Friday, April 30, 2010

Arkansas Tornado Outbreak Kills 3, Injures 25

By Douglas V. Gibbs

The majority of my family lives in Arkansas, so when tragic news reaches me from that state, I am immediately concerned. Years ago, when the ice storms was devastating Arkansas, my grandfather wound up trapped in his home. Now, three people have been killed, and at least 25 folks have been injured, in what is being called a tornado outbreak in Arkansas.

My mother's family is all around Conway, and Dad's is down in Hot Springs. Conway County was one of the areas hit by the tornadoes. Though the damage to structures is minimal in Conway, structures have been hit, and it is possible that some people may be trapped.

Full assessment won't be available until the morning, after the storms pass, and the light reveals how much damage was truly inflicted by these tornadoes.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

3 Fatalities, 25 Injuries Reported In Arkansas Tornado Outbreak - Associated Press, My Eyewitness News

Nanny of the Month. . . No Toys, No Flags, No Freedom

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Arizona Immigration Law Discussed With Patriot Coalition's Al Garza on the Political Pistachio Radio Revolution

Al Garza, President of the Patriots Coalition, joins us to discuss the Arizona Immigration Law, the myth's associated with this law, and the violence in the border towns over a drug war being waged between the many cartels. Conservative News and Commentary.

Episode Airs Live at 7:00 pm Pacific Tonight - Join us live, or catch the archive later, at

Muslims Use U.S. Capitol as Mosque

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

SWAT Called Out To Watch Peaceful Tea Party Patriots

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Understanding the Arizona Immigration Law Means Throwing Aside the Myths

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Accusations of racial profiling, racist motivations, and anti-immigrant sentiments are being levied against Arizona for passing a law that cracks down on illegal immigration in that state. Calls for boycotting the state are going out from numerous groups. The law is S.B. 1070, and the law allows police to question a person's legal status should reasonable suspicion arise while the person is being questioned regarding another infraction.

Protesters call the law unconstitutional, unfair, and irresponsible. Barack Obama has criticized the law as well.

By reading the law, however, it becomes clear that the accusations against it are false. In reality, the Arizona law discourages racial profiling, for example.

According to one of the authors of the bill, Kris Kobach, there are a number of myths circulating about the law, and all of them are false.

The law does not force Americans to "carry papers," does not encourage racial profiling, and Arizona police officers can only question people if the officer has already made a lawful contact with the person over a different issue, and during the contact the officer develops reasonable suspicion that an immigration law has been violated; at which point the officer is required to call ICE to confirm if the person is an illegal alien.

The Arizona law does not create anything radical, but rather gives Arizona law enforcement a tool to enforce the law in regards to immigration. The new Arizona law also prohibits sanctuary cities.

The law is not anti-immigrant. Immigrants are not the problem. Illegals are.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

KOBACH: Arizona acts as Washington dithers - Washington Times

Thursday, April 29, 2010

Attack Evil To Defend Freedom

The Jews and Christians like to whine, complain, procrastinate, retreat in fear, huddle together like sheep. Our adversaries i.e. the Islamic inspired terrorists, Muslim leaders and even Muslim “allies” act with pride, insult the USA and West without fear, they are aggressive in tone and have no problem taking to the Middle East street in the tens of thousands and sometimes in the hundreds of thousands to show their anger and distain for us.

Is America not THE super power, is not Israel the military super power of the Middle East, so why do we act with such weakness when it comes to advancing Israel’s solid case against the lies and Nazi like propaganda? Why does America not advance its strength to advance freedom not just on the battlefield but also with good aggressive public relations strategies?

Even when a Jewish organization has the courage to actually issue some sort of Press release it usually is to complain about the behavior or actions of the enemy only to react to something they have said or done. Now we are complaining even more about our own government’s positions on the Middle East due to the pathetic weakness, appeasement as well as the bias against Israel.

To give you an example of this would be to point our recent Press release from the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA). Before I critique the ZOA let me say we mostly agree with their view and position on the Middle East and Israel, they are one of the few that have the courage to take a stand but what we disagree is the strategy they employ. The recent Press release was to complain about Obama’s double standard when it comes to dealing with the leader of Israel versus Arab and Muslim leaders, especially Karsai of Afghanistan. We agree with the point but this is typical of the “best” PR we have which is not the general way to approach the issue.

Israel and the Jewish community take a position of “We want peace.” While this is nice and admirable, it is not something the Arabs understand, nor will it gain the respect of the world. When it comes to winning the arguments you either have to make your case as a victim or you need to gain respect as a major power. The position of “We want peace” provides neither scenario. For a PR victory for Israel and for the USA diplomatic efforts internationally one needs to advance victimhood or honor, shame and appeasement never works. Hitler employed victimhood at the start and when he had the military power he advanced this instead, the Islamic leaders employ the exact same strategy.

The Jews suffering from the Holocaust used successful PR campaign from the suffering from the “illegals” and stories like the Exodus gained world opinion in favor of the reconstituting of Israel. The Arabs have learned that the similar story of victimhood is what works. They have stolen the Jews narrative with a lie of the created victimhood of the “Palestinian People” and have cynically used the propaganda and gained the upper hand in the PR when it comes to the Israeli Arab conflict, which they have changed to the “Israeli Palestinian” conflict. Muslims advance victimhood and employ terror to twist the West’s hand. Now Iran looks to flex its owner with the securing of nuclear bombs as a lever to blackmail the world.

The Jewish community both in Israel and the Diaspora are unwilling to attack the hatred that comes from the mosques and the media of the Middle East, they are afraid to have former Muslims advance their case because of political correctness. They act with fear and use “interfaith dialogue” which makes them feel good but all that does is provide the Muslims a platform to deceive and lie. I would equate the lies by the Imams with the music that was played and the soap provided by the Nazis before the Jews went into the gas chambers.

No arguments are put forward by our leaders in the USA and Israel against a Jew free Gaza or the West Bank that is always proposed by the Arabs. If the conflict is about sovereignty why do Jews have to leave Judea and Samaria on about 2-4% of the land they have built on? The only solution screamed by the Arabs is expulsion of the Jews from the land. I thought liberals Jew or non-Jew would be against such a racist position?

To win the PR war - advance your case, do not be afraid to be controversial, speak boldly the truth. The founders of Israel and the United states risked all for freedom, now is the time my fellow Jews and Americans advance the truth and to speak boldly, so that we can remain free.

Keith Davies
Director Walid Shoebat Foundation

Clay Thibodeau on Joy Radio

Clay Thibodeau is a Constitutional Conservative running against Mary Bono Mack in California's 45th District's Republican Primary.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

What if George Bush had acted like Barack Obama?

This comes from the Email of the day. . .

If George W. Bush had been the first President to need a teleprompter installed to be able to get through a press conference, would you have laughed and said this is more proof of how inept he is on his own and is really controlled by smarter men behind the scenes?

