Get Liberty
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Book of Acts: Socialism Failed, Bible Promotes Free Market
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Leftists are always challenging the idea that Biblical Principles inspired the U.S. Constitution, and the founding of this nation. One hard left liberal even accused that "democracy" is found nowhere in the Bible. That may be true, but the failures of socialism/communism, and the Biblical mandate for free market capitalism, is present in Biblical text.
Today, while listening to a Christian radio program, Pastor Chuck Smith discussed a piece of history in the Book of Acts regarding the early church, and how in Jerusalem the young Christian church tampered with a style of communal living (communism), and it failed badly. Because of the terrible failure of the Jerusalem church's foray into socialism, a horrific persecution of the church commenced in Jerusalem. The members of the Jerusalem church fled. They were able to flee because they saw the persecution coming, and turned their short experiment into communal living into an advantage for their escape. They were able to flee quickly because they had sold every personal item they owned. (Acts 8:1)
In some parts of the Bible the accumulation of wealth seems to be looked down upon, but the context is that the accumulation of wealth can easily make a person lose sight of God, so wealth is something that must be balanced with faith, and where faith must remain the dominant force.
In the Gospel of Luke, which is one of those books that seems to sometimes be hostile regarding the act of accumulating great wealth, Luke also offers: Give, and it shall be given unto you; good measure, pressed down, and shaken together, and running over, shall men give into your bosom. For with the same measure that ye mete [measure] withal it shall be measured to you again (Luke 6:38).
What you just read is the fundamental principle of free market economics: serve the consumer, and the return will be great.
And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors. But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve. For whether is greater, he that sitteth at meat, or he that serveth? is not he that sitteth at meat? but I am among you as he that serveth (Luke 22:25- 27).
The quest for gaining a great amount of wealth for its own sake is foolish, Jesus said -- not just in Luke but in the other Gospels, as well.
And He spake a parable unto them, saying, The ground of a certain rich man brought forth plentifully: And he thought within himself, saying, What shall I do, because I have no room where to bestow my fruits? And he said, This will I do: I will pull down my barns, and build greater; and there will I bestow all my fruits and my goods. And I will say to my soul, Soul, thou hast much goods laid up for many years; take thine ease, eat, drink, and be merry. But God said unto him, Thou fool, this night thy soul shall be required of thee: then whose shall those things be, which thou hast provided? So is he that layeth up treasure for himself, and is not rich toward God (Luke 12:16-21).
Luke, and Matthew, are often quick to remind us that success is a matter of priorities.
In both the Old Testament, and the New Testament, the Bible speaks regarding economic issues more than any other issue. In the book of Proverbs there are whole sections devoted to financial matters. A good number of the parables of Jesus deal with economics. These passages tell us what our attitude should be toward wealth and how a Christian should handle his or her finances. The Bible also reminds us of our human nature, and how our natural tendencies, and Biblical instruction, can help us evaluate the possible success of a societal economic system.
Two aspects in regards to human nature are given to us in Scripture. We are created in the image of God, which means we are able to control the economic system - and we are sinful by nature, which leads us toward greed and exploitation. This means that we need to have an economic system that protects individuals from human sinfulness in the economic system, while providing the freedom for people to work individually for their wealth.
Since we are created in the image of God, we have rationality and personal responsibility. This means that we have the freedom (free will) to choose between various competing products and services. Unlike animals who are governed by instinct, humans are governed by rationality and can make meaningful choices within a free market system.
In that economic system private property can exist. This is provided by the biblical idea of dominion. In Genesis 1:28, God says we are to subdue the earth and have dominion over the creation. Certainly one aspect of this is that humans can own property in which they can exercise their dominion.
So, since we have both free will and private property rights, we can then assume that we also have the God-given freedom to exchange these private property rights in a free market where goods and services can be exchanged.
When considering our sinful nature, one must realize we are fallible. As fallen creatures our sinful ways can give way to selfishness, greed, and exploitation. Thus, we need some protection in an economic system from the sinful effects of human interaction. Knowing this, we must realize that systems that centralize and concentrate economic power, which unleashes sinful behavior, should be systems to be avoided. This is why it is natural for Christians to reject state-controlled or centrally controlled economies. Instead, Christians are naturally attracted to economic systems that would divide the power, and protect the people from greed and exploitation.
Free market capitalism provides the most freedom, and is most effective when it comes to personal economic gains. In that consideration, it seems that a free market financial system best fits Biblical teachings.
Modern Capitalism began when Adam Smith wrote The Wealth of Nations in 1776. The argument presented by Mr. Smith specifically challenged the centralized British system of mercantilism. Adam Smith presented that the wealth of nations could be increased by allowing the individual to seek his own self-interest and by removing governmental control over the economy.
Adam Smith's presentation argued that people are motivated by self-interest, private property is an important ingredient in any successful economic system, and the role of government must be minimized as much as possible. If these three factors are present, prosperity will follow.
Biblically, private property rests in our being created in God's image. Individual choice, as with a person's voluntary choice to accept Christ, also plays a factor. Economic success can best be achieved if each person is accountable for his own productivity, and that the productivity is of his own choosing. Dealing with the poor also maintains choice. We should give to the poor, but it must be a voluntary action of our own fruition. Taking away one's freedom to choose by forcing a citizen to give to the poor through government mandate is not consistent with free will as provided by Scripture, and is damaging to the poverty stricken, for if they receive unlimited gifts from the public treasury, the incentive to better themselves will be lost.
Keeping more of what you make, and being driven to do so by self-interest, is one of the primary tenets of free market capitalism. The Gospels also appeal to our self-interest. It is in our self-interest to accept Jesus Christ as our Savior so that our eternal destiny will be assured.
This is part of the reason that economic systems that are centralized and concentrate power in the hands of a few greedy people tend to be anti-Christian, and secular in nature. Free will of the people, or voluntary choice, is not something such systems can tolerate. Besides, in centralized systems, the government must be the primary aspect of the citizen's lives, and God is not competition they are willing to tolerate.
Sure, free market capitalism has its flaws as an economic system as well, but it can provide, more than any other system, economic prosperity and economic freedom - using principles consistent with Scriptural teachings.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Leftists are always challenging the idea that Biblical Principles inspired the U.S. Constitution, and the founding of this nation. One hard left liberal even accused that "democracy" is found nowhere in the Bible. That may be true, but the failures of socialism/communism, and the Biblical mandate for free market capitalism, is present in Biblical text.
Today, while listening to a Christian radio program, Pastor Chuck Smith discussed a piece of history in the Book of Acts regarding the early church, and how in Jerusalem the young Christian church tampered with a style of communal living (communism), and it failed badly. Because of the terrible failure of the Jerusalem church's foray into socialism, a horrific persecution of the church commenced in Jerusalem. The members of the Jerusalem church fled. They were able to flee because they saw the persecution coming, and turned their short experiment into communal living into an advantage for their escape. They were able to flee quickly because they had sold every personal item they owned. (Acts 8:1)
In some parts of the Bible the accumulation of wealth seems to be looked down upon, but the context is that the accumulation of wealth can easily make a person lose sight of God, so wealth is something that must be balanced with faith, and where faith must remain the dominant force.
In the Gospel of Luke, which is one of those books that seems to sometimes be hostile regarding the act of accumulating great wealth, Luke also offers: Give, and it shall be given unto you; good measure, pressed down, and shaken together, and running over, shall men give into your bosom. For with the same measure that ye mete [measure] withal it shall be measured to you again (Luke 6:38).
What you just read is the fundamental principle of free market economics: serve the consumer, and the return will be great.
And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors. But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve. For whether is greater, he that sitteth at meat, or he that serveth? is not he that sitteth at meat? but I am among you as he that serveth (Luke 22:25- 27).
The quest for gaining a great amount of wealth for its own sake is foolish, Jesus said -- not just in Luke but in the other Gospels, as well.
And He spake a parable unto them, saying, The ground of a certain rich man brought forth plentifully: And he thought within himself, saying, What shall I do, because I have no room where to bestow my fruits? And he said, This will I do: I will pull down my barns, and build greater; and there will I bestow all my fruits and my goods. And I will say to my soul, Soul, thou hast much goods laid up for many years; take thine ease, eat, drink, and be merry. But God said unto him, Thou fool, this night thy soul shall be required of thee: then whose shall those things be, which thou hast provided? So is he that layeth up treasure for himself, and is not rich toward God (Luke 12:16-21).
Luke, and Matthew, are often quick to remind us that success is a matter of priorities.
In both the Old Testament, and the New Testament, the Bible speaks regarding economic issues more than any other issue. In the book of Proverbs there are whole sections devoted to financial matters. A good number of the parables of Jesus deal with economics. These passages tell us what our attitude should be toward wealth and how a Christian should handle his or her finances. The Bible also reminds us of our human nature, and how our natural tendencies, and Biblical instruction, can help us evaluate the possible success of a societal economic system.
Two aspects in regards to human nature are given to us in Scripture. We are created in the image of God, which means we are able to control the economic system - and we are sinful by nature, which leads us toward greed and exploitation. This means that we need to have an economic system that protects individuals from human sinfulness in the economic system, while providing the freedom for people to work individually for their wealth.
Since we are created in the image of God, we have rationality and personal responsibility. This means that we have the freedom (free will) to choose between various competing products and services. Unlike animals who are governed by instinct, humans are governed by rationality and can make meaningful choices within a free market system.
In that economic system private property can exist. This is provided by the biblical idea of dominion. In Genesis 1:28, God says we are to subdue the earth and have dominion over the creation. Certainly one aspect of this is that humans can own property in which they can exercise their dominion.
So, since we have both free will and private property rights, we can then assume that we also have the God-given freedom to exchange these private property rights in a free market where goods and services can be exchanged.
When considering our sinful nature, one must realize we are fallible. As fallen creatures our sinful ways can give way to selfishness, greed, and exploitation. Thus, we need some protection in an economic system from the sinful effects of human interaction. Knowing this, we must realize that systems that centralize and concentrate economic power, which unleashes sinful behavior, should be systems to be avoided. This is why it is natural for Christians to reject state-controlled or centrally controlled economies. Instead, Christians are naturally attracted to economic systems that would divide the power, and protect the people from greed and exploitation.
Free market capitalism provides the most freedom, and is most effective when it comes to personal economic gains. In that consideration, it seems that a free market financial system best fits Biblical teachings.
Modern Capitalism began when Adam Smith wrote The Wealth of Nations in 1776. The argument presented by Mr. Smith specifically challenged the centralized British system of mercantilism. Adam Smith presented that the wealth of nations could be increased by allowing the individual to seek his own self-interest and by removing governmental control over the economy.
Adam Smith's presentation argued that people are motivated by self-interest, private property is an important ingredient in any successful economic system, and the role of government must be minimized as much as possible. If these three factors are present, prosperity will follow.
Biblically, private property rests in our being created in God's image. Individual choice, as with a person's voluntary choice to accept Christ, also plays a factor. Economic success can best be achieved if each person is accountable for his own productivity, and that the productivity is of his own choosing. Dealing with the poor also maintains choice. We should give to the poor, but it must be a voluntary action of our own fruition. Taking away one's freedom to choose by forcing a citizen to give to the poor through government mandate is not consistent with free will as provided by Scripture, and is damaging to the poverty stricken, for if they receive unlimited gifts from the public treasury, the incentive to better themselves will be lost.
Keeping more of what you make, and being driven to do so by self-interest, is one of the primary tenets of free market capitalism. The Gospels also appeal to our self-interest. It is in our self-interest to accept Jesus Christ as our Savior so that our eternal destiny will be assured.
This is part of the reason that economic systems that are centralized and concentrate power in the hands of a few greedy people tend to be anti-Christian, and secular in nature. Free will of the people, or voluntary choice, is not something such systems can tolerate. Besides, in centralized systems, the government must be the primary aspect of the citizen's lives, and God is not competition they are willing to tolerate.
Sure, free market capitalism has its flaws as an economic system as well, but it can provide, more than any other system, economic prosperity and economic freedom - using principles consistent with Scriptural teachings.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
In Massachusetts, "Obama style" care is leading to firms canceling coverage
By Kevin J. Price
One of the major ideas behind Obamacare and Romneycare (the Massachusetts government controlled health care program) is to force people to be responsible and get coverage of their own. The methodologies of both programs may actually having the opposite effect. The reason for this is that governments typically do not understand human nature. They do not understand that if a person is attacked, they will either "fight" or "take flight." The great economist Thomas Sowell once asked in a Forbes Magazine column, "are we like trees?" The answer is clearly "no." Unlike wood that will take the blows, we humans (and our businesses) respond according to the attack.
One of the major ideas behind Obamacare and Romneycare (the Massachusetts government controlled health care program) is to force people to be responsible and get coverage of their own. The methodologies of both programs may actually having the opposite effect. The reason for this is that governments typically do not understand human nature. They do not understand that if a person is attacked, they will either "fight" or "take flight." The great economist Thomas Sowell once asked in a Forbes Magazine column, "are we like trees?" The answer is clearly "no." Unlike wood that will take the blows, we humans (and our businesses) respond according to the attack.
I recently heard syndicated talk show host, Clark Howard, talk about how the city of Washington, DC has passed a tax charging 5 cents for plastic bags you use to get for free from stores, as an environmental measure. What kind of impact did it have? Well, retailers in DC are nothing short of shocked as the usage of such bags was cut in half in just a matter of weeks and that percentage continues to shrink. Money matters in our decision making.
It is being reported that, in Massachusetts, new mandates, few reforms that actually contribute to lowering costs, and artificially high demand created by the government requiring people to have health insurance, have led to a massive increase in health insurance costs in that state. Instead of containing costs -- a "promise" offered both by Obama and Massachusetts reform advocates, there has been a huge increase, which is prompting many small companies in the Bay State to drop coverage for their workers. Those businesses are also encouraging those employees to sign up for state-subsidized care instead. This promises to put an enormous strain on a state that already has a budget crisis, according to the Boston Globe.
Since the state's socialized health care program went into effect a few years ago, insurance brokers have noted a significant increase in the number of terminations among smaller firms. Companies that have seen the biggest jump are restaurants, hair salons, stores, and day-care centers. These same firms are known for their low wages and for having employees that easily qualify for the state's subsidized insurance program.
The 2006 health insurance "reform" included new regulations meant to discourage low wage employees from pursuing state insurance instead of the firm they work for, more pricey plans. For example, Massachusetts made individuals ineligible for state plans if they had been offered private coverage that paid for 33 percent or more of an insurance plan in the six months before they applied. In spite of the prohibition, some firms have let employee plans go in order to test the state's response and their employees were still able to get state coverage. To make matters worse for the state's health care program, it is much less expensive for businesses to merely pay the state's penalties (approximately $295 per employee, per year) than it is to pay thousands in health insurance premiums. $295 does little to pay for the huge cost of the state's health care program. Since the Massachusetts law requires people to have coverage -- the least expensive to individuals, but most harmful to the state's fiscal integrity -- will naturally become a natural favorite to many. This is just one more example of how public policy that fails to recognize human nature will naturally fail. This failure in policy is only fostering more fiscal ruin and could provide a window into the future problems we will face nationally from Obamacare.
--
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 is being reported that, in Massachusetts, new mandates, few reforms that actually contribute to lowering costs, and artificially high demand created by the government requiring people to have health insurance, have led to a massive increase in health insurance costs in that state. Instead of containing costs -- a "promise" offered both by Obama and Massachusetts reform advocates, there has been a huge increase, which is prompting many small companies in the Bay State to drop coverage for their workers. Those businesses are also encouraging those employees to sign up for state-subsidized care instead. This promises to put an enormous strain on a state that already has a budget crisis, according to the Boston Globe.
Since the state's socialized health care program went into effect a few years ago, insurance brokers have noted a significant increase in the number of terminations among smaller firms. Companies that have seen the biggest jump are restaurants, hair salons, stores, and day-care centers. These same firms are known for their low wages and for having employees that easily qualify for the state's subsidized insurance program.
The 2006 health insurance "reform" included new regulations meant to discourage low wage employees from pursuing state insurance instead of the firm they work for, more pricey plans. For example, Massachusetts made individuals ineligible for state plans if they had been offered private coverage that paid for 33 percent or more of an insurance plan in the six months before they applied. In spite of the prohibition, some firms have let employee plans go in order to test the state's response and their employees were still able to get state coverage. To make matters worse for the state's health care program, it is much less expensive for businesses to merely pay the state's penalties (approximately $295 per employee, per year) than it is to pay thousands in health insurance premiums. $295 does little to pay for the huge cost of the state's health care program. Since the Massachusetts law requires people to have coverage -- the least expensive to individuals, but most harmful to the state's fiscal integrity -- will naturally become a natural favorite to many. This is just one more example of how public policy that fails to recognize human nature will naturally fail. This failure in policy is only fostering more fiscal ruin and could provide a window into the future problems we will face nationally from Obamacare.
--
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
No Arms, No Legs, No Worries: Nick Vujicic
I had the wonderful opportunity to see Nick Vujicic speak at my church a while back. He is an inspiration, and begs one to consider. . . Thank God his mother was not pro-abortion.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Tanning Tax Compliance Underestimated
For Immediate Release
August 30th, 2010
"The bureaucrats are threatening to make Obamacare, as bad as it is, even worse.
The paperwork burden being imposed by the 10 percent tanning excise tax's Form 720 is not
even the tip of the iceberg, but it is nonetheless still critical that it be stopped. These are real
costs being imposed on American businesses, and they will result in real job losses."
—ALG President Bill Wilson.
ALG: Tanning Tax Compliance
Costs as Much as $120 million Annually, 6,000 jobs
August 31st, 2010, Fairfax, VA—The Obama Administration has significantly underestimated the paperwork and compliance costs on businesses associated with the 10 percent tanning excise tax in Obamacare, according to a government watchdog.
"Just filling out the paperwork alone will cost the tanning industry anywhere from $60 million to $120 million annually, and as much as 6,000 jobs. That's not even counting the burden that the tax itself will put upon these businesses," Americans for Limited Government(ALG) President Bill Wilson noted. His group's ObamacareWatcher.org has filed comments on the proposed regulation by the IRSthat tanning salons must fill out Form 720 in complying with the tax.
"The industry as a whole will spend from 924,000 to 1.84 million hours filling out these forms," Wilson added. His comments note that Forms 720 are typically used for "Domestic petroleum oil spill tax," "Ozone depleting chemicals," "Local telephone service and teletypewriter exchange service,"
"Use of international air travel facilities," "Aviation gasoline," "Coal-Underground mined," and "Arrow shafts."
Wilson wrote, "There is no good reason to lump the small business owners who run tanning salons into a category of multi-national corporations that use international travel facilities." He recommended that no special form be used "until a reasonable estimate of the costs is given to and approved by the Office of Management and Budget."
The comments continued, "This new estimate must include detailed analysis so that affected members of the regulated community are on notice as to how the Department calculated the new burden it is now putting on them."
In a statement, Wilson noted that it would be better if Congress repealed the tax all together, which he said "might soak the industry for as much as $2.7 billion by 2019," according to the Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation.
With as many as 20,000 new regulations in the works for the implementation of Obamacare, Americans for Limited Government (ALG) Research Foundation recently launched ObamacareWatcher.org to keep track of the most damaging ones.
"ObamacareWatcher.org aims to keep the public informed about what is being proposed on the bureaucratic level to implement thenational health care system, and to make it easy for activists to submit comments on proposed harmful regulations that will restrict the choices individuals can make about their doctors and their health care," said Don Todd, ALG's Research Director.
According to a brochure promoting the ALG effort, the Foundation will "respond by providing substantive, thorough comments on regulatory proposals and leading the grassroots response."
Wilson concluded, "The bureaucrats are threatening to make Obamacare, as bad as it is, even worse. The paperwork burden being imposed by the 10 percent tanning excise tax's Form 720 is not even the tip of the iceberg, but it is nonetheless still critical that it be stopped. These are real costs being imposed on American businesses, and they will result in real job losses."
Attachments:
"Obamacare Reg Watcher," Vol. 1, Issue 1, August 2010.
Comments Submitted on Obamacare 10 Percent Excise Tax on Tanning Salons, Americans for Limited Government, July 7th, 2010.
Interview Availability: Please contact Rebekah Rast at (703) 383-0880 or at rrast@getliberty.org to arrange an interview with ALG President Bill Wilson.
###
Americans for Limited Government is a non-partisan, nationwide network committed to advancing free market reforms, private property rights and core American liberties. For more information on ALG please call us at 703-383-0880 or visit our website atwww.GetLiberty.org.
Forgotten Darfur
By Douglas V. Gibbs
"Save Darfur" has been a rallying cry by Leftists as long as I can remember. I am not criticizing them for recognizing the need for help in the region. Darfur, Sudan is a horrendous thing. The death is unimaginable. The horror is inconceivable. The problem is that the Left does not understand how to properly address the problems in Sudan.
Now, after pledging to be proactive in Darfur, Obama has failed in yet another one of his campaign promises.
There is a growing risk that Sudan will be the site of the world’s bloodiest war in 2011, and perhaps a new round of genocide as well. Obama is not to blame, but the liberals are beginning to wonder why Obama has not even considered Darfur to be one of his priorities.
While dangling carrots in front of Sudan, hoping to encourage the Arab Muslims of the north to behave, which is Obama's naive tendency with complex military situations, he has refused to take any tough actions - which makes me wonder, Does Obama understand what is truly happening on the ground in Sudan?
Surprise, surprise, the problem in Sudan, and specifically the Darfur region, is Islam. The Muslims are trying to force Shariah on the entire country, and as a result the Muslims have engaged in bloody campaigns against the infidels.
Ahh, but it hasn't stopped there. The Arab Muslims to the North are also taking out the Black Muslims to the south.
So what is the only way to save Darfur?
If the slaughtering is to be stopped, the slaughterers must be stopped, and that can only be accomplished by an invasion similar to the one in Iraq. Except this time it would need to be quick, concise, precise, and devastating to the enemy.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Obama's Failure in Sudan - New York Times
What Hollywood Gets Wrong About Darfur - Big Hollywood
Madison's Thoughts in Federalist 62 Regarding Ever-Changing Leviathans Like the Democrat Party's Health Care and Financial Reform Legislation
The internal effects of a mutable policy are still more calamitous. It poisons the blessing of liberty itself. It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is to-day, can guess what it will be to-morrow. Law is defined to be a rule of action; but how can that be a rule, which is little known, and less fixed? -- Federalist 62
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Monday, August 30, 2010
Not Enough Stimulus? Or Too Much Spending?
By Douglas V. Gibbs
The economy is still in the tank. Even the liberal left knows that the Democrat Party's Keynesian strategy is not working. The excuse the liberals are giving are the same excuses used when the New Deal by Franklin Delano Roosevelt is challenged. "Not enough money was spent by the government fast enough." Well, that, and the Republicans are not allowing them to spend more.
Imagine that. These economic dimwits think that the best way to fix an economic problem is to start digging yourself deeper into debt, and if it doesn't work, burrow even deeper into debt.
I suppose the best way to get out of quick sand is to dive deeper, right?
Now, the New York Times believes that Obama is some kind of magician, too. Surrounded by economic failure, broken promises, and an increasingly disastrous financial bust, the Times is literally asking: "If President Obama has a big economic initiative up his sleeve, as he hinted recently, now would be a good time to let the rest of us in on it."
Much of what the New York Times suggests, however, is just more dangerous liberal idiocy.
Mr. Obama has no tricks up his sleeve, and if it wasn't for the fact that the Republicans, and a handful of Democrats, are blocking more spending madness, it would be worse than it is. All Obama and the Democrats have in their sights is the financial ruin of this nation. We are floating down the Niagra River, and that roar we all hear in the distance is the roar of the falls. Obama, however, is telling us that the roar in the distance is the sound of recovery, and if we only paddled a little more, and little harder, toward that roar, we will all be saved.
It's time to turn the raft around.
Cutting taxes has been proven to stimulate an economy. Cutting taxes leaves more in the pockets of the consumers, and the producers. In turn, the consumers purchase more, and the producers produce more. As the private sector grows, more jobs are created. If spending cuts, and a reduction in regulations against businesses, accompanies the tax reductions, the economy flourishes even more. In the long run, with the economic growth of the private sector, tax revenue actually increases. This truth has been proven time and time again. Problem is, the cockroaches of Washington see the increase in revenue, and then begins to increase spending. Then as spending increases, they think they need more revenue for their expanding government, so they raise taxes, which in turns slows down the economy, reduces revenue, and leaves the government with a bunch of spending programs, and not enough money.
And the vicious cycle begins again.
The answer to the question?
We have too much government spending. Too much government, for that matter. It is time to reduce spending, cut taxes, and let the free market principles do as they have always done when unleashed - make America prosper.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Waiting For Mr. Obama - New York Times
The economy is still in the tank. Even the liberal left knows that the Democrat Party's Keynesian strategy is not working. The excuse the liberals are giving are the same excuses used when the New Deal by Franklin Delano Roosevelt is challenged. "Not enough money was spent by the government fast enough." Well, that, and the Republicans are not allowing them to spend more.
Imagine that. These economic dimwits think that the best way to fix an economic problem is to start digging yourself deeper into debt, and if it doesn't work, burrow even deeper into debt.
I suppose the best way to get out of quick sand is to dive deeper, right?
Now, the New York Times believes that Obama is some kind of magician, too. Surrounded by economic failure, broken promises, and an increasingly disastrous financial bust, the Times is literally asking: "If President Obama has a big economic initiative up his sleeve, as he hinted recently, now would be a good time to let the rest of us in on it."
Much of what the New York Times suggests, however, is just more dangerous liberal idiocy.
Mr. Obama has no tricks up his sleeve, and if it wasn't for the fact that the Republicans, and a handful of Democrats, are blocking more spending madness, it would be worse than it is. All Obama and the Democrats have in their sights is the financial ruin of this nation. We are floating down the Niagra River, and that roar we all hear in the distance is the roar of the falls. Obama, however, is telling us that the roar in the distance is the sound of recovery, and if we only paddled a little more, and little harder, toward that roar, we will all be saved.
It's time to turn the raft around.
Cutting taxes has been proven to stimulate an economy. Cutting taxes leaves more in the pockets of the consumers, and the producers. In turn, the consumers purchase more, and the producers produce more. As the private sector grows, more jobs are created. If spending cuts, and a reduction in regulations against businesses, accompanies the tax reductions, the economy flourishes even more. In the long run, with the economic growth of the private sector, tax revenue actually increases. This truth has been proven time and time again. Problem is, the cockroaches of Washington see the increase in revenue, and then begins to increase spending. Then as spending increases, they think they need more revenue for their expanding government, so they raise taxes, which in turns slows down the economy, reduces revenue, and leaves the government with a bunch of spending programs, and not enough money.
And the vicious cycle begins again.
The answer to the question?
We have too much government spending. Too much government, for that matter. It is time to reduce spending, cut taxes, and let the free market principles do as they have always done when unleashed - make America prosper.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Waiting For Mr. Obama - New York Times
More Democrat Corruption: Eddie Bernice Johnson, Texas 30th Congressional District
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Rangel and Waters, step aside, there is more corruption in the Democrat Party out there than just you.
Ahh, now there is Eddie Bernice Johnson.
Wow, does the lack of ethics, and rampant corruption, of the Democrat Party ever cease?
Then again, it is in the Left's nature to lie, cheat, steal, and do whatever else they believe it takes to push forward their wicked agenda.
Eddie Bernice Johnson represents Texas’s 30th Congressional district. This district entails much of the city of Dallas and other parts of Dallas County. Apparently, Ms. Johnson has awarded thousands of dollars in college scholarships to four relatives and a top aide’s two children since 2005, using foundation funds set aside for black lawmakers’ causes. Under the anti-nepotism rules of the Congressional Black Caucus, the recipients were ineligible for the money.
But, since Johnson is black, expect the race card to be pulled out on this one, just as it was with Rangel and Waters.
Johnson, of course, denied any wrong doing originally. She later acknowledged in a statement released by her office that she had violated the rules, but (are you ready for the denial of responsibility?) said she had done so “unknowingly” and would work with the foundation to “rectify the financial situation.”
Isn't ignorance of the law (or rules of your own organizations) no excuse?
Oh, wait, she's a Democrat. . . which gives her a pass, right?
Just ask Louisiana's William Jefferson.
Of course, if she had been a Republican, the prosecution would move rapidly, and her political career would be ruined forever. Hell, if you are a Republican, you can't even misspell a word.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Yet another corrupt Democrat revealed: Eddie Bernice Johnson violated rules, steered scholarships to relatives - Stop the Leftist Propaganda Machine
Israel Preparing For War Against Iran?
By Douglas V. Gibbs
As the countdown to the date that Iran would add the fuel to its nuclear reactors approached, many suggested that Israel may strike Iran's facilities before the deadline. The thinking was that if Israel was going to be able to take out the facilities without causing a nuclear event, now is the time.
Israel has been silent - or at least that is what it has seemed. Israel's unwillingness to attack the Iranian nuclear power plant in Iran before it went operational has caused considerable controversy within Israel.
The speculation has been that Israel is preparing for a military assault on Iran, but is hesitant because she knows she would be going it alone. Europe is in the midst of Islamization, and America's leadership has already acted in a relatively hostile manner towards Isreal, including an episode where President Obama began to dictate to Israel on whether or not she should build more housing in her own capital city of Jerusalem.
As the world wonders what Israel will do, be it a military assault on Iran, or a regional operation against Hezbollah or Hamas, Israel has placed its largest order of military fuel with the United States on record.
The order by Israel earlier this month consisted of 284 million gallons of JP-8 aviation jet fuel, 100 million gallons of diesel fuel and 60 million gallons of unleaded gasoline – all suitable for military uses – at an estimated cost of $2 billion.
Though American government officials and military personnel will not comment on what this may mean on a larger scale, Marine Corps Major Chris Perrine, a public affairs officer at the Department of Defense, told World Net Daily that, "It would take a lot more than fuel to attack a country or wage a regional war."
In addition to the fuel purchase, a number of signs point toward a coming conflict in the Middle East between Israel and some of her neighbors.
Iran has continued to act aggressively successfully test-firing a third-generation surface-to-surface solid-fuel Fateh 110 missile with a 150-mile range and unveiling an Iran-manufactured drone bomber with a flight range of 620 miles.
Top American government officials claim that it would take one year for Iran to make "a dash" to convert existing low-enriched uranium to weapons-grade and to develop the nuclear warhead required for a working weapon. Then again, the American government officials have underestimated Ahmadinejad before.
Nonetheless, despite the warning signs, talks between Israel and the Palestinians have resumed, and by some standards seem to be easing tensions at least between the Palestinians and the Jewish State - for now.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Israel Prepping For War With Iran? - World Net Daily
As the countdown to the date that Iran would add the fuel to its nuclear reactors approached, many suggested that Israel may strike Iran's facilities before the deadline. The thinking was that if Israel was going to be able to take out the facilities without causing a nuclear event, now is the time.
Israel has been silent - or at least that is what it has seemed. Israel's unwillingness to attack the Iranian nuclear power plant in Iran before it went operational has caused considerable controversy within Israel.
The speculation has been that Israel is preparing for a military assault on Iran, but is hesitant because she knows she would be going it alone. Europe is in the midst of Islamization, and America's leadership has already acted in a relatively hostile manner towards Isreal, including an episode where President Obama began to dictate to Israel on whether or not she should build more housing in her own capital city of Jerusalem.
As the world wonders what Israel will do, be it a military assault on Iran, or a regional operation against Hezbollah or Hamas, Israel has placed its largest order of military fuel with the United States on record.
The order by Israel earlier this month consisted of 284 million gallons of JP-8 aviation jet fuel, 100 million gallons of diesel fuel and 60 million gallons of unleaded gasoline – all suitable for military uses – at an estimated cost of $2 billion.
Though American government officials and military personnel will not comment on what this may mean on a larger scale, Marine Corps Major Chris Perrine, a public affairs officer at the Department of Defense, told World Net Daily that, "It would take a lot more than fuel to attack a country or wage a regional war."
In addition to the fuel purchase, a number of signs point toward a coming conflict in the Middle East between Israel and some of her neighbors.
Iran has continued to act aggressively successfully test-firing a third-generation surface-to-surface solid-fuel Fateh 110 missile with a 150-mile range and unveiling an Iran-manufactured drone bomber with a flight range of 620 miles.
Top American government officials claim that it would take one year for Iran to make "a dash" to convert existing low-enriched uranium to weapons-grade and to develop the nuclear warhead required for a working weapon. Then again, the American government officials have underestimated Ahmadinejad before.
Nonetheless, despite the warning signs, talks between Israel and the Palestinians have resumed, and by some standards seem to be easing tensions at least between the Palestinians and the Jewish State - for now.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Israel Prepping For War With Iran? - World Net Daily
Iraq Withdrawal Results in Increase in Al-Qaeda Violence
By Douglas V. Gibbs
The decrease in violence in Iraq in recent years has been the direct result of the surge by George W. Bush. The gradual decrease of American troops from the region has been made possible by the Bush policies in that region. To pull all of the combat troops out immediately, however, has been considered unwise. Iraq is not able to contain the violence being perpetrated by groups like Al-Qaeda on its own just yet.
Barack Obama, in a rush to capitalize on his promise to get the U.S. out of Iraq has decided that the combat mission is over effective the end of this month. The Obama administration has been rapidly pulling American troops out of the region, content to leave behind only forces designed to continue the training of the Iraqi troops in the hopes that the fragile new government can keep the peace on its own.
According to an Al-Qaeda front group, the Islamic State of Iraq, Al-Qaeda is responsible for the recent increase of violence in Iraq, stating that they are launching a "new earth-shaking wave" in its campaign of violence that is designed to bring Iraq back into the fold of Jihad.
Jihadist web sites boast that the terrorists are targeting "headquarters, centers and security barriers for the army and apostate police."
Just last Wednesday, more than a dozen apparently coordinated car bombs targeting Iraqi police and other attacks blamed on Al-Qaeda in Iraq hit 10 cities and towns around the country, killing 53 people and wounding hundreds.
U.S. Forces and Iraqi officials have disputed reports that August is the “deadliest month in Iraq since 2008,” also challenging reports that 535 people were killed in Iraq during July.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Al-Qaeda violence increases in Iraq as U.S. withdraws - Examiner
Qaeda in Iraq Says It Was Behind Latest Attacks - New York Times
Obama Pushes For Amnesty
By Douglas V. Gibbs
When Barry Obama and the hard left Democrats were accused of planning to allow illegal aliens to be able to participate in the socialized health care plan, despite the fact that said illegal immigrants do not provide tax money, the opponents of Obamacare were livid. Despite assurances by the Democrats that illegals would not be able to receive health benefits from the government programs, the opponents of the bill concluded that the Left was providing a lie, as expected, and in the long run would ensure the illegals could receive health benefits by simple making the foreign law breakers legal through an amnesty program.
In an attempt to appease, the Democrats have decided to propose a change to immigration policy that would drop deportation proceedings for those immigrants that are illegally in the United States, but are applying to stay in the country, and have no criminal history and do not present a security threat.
The proposal was suggested in an internal memorandum from ICE Assistant Secretary John Morton to the agency's principal legal adviser and a director of enforcement and removal operations.
The idea is to reduce a backlog in immigration courts of cases that have overwhelmed the system. By eliminating the cases of illegals that would probably gain legal status anyway because they had applied for it, and were free of a criminal history, the caseload would become more manageable.
Specifically, it is estimated that this back door amnesty would remove the proceedings for about 11 million illegal immigrants living and working in the United States, but are considered to pose no threat.
The timing, of course, is political, with the November elections coming up quickly. The argument by the Democrats is that it is impossible to deport many millions of illegals, so they are trying to do the next best thing. Their argument does not take into account the fact that Arizona's SB 1070 literally has the illegals deporting themselves. Of course the best strategy would be to seal the border, which would disallow the number of illegals to get so high in the first place.
The Democrats claim that they back a comprehensive reform of immigration policy to tighten border security, while allowing illegal immigrants in good standing the chance to learn English, pay a fine and get on a path to citizenship.
The fact is, whenever you reward an activity, you encourage an increase in the activity, and with this amnesty program the Democrats are suggesting, it will result in a devastating increase in the number of illegal entrants coming into the nation.
ICE officials indicate that the new strategy would enable the agency to prioritize "the arrest and removal of criminal aliens and those who pose a danger to national security." Instead, the workload, without a true control of the flow of illegal entrants at the border, will increase to numbers even larger than they are experiencing now.
In reality, that is the plan by the Democrats. To them, illegal aliens are simply potential future constituents.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Obama Wants Change to Allow Thousands of Illegals to Stay in US - NewsMax
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Obama Wants Change to Allow Thousands of Illegals to Stay in US - NewsMax
How the Democrats Divide and Conquer
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Part of the Democrat Party's political strategy to move this nation in a direction of a more centralized government under progressive control is to keep the electorate divided and at odds with each other. Chaos and division enables them to take hold of the situation, promising change and an end to the division, and promising to unite America with a socialist utopia that eliminates the supposed greed of the private sector, and quells the division of individuality.
The race card has been used to pit the blacks against the whites, and the rhetoric they have used regarding the immigration issue has been designed to pit Hispanics against anyone who disagrees with wide-open borders and amnesty. They have attacked any political opposition as being groups that are fringe, extreme, and to be shunned. The Right of Center is, in the opinion of the Democrats, a collection of many different groups with differences in opinion enough to pit them against each other too. The rich has been demonized as greedy, the corporations as a ruthless enemy that must be regulated, creating division among the economic classes as well. They have even proclaimed to the populace that any GOP voters that are not moderates are racist ideologues who cling to their Bibles and guns, and are therefore dangerous and people that should be shunned.
The Democrat Party believes that only a powerful central government is essential to guarantee their predetermined "equitable" outcomes, a promise they contend will finally settle the divisions of the groups that exist in America.
The Democrats cannot achieve their plans through the ballot box without using these tactics of division and deception. The majority of Americans believe in limited government and are not quick to grant the federal government too much power. When in 2006 and 2008, the country elected a Congress and President that adheres to the most radical leftist political ideology in our history, the antithesis of the principles the people claim they want, the Democrats actually believed that it meant this nation had become center-left. The reality is, they achieved their political success because their deception and tactics of division worked well in fooling the American populace.
The Democrats were able to gain their power through the manipulation of the fact that unlike the leftist collectivists, folks on the Right think independently. Because of the individualism of the voters on the Right, there is division on some issues. In fact, there are primarily five distinct groups that make up the right of center majority.
Some members of the Right inhabit more than one of the groups I am about to list, and there are even smaller groups that don't even get noticed. But, for the most part, the Right is made up of five groups - and the Democrats manipulated each of them masterfully in order to gain power in 2006 and 2008.
First of these groups is the single issue voters, such as those that support the pro-life position, or the individual right to own a firearm. These voters are steadfast on their resolve that their issue is one issue they will not compromise on. The progressives of the Democrat Party quickly learned that well-placed language can successfully affect this demographic. Barack Obama, as a candidate, took advantage of this. Though Obama is a steadfast promoter of unfettered abortion rights and suffocating gun control, he simply stood at the podium and proclaimed himself to be a Christian seeking to make abortion rare and an opponent of gun control legislation. His oratory skills in the delivery of these speeches were convincing, so Barack Obama won much of the Christian and pro-gun vote than any of the previous liberal Democrat nominees for President. After all, since many of the center-right voters had believed the rhetoric that everything was Bush's fault, which led them to have temporary disdain for the Republican Party, they thought to themselves that perhaps this Obama fellow isn't so bad after all.
The second group of right of center voters is the fiscal-conservative-but-social-liberal voters. Understanding this particular group was the reason that Barack Obama seemed to move to the center during his campaign. He pledged not to raise taxes on 95% of the people, and he pledged to control spending that Bush had allowed to get out of control. Barack Obama was lying deliberately. There was no evidence based on his past stances on economics to make anyone think he would be willing to follow such conservative sounding promises. But since the fiscal-conservative-but-socially-liberal voters were also angry with the GOP as a result of the Democrat Party's rhetoric regarding Bush, these voters were willing to sheepishly follow the leftist candidates for the Congress and the White House who said they were willing to be fiscally conservative, even though they were Democrats.
The third group of voters are the Republicans Only. They have been voting for the GOP for the simple sake of party. These voters are not necessarily policy oriented, they are just convinced that only the Republicans can run a country without dropping the whole thing into the toilet. However, because these folks see everything from a party point of view, when a member of the GOP screws up, they blame the entire party for it. So, to manipulate them the Democrats only had to convince them that the behavior of the Republicans was so bad, it would actually be in their best interest to vote for a conservative Democrat, or stay home on election day, to punish the Republican Party for their bad behavior.
The fourth group of right-side voters is the Conservatives, who are the ones that tend to hold more tightly to the concept of limited government, and the principles of the U.S. Constitution. These folks were split. They knew that Obama was lying, and that Democrat control of the government would be devastating. But they did not necessarily wish to vote for a moderate like McCain because liberals in the GOP have been destroying the party for a long time, and the GOP seemed to be at a crossroads. To vote in a person like McCain could very well destroy the party, and turn the Republican Party into something not much different than its leftist counterpart. Of this group of voters, the ones that did vote for McCain primarily did so because he chose conservative Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate. The rest either stayed home, or cast their vote for an independent candidate.
The libertarians comprise the final group. These folks are distant cousins of the Conservatives, disagreeing on a few issues with the GOP and Conservatives, but not many. To manipulate this group, the Left only had to hammer away on the disagreements, and turn these folks off from the GOP. One issue the Libertarians differ with the Conservatives and Republicans on is the policies regarding the use of the military. As a result of the Democrat Party hammering Bush, and the rest of the Right, as a bunch of warmongers, the Libertarians took a pass on the Republicans in the last elections, choosing instead to either stay home, or vote for a third party candidate. It is these folks that are now leading a third party movement, and will be the most difficult for the GOP to bring back into the fold.
Ultimately, the Democrat campaign to portray the entire Republican Party as corrupt, country club corporate types, and unresponsive to their constituents, achieved its aim, and the Democrats were able to pull off victories in 2006 and 2008. In addition, the Bush derangement syndrome campaign pinned George W. Bush as a Conservative, when in some ways he was not, and then characterized him as an illiterate, incompetent fool who besmirched the Republican brand, and revealed the reality of what conservatism is really all about. As a result, conservatives and their allies began to put distance between themselves and Bush, and ultimately between themselves and the GOP. With McCain on the ticket, and the Arizona Senator being portrayed as just another clone of Bush, the right-of-center voting groups threw up their hands and stayed on the sidelines, leaving the voting duties to the people fooled by the Left, and of course the hardcore progressive faithful.
Once in power, the intimidation campaign took its place in the Democrat armory of political weapons. The Democrats set out to find and exploit individual examples of corruption, misspoken words, perceived insensitivity, and false charges of racism - literally following the teachings of Marx and Saul Alinsky: "Make the enemy live up to their (sic) own book of rules. When pressed to honor every word of every law and statute, every Judeo-Christian moral tenet, and every implicit promise of the liberal social contract, human agencies inevitably fall short. The system's failure to 'live up' to its rule book can then be used to discredit it altogether, and to replace the capitalist 'rule book' with a socialist one." (Saul Alinsky's Rules For Radicals)
With the biased media at their side, the Left was able to hurl a maelstrom of accusations against the Republican Party and her ideological allies. The power of accusation took its place in the Democrat arsenal. Evidence was not needed. With an accusation the media would take it to the bank, and the mere accusation would then become fact, and would turn the populace even further away from the GOP. Meanwhile, the Republicans, fearing the tactics, refused to refute any of it - shaking in their boots, unwilling to make waves.
The lack of a spine portrayed by the GOP literally helped the Democrats achieve their aim. By refusing to challenge the attacks, the lack of Republican response was seen as tacit concession. In fact, to appease the leftists, some Republican officials have been willing to "reach across the aisle" in spending, and other liberal policies, in the hopes to look like they are not too extreme, foolishly hoping to garner the blessing of the main-extreme media. By straying from the principles that gave America 25 years of economic growth (1983-2008) the Republicans then further separated themselves from the voters, and any hope for forgiveness from the various right-of-center groups that were already angry with them.
The Tea Party movement emerged with the slogan, "Throw all of the bums out, regardless of party." The movement has caught fire, and is evidence that the public has now waking up to the long-term damaging effects of Barack Obama's Left-dominated government policies, and the unwillingness of the GOP to stand on conservative principles. A battle has ensued to take back the Republican Party, and the Tea Party folks are optimistic that the mid-term election in 2010 can curtail, and maybe even overturn, these hard-left policies brought on by the liberal Democrats.
Taking the country back can happen, but only if the right-of-center voters can be convinced of the benefits of the Republican Party, and then once the Republicans are in office that the GOP adheres to the desires of their base. Of course, a lot of that depends on the voter's willingness to hold the Republican's feet to the fire.
The GOP should not be rejected. Only those Republicans that stray from the principles of Ronald Reagan, and the U.S. Constitution, should be tossed in the soup with the rest of the establishment politicians and hard-left liberals. We must be active in the party, and win back the Republican Party, not abandon it. We need a unified party to defeat the Democrats. Otherwise, we are only following the intentions of the Democrat's strategy of divide and conquer. . . a technique that is nothing new:
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Sunday, August 29, 2010
Samuel Adams on Voting
"Let each citizen remember at the moment he is offering his vote that he is not making a present or a compliment to please an individual -- or at least that he ought not so to do; but that he is executing one of the most solemn trusts in human society for which he is accountable to God and his country." --Samuel Adams
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Debbie Lee Discusses Her Son, Iraq, and Code Pink
Debbie Lee is a Gold Star Mom. Her son, Marc Alan Lee, was killed in the line of duty as a Navy SEAL on August 2, 2006. He was the first SEAL to lose his life in Iraq. In his final moments he single-handedly held off enemy fighters as his team rescued a wounded soldier from a rooftop. When she received the news of the death of her son, after experiencing a torrent of emotions, Debbie Lee decided to honor him, and his final wish. She has passed on the "kindness, the love, the precious gift of human life to each other so that when your children come in contact with a great conflict that we are now faced with here in Iraq, that they are people of humanity, of pure motives, of compassion."
Marc also wrote in his final letter home: "When was the last time you paid for a random stranger's cup of coffee, meal or maybe even a tank of gas? . . . Think to yourself and wonder what it would feel like when the bill for the meal came and you were told it was already paid for. More random acts of kindness like this would change our country and our reputation as a country."
Debbie Lee has been touring America to honor Marc's final wish, and established America's Mighty Warriors which is dedicated to random acts of kindness for military personnel and their families stateside and overseas.
Recently, Debbie made a second trip to Iraq. She was embedded with an Air Force Wing that was an intricate part of assisting in the rebuilding of the Iraqi Air Force. She was able to interview personnel from both the American and Iraqi Air Force, and even secured an exclusive interview with General Anwar, the man in charge of the Iraqi Air Force - an opportunity denied to media outlets like CNN.
In Marc's last letter home he had written, "It will take longer than most think but we will get Iraq to stand on its own feet." In her trip to Iraq, Debbie Lee was able to see this first hand what Marc said would happen. And, of course, while in Iraq Debbie also spent the time thanking the troops, and bringing them love from back home.
Debbie's first trip to Iraq was in December of 2007, where she made history being the first Gold Star Mother to go into the combat zone where her son gave his life.
Debbie Lee, because of her devotion to her son and to the troops, has received her share of attacks from the liberal left. The attacks from most, however, have not been as vile as the confrontations she has experienced from the radical anti-military group, Code Pink. And the person that has been most confrontational with Debbie, is the co-founder of Code Pink, Jodie Evans.
Code Pink has done everything they can to counter the war effort, including attacking our military recruiting offices while causing thousands of dollars in damage and threatening the recruiters. The organization has also sent over $600,000.00 to the terrorists in Fallujah.
In confrontations with Debbie Lee, Jodie Evans and her Code Pink degenerates have taunted Debbie, making light of her son’s sacrifice, saying things like, “Your son deserved to die in Iraq if he was stupid enough to go over there.”
Tonight, Debbie Lee Joins the Political Pistachio Radio Revolution to discuss these events in her life, as well as touch on her feelings about the current political situation, and where we go from here. Join us live at 7:00 pm Pacific for the conversation at BlogTalkRadio.com/PoliticalPistachio.
------------------
Further Reading About Debbie Lee:
Gold Star Mom Debbie Lee Honors Son's Final Wish
Debbie Lee: America Chooses Michael Jackson Over The Troops
My Son Gave His Life for this country, what will you give?
Happy Birthday Mighty Warrior
Code Pink To Mother Of Dead Navy SEAL: Your Son Deserved To Die
Giving More Than 100%
A good friend of mine sent me the following, and I thought you would enjoy this interesting mathematical equation:
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
101%
From a strictly mathematical viewpoint:
What Equals 100%?
What does it mean to give MORE than 100%?
Ever wonder about those people who say they
are giving more than 100%?
We have all been in situations where someone wants you to
GIVE OVER 100%...
How about ACHIEVING 101%?
What equals 100% in life?
Here's a little mathematical formula that might help
answer these questions:
If:
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
Is represented as:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26.
Then:
H-A-R-D-W-O- R- K
8+1+18+4+23+15+18+11 = 98%
And:
K-N-O-W-L-E- D-G-E
11+14+15+23+12+5+4+7+ 5 = 96%
But:
A-T-T-I-T-U- D-E
1+20+20+9+20+ 21+4+5 = 100%
THEN, look how far the love of God will take you:
L-O-V-E-O-F- G-O-D
12+15+22+5+15+ 6+7+15+4 = 101%
Therefore, one can conclude with mathematical certainty that:
While Hard Work and Knowledge will get you close, and Attitude will
get you there, It's the Love of God that will put you over the top!
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary