen lie. He is a chameleon, and for the troops he changed his colors a little so that he could seem more like Bush.
Obama was trying to act like he was the greatest military supporter who ever lived, when he and his fellow leftists spent a decade calling our troops Nazis, cold blooded killers, and made declarations that the war was lost. In Afghanistan, Obama was strutting around like an award winning rooster, wishing he was loved by the military like Bush was, after spending an entire presidential campaign demonizing the military and their efforts.
I found it interesting he chose to arrive after dusk, too. It sent the message that Afghanistan, in Obama's opinion, is so unstable that Obama was unable to show up safely during the sunlight.
Like I said, I agreed with much of what Obama said in his speech, to be frank, but it means nothing if he has spent his entire political career prior to his trip to Afghanistan saying the opposite.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT TO THE NATION ON THE WAY FORWARD IN AFGHANISTAN AND PAKISTAN - Sweetness and Light
President Obama arrived in Afghanistan after dusk for a surprise visit, and his first, with the troops in that region. The President's speech was strong, and proclaimed "America doesn't quit."
I agreed with most of his speech, and found it refreshing, until I began to consider what he has said in the past.
Obama believed America should quit when he called for America's withdraw during his presidential campaign. He said in 2007 that there is "no military solution," and later indicated that the surge was not working, and would not work.
His speech in Afghanistan, in other words, was a brazen lie. He is a chameleon, and for the troops he changed his colors a little so that he could seem more like Bush.
Obama was trying to act like he was the greatest military supporter who ever lived, when he and his fellow leftists spent a decade calling our troops Nazis, cold blooded killers, and made declarations that the war was lost. In Afghanistan, Obama was strutting around like an award winning rooster, wishing he was loved by the military like Bush was, after spending an entire presidential campaign demonizing the military and their efforts.
I found it interesting he chose to arrive after dusk, too. It sent the message that Afghanistan, in Obama's opinion, is so unstable that Obama was unable to show up safely during the sunlight.
Like I said, I agreed with much of what Obama said in his speech, to be frank, but it means nothing if he has spent his entire political career prior to his trip to Afghanistan saying the opposite.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT TO THE NATION ON THE WAY FORWARD IN AFGHANISTAN AND PAKISTAN - Sweetness and Light
Catholic Church Pedophile Scandal Absolutely Appalling
By Douglas V. Gibbs
The scandals involving Catholic Priests and their habit of having sex with little boys is hitting the fan. The leftist media is licking its chops over this, convinced that Catholicism represents all of Christianity, and this is yet another opportunity for them to continue on in their quest to destroy religion.
I am not a Catholic. The Catholic Church, and I, have a few doctrinal differences. I have many Catholic friends, and I believe they love the Lord greatly, but the Church was doomed to fall into the trappings of this kind of scandal from the very beginning when they decided to force priests to be celibate.
"Religion" is on trial, here, according to the main-extreme media. All religion should not be painted in the same light as the dirty Catholic Church priests who can't seem to sexually control themselves. The parishioners should not be demonized as well. This is a problem with the church leadership, not the people. And this kind of scandal is yet another kind of problem that merges when an organization, such as the Catholic Church, has a large political power structure within the church organization.
I have trouble wrapping my head around that fact that not only have these priests acted like monsters, and destroyed the lives of these children for the rest of their days, but that anyone, much less Church leadership, is willing to look the other way when the priests do this kind of thing.
Why is the church looking the other way, and not defrocking these monsters? Is it because of the secrets these priests may know? Is it that the leadership would rather keep these pedophile priests in the church, salaried as a priest, so that they can keep them silent? It's like a family trying to protect a wayward uncle, refusing to see the sick, vile truth in order to protect the family name. My Lord, how can anyone look away when it comes to what these monsters do to children?
The Left is eating this up because they think it is a representation of all of Christianity. There is nothing Christian about the scandals, nor is there anything biblical about having a church hierarchy in existence, while forcing the priests to be celibate, and covering up their despicable actions.
From what I understand the Catholic Church says 4% of their priests are sexual predators. I believe it is more like 8%, or 10%. But why is that percentage so high in the church? I understand that these monsters exist in all walks of life, and I hate the fact that these disgusting people exist at all, but why is the number of cases so high in the Catholic Church? The percentage is especially high in the Catholic Church because of the non-biblical celibacy rule, and the fact that these predators think they can get away with it because the church looks the other way and is willing to protect them. And the worst part of it is that part of the reason the church is protecting these pedophiles is because with all of the power the Catholic Church has, they can.
Appalling.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Group urges Catholic church to out sex abusers - Reuters
Attorney says secret documents in Wisconsin case are 'tipping point' in Catholic abuse scandal - Yahoo News
Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests
The scandals involving Catholic Priests and their habit of having sex with little boys is hitting the fan. The leftist media is licking its chops over this, convinced that Catholicism represents all of Christianity, and this is yet another opportunity for them to continue on in their quest to destroy religion.
I am not a Catholic. The Catholic Church, and I, have a few doctrinal differences. I have many Catholic friends, and I believe they love the Lord greatly, but the Church was doomed to fall into the trappings of this kind of scandal from the very beginning when they decided to force priests to be celibate.
"Religion" is on trial, here, according to the main-extreme media. All religion should not be painted in the same light as the dirty Catholic Church priests who can't seem to sexually control themselves. The parishioners should not be demonized as well. This is a problem with the church leadership, not the people. And this kind of scandal is yet another kind of problem that merges when an organization, such as the Catholic Church, has a large political power structure within the church organization.
I have trouble wrapping my head around that fact that not only have these priests acted like monsters, and destroyed the lives of these children for the rest of their days, but that anyone, much less Church leadership, is willing to look the other way when the priests do this kind of thing.
Why is the church looking the other way, and not defrocking these monsters? Is it because of the secrets these priests may know? Is it that the leadership would rather keep these pedophile priests in the church, salaried as a priest, so that they can keep them silent? It's like a family trying to protect a wayward uncle, refusing to see the sick, vile truth in order to protect the family name. My Lord, how can anyone look away when it comes to what these monsters do to children?
The Left is eating this up because they think it is a representation of all of Christianity. There is nothing Christian about the scandals, nor is there anything biblical about having a church hierarchy in existence, while forcing the priests to be celibate, and covering up their despicable actions.
From what I understand the Catholic Church says 4% of their priests are sexual predators. I believe it is more like 8%, or 10%. But why is that percentage so high in the church? I understand that these monsters exist in all walks of life, and I hate the fact that these disgusting people exist at all, but why is the number of cases so high in the Catholic Church? The percentage is especially high in the Catholic Church because of the non-biblical celibacy rule, and the fact that these predators think they can get away with it because the church looks the other way and is willing to protect them. And the worst part of it is that part of the reason the church is protecting these pedophiles is because with all of the power the Catholic Church has, they can.
Appalling.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Group urges Catholic church to out sex abusers - Reuters
Attorney says secret documents in Wisconsin case are 'tipping point' in Catholic abuse scandal - Yahoo News
Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests
.jpg)
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Addressing Liberal Ignorance
By Douglas V. Gibbs
This morning a commenter named Montana left a comment that was not vile enough to delete, but not sensible enough to approve. In fact, it was downright typical liberal ignorance. So, for the fun of it, I have decided to dissect it and maybe educate this small mind, and perhaps a few other leftist knuckleheads while we are at it.
So that the individual cannot say I took him out of context, here is the comment in its entirety.
Montana; Tuesday, March 30, 2010,9:12:52 AM
This is what happens when you have too many whitecastle munchies? Since their inception the Teaparty crowd (not a movement since they do have the numbers or clout) have been “haters not debaters”. In my opinion this is what the small portions of the republican party of “birthers, baggers and blowhards” have brought you. They are good at “Follow the Leader” of their dullard leaders, they listen to Beck, Hedgecock, Hannity, O’Reilly, Rush and Savage and the rest of the Blowhards. Are you surprise at what they do when you know what they think? The world is complicated and most republicans (Hamiliton, Lincoln, Roosevelt) believe that we should use government a little to increase social mobility, now its about dancing around the claim of government is the problem. The sainted Reagan passed the biggest tax increase in American history and as a result federal employment increased, but facts are lost when mired in mysticism and superstition. Although some republicans are trying to distant themselves from this fringe most of them are just going along and fanning the flames. Lets face it the Republicans had 8 years to deal with health care, immigration and financial oversight and governance and they failed. They could not even win one of the two wars they started, the body bags are still coming in. The Republicans wanted to give Obama his Waterloo defeat over healthcare but instead they gave themselves their own Waterloo defeat by not participating in the debate of ideas and by becoming the party of obstructionist. But they now claim they have changed, come on, what sucker is going to believe that?
Okay, now let's pick this thing apart line by line and expose how much of an unimformed boob this commenter really is:
---This is what happens when you have too many whitecastle munchies?
The very first sentence tells us a lot about the commenter. First of all, the commenter is an assumer. He (or she) assumes I have the foggiest idea what a White Castle even is. I've heard of them from a couple people before, but have never eaten their food, walked into their restaurant, or seen one of their locations from the distance. If the commenter had taken a look at my bio he would have noticed that I live in the greater Los Angeles area. The closest White Castle restaurant is in Missouri. If the commenter is not willing to do a little research in that regards, what is there to make me think that he has done any research regarding the remainder of his comment? Immediately, I recognized that this person's entire post is probably based on nothing but assumptions based on his own biased opinions that were forged by his unstable political ideology, and the rhetoric he more than likely listens to on liberal radio and/or television. What this means is any "fact" this person proclaims cannot be trusted.
---Since their inception the Teaparty crowd (not a movement since they do have the numbers or clout) have been “haters not debaters”.
The first thing I noticed was, as with "White Castle," when the commenter wrote "Tea Party" he merged the two words together into one word. I dismissed the instance in the first sentence because everyone is entitled to the occasional typo. But this commenter has now done this twice in two sentences. I believe this reveals many possibilities. One possibility is that the commenter is uneducated. Considering the "substance" (or lack thereof) of his comment in totality, a lack of any decent education beyond the third grade crossed my mind. Another possibility is that the commenter is stupid. I decided that stupidity was not the case because he at least has enough brains to read Political Pistachio, which means the individual can be taught. The third possibility is the one I am clinging to the most. It seems to me, based on the fact that he "assumes," and failed to research where I am before making his White Castle remark, he failed to split "White Castle" and "Tea Party" into two words because he doesn't care enough to pay attention to detail. If he is not willing to pay attention to detail in the simple matter of the written language, what makes me think he was willing to pay attention to the facts before making his long-winded, fantasy induced comment?
In parentheses in the second sentence the commenter indicates that the Tea Party Movement is not a movement because they have numbers and clout. Is this an admission that the Tea Party Movement isn't just some small, minority fringe group as most liberals claim?
Finally, in the second sentence Montana calls the Tea Party people "haters, not debaters." This is interesting, because it is an age old tactic used by the left. Anytime liberals face opposition, they always call those that oppose them haters or racist, and accuse them of not debating. MSNBC is famous for the "debating" fallacy, having conservatives on their programs, asking questions that require more than a yes or no answer, and then throwing their hands up because the guest did not answer yes or no.
And MSNBC freaks out anytime they can't do their job right (which is just about all the time). . .
Wow, almost sounded like Biden and Rahm Emanuel with all of those F-Bombs, didn't it?
---In my opinion this is what the small portions of the republican party of “birthers, baggers and blowhards” have brought you.
In this sentence not only does the commenter resort to ridiculous name calling that means nothing (baggers?), but contradicts himself. Remember, the commenter had just said the Tea Party is not a movement because it is too big to be one, but now in the very next sentence says the Tea Partiers are "the small portions of the republican party." Interestingly enough, it also reveals the commenter's ignorance, since the Tea Party has been explicitly clear that it is not a Republican Movement. In fact, most Tea Party activists are dang near as angry at the Republicans as they are the Democrats. The movement is about principles, not people - ideas, not political parties. And if any of you have attended a Tea Party, you know that the events attract all kinds, not just "Republicans."
---They are good at “Follow the Leader” of their dullard leaders, they listen to Beck, Hedgecock, Hannity, O’Reilly, Rush and Savage and the rest of the Blowhards.
Once again the commenter shows his ability to assume without doing any research. Most folks who like Beck are not necessarily fans of Savage, for example. Hannity earns a split opinion among Tea Party folks and Conservatives because (as I have been told by many of my fellow Constitutional Conservatives) Hannity has this tendency to start hammering away if the guest doesn't answer his questions directly. Hedgecock has a very limited audience, and so few are regular listeners. In fact, I was surprised when I saw he was invited to ride with the Tea Party Express III. I only know of him because I listened to him occasionally when I lived in San Diego during my Navy days, and to be honest, I don't consider him a full fledged Conservative. Hedgecock, to my knowledge, does not enjoy play in the Los Angeles area. O'Reilly is another one that gets mixed reviews, and is not a Republican or a Conservative. He is a self-proclaimed independent, is at odds with Conservatives on some issues (like the death penalty), and his temper has a tendency to turn off a lot of people. Rush Limbaugh, however, is a favorite, but once again, not among "all" conservatives. Interestingly enough, the commenter assumes that if you agree with those people on an issue, that means you are following the leader, and not thinking for yourself. Does that mean since the commenter agrees with Olbermann, Matthews and Maher that he is unable to think for himself too? Funny thing is, often I say things on my own radio show before the guys listed above do, and then I joke that they must use my show for show prep. If I am following them, how is it that I often beat them to the punch?
---Are you surprise at what they do when you know what they think?
Montana left the "d" off at the end of surprised, but I will give him the benefit of the doubt that it was a typo. But the statement is very general. What they do? Tell me, Montana, what do Tea Party people do?
---The world is complicated and most republicans (Hamiliton, Lincoln, Roosevelt) believe that we should use government a little to increase social mobility, now its about dancing around the claim of government is the problem.
This sentence is absolutely hilarious. I love it when the liberals say things are complicated (so complicated he can't even spell Hamilton). That is their way of trying to say they get it, but the little minds of the Right just can't understand all of the complicated facts. In reality, it is all very simple, and the liberal mind is too flooded with bad ideology to recognize the simplicity. Also, I must remind the commenter that the Tea Party is not about the Republican Party, it is about the limiting principles of the U.S. Constitution. As for the historical names he threw up, it shows how ignorant this boob really is. Hamilton was not a Republican, he was a Federalist. Federalists believed in bigger, more centralized government, and due to their radical ideas, the party faded away by the 1820s. Lincoln's complete disregard for the Constitution makes him very unpopular among Conservatives that have studied Lincoln's presidency. His willingness to try to use the federal government to force the Southern States into abolishing slavery resulted in not only a number of unconstitutional decisions, but also resulted in the unnecessary death of 700,000 men in the War Between the States. Abolitionist movements were already under way in the Southern States, and those movements, coupled with the invention of the Cotton Gin, would have resulted in the elimination of slavery in the United States within the next ten to fifteen years after the beginning of Lincoln's presidency without all of the bloodshed, and without the federal government stomping all over state's rights. As for Roosevelt (I assume he means Teddy), Teddy Roosevelt was a big time progressive, and is a hated historical figure among conservatives.
Montana is also ignorant of the history of the parties. When the Federalist Party died the Whigs took their place as the big government party, and the Republican Party was also a big government party until about the time Taft took office. During the 1800s the Democrats were Jeffersonians, believing in the principles of a limited federal government. Woodrow Wilson, a far left radical, changed the Democrat Party forever, steering it forever away from the limiting principles it had championed for over a hundred years. The only president since Wilson in the Democrat Party that even came close to not being a far left liberal was Kennedy. As for the GOP, despite its move towards limiting principles, in reality only three Republicans have been truly conservative, Harding, Coolidge, and Reagan. The rest, as much as I hate to say it, were students of big government (though some of them showed a little bit of conservatism here and there).
---The sainted Reagan passed the biggest tax increase in American history and as a result federal employment increased, but facts are lost when mired in mysticism and superstition.
If Montana was a regular reader of this site he would know that I have addressed that a number of times. First of all, the facts Montana is presenting are wrong. Reagan, you must remember, did not increase taxes, the tax increase Montana is referring to, I believe, is from Daddy Bush's presidency - which contradicted his "no new taxes" pledge. There was, however, an increase of spending that occurred during Reagan's presidency (in fact, spending tripled during the Reagan Years), but it was the Democrats in Congress that proposed all of that spending. Reagan's problem is he did not veto any of it, as he should have. Reagan, however, cut taxes drastically, and as a result we experienced one of the greatest periods of prosperity in American History. Those facts that Montana says are lost and mired are facts he apparently doesn't understand. Maybe it is all too "complicated" for him.
---Although some republicans are trying to distant themselves from this fringe most of them are just going along and fanning the flames.
The Republicans that are distancing themselves from the Tea Party movement are the liberal ones, and they don't belong in the party anyway, and will be gone soon enough. As for being "fringe," polls indicate that most of America agrees with the Tea Partiers on the issues. So, unless you consider most of the United States "fringe," I would hardly call the Tea Party movement such. You want fringe? Hard left radicals that somehow deceived the people enough to put them into office qualifies as big time fringe.
---Lets face it the Republicans had 8 years to deal with health care, immigration and financial oversight and governance and they failed.
Health Care is not a federal issue. Read your Constitution. If anything, the federal government needs to reduce restrictions on the industry, and allow Free Market solutions to improve the difficult Health Care situation. I wrote about Health Care and the Constitution HERE. Read and learn. As for immigration, the GOP that was in power had the same ideas for amnesty the Democrats had, and the fact is, amnesty is a bad idea. Instead, how about we just enforce the laws on the books? Read about Immigration and the Constitution HERE. Read it, you might learn something. As for the financial oversight, actually the Republicans were proclaiming that Fanny and Freddie were in trouble in late 2004, and that the GSEs needed oversight, but the Democrats shot it down. Interesting. It was the Republicans that warned about the problem, yet now the leftists blame the GOP for the meltdown.
---They could not even win one of the two wars they started, the body bags are still coming in.
Iraq was won, and now Biden is trying to give Obama credit for it. And we did not start the war against the Islamic Jihad, they did by their continuous attacks against the United States, of which culminated on September 11, 2001. Remember, also, that the Democrats originally overwhelmingly approved going to war, and also proclaimed the existence of WMDs.
---The Republicans wanted to give Obama his Waterloo defeat over healthcare but instead they gave themselves their own Waterloo defeat by not participating in the debate of ideas and by becoming the party of obstructionist.
Notice, once again Montana has trouble dividing his words (healthcare - health care). The American People are overwhelmingly against the Health Care legislation, and it is illegal (unconstitutional) - yet the Democrats rammed it through regardless. As a result, the Democrats have nearly destroyed their party, and is looking at devastating defeats in the next few elections. If that isn't a Waterloo, I don't know what it. But I do agree that the Republicans shouldn't be the "Party of No." Instead, they should be the "Party of HELL NO!"
---But they now claim they have changed, come on, what sucker is going to believe that?
Politicians are corrupt by nature and the disease of corruption, though worse in the Democrat Party, rages in both parties. That is why the people must remain engaged. The Republicans are only behaving right now because we are demanding it, and because there are a handful of good ones. My message to the American People is that once the Republicans return to their conservative roots, and regain control of the federal government, do not trust them. People will always disappoint. The Tea Party movement is about principles, and it is up to us to demand that the Public Servants abide by those Constitutional Principles. We must never stop. And as we work to regain control of an out of control big government, we must work at the local level. Local politics are where the national leaders of tomorrow come from. Let's put the right people in at the local level now so that later the national level does not get so out of whack.
So, Montana, did you learn anything?
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
This morning a commenter named Montana left a comment that was not vile enough to delete, but not sensible enough to approve. In fact, it was downright typical liberal ignorance. So, for the fun of it, I have decided to dissect it and maybe educate this small mind, and perhaps a few other leftist knuckleheads while we are at it.
So that the individual cannot say I took him out of context, here is the comment in its entirety.
Montana; Tuesday, March 30, 2010,9:12:52 AM
This is what happens when you have too many whitecastle munchies? Since their inception the Teaparty crowd (not a movement since they do have the numbers or clout) have been “haters not debaters”. In my opinion this is what the small portions of the republican party of “birthers, baggers and blowhards” have brought you. They are good at “Follow the Leader” of their dullard leaders, they listen to Beck, Hedgecock, Hannity, O’Reilly, Rush and Savage and the rest of the Blowhards. Are you surprise at what they do when you know what they think? The world is complicated and most republicans (Hamiliton, Lincoln, Roosevelt) believe that we should use government a little to increase social mobility, now its about dancing around the claim of government is the problem. The sainted Reagan passed the biggest tax increase in American history and as a result federal employment increased, but facts are lost when mired in mysticism and superstition. Although some republicans are trying to distant themselves from this fringe most of them are just going along and fanning the flames. Lets face it the Republicans had 8 years to deal with health care, immigration and financial oversight and governance and they failed. They could not even win one of the two wars they started, the body bags are still coming in. The Republicans wanted to give Obama his Waterloo defeat over healthcare but instead they gave themselves their own Waterloo defeat by not participating in the debate of ideas and by becoming the party of obstructionist. But they now claim they have changed, come on, what sucker is going to believe that?
Okay, now let's pick this thing apart line by line and expose how much of an unimformed boob this commenter really is:
---This is what happens when you have too many whitecastle munchies?
The very first sentence tells us a lot about the commenter. First of all, the commenter is an assumer. He (or she) assumes I have the foggiest idea what a White Castle even is. I've heard of them from a couple people before, but have never eaten their food, walked into their restaurant, or seen one of their locations from the distance. If the commenter had taken a look at my bio he would have noticed that I live in the greater Los Angeles area. The closest White Castle restaurant is in Missouri. If the commenter is not willing to do a little research in that regards, what is there to make me think that he has done any research regarding the remainder of his comment? Immediately, I recognized that this person's entire post is probably based on nothing but assumptions based on his own biased opinions that were forged by his unstable political ideology, and the rhetoric he more than likely listens to on liberal radio and/or television. What this means is any "fact" this person proclaims cannot be trusted.
---Since their inception the Teaparty crowd (not a movement since they do have the numbers or clout) have been “haters not debaters”.
The first thing I noticed was, as with "White Castle," when the commenter wrote "Tea Party" he merged the two words together into one word. I dismissed the instance in the first sentence because everyone is entitled to the occasional typo. But this commenter has now done this twice in two sentences. I believe this reveals many possibilities. One possibility is that the commenter is uneducated. Considering the "substance" (or lack thereof) of his comment in totality, a lack of any decent education beyond the third grade crossed my mind. Another possibility is that the commenter is stupid. I decided that stupidity was not the case because he at least has enough brains to read Political Pistachio, which means the individual can be taught. The third possibility is the one I am clinging to the most. It seems to me, based on the fact that he "assumes," and failed to research where I am before making his White Castle remark, he failed to split "White Castle" and "Tea Party" into two words because he doesn't care enough to pay attention to detail. If he is not willing to pay attention to detail in the simple matter of the written language, what makes me think he was willing to pay attention to the facts before making his long-winded, fantasy induced comment?
In parentheses in the second sentence the commenter indicates that the Tea Party Movement is not a movement because they have numbers and clout. Is this an admission that the Tea Party Movement isn't just some small, minority fringe group as most liberals claim?
Finally, in the second sentence Montana calls the Tea Party people "haters, not debaters." This is interesting, because it is an age old tactic used by the left. Anytime liberals face opposition, they always call those that oppose them haters or racist, and accuse them of not debating. MSNBC is famous for the "debating" fallacy, having conservatives on their programs, asking questions that require more than a yes or no answer, and then throwing their hands up because the guest did not answer yes or no.
And MSNBC freaks out anytime they can't do their job right (which is just about all the time). . .
Wow, almost sounded like Biden and Rahm Emanuel with all of those F-Bombs, didn't it?
---In my opinion this is what the small portions of the republican party of “birthers, baggers and blowhards” have brought you.
In this sentence not only does the commenter resort to ridiculous name calling that means nothing (baggers?), but contradicts himself. Remember, the commenter had just said the Tea Party is not a movement because it is too big to be one, but now in the very next sentence says the Tea Partiers are "the small portions of the republican party." Interestingly enough, it also reveals the commenter's ignorance, since the Tea Party has been explicitly clear that it is not a Republican Movement. In fact, most Tea Party activists are dang near as angry at the Republicans as they are the Democrats. The movement is about principles, not people - ideas, not political parties. And if any of you have attended a Tea Party, you know that the events attract all kinds, not just "Republicans."
---They are good at “Follow the Leader” of their dullard leaders, they listen to Beck, Hedgecock, Hannity, O’Reilly, Rush and Savage and the rest of the Blowhards.
Once again the commenter shows his ability to assume without doing any research. Most folks who like Beck are not necessarily fans of Savage, for example. Hannity earns a split opinion among Tea Party folks and Conservatives because (as I have been told by many of my fellow Constitutional Conservatives) Hannity has this tendency to start hammering away if the guest doesn't answer his questions directly. Hedgecock has a very limited audience, and so few are regular listeners. In fact, I was surprised when I saw he was invited to ride with the Tea Party Express III. I only know of him because I listened to him occasionally when I lived in San Diego during my Navy days, and to be honest, I don't consider him a full fledged Conservative. Hedgecock, to my knowledge, does not enjoy play in the Los Angeles area. O'Reilly is another one that gets mixed reviews, and is not a Republican or a Conservative. He is a self-proclaimed independent, is at odds with Conservatives on some issues (like the death penalty), and his temper has a tendency to turn off a lot of people. Rush Limbaugh, however, is a favorite, but once again, not among "all" conservatives. Interestingly enough, the commenter assumes that if you agree with those people on an issue, that means you are following the leader, and not thinking for yourself. Does that mean since the commenter agrees with Olbermann, Matthews and Maher that he is unable to think for himself too? Funny thing is, often I say things on my own radio show before the guys listed above do, and then I joke that they must use my show for show prep. If I am following them, how is it that I often beat them to the punch?
---Are you surprise at what they do when you know what they think?
Montana left the "d" off at the end of surprised, but I will give him the benefit of the doubt that it was a typo. But the statement is very general. What they do? Tell me, Montana, what do Tea Party people do?
---The world is complicated and most republicans (Hamiliton, Lincoln, Roosevelt) believe that we should use government a little to increase social mobility, now its about dancing around the claim of government is the problem.
This sentence is absolutely hilarious. I love it when the liberals say things are complicated (so complicated he can't even spell Hamilton). That is their way of trying to say they get it, but the little minds of the Right just can't understand all of the complicated facts. In reality, it is all very simple, and the liberal mind is too flooded with bad ideology to recognize the simplicity. Also, I must remind the commenter that the Tea Party is not about the Republican Party, it is about the limiting principles of the U.S. Constitution. As for the historical names he threw up, it shows how ignorant this boob really is. Hamilton was not a Republican, he was a Federalist. Federalists believed in bigger, more centralized government, and due to their radical ideas, the party faded away by the 1820s. Lincoln's complete disregard for the Constitution makes him very unpopular among Conservatives that have studied Lincoln's presidency. His willingness to try to use the federal government to force the Southern States into abolishing slavery resulted in not only a number of unconstitutional decisions, but also resulted in the unnecessary death of 700,000 men in the War Between the States. Abolitionist movements were already under way in the Southern States, and those movements, coupled with the invention of the Cotton Gin, would have resulted in the elimination of slavery in the United States within the next ten to fifteen years after the beginning of Lincoln's presidency without all of the bloodshed, and without the federal government stomping all over state's rights. As for Roosevelt (I assume he means Teddy), Teddy Roosevelt was a big time progressive, and is a hated historical figure among conservatives.
Montana is also ignorant of the history of the parties. When the Federalist Party died the Whigs took their place as the big government party, and the Republican Party was also a big government party until about the time Taft took office. During the 1800s the Democrats were Jeffersonians, believing in the principles of a limited federal government. Woodrow Wilson, a far left radical, changed the Democrat Party forever, steering it forever away from the limiting principles it had championed for over a hundred years. The only president since Wilson in the Democrat Party that even came close to not being a far left liberal was Kennedy. As for the GOP, despite its move towards limiting principles, in reality only three Republicans have been truly conservative, Harding, Coolidge, and Reagan. The rest, as much as I hate to say it, were students of big government (though some of them showed a little bit of conservatism here and there).
---The sainted Reagan passed the biggest tax increase in American history and as a result federal employment increased, but facts are lost when mired in mysticism and superstition.
If Montana was a regular reader of this site he would know that I have addressed that a number of times. First of all, the facts Montana is presenting are wrong. Reagan, you must remember, did not increase taxes, the tax increase Montana is referring to, I believe, is from Daddy Bush's presidency - which contradicted his "no new taxes" pledge. There was, however, an increase of spending that occurred during Reagan's presidency (in fact, spending tripled during the Reagan Years), but it was the Democrats in Congress that proposed all of that spending. Reagan's problem is he did not veto any of it, as he should have. Reagan, however, cut taxes drastically, and as a result we experienced one of the greatest periods of prosperity in American History. Those facts that Montana says are lost and mired are facts he apparently doesn't understand. Maybe it is all too "complicated" for him.
---Although some republicans are trying to distant themselves from this fringe most of them are just going along and fanning the flames.
The Republicans that are distancing themselves from the Tea Party movement are the liberal ones, and they don't belong in the party anyway, and will be gone soon enough. As for being "fringe," polls indicate that most of America agrees with the Tea Partiers on the issues. So, unless you consider most of the United States "fringe," I would hardly call the Tea Party movement such. You want fringe? Hard left radicals that somehow deceived the people enough to put them into office qualifies as big time fringe.
---Lets face it the Republicans had 8 years to deal with health care, immigration and financial oversight and governance and they failed.
Health Care is not a federal issue. Read your Constitution. If anything, the federal government needs to reduce restrictions on the industry, and allow Free Market solutions to improve the difficult Health Care situation. I wrote about Health Care and the Constitution HERE. Read and learn. As for immigration, the GOP that was in power had the same ideas for amnesty the Democrats had, and the fact is, amnesty is a bad idea. Instead, how about we just enforce the laws on the books? Read about Immigration and the Constitution HERE. Read it, you might learn something. As for the financial oversight, actually the Republicans were proclaiming that Fanny and Freddie were in trouble in late 2004, and that the GSEs needed oversight, but the Democrats shot it down. Interesting. It was the Republicans that warned about the problem, yet now the leftists blame the GOP for the meltdown.
---They could not even win one of the two wars they started, the body bags are still coming in.
Iraq was won, and now Biden is trying to give Obama credit for it. And we did not start the war against the Islamic Jihad, they did by their continuous attacks against the United States, of which culminated on September 11, 2001. Remember, also, that the Democrats originally overwhelmingly approved going to war, and also proclaimed the existence of WMDs.
---The Republicans wanted to give Obama his Waterloo defeat over healthcare but instead they gave themselves their own Waterloo defeat by not participating in the debate of ideas and by becoming the party of obstructionist.
Notice, once again Montana has trouble dividing his words (healthcare - health care). The American People are overwhelmingly against the Health Care legislation, and it is illegal (unconstitutional) - yet the Democrats rammed it through regardless. As a result, the Democrats have nearly destroyed their party, and is looking at devastating defeats in the next few elections. If that isn't a Waterloo, I don't know what it. But I do agree that the Republicans shouldn't be the "Party of No." Instead, they should be the "Party of HELL NO!"
---But they now claim they have changed, come on, what sucker is going to believe that?
Politicians are corrupt by nature and the disease of corruption, though worse in the Democrat Party, rages in both parties. That is why the people must remain engaged. The Republicans are only behaving right now because we are demanding it, and because there are a handful of good ones. My message to the American People is that once the Republicans return to their conservative roots, and regain control of the federal government, do not trust them. People will always disappoint. The Tea Party movement is about principles, and it is up to us to demand that the Public Servants abide by those Constitutional Principles. We must never stop. And as we work to regain control of an out of control big government, we must work at the local level. Local politics are where the national leaders of tomorrow come from. Let's put the right people in at the local level now so that later the national level does not get so out of whack.
So, Montana, did you learn anything?
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Government Gun Control Rears its ugly head as a Global Gun Grab
U.S. reverses stance on treaty to regulate arms trade
WASHINGTON - The United States reversed policy on Wednesday and said it would back launching talks on a treaty to regulate arms sales as long as the talks operated by consensus, a stance critics said gave every nation a veto.
For those of you trying to defend Obama, saying he doesn't plan to come take our guns away from us, think again. . .
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
What in the Hell are the Republicans thinking?
R.N.C. Spends Thousands on Jets, Limos and Clubs
Election filings show thousands of dollars for private jets, and for an outing at a controversial night club.
If the Republicans are going to claim values, they have to practice them. This is disappointing to say the least.
One must understand that these knuckleheads do not represent the Right, nor to they represent the entirety of the GOP. Nonetheless, in a battle for America when values are one of the main issues, this kind of junk does not help.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Islamism Seeping Into The United States
Islamic supremacists can't stop themselves. In the linked article, one must ask, "Why are these jihadis going to Texas "Trinity" if they can't bear the thought of Christianity?"
They want Christianity removed from the American public square and replaced with Islam.
Why would muslims set off bombs in our malls right now? Well, they won't. They are slowly seeping into everything with their friggin' hurt feelings.
They want Christianity removed from the American public square and replaced with Islam.
Why would muslims set off bombs in our malls right now? Well, they won't. They are slowly seeping into everything with their friggin' hurt feelings.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Monday, March 29, 2010
Showdown In Searchlight Pics
By Douglas V. Gibbs
My grandmother died on February third. She lived in Kingman, Arizona, which is about an hour drive, or so, south of Searchlight, Nevada. When I began to plan the trip to the Searchlight Tea Party Express event, I wasn't sure how I wanted to get out there. With a 27% unemployment rate in the construction industry, and the commercial side of real estate and construction beginning to head for a face-plant, the work I engage in is beginning to make it harder and harder to stay above water, so I was hoping to split the cost of the trip with someone. After exhausting all possibilities my mother contacted me and asked if I was going to the Showdown in Searchlight. I told her the story, and she told me she desired to go as well, plus was needing to go to Kingman to wrap up taking care of grandma's things. So, we got on the road about four in the morning in her car, and made our way to Searchlight, Nevada.
As we approached Searchlight, Nevada along the lonely two-lane highway, realization revealed that the town is a blink town - if you blink, you will miss it. With a population of 700 in the middle of the Nevada desert Searchlight is a testament to the rugged individuality and self-reliance that is the American People. Despite the rough environment of the area that demands the residents to be personally responsible just to survive, Searchlight is also the hometown of the bleeding heart (thinks he's being compassionate by stealing from one group and creating a culture of dependency in another) Senator Harry Reid.
It occurred to me at one point that all of the people at the Tea Party Express III event was probably the most people that has been in Searchlight at one time, ever.
The Tea Party Express's Showdown in Searchlight was ten miles past the small speck of Searchlight's group of businesses. On the left we saw the area come into view. The place was already hopping with thousands of people, and we were four hours early. At the entrance some Ron Paul nut-cakes had put up a sign that read "Love, Not War," and Mom asked me, "Are you sure this is the place?"
I explained to her about the Ron Paul rEVOLution folks, and then we entered the dusty bowl that was suffering from heavy winds, and lots of flying dust. After locating were Ken Pettigrew had set up shop at media row, I sat down and took a moment to rest.
Before the Tea Party Express buses arrived the stage livened up with local candidates explaining why they belonged in office.
Some of the quotes of these candidates:
"Don't let them kill your American Dream."
"The Free Market is the solution."
"Welcome to Harry Reid's retirement party."
"One third of Republicans sat home in 2008. We will not be home in November."
"You cannot court martial Haditha Marines and our Navy SEALS for doing their job. The founders would not have told the underwear bomber terrorist he had the right to remain silent."
At one point faces began to look to the sky, and when I looked up I saw five planes that had appeared overhead. And then the sky writing began.
Cheers erupted as the sky writers wrote in the sky high above the event: "Tea Party Express," "We The People," "Vote Reid Out," "No New Taxes," and "God Bless America."
Melanie Morgan and Kevin Williams were the first to take the stage from the Tea Party Express III buses after they arrived, addressing the crowd about the ridiculous accusations by the Left that the Tea Party Movement has been inciting violence, explaining that "Thuggery is a Left Wing Tactic."
Shortly after, Sarah Palin took the stage, and gave an awe inspiring speech that essentially articulated conservatism, admonished the thuggish tactics by the Left, proclaimed she was proud to be with proud Americans, and she was optimistic about our future as a nation.
Joe the Plumber, on stage, reminded us to "Hold these people accountable." He explained how the Tea Party Movement is not a Republican Movement, it's an American movement. He also stated that he found it absolutely ludicrous that his popularity arose because he asked a question. We should all be asking questions, he said. Then he discussed his military days, saying he "joined the military because I love my country."
Our country, if it is to prosper, he went on to say, must follow three basic ideas:
- Less federal government in our lives
- Less Taxes
- Stronger state's rights.
He continued saying that he feels political correctness is political castration. It makes you afraid to challenge, afraid to ask questions. Our freedom demands of us to ask questions, and our liberty comes with the responsibility of being engaged. The Constitution ain't broke, so the Left needs to stop trying to change it. "Actions, not words - be involved."
Chuck Devore, the man planning to unseat Boxer in California, said when he got on stage, "If we are going to take back our nation we must work for it - do your research, put the right people in office."
As we were listening to the other speakers, a friend of my grandmother's who had been planning to come to the event called my mom saying that the traffic was backed up for miles and he could not get to the event.
Cable news networks were estimating the number of people from being in the hundreds to over ten thousand. Some conservative talkers today said "tens of thousands." Looking around I believe the amount of people there was enough to fill Angels Stadium in Anaheim, which holds well over 40,000. Later, I heard some of the local people say they were hearing estimates of about 40,000. Regardless of the number, it was a lot of people.
As Victoria Jackson (of Saturday Night Live fame) was speaking, it became clear to me that though I had spoken to my good friend Andrea Shea King on the phone earlier, and we had planned to meet up at the event, unless I took steps to make it happen, it wouldn't. So, followed by my Mom, I began to make my way towards the area where the buses were parked behind the stage. When I arrived, Andrea's producer called me and asked if we had had the opportunity to connect, and I told him we were having trouble calling each other because the cell phone signal was so bad. He promised to try to call her as I began to work closer to the bus.
Earlier, when Lloyd Marcus had taken the stage to sing, I told my mom that I had spoken with Lloyd before, and that he knew Andrea well. Armed with that knowledge, Mom saw Lloyd, approached him, grabbed his arm, and said, "Andrea Shea King wants to see my son, can you get her?"
Lloyd, at first, had this look on his face that seemed to say, "Who's this woman, and why is she grabbing my arm?" But he wound up going into the bus and letting Andrea know we were outside waiting for her. While Lloyd was gone, just to make sure there were plenty of folks looking for Andrea, Mom called to Andrew Breitbart as well, saying, "Andrew, Andrea Shea King wants to meet my son, Doug, can you get her?"
Little did we know, there was another Doug, and he was a part of the Tea Party Express III. This confused Andrew Breitbart, especially when I said to him something about Political Pistachio as well. About the time the foggy cloud grabbed a hold of him, and he began to try to figure out what the heck was going on, Andrea came out, gave me a hug, and we began to talk.
While talking to Andrea, I also got the opportunity to spend some time discussing conservatism with Lloyd Marcus.
As I was spending time with Andrea and Lloyd, Mom decided she wanted a picture with Andrew Breitbart, so she called out to him again. This time he came over, posed for the photograph with us (at first Mom tried to give the camera to Lloyd Marcus to take the picture, but he said he wasn't sure about the camera, so Andrea Shea King took the picture), and then we began talking with Andrew about politics, Hollywood, and the Tea Party Express III.
During the conversation with Breitbart, Andrea suggested to him that he come on my Political Pistachio Radio Revolution program. He agreed to, and I told him I'd hold him to it, and sick Andrea on him if he didn't. We all laughed, and talked a little more. I am figuring some time after the Tea Party Express III finishes its trip to Washington DC (April 15), I will have Breitbart on my program.
After we completed the conversation, and Andrew Breitbart began to head back to the bus, my mom called out to him one more time. Joe the Plumber was a few feet away, and Mom called out to Breitbart to send Joe over to our little group for pictures and conversation. Joe the Plumber, being the nice guy that he is, obliged.
Joe was one of the best speakers of the event, and when he spoke with us after the picture was taken, it became apparent that he is one of the nicest people you will ever meet. After the conversation was over, I spotted Hannah Giles of "bring down ACORN posing as a prostitute" fame, and she's even cuter in person.
I said my farewell to Andrea, we hugged, and Mom and I returned to our spot at Media Row.
I then realized that I missed out on meeting with Debbie Lee, another person I had Emailed, and she had responded saying she was looking forward to meeting me. After I got home I sent her an Email apologizing, and we determined we will get the opportunity sometime in the future.
Andrea took the stage shortly after, whipping the crowd up into cheers as she called them "beautiful Americans" and snapped a couple of pictures of the crowd from the stage. The consummate professional, Andrea also gave a phenomenal speech.
Shortly after Andrea's speech, we departed the event, drove to Kingman, Arizona, and I broadcasted my radio show live from the hotel room. Later, checking the numbers, the live radio report about the Showdown in Searchlight is one of my more listened to shows.
Figures. America loves the Tea Party, and is beginning to understand that what is happening in Washington is wrong, and against the U.S. Constitution.
We returned home on Sunday, tired, but grinning. The pictures came out great, but the memories will last a lifetime.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Taxes and the Founding Fathers
By Douglas V. Gibbs
In the U.S. Constitution we find that taxes are addressed a number of times. In Article I, Section 8, the Constitution gives Congress the power "to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts, and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States." Prior to 1913, and the 16th Amendment, Article I, Section 9, Clause 4 read "no Capitation, or other direct Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census of Enumeration herein before directed to be taken." In other words, the founders of this great nation did not intend for there to be a federal income tax, or an army of IRS agents inforcing it.
America's most famous tea party, The Boston Tea Party, occurred over a dispute regarding a one cent tax on tea. The move by the British Parliament was one of many unfair taxes levied against the colonists. The Tea Act of 1773 was applied against the American Colonies in the hopes of compelling the colonies to purchase tea directly from Britain's East India Company, rather than colonial importers who often smuggled tea in from Holland. Then, as now, taxation was not only used as a means of creating revenue, but also as a device to control the people, and to manipulate their behaviors.
The United States of America was forged into existence by the blood of patriots, and even our history books are willing to admit that one of the major factors leading to the colony's desire for independence was the fact that they were being heavily taxed without representation. America was consciously designed from scratch by the hands of men from the moment independence became an option in their minds. The founding documents were wrestled into existence through a process of argument and debate, shaped by a desire for a constitutional republic ruled by law that could stand the test of time, rather than succumb to men's lust for power, and the eventual downward spiral into a centralized government ruled by a despotic oligarchy.
The signers of the Declaration of Independence completed the text of that document with a pledge of their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor in support of the Declaration. The actions by the British Empire against the thirteen colonies had been such that despite their distinct differences in heritage, geography, commerce, and religion, the ragtag group of colonies, who desired to become sovereign states, unified with the intention of taking on the greatest military power of the day, the British Empire. Of the many reasons for such a union, none of them resonated like the anger the colonists felt regarding unfair taxation. The Crown, as far as the colonists were concerned, believed the colonies to be nothing more than a source of revenue.
The Sugar Act and the Currency Act were a couple of taxes that created anger among the colonists, but the Stamp Act of 1765 was especially egregious because it expected the colonists to pay directly from their own pockets to the British treasury.
When the United States became an independent nation, taxation was considered to be a state issue. Then, out of the revenue gained by the states, the federal government received a sum from each of the states in return for protection of the union by an armed force and navy. States did not receive federal funding for programs because the responsibilities for local projects belonged to the states. In fact, in regards to transportation public works projects, President James Madison vetoed a bill in 1817. Madison vetoed the bill because he could find no authority in the U.S. Constitution for Congress to fund transportation projects. The only Constitutional authority the federal government has regarding roadways is establishing post roads. The responsibility for the creation and maintenance of roadways belongs to the states.
Americans are taxed enough already. The taxation against the citizens of this great nation today are even more outrageous than they were by the hands of the British Empire prior to the Revolutionary War. The original intent of the Constitution was for the federal budget to be small, for there not to be a national debt, and for the people to be taxed only in moderation. When, in Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 the Constitution gives the authority to collect taxes, it was not intended to mean they could collect taxes in any way, shape or form they desired. And when the taxation against the people became too high, the founders believed it was up to the people to ensure the public servants of the federal government followed the law, or were removed from office by the populace.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
In the U.S. Constitution we find that taxes are addressed a number of times. In Article I, Section 8, the Constitution gives Congress the power "to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts, and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States." Prior to 1913, and the 16th Amendment, Article I, Section 9, Clause 4 read "no Capitation, or other direct Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census of Enumeration herein before directed to be taken." In other words, the founders of this great nation did not intend for there to be a federal income tax, or an army of IRS agents inforcing it.
America's most famous tea party, The Boston Tea Party, occurred over a dispute regarding a one cent tax on tea. The move by the British Parliament was one of many unfair taxes levied against the colonists. The Tea Act of 1773 was applied against the American Colonies in the hopes of compelling the colonies to purchase tea directly from Britain's East India Company, rather than colonial importers who often smuggled tea in from Holland. Then, as now, taxation was not only used as a means of creating revenue, but also as a device to control the people, and to manipulate their behaviors.
The United States of America was forged into existence by the blood of patriots, and even our history books are willing to admit that one of the major factors leading to the colony's desire for independence was the fact that they were being heavily taxed without representation. America was consciously designed from scratch by the hands of men from the moment independence became an option in their minds. The founding documents were wrestled into existence through a process of argument and debate, shaped by a desire for a constitutional republic ruled by law that could stand the test of time, rather than succumb to men's lust for power, and the eventual downward spiral into a centralized government ruled by a despotic oligarchy.
The signers of the Declaration of Independence completed the text of that document with a pledge of their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor in support of the Declaration. The actions by the British Empire against the thirteen colonies had been such that despite their distinct differences in heritage, geography, commerce, and religion, the ragtag group of colonies, who desired to become sovereign states, unified with the intention of taking on the greatest military power of the day, the British Empire. Of the many reasons for such a union, none of them resonated like the anger the colonists felt regarding unfair taxation. The Crown, as far as the colonists were concerned, believed the colonies to be nothing more than a source of revenue.
The Sugar Act and the Currency Act were a couple of taxes that created anger among the colonists, but the Stamp Act of 1765 was especially egregious because it expected the colonists to pay directly from their own pockets to the British treasury.
When the United States became an independent nation, taxation was considered to be a state issue. Then, out of the revenue gained by the states, the federal government received a sum from each of the states in return for protection of the union by an armed force and navy. States did not receive federal funding for programs because the responsibilities for local projects belonged to the states. In fact, in regards to transportation public works projects, President James Madison vetoed a bill in 1817. Madison vetoed the bill because he could find no authority in the U.S. Constitution for Congress to fund transportation projects. The only Constitutional authority the federal government has regarding roadways is establishing post roads. The responsibility for the creation and maintenance of roadways belongs to the states.
Americans are taxed enough already. The taxation against the citizens of this great nation today are even more outrageous than they were by the hands of the British Empire prior to the Revolutionary War. The original intent of the Constitution was for the federal budget to be small, for there not to be a national debt, and for the people to be taxed only in moderation. When, in Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 the Constitution gives the authority to collect taxes, it was not intended to mean they could collect taxes in any way, shape or form they desired. And when the taxation against the people became too high, the founders believed it was up to the people to ensure the public servants of the federal government followed the law, or were removed from office by the populace.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Sunday, March 28, 2010
A Petition for redress by the citizens of the United States
By J.J. Jackson
We the posterity of our forefathers come before the government of these United States and all mankind in order that it should be made clear our grievances stemming forth from a long train of abuses of our inalienable rights and blatant violations of the federal Constitution of these United States which was signed, ratified and where was bound up the whole of what was to be our limited federal government and its structure. No man rightfully wishes to contemplate the darkest of scenarios in which a government formed by the just consent of the people and constrained by chains of written words declared so boldly for all to witness no longer chooses to abide by said consent or words for reasons unjust and unholy while goaded on by the ravings of a portion of the populace coerced to abandon such confines. Beware the time at which such an instance becomes true, any sane man would warn! But what becomes when such a time is indeed upon us? Would the sane man who warned us to beware of it say no more? Indeed the answer cannot be reasoned to be anything other than a hearty and powerful, “No!” which must be shouted upon the land from the tallest peak so that it may echo in the valleys and be heard by all. Sane men desirous of their liberty would never stop a step short of their goal and would never concede to such an outcome and would surely never be silenced when their freedoms are taken and the foundations of limited government violated.
It is not with a motivation beyond that of being simply and enthusiastically desirous for our God given liberties that this declaration comes forth at this time. It only comes forth due to a need deep within the hearts of all freedom loving men and women. Such is what drives this proclamation to the top of the minds of all mankind.
Through the long course of human events that have transpired since the late Convention that formed this nation into a representative Republic and unified us as a loose federalist society of independent States and sovereign citizens and the prior Continental Congress that brought us together in unity against oppression, it has become necessary and proper to petition those in charge with our most general of welfare for redress of grievances perpetrated upon the citizenry of the United States by such persons. Such a petition is just and fair and rightfully the process by which all citizens of the United States must use to lay bear such objections to events and actions as have transpired to make such things transparent for all to see.
This must be done! For should redress not be forthcoming and further actions must, in good conscious, be taken by men to reclaim their rightful liberty the groundwork must be firmly in place so that only those that desire to not loose their power and continue to the repressions of the current day could object.
Liberty and justice guides us all to declare that our grievances against this Republic are as follows. That broadly:
The Congress for many years with the aid of a succession of Presidents as well as the courts and judges upon them, approved and appointed by the previously mentioned elected officers of this nation, have exceeded so greatly the general and limited terms of the various Articles of our Federal Constitution. In doing such they have produced far too much that was never envisioned under the auspices of promoting the general Welfare and that is neither necessary nor proper for government to fulfill its specific and defined obligations.
That more directly:
The federal government has instituted a form of taxation upon the citizenry which takes a greater share of the burden for funding the current government from those that it arbitrarily deems to earn too much while taking little or nothing from those that it deems to earn too little instead of a fair system of taxation that makes all citizens ultimately desirous for knowledge of the actions of their elected representatives and jealous of how each penny of their monies is to be spent and which requires all to bear the burden of the costs of government.
The federal government has, based on this system of taxation, instituted a further system of redistributing wealth from the former to the later and in doing so has made slaves of a portion of the American populace in a manner strictly forbidden by the ratification of the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution and which has been always an anathema to justice and the Laws of Nature’s God.
The federal government has on purpose made this system of taxation blatantly confusing and overly complicated in order to instill within the populace a sense of fear; that the federal government has used this system of massive laws to harass the citizenry, make criminals of law abiding persons who seek no harm for their fellow Americans and ultimately wield it as a weapon arbitrarily against our liberties to coerce our actions.
The federal government has exceeded its mandate under Article I of the Constitution by instituting mandatory contributions through taxation of working Americans to pay for the retirement and old age pensions of both themselves and other Americans thus forcing them to acquire a good or service which they may not desire or face punishment as well as pick their pockets to pay the way of others.
The federal government has exceeded its mandate under Article I of the Constitution by instituting mandatory contributions through taxation of working Americans to pay for the health care costs of other Americans. It has further instituted penalties for persons who do not want to purchase health insurance and are thus forcing the American public to enter into contracts against their will or face fines in blatant violation of our liberties.
The federal government has exceeded its mandate under Article I of the Constitution by taking contributions from working Americans to pay for the food of other Americans.
The federal government has exceeded its mandate under Article I of the Constitution by taking contributions from working Americans to pay for the housing and sundry creature comforts of other Americans.
The federal government has violated the First Amendment’s prohibition on laws against freedom of speech by passing laws that directly dictate how citizens may communicate their ideas and beliefs, such as in the time prior to an election as but one glaring example and by harassing churches and their leaders that dare to speak on politics from the pulpit and against the policies of those in power as but another.
The federal government has violated the Second Amendment’s spirit and clear wording by laying upon the law abiding people of this nation laws that prohibit the keeping and bearing of arms except those arms deemed by the government as acceptable and at times and places approved instead of at all times.
The Congress has abdicated unconstitutionally its responsibility solely entrusted to that body to make law and placed such authority in many instances upon unelected boards, departments and bureaus created as an attempt to skirt the Constitutional prohibitions and limits of their own power.
The federal government has placed resources which rightly belong to the independent people and States of this nation off limits through the use of superfluous designations such as national parks and which are found nowhere within their powers as clearly stated. The use and abuse of eminent domain has also become a major problem that has been left to fester with the members of the Supreme Court wondrously affirming the ability of governments large and small to take land unjustly from the current holder of a property to grant the land to a new owner for the sake of increasing tax revenues or generating other benefits for said governments.
The federal government has and continues to seek to make the United States party to treaties which directly overwrite and amend the Constitution without using the prescribe process for doing such under Article V of the document.
The federal government has imparted its will into the right of all citizens to freely contract with one another by imposing regulations such as those pertaining to what wages must be paid by one to another as but one example and attempting to meddle in the terms of legally binding debts including mortgages and other loans as but one more.
The federal government has unconstitutionally acquired stake in many businesses including banks, other financial institutions and automobile manufacturers in excess of its Constitutional powers.
The federal government has abused its power to regulate the value of currency and has created a system of banks designed to manipulate and control the economy as the government believes such should be controlled at the abandonment of the personal liberty of the citizens.
The federal government has not adequately performed its duties under Article I of the Constitution to regulate immigration to the United States. Although it has at times passed reasonable laws under such authority it has failed time and again to enforce them in a satisfactory manner and by correlation has failed to defend the United States from invasion by those who would not abide by such laws and that the federal government has left the citizenry of this nation vulnerable to assault, battery, theft and harassment by illegal foreign agents.
Presidents have appointed to the judiciary, and Congress has approved these appointments, at several levels an uncountable number of judges that have acted beyond their constitutional authority and created laws or even ignored the Constitution without being removed from their posts for acting in poor behavior and more hideously not denied such a post in the first place due to obvious hostility to our liberties and the clear wording of the Constitution.
Congress has failed to remove through Constitutional provisions members of its own body that have committed serious crimes which include but are not limited to tax fraud, bribery and the accepting of bribes and perjury and who have proven to be in violation of the public trust. Instead such members are often allowed to remain in office and wield great power over the American people when their guilt in these matters is not in doubt.
The Congress has usurped numerous other and assorted rights withheld by the people and the States and done so by statute in blatant disregard for the tenth amendment including, but not limited to, the establishment of a federal department of education, a federal environmental protection agency, a federal communications commission and a federal department of health which all seek to wield unconstitutional powers over the people.
With this long and clear list of failures by our government now prominently lying prostrate before the people at large it is proudly declared that we must have redress and we must be made whole by the correction of these and other blatant wrongs; a complete list of which would take far too long to enumerate. Justice by Almighty God dictates that we as free men and women have a privilege to our inalienable rights without interference from the governments of this Earth and that just governments must act only as they have instructed and within the bounds of respecting the inalienable rights of all.
For years we have informally called upon our elected federal representatives to right these errors. For an equal amount of time citizens have attempted to use the established courts to do the same. However, while from time to time minor victories in such venues have been won, the abuses continue to mount and our representatives continue to rework and reword the provisions deemed to go too far and return with yet another egregious attempt to violate our liberties time and again making this demand and petition for redress essential.
We beg that this plea shall not fall upon deaf ears. For history calls us to realize how sovereign souls desirous of liberty and pushed to extreme limits by a burgeoning tyranny upon said liberties should choose to react. History also reveals how those within the tyranny and commanding its maw would also react to prevent such actions from transpiring and in the process imbue much further pain and suffering among the people to maintain their authority. We do not wish to repeat the acts of the past for they are horrid and unneeded by all reasonable souls. But in conclusion it should be known by those to whom this petition is duly directed that free persons will always fight fervently to remain free and sacrifice much in that pursuit. Let us all knowing this not go down a path stained red by the blood of patriots and despots alike who have met upon it in battle. Let us all live as free men and women under limited, just and restrained government. And let us have redress for these grievances quickly.
By the Grace of Almighty God on this day, March the twenty-sixth, two-thousand and ten in the year of our Lord I do proudly and boldly attach my name and pledge as my forefathers did my life, my fortune and my sacred honor to see that this redress shall be done!
Laus Deo
Attest - J.J. Jackson
============================================
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 Examiner.com. 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 http://www.libertyreborn.com
We the posterity of our forefathers come before the government of these United States and all mankind in order that it should be made clear our grievances stemming forth from a long train of abuses of our inalienable rights and blatant violations of the federal Constitution of these United States which was signed, ratified and where was bound up the whole of what was to be our limited federal government and its structure. No man rightfully wishes to contemplate the darkest of scenarios in which a government formed by the just consent of the people and constrained by chains of written words declared so boldly for all to witness no longer chooses to abide by said consent or words for reasons unjust and unholy while goaded on by the ravings of a portion of the populace coerced to abandon such confines. Beware the time at which such an instance becomes true, any sane man would warn! But what becomes when such a time is indeed upon us? Would the sane man who warned us to beware of it say no more? Indeed the answer cannot be reasoned to be anything other than a hearty and powerful, “No!” which must be shouted upon the land from the tallest peak so that it may echo in the valleys and be heard by all. Sane men desirous of their liberty would never stop a step short of their goal and would never concede to such an outcome and would surely never be silenced when their freedoms are taken and the foundations of limited government violated.
It is not with a motivation beyond that of being simply and enthusiastically desirous for our God given liberties that this declaration comes forth at this time. It only comes forth due to a need deep within the hearts of all freedom loving men and women. Such is what drives this proclamation to the top of the minds of all mankind.
Through the long course of human events that have transpired since the late Convention that formed this nation into a representative Republic and unified us as a loose federalist society of independent States and sovereign citizens and the prior Continental Congress that brought us together in unity against oppression, it has become necessary and proper to petition those in charge with our most general of welfare for redress of grievances perpetrated upon the citizenry of the United States by such persons. Such a petition is just and fair and rightfully the process by which all citizens of the United States must use to lay bear such objections to events and actions as have transpired to make such things transparent for all to see.
This must be done! For should redress not be forthcoming and further actions must, in good conscious, be taken by men to reclaim their rightful liberty the groundwork must be firmly in place so that only those that desire to not loose their power and continue to the repressions of the current day could object.
Liberty and justice guides us all to declare that our grievances against this Republic are as follows. That broadly:
The Congress for many years with the aid of a succession of Presidents as well as the courts and judges upon them, approved and appointed by the previously mentioned elected officers of this nation, have exceeded so greatly the general and limited terms of the various Articles of our Federal Constitution. In doing such they have produced far too much that was never envisioned under the auspices of promoting the general Welfare and that is neither necessary nor proper for government to fulfill its specific and defined obligations.
That more directly:
The federal government has instituted a form of taxation upon the citizenry which takes a greater share of the burden for funding the current government from those that it arbitrarily deems to earn too much while taking little or nothing from those that it deems to earn too little instead of a fair system of taxation that makes all citizens ultimately desirous for knowledge of the actions of their elected representatives and jealous of how each penny of their monies is to be spent and which requires all to bear the burden of the costs of government.
The federal government has, based on this system of taxation, instituted a further system of redistributing wealth from the former to the later and in doing so has made slaves of a portion of the American populace in a manner strictly forbidden by the ratification of the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution and which has been always an anathema to justice and the Laws of Nature’s God.
The federal government has on purpose made this system of taxation blatantly confusing and overly complicated in order to instill within the populace a sense of fear; that the federal government has used this system of massive laws to harass the citizenry, make criminals of law abiding persons who seek no harm for their fellow Americans and ultimately wield it as a weapon arbitrarily against our liberties to coerce our actions.
The federal government has exceeded its mandate under Article I of the Constitution by instituting mandatory contributions through taxation of working Americans to pay for the retirement and old age pensions of both themselves and other Americans thus forcing them to acquire a good or service which they may not desire or face punishment as well as pick their pockets to pay the way of others.
The federal government has exceeded its mandate under Article I of the Constitution by instituting mandatory contributions through taxation of working Americans to pay for the health care costs of other Americans. It has further instituted penalties for persons who do not want to purchase health insurance and are thus forcing the American public to enter into contracts against their will or face fines in blatant violation of our liberties.
The federal government has exceeded its mandate under Article I of the Constitution by taking contributions from working Americans to pay for the food of other Americans.
The federal government has exceeded its mandate under Article I of the Constitution by taking contributions from working Americans to pay for the housing and sundry creature comforts of other Americans.
The federal government has violated the First Amendment’s prohibition on laws against freedom of speech by passing laws that directly dictate how citizens may communicate their ideas and beliefs, such as in the time prior to an election as but one glaring example and by harassing churches and their leaders that dare to speak on politics from the pulpit and against the policies of those in power as but another.
The federal government has violated the Second Amendment’s spirit and clear wording by laying upon the law abiding people of this nation laws that prohibit the keeping and bearing of arms except those arms deemed by the government as acceptable and at times and places approved instead of at all times.
The Congress has abdicated unconstitutionally its responsibility solely entrusted to that body to make law and placed such authority in many instances upon unelected boards, departments and bureaus created as an attempt to skirt the Constitutional prohibitions and limits of their own power.
The federal government has placed resources which rightly belong to the independent people and States of this nation off limits through the use of superfluous designations such as national parks and which are found nowhere within their powers as clearly stated. The use and abuse of eminent domain has also become a major problem that has been left to fester with the members of the Supreme Court wondrously affirming the ability of governments large and small to take land unjustly from the current holder of a property to grant the land to a new owner for the sake of increasing tax revenues or generating other benefits for said governments.
The federal government has and continues to seek to make the United States party to treaties which directly overwrite and amend the Constitution without using the prescribe process for doing such under Article V of the document.
The federal government has imparted its will into the right of all citizens to freely contract with one another by imposing regulations such as those pertaining to what wages must be paid by one to another as but one example and attempting to meddle in the terms of legally binding debts including mortgages and other loans as but one more.
The federal government has unconstitutionally acquired stake in many businesses including banks, other financial institutions and automobile manufacturers in excess of its Constitutional powers.
The federal government has abused its power to regulate the value of currency and has created a system of banks designed to manipulate and control the economy as the government believes such should be controlled at the abandonment of the personal liberty of the citizens.
The federal government has not adequately performed its duties under Article I of the Constitution to regulate immigration to the United States. Although it has at times passed reasonable laws under such authority it has failed time and again to enforce them in a satisfactory manner and by correlation has failed to defend the United States from invasion by those who would not abide by such laws and that the federal government has left the citizenry of this nation vulnerable to assault, battery, theft and harassment by illegal foreign agents.
Presidents have appointed to the judiciary, and Congress has approved these appointments, at several levels an uncountable number of judges that have acted beyond their constitutional authority and created laws or even ignored the Constitution without being removed from their posts for acting in poor behavior and more hideously not denied such a post in the first place due to obvious hostility to our liberties and the clear wording of the Constitution.
Congress has failed to remove through Constitutional provisions members of its own body that have committed serious crimes which include but are not limited to tax fraud, bribery and the accepting of bribes and perjury and who have proven to be in violation of the public trust. Instead such members are often allowed to remain in office and wield great power over the American people when their guilt in these matters is not in doubt.
The Congress has usurped numerous other and assorted rights withheld by the people and the States and done so by statute in blatant disregard for the tenth amendment including, but not limited to, the establishment of a federal department of education, a federal environmental protection agency, a federal communications commission and a federal department of health which all seek to wield unconstitutional powers over the people.
With this long and clear list of failures by our government now prominently lying prostrate before the people at large it is proudly declared that we must have redress and we must be made whole by the correction of these and other blatant wrongs; a complete list of which would take far too long to enumerate. Justice by Almighty God dictates that we as free men and women have a privilege to our inalienable rights without interference from the governments of this Earth and that just governments must act only as they have instructed and within the bounds of respecting the inalienable rights of all.
For years we have informally called upon our elected federal representatives to right these errors. For an equal amount of time citizens have attempted to use the established courts to do the same. However, while from time to time minor victories in such venues have been won, the abuses continue to mount and our representatives continue to rework and reword the provisions deemed to go too far and return with yet another egregious attempt to violate our liberties time and again making this demand and petition for redress essential.
We beg that this plea shall not fall upon deaf ears. For history calls us to realize how sovereign souls desirous of liberty and pushed to extreme limits by a burgeoning tyranny upon said liberties should choose to react. History also reveals how those within the tyranny and commanding its maw would also react to prevent such actions from transpiring and in the process imbue much further pain and suffering among the people to maintain their authority. We do not wish to repeat the acts of the past for they are horrid and unneeded by all reasonable souls. But in conclusion it should be known by those to whom this petition is duly directed that free persons will always fight fervently to remain free and sacrifice much in that pursuit. Let us all knowing this not go down a path stained red by the blood of patriots and despots alike who have met upon it in battle. Let us all live as free men and women under limited, just and restrained government. And let us have redress for these grievances quickly.
By the Grace of Almighty God on this day, March the twenty-sixth, two-thousand and ten in the year of our Lord I do proudly and boldly attach my name and pledge as my forefathers did my life, my fortune and my sacred honor to see that this redress shall be done!
Laus Deo
Attest - J.J. Jackson
============================================
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 Examiner.com. 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 http://www.libertyreborn.com
Easter Countdown - Filmmaker of Edith Easter short film joins Political Pistachio Radio Revolution
Krista McKinney, the woman behind Edith Easter (video below) joins the Political Pistachio Radio Revolution tonight to discuss the film, and Easter during the first segment. In the second segment, I will discuss more about the Showdown in Searchlight I attended, as well as Obama's recess appointments that filled 15 posts without Senate confirmaition (including controversial labor board nominee Greg Becker), How the Democrats are still trying to sell Health Care despite the fact it passed (and Pelosi sent the Democrats of the House a memo telling her people to be sure to "convey" the benefits of "Health Care Reform" when facing constituents at home), and the controversies that are continuing to rise concerning Palin. Added note, what is going on with the Catholic Church? An update on the scandals.
Join us live tonight at 7:00 pm Pacific, or catch the archive later, at BlogTalkRadio.com/PoliticalPistachio.
Based on Russell Kelfer's beloved short story, this film introduces audiences to Edith Berns, a kind-hearted woman with one holiday on her mind.
Edith Easter from Krista McKinney on Vimeo.
Edith Easter by Krista McKinney
Saturday, March 27, 2010
Christian Gathering May 1 at Lincoln Memorial
May Day 2010 - A Cry to God for a Nation in Distress
When: May 1st 2010 - Starting at Sunrise (6:10 A.M. EDT) and finishing at 2:00 P.M.
Where: The Lincoln Memorial in Washington D.C.
Join with Christian leaders of all denominations who love God to humble ourselves, pray, seek the face of God, and turn from our wicked ways—individually and as a nation. Jesus will be front and center at May Day. Prayers will be offered in Jesus' Name!
When: May 1st 2010 - Starting at Sunrise (6:10 A.M. EDT) and finishing at 2:00 P.M.
Where: The Lincoln Memorial in Washington D.C.
Join with Christian leaders of all denominations who love God to humble ourselves, pray, seek the face of God, and turn from our wicked ways—individually and as a nation. Jesus will be front and center at May Day. Prayers will be offered in Jesus' Name!
Constitution Solution Revolves Around State Sovereignty
By Douglas V. Gibbs
State sovereignty was an important part of the founding of this nation. The states were their own, independent entities. The people considered themselves citizens of their own states more than one of a united confederation of states. Each state ran its own affairs, and governed as if they were their own little countries. As far as most people were concerned, they didn't even need a federal government.
Like independent nations, the individual states traded with each other, enjoying a free system of commerce that was unimpeded, and an integral part of the individual state's prosperity. Subcultures and unique societal trends that dated back to their colonial days existed in each of the states. The individual states of America were as different from each other as were the nations of Europe.
Like siblings in a large family, the states were individuals with their own identity, yet a part of a larger family held together and protected by a contract of confederation. The states squabbled with each other, defended each other, and though each were separate, sovereign entities, they looked out for each other as well.
Before they were states, the British Empire viewed the colonies as petulant children who were not willing to recognize their roles as a source of revenue for the empire. The colonies, as far as The Crown was concerned, complained about too much. They whined about taxes, cried about having no representation, and squirmed under the military thumb of the greatest empire on Earth. The least they could do, as far as the King was concerned, would be to shut up and act like good British citizens, regardless of the grief they thought they were enduring.
Rumblings of independence began to murmur throughout the colonies. The colonists desired local rule, not the iron fist of a centralized government from across the ocean imposing tax after tax after tax on them. Separately, however, the states knew they were no match for the British Empire. United, despite their differences, the colonies believed they could forge their independence.
Farmers, store owners, and all of the other Americans from all walks of life, reluctantly united under a single banner, fought against the most highly trained military in the world, and won. A national unity grew as the Revolutionary War reached its completion, and the people became Americans just as much as they were citizens of their colonies.
After victory, the states desired to retain their sovereignty, but realized that a union under a single national government may be necessary. The Articles of Confederation became that constitution, and the United States of America operated under that agreement until the Federalists, who had been complaining the government of the confederation did not have enough authorities, convinced Congress to draft amendments to the Articles. In secret meetings in 1787, however, they wrote a new constitution that added powers like taxation and national security to the authorities of the government, while continuing to try to limit the federal government in such a way that it could not become tyrannical.
One of the strategies used to limit authority was to separate the powers as much as possible, including voting powers. The people voted for their Representatives in the House, the States voted for their Senators, and Electors delegated by the States voted for President.
A step towards tyranny, the founders understood, was democracy. Because of their fear of democracy destroying the union, America was designed to be a Constitutional Republic.
Those who desired a more centralized government could not secure both houses and the presidency with ease as long as the voting powers were split up as they were. If the people were fooled into voting big government types into the House, the States could counteract it with limited government Senators. If the President was a big government goon, the states and the people could counteract it with the Congress.
In 1824, the vote for the president was turned over to the people, and the 17th Amendment ratified in 1913 took the vote away from the states in regards to the U.S. Senate, and gave that vote to the people. Once both Houses of Congress and the presidency became determined by the vote of the people, if a tyrannical ideology was able to fool the people, it would result in them having power in both houses of Congress, and the presidency.
This is why people use words like socialism, Marxism, and the like when describing the current administration. Obama, and the Congressional Democrats may not be literal communists, or desire a totalitarian government, but their policies head America onto a footing that is essentially a step in that direction. The powers of Washington took advantage of the weakening of the American Form of Government by progressives of the past and gained control of all aspects of the U.S. Government. But we aren't democratic enough, as far as those folks are concerned, and the Democrats are working to make us even moreso a democracy. Democracy, as does social democracies (European Socialism), points a nation towards tyranny. Government achieving a complete takeover of everyone's lives may or may not occur during this decade, or the next, but anytime limited government is compromised, and government expands in ways not unlike what we've seen under the Obama administration. And like it or not, these kinds of big government policies are a step towards an authoritarian system somewhere down the road.
The states were given sovereignty for exactly that reason. The Tenth Amendment was written to ensure the states retained their ability to govern locally, and the Constitution was written in such a way as to limit the powers of the federal government so that the federal entity could not negative state laws and constitutions, or become a federal monstrosity that begins to limit the rights of the states.
The breed of Democrat we have in Washington right now believes that more government is a good thing, and that unsustainable entitlement programs and nanny-state policies are in tune with the common good. What such things do, however, is destroy the opportunity for success, personal responsibility, and self-reliance. And a nation that takes away liberty in such a manner, as history has proven time and time again, is doomed to fail.
Therefore, a return to the Constitution is the key, and the path to that eventuality is through the states, and their willingness to fight for their individual sovereignty.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
State sovereignty was an important part of the founding of this nation. The states were their own, independent entities. The people considered themselves citizens of their own states more than one of a united confederation of states. Each state ran its own affairs, and governed as if they were their own little countries. As far as most people were concerned, they didn't even need a federal government.
Like independent nations, the individual states traded with each other, enjoying a free system of commerce that was unimpeded, and an integral part of the individual state's prosperity. Subcultures and unique societal trends that dated back to their colonial days existed in each of the states. The individual states of America were as different from each other as were the nations of Europe.
Like siblings in a large family, the states were individuals with their own identity, yet a part of a larger family held together and protected by a contract of confederation. The states squabbled with each other, defended each other, and though each were separate, sovereign entities, they looked out for each other as well.
Before they were states, the British Empire viewed the colonies as petulant children who were not willing to recognize their roles as a source of revenue for the empire. The colonies, as far as The Crown was concerned, complained about too much. They whined about taxes, cried about having no representation, and squirmed under the military thumb of the greatest empire on Earth. The least they could do, as far as the King was concerned, would be to shut up and act like good British citizens, regardless of the grief they thought they were enduring.
Rumblings of independence began to murmur throughout the colonies. The colonists desired local rule, not the iron fist of a centralized government from across the ocean imposing tax after tax after tax on them. Separately, however, the states knew they were no match for the British Empire. United, despite their differences, the colonies believed they could forge their independence.
Farmers, store owners, and all of the other Americans from all walks of life, reluctantly united under a single banner, fought against the most highly trained military in the world, and won. A national unity grew as the Revolutionary War reached its completion, and the people became Americans just as much as they were citizens of their colonies.
After victory, the states desired to retain their sovereignty, but realized that a union under a single national government may be necessary. The Articles of Confederation became that constitution, and the United States of America operated under that agreement until the Federalists, who had been complaining the government of the confederation did not have enough authorities, convinced Congress to draft amendments to the Articles. In secret meetings in 1787, however, they wrote a new constitution that added powers like taxation and national security to the authorities of the government, while continuing to try to limit the federal government in such a way that it could not become tyrannical.
One of the strategies used to limit authority was to separate the powers as much as possible, including voting powers. The people voted for their Representatives in the House, the States voted for their Senators, and Electors delegated by the States voted for President.
A step towards tyranny, the founders understood, was democracy. Because of their fear of democracy destroying the union, America was designed to be a Constitutional Republic.
Those who desired a more centralized government could not secure both houses and the presidency with ease as long as the voting powers were split up as they were. If the people were fooled into voting big government types into the House, the States could counteract it with limited government Senators. If the President was a big government goon, the states and the people could counteract it with the Congress.
In 1824, the vote for the president was turned over to the people, and the 17th Amendment ratified in 1913 took the vote away from the states in regards to the U.S. Senate, and gave that vote to the people. Once both Houses of Congress and the presidency became determined by the vote of the people, if a tyrannical ideology was able to fool the people, it would result in them having power in both houses of Congress, and the presidency.
This is why people use words like socialism, Marxism, and the like when describing the current administration. Obama, and the Congressional Democrats may not be literal communists, or desire a totalitarian government, but their policies head America onto a footing that is essentially a step in that direction. The powers of Washington took advantage of the weakening of the American Form of Government by progressives of the past and gained control of all aspects of the U.S. Government. But we aren't democratic enough, as far as those folks are concerned, and the Democrats are working to make us even moreso a democracy. Democracy, as does social democracies (European Socialism), points a nation towards tyranny. Government achieving a complete takeover of everyone's lives may or may not occur during this decade, or the next, but anytime limited government is compromised, and government expands in ways not unlike what we've seen under the Obama administration. And like it or not, these kinds of big government policies are a step towards an authoritarian system somewhere down the road.
The states were given sovereignty for exactly that reason. The Tenth Amendment was written to ensure the states retained their ability to govern locally, and the Constitution was written in such a way as to limit the powers of the federal government so that the federal entity could not negative state laws and constitutions, or become a federal monstrosity that begins to limit the rights of the states.
The breed of Democrat we have in Washington right now believes that more government is a good thing, and that unsustainable entitlement programs and nanny-state policies are in tune with the common good. What such things do, however, is destroy the opportunity for success, personal responsibility, and self-reliance. And a nation that takes away liberty in such a manner, as history has proven time and time again, is doomed to fail.
Therefore, a return to the Constitution is the key, and the path to that eventuality is through the states, and their willingness to fight for their individual sovereignty.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Friday, March 26, 2010
States To Push Back Obamacare
Within minutes after President Obama signed his immensely unpopular healthcare reform bill into law, Florida State Attorney General Bill McCollum, along with colleagues from 13 other states, filed suit against the federal government for the new law’s unconstitutional provisions—particularly with respect to its requirement that citizens buy federally mandated health insurance.
Meanwhile, somewhat under the radar of the healthcare fury, more than 30 states in the union are also banding together against the encroachment of the federal government under the Firearms Freedom Act. Led by Montana, five states have turned the FFA into law, while others are in the process of doing so. It asserts that any guns or ammunition manufactured and retained inside a state’s respective state lines are exempt from Congress’ federal commerce regulatory authority under the Constitution.
And the vibe is, this states-united pushback isn’t going to end here. So, what exactly is going on?
The Founders wisdom and vision of a limited federal government enshrined in the Constitution—particularly in Article 1, Section 8, and emphasized in the Tenth Amendment—has been eroded badly over our two centuries, but never so egregiously, nor rapidly, as during the last 14 months.
Bob Chapman, is a former U.S. Army counter-intelligence agent, now a successful economist and publisher of The International Forecaster. Bob has a remarkable worldly and historical view that can provide valuable context. But he especially brings an astute economics perspective that can prove insightful, particularly with respect to the bill’s timing, during such a harsh recession. And for that, the state attorneys general are also building their case on the grounds that the healthcare bill is unconstitutional, because it forces a Medicaid burden on the states that their budgets cannot handle.
Join us tonight on the Political Pistachio Radio Revolution at 7:00 Pacific for our interview of Bob Chapman, and learn more about the Health Care madness!
www.BlogTalkRadio.com/PoliticalPistachio
Meanwhile, somewhat under the radar of the healthcare fury, more than 30 states in the union are also banding together against the encroachment of the federal government under the Firearms Freedom Act. Led by Montana, five states have turned the FFA into law, while others are in the process of doing so. It asserts that any guns or ammunition manufactured and retained inside a state’s respective state lines are exempt from Congress’ federal commerce regulatory authority under the Constitution.
And the vibe is, this states-united pushback isn’t going to end here. So, what exactly is going on?
The Founders wisdom and vision of a limited federal government enshrined in the Constitution—particularly in Article 1, Section 8, and emphasized in the Tenth Amendment—has been eroded badly over our two centuries, but never so egregiously, nor rapidly, as during the last 14 months.
Bob Chapman, is a former U.S. Army counter-intelligence agent, now a successful economist and publisher of The International Forecaster. Bob has a remarkable worldly and historical view that can provide valuable context. But he especially brings an astute economics perspective that can prove insightful, particularly with respect to the bill’s timing, during such a harsh recession. And for that, the state attorneys general are also building their case on the grounds that the healthcare bill is unconstitutional, because it forces a Medicaid burden on the states that their budgets cannot handle.
Join us tonight on the Political Pistachio Radio Revolution at 7:00 Pacific for our interview of Bob Chapman, and learn more about the Health Care madness!
www.BlogTalkRadio.com/PoliticalPistachio
Diplomacy Problems for Obama, Including Turning His Back On Israel, And Walking Out on Benjamin Netanyahu
Obama, the international man of the world, who was destined to create love for America, has proven once again that when it comes to diplomacy, he is either a raging idiot, or is trying to destroy America's relationships.
It seems like Obama loves our enemies, but hates our friends.
In short, he has treated our greatest ally, Israel, as if they are our enemy, treated Pakistani jihadist punks with respect while treating them as our benefactors, and then entered into an agreement that was essentially a brilliant screw of America by the Russians.
The Russians know that Obama is one of those No Nukes sixties hippie freaks, who is willing to do anything to rid the world of nuclear arms. Mr. Chamberlain, errr, I mean Obama, wants to present to the world a treaty that promises that nuclear arms will be cut in our time. Russia, skillfully, has done all it can to ensure that we did the compromising, while they didn't. And ignorant Obama fell for it hook, line, and sinker, caving for each and every one of Russia's special deals, which includes undercutting our ability for anti-nuclear sanctions on Iran.
Pakistan has done all it can to impede our efforts in Afghanistan. And Obama's response was to thank them with the distribution of 7.5 billion bucks in nonmilitary aid. And where do you think that money will go?
Jihad.
After denying all of the Israeli compromise offers, while rewarding terror and intransigence in Pakistan, Obama now is ready to return to his battle against the American People, changing the American Form of Government.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Bam's triple-diplo-whammy day - New York Post
It seems like Obama loves our enemies, but hates our friends.
In short, he has treated our greatest ally, Israel, as if they are our enemy, treated Pakistani jihadist punks with respect while treating them as our benefactors, and then entered into an agreement that was essentially a brilliant screw of America by the Russians.
The Russians know that Obama is one of those No Nukes sixties hippie freaks, who is willing to do anything to rid the world of nuclear arms. Mr. Chamberlain, errr, I mean Obama, wants to present to the world a treaty that promises that nuclear arms will be cut in our time. Russia, skillfully, has done all it can to ensure that we did the compromising, while they didn't. And ignorant Obama fell for it hook, line, and sinker, caving for each and every one of Russia's special deals, which includes undercutting our ability for anti-nuclear sanctions on Iran.
Pakistan has done all it can to impede our efforts in Afghanistan. And Obama's response was to thank them with the distribution of 7.5 billion bucks in nonmilitary aid. And where do you think that money will go?
Jihad.
After denying all of the Israeli compromise offers, while rewarding terror and intransigence in Pakistan, Obama now is ready to return to his battle against the American People, changing the American Form of Government.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Bam's triple-diplo-whammy day - New York Post
Higher Health Care Costs Already Expected Because of Obamacare
"Caterpillar said it would cost the company at least $100 million more in the first year alone. Medical device maker Medtronic warned that new taxes on its products could force it to lay off a thousand workers. Now Verizon joins the roll of businesses staring at adverse consequences."
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
ObamaCare Day One: Companies are already warning about higher health-care costs - Wall Street Journal
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
ObamaCare Day One: Companies are already warning about higher health-care costs - Wall Street Journal
Tea Party Express About To Roll, Beginning With Searchlight Nevada
Join me in Searchlight, Nevada on Saturday to help launch the Tea Party Express III:
A "Tea Party" group will launch a nationwide series of rallies Saturday.
March 27: Laughlin, Searchlight and Las Vegas, Nev.
March 28: Phoenix and Flagstaff, Ariz.
March 29: St. George, Utah
March 30: Provo and Salt Lake City, Utah
March 31: Grand Junction and Denver, Colo.
April 1: North Platte and Omaha
April 2: Topeka, Kan., and Tulsa
April 3: Little Rock, and Tupelo, Miss.
April 4: Huntsville, Ala., and Nashville
April 5: Evansville, Ind., St. Louis, Mo., and Springfield, Ill.
April 6: Davenport, Iowa, Rockford, Ill., and Madison, Wis.
April 7: Milwaukee, Green Bay and Eau Claire, Wis.
April 8: Minneapolis and Duluth, Minn., and Ironwood, Mich.
April 9: Escanaba and Sault Sainte Marie, Mich.
April 10: Traverse City, Grand Rapids and Lansing, Mich.
April 11: Detroit, Cleveland and Erie, Pa.
April 12: Buffalo and Syracuse, N.Y.
April 13: Albany, N.Y., and Concord, N.H.
April 14: Boston
April 15: Washington
Source: TeaPartyExpress.org
A "Tea Party" group will launch a nationwide series of rallies Saturday.
March 27: Laughlin, Searchlight and Las Vegas, Nev.
March 28: Phoenix and Flagstaff, Ariz.
March 29: St. George, Utah
March 30: Provo and Salt Lake City, Utah
March 31: Grand Junction and Denver, Colo.
April 1: North Platte and Omaha
April 2: Topeka, Kan., and Tulsa
April 3: Little Rock, and Tupelo, Miss.
April 4: Huntsville, Ala., and Nashville
April 5: Evansville, Ind., St. Louis, Mo., and Springfield, Ill.
April 6: Davenport, Iowa, Rockford, Ill., and Madison, Wis.
April 7: Milwaukee, Green Bay and Eau Claire, Wis.
April 8: Minneapolis and Duluth, Minn., and Ironwood, Mich.
April 9: Escanaba and Sault Sainte Marie, Mich.
April 10: Traverse City, Grand Rapids and Lansing, Mich.
April 11: Detroit, Cleveland and Erie, Pa.
April 12: Buffalo and Syracuse, N.Y.
April 13: Albany, N.Y., and Concord, N.H.
April 14: Boston
April 15: Washington
Source: TeaPartyExpress.org
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Liberal Left's Attacks Against Tea Party Patriots, Eric Cantor's Response to Democrats using accusations of threat as political weapons
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Tonight I attended a Tea Party Committee meeting in my local area. The primary item we discussed was the need for more security at events because of attacks by liberals. Last weekend at a local rally liberals shouting inflammatory remarks threw bottles at the Tea Party people, and then called the police telling the cops the Tea Party Patriots "groped" them.
This is but one of many stories that are surfacing regarding attacks against the Tea Parties, and it is no surprise. This is how the thugs of the Left act against the opposition, especially when they know that the Tea Party folks are a part of the reason for the impending doom on the horizon for the Democrats. They use hateful speech to call Conservatives haters, while trying to criminalize criticism of their precious Obama as being hate speech, or racist. Chris Matthews, while talking to Chris Van Hollen, was very upset last night about all of the criticism of Obama. He considers any criticism of Democrats as being an incitement of violence, claiming that the Republicans are capable of "Throwing bricks. . . lives threatened, if we're getting criminal behavior resulting from their incitement, is the incitement itself criminal?"
The idiots of the left believe that Conservatives are causing violence, and it is absolute bull crap. They are packing the news with their version of stories of violence, and hate speech, that there is no evidence of, or the perpetrators turn out to be either individual wackoes, or leftists that the main-extreme media tried to paint as a "right winger." Yet, these leftists never seem to bat an eyelid regarding the crap committed by Democrats in the last six or seven years.
During the Bush years the leftists praised a film about the assassination of Bush, and protested in the streets with signs calling for Bush's death. Is that hate speech? Is that inciting violence? Is that criminal? Of course not. Not to the liberals.
Problem is, the racism and hate and violence they are trying to pin on Tea Parties is a lie. Where's the evidence? Where are the films? Who were the ones throwing the bottles last weekend?
To gain the sympathy of the people who are very much so against them, the Democrats are finding the need to paint themselves as victims.
They call themselves victims of an unruly mob of a bunch of tea partiers. Accusing their opposition of being a bunch of haters is the only way they can cope, since they know that what they have passed is against the will of the people.
And even funnier is these idiots think the Tea Party folks, and the people angry with Obama's idiocy is somehow just a fringe group. But in a CBS News poll out, 62% of the American people want the Republican Party to continue to oppose the health care bill. Sixty-two percent is hardly fringe.
They are even accusing Tea Partiers of spitting on black Democrats, and calling them the "N" word. . . but they have no proof, not a single frame of video - and I have spoken to people that were in Washington DC at the time of this event, saw what happened, and say they never heard a single ill advised word from the Tea Partiers.
Notice, however, that when Eric Cantor's office was shot at, not a single member of the media made more than a casual mention of it.
Eric Cantor had something to say about it, though:
How low will the left go?
I'm afraid to find out.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Tonight I attended a Tea Party Committee meeting in my local area. The primary item we discussed was the need for more security at events because of attacks by liberals. Last weekend at a local rally liberals shouting inflammatory remarks threw bottles at the Tea Party people, and then called the police telling the cops the Tea Party Patriots "groped" them.
This is but one of many stories that are surfacing regarding attacks against the Tea Parties, and it is no surprise. This is how the thugs of the Left act against the opposition, especially when they know that the Tea Party folks are a part of the reason for the impending doom on the horizon for the Democrats. They use hateful speech to call Conservatives haters, while trying to criminalize criticism of their precious Obama as being hate speech, or racist. Chris Matthews, while talking to Chris Van Hollen, was very upset last night about all of the criticism of Obama. He considers any criticism of Democrats as being an incitement of violence, claiming that the Republicans are capable of "Throwing bricks. . . lives threatened, if we're getting criminal behavior resulting from their incitement, is the incitement itself criminal?"
The idiots of the left believe that Conservatives are causing violence, and it is absolute bull crap. They are packing the news with their version of stories of violence, and hate speech, that there is no evidence of, or the perpetrators turn out to be either individual wackoes, or leftists that the main-extreme media tried to paint as a "right winger." Yet, these leftists never seem to bat an eyelid regarding the crap committed by Democrats in the last six or seven years.
During the Bush years the leftists praised a film about the assassination of Bush, and protested in the streets with signs calling for Bush's death. Is that hate speech? Is that inciting violence? Is that criminal? Of course not. Not to the liberals.
Problem is, the racism and hate and violence they are trying to pin on Tea Parties is a lie. Where's the evidence? Where are the films? Who were the ones throwing the bottles last weekend?
To gain the sympathy of the people who are very much so against them, the Democrats are finding the need to paint themselves as victims.
They call themselves victims of an unruly mob of a bunch of tea partiers. Accusing their opposition of being a bunch of haters is the only way they can cope, since they know that what they have passed is against the will of the people.
And even funnier is these idiots think the Tea Party folks, and the people angry with Obama's idiocy is somehow just a fringe group. But in a CBS News poll out, 62% of the American people want the Republican Party to continue to oppose the health care bill. Sixty-two percent is hardly fringe.
They are even accusing Tea Partiers of spitting on black Democrats, and calling them the "N" word. . . but they have no proof, not a single frame of video - and I have spoken to people that were in Washington DC at the time of this event, saw what happened, and say they never heard a single ill advised word from the Tea Partiers.
Notice, however, that when Eric Cantor's office was shot at, not a single member of the media made more than a casual mention of it.
Eric Cantor had something to say about it, though:
How low will the left go?
I'm afraid to find out.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Clay Thibodeau's Impact in the 45th District
March 25, 2010, Riverside County Registrar of Voters released "qualifying signature counts" for California 45th Congressional District ballot qualifications. In ascending order:
Libertarian Calvin Miller failed to qualify
Democrat Stanley Cotton failed to qualify
Republican Mary Bono-Mack qualified with 40 valid signatures
American Independent William Lussenheide qualified with 155 valid signatures
Democrat Steve Pougnet qualified with 627 valid signatures
Republican Clayton Thibodeau qualified with 1,331 valid signatures
Do you find it noteworthy that Clayton Thibodeau qualified with more valid signatures than all other candidates combined?
How about this, Clayton collected more than 30 times the qualifying signatures as his incumbent Republican opponent?
Incumbents get all the endorsements - right?
Check out Mary Bono-Mack's website endorsement page, old and stale - most are more than two years old, and at least one "MT-RA" (which is actually the California Republican Assembly), has gone over to Clayton Thibodeau.
Clayton has earned the endorsements of the California Republican Assembly; the Republican Liberty Caucus; the Independence Caucus; and Friends to Elect California Conservatives - all within the last 90 days. Get ready, because...
...if you like HOT political NEWS, Clayton Thibodeau for Congress is going to seriously stir things up in the 45th District.
You are going to LOVE writing again - because Clayton is no lazy candidate and he is going to give you a treasure-trove to work with.
www.Clay4USA.com
Libertarian Calvin Miller failed to qualify
Democrat Stanley Cotton failed to qualify
Republican Mary Bono-Mack qualified with 40 valid signatures
American Independent William Lussenheide qualified with 155 valid signatures
Democrat Steve Pougnet qualified with 627 valid signatures
Republican Clayton Thibodeau qualified with 1,331 valid signatures
Do you find it noteworthy that Clayton Thibodeau qualified with more valid signatures than all other candidates combined?
How about this, Clayton collected more than 30 times the qualifying signatures as his incumbent Republican opponent?
Incumbents get all the endorsements - right?
Check out Mary Bono-Mack's website endorsement page, old and stale - most are more than two years old, and at least one "MT-RA" (which is actually the California Republican Assembly), has gone over to Clayton Thibodeau.
Clayton has earned the endorsements of the California Republican Assembly; the Republican Liberty Caucus; the Independence Caucus; and Friends to Elect California Conservatives - all within the last 90 days. Get ready, because...
...if you like HOT political NEWS, Clayton Thibodeau for Congress is going to seriously stir things up in the 45th District.
You are going to LOVE writing again - because Clayton is no lazy candidate and he is going to give you a treasure-trove to work with.
www.Clay4USA.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)