If George W. Bush had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to take Laura Bush to a play in NYC, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had reduced your retirement plan's holdings of GM stock by 90% and given the unions a majority stake in GM, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had made a joke at the expense of the Special Olympics, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had given Gordon Brown a set of inexpensive and incorrectly formatted DVDs, when Gordon Brown had given him a thoughtful and historically significant gift, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had given the Queen of England an iPod containing videos of his speeches, would you have thought this embarrassingly narcissistic and tacky?

If George W. Bush had bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had visited Austria and made reference to the non-existent "Austrian language," would you have brushed it off as a minor slip?

If George W. Bush had filled his cabinet and circle of advisers with people who cannot seem to keep current in their income taxes, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had stated that there were 57 states in the United States, would you have said that he is clueless.

If George W. Bush would have flown all the way to Denmark to make a five minute speech about how the Olympics would benefit him walking out his front door in Texas, would you have thought he was a self important, conceded, egotistical prick?

If George W. Bush had been so Spanish illiterate as to refer to "Cinco de Cuatro" in front of the Mexican ambassador when it was the 5th of May (Cinco de Mayo), and continued to flub it when he tried again, would you have winced in embarrassment?

If George W. Bush had mis-spelled the word "advice" would you have hammered him for it for years like Dan Quayle and potatoe as proof of what a dunce he is?

If George W. Bush had burned 9,000 gallons of jet fuel to go plant a single tree on Earth Day, would you have concluded he's a hypocrite?

If George W. Bush's administration had okay'd Air Force One flying low over millions of people followed by a jet fighter in downtown Manhattan causing widespread panic, would you have wondered whether they actually get what happened on 9-11?

If George W. Bush had failed to send relief aid to flood victims throughout the Midwest with more people killed or made homeless than in New Orleans, would you want it made into a major ongoing political issue with claims of racism and incompetence?

If George W. Bush had created the position of 32 Czars who report directly to him, bypassing the House and Senate on much of what is happening in America, would you have approved.

If George W. Bush had ordered the firing of the CEO of a major corporation, even though he had no constitutional authority to do so, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had proposed to double the national debt, which had taken more than two centuries to accumulate, in one year, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had then proposed to double the debt again within 10 years, would you have approved?

So, tell me again, what is it about Obama that makes him so brilliant and impressive? Can't think of anything?

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Liberals to Boycott Arizona

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Leftists are running around like chickens with their heads cut off screaming about how racist of a state Arizona is for passing their immigration law that requires law enforcement officials to. . . enforce the law.

Enforce the Law!? What's next? Protecting and serving?

Laughingly, one of the Arizona products these knuckleheads (or is it morons? Ask Honda) is boycotting is Arizona Ice Tea. . . problem is, Arizona Ice Tea is brewed (and founded) in New York.

And to think these people breed.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Arizona Immigration Law. . .

The liberal news media is hysterical, the President of the United States is threatening to have Federal agents reviewing every arrest that is made by State and Local authorities, and the Attorney General of the United States is considering filing a suit in Federal Court to have the law declared unconstitutional. All of this is allegedly being done to protect “Civil Rights”. At first glance, you might think that this was something written about the efforts to abolish the segregation laws in the deep south in the 1960s.

However, that is not the case because the reactions I am referring to are those being directed at the sovereign state of Arizona for daring to try and stem the tide of illegal immigrants, illegal drugs, and violent criminals flowing across its southern border. This is a tide that is destroying the state’s economy and causing massive increases in crime including the murder of American citizens on the border who dare to complain. Yet, the American public is being told that this law will cause violations of civil rights and so a boycott of Arizona is being called for to punish the citizens of the state because they overwhelmingly support the new law.

Read the Rest at Connelly

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Financial Reform Bill is a Merger

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Does it seem strange to you that Goldman Sachs supports the Financial Reform Bill? Why would the investment bankers support it? Barack Obama says the bill is designed to get those "fat cats" of Wall Street under control, to keep them from hurting our economy, and to regulate them to the point that they will never need a bail out again.

Like usual, the Left is lying.

Abraham Lincoln tried to do the same thing, pushing to control the financial system through a centralized, government-controlled banking system and heavy regulations against the financial industry. The New York Times, on March 9, 1863, rejoiced, calling the centralization of power magnificent." However, the move rapidly created hyper-inflation, devalued the dollar to only 35 cents' worth of gold by July 11, 1864, and the prices of goods purchased by northern-state consumers more than doubled between 1860 and 1865. The government, with the propaganda machine in high gear, blamed "speculators" and "foreigners" for the economic difficulties, and the citizens fell for the lie, rather than recognizing the problem was their own government.

Sound familiar?

The Financial Reform Bill is a means of taking control of the financial system by the federal government, thus creating a more centralized, government controlled financial system that uses government intervention and heavy regulations against the industry. The ultimate result will be inflation, a continued devaluation of the dollar, and an increase in prices across the nation.

But the financial industry welcomes the move, because with the government taking control, they never have to worry about going out of business. The financial reform the Democrats are pushing is the ultimate bail out because it is not actually something being used to punish the industry, but is actually a merger. The federal government is adding their own interest into the mess, and is guaranteeing that the financial industry is protected by the taxpayer's money. No more worries about failing, because the government won't let them fail. Power and money for the institutions, and the government, and everyone is happy except for the consumer, who will be blasted by an economic collapse much like Greece's.

Obama has no interest in helping the little guy, which he could do by cutting taxes across the board. He's too busy protecting corporations from failing. This is because Obama has no understanding of financial markets, the free market, or capitalism. It is healthy for an economy when a big corporation who is doing things that is leading to their failure, fails. It removes bad business from the system, and creates a void so that upstarts can quickly fill it, thus creating more jobs as the smaller companies grow in the absence of the failed giant.

What the Democrats are doing has nothing to do with trying to help the economy. It is all about power and money, and the Democrats know damn well what they are doing to secure that power and money for themselves, and the federal government. This is government expansion at its worst, and the result will be more government intrusion into our lives via investments, and eventually through the entire financial system.

First they can control your behavior by taking control of health care. Now they are seizing control of the financial system. Next will be energy through an insane Cap and Trade bill. And finally, your voice will become less effective as they open the flood gates with Amnesty.

This madness must be stopped now!

The GOP better stand firm on this, or else they will be thrown out in November as well!

Be involved! Make a noise! Tell your representative to vote no on the devastating Financial Reform Bill!

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Blankfein supports financial reform bill - The Hill

Hamilton's Curse by Thomas J. DiLorenzo, page 129

Democrats Move To Make Puerto Rico 51st State

Last night on his TV show, Glenn Beck dropped another bombshell — on Thursday, Congress will take up a bill to make Peurto Rico a state. Why is our Congress doing this now? Secretly? Quickly? If it hadn’t been for one of Beck’s “Refounders” (a Congressional insider), would we even know about this? Why is this important to you and me?

Well, the word is out, and my local 9-12/Tea party organization sent this out this morning. First thing to hit my mailbox, in fact. . .

There is a bill to make Puerto Rico a state. Again, they are trying to pull one over on us and on Puerto Ricans, who have consistently said they do not want to become a state. . .

Read the Rest on Radio Patriot

Oh, and the obvious answer is more Democrat Votes, though the article brings up many more valid points. Remember, the Democrats think they are the party of minorities, even though their destructive entitlement programs have kept most minorities in poverty under the idiotic lie of compassion. It is not compassion to turn people into dependents of the state, and to take away their desire to be responsible, self-sufficient people.

These people sicken me.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

A Nation in Debt Worried About A Nation in Debt

By Douglas V. Gibbs

The headline reads: Obama concerned about Greek debt, monitoring closely.

That's like a heroine addict being concerned about his friend's drinking habit, and deciding to watch carefully.

Question: What will Obama do if his concerns for Greece's economic collapse worsens? Borrow money from China to help feed Greece's entitlement habit?

I do believe Mr. Obama should be monitoring Greece closely. . . so that he can see the future he is giving us should he continue with his insane spending!

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Obama concerned about Greek debt, monitoring closely - Reuters

Wednesday, April 28, 2010

From Moron To Knucklehead

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Southern California Honda Dealers are having a promotion called "The Really Big Sales Event," and one of the radio commercials advertising the event has changed a little. . .

The advertisement describes the scene as a meeting of blue shirted sales people in some underground bunker. A salesman arrives late, covered in bubble wrap. After he squeaks in, the guy leading the meeting asks, "Are you mailing yourself?"

The bubble-wrap clad salesman explains that he is wearing bubble wrap shirt and pants because with the sales event he is expecting a lot of excitement; bear hugs, pats on the back, et cetera. . . "I am not risking this body."

The meeting's leader concedes, saying, "When you first walked in I thought you were a moron, but you may be onto something. Take a seat."

As the salesman sits, the bubbles on his bubble wrap suit begin popping, and after the onslaught of popping finally ends, the meeting leader asks, "Are you done?" and one more bubble pops.

In today's version of the commercial, however, I noticed a slight difference; the word "moron" has been replaced with "knucklehead."

I immediately wondered about the change. Did someone write the company and complain that "moron" is too harsh of a word? Did using the word "moron" insult morons around America?

Funny, I didn't hear anything about the Democrat Party, or hard left loonies, complaining about being offended by the use of the word moron.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Putting the Federal Government In Control of Our Economy

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Barack Obama, with his disdain for Capitalism, is advocating a hyperinterventionalist approach to our economy with the Health Care Reform law, his plans for Cap and Trade, seizing control of two-thirds of the American automobile industry, and the Finance Reform Bill they are now hammering out that puts Wall Street in the federal government's cross hairs as well. Passing all of the legislation the leftists are proposing will put the federal government in control of the American economy. To maintain this kind of control, the massive centralized government will need a significant increase in revenue, of which Washington will be glad to take out of the pockets of citizens. Hence, the reason for the call on a National sales tax, a value added tax, allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire, increasing corporate taxes, increasing taxes on the wealthy (that will eventually affect everyone), higher cigarette taxes, raising fuel taxes, prohibitive tariffs on imports, going after foreign manufacturers like Toyota with punitive fines and taxes, and much much more. When Congress and the President have such a huge appetite for spending, the ability for the government to borrow and tax becomes all consuming to these people who are on a power trip that is becoming an addictive never ending need for more and more liberty killing programs.

Because of the ambitions of statism, the Founding Fathers were careful not to give the federal government expansive powers over the states, nor the unlimited ability to tax the people. In fact, in the Articles of Confederation, the federal government had no taxing power, and nearly no governing abilities, at all. Revenues were raised by the sovereign states, and nearly all laws were the responsibilities of the states. Under the Constitution, the ability to tax by the federal government was through modest revenue tariffs, and selected excise taxes. Direct taxation could not be levied until 1913 with the passage of the 16th Amendment. If you will recall, one of the reasons the colonists were so upset with the Stamp Act and the Tea Act is that those taxes not only were imposed without allowing representation in the British legislature by the colonists, but because those taxes were "direct" taxes on the colonists. The allowances of the federal government were carefully enumerated in Article I, Section 8; and to remind us of those limitations the 9th Amendment was passed. To quell any confusion as to what happened to the issues that were not given as an authority to the federal government, the 10th Amendment was written, handing all of those remaining powers over to the states.

The purpose of the federal government, as stated by Thomas Jefferson, was to protect our God-given rights to life, liberty, and property, not take them away as the federal government is trying to do with this administration.

This is why it is so important that the GOP continues to stand in opposition to "all" of the Democrat's unconstitutional proposals, such as the Finance Reform bill. I keep hearing in the media that the Republicans can be swayed on that bill. If they do sway, it will place more power in the hands of the federal government, which will ultimately take away more liberty, more freedom, and more rights. And if the Republicans waver, in November it will be more than just the Democrats we need to throw out of Washington.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Mexico Travel Advisory For Arizona

By Douglas V. Gibbs

As a result of Arizona's new law that cracks down on illegal aliens, Mexico has issued a travel advisory to Mexicans that may consider travel through Arizona.

This comes from a country where cops are being killed, drug wars are out of control, and the number of murders in Mexico is at an all time high.

Note that also Mexico has very strict border enforcement laws for its southern border.

Yet they want the American border to be wide open, otherwise, we are just a bunch of racists.

Go figure.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Mexico Issues Travel Warning for Arizona Over Law - Bloomberg

Too Much Compassion

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Compassion is a good thing. As individuals we are to be compassionate. We are even supposed to show compassion to our enemies. In The Secrets of Jonathan Sperry, Gavin Macleod's character responds in the movie to a group of kids when they complain a bully is taking their pizza. He instructs them to next time offer the bully two pieces.

When compassion becomes something offered through the means of government, and is set up on a permanent basis, it is no longer compassion. Government compassion is destructive to whatever society it is being applied to, especially when it is offered permanently. Without limits, a class of dependency forms, and the desire to be self-sufficient is destroyed.

After the earthquake in Haiti, aid poured in from around the world for the poverty stricken nation during its time of need. The compassion was warranted, and I am sure it was much appreciated by the local population. But continued aid, without specific limitations, is becoming a burden to Haiti. The populace is becoming dependent upon the aid, and persons that were unaffected by the earthquake are travelling to the stricken zone to receive "free" aid as well.

Our aid to Haiti must have a limit. Our compassion should be a hand up, and then once Haiti is on its feet, we must withdraw. Failure to limit the aid is creating more harm than good, and Haiti's already poor population is now becoming yet another group of citizens dependent upon the American taxpayer for a bunch of handouts.

Criticism for my attitude regarding this issue is duly noted, and I truly do not desire Haiti to sink. But, if Haiti does collapse after aid is withdrawn, it is nobody's fault but Haiti's. It is not the U.S. taxpayer's responsibility to ensure the people of Haiti are self-reliant. They must make that decision themselves. Their survival is a direct result of their choices, and if they choose to fail, that is their choice, and we should not assist in their collapse by becoming an enabling variable by continuing to pour more and more aid into the nation.

If the aid continues, the population of Haiti will begin to believe it is entitled to the assistance, and they will ultimately completely set aside their responsibility to take care of themselves, much like the welfare-addicts of America have become.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Tuesday, April 27, 2010

Obama and Democrats In Power Grab Overdrive

Get Liberty

By Douglas V. Gibbs

President Barack Obama and the Congressional Democrats have achieved the Holy Grail. They did what every progressive since Teddy Roosevelt has been trying to accomplish in America. They have finally made a reality federal intrusion into the Health Care and Health Insurance industries. They were willing to bribe their own members of their party, lie about the provisions in the bill, and go through with the-act-of-idiocy despite the fact that the American People was, and still is, overwhelmingly opposed to the legislation.

The price for the Democrat's incomprehensible expansion of the scope and breadth of the federal government is an electoral landslide for the GOP in November. Knowing that their defeat is on the horizon, the Democrats are going into overdrive, ready to pound every other hard left socialist program they can into place. Heavy regulation of the financial industry that will all but destroy the capitalistic nature of the system is on the barbie right now, while Cap and Trade and Amnesty waits in the wings. It is time to slam the pedal to the metal, as far as the Democrats are concerned, because they are figuring the Republicans won't be able to fix the damage before the Left gets back into power, and by then the revision of history will hail Obama as a hero, just like his fascist-communist hero, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, is regarded.

The Democrats have bullied the automobile industry, are bullying the health insurance industry, and now are working on bullying Wall Street. They blame these industries for our economic woes, even though it is government intrusion into these industries that put us into this mess in the first place. Then, after November, when the economy further tanks as expected from all of these liberal policies, the Democrats will do to the GOP Congress as they did to Bush, and lay all of the blame for the tanking economy on them, and the amnesiac voters will vote the Democrats back into office again. It is a deadly cycle that will keep spiralling worse and worse out of control until either we turn this mess around and head back in the direction of the original intention of the U.S. Constitution, or the entire nation collapses and we become nothing more than a footnote in history, thanks to the destructive policies of the liberal left.

I believe America's best days are ahead of her - but to reach those days we must remove the Left from power, and reverse the damage they are causing. . . a reversal process that unfortunately could take decades to accomplish if the Democrats go down fighting, and if progressives continue to infest the Republican Party as well.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

U.S. Supreme Court and Violent Video Games

By Douglas V. Gibbs

California, along with six other states, has passed state legislation that would forbid the sale of violent or sexually explicit video games to minors. Seems reasonable, since rated "R" movies, of which are rated such because of the violent and sexual content, are also forbidden to be sold to minors.

The games, I agree, are disgustingly unreasonable, and out-of-control violent. The violence and sexual situations in these games that target kids is uncalled for, in my opinion. But before we hammer the companies for making the games, or the government for not protecting kids from the games, why aren't we asking where in the hell the parents are when these kids get their hands on such games?

The argument against the state laws forbidding the sale of these games to minors bases its argument on free speech. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco threw out the case last year on grounds that it violated minors' constitutional rights. In fact, each time that states have passed such laws, federal courts have struck down the laws, citing concerns about free speech and a lack of conclusive evidence that violent games are harmful to minors.

The U.S. Supreme Court has not weighed in on the matter, or at least not until now. The high court has now stated it will hear California's appeal and consider reviving the state laws, or keep the laws overturned.

This decision by the SCOTUS comes less than a week after the court struck down a federal law on free-speech grounds that made it a crime to sell videos of illegal acts of animal cruelty - which is insane, in my humble opinion. If the acts of animal cruelty are illegal (key word being "illegal"), then videos of those "illegal" acts should be illegal to sell or purchase. The court disagrees, stating the law banning the sell of animal cruelty videos is unconstitutional due to free speech concerns, and that the law was so broad that it could reach beyond the torture of animals and apply to out-of-season hunting.

When it comes to violent video games, Governor Schwarzenegger says we have a responsibility to our kids to protect them from ultra-violent games. Is that the government's responsibility?Doesn't that responsibility rest squarely on the shoulders of the parents? Don't get me wrong. If the government can assist by making those games less available from a legal standpoint, just like it does with violent movies, it will help parents. But the ultimate ban must be by parents that are willing to be pro-active in their kid's lives, and should not be a responsibility of government because parents suddenly wish to abdicate their roles for whatever irresponsible reason.

From a legal standpoint, however, we have to look at this case from a Constitutional viewpoint. My feelings regarding the affect these games have on children, or whether or not the parents must be involved in their children's lives, are not considering factors.

California's ban on selling violent video games to minors was signed into law by Schwarzenegger in 2005. If the law had been allowed to stand, it would have imposed a civil fine on retailers who sell or rent to minors video games that were labeled as violent. Before the law could go into effect, the Entertainment Software Association and the Video Software Dealers Association took the law to court and a federal judge blocked the law from being enforced. After that, last year, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the ban was unconstitutional.

Remember, the federal courts, and the U.S. Supreme Court, represents the federal government. The law is a state law. Therefore, the highest the case should have gotten is the State Supreme Court. Had the state court considered the law unconstitutional based on the state constitution, giving such an opinion based on the first article of the state constitution, which is quite clear on the state's laws regarding freedom of speech, then the Governor and the state legislature would have been compelled to either change the law, or repeal it, based on the courts opinion of the constitutionality of the law.

No appeal could go further because the federal government does not have the authority to see this case, nor do they have the authority to overturn a state law unless that law directly contradicts the U.S. Constitution. Since the First Amendment applies to the federal government, stating specifically that "Congress shall make no law," the federal courts cannot constitutionally see this case. The case would only be one that could be seen by the SCOTUS if this was regarding a federal law that may be in violation of the First Amendment since the First Amendment specifically applies to the federal government and not to the states.

Hence the reason states also have their own constitutions.

Let me repeat, in case everyone is not clear on this. The U.S. Constitution applies to the federal government, and the law being questioned is not a federal law, therefore the U.S. Supreme Court has no constitutional authority to see this case. The case is in regards to a state law, and the freedom of speech provision in question is the one that is listed in the California state constitution, therefore, the highest court to see this case should be the California State Supreme Court. The federal government is not supposed to overturn a state law unless that state law directly violates the U.S. Constitution. Since the First Amendment only applies to federal laws, and not state laws, the federal courts have no jurisdiction, and the state law does not violate the U.S. Constitution. The state is allowed to make its own laws on this issue, and the federal government has no jurisdiction to say that the state can't.

If the U.S. Supreme Court sees this case as planned, and also strikes down the state law, it will be a gross intrusion on state's rights by the federal government, and yet another example of how our federal government has become an unconstitutional entity. State sovereignty, at that point, would be grossly compromised, and the Supreme Court, as was the 9th Circuit Court, would be acting in an unconstitutional manner.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Supreme Court to hear case on violent video games - L.A. Times

California Constitution - Declaration of Rights

Court to rule on violent video games - SCOTUS Blog

Senators, Industry Pros Spar Over 'Barbaric' Games In Heated Hearing: Courts have been turning down state attempts to ban sale of violent games to minors - MTV

Why California's case against violent video games is a long shot - The Christian Science Monitor

Weapon of Political Correctness Aims to Silence Dissent

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Political Correctness takes many forms, but the goal is the same regardless of the form it takes. The goal is to silence dissent, to discourage free speech, to make it so people become careful what they say. The attacks are designed to create panic, and reaction.

Along with political correctness comes the designations of protected groups. It is for these groups that political correctness exists in the first place. As a result, even telling the truth can become hazardous, because for the protected groups reality is a fantasy of perception, and an image crafted for societal approval in the name of tolerance.

The groups at risk of being silenced by political correctness tend to be those groups willing to stand on principles that are at odds with the rising political structure. Truth has become something that must be used sparingly, according to the rising power complex. Standards, in our brave new world, has become a hated element.

Elitist reasoning dictates that the opinions of the opposition to their agenda is disruptive, and offensive to the protected groups, therefore those that do not comply with political correctness must be silenced through a series of societal attacks and chastisement. Truth is on the side of liberty, and freedom poses a challenge to the authoritarian system the secular liberals would like to put into place, and it is through political correctness that they aim to silence the truth.

The Founding Fathers who so wisely designed the American form of government with limiting principles that promote self-governance of the states, and self-reliance by the people, recognized the dangers of the expansion of government, and the risk it posed to liberty.

Rights are not given to the people by government, but by God. Therefore, if our rights are not provided by government, such a political system cannot take those rights away. Government in America was designed to protect our rights, not allow government to determine if we should have those rights, and in what amount such rights should be dished out.

The specter of big government has infiltrated our Constitutional Republic, and is attempting to incriminate those that hold the same values and principles that founded this nation. We are expected to be ashamed of our faith, and our patriotic demand for this nation to return to applying the U.S. Constitution, rather than subverting it.

I refuse to betray my belief in the original intent of the U.S. Constitution, my belief in the salvation of Jesus Christ, and my belief in the resolve of the American People because some hard left ignoramus tells me it is not politically correct.

As far as I am concerned, those hard left socialists can go pound sand, and get out of the way so that the real patriots can gain back control of this nation and steer it back in the direction of the limiting principles of the U.S. Constitution.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Beans and Swastikas

By Douglas V. Gibbs

During the blind protests by the opposition to a new Arizona law that toughens up on illegal aliens, the state capitol in Phoenix was the scene of a swastika made of refried beans smeared on the glass doors of the House and Senate buildings. The reference is clear, and ignorant.

Laws against illegal immigration has nothing to do with race. However, profiling will be involved not because the state is racist, but because the majority of illegal aliens are Hispanic.

In Los Angeles most gang members in South Central Los Angeles are young black men, so the cops don't suspect a Chinese granny of being a Crip. At the airport, since most terrorists are Muslim, it would be reasonable to target Islamic men for questioning simply because of the numbers that support the fact that most terrorists are young male Muslims, and it would not be reasonable to strip search as a terrorist suspect the Scotsman with his family. And the reasoning should be no different with illegal immigration. Most illegals are Hispanic, therefore it is safe to reason that they will receive more attention with the new law.

The Arizona law does not give the police the right to start picking people out of the crowd, however. The individual must have committed a separate infraction, and must show reasonable evidence that provides reasonable suspicions that it is possible the person is an illegal. For example, if the cop pulls over a car for running a stop sign, and the driver has no license, does not speak English, and is Hispanic, it would be reasonable for the police officer to suspect that it is possible the person is an illegal. Then the cop will apply a series of questions, and if he reasons based on the person's responses that the suspect is an illegal, the person will be held for federal authorities.

That is not racist, that is good cop work.

And whoever smeared the swastika of beans on the windows of the Arizona capitol needs to learn what was behind the swastika. The swastika was the symbol of a Nationalist-Socialist political system that targeted citizens of Germany because of their Jewish heritage. Ask yourself. Is there an ideology in America doing something similar right now? Is there a socialist ideology in America targeting American citizens for being what the ideology considers to be dangerous to their agenda? Key in on the words National-Socialist, and you might find your answer.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Swastikas smeared in beans found on Capitol ground - AZ Family

Obama the Amateur

"If you think its expensive to hire a professional to do a job, wait until you hire an amateur" (Red Adair)

Appropriate, don't you think?

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Monday, April 26, 2010

The Naked Truth About Al Gore and Man-Made Global Warming

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Andrew Klavan - Barack Obama, Talking Crap - Saying Nothing With Well Chosen Words

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

San Dimas Landslide Blocks Freeway. . . Again

By Douglas V. Gibbs

The 57 freeway at Interstate 10, a major route used by many to reach Los Angeles, is under the threat of being under a pile of earth once again. A landslide threat that may pour more material onto the freeway, as it did on February 18, has crews working to stabilize a hillside.

A report that the newly-regraded slope was cracking and buckling convinced the California Highway Patrol to shut down lanes, and get crews out there to investigate, and resolve the danger.

As a trucker, not only does closures like this further limit the routes available, but also clogs other freeways with traffic that is normally traveling the closed freeways.

A mesh product is being applied with the hopes that the material will help stabilize the slope, but further grading work may be in the works.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Landslide Threat at 10/57 Freeway Interchange - My Fox LA

Mississippi Tornado Causes Mass Destruction

By Douglas V. Gibbs

A mile wide tornado that made landfall in Mississippi on Saturday has killed ten people, and officials fear the death toll number may rise. The path of the tornado is one of destroyed churches, houses, and lives. Power is out for hundreds of citizens, and automobiles were tossed around like they were little toys. Trapped residents and devastated neighborhoods await emergency aid, as Yazoo County tries to come to grips with the fact that it was at the center of the huge tornado that ripped through the Mississippi countryside.

The damage left by the tornado is being described by some as being as bad as the destruction left by Hurricane Katrina.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Tales of tornado survival amid Miss. community's woe - USA Today

Officials fear Mississippi death toll will rise after tornado destroys neighborhoods, kills 10 - New York Daily News

Obama Removes American Flag From Haiti Fearing U.S. Will Be Seen As An Occupying Force as the Populace of Haiti Becomes More Dependent on Incoming Aid

By Douglas V. Gibbs

The flags of other nations remain as the international effort to assist Haiti after the devastating earthquake continues, but Obama asked for the American Flag to be removed because he did not wish to send the signal that America is an occupying force. No accusation that the American troops were occupiers has been made, however, and the fear of such is held only by the politically correct minds of the lunatic left.

The aid, however, has created a difficult situation in Haiti. Even folks in unaffected areas are coming down to the ravaged zone to receive free aid. Haiti's government is battling an already poverty stricken society that is becoming dependent upon the aid, and is unwilling to continue to try to be responsible for their own subsistence.

Such is the danger of giving out too much. Such is the danger of the entitlement mentality, and the culture of dependency. Aid to the poor keeps the poor poor, despite the good intentions. Just look at our own welfare system. How has the American welfare system helped the poor? The number of those considered to be in poverty in America has increased, and the drive to be self-reliant has been stolen from those people by the growing enslavement of entitlement programs.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Flap flies in Haiti over U.S. flag absence - Navy Times

The burden of foreign aid - Wall Street Journal

Taiwan is Struck by a Major Earthquake

By Douglas V. Gibbs

According to the U.S. Geological Service, a 6.9 magnitude earthquake hit Taiwan just to its southeast. There is currently no threat of a tsunami.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Southeast Taiwan hit by 6.9 magnitude earthquake - Market Watch

Sunday, April 25, 2010

Arizona SB1070 Law Takes A Hard Stance Against Illegal Aliens

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Ninety days after the current legislative session ends a new Arizona state law will go into effect. The initiative signed by Arizona Governor Jan Brewer on Friday allows local law enforcement to ask suspected individuals for proof of citizenship. Brewer states that if the federal government was doing its job to enforce immigration laws, the state law would not be necessary. When referring to the federal government's inaction regarding the illegal alien issue, Brewer said, ". . . decades of inaction and misguided policy have created a dangerous and unacceptable situation."

President Obama called the new Arizona law "misguided" and "irresponsible," while undermining the fundamental notions of equality. Barack Obama has instructed the Justice Department to examine the law's legality.

Opponents of the initiative demanded the Governor veto the legislation, and protested outside the state Capitol. Folks in opposition of the law consider it a violation of civil rights, and racist.

After the bill was signed a riot broke out in the streets of downtown Phoenix. The disturbance commenced when the protesters got into a fight with a man who supports the law. Riot Police restored order shortly after.

Hispanic political groups have stated they believe the new law will promote racism, while supporters say the law will boost the success of law enforcement agencies in their combat against illegal immigration in Arizona.

Mexico's Senate has warned the new law will impact cross-border relations and unanimously passed a resolution urging Brewer to veto the law.

While Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 establishes immigration to be a federal authority, the States may assist the federal government in enforcing immigration laws. Article IV, Section 4 requires the federal government to protect the states against invasion, and because the federal government has abdicated that role, the State of Arizona has taken action to protect itself at the state level.

Racism and civil rights, despite Obama's misguided declarations, has nothing to do with this issue, nor the law passed in Arizona. By entering the country illegally, which means the border jumpers have broken American immigration laws, illegal aliens have committed a criminal act. In the absence of the federal government sealing the borders, and ensuring that people who have properly navigated the immigration process only enter this nation, Arizona has rightly taken to task the enforcement of the laws themselves.

States and cities, in fact, that do not enforce the law, and establish sanctuary cities, or sanctuary zones, are not only disobeying the law as prescribed by the Constitution of the United States, but by harboring illegal aliens those sanctuary supporting governments are demonstrating contempt for federal law (no different than Obama is demonstrating contempt for the law with his statements that criticized the new Arizona law).

President Obama, in his statement criticizing Arizona's law, is actually in opposition to U.S. Law. U.S. Code, sections 1324 and 1325 considers it a felony to conceal, harbor, or shelter illegal aliens. Failing to report illegal aliens also violates the Immigration and Naturalization Act sections 274 and 275. U.S. Code and the Immigration and Naturalization Act also considers entry into the United States without inspection to be a misdemeanor, and repeated illegal entry is a felony. In other words, not only is Barack Obama, and folks that are standing in opposition to Arizona's new law, wrong in their criticisms, but Arizona is actually ensuring that the state is following federal law with the passage of this bill.

It is the duty of the federal government to protect this nation against foreign invasion, and to deport those who are willing to enter the country illegally. Because the federal government has completely disregarded the enforcement of immigration laws, it is well within the authority of the State of Arizona to pick up where the federal government has refused to go.

Understand that I have no problem with immigration. My wife, in fact, was born in Mexico, and immigrated with her family legally to the United States when she was a child. She naturalized in 2007, and was proud to join the ranks of people who call themselves "American." She recognizes her Mexican heritage, but refuses to call herself a Mexican-American. She set aside her allegiance to Mexico so that she may give it to the United States, and as a result, she only calls herself an American.

She only took so long to make the decision because of the La Raza rhetoric that was being fed to her that proclaimed if she naturalized she would lose her culture, and would be betraying "her people."

She didn't lose her culture, she gained an additional one.

I support immigration by people who come to this country by following the law. The folks who navigate the process legally do so because they have the full intent of assimilating into the American Culture, and joining the melting pot as a productive, and proud, American.

Illegal is illegal, and Arizona's law is necessary, and completely Constitutional.

As a result of the law, we will see the illegal alien problem decrease in Arizona, and that is why 70% of the people in Arizona supports the legislation.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Arizona governor signs immigration law; foes promise fight - Arizona Central

70% of Arizona Voters Favor New State Measure Cracking Down On Illegal Immigration - Rasmussen Reports

Obama slams 'misguided' Ariz. immigration bill - Washington Post

Obama Slams Arizona’s Immigration Bill - New York Times

Political Pistachio Radio Revolution Welcomes Christian Filmmaker Rich Christiano

Filmmaker Rich Christiano - Political Pistachio Radio Revolution

Best buddies Dustin (Jansen Panettiere), Albert (Frankie Ryan Manriquez), and Mark (Allen Isaacson) are twelve year old boys looking forward to a summer of fun in 1970. When Dustin mows the lawn of seventy-five year old Jonathan Sperry (Gavin MacLeod), a man he has seen at church, a unique friendship develops. What happens the rest of this summer is something Dustin and his friends will never forget! “The Secrets of Jonathan Sperry" is a heartwarming experience for the entire family.” The writer, director, and producer of the film joins us tonight. Conservative News and Commentary

Jon Voight's Letter To America

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

The Real Definition of Sedition That Liberals Don’t Want You To Know

By: J.J. Jackson

Watch out all you who dare to speak up against our government in Washington as those at the reins of power are snatching up every last bit of control they can! You are the dangerous ones. Worse yet you are committing a crime in the eyes of leftists like Joe Klein. That’s right folks, your talk is dangerous and borders on sedition which people like Klein are all too eager to warn is a felony and that you could be hauled off to jail for engaging in.

Well, yeah ... that’s half right which is typical for brain dead types like this who frankly cannot win an argument so they resort to making things up as they go along. Gee, seems like I just wrote an article about this not more than a couple weeks ago! Remember? I highlighted how liberals are more than willing to make things up. In that article I cited humorous and made up quotes from our founding fathers they sent me just to justify their opinions. Well add Mr. Klein to that list as he is apparently scared crapless that people are daring to stand up to his Lord high Messiah and His disciples in Washington

Here is the rambling, bumbling, stumbling that Joe Klein actually spouted on this issue. And I quote, “I did a little bit of research just before this show - it's on this little napkin here. I looked up the definition of sedition which is conduct or language inciting rebellion against the authority of the state. And a lot of these statements, especially the ones coming from people like Glenn Beck and to a certain extent Sarah Palin, rub right up close to being seditious."

Well, Mr. Klein must be using the Merriam-Obama Dictionary, 1st Edition to be getting this definition. Because the Merriam-Webster Dictionary definition, while similar, is not quite the same and has some qualifiers that I suspect Mr. Klein purposefully left out. Liberals do like to lie by omission after all.

Sedition, pronounced si-ˈdi-shən, a noun from the Latin sedition-, seditio, meaning literally separation is defined as, “incitement of resistance to or insurrection against lawful authority.” Mr. Klein’s definition, which he proudly claimed to have written down is simply to “incite rebellion against the authority of the state.” The main difference between the actual meaning of the word and Comrade Klein’s definition is of course the qualifier of “lawful” authority.

Lawful means, “being in harmony with the law.” Just an FYI there for you Mr. Klein.

Now, I realize that I have lost any liberal who may have stumbled upon this article by stating a fact and being adverse to the facts that they are I am sure they have run off to read their left wing blog of choice instead of becoming educated. But hey, I cannot force them to learn.

The “law” of the United States, as we all should have learned in school, actually has a source in this country. It is called our Constitution. That document states clearly that it shall be considered, “the supreme law of the land." So, sedition would be, in essence, to incite resistance or insurrection against the Constitution.

Who is really doing that? Is it people like Mr. Beck and others who are actually promoting the words of our founding fathers and the Constitution? Is it people who believe as the founders clearly stated that the Constitution is a grant of limited and defined powers?

You know, people like James Madison who said:

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State." – Federalist 45

Or perhaps Thomas Jefferson who uttered the understanding of our government as:

“[Congress is] not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare…" - Opinion on the Constitutionality of the Bill for Establishing a National Bank, 15 Feb. 1791
Or maybe I should quote Alexander Hamilton who eloquently said:

“The plan of the convention declares that the power of Congress, or, in other words, of the national legislature, shall extend to certain enumerated cases. This specification of particulars evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority, because an affirmative grant of special powers would be absurd, as well as useless, if a general authority was intended." – Federalist 83

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

Is it really these people from history, names that you might recognize, and people like myself, Beck, Limbaugh and others who constantly say the exact same thing that are the ones being seditious?

Or is it people like those in Congress who day in and day out violate the covenant of limited government and accrue unto themselves power? How is it seditious to promote the Supreme Law of the Land but not seditious to work against its lawful authority? The answer is of course that it is not. What is seditious however is members of Congress and our President expanding the role of our federal government beyond that which the federal Constitution, the “lawful authority” of this nation, specifies.

See Comrade Klein, although I do not disagree with you that there is indeed sedition occurring within the United States, I do disagree with you as to whom the seditious persons are. And the facts, sadly for you are on my side and not yours and remain to this day very stubborn things which you cannot run from forever. So perhaps Mr. Klein it is time that you correct yourself and point your warnings about what happens to those who engage in sedition at those who are actually acting in a seditious manner?

Would that be too much to ask for you to address your remarks to President Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid who are acting in opposition to the lawful authority of this land? Or would that require just a bit too much more honestly from you than you are capable of?

Having watched you for years I suspect the later is true.

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

Saturday, April 24, 2010

Radio tonight: A Reagan Tribute and a discussion about the Candidacy of Douglas V. Gibbs for City Council in Murrieta, California

Date / Time: 4/24/2010 7:00 PM

Category: Politics Conservative

Call-in Number: (646) 652-2940

While I am out to attend a special engagement, I have recorded a documentary about Ronald Reagan, and will replay a portion of ADR radio from this morning where JASmius and I discuss my candidacy for the Murrieta City Council. Listen to the program at

Conservative News and Commentary

Reagan - "Rendezvous with Destiny"

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Reagan Quotes - As True Today As The Day He Spoke Them

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

The Way of Liberal Lunacy

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Note: I would like to extend a special invitation to my liberal readers to read this entire article (that means from start to finish), rather than reading a couple lines and assuming you know what the rest says. . .

Thank you for stopping by. Feel free to park and stay a while. My journey has led me here, to this spot, on the verge of running for local office, overlooking a dangerous and harrowing road, should I let it be the path I take. If you don't mind I'd like to sit and ponder for a while.

The sign post up ahead shows that my next stop may be political office. Before the bend in the road to a summit in local politics is an election, and just prior to that is the campaign. I am getting ready to form my election committee, and the road ahead is covered with pot holes and dips. So, before I elect to journey down that path, I thought I'd sit and reflect for a moment.

I recently announced that I fully intend to run for City Council in the fine city of Murrieta, California. I am a long time resident, and have had a number of meetings with members of a few local groups, assemblies, and political action committees. They have offered their support and assistance, and I am forever grateful.

One of the individuals I have had the honor to speak with assures me that as a "limited government" guy, and the fact that I plan to run in support of three local initiatives that will be on the ballot in November that reflect my support of limiting principles, I have an excellent chance of winning.

The opposition is fierce. One of the participants, who shares my last name, used to be mayor, as a matter of fact. All of the candidates, in short, are seasoned veterans with plenty of education and elite smugness running through their veins, fully capable of stooping to a level of using unsavory tactics to win. I hope that I am wrong, but politics is an animal best approached with a whip and chair in hand, despite claims of being tame.

Past experience as a parliamentarian is my limited offering of experience.

My inexperience is my advantage.

The people of Murrieta, like the citizens of the United States, are sick and tired of the usual suspects of politicians, and an ever-expanding governmental system. This is a part of the reason the people voted for Barack Obama. Not because of his policies, not because the voters felt Obama had an abundance of experience, but because Barack Obama promised to be something different. Barry promised to break the cycle of "politics as usual," and to represent the little guy. He assured us he'd be our voice in the sea of political mayhem.

Barack Obama's numbers are plummeting not only because people have realized he is a typical, lying, conniving politician, but also because his policies are nothing like he originally proclaimed (well, they are, but you had to read between the lines to figure it out). He, and the Congressional Democrats, are taking this nation down a path to complete liberal lunacy, and to fundamentally change the American form of government.

One way to stop the bleeding is to quickly apply a tourniquet. That is what November is about. We must vote into Congressional power the Republican Party so that we can stop the madness, and then hold those Republicans accountable once they are in office.

The problem, however, is that the rotting cesspool of political lust for power and prestige exists in the Republican Party just as much as it does in the Democrat Party, so the question becomes, "How do we ultimately stop the madness that plagues our political system?"

The answer is simple, and it resides at the local level.

City and County politics are the same as state and federal politics, just on a smaller scale. The same corruption haunts the system, and the same elitism exists. A smug attitude prevails, elevating the politicians to some level in the clouds, making them believe they know better than the people what is better for the people. And these are the folks from whose pool the future leaders of America comes from.

Garbage In, Garbage Out.

They don't understand that the money they spend does not belong to them. It is our money, and they are supposed to be our representatives. The problem, however, exists at all levels of government, but to fix it, we must gain back control from top to bottom, starting at the local level. If we don't gain control of our local governments, we won't take back the states; and if we don't take back the states, liberalism will continue to transform this nation into something the founding fathers never intended, thus directing ourselves onto a destructive path of unsustainable crony capitalism, and welfare statism.

It must stop now. We must take a stand here. Our revolution to take back America has begun.

When I announced my plans to run for City Council a couple days ago a number of liberal readers of this site became giddy with excitement. One even exclaimed that he has the Email addresses of my opponents, and that this "will be awesome."

Why is this awesome if he hates my political positions so much?

The answer is obvious.

Hard left liberals are unable to win in a debate on policy. They are bankrupt in the arena of ideas. So, in order to win anything, they must resort to two tactics. First, as politicians, they must run on a platform less radical than what they fully intend to initiate. Second, they destroy the opposition with continuous attacks, misrepresentations, and low-down strategies that boggle the mind - much like Obama has used in his political career. They take everything you say and break it down to try to use it against you, even if the context is lost, and regardless of the fact you never actually said what they claim you said. If you say, for example, that you believe the welfare system creates a culture of dependency, they will say you said "All poor people are lazy." Of course you never said such a thing, but by proclaiming that welfare creates dependency you are implying that those dependent on entitlement programs lack the initiative to take care of themselves independently, and that is criminal enough to the leftist on the attack.

Never mind the fact that in the long run entitlement programs never help the poor get out of the cycle of poverty, and that the number of poor is increasing as a result of our growing welfare state. But the facts mean nothing to these people, their goal is destroy the opposition, not debate reality, nor admit that their liberal policies are actually destructive in nature.

One of these liberals is convinced that I believe there is a Muslim with a rifle hiding behind every bush just waiting to leap out to kill every American he can. The liberal I am referring to bases this thought on what he believes to be his astute observation of a fictional piece I wrote from the point of view of a fictional character suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder.

I guess the liberal isn't bright enough to distinguish between fiction and reality.

Another goes around telling people I got kicked out of college, which is not true. I received a "B" in a class where I had performed at my usual "A" level, and a part of the reason I believed I was docked was because of the fact that I had corrected the professor in class, and because the man espoused his communist beliefs in class and I challenged him on it. When I took my case to the Dean my appeal was rejected, and that distasteful episode was one of the many reasons I left that particular institution of higher learning.

Hardly a case of being "kicked out."

One of the liberal left's favorites, though, is when I wrote that in war we must be willing to fight the enemy, destroy a few cities, and turn sand to glass. I was illustrating the attitude of American Forces in World War II, and I wrote that piece out of frustration of Bush's ridiculous rules of engagement that were not allowing our troops to fight the war in Iraq, and Afghanistan, as I believed it needed to be fought.

War is not a preferable activity, and I believe that every American shares the belief that if the world had no war, it would be a much better place. But the reality is ideologies exist that are based on destructive teachings, and when faced with such ideologies, it is the responsibility, and obligation, of freedom-loving peoples to battle, and defeat, such enemies. Americans, since our taste for war is short-lived when going to the battlefield becomes necessary, prefer our military engagements to be precise and concise. Politically correct warfare only drags out military campaigns, and endangers the lives of our troops while giving the enemy a slight ray of hope of victory. Either we go in with the full intention of winning the war swiftly, being willing to use all options of our arsenal available, or we have no business being on the battlefield in the first place.

This is why Obama's declaration of when America is willing to use nuclear weapons was such a dangerous thing. War is a massive game of poker, and Barack Obama's announcement of limited nuclear use was the idiot's way of showing our hand. The enemy must believe we are crazy enough to nuke them, should they take any action against the United States, that way they will think twice before striking. That is why such a swift response after 9/11 was so important. It showed the enemy that we were true to our word. Attack America, and we will unite to ensure you pay the consequences, and that you won't attack America again.

By placing a policy on the table showing when we are willing to use our nuclear weapons, as Obama has, we are telling our enemies how far they can go before we retaliate. It doesn't matter if we weren't really willing to nuke a country for attacking us with biological weapons, for example. We want them to believe we would be willing to nuke them for such an attack, even if they themselves have no nuclear capabilities. That is how you keep the bad guys honest. If they fear retaliation, they will think twice before attacking the United States. Obama took that off the table. The enemy no longer fears that if we go on a war footing we are willing to be swift, precise, destroy a few cities, and turn sand into glass. Fear is a peacemaker, and Obama compromised it.

How vile must the little minds of liberalism be to get excited when someone they disagree with, like myself, decides to run for local office because it gives them the opportunity to destroy my character, and assist the opposition in launching a smear campaign? How small must you be to decide to attack from a different state through the Internet someone for simply holding different beliefs than yourself? Why can't you argue policy? Why won't you enter the arena of ideas, and leave the disgusting sleaze of smear politics behind?

The answers are all the same: Because that is how vile the Left truly is. Obama did not win the presidency, or any of his previous elections, on policy. He won by destroying the competition personally.

During the presidential election the Democrats, and the liberal media, concentrated their efforts on smearing Bush, and anyone who dared to associated themselves with any Bush policy. They made it so that the GOP went around trying to be careful of what they said, essentially taking the bite away from the dog, and the claws away from the cat. The Left has no problem destroying political careers with their attacks. They have to, because in the arena of ideas, they would never be able to win because when it comes to ideas that are beneficial, they are totally bankrupt.

Think about it. When it comes to National Security, the Left sides with the policy of defeatism. With the issue of taxation, they argue in support of higher taxes. They promote bigger government, and align themselves with forces that are historically enemies of liberty. The Left bribed and paid off fellow Democrats to get the Health Care legislation passed, but would have been on a war footing if the GOP had dared sink to such a level of corruption. They protected their fellow Democrat, Jefferson, when his freezer was found full of dirty money, yet destroyed the career of Tom DeLay without ever getting a conviction. They attack Family Values, and offer decay instead. When it comes to abortion the Left sides with death. When our best ally, Israel, decided to build additional living spaces in their capital city of Jerusalem, the liberals went on a rampage demanding that we make the Jewish nation stop what it is doing in its own country, after arguing that by going to war against Terrorism we are sticking our nose into other country's business. They demonize our allies while giving concessions to our enemies. They call supporters of the U.S. Constitution radical extremists, and accuse dissent as being a form of sedition, while conveniently forgetting their vehemence during their anti-Bush marches only a few years before, and conveniently not recognizing that at that time the Right's attitude was not one to accuse them of sedition, or extremism, but to praise the American system for being one of freedom that allows even those folks to protest the government in such a distasteful manner.

The American Liberal knows he is in bed with destructive forces, dark ideas, and political lunacy. If Democrats were to run an honest campaign, and were willing to lay it all out on their platform, they would never be elected again. That is why they resort to bribes, dirty politics, and the destruction of individuals. They can't honestly win in the arena of ideas, so they set out to eliminate the competition by any means necessary.

This is why I believe I will win my City Council seat in November. I believe in limiting the powers of the government, and I am not one of those leaches that call themselves politicians. I am one of you. I am a citizen, and I am ready to take a stand. All I ask is that you stand with me.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary