Saturday night Political Pistachio Radio had no guest, but we spent two great hours of strong commentary and debate. . . check it out: Go Here
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Saturday, July 31, 2010
Term Limits Catch Fire in Southern California Cities
By Douglas V. Gibbs
When I first decided to run for Murrieta City Council, one of the issues I immediately backed was term limits. One of the proposed ordinances that will be on the November ballot tackles term limits. If passed, the initiative would allow members of the city government to serve no more than two consecutive four-year terms. The proposal would not keep the good council members out of office indefinitely, for after a one term break the person would be able to run again, and serve two consecutive terms if elected.
My run for the Murrieta City Council is not the only candidacy calling for term limits. In Escondido, a city in north San Diego County along Interstate 15, Mayoral candidate Tom D'Agosta is also supporting term limits for his city. He says that long-serving politicians (as opposed to statesmen) become stagnant, and too cozy with "special interest." Then, as they use the incumbency to be re-elected, they become difficult to defeat, which keep out of the city government new people with fresh ideas.
Opponents to term limits state that voters are informed enough to remove incumbents when necessary, and that term limits restrict voter choice, and force out of office seasoned and knowledgeable politicians.
Lack of support by the city council for term limits has kept it off the ballot in the San Diego County city. D'Agosta still needs one more vote among the five-member panel to place term limits on a future election ballot.
Without a third vote, D'Agosta and Diaz could throw their weight behind a petition drive that could also put term limits on the ballot. But a term-limits petition drive launched by the city's mobile-home residents in 2008 failed to garner enough signatures.
In California, voters adopted term limits for governor, Senate and Assembly in 1990.
The success of term limits vary from city to city, for each city is an individual entity with unique characteristics and challenges. In Murrieta, in light of a few long-standing council members, the initiative calling for term limits has been largely welcomed by the voters. The status of government official becomes more important to the members than what the people desire, and when the motive for serving becomes something other than serving the people, it is time to break up the club.
A stagnant council often results in a stagnant city, and in this economic environment, that is the last thing we need. Group-think leads to collectivism, and collectivism tends not to lead to new ideas, nor does it support the principles of a limited government that is supposed to serve the people, and partner with the business environment.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
ESCONDIDO: D'Agosta wants City Council term limits - North County Times
Douglas V. Gibbs for Murrieta City Council
When I first decided to run for Murrieta City Council, one of the issues I immediately backed was term limits. One of the proposed ordinances that will be on the November ballot tackles term limits. If passed, the initiative would allow members of the city government to serve no more than two consecutive four-year terms. The proposal would not keep the good council members out of office indefinitely, for after a one term break the person would be able to run again, and serve two consecutive terms if elected.
My run for the Murrieta City Council is not the only candidacy calling for term limits. In Escondido, a city in north San Diego County along Interstate 15, Mayoral candidate Tom D'Agosta is also supporting term limits for his city. He says that long-serving politicians (as opposed to statesmen) become stagnant, and too cozy with "special interest." Then, as they use the incumbency to be re-elected, they become difficult to defeat, which keep out of the city government new people with fresh ideas.
Opponents to term limits state that voters are informed enough to remove incumbents when necessary, and that term limits restrict voter choice, and force out of office seasoned and knowledgeable politicians.
Lack of support by the city council for term limits has kept it off the ballot in the San Diego County city. D'Agosta still needs one more vote among the five-member panel to place term limits on a future election ballot.
Without a third vote, D'Agosta and Diaz could throw their weight behind a petition drive that could also put term limits on the ballot. But a term-limits petition drive launched by the city's mobile-home residents in 2008 failed to garner enough signatures.
In California, voters adopted term limits for governor, Senate and Assembly in 1990.
The success of term limits vary from city to city, for each city is an individual entity with unique characteristics and challenges. In Murrieta, in light of a few long-standing council members, the initiative calling for term limits has been largely welcomed by the voters. The status of government official becomes more important to the members than what the people desire, and when the motive for serving becomes something other than serving the people, it is time to break up the club.
A stagnant council often results in a stagnant city, and in this economic environment, that is the last thing we need. Group-think leads to collectivism, and collectivism tends not to lead to new ideas, nor does it support the principles of a limited government that is supposed to serve the people, and partner with the business environment.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
ESCONDIDO: D'Agosta wants City Council term limits - North County Times
Douglas V. Gibbs for Murrieta City Council
Democrats Failed Economic Policies
By Douglas V. Gibbs
The economy is failing, unemployment (if you add the numbers the Left ignores and sweeps under the bed called U.6 and SGS Alternate) is at 22%, and maybe higher. The Mid-Season Budget Review shows the $862 billion economic stimulus is an abysmal failure, and there is no end in sight. This year's budget deficit is at $1.471 trillion, and it is expected to double before the next Presidential Election in 2012. The economy is failing to grow, and the stunt in its growth is being fueled by excessive spending, a dependency on government funding, and a private sector that is afraid to do anything because it is under assault by the federal government by way of regulatory attacks, and the threat of even higher taxes. The promise of increased taxes is an option that always results ultimately in a drop in revenue, and a slow-down of economic activity.
Working people are doing whatever they can to keep their heads above water, and the federal government is putting weights on their ankles. To have a strong economy we need to remove those weights, and enable people as many options as possible to provide for themselves and their families by providing opportunities for growth across the board.
The liberal-progressive-leftist maniacs are right on one thing: The wealthiest Americans are not overly hurt by the bad economy. But it is those people that are the key to kick-starting the economy and making it grow again. Higher taxes and government spending simply slows down and cripples the private job-producing sector.
Greed has become the buzz word of the Left (it always is, their tactics never change), and they are out there punishing the wealthy for their greed. . . Banks, Insurance Companies, Oil Companies - all because the (the progressive Democrats) have proclaimed that "profit" and "bonuses" are greedy, and those things must be stopped.
Why do you work a job? Why do you ask for a raise? Aren't you being greedy for wanting more? If you attack the desire to do better at the top, eventually those attacks against opportunity, and achievement, and "doing better" works its way all the way down to you. Before you know it wage and price controls increase, and you are dictated to by the government what you can and can't do, and if you want just a tad more, you are villianized for being "greedy."
You see, when you tax the rich you are taxing capital. Taxing capital does not just hurt the wealthy, it hurts everyone all the way down to the bottom. Punishing the top punishes the Middle Class, and the ultimately any hopes for the poor to rise out of their government-dependent state of being. The wealthy invest their capital to create new jobs. When the wealthy invests their capital to create new jobs the effect is on the Middle Class. More jobs available creates more opportunity, and then new products are produced, and then there is more consumption of products.
Then, folks in the Middle Class, in the hopes of making more, having profit, and living a little better, start new businesses by investing their own risk capital. To survive as a new business the investment of this capital must have a reasonable return. But if, due to a failing economy that opportunity is being bludgeoned by the federal government, these folks are unwilling to take these "risks" (risk: The thing the Democrats promised to remove from the financial market through regulatory control) then they won't invest their money and create new jobs and new products. Then, as a result, there are no new potential employees, and no new potential consumers of the products this new business would have offered.
Now, the Democrats wish to add insult to injury, and with the expiration of the Bush Tax Cuts desire to increase capital gains tax rates, as well as shorten the allowable years of depreciation. In an attempt by the federal government to take away "unfair advantages" of the wealthy, the Left will further cripple the economy, the potential for growth, and ultimately it will also further cripple an already floundering real estate market. The policies do not just punish the rich, leftist programs and policies affect all economic levels of our society. The hardest hit winds up being the Middle Class, more than the rich. And the engine of our Free Market economy resides in the Middle Class.
Then, to further kill any "unfair advantages," you see the progressives attacking products that cater to the rich. Expensive sports cars, Yachts, and the like, are targeted for an increased tax, a luxury tax you might say. That way the Left can squeeze a few more dollars out of the rich. But what happens when these parts of the economy are hit? The luxury item is not produced by the rich, it is produced by the middle class, serviced by the middle class, and sold by salesmen that are in the middle class. The industry, whichever one is attacked, either slows down, or moves off-shore where the conditions are not so hostile. The rich still get their product, but the rest of the nation loses more jobs, and yet another corporation to foreign shores. Then the Democrats stand up demanding that American companies stop going overseas, but the business left to seek more favorable conditions for their company. If the liberals wish companies to remain in the states, then make the environment favorable for business opportunities stateside!
The Democrats, progressives, liberal morons, or whatever you wish to call them, don't recognize long-term effects. They are simply trying to pit the rich against the not-rich with their politics of class-envy, and class-warfare. Then when problems arise based on their policies, they blame the rich, try to throw the rich's money at the problems, measure their compassion by counting the number of people who receive some kind of government help, and completely disregard human nature, or actual, real, factual economic trends and responses to their policies.
Conservatives seek to expand opportunities by getting the government the heck out of the way.
A conservative does not wish to apologize for trying to earn more money, and does not feel guilty for wanting to keep more of it for themselves and their family. The silly notion that poverty in America is because the rich has all the money, or that people are poor because you don't pay enough in taxes, is incredibly stupid. By having a job, and seeking to do better, you are a part of the engine that helps create jobs. The products and services you create and consume helps to initiate the process that produces more jobs for other people that may not otherwise have a job. You working as a self-sufficient, personally responsible individual in the private sector is what improves economies. When you strive for more "profit," it improves the over-all conditions, and provides opportunities for others to do the same.
Democrats, in their government-paid positions, are actually the greedy ones, because they produce nothing but misery, make their money off of money confiscated through taxation, and create policies that take money from one class and hand it to another. They do not produce wealth in America, they simply move money around . . . some would call it redistribution. . . because they think that is the compassionate thing to do - rather than produce conditions that allows people to step out under the shadow of the government, and take care of themselves (which includes making more money, and working hard to make more down the road).
One must ask, as they increase their power and pocketbooks while destroying the hopes and dreams of everyone with their high spending, increased taxes, and assault on the private sector, while making a living on the money taken from taxpayers, who in reality are the greedy ones?
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
And Admission of Failure - Heritage Foundation
Alternate Unemployment Charts - John Williams' Shadow Government Statistics
Thieves At Our Border
The next time somebody accuses you as a Christian of being un-Christian for being against illegal immigration, throw this one at them:
In the words of Jesus Christ himself, in John 10:1: “Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber.”
Gosh, the theif that broke into your house to steal your belongings is trying to better his life no different than the illegal aliens. Does that condone what he is doing? The illegal aliens are intentionally breaking the law by crossing the border, and they are doing so with vicious intent. It would be one thing if they came across, then respected America, and went back only to come back legally the next time. These folks are coming across, taking from us, and then are proclaiming they will bring more so that they can take back this part of the country for Mexico!
Whether breaking into your house to take your belongings, or taking entitlements from the government without being legal or paying taxes, it all comes down to the same thing. . . they are taking something without paying for it, and they are breaking the law in the process.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
In the words of Jesus Christ himself, in John 10:1: “Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber.”
Gosh, the theif that broke into your house to steal your belongings is trying to better his life no different than the illegal aliens. Does that condone what he is doing? The illegal aliens are intentionally breaking the law by crossing the border, and they are doing so with vicious intent. It would be one thing if they came across, then respected America, and went back only to come back legally the next time. These folks are coming across, taking from us, and then are proclaiming they will bring more so that they can take back this part of the country for Mexico!
Whether breaking into your house to take your belongings, or taking entitlements from the government without being legal or paying taxes, it all comes down to the same thing. . . they are taking something without paying for it, and they are breaking the law in the process.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Friday, July 30, 2010
Fundraiser for Murrieta City Council Campaign
FUNDRAISER FOR DOUGLAS V GIBBS
July 30 from 6 pm to 8 pm
At
“Simply Friends” in the garden
24980 Washington Avenue, Murrieta
All checks for Douglas V Gibbs need to be sent to made out to: Douglas V. Gibbs for City Council
Illegal Aliens in the U.S.
That dot in Arizona will be getting pretty small pretty soon as the illegals deport themselves under the threat of being discovered. . .
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Thomas Jefferson's Message to the Food Police (Like Michelle Obama)
"If the people let government decide
what foods they eat and what medicines they take,
their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state
as are the souls of those who live under tyranny."
- - Thomas Jefferson
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Deflation Warning
By Douglas V. Gibbs
James Bullard, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, warned that the Federal Reserve's current policies may be putting the American economy at risk of becoming "enmeshed in a Japanese-style deflationary outcome within the next several years."
This warning comes on the heals of one by Ben S. Bernanke, the Fed chairman, who said the central bank was prepared to do more to stimulate the economy if needed, though it had no immediate plans to do so.
As the economy continues to weaken, the views by the Federal Reserve seems to be more in line with reality than the opinions of the Democrats in Congress, or Obama's White House. Rising inflation due to the continued spending of money we don't have is on the horizon, and though some would consider it a greater threat than deflation, the powerful economy killer of deflation is becoming more of a future reality than the politicians are willing to admit.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Within the Fed, Worries of Deflation - New York Times
James Bullard, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, warned that the Federal Reserve's current policies may be putting the American economy at risk of becoming "enmeshed in a Japanese-style deflationary outcome within the next several years."
This warning comes on the heals of one by Ben S. Bernanke, the Fed chairman, who said the central bank was prepared to do more to stimulate the economy if needed, though it had no immediate plans to do so.
As the economy continues to weaken, the views by the Federal Reserve seems to be more in line with reality than the opinions of the Democrats in Congress, or Obama's White House. Rising inflation due to the continued spending of money we don't have is on the horizon, and though some would consider it a greater threat than deflation, the powerful economy killer of deflation is becoming more of a future reality than the politicians are willing to admit.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Within the Fed, Worries of Deflation - New York Times
Why Liberals Hate
By Douglas V. Gibbs
I have noticed that all of the liberals I meet are angry people. Mention anything conservative, and their nostrils flair, and their cheeks turn red with anger. One wonders, sometimes, how people who embrace the leftist ideology can spend so much time being hateful, and so little time doing what they claim their ideology is all about . . . you know, tolerance and compassion. Their hate towards the Tea Party, conservatism, and the not-so-conservative (but a Republican) George W. Bush (and anyone else that dares to oppose them) becomes easier for them with each cycle. Why do they hate so easily?
During the reign of the Nazis in Germany people wondered how it could be that the peaceful German people could hate the Jews as they did, and allow the atrocities that happened to happen. How could an otherwise reasonable people allow an ideology to convince them to kill - That human beings must be slaughtered, and be experimented on, and that a war must be waged worldwide to prove their point?
Studies regarding similar topics reveal that once you begin to hate someone, and you begin to do something horrific to them, especially as a group, it angers you, and your anger becomes stronger against whoever it is that you hate. This makes it even easier to hate even more; to be angry even more.
Hate becomes a vicious cycle. They blamed the Jews, which freed them to hate the Jews, and that hate angered them, which made them hate the Jews all the more. Because that is how anger and hate is. It perpetuates upon itself.
As a Conservative I do not hate the liberal. I believe that their ideology is very dangerous, and in fact could be catastrophic to the future of the United States of America. I believe that the mindset of collectivism tends to breed more hate because as a group if they decide that their group is somehow better, and if other groups (like conservatives) push for ideas different than theirs, like the belief in personal responsibility, then the competing group must be hated, must be considered vile.
Conservatives tend not to use the same kind of language the Liberals use. I don't mean profanity, I mean words like "vile," "hater," or "racist." Sure, I have written about racism, and the how the word "racist" is being used, and how there is a double-standard regarding racism - and I do believe there are segments of the liberal left that are, in fact, racist. But I don't bring up racism until they do because it is not on my mind. It is not in my nature to worry about race, or see anyone as anything other than as an individual.
I don't argue with liberals for any other reason than to try to feed them a little truth. I don't hate them, I don't despise them, they anger me but in a way very different than the way we anger them. Conservatives don't hate liberals - we simply don't want them to change America, or its system of government, into something that is not best for everyone. Conservatives simply do not want liberalism to alter the American form of government into something the Founding Fathers never intended it to be.
The Left feels differently about Conservatives, however. To reach their aim they spew a kind of hate and anger that is similar to the kind the Nazis did during the Third Reich. I am not saying they are capable of genocide, I am simply comparing the style of anger and hate.
If you were to say George W. Bush's name around a liberal, most of the time you can see the anger contort their face. The anger becomes so great, and the hate becomes so great, that they become beside themselves. They blame Bush for everything because they've been told to blame him for everything; just as the Germans were told the blame the Jews for everything, and to hate the Jews.
I am in no way defending everything that George W. Bush did. When it came to domestic policies, he was hardly a conservative across the board. About the only conservative thing he did was cut taxes, and he only did that a couple years after he tried the Keynesian approach first. But I don't hate him for his mistake. I am simply disappointed.
No different than with President Bill Clinton. I think that he was not a very good president, and if the Republicans had not gained control of the Congress, Clinton could have been a greater disaster. But I don't hate the man. I hate the fact that he tried to change America. I hate the fact that he tried to push liberal policies, and pushed for liberal programs. I am not fond of the fact that he committed adultery in the Oval Office, and then lied about it under oath. But I do not hate the man for it, nor do I hate liberals for it.
In fact, when I think about liberals, and the unfortunate people who are caught up in the ideology of leftism, words come to mind, and those words were spoken by Jesus Christ when he was the target of a similar kind of hate mounting with each passing lash. Even during his most desperate hour when Jesus Christ could have humanly hated his accusers right back, he proclaimed, "Lord, forgive them, for they know not what they do."
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Obama Eligibility: Natural Born Citizen Requires American Born Father
By Douglas V. Gibbs
On July 31, 2009 I wrote: So, in addition to being born in the colonies, and later the states, one's father must have been born an American as well. Women were, at the time, not as important of a factor. Heirs are sons of their fathers. Citizenship was something, in a sense, you inherited from your father. So, to be a Natural Born Citizen was a person born in America of an American father. Later, as the importance of women grew in society, it became important that a person was the child of two American parents in order to be a Natural Born Citizen.
A year later, everyone else is finally catching up. . .
Two days ago World Net Daily wrote: President Obama may not fit the constitutional eligibility requirement that stipulates only "natural born" citizens can serve as U.S. president. . . according to correspondence from the original framers of the Constitution as well as multiple Supreme Court rulings and the legal writings that helped establish the principles of the Constitution, Obama is not eligible to serve as president since his father was not a U.S. citizen.
As I have stated before, the birthers have a right to ask, but I am not sure Barack Obama was necessarily born outside the United States. He may have been, I don't know, I wasn't there. However, as I have stated numerous times, when it comes to Obama's eligibility, his place of birth is not the problem, it is the fact that his father is a citizen of Kenya. Also, when it comes to the birth certificate, I believe it is not being concealed because of his birth place, but quite possibly because of other information that may be contained on the document.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Blocking Portions of Arizona Immigration Law is Unconstitutional
By Douglas V. Gibbs
A federal judge has blocked some of the toughest provisions in the Arizona illegal immigration law. The decision by the federal judge, according to the main-extreme media, is "putting on hold the state's attempt to have local police enforce federal immigration policy."
The judicial decision by the federal judge is unconstitutional. The federal government has no authority to tell the State whether or not it can enforce immigration law.
In the U.S. Constitution immigration is mentioned, or referred to indirectly, twice.
In Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 the federal government is given the authority to "establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization." This is the rules for who can naturalize, and they must be adhered to uniformly by all the states. Notice it "establishes" the rule. It not only says nothing about enforcement, but also it says nothing about the migration of those persons into the U.S. in the first place.
In Article I, Section 9, Clause 1 the U.S. Constitution gives the U.S. Congress, after 1808, the authority to pass legislation to "prohibit" the migration of persons into this country. In other words, to set the rules by the creation of law regarding who can come into this country. Once again, the Constitution says nothing about enforcement in regards to this authority.
In Article 4, Section 4 the Constitution also provides that the Federal Government "shall protect each of them [states] against Invasion." This is a direct reference to sealing the border, and not allowing unauthorized persons to cross the border. Unauthorized entry into the U.S. is an invasion in the strictest sense.
In the U.S. Constitution the powers of the Federal Government are "granted" to it by the authorities listed "herein" the Constitution (See Article I, Section 1). Powers not delegated to the Federal Government, nor prohibited to the States, are authorities that belong to the States (See Tenth Amendment). Since the authority to enforce immigration law is not granted, or vested, to the United States Federal Government by the U.S. Constitution, it is a power of the States. Therefore, Arizona's immigration law is not only constitutional, but it is their responsibility as a State to do what they are doing.
The only part of this equation the Federal Government must do is protect the border, and they have fallen down on the job badly on that one.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Federal Judge Blocks Key Portions of Arizona Illegal Immigration Law - Fox News
Where's the Oil? - Rush was right again. . .
By Douglas V. Gibbs
As time has passed I have been getting more and more opportunities to listen to Rush Limbaugh. I don't always catch his entire show, but usually a large part of it. When the oil spill in the gulf first began, Rush Limbaugh carried an attitude similar to mine that basically if BP did anything wrong, it would come out in the court of law later. Rather than demonize the company, let's work together and fix whatever needs fixin'.
Rush also said something interesting that most folks gave him a hard time about. Limbaugh proclaimed that the Earth has amazing self-healing abilities. In the wide scope of things, the oil spill is a thimble-full of oil in a huge swimming pool of water, and once this oil spill madness was all over it would take very little time for the oil to dissipate, and for the Gulf of Mexico to get back to normal.
Lo, and behold, the main-extreme media is asking, "Where's the Oil?"
It turns out that Rush was right.
Limbaugh is usually right, and that is why I enjoy catching his shows when I can. But it is especially fun when he's right on something like this, and the press knows it, and it has been proven (in this case by nature), and the liberal media squirms and squirms and does what they can to avoid saying, "Rush was right."
This is not to say I felt we should have done nothing. After all, oil hitting the coasts is a little more messy than the oil in the water. BP, and the federal and state governments, should have spent a lot of time putting up barriers to keep the oil from hitting the beaches. . . but alas, they did not.
What is interesting is all of the job losses and drop in tourist numbers was a result of the media spewing all of the lies of how catastrophic everything was. . . if they'd just listened to Rush, the region would not have suffered as much in the sense of the economic impact of this spill.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Mighty oil-eating microbes help clean up the Gulf - Yahoo News
Leftists Displeased, Surprised by Disappearing, Dispersing Gulf Oil - Rush Limbaugh
Massachusetts Joins Battle Against Electoral College
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Originally, the Founding Fathers established a separation of powers between the branches of government, between the federal and state governments, and among the voting powers. The House of Representatives was voted on by the people, the Senators were appointed by the State legislatures, and the electors for the President of the United States were assigned also by the State legislatures. When a bill was presented, it needed approval by the people (House), the States (Senate), and the federal government (President). The States, and the People, were expected to hold more power than the federal government, which is why they were given the power to override a veto. In 1913 the 17th Amendment removed the State's voice from the political process at the federal level. The people began to vote for the electors for President in 1824.
One of the many reasons the Founding Fathers established a separation of powers among the voting system was because they knew the people could be fooled, and they desired the "States" to have a voice. If the people were to be able to vote for House, Senate, and President, the Founders believed if the people were fooled, a tyranny could step in and gain control of both houses of Congress, and the White House (as did indeed happen in 2006 and 2008).
Thankfully, one of the original ideas by the Founding Fathers that has been kept in place is the Electoral College. Rather than be voted by the popular vote, the Electoral College allows each state to have a number of electors, and it is those electors that vote for the President. Their votes are normally consistent with the popular vote of the district they represent, though it is possible for an elector to change the vote should he or she determine it is necessary.
The Electoral College gives the smaller states a voice in Presidential elections. If there was no Electoral College, candidates would find no need to campaign in small states, and the vote from the five largest cities would be sufficient to win a presidency.
Since the votes from the five largest metropolitan areas would be sufficient to win an election, it would literally a wasted vote for anyone not living in those cities. In history, four times the electoral winner was not the popular vote winner.
Massachusetts is currently making a push to eliminate the electoral college by making their own statement: They approved a bill that would assign the state’s electoral votes to the presidential candidate who won the national popular vote — regardless of whom Massachusetts voters preferred.
Five other states that have already enacted such laws — Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, New Jersey and Washington — account for 61 electoral votes. Massachusetts would add 12 more.
The claim by those that support this "eliminate the Electoral College" campaign says that they want presidential candidates to campaign nationwide, rather than focusing on a few closely contested states that have a lot of electoral votes. But what they don't realize is that rather hope for states with a lot of electoral votes, the candidates will only campaign in the five largest metropolitan areas. The rest of the country, if they win those cities, would be a waste of time for them.
Of course, not only would the small states lose their voice in the Presidential election, but when you consider that the largest metropolitan areas tend to be liberal, eliminating the Electoral College could result in the liberal socialists remaining in power in perpetuity. . . which I believe may be the real reason for this push to eliminate the Electoral College.
Just another way the Democrats are working on silencing the opposition.
Personally, I'd really get a kick out of it if those states that have passed this law have their votes go to the popular vote winner in 2012, and it is a Republican, and if they had not changed their electoral vote rules the Democrat would have won the election, but lost because he/she didn't get their electoral votes as a result of their new laws.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
France Wars Against al-Qaeda
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Apparently France has grown a pair, and has decided to take up war against al-Qaeda. To confirm France's declaration of war against the terrorist group, the European nation launched an attack on a base camp of the terrorist network's North African branch. The decision for the attack came after the network killed a French humanitarian worker it took hostage in April. The decision to take on a war-footing is a change in France's normal strategy of appeasement, and careful decisions regarding terrorism.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
France declares war on al-Qaida - St. Louis Today
Apparently France has grown a pair, and has decided to take up war against al-Qaeda. To confirm France's declaration of war against the terrorist group, the European nation launched an attack on a base camp of the terrorist network's North African branch. The decision for the attack came after the network killed a French humanitarian worker it took hostage in April. The decision to take on a war-footing is a change in France's normal strategy of appeasement, and careful decisions regarding terrorism.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
France declares war on al-Qaida - St. Louis Today
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
152 People Die In Plane Crash in Pakistan
A passenger plane crashed into the hills surrounding Pakistan's capital this morning. Local officials have said all 152 people on board -- including two Americans -- were killed.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Airbus crashes near Islamabad; all 152 aboard killed, including 2 Americans - Washington Post
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Airbus crashes near Islamabad; all 152 aboard killed, including 2 Americans - Washington Post
Answer to "What Is A Progressive?"
"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." --James Madison, Federalist No. 45
Liberals, Progressives, Socialists - you can attach any name you wish, but in the end they are all one and the same. The Left is about bigger government, and "collectivism."
They believe they are somehow on a higher plane because of their "intent" to be "compassionate." However, in the end, their belief system is just another incremental step toward tyranny.
Rather than tell you what they are, let's have them tell you for themselves. In the following video, "What Is A Progressive?" the leftists explain quite well what they think of themselves.
Let's go over what they said, shall we?
A progressive is someone who believes we are all in this together, as opposed to a conservative who believes you are on your own. - A progressive is someone who is a great leader. - A progressive is someone who believes in fairness and transparency in business and government. - Someone who is trying to solve real problems. - A progressive is someone who cares. - Someone who takes care of kitchen table issues. - A progressive is someone who understands the modern world. - A progressive is someone like my mother, who cared about the entire family. - We are Robin Hood, they are the Sheriff of Nottingham. - When I hear progressive I think of policies that will help everyday people. - If you're not successful, then we're not successful. - A progressive is someone who knows we are in it together.
Such feel-good stuff. And how can you argue with it? The values of progressives, as put forward by that video, is very human, very touching, and very compassionate.
Okay, let's tackle them one at a time.
1. The first person said: "progressive is someone who believes we are all in this together, as opposed to a conservative who believes you are on your own." This is a reference to the conservative belief in self-reliance, personal responsibility, and individualism. However, the person who said that, I believe, doesn't understand what conservatives mean by that, and also doesn't understand the consequences for the progressive method of what he espouses.
The man's opinion is apparently one that holds to the notion that progressives are polar opposites of conservatives in all ways, which is the reason he added the "as opposed to a conservative" statement. If the opposition is as he says, then that would mean he believes progressives should not be self-reliant, have personal responsibility, and be individuals. The "collective group" of progressives are all in it together, so they will do for each other, and as an individual he would then have no personal responsibility. So, if his alarm does not go off in the morning, it's not his problem because the group, which is the government to these people, would be responsible to make sure he wakes up anyway. A government official should run into his house, wake him up, start the shower for him, help him dress, tie his shoes, make his breakfast, and drive him to work. . . oh, wait, work? That's right, the government should cover for him as well if he gets to the point where he doesn't want to work, uh, I mean, can't work. Right? Because if he wakes up himself, gets ready, feeds himself, drives himself to work, and ensures he has a job and that he does his job to the best of his ability so that he can take care of his family, then he is acting like his definition of conservatives. . . you know, acting "on his own."
2. A progressive is someone who is a great leader. - I have one word to answer that one: Obama. But if you'll settle for Reid, Pelosi, Biden, Byrd, Frank, Waters, or any of the other progressives, that's fine by me. In reality, to answer this one, you have to understand the definition of leader. A leader to progressives is a "ruler." A leader to conservatives is one that is a servant, and a partner in advancing America. One could say that Ronald Reagan fit that bill nicely; well, a hell of a lot better than Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, Obama, Reid, Pelosi, Biden, Byrd, Frank, Waters. . .
3. A progressive is someone who believes in fairness and transparency in business and government. - I thought this one was fascinating because it is a line right out of Barack Obama's campaign speeches. What is interesting is the transparency in government turned out to not only be a big fat lie, but it is something that Obama and the "progressive" Democrats are working at eliminating. For example, Obama stated the Health Care negotiations would be on C-Span, and the news, out for every American to witness and appreciate. Then, when it came time to negotiate, they held their meetings behind closed doors, shutting out C-Span, shutting out the public, and even shutting out the Republican Party.
Want another example of the progressive Democrats killing transparency? How about the fact that under a little-noticed provision of the recently passed financial-reform legislation, the Securities and Exchange Commission no longer has to comply with virtually all requests for information releases from the public, including those filed under the Freedom of Information Act. (Fox Business)
Not only does being progressive not mean transparency, but it seems that progressives consider transparency the enemy.
4. Someone who is trying to solve real problems. - Well, let's see. The current progressives in power have solved no problems, and have made them worse. And I am trying to figure out what this person means by "real" problems. I suppose the problems that Republicans have solved were not "real" problems. They must've been "fake" problems. You know, like ending slavery, winning the Cold War, being an instrumental part of bringing down the Berlin Wall, responding to an attack on 9/11 against the United States by Islamic Jihadists, staving off recessions by cutting taxes (Harding, Coolidge, Reagan, G.W. Bush), being an instrumental part of passing the Civil Rights Act (the Democrats filibustered it). . . shall I go on with those problems that by this person's definition are not "real" problems?
5. A progressive is someone who cares. - I suppose by default that means that conservatives don't care? Once again, to understand this one, we need to understand the difference in definitions. To the person that uttered this, since they are a progressive, I am assuming "caring" means welfare programs, health care as a government entitlement, and so on and so forth. The purpose of these programs, according to progressives, is to "help" the poor. By opposing these programs, the liberal/progressive assumption is that you don't care.
The conservative definition of caring is a little different. We absolutely do believe in caring about the poor. Our way of caring is to provide these folks with help through charities and church programs, and to offer them the opportunity to work their way out of poverty with the liberty to pursue achievement. The offerings by conservatives are voluntary, or charitable. In other words, a conservative believes we should be free to decide to help, or not to help. If it is voluntary, and the person chooses to do it, then it is truly from the heart, and in the spirit of giving. Providing for the poor through government, which is done through taking taxes from people whether they like it or not, is "forcing" people to be "caring" about the poor. If people are being forced to care, then how is it truly compassionate? Compassion is the choice of an individual, not the mandate of a collective group.
When a person receives from the government, it becomes an expected entitlement, which dulls the person's desire to be self-reliant, or to pursue opportunity. What results is slavery as a dependent upon the government. When a person receives from a charitable organization, or from a family up the street, and so forth, the person appreciates it more because they know the gift is "voluntary," and then is encouraged to work their way out of poverty, with the help of charitable groups if necessary, so that they can give in such a way as well once they are out of their poverty. You tell me. . . Which is truly more caring?
5. Someone who takes care of kitchen table issues. - I think this one goes back to my first point. We should be personally responsible for our "kitchen table" issues, and tie our own dang shoes. Government should exist to protect our rights and our property, not hold our hand because we didn't do a very good job taking care of ourselves.
6. A progressive is someone who understands the modern world. - This one was actually quite comical, because this person believes that we have somehow evolved into something better because we murder our unborn children, try to convince our elderly to end their lives early, give up on our loved ones in the hospital so we pull their plug, have decided that family is somehow not normal and that perverted sexuality is normal and should be justified by government, and that government should be our nanny. Don't get me wrong. In a number of ways we have improved ourselves. Slavery is a thing of the past in America, technology has opened up many opportunities, and so forth. But freedom, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (opportunity) does not change in the basic sense. To believe in something like the principles of the U.S. Constitution is not failing to understand the modern world. Adhering to those principles is recognizing the wisdom of the ages. I think this person believes the modern world is a socialist one, and if that is the case, we are in a heap of trouble if we chase the "modern world" as this guy sees it.
7. A progressive is someone like my mother, who cared about the entire family. - This one goes back to number 4, you know, the one about "caring." Conservatives do believe in caring about the entire family. That is why rather than encourage poverty by subsidizing the increasing numbers of the poor through entitlement programs, conservatives believe nobody should be excluded from pursuing the opportunity of prosperity, and should be given every chance to become an achiever.
8. We are Robin Hood, they are the Sheriff of Nottingham. - Progressives all think they are like Robin Hood because they "steal from the rich (through confiscatory taxation), and give to the poor (through entitlement programs). What is funny about it is they only know that statement. They don't truly understand what Robin Hood was all about. You see, the governing body had become rich from taxing the people, and Robin Hood was about retrieving those taxes and getting them back to the people.
In other words, the wealth of the rulers were not from hard work, entrepreneurship and innovation, but on theft. They didn’t work for it, nor did they earn it. They simply stole it from the people by levying high taxes. The taxed became poor and oppressed under the tyranny of the rulers, yet they still tried to raise themselves up by their bootstraps and be personally responsible individuals. . . only to be pushed down time and again by those in power.
You see, progressives have no problem with high taxes, nor with taking the wealth from the wealthy so that they can be poor like the rest, and then letting the ruling class have all of the wealth. In fact, progressives believe that every single penny one earns actually belongs to the state.
Robin Hood was justified to take back the money from the tyrannical rulers and give it back to the oppressed subjects. In reality he was not truly robbing anyone, but simply giving back to the people that which was rightfully theirs in the first place.
So, in reality, Robin Hood was more a conservative, than a progressive. The progressives are clearly King John and the Sheriff of Nottingham, serving as a governmental body taking high taxes, and setting up regulatory laws that control what little freedom we may have left.
9. When I hear progressive I think of policies that will help everyday people. - The help this man is referring to does not help, but instead instills dependency into the people upon the government. Rather than be a dependent upon government, wouldn't this person prefer people do for themselves, feel the sense of accomplishment, provide for their families without help (and government intruding into their lives), and become achievers and producers?
10. If you're not successful, then we're not successful - This person is obviously confused. You see, that is actually a Free Market principle. You see, if the company is successful, they have more profit, and that profit produces more jobs and raises in wages. The stock holders do better as well, most of which are retirement investments by everyday people. So yes, if in the Free Market a business entity is successful, then everyone attached is successful too. . . and that is hardly a progressive trait.
11. A progressive is someone who knows we are in it together. - We are in it together, I agree. That is why conservatives are quite fond of the words "We The People." You know, the first three words of the U.S. Constitution. However, a progressive's definition of "in it together" pulls government into the mix. Progressives don't seem to understand that government is only supposed to have limited authorities. The problems we have cannot be solved by government, it is government that is causing the problems in the first place. And as Americans we are in this together, and it is up to us to get the Federal Government to return to abiding by the contract between the States and the Federal Government called the U.S. Constitution. And together, through entities like the Tea Party Movement, we will get our country back. The question is, do progressives truly understand that form of "in it together," or was this person just referring to socialistic collectivism?
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Liberals, Progressives, Socialists - you can attach any name you wish, but in the end they are all one and the same. The Left is about bigger government, and "collectivism."They believe they are somehow on a higher plane because of their "intent" to be "compassionate." However, in the end, their belief system is just another incremental step toward tyranny.
Rather than tell you what they are, let's have them tell you for themselves. In the following video, "What Is A Progressive?" the leftists explain quite well what they think of themselves.
Let's go over what they said, shall we?
A progressive is someone who believes we are all in this together, as opposed to a conservative who believes you are on your own. - A progressive is someone who is a great leader. - A progressive is someone who believes in fairness and transparency in business and government. - Someone who is trying to solve real problems. - A progressive is someone who cares. - Someone who takes care of kitchen table issues. - A progressive is someone who understands the modern world. - A progressive is someone like my mother, who cared about the entire family. - We are Robin Hood, they are the Sheriff of Nottingham. - When I hear progressive I think of policies that will help everyday people. - If you're not successful, then we're not successful. - A progressive is someone who knows we are in it together.
Such feel-good stuff. And how can you argue with it? The values of progressives, as put forward by that video, is very human, very touching, and very compassionate.
Okay, let's tackle them one at a time.
1. The first person said: "progressive is someone who believes we are all in this together, as opposed to a conservative who believes you are on your own." This is a reference to the conservative belief in self-reliance, personal responsibility, and individualism. However, the person who said that, I believe, doesn't understand what conservatives mean by that, and also doesn't understand the consequences for the progressive method of what he espouses.
The man's opinion is apparently one that holds to the notion that progressives are polar opposites of conservatives in all ways, which is the reason he added the "as opposed to a conservative" statement. If the opposition is as he says, then that would mean he believes progressives should not be self-reliant, have personal responsibility, and be individuals. The "collective group" of progressives are all in it together, so they will do for each other, and as an individual he would then have no personal responsibility. So, if his alarm does not go off in the morning, it's not his problem because the group, which is the government to these people, would be responsible to make sure he wakes up anyway. A government official should run into his house, wake him up, start the shower for him, help him dress, tie his shoes, make his breakfast, and drive him to work. . . oh, wait, work? That's right, the government should cover for him as well if he gets to the point where he doesn't want to work, uh, I mean, can't work. Right? Because if he wakes up himself, gets ready, feeds himself, drives himself to work, and ensures he has a job and that he does his job to the best of his ability so that he can take care of his family, then he is acting like his definition of conservatives. . . you know, acting "on his own."
2. A progressive is someone who is a great leader. - I have one word to answer that one: Obama. But if you'll settle for Reid, Pelosi, Biden, Byrd, Frank, Waters, or any of the other progressives, that's fine by me. In reality, to answer this one, you have to understand the definition of leader. A leader to progressives is a "ruler." A leader to conservatives is one that is a servant, and a partner in advancing America. One could say that Ronald Reagan fit that bill nicely; well, a hell of a lot better than Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, Obama, Reid, Pelosi, Biden, Byrd, Frank, Waters. . .
3. A progressive is someone who believes in fairness and transparency in business and government. - I thought this one was fascinating because it is a line right out of Barack Obama's campaign speeches. What is interesting is the transparency in government turned out to not only be a big fat lie, but it is something that Obama and the "progressive" Democrats are working at eliminating. For example, Obama stated the Health Care negotiations would be on C-Span, and the news, out for every American to witness and appreciate. Then, when it came time to negotiate, they held their meetings behind closed doors, shutting out C-Span, shutting out the public, and even shutting out the Republican Party.
Want another example of the progressive Democrats killing transparency? How about the fact that under a little-noticed provision of the recently passed financial-reform legislation, the Securities and Exchange Commission no longer has to comply with virtually all requests for information releases from the public, including those filed under the Freedom of Information Act. (Fox Business)
Not only does being progressive not mean transparency, but it seems that progressives consider transparency the enemy.
4. Someone who is trying to solve real problems. - Well, let's see. The current progressives in power have solved no problems, and have made them worse. And I am trying to figure out what this person means by "real" problems. I suppose the problems that Republicans have solved were not "real" problems. They must've been "fake" problems. You know, like ending slavery, winning the Cold War, being an instrumental part of bringing down the Berlin Wall, responding to an attack on 9/11 against the United States by Islamic Jihadists, staving off recessions by cutting taxes (Harding, Coolidge, Reagan, G.W. Bush), being an instrumental part of passing the Civil Rights Act (the Democrats filibustered it). . . shall I go on with those problems that by this person's definition are not "real" problems?
5. A progressive is someone who cares. - I suppose by default that means that conservatives don't care? Once again, to understand this one, we need to understand the difference in definitions. To the person that uttered this, since they are a progressive, I am assuming "caring" means welfare programs, health care as a government entitlement, and so on and so forth. The purpose of these programs, according to progressives, is to "help" the poor. By opposing these programs, the liberal/progressive assumption is that you don't care.
The conservative definition of caring is a little different. We absolutely do believe in caring about the poor. Our way of caring is to provide these folks with help through charities and church programs, and to offer them the opportunity to work their way out of poverty with the liberty to pursue achievement. The offerings by conservatives are voluntary, or charitable. In other words, a conservative believes we should be free to decide to help, or not to help. If it is voluntary, and the person chooses to do it, then it is truly from the heart, and in the spirit of giving. Providing for the poor through government, which is done through taking taxes from people whether they like it or not, is "forcing" people to be "caring" about the poor. If people are being forced to care, then how is it truly compassionate? Compassion is the choice of an individual, not the mandate of a collective group.
When a person receives from the government, it becomes an expected entitlement, which dulls the person's desire to be self-reliant, or to pursue opportunity. What results is slavery as a dependent upon the government. When a person receives from a charitable organization, or from a family up the street, and so forth, the person appreciates it more because they know the gift is "voluntary," and then is encouraged to work their way out of poverty, with the help of charitable groups if necessary, so that they can give in such a way as well once they are out of their poverty. You tell me. . . Which is truly more caring?
5. Someone who takes care of kitchen table issues. - I think this one goes back to my first point. We should be personally responsible for our "kitchen table" issues, and tie our own dang shoes. Government should exist to protect our rights and our property, not hold our hand because we didn't do a very good job taking care of ourselves.
6. A progressive is someone who understands the modern world. - This one was actually quite comical, because this person believes that we have somehow evolved into something better because we murder our unborn children, try to convince our elderly to end their lives early, give up on our loved ones in the hospital so we pull their plug, have decided that family is somehow not normal and that perverted sexuality is normal and should be justified by government, and that government should be our nanny. Don't get me wrong. In a number of ways we have improved ourselves. Slavery is a thing of the past in America, technology has opened up many opportunities, and so forth. But freedom, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (opportunity) does not change in the basic sense. To believe in something like the principles of the U.S. Constitution is not failing to understand the modern world. Adhering to those principles is recognizing the wisdom of the ages. I think this person believes the modern world is a socialist one, and if that is the case, we are in a heap of trouble if we chase the "modern world" as this guy sees it.
7. A progressive is someone like my mother, who cared about the entire family. - This one goes back to number 4, you know, the one about "caring." Conservatives do believe in caring about the entire family. That is why rather than encourage poverty by subsidizing the increasing numbers of the poor through entitlement programs, conservatives believe nobody should be excluded from pursuing the opportunity of prosperity, and should be given every chance to become an achiever.
8. We are Robin Hood, they are the Sheriff of Nottingham. - Progressives all think they are like Robin Hood because they "steal from the rich (through confiscatory taxation), and give to the poor (through entitlement programs). What is funny about it is they only know that statement. They don't truly understand what Robin Hood was all about. You see, the governing body had become rich from taxing the people, and Robin Hood was about retrieving those taxes and getting them back to the people.
In other words, the wealth of the rulers were not from hard work, entrepreneurship and innovation, but on theft. They didn’t work for it, nor did they earn it. They simply stole it from the people by levying high taxes. The taxed became poor and oppressed under the tyranny of the rulers, yet they still tried to raise themselves up by their bootstraps and be personally responsible individuals. . . only to be pushed down time and again by those in power.
You see, progressives have no problem with high taxes, nor with taking the wealth from the wealthy so that they can be poor like the rest, and then letting the ruling class have all of the wealth. In fact, progressives believe that every single penny one earns actually belongs to the state.
Robin Hood was justified to take back the money from the tyrannical rulers and give it back to the oppressed subjects. In reality he was not truly robbing anyone, but simply giving back to the people that which was rightfully theirs in the first place.
So, in reality, Robin Hood was more a conservative, than a progressive. The progressives are clearly King John and the Sheriff of Nottingham, serving as a governmental body taking high taxes, and setting up regulatory laws that control what little freedom we may have left.
9. When I hear progressive I think of policies that will help everyday people. - The help this man is referring to does not help, but instead instills dependency into the people upon the government. Rather than be a dependent upon government, wouldn't this person prefer people do for themselves, feel the sense of accomplishment, provide for their families without help (and government intruding into their lives), and become achievers and producers?
10. If you're not successful, then we're not successful - This person is obviously confused. You see, that is actually a Free Market principle. You see, if the company is successful, they have more profit, and that profit produces more jobs and raises in wages. The stock holders do better as well, most of which are retirement investments by everyday people. So yes, if in the Free Market a business entity is successful, then everyone attached is successful too. . . and that is hardly a progressive trait.
11. A progressive is someone who knows we are in it together. - We are in it together, I agree. That is why conservatives are quite fond of the words "We The People." You know, the first three words of the U.S. Constitution. However, a progressive's definition of "in it together" pulls government into the mix. Progressives don't seem to understand that government is only supposed to have limited authorities. The problems we have cannot be solved by government, it is government that is causing the problems in the first place. And as Americans we are in this together, and it is up to us to get the Federal Government to return to abiding by the contract between the States and the Federal Government called the U.S. Constitution. And together, through entities like the Tea Party Movement, we will get our country back. The question is, do progressives truly understand that form of "in it together," or was this person just referring to socialistic collectivism?
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Shabazz the Racist
"I'm a warrior trained by Khalid Muhammad
I'm a terrorist trained by Usama bin Laden
Demolitionist, breaking down the walls of the rotten
Never hit and miss
So, first time, take out your target
You want freedom?
You're gonna have to kill some crackers!
You're gonna have to kill some of their babies!"
-- Minister King Samir Shabazz
leader of the New Black Panther Party
Yet the Left is spending all of their energy trying to pin racism on The Right.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
I'm a terrorist trained by Usama bin Laden
Demolitionist, breaking down the walls of the rotten
Never hit and miss
So, first time, take out your target
You want freedom?
You're gonna have to kill some crackers!
You're gonna have to kill some of their babies!"
-- Minister King Samir Shabazz
leader of the New Black Panther Party
Yet the Left is spending all of their energy trying to pin racism on The Right.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
.jpg)
Stop The Mosque in Temecula Rally at Islamic Center of Temecula Valley
Rally to Stop the Islamic Invasion of the Temecula Valley!
Join the rally group in protest, prayer, and song on Friday from 12:30 TO 1:30
July 30, 2010
12:30 am to 1:30 pm
ISLAMIC CENTER OF TEMECULA VALLEY
42188 Rio Nedo, Suite A
Temecula, CA 92590
Get Informed - Get Inspired - Get Involved
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Join the rally group in protest, prayer, and song on Friday from 12:30 TO 1:30
July 30, 2010
12:30 am to 1:30 pm
ISLAMIC CENTER OF TEMECULA VALLEY
42188 Rio Nedo, Suite A
Temecula, CA 92590
Get Informed - Get Inspired - Get Involved
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Afghanistan Secret Documents: Civilians Killed
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Wikileaks released 92,000 pages of secret documents regarding the war in Afghanistan, and in those papers are accounts of civilian deaths in Afghanistan. The founder of WikiLeaks, Julian Assange, told reporters in London that he believed some of the documents, particularly those involving civilian deaths, could be used as evidence in war crimes cases.
War is a horrible thing. The liberal left will tell you that any civilian death is one too many. On the surface, I agree. I don't like war. I don't think there is a sane person on this planet that is a "warmonger." War is horrible, and that is why I believe we should end wars quickly.
Sometimes, to end wars quickly, and with as few deaths as possible, civilian deaths are necessary.
To fight a war, however, you must understand war, and the liberal left, the Democrats in power, and Barack Obama don't have the first clue when it comes to understanding war."
On May 1, 2007 I wrote: "Political Correctness has everyone worried about what they say or what they do. . . It seems to me that the past definition of war was not what it is now. Today's definition is heavily influenced by Vietnam and the hippies that marched against it. Before the Vietnam War was fought war was waged in a different way. We went in and fought the enemy. We didn't dance around politics. . . Right now we are essentially dealing with a termite problem by waiting for the termites to show themselves before we blast them. We fear attacking the problem because a few other bugs may be wiped out as well. . . From the beginning we should have gone in with guns blazing, destroyed a few cities, turned some sand to glass, allowed for collateral damage, and showed the world that if you screw with the United States your nation is going to suffer. We should have went in from a position of strength. We should have went in as the Superpower that we are. . . us tippy-toeing around all of this politically correct B.S., we have lost the war because we have refused to fight it. Bush has allowed himself to use rules of engagement that handcuffs our troops because he's worried about what the Left may say. . . the Media and the Left dictate the direction of the conflict. . . Screw the Left, screw political correctness, and fight the damn war! Don't quit until victory is achieved!"
Liberal commenters were appalled. "Wipe out cities? All of those innocent people!"
Those liberal leftists apparently do not understand war.
On May 26, 2007 I wrote: "For those of you that play chess, you know that the best way to win the game is to have a good defense, but to be constantly on the offense, attacking often. To win a war a nation must go in to win it. And, this war [Vietnam] was like nothing we had ever seen before. The enemy blended with the population and blended into the landscape. To be honest, to our surprise, they refused to play by the rules.
"As the war lengthened, certain groups stateside began to protest against it, and for good reason. Due to our desire to remain on defense, the war was being drawn out, and our men were dying without accomplishing much. Also, the conflict in Vietnam became more politicized, to the point that in the end we wound up withdrawing with our tails between our legs. Worse of all, there were certain Americans that cheered our undeclared defeat. Fact is, we didn't lose it militarily. We lost that conflict politically.
". . . due to the moanings and groanings of the hippies left over from Vietnam, this war has lost its military aspects and has become a political beast. A war cannot be won if it isn't being fought to be won.
". . . I believe that our troops are being handcuffed by Bush. The President has become so worried about public opinion and political correctness that he has changed the campaign in Iraq from a military effort to a political game of Twister. In one of my posts I used the words "turn the desert sand into glass" which is an obvious reference to nuclear weapons. Well, when I said that, Tom went nuts. In fact, his exact words are that I am certifiably insane. He then put up a statistic, and was quick to show a source, that 18% of Americans believe that the U.S. should use nuclear weapons even if it has not suffered a nuclear attack.
"Do I wish that we vaporize hundreds of thousands of ordinary people? Of course not. I don't know if we should consider such an action, but if it became necessary to protect our own nation, use of nuclear weapons may be an option. Though the dropping of atomic bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima killed many people, many more people in the long run were spared because the war was shortened by the bombing. The willingness to use atomic bombs on Japan forced them into surrendering.
"However, such an action may not have the same results in this situation, because this enemy follows no rules, and will never surrender. How easy we forget who we are fighting against. The Islamofascists will not stop when they believe they have enough land or when Israel is finally destroyed. Their goal is the world domination of Islam. They have said so themselves. Do you not believe them? We never believed that they would fly planes into our buildings in New York and into our Pentagon, either. Boy, were we wrong. Let's not be wrong again.
". . . The rallying cry throughout World War II was 'Remember Pearl Harbor.' The memory of such an atrocious act against America kept us moving forward. We wound up fighting Germany and Italy as well, even though they were not technically a part of the attack on Pearl Harbor. We fought knowing that the security of our nation lay in the balance.
"'Remember 9/11' has been forgotten. And this enemy we face is nothing like those of the past. They will follow us home if we let up in the fight. They will strike us here again, as they did on 9/11. Our war in their faces has held them back, for now. They may still strike us, even with us fighting them in the Middle East. Anything is possible, and I dare not underestimate this ruthless enemy. But this war in Iraq, which is nothing more than a battle that is part of the larger Global War on Terror, is for our security. Have we forgotten what happened in 2001 when they flew planes into the World Trade Center?"
I wrote those two articles with the understanding of what war is, and how it must be fought, under my belt. The liberal left is so caught up on their feelings that they can't see beyond the tip of their nose, nor understand the true machinations of war.
On December 5, 2008 I wrote: "Liberals. . . decided that what I was saying [when I used the term 'turn sand to glass'] was that I somehow glorify the destructive power of nuclear weapons, and that I somehow believe in the use of nukes indiscriminately - that I wish for the destruction of cities full of innocents, that I believe we should just go in there (wherever there may be) and just start nuking everybody.
"I never said such a thing, and it is insanity that the leftards would even be so stupid as to proclaim that is what I was saying. Not a surprise, however, because this is how the left works. This is how they twist and turn words.
"At the time that I was making this statement about 'Turning Sand Into Glass,' what I was trying to get across, and apparently I failed to be clear enough for the Lefties to understand, is that when you are facing an enemy of such a magnitude you must show them that you are stronger than them, and that you are willing to do whatever it takes to defeat them. In other words, when dealing with an unreasonable enemy that is hell-bent on using violent means to put whatever their message is across to you, they must be fully convinced that we are willing to use any and all parts of our arsenal to stop them. Whether or not we are actually going to use any and all parts of our arsenal is not the point. They, the enemy, must believe we are willing to. We must go in with the attitude that we are in there to defeat whatever it is we are in there to defeat - and we are willing to use whatever troop level, any weapon, and even be willing to turn sand into glass.
"No sane mind loves nuclear weapons, or believes that such horrible weapons should be used readily and indiscriminately. But, as proven by the Cold War, making your opponent believe that you are willing to use such weapons if you must, and poising them in such a position that it backs up that threat, is a powerful weapon in its own right. If we fail to fully convince Islamofacism, for example, that we are willing to do whatever it takes to defeat them, that we have the resolve and the intestinal fortitude to follow through with our threat - if they don't truly believe that - then the War on Terror is pointless and doomed to fail. They will call your bluff, and they will do whatever they want to the point that it may result in the necessity of something like a nuclear device being used.
"This is what happened in Japan during World War II. The Japanese had no fear of us. They believed they were stronger, and that they would be able to outlast the American Forces in a continued long, drawn out war in the Pacific. It took two atomic bombs to convince them otherwise - two blasts that killed less people, as it turned out, than would have died should we have had to invade Tokyo in a long, drawn out conventional invasion.
"Am I glad we used the atom bomb on Nagasaki and Hiroshima? No, of course not. Nobody would ever be glad when people die - or at least nobody of a right mind. I am never happy when innocents, regardless of who they are, must suffer. But, if taking such a drastic action means stopping the slaughter of more people in the long run, then I support whatever it takes.
"Once again, I am not advocating that we go in and start nuking people. I am not advocating that India go into Pakistan and start nuking the cities of that country because of what happened in Mumbai. But I am advocating making sure that the enemy takes us seriously.
"I remember a science fiction television character once saying, 'The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.' I am a firm believer, when it comes to war, that sometimes the death of a few in a quick strike sends a much firmer message than a long, drawn out killing of many more, and will end wars faster.
"That was part of the mismanagement of Iraq on the part of George W. Bush in the beginning. He tried to satisfy the left by being careful with how many troops he sent into the region, rather than going in with the attitude that we were there to take care of business decisively and quickly, and that we were willing to do whatever it took to accomplish the mission."
Okay, let's get something straight. Peace through strength means that sometimes you have to use the strength to prove you are willing to use it. Besides, have you ever seen a war before where the troops were so worried about the deaths of civilians? Think about it. In a war it is not just your goal to kill the enemy troops, but to make their end of the war so bad that it forces them to stop!
Let me repeat: War is horrible. But, war usually begins when a bad guy does something (normally in an attempt to gain something) that requires a response. The good guys don't want to go to war, but they have to to stop the bad guy.
The response by the good guy has to be to make it so horrible to continue on that the bad guy surrenders. In past wars, that meant killing civilians. In fact, it meant targeting civilians. By not losing civilian casualties, the enemy has no reason to stop their part of the war. If you are only killing their troops, they don't care, because their soldiers expect to die anyway.
So in Iraq before, or Afghanistan now, why don't we just do what it takes to win? Why don't we level a couple cities and force the bad guys to give up? Making it horrible for the enemy makes them stop - thus, in the long run targeting civilians saves lives by cutting the war short!
Like I said earlier, I do not like war. War is horrible. It is so horrible, that I believe we should go in there and do what it takes to win, and end the war quickly.
Could you imagine if we fought a past war, like either of the World Wars, with this "don't kill civilians" policy?
We would have lost.
The WikiLeaks papers are not showing evidence for war crimes - they are showing our attempt to fight the damn war.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Karzai says 52 Afghan civilians killed in NATO strike - New York Times
Past Definition of War - Political Pistachio
Stemming the Bleeding, and Responding to Idiocy - Political Pistachio
Sand To Glass - Political Pistachio
Wikileaks released 92,000 pages of secret documents regarding the war in Afghanistan, and in those papers are accounts of civilian deaths in Afghanistan. The founder of WikiLeaks, Julian Assange, told reporters in London that he believed some of the documents, particularly those involving civilian deaths, could be used as evidence in war crimes cases.
War is a horrible thing. The liberal left will tell you that any civilian death is one too many. On the surface, I agree. I don't like war. I don't think there is a sane person on this planet that is a "warmonger." War is horrible, and that is why I believe we should end wars quickly.
Sometimes, to end wars quickly, and with as few deaths as possible, civilian deaths are necessary.
To fight a war, however, you must understand war, and the liberal left, the Democrats in power, and Barack Obama don't have the first clue when it comes to understanding war."
On May 1, 2007 I wrote: "Political Correctness has everyone worried about what they say or what they do. . . It seems to me that the past definition of war was not what it is now. Today's definition is heavily influenced by Vietnam and the hippies that marched against it. Before the Vietnam War was fought war was waged in a different way. We went in and fought the enemy. We didn't dance around politics. . . Right now we are essentially dealing with a termite problem by waiting for the termites to show themselves before we blast them. We fear attacking the problem because a few other bugs may be wiped out as well. . . From the beginning we should have gone in with guns blazing, destroyed a few cities, turned some sand to glass, allowed for collateral damage, and showed the world that if you screw with the United States your nation is going to suffer. We should have went in from a position of strength. We should have went in as the Superpower that we are. . . us tippy-toeing around all of this politically correct B.S., we have lost the war because we have refused to fight it. Bush has allowed himself to use rules of engagement that handcuffs our troops because he's worried about what the Left may say. . . the Media and the Left dictate the direction of the conflict. . . Screw the Left, screw political correctness, and fight the damn war! Don't quit until victory is achieved!"
Liberal commenters were appalled. "Wipe out cities? All of those innocent people!"
Those liberal leftists apparently do not understand war.
On May 26, 2007 I wrote: "For those of you that play chess, you know that the best way to win the game is to have a good defense, but to be constantly on the offense, attacking often. To win a war a nation must go in to win it. And, this war [Vietnam] was like nothing we had ever seen before. The enemy blended with the population and blended into the landscape. To be honest, to our surprise, they refused to play by the rules.
"As the war lengthened, certain groups stateside began to protest against it, and for good reason. Due to our desire to remain on defense, the war was being drawn out, and our men were dying without accomplishing much. Also, the conflict in Vietnam became more politicized, to the point that in the end we wound up withdrawing with our tails between our legs. Worse of all, there were certain Americans that cheered our undeclared defeat. Fact is, we didn't lose it militarily. We lost that conflict politically.
". . . due to the moanings and groanings of the hippies left over from Vietnam, this war has lost its military aspects and has become a political beast. A war cannot be won if it isn't being fought to be won.
". . . I believe that our troops are being handcuffed by Bush. The President has become so worried about public opinion and political correctness that he has changed the campaign in Iraq from a military effort to a political game of Twister. In one of my posts I used the words "turn the desert sand into glass" which is an obvious reference to nuclear weapons. Well, when I said that, Tom went nuts. In fact, his exact words are that I am certifiably insane. He then put up a statistic, and was quick to show a source, that 18% of Americans believe that the U.S. should use nuclear weapons even if it has not suffered a nuclear attack.
"Do I wish that we vaporize hundreds of thousands of ordinary people? Of course not. I don't know if we should consider such an action, but if it became necessary to protect our own nation, use of nuclear weapons may be an option. Though the dropping of atomic bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima killed many people, many more people in the long run were spared because the war was shortened by the bombing. The willingness to use atomic bombs on Japan forced them into surrendering.
"However, such an action may not have the same results in this situation, because this enemy follows no rules, and will never surrender. How easy we forget who we are fighting against. The Islamofascists will not stop when they believe they have enough land or when Israel is finally destroyed. Their goal is the world domination of Islam. They have said so themselves. Do you not believe them? We never believed that they would fly planes into our buildings in New York and into our Pentagon, either. Boy, were we wrong. Let's not be wrong again.
". . . The rallying cry throughout World War II was 'Remember Pearl Harbor.' The memory of such an atrocious act against America kept us moving forward. We wound up fighting Germany and Italy as well, even though they were not technically a part of the attack on Pearl Harbor. We fought knowing that the security of our nation lay in the balance.
"'Remember 9/11' has been forgotten. And this enemy we face is nothing like those of the past. They will follow us home if we let up in the fight. They will strike us here again, as they did on 9/11. Our war in their faces has held them back, for now. They may still strike us, even with us fighting them in the Middle East. Anything is possible, and I dare not underestimate this ruthless enemy. But this war in Iraq, which is nothing more than a battle that is part of the larger Global War on Terror, is for our security. Have we forgotten what happened in 2001 when they flew planes into the World Trade Center?"
I wrote those two articles with the understanding of what war is, and how it must be fought, under my belt. The liberal left is so caught up on their feelings that they can't see beyond the tip of their nose, nor understand the true machinations of war.
On December 5, 2008 I wrote: "Liberals. . . decided that what I was saying [when I used the term 'turn sand to glass'] was that I somehow glorify the destructive power of nuclear weapons, and that I somehow believe in the use of nukes indiscriminately - that I wish for the destruction of cities full of innocents, that I believe we should just go in there (wherever there may be) and just start nuking everybody.
"I never said such a thing, and it is insanity that the leftards would even be so stupid as to proclaim that is what I was saying. Not a surprise, however, because this is how the left works. This is how they twist and turn words.
"At the time that I was making this statement about 'Turning Sand Into Glass,' what I was trying to get across, and apparently I failed to be clear enough for the Lefties to understand, is that when you are facing an enemy of such a magnitude you must show them that you are stronger than them, and that you are willing to do whatever it takes to defeat them. In other words, when dealing with an unreasonable enemy that is hell-bent on using violent means to put whatever their message is across to you, they must be fully convinced that we are willing to use any and all parts of our arsenal to stop them. Whether or not we are actually going to use any and all parts of our arsenal is not the point. They, the enemy, must believe we are willing to. We must go in with the attitude that we are in there to defeat whatever it is we are in there to defeat - and we are willing to use whatever troop level, any weapon, and even be willing to turn sand into glass.
"No sane mind loves nuclear weapons, or believes that such horrible weapons should be used readily and indiscriminately. But, as proven by the Cold War, making your opponent believe that you are willing to use such weapons if you must, and poising them in such a position that it backs up that threat, is a powerful weapon in its own right. If we fail to fully convince Islamofacism, for example, that we are willing to do whatever it takes to defeat them, that we have the resolve and the intestinal fortitude to follow through with our threat - if they don't truly believe that - then the War on Terror is pointless and doomed to fail. They will call your bluff, and they will do whatever they want to the point that it may result in the necessity of something like a nuclear device being used.
"This is what happened in Japan during World War II. The Japanese had no fear of us. They believed they were stronger, and that they would be able to outlast the American Forces in a continued long, drawn out war in the Pacific. It took two atomic bombs to convince them otherwise - two blasts that killed less people, as it turned out, than would have died should we have had to invade Tokyo in a long, drawn out conventional invasion.
"Am I glad we used the atom bomb on Nagasaki and Hiroshima? No, of course not. Nobody would ever be glad when people die - or at least nobody of a right mind. I am never happy when innocents, regardless of who they are, must suffer. But, if taking such a drastic action means stopping the slaughter of more people in the long run, then I support whatever it takes.
"Once again, I am not advocating that we go in and start nuking people. I am not advocating that India go into Pakistan and start nuking the cities of that country because of what happened in Mumbai. But I am advocating making sure that the enemy takes us seriously.
"I remember a science fiction television character once saying, 'The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.' I am a firm believer, when it comes to war, that sometimes the death of a few in a quick strike sends a much firmer message than a long, drawn out killing of many more, and will end wars faster.
"That was part of the mismanagement of Iraq on the part of George W. Bush in the beginning. He tried to satisfy the left by being careful with how many troops he sent into the region, rather than going in with the attitude that we were there to take care of business decisively and quickly, and that we were willing to do whatever it took to accomplish the mission."
Okay, let's get something straight. Peace through strength means that sometimes you have to use the strength to prove you are willing to use it. Besides, have you ever seen a war before where the troops were so worried about the deaths of civilians? Think about it. In a war it is not just your goal to kill the enemy troops, but to make their end of the war so bad that it forces them to stop!
Let me repeat: War is horrible. But, war usually begins when a bad guy does something (normally in an attempt to gain something) that requires a response. The good guys don't want to go to war, but they have to to stop the bad guy.
The response by the good guy has to be to make it so horrible to continue on that the bad guy surrenders. In past wars, that meant killing civilians. In fact, it meant targeting civilians. By not losing civilian casualties, the enemy has no reason to stop their part of the war. If you are only killing their troops, they don't care, because their soldiers expect to die anyway.
So in Iraq before, or Afghanistan now, why don't we just do what it takes to win? Why don't we level a couple cities and force the bad guys to give up? Making it horrible for the enemy makes them stop - thus, in the long run targeting civilians saves lives by cutting the war short!
Like I said earlier, I do not like war. War is horrible. It is so horrible, that I believe we should go in there and do what it takes to win, and end the war quickly.
Could you imagine if we fought a past war, like either of the World Wars, with this "don't kill civilians" policy?
We would have lost.
The WikiLeaks papers are not showing evidence for war crimes - they are showing our attempt to fight the damn war.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Karzai says 52 Afghan civilians killed in NATO strike - New York Times
Past Definition of War - Political Pistachio
Stemming the Bleeding, and Responding to Idiocy - Political Pistachio
Sand To Glass - Political Pistachio
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Nancy and Harry's Debt
$4.242 trillion. That's how much debt has been added since Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid took control of Congress and passed their first budget. That's a 32 percent increase to the national debt in less than three years, which now stands at to roughly $13.249 trillion, according to the U.S. Treasury.
Put another way, one out of every three dollars every individual American now owes in debt they can thank Reid and Pelosi for. That's approximately $18,912 for every adult in the U.S. , and $36,886 for every household.
Thanks, Nancy and Harry!
Although Barack Obama prefers to say that he inherited the bleak budget from the Bush Administration, it is more accurate to look at the composition of Congress, since it wields the power of the purse. By that measure, Obama has his colleagues in the House and Senate to blame for the budget deficits, and since 2007, Congress has been controlled by Democrats.
For 2010 alone, the deficit is expected to be a record $1.47 trillion, according to the White House's Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Again, that falls right on Reid and Pelosi's laps. Next year, OMB projects the deficit will total $1.42 trillion, $150 billion more than previously projected.
To be fair, the debt will actually have grown by a lot more than $1.47 trillion in 2010. That number will be more like $1.825 trillion, after $197 billion for "direct loan accounts" is taken into account and another $158 billion is raided from the Social Security and Medicare trust funds, if the OMB's 2010 projections are to be trusted.
But, for simplicity's sake, let's just stick with the $1.47 trillion deficit. Put into perspective, to close that $1.47 trillion budget hole, Congress would have to cut the equivalent of one-hundred Departments of Labor, with its $14 billion budget, 16,000 employees, and whatever offices and equipment it uses, to balance the budget. That represents some $875,000 that is spent on a per employee basis, not for salary, but in total.
Assuming fairly consistent spending per employee between all departments, the government would have to lay off more than 1.6 million federal employees and eliminate the departments and agencies they work for just to balance the budget.
In short, the federal government has simply become unsustainable. And yet, Obama, Reid, and Pelosi propose adding another $10.6 trillion to the national debt by 2020, when it will total $25.777 trillion. And that is assuming the White House's rosy economic growth projections, which it says will average 3.92 percent every year. No recessions. No other financial crises.
If they are wrong, we're in big trouble. It the numbers are off, interest owed on the debt will grow faster than projected, as will the total debt owed.
What's worse is the toll that all of this deficit-spending is taking on the real economy. The $1.825 trillion in U.S. treasuries sold for 2010 to finance the debt represents $1.825 trillion of lost opportunities. Instead of investing in companies — and jobs — money is flowing through a useless paper trade to fund government spending.
Increasingly, the public treasury, and not productivity, is the central source of "wealth." But considering that the Federal Reserve owns about $777 billion of treasuries, much of that is just monopoly money. As the Department of Treasury comes up short at future auctions to service the debt, the Fed will undoubtedly print more money to fill in the gap.
Make no mistake, that's not good. One need only look at the example of the Weimar Republic to know that one cannot just print money for long before it is no longer accepted as a means of debt repayment.
When that happens, the American people will know who to thank. In the meantime, there is no doubt that this mountain of debt that cannot be repaid is strangling the economy, killing jobs, and destroying any hope that the U.S. will remain the world's economic superpower.
Thanks, Nancy and Harry — for nothing.
Robert Romano is the Senior Editor of Americans for Limited Government (ALG) Bureau.
The World looks for Economic Answers
By Kevin J. Price
Recently the major economic powers of the world got together to “solve” our problems and it becomes center stage for protest. The unfortunate city this year was Huntsville, Ontario (Near Toronto, Canada). Most of the protests are in opposition to the blatant capitalism that the participating countries are "guilty of," according to organizers. What "capitalism" they are talking about these days, it is hard to say as these countries reconsider the austerity measures that are the only means many of these nations have to save themselves, according to Ann Mettler of the Lisbon Council.
While the Obama Administration continues to argue for more spending to solve our economic problems, Europe is wisely taking a different approach. It is obviously best to make reforms when economies are stronger and are more able to better sustain cuts to services in programs. Unfortunately, European countries cannot afford such a luxury, according to Mettler. For example, France has not enjoyed a balanced budget in almost 4 decades and this includes many years of economic growth, which could have made cutting spending less painful. Meanwhile, members of the European Union have been accumulating debts at a break neck pace and governments are saddling themselves with increased obligations, particularly for pensions, and without any plan for paying for them in the future. Furthermore, these governments have long taken a chapter out of America's book of pursuing social welfare at the expect of what is in the best interest of the economy as a whole. They simply pass the burden on to future generation and future elected officials.
The "writing has been on the wall" for these countries for quite some time. Standard & Poor's predicted back in 2006 that by 2050, the debt burdens in Italy and France would be well above 200 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), and about twice as high in Portugal and Greece. It was also predicted four years ago that the aging European demographic would create serious problems for the "next decade." Well the next decade has arrived and there is no plan or strategy poised to address the problem.
So the people of Europe -- particularly the hard hit country of Greece -- are complaining about the severe "austerity measures" designed to get spending under control. For most of these countries, such is the only serious attempt to look at the financial numbers in decades and is well over due. Mettler argues that the Union has faced a three headed dragon for years: excessive pressure on public spending, an aging population, and a shrinking share in the world economy. These realities require these countries to make decisions that, just a few years ago, seemed unimaginable. Unfortunately, the US is right around the corner from having to make similar choices.
------
Kevin Price
Host, Price of Business, M-F at 11 am on CBS Radio News
Frequently found on Strategy Room at FoxNews.com
Syndicated columnist whose articles appear on a variety of media outlets.
His http://BizPlusBlog.com/ is ranked in the top 1 percent of all blogs by Technorati.
Kevin Price's Profile: http://www.google.com/profiles/PriceofBusiness
Recently the major economic powers of the world got together to “solve” our problems and it becomes center stage for protest. The unfortunate city this year was Huntsville, Ontario (Near Toronto, Canada). Most of the protests are in opposition to the blatant capitalism that the participating countries are "guilty of," according to organizers. What "capitalism" they are talking about these days, it is hard to say as these countries reconsider the austerity measures that are the only means many of these nations have to save themselves, according to Ann Mettler of the Lisbon Council.
While the Obama Administration continues to argue for more spending to solve our economic problems, Europe is wisely taking a different approach. It is obviously best to make reforms when economies are stronger and are more able to better sustain cuts to services in programs. Unfortunately, European countries cannot afford such a luxury, according to Mettler. For example, France has not enjoyed a balanced budget in almost 4 decades and this includes many years of economic growth, which could have made cutting spending less painful. Meanwhile, members of the European Union have been accumulating debts at a break neck pace and governments are saddling themselves with increased obligations, particularly for pensions, and without any plan for paying for them in the future. Furthermore, these governments have long taken a chapter out of America's book of pursuing social welfare at the expect of what is in the best interest of the economy as a whole. They simply pass the burden on to future generation and future elected officials.
The "writing has been on the wall" for these countries for quite some time. Standard & Poor's predicted back in 2006 that by 2050, the debt burdens in Italy and France would be well above 200 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), and about twice as high in Portugal and Greece. It was also predicted four years ago that the aging European demographic would create serious problems for the "next decade." Well the next decade has arrived and there is no plan or strategy poised to address the problem.
So the people of Europe -- particularly the hard hit country of Greece -- are complaining about the severe "austerity measures" designed to get spending under control. For most of these countries, such is the only serious attempt to look at the financial numbers in decades and is well over due. Mettler argues that the Union has faced a three headed dragon for years: excessive pressure on public spending, an aging population, and a shrinking share in the world economy. These realities require these countries to make decisions that, just a few years ago, seemed unimaginable. Unfortunately, the US is right around the corner from having to make similar choices.
------
Kevin Price
Host, Price of Business, M-F at 11 am on CBS Radio News
Frequently found on Strategy Room at FoxNews.com
Syndicated columnist whose articles appear on a variety of media outlets.
His http://BizPlusBlog.com/ is ranked in the top 1 percent of all blogs by Technorati.
Kevin Price's Profile: http://www.google.com/profiles/PriceofBusiness
Turns Out Rangel is Unethical - Who'd Have Thought?
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Time to watch Article I, Section 5, Clause 2 in action (wow, one of the few times the U.S. Congress actually gives a flying hoot about the U.S. Constitution). For those of you not familiar, that's the clause that says "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member."
And Chuck Rangel is in a heap of sh. . . you know what I mean.
The New York Democrat has violated ethics rules, and may be subject to a Congressional trial.
Well, with the election coming, so much for the Democrats trying to look honest . . . oh, wait, they are naturally a bunch of unethical liars - it's just that Rangel got discovered.
The Democrats see this as a disaster, and Rangel (if this does come to a trial) is a goner.
The allegations is a list of typical Democrat corruption. You know, shady financial dealings (I bet there is some bribery in there somewhere too!), and spending the people's money in a way that is. . . well, downright criminal.
Whatever happens, the Democrat Party leadership knows this is bad news, and I am sure they are trying to keep this from becoming too noisy. They really don't want to get rid of him, but do they have a choice? If they do, it will be (even with this leftist group of liars in the media) all over the press. If they don't, it will be yet another example of the Democrats condemning others, but circling the wagons around their own.
Rangel is acting as if he's done nothing wrong, and that stepping aside is the last thing he plans to do. "I'm in the kitchen and I am not walking out," he said at one point.
This is yet another example of what the voters are sick of. Politics as usual, and the establishment protecting their cock-roaches. Rangel is providing an image of what the voters are sick of, and the Democrats are looking to protect him.
This is a dangerous thing for the Democrats, with a November mid-term election coming that they already are looking at losing the House and the Senate to the Republicans in.
The cesspool of Washington has surfaced, and if the Democrats don't take care of business and send him on his way, they are all guilty of being unethical.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Democrat's Charlie Rangel Problem - Washington Post
Time to watch Article I, Section 5, Clause 2 in action (wow, one of the few times the U.S. Congress actually gives a flying hoot about the U.S. Constitution). For those of you not familiar, that's the clause that says "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member."
And Chuck Rangel is in a heap of sh. . . you know what I mean.
The New York Democrat has violated ethics rules, and may be subject to a Congressional trial.
Well, with the election coming, so much for the Democrats trying to look honest . . . oh, wait, they are naturally a bunch of unethical liars - it's just that Rangel got discovered.
The Democrats see this as a disaster, and Rangel (if this does come to a trial) is a goner.
The allegations is a list of typical Democrat corruption. You know, shady financial dealings (I bet there is some bribery in there somewhere too!), and spending the people's money in a way that is. . . well, downright criminal.
Whatever happens, the Democrat Party leadership knows this is bad news, and I am sure they are trying to keep this from becoming too noisy. They really don't want to get rid of him, but do they have a choice? If they do, it will be (even with this leftist group of liars in the media) all over the press. If they don't, it will be yet another example of the Democrats condemning others, but circling the wagons around their own.
Rangel is acting as if he's done nothing wrong, and that stepping aside is the last thing he plans to do. "I'm in the kitchen and I am not walking out," he said at one point.
This is yet another example of what the voters are sick of. Politics as usual, and the establishment protecting their cock-roaches. Rangel is providing an image of what the voters are sick of, and the Democrats are looking to protect him.
This is a dangerous thing for the Democrats, with a November mid-term election coming that they already are looking at losing the House and the Senate to the Republicans in.
The cesspool of Washington has surfaced, and if the Democrats don't take care of business and send him on his way, they are all guilty of being unethical.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Democrat's Charlie Rangel Problem - Washington Post
Calexico Wants You To Pay A Toll To Cross The Border Legally
By Douglas V. Gibbs
You can't make this stuff up.
As we struggle with the problem of illegal aliens crossing the Mexican border freely, Calexico, California is considering charging a toll if you desire to cross the border from Mexicali into Calexico legally.
For some reason the outlaws lining up to pay a toll in the middle of the desert in the movie Blazing Saddles comes to mind.
The Calexico City Council members actually voted 4-1 to discuss in workshops the idea of establishing the toll system at the Calexico Port of Entry.
The article I read about this states that the toll system would be modeled after one in place in El Paso, Texas, and in El Paso was expected to serve as a way to offset the impact vehicular and pedestrian traffic has on city streets.
Yeah, because they'll all be over closer to the outskirts of town, wading across the Rio Grande, instead.
Hey, if illegals can do it, surely a few others will cross illegally to save themselves from having to pay a toll.
Local business owners aren't too hip with the idea. They don't want to seem unwelcoming to the Mexicans south of the border. One store owner even went so far as to say, "We don't want to be like Arizona."
Arizona isn't charging a toll, they are just enforcing the law - a concept that seems foreign to some.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Calexico City Council votes to discuss toll system idea at workshops - Imperial Valley Press
You can't make this stuff up.
As we struggle with the problem of illegal aliens crossing the Mexican border freely, Calexico, California is considering charging a toll if you desire to cross the border from Mexicali into Calexico legally.
For some reason the outlaws lining up to pay a toll in the middle of the desert in the movie Blazing Saddles comes to mind.
The Calexico City Council members actually voted 4-1 to discuss in workshops the idea of establishing the toll system at the Calexico Port of Entry.
The article I read about this states that the toll system would be modeled after one in place in El Paso, Texas, and in El Paso was expected to serve as a way to offset the impact vehicular and pedestrian traffic has on city streets.
Yeah, because they'll all be over closer to the outskirts of town, wading across the Rio Grande, instead.
Hey, if illegals can do it, surely a few others will cross illegally to save themselves from having to pay a toll.
Local business owners aren't too hip with the idea. They don't want to seem unwelcoming to the Mexicans south of the border. One store owner even went so far as to say, "We don't want to be like Arizona."
Arizona isn't charging a toll, they are just enforcing the law - a concept that seems foreign to some.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Calexico City Council votes to discuss toll system idea at workshops - Imperial Valley Press
Obama’s Controversial Domestic Doctrine
By Kevin J. Price
It seems every President is remembered for something. In recent decades, we recall Ronald Reagan ending the Cold War without a single shot and for making it possible for individuals to control more of their incomes (through tax cuts), and calling that (wisely) patriotic. With George H.W. Bush we saw a dramatic increase in regulations that benefited very large companies and the breaking of a "no new tax" pledge. There are few that wonder why he was only a one term president. Then there was Bill Clinton who, at first, attempted a massive take over by the federal government in health care and other industries, but was savvy enough to read the political "tea leaves" when the Republicans took over the Congress in 1994 to govern as a moderate. In fact, his biggest policy achievement may have been the ending of "welfare as we know it," which led to a dramatic decrease in the number of people below poverty level.
If you fast forward a little you find George W. Bush, who created a controversial foreign policy that became simply known as the "Bush Doctrine." The Bush Doctrine argued that the US could act unilaterally and without regard to other international organizations in protecting its interests from potential terrorists. This approach was used to pull the US out of some relationships (the ABM Treaty and Kyoto Protocol). Some have argued that the Doctrine was used as grounds for a preemptive strike against Iraq. Everyone on both the left and right debate its merits to this day. Bush was also known for setting the stage (with TARP) for a massive take over of the US economy.
So what will be Obama's policy legacy? I believe many will look back at what will be called as the "Obama Domestic Doctrine." Very early in the Obama administration, the President's Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, told the Wall Street Journal that "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste, and what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things that you didn't think you could do before." What "things" was Emanuel talking about? Obviously the massive take over of the health care system is something they would argue because things "are not working" in that area today. More government bailouts would be a part of the Administration's solution to problems the country is facing. How about the restoration of the power of unions at the expense of the individual worker? The list goes on. As long as things are "bad," the case can be made for doing anything. It is when the economy is working well and prosperity is increasing that it becomes difficult to make the case for more government intervention.
This view by the Obama Administration is not isolated to Emanuel. Recently the Attorney General, Eric Holder, gave a speech to Boston University in which he sang the praises of the difficult times we have had in history because of the policy changes that came as the result of them. He said that "Positive change is the consequence of unfavorable and not favorable circumstance. Progress is the product of darkness, not light. Whenever you look into our past, this is true... It was economic turmoil that brought us the progressive era and the New Deal."
Interestingly, on the micro level, when something goes wrong in the lives of friends or family, we want to help out temporarily so those people can get on their feet (AKA independent) again. The Obama Administration sees policies that create permanent dependence on the state as good. Those type of policies, according to Emanuel and Holder, are the result of weak economies and not ones that are prosperous. Simply put, "strong economies mean strong individuals, and that is bad." "Weak economies mean weak individuals, and that is good." I did not state it, I'm only reporting it.
With such a view that the expansion of government into areas it never had a role in historically as "good," is it safe to assume the Administration will continue to pursue policies (moratoriums on drilling, increases of minimum wage, higher taxes on businesses, etc.) that will add to our historically high unemployment and economic instability? Obama's senior advisers seem to be making just such a case.
Kevin Price
Host, Price of Business, M-F at 11 am on CBS Radio News
Frequently found on Strategy Room at FoxNews.com
Syndicated columnist whose articles appear on a variety of media outlets.
His http://BizPlusBlog.com/ is ranked in the top 1 percent of all blogs by Technorati.
Kevin Price's Profile: http://www.google.com/profiles/PriceofBusiness
It seems every President is remembered for something. In recent decades, we recall Ronald Reagan ending the Cold War without a single shot and for making it possible for individuals to control more of their incomes (through tax cuts), and calling that (wisely) patriotic. With George H.W. Bush we saw a dramatic increase in regulations that benefited very large companies and the breaking of a "no new tax" pledge. There are few that wonder why he was only a one term president. Then there was Bill Clinton who, at first, attempted a massive take over by the federal government in health care and other industries, but was savvy enough to read the political "tea leaves" when the Republicans took over the Congress in 1994 to govern as a moderate. In fact, his biggest policy achievement may have been the ending of "welfare as we know it," which led to a dramatic decrease in the number of people below poverty level.
If you fast forward a little you find George W. Bush, who created a controversial foreign policy that became simply known as the "Bush Doctrine." The Bush Doctrine argued that the US could act unilaterally and without regard to other international organizations in protecting its interests from potential terrorists. This approach was used to pull the US out of some relationships (the ABM Treaty and Kyoto Protocol). Some have argued that the Doctrine was used as grounds for a preemptive strike against Iraq. Everyone on both the left and right debate its merits to this day. Bush was also known for setting the stage (with TARP) for a massive take over of the US economy.
So what will be Obama's policy legacy? I believe many will look back at what will be called as the "Obama Domestic Doctrine." Very early in the Obama administration, the President's Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, told the Wall Street Journal that "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste, and what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things that you didn't think you could do before." What "things" was Emanuel talking about? Obviously the massive take over of the health care system is something they would argue because things "are not working" in that area today. More government bailouts would be a part of the Administration's solution to problems the country is facing. How about the restoration of the power of unions at the expense of the individual worker? The list goes on. As long as things are "bad," the case can be made for doing anything. It is when the economy is working well and prosperity is increasing that it becomes difficult to make the case for more government intervention.
This view by the Obama Administration is not isolated to Emanuel. Recently the Attorney General, Eric Holder, gave a speech to Boston University in which he sang the praises of the difficult times we have had in history because of the policy changes that came as the result of them. He said that "Positive change is the consequence of unfavorable and not favorable circumstance. Progress is the product of darkness, not light. Whenever you look into our past, this is true... It was economic turmoil that brought us the progressive era and the New Deal."
Interestingly, on the micro level, when something goes wrong in the lives of friends or family, we want to help out temporarily so those people can get on their feet (AKA independent) again. The Obama Administration sees policies that create permanent dependence on the state as good. Those type of policies, according to Emanuel and Holder, are the result of weak economies and not ones that are prosperous. Simply put, "strong economies mean strong individuals, and that is bad." "Weak economies mean weak individuals, and that is good." I did not state it, I'm only reporting it.
With such a view that the expansion of government into areas it never had a role in historically as "good," is it safe to assume the Administration will continue to pursue policies (moratoriums on drilling, increases of minimum wage, higher taxes on businesses, etc.) that will add to our historically high unemployment and economic instability? Obama's senior advisers seem to be making just such a case.
Kevin Price
Host, Price of Business, M-F at 11 am on CBS Radio News
Frequently found on Strategy Room at FoxNews.com
Syndicated columnist whose articles appear on a variety of media outlets.
His http://BizPlusBlog.com/ is ranked in the top 1 percent of all blogs by Technorati.
Kevin Price's Profile: http://www.google.com/profiles/PriceofBusiness
Monday, July 26, 2010
Lindsey Graham: Portrait Of A Principled Idiot
By: J.J. Jackson
I really did not want to write a second article in a one month about Senator Lindsey Graham considering he is from South Carolina and I am from Pennsylvania . But I must. He is forcing my hand.
I have got to hand it to the Senator. He certainly is principled. Sitting in his seat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Graham decided to vote in favor of moving the nomination of Elena Kagan, President Obama’s latest nominee to the United States Supreme Court, out of committee. Senator Graham says that elections have consequences and this is why he crossed over and voted with the Democrats. Thus, in his mind, he is saying that because President Obama is sitting in the White House The President should get his nominee.
But while being principled he is also an idiot. He is an idiot because he is ignoring the fact that he was also elected. And he was elected by a constituency that vehemently opposes another left wing radical being placed upon the Supreme Court. His excuse to vote for Kagan is nothing more than the ramblings of an ill mind that is looking for justification to do something he wants to do anyway. Because if he really believed what he said about the consequences of elections he would be telling Obama that his constituents elected him to stand in the way of the further leftward march of America .
But he is not doing this because he does not really believe in his own excuse.
Senator Graham even said that there were, “100 reasons,” for him to vote against this nominee. But he tosses those, “100 reasons,” out the window because he wants to further Kagan’s nomination and get her seated upon the Supreme Court. There is, to be blunt, no other reason for his action. Most people would say if there is one reason for something with 100 reasons against doing that thing that the 100 reasons would outweigh the one and the action in question would not be taken. Not Senator Graham though.
Yes Mr. Graham, elections do have consequences. You, for example, were elected to the United States Senate. The United States Senate is tasked with the role of advice and consent over the President’s judicial nominees. That role was given to the Senate to ensure that a President would not appoint unqualified persons to the bench. The scope of who these unqualified persons are ranges widely from a President’s own relatives with no judicial experience to someone who is mentally incompetent to a wacko who could not care less about the United States Constitution, upholding limited government and keeping the Congress and the President in check.
The election of Senator Graham to a role in the Senate where he is supposed to act as a check and a balance is apparently not a consequential event if we are to believe the Senator’s own words and compare them with his actions. To Senator Graham the only election that matters in this case is the election of President Obama. To me this seems very convenient for the Senator and very inconvenient for America . Does this now mean that Lindsey Graham will support any law in Congress that President Obama supports? After all, elections have consequences right Senator?
Saying you are being principled is one thing. But getting tied up in knots so as to only selectively apply the principles you claim to hold dear makes you a principled idiot. What Mr. Graham is showing is that even a fool can have the courage of his wrongly conceived convictions.
He is the truth. And it is a truth that needs to be impressed upon Senator Graham.
Elena Kagan was nominated by President Obama because he sees her as someone that will help further his goals. President Obama’s goals are to strip us further of our liberties, act in an extra constitutional manner and turn America into a land where top down government control is the norm of our existence. I know, I know, liberals protest at such a blunt portrayal of what they believe in. They will swear that such is not the case. But tell me honestly, has anything that they have done proven that my description is not accurate? No.
Ms. Kagan, once on the bench, will rule, repeatedly and often, to further these desires. And when she does, each and every time she does, there will be people clearly responsible for these rulings. First and foremost will be Ms. Kagan herself. Next on the list will be President Obama. Following him will be all the goofy Democrats in the Senate who would not know the Constitution if it was put in front of them with a big neon flashing sign saying, “Constitution,” and who will rubber stamped this nomination. But behind all these sorry souls will be none other than Senator Lindsey Graham. Behind Mr. Graham will be any other Republican that votes to confirm her in the full Senate such as Susan Collins and Dick Lugar who have both voiced support for this horrid candidate for the nation's highest court.
And because of your role in this matter Mr. Graham, you will be just as responsible for the destruction of this country as all the rest who were previously named. But you are too interested in being a principled idiot to care.
=====================================
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 www.libertyreborn.com
I really did not want to write a second article in a one month about Senator Lindsey Graham considering he is from South Carolina and I am from Pennsylvania . But I must. He is forcing my hand.
I have got to hand it to the Senator. He certainly is principled. Sitting in his seat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Graham decided to vote in favor of moving the nomination of Elena Kagan, President Obama’s latest nominee to the United States Supreme Court, out of committee. Senator Graham says that elections have consequences and this is why he crossed over and voted with the Democrats. Thus, in his mind, he is saying that because President Obama is sitting in the White House The President should get his nominee.
But while being principled he is also an idiot. He is an idiot because he is ignoring the fact that he was also elected. And he was elected by a constituency that vehemently opposes another left wing radical being placed upon the Supreme Court. His excuse to vote for Kagan is nothing more than the ramblings of an ill mind that is looking for justification to do something he wants to do anyway. Because if he really believed what he said about the consequences of elections he would be telling Obama that his constituents elected him to stand in the way of the further leftward march of America .
But he is not doing this because he does not really believe in his own excuse.
Senator Graham even said that there were, “100 reasons,” for him to vote against this nominee. But he tosses those, “100 reasons,” out the window because he wants to further Kagan’s nomination and get her seated upon the Supreme Court. There is, to be blunt, no other reason for his action. Most people would say if there is one reason for something with 100 reasons against doing that thing that the 100 reasons would outweigh the one and the action in question would not be taken. Not Senator Graham though.
Yes Mr. Graham, elections do have consequences. You, for example, were elected to the United States Senate. The United States Senate is tasked with the role of advice and consent over the President’s judicial nominees. That role was given to the Senate to ensure that a President would not appoint unqualified persons to the bench. The scope of who these unqualified persons are ranges widely from a President’s own relatives with no judicial experience to someone who is mentally incompetent to a wacko who could not care less about the United States Constitution, upholding limited government and keeping the Congress and the President in check.
The election of Senator Graham to a role in the Senate where he is supposed to act as a check and a balance is apparently not a consequential event if we are to believe the Senator’s own words and compare them with his actions. To Senator Graham the only election that matters in this case is the election of President Obama. To me this seems very convenient for the Senator and very inconvenient for America . Does this now mean that Lindsey Graham will support any law in Congress that President Obama supports? After all, elections have consequences right Senator?
Saying you are being principled is one thing. But getting tied up in knots so as to only selectively apply the principles you claim to hold dear makes you a principled idiot. What Mr. Graham is showing is that even a fool can have the courage of his wrongly conceived convictions.
He is the truth. And it is a truth that needs to be impressed upon Senator Graham.
Elena Kagan was nominated by President Obama because he sees her as someone that will help further his goals. President Obama’s goals are to strip us further of our liberties, act in an extra constitutional manner and turn America into a land where top down government control is the norm of our existence. I know, I know, liberals protest at such a blunt portrayal of what they believe in. They will swear that such is not the case. But tell me honestly, has anything that they have done proven that my description is not accurate? No.
Ms. Kagan, once on the bench, will rule, repeatedly and often, to further these desires. And when she does, each and every time she does, there will be people clearly responsible for these rulings. First and foremost will be Ms. Kagan herself. Next on the list will be President Obama. Following him will be all the goofy Democrats in the Senate who would not know the Constitution if it was put in front of them with a big neon flashing sign saying, “Constitution,” and who will rubber stamped this nomination. But behind all these sorry souls will be none other than Senator Lindsey Graham. Behind Mr. Graham will be any other Republican that votes to confirm her in the full Senate such as Susan Collins and Dick Lugar who have both voiced support for this horrid candidate for the nation's highest court.
And because of your role in this matter Mr. Graham, you will be just as responsible for the destruction of this country as all the rest who were previously named. But you are too interested in being a principled idiot to care.
=====================================
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 www.libertyreborn.com