By Douglas V. Gibbs
After being taken out of context by liberal television personality Rachel Maddow, conservative talk radio host Joyce Kaufman was blamed for inciting violence when Ellisa Martinez allegedly made an Email threat that read: "i'm [sic] planning something big around a government building here in Broward County, maybe a post office, maybe even a school, I'm going to walk in and teach all the government hacks working there what the 2nd amendment is all about . . . we'll end this year of 2010 in a blaze of glory for sure."
Ms. Martinez has been arrested two weeks after the threats, not in Florida where the threats that caused all of Broward County's schools to close were made, but in Los Angeles, California.
Kaufman's misrepresented comment was made during a political rally over the summer for Congressman-elect Allen West. The portion of the out of context comment played on MSNBC's Rachel Maddow show said, "if ballots don't work, bullets will."
Joyce Kaufman indicates the blame she received was because of the way the comment was portrayed in the media. She said the arrest of Martinez is a first step towards vindication.
"My only desire is that the truth be told," said Kaufman to a Florida CBS affiliate in an interview. "For days my name was dragged through the mud. People accused me of inciting violence in Broward County Schools. These were kids who were affected. They were locked down for 5 hours. Parents were left standing outside and they were pretty angry with me and I think what we're about to find out is this had not much to do with me."
Martinez' motivations for making the threats are unknown.
Kaufman said of Martinez' arrest, "I don't believe someone acts alone and then manages to get from the west coast of Florida all the way to LA while she's under -- there's an arrest warrant issued for her. How does that happen?"
The writer of the Email wrote that they were "especially exited (sic) to hear you encourage us to exercise our second amendment gun rights." The email referenced Kaufman's alleged plan to "organize people with guns in the hills of Kentucky."
In the final section of the email, the writer referenced former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin by saying, "what does Sarah say, don't retreat, reload! let's make headlines girl!"
Kaufman responded to critics questioning her comments during the political rally. She said the comment was taken out of context and is reference to a remark made by Thomas Jefferson.
"I stand by the fact that I have made plenty of speeches and never has any violence been the result of any of my speeches," she said. "Sometimes I get noisy. My intentions are honorable I have never desired anything but the absolute normalcy of the American political system."
One possibility may be that this was a planned attack against the conservative talk show host by liberals. It also reminds us that there are wacko individuals out there, but they are individuals able to make their decisions on a personal level - Kaufman's comment about ballots and bullets, whether taken out of context or not, did not force Martinez to make the threats. That decision was Martinez's alone.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Radio Host Responds To School Threat Arrest - CBS 4
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Wiki Leaks Destroyed International Trust
By Douglas V. Gibbs
What was the New York Times thinking? Wiki Leaks is obviously an anti-American group, and the leftward biased New York Times published the leak of sensitive government documents anyway. That makes them, in my opinion, just like the rest of the liberal left - a bunch of unpatriotic, anti-American bastards.
I don't like Wiki Leaks, and I don't trust them. But one has to admit that with this latest round of leaks, we didn't learn anything we didn't already know. Fact is, and these leaks reminded us of it, elements of the government is lying to us. The real damage, however, is not what was released, but the fact that by the information being leaked, it destroys trust we have earned among other nations.
There are calls for Wiki Leaks to be shut down by the government for their betrayal of government confidentiality. I don't know about that. If arrests for their illegal activity results in the closure of Wiki Leaks, then so be it. But we run a real risk when the government starts shutting down sites. Consider this: We keep hearing about threats to shut down Fox News, the passage of net neutrality in the hopes of regulating the Internet, and a return of the 1st Amendment killing Fairness Doctrine. We have also even been hearing about domains being seized by the government of late, shutting down these sites for being unauthorized knock-offs or copyright violators. How dangerous, even though these closures may seem reasonable, is it when the government begins shutting down sites?
One must also ask that if the government is willing to shut down all of those domains for copyright infringement, why not Wiki Leaks for their criminal activities? I am not suggesting they should shut down Wiki Leaks. I am just asking why their selectivity does not include Wiki Leaks. Is there a connection we aren't recognizing?
These leaks show either the incompetence of this administration, or that they wanted this information released. I believe it may be both. Why not? Wiki Leaks is supported by people like George Soros, and Code Pink. It is obvious, being of a liberal left nature, that the goal here is to diminish the U.S. - Just as the Democrats like it. Problem is, we don't try for treason anymore, so why should we expect this kind of anti-American behavior to stop?
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
What was the New York Times thinking? Wiki Leaks is obviously an anti-American group, and the leftward biased New York Times published the leak of sensitive government documents anyway. That makes them, in my opinion, just like the rest of the liberal left - a bunch of unpatriotic, anti-American bastards.
I don't like Wiki Leaks, and I don't trust them. But one has to admit that with this latest round of leaks, we didn't learn anything we didn't already know. Fact is, and these leaks reminded us of it, elements of the government is lying to us. The real damage, however, is not what was released, but the fact that by the information being leaked, it destroys trust we have earned among other nations.
There are calls for Wiki Leaks to be shut down by the government for their betrayal of government confidentiality. I don't know about that. If arrests for their illegal activity results in the closure of Wiki Leaks, then so be it. But we run a real risk when the government starts shutting down sites. Consider this: We keep hearing about threats to shut down Fox News, the passage of net neutrality in the hopes of regulating the Internet, and a return of the 1st Amendment killing Fairness Doctrine. We have also even been hearing about domains being seized by the government of late, shutting down these sites for being unauthorized knock-offs or copyright violators. How dangerous, even though these closures may seem reasonable, is it when the government begins shutting down sites?
One must also ask that if the government is willing to shut down all of those domains for copyright infringement, why not Wiki Leaks for their criminal activities? I am not suggesting they should shut down Wiki Leaks. I am just asking why their selectivity does not include Wiki Leaks. Is there a connection we aren't recognizing?
These leaks show either the incompetence of this administration, or that they wanted this information released. I believe it may be both. Why not? Wiki Leaks is supported by people like George Soros, and Code Pink. It is obvious, being of a liberal left nature, that the goal here is to diminish the U.S. - Just as the Democrats like it. Problem is, we don't try for treason anymore, so why should we expect this kind of anti-American behavior to stop?
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
A republic creates a responsible government
By Kevin J. Price
Every once in a while I like to remind readers about the importance of a republican form of government, because you typically will not find that from political leaders of either party. Both the Democrats and Republicans talk in terms as if democracies and republics are synonymous. Even the most conservative voices in the media seem to fail to understand the difference.
Recently I was reading Glenn Beck's Common Sense and found it an excellent book. Each chapter is full of sound reasoning as he made a case for liberty and limited government. In it, however, he discusses the virtues of democracy and how that force will restore our government. I find this interesting, because mob rule has contributed to the abyss we are in today.
Rush Limbaugh, the conservative radio host who saved the AM dial and made that radio band the hot property it is today, has a section of his website and a recurring feature on his program in which he refers to himself as "The Doctor of Democracy." Limbaugh, like other conservative hosts, argues that we should restore the values of the founders that "made America great." Those founders had a very cynical view of democracy, seeing it as a form of extremism, but wanted to have a government based on the rule of law, which will protect people regardless if they are in the majority or few in number.
The Founders warned of the excesses of democracy and spoke passionately about limited government:
John Adams warned people to "Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself."
Benjamin Franklin noted that democracies failed because such is like "two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch." A republican form of government, on the other hand, assures liberty, and "Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!"
Fisher Aimes, who was one of the first members of Congress, noted that "The known propensity of a democracy is to licentiousness which the ambitious call, and ignorant believe to be liberty."
Even Thomas Jefferson, considered by most of his contemporaries to be the most sympathetic of democracy, was quoted as saying: "A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine." As the ambassador to France during the Constitutional Convention, Jefferson saw first hand, the excessiveness of democracy in that country as the mob ruled the day. The symbol of the American Revolution and its emphasis on republican government was the liberty bell, while the democratic revolt in France had the guillotine. These symbols speak volumes about the temperment of both philosophies.
When I traveled to Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union following the fall of Communism, there were often protests because the people were seeking a quicker pace of reform. You would find signs, in English to get the message to the United States via TV, that would say "Democracy equals Freedom" and similar themes. Ironically, the first free elections in Germany's history were in 1932 and led to the rise of Adolph Hitler, whose party enjoyed a mandate. Democracy leads to mob rule and mobs behave in a most destructive fashion riddled with socialism and financial ruin, if not checked by the rule of law.
We need writers, radio hosts, TV personalities and more to discuss the virtues of republican government, which is found in rule by law. Such is found in a republic and not a democracy. Government should only do those things the people cannot do for themselves. It must be based on law and confined, in our country's case, to the 17 powers listed in the Constitution. This is why I say that the term "conservative" is a misnomer. There is little liberty left to conserve. The proper term is "restoration." We must restore liberty, limited government, private property, and free enterprise. It needs to become fashionable again to point out the virtues of republican government and to dismiss and to discredit the extremes of pure democracy.
When I listen to conservative hosts, you can almost "hear" the chagrin on their faces when a listener corrects them on the use of the term "democracy." They will dismiss it by saying, "yeah, yeah, representative democracy, I understand." No, they don't understand. The Constitution of the United States does not allow us to elect representatives to go and vote our freedoms away. In a republic, our elected officials can only do those things the law permits them to do. Continue to hold the politicians, and those in journalism who are suppose to watch our elected officials, accountable.
--
Kevin Price, Host, Price of Business, M-F at 11 am on CBS Radio NewsFrequently 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
Every once in a while I like to remind readers about the importance of a republican form of government, because you typically will not find that from political leaders of either party. Both the Democrats and Republicans talk in terms as if democracies and republics are synonymous. Even the most conservative voices in the media seem to fail to understand the difference.
Recently I was reading Glenn Beck's Common Sense and found it an excellent book. Each chapter is full of sound reasoning as he made a case for liberty and limited government. In it, however, he discusses the virtues of democracy and how that force will restore our government. I find this interesting, because mob rule has contributed to the abyss we are in today.
Rush Limbaugh, the conservative radio host who saved the AM dial and made that radio band the hot property it is today, has a section of his website and a recurring feature on his program in which he refers to himself as "The Doctor of Democracy." Limbaugh, like other conservative hosts, argues that we should restore the values of the founders that "made America great." Those founders had a very cynical view of democracy, seeing it as a form of extremism, but wanted to have a government based on the rule of law, which will protect people regardless if they are in the majority or few in number.
The Founders warned of the excesses of democracy and spoke passionately about limited government:
John Adams warned people to "Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself."
Benjamin Franklin noted that democracies failed because such is like "two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch." A republican form of government, on the other hand, assures liberty, and "Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!"
Fisher Aimes, who was one of the first members of Congress, noted that "The known propensity of a democracy is to licentiousness which the ambitious call, and ignorant believe to be liberty."
Even Thomas Jefferson, considered by most of his contemporaries to be the most sympathetic of democracy, was quoted as saying: "A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine." As the ambassador to France during the Constitutional Convention, Jefferson saw first hand, the excessiveness of democracy in that country as the mob ruled the day. The symbol of the American Revolution and its emphasis on republican government was the liberty bell, while the democratic revolt in France had the guillotine. These symbols speak volumes about the temperment of both philosophies.
When I traveled to Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union following the fall of Communism, there were often protests because the people were seeking a quicker pace of reform. You would find signs, in English to get the message to the United States via TV, that would say "Democracy equals Freedom" and similar themes. Ironically, the first free elections in Germany's history were in 1932 and led to the rise of Adolph Hitler, whose party enjoyed a mandate. Democracy leads to mob rule and mobs behave in a most destructive fashion riddled with socialism and financial ruin, if not checked by the rule of law.
We need writers, radio hosts, TV personalities and more to discuss the virtues of republican government, which is found in rule by law. Such is found in a republic and not a democracy. Government should only do those things the people cannot do for themselves. It must be based on law and confined, in our country's case, to the 17 powers listed in the Constitution. This is why I say that the term "conservative" is a misnomer. There is little liberty left to conserve. The proper term is "restoration." We must restore liberty, limited government, private property, and free enterprise. It needs to become fashionable again to point out the virtues of republican government and to dismiss and to discredit the extremes of pure democracy.
When I listen to conservative hosts, you can almost "hear" the chagrin on their faces when a listener corrects them on the use of the term "democracy." They will dismiss it by saying, "yeah, yeah, representative democracy, I understand." No, they don't understand. The Constitution of the United States does not allow us to elect representatives to go and vote our freedoms away. In a republic, our elected officials can only do those things the law permits them to do. Continue to hold the politicians, and those in journalism who are suppose to watch our elected officials, accountable.
--
Kevin Price, Host, Price of Business, M-F at 11 am on CBS Radio NewsFrequently 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
Saudi Arabia Claims Al-Qaeda Arrests Prevented Terrorist Attacks
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Saudi Arabia has indicated that their security forces have detained 149 people over the past eight months who are suspected of having links with al-Qaeda. The Saudis claim that the arrests foiled approximately ten planned attacks, including terrorist plots against government and military targets and officials and media personalities. It is too early, they claim, to determine if any of the targets were oil facilities.
Saudi Arabia stepped up operations against al-Qaeda after the 2004 attack by Jihadists when they struck an oil installation and stormed a housing complex in the city of al-Khobar, killing 22 foreign workers.
The latest arrests prevented some attacks that were “in advanced stages,” according the Saudi Arabia.
Saudi Arabia was also a key player in helping uncover a plot last month to use cargo filled with explosives shipped to the U.S. from Yemen.
Wait a second. . . doesn't Saudi Arabia fund al-Qaeda?
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Saudi Arabia Says Al-Qaeda Arrests Prevented Attacks - Bloomberg
Saudi Arabia has indicated that their security forces have detained 149 people over the past eight months who are suspected of having links with al-Qaeda. The Saudis claim that the arrests foiled approximately ten planned attacks, including terrorist plots against government and military targets and officials and media personalities. It is too early, they claim, to determine if any of the targets were oil facilities.
Saudi Arabia stepped up operations against al-Qaeda after the 2004 attack by Jihadists when they struck an oil installation and stormed a housing complex in the city of al-Khobar, killing 22 foreign workers.
The latest arrests prevented some attacks that were “in advanced stages,” according the Saudi Arabia.
Saudi Arabia was also a key player in helping uncover a plot last month to use cargo filled with explosives shipped to the U.S. from Yemen.
Wait a second. . . doesn't Saudi Arabia fund al-Qaeda?
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Saudi Arabia Says Al-Qaeda Arrests Prevented Attacks - Bloomberg
Benjamin Franklin: Pride Quote
"In reality there is perhaps no one of our natural Passions so hard to subdue as Pride. Disguise it, struggle with it, beat it down, stifle it, mortify it as much as one pleases, it is still alive, and will now and then peek out and show itself." - Benjamin Franklin, Autobiography, 1771
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Iceland Allowed Banks To Fail, and Has Prospered As A Result
By Douglas V. Gibbs
The American liberal Democrats claimed that to save our economy the banks, or at least the ones "too big to fail," had to be bailed out, rather than be allowed to fail. However, Conservatives argued that doing so does not solve any problem, but actually prolongs it by allowing a failed entity to continue to poison an already struggling economic system. The better plan, according to Republicans, would have been to allow the banks to fail, and for the more stable banks to fill the void. In other words, allow the Free Market system to adjust and heal the failing economy by allowing the failures to vanish, and the achievers to grow. By letting the strong survive, and allowing the failed entities to be removed from the equation, the economic downturn would be shorter, and the recovery would be stronger. . . without the danger of allowing the government to intrude into the private sector.
Iceland’s President Olafur R. Grimsson came to the same conclusion as conservatives in America. He felt his country would be better off if they allowed the failing banks to fail. As a result, Iceland is weathering the worldwide economic storm much better than expected, and significantly better than her European counterpart, Ireland, thanks to the government’s decision to allow the banks to fail two years ago, which prevented their currency from devaluing.
“The difference is that in Iceland we allowed the banks to fail,” Grimsson said in an interview with Bloomberg Television’s Mark Barton. “These were private banks and we didn’t pump money into them in order to keep them going; the state did not shoulder the responsibility of the failed private banks.”
Ireland pumped money into their banks, as did the United States, and Ireland is now requiring an 85 billion-euro ($112 billion) bailout from the European Union and International Monetary Fund as a result. The United States continues to fight a failing economy, high unemployment rates, a struggling stock market, and out of control government spending.
Ireland’s banks, though they still owe creditors about $85 billion, were split to create domestic units needed to keep the financial system running, while foreign liabilities remained within the failed lenders.
As a consequence, “Iceland is faring much better than anybody expected,” Grimsson said. “How far can we ask ordinary people -- farmers and fishermen and teachers and doctors and nurses -- to shoulder the responsibility of failed private banks? That question, which has been at the core of the Icesave issue, will now be the burning issue in many European countries.”
Iceland is relying on a $4.6 billion IMF-led loan to rebuild its economy. Grimsson has indicated the government may not need the entire amount.
Bondholders of European banks should be prepared to accept losses because voters are becoming increasingly unwilling and unable to fund bailouts.
Iceland has not joined the European Union, though talks are ongoing.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Iceland Is No Ireland as State Free of Bank Debt, Grimsson Says - Bloomberg
The American liberal Democrats claimed that to save our economy the banks, or at least the ones "too big to fail," had to be bailed out, rather than be allowed to fail. However, Conservatives argued that doing so does not solve any problem, but actually prolongs it by allowing a failed entity to continue to poison an already struggling economic system. The better plan, according to Republicans, would have been to allow the banks to fail, and for the more stable banks to fill the void. In other words, allow the Free Market system to adjust and heal the failing economy by allowing the failures to vanish, and the achievers to grow. By letting the strong survive, and allowing the failed entities to be removed from the equation, the economic downturn would be shorter, and the recovery would be stronger. . . without the danger of allowing the government to intrude into the private sector.
Iceland’s President Olafur R. Grimsson came to the same conclusion as conservatives in America. He felt his country would be better off if they allowed the failing banks to fail. As a result, Iceland is weathering the worldwide economic storm much better than expected, and significantly better than her European counterpart, Ireland, thanks to the government’s decision to allow the banks to fail two years ago, which prevented their currency from devaluing.
“The difference is that in Iceland we allowed the banks to fail,” Grimsson said in an interview with Bloomberg Television’s Mark Barton. “These were private banks and we didn’t pump money into them in order to keep them going; the state did not shoulder the responsibility of the failed private banks.”
Ireland pumped money into their banks, as did the United States, and Ireland is now requiring an 85 billion-euro ($112 billion) bailout from the European Union and International Monetary Fund as a result. The United States continues to fight a failing economy, high unemployment rates, a struggling stock market, and out of control government spending.
Ireland’s banks, though they still owe creditors about $85 billion, were split to create domestic units needed to keep the financial system running, while foreign liabilities remained within the failed lenders.
As a consequence, “Iceland is faring much better than anybody expected,” Grimsson said. “How far can we ask ordinary people -- farmers and fishermen and teachers and doctors and nurses -- to shoulder the responsibility of failed private banks? That question, which has been at the core of the Icesave issue, will now be the burning issue in many European countries.”
Iceland is relying on a $4.6 billion IMF-led loan to rebuild its economy. Grimsson has indicated the government may not need the entire amount.
Bondholders of European banks should be prepared to accept losses because voters are becoming increasingly unwilling and unable to fund bailouts.
Iceland has not joined the European Union, though talks are ongoing.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Iceland Is No Ireland as State Free of Bank Debt, Grimsson Says - Bloomberg
Failure of Liberalism/Socialism in Europe Reaches Critical Mass
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Liberalism, or socialism as it is called in Europe, is failing tremendously. Economies are collapsing all because of the big government policies of European nations that American Democrats are attempting to emulate. The unsustainable entitlement programs, the high taxes, and the crippling government spending has demolished the European economies, and one by one they are falling apart.
Greece was forced to establish austerity measures earlier this year to keep from facing complete collapse. With a bailout from other European nations, the skid into turmoil has been delayed, but not stopped.
Ireland faces a similar threat of economic collapse, and European finance officials are creating an Irish aid package they hope will assist Ireland, and prevent the collapse of that European Union member as well. However, as with Greece, the bailout will not save Ireland. The package will only delay the inevitable.
A similar debt crisis is on its way to Portugal, and possibly Spain.
Portugal and Spain have denied that a bailout has been offered to them as well, nor will they seek such assistance. Both countries have been taking action to pass measures to reduce spending, and hopefully rein in the nation's budget deficits, which in turn may also help calm the troubled markets.
Such moves have not been enough to create confidence among investors. The euro has fallen against the dollar to $1.3248.
The cost of bailing out Ireland, Portugal and Spain could exceed the lending power of European leaders, which includes the cost of a separate package of aid to keep Greece from defaulting last spring.
Germany has been especially nervous, and strictly opposes any increase to the existing package. "We have an instrument to deal with crisis in the euro zone and we are working intensively on Ireland," German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schäuble said in an interview Friday on German radio.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Europe Tries to Contain Debt Crisis - Wall Street Journal
Hostage Drama at Wisconsin High School
By Douglas V. Gibbs
North of Green Bay Wisconsin a hostage drama unfolded tonight. An armed student held 23 students and 1 teacher inside a classroom, later releasing five of the hostages. The police communicated with the teacher, and were assured that there were no injuries.
No motivations are known, but the suspect is known, and his parents were contacted.
The high school administrator contacted authorities after 3 p.m. to report an armed student had burst into a classroom.
More than five hours after the hostage situation began, all hostages were released.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Chief: 18 Students, Teacher Hostage At Wisconsin School - NBC KHQ 6
BREAKING NEWS UPDATE: All hostages released - NBC WEAU 13
North of Green Bay Wisconsin a hostage drama unfolded tonight. An armed student held 23 students and 1 teacher inside a classroom, later releasing five of the hostages. The police communicated with the teacher, and were assured that there were no injuries.
No motivations are known, but the suspect is known, and his parents were contacted.
The high school administrator contacted authorities after 3 p.m. to report an armed student had burst into a classroom.
More than five hours after the hostage situation began, all hostages were released.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Chief: 18 Students, Teacher Hostage At Wisconsin School - NBC KHQ 6
BREAKING NEWS UPDATE: All hostages released - NBC WEAU 13
Monday, November 29, 2010
Food Bill Senate Vote Tonight
By Douglas V. Gibbs
S. 510: FDA Food Safety Modernization Act Senate vote on cloture is tonight.
The "Food Bill" is masked as an attempt to make our food supply safer. But one must ask, "Where is there a safer food supply in the world?" Ours is already the safest.
The Food Bill is actually an attempt to insert government control into the food industry under the guise of protecting the food supply. What it will do in the long run is raise food prices, and diminish the supply by putting farmers out of business because of the extra costs involved.
History is clear. Whenever government asserts control over the food supply, people starve. Government intrusion leads to starvation. Just ask the North Koreans, Palestinians, or those that once lived under the iron fist of the Soviet Union and Cuba.
This bill is dangerous, and most of America opposes this insanity. . . not to mention that it is unconstitutional - Where in the Constitution does the federal government have the authority to regulate our food in the first place? The answer is, no where. Food regulation is not a federal authority, so if the federal government seizes the power over our food, it will be taking yet another step towards tyranny, and totalitarianism.
Added note: In the original bill there was also a provision to regulate backyard farming, but after an outcry they removed the provision - but don't be fooled, they will eventually work their way back to dictating to you what you can do in your own personal gardens down the road should this bill become law.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
S. 510: FDA Food Safety Modernization Act, Bill Summary and Status - POPVOX
S. 510: FDA Food Safety Modernization Act 111th Congress - GovTrack
S. 510: FDA Food Safety Modernization Act Senate vote on cloture is tonight.
The "Food Bill" is masked as an attempt to make our food supply safer. But one must ask, "Where is there a safer food supply in the world?" Ours is already the safest.
The Food Bill is actually an attempt to insert government control into the food industry under the guise of protecting the food supply. What it will do in the long run is raise food prices, and diminish the supply by putting farmers out of business because of the extra costs involved.
History is clear. Whenever government asserts control over the food supply, people starve. Government intrusion leads to starvation. Just ask the North Koreans, Palestinians, or those that once lived under the iron fist of the Soviet Union and Cuba.
This bill is dangerous, and most of America opposes this insanity. . . not to mention that it is unconstitutional - Where in the Constitution does the federal government have the authority to regulate our food in the first place? The answer is, no where. Food regulation is not a federal authority, so if the federal government seizes the power over our food, it will be taking yet another step towards tyranny, and totalitarianism.
Added note: In the original bill there was also a provision to regulate backyard farming, but after an outcry they removed the provision - but don't be fooled, they will eventually work their way back to dictating to you what you can do in your own personal gardens down the road should this bill become law.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
S. 510: FDA Food Safety Modernization Act, Bill Summary and Status - POPVOX
S. 510: FDA Food Safety Modernization Act 111th Congress - GovTrack
Muslim Infiltration into Christian Schools
by Douglas V. Gibbs
In France, Muslims have infiltrated the Christian schools, and are requiring them to act Muslim.
Muslim enrollment is increasing in Christian schools around the world, but especially in Europe. France, in 2008, banned the hijab in state-run classes, so Muslims are deciding to enroll in Catholic schools, which are not bound by the anti-hijab law and must accept students of all faiths to qualify for subsidies (hence the danger of allowing the government to subsidize private entities). As the Muslim population rises in these schools, the Muslims are demanding concessions, to the point of demanding that the Christian schools get rid of their Christian symbols and traditions.
In one school, a report describes how a school administrator set up a crib for Advent, but a Muslim parent demanded its removal, saying that "a Muslim cannot hear that Jesus is the Son of God."
At another school, when a school administrator offered Muslim students a temporary room for prayer so that they could come in from the rain, the Muslim students turned it into a permanent prayer room, even inviting other people who have nothing to do with the school, to pray with them. Since then the director has been unable to use the space for other activities.
Some Christian schools have encountered students refusing to swim during Ramadan due to fear of swallowing water.
At one Catholic School, the school's headmaster had to "put his foot down when students asked to remove the crucifix in a classroom they wanted for communal prayers during Ramadan."
Elsewhere in Europe, the trend is present. Two Amsterdam secondary schools with a Christian basis are being told they must close during [Eid al-Fitr] to accede to their Muslim pupils. A Dutch Catholic elementary school with a handful of Muslims was planning to serve halal food at a Christmas meal, but officials reversed course following parental outrage. In the UK, bishops have recommended that Catholic schools include prayer rooms and washing facilities for Muslims. The Times of London has also noted that at least one Muslim-heavy Church of England school "no longer observes the requirement to have an act of daily collective worship that is consistently and recognizably Christian, due to Muslim pressures.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
ISLAMIC SUPREMACISM IN CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS - Atlas Shrugs
Obama Eligibility Case Considered by Supreme Court
By Douglas V. Gibbs
When Obama's birth certificate became the talk in some circles, I considered the possibility that the birth certificate was not valid. I did not believe he was necessarily born in Kenya, but I found it curious that Barack Obama was doing all he could to seal records, and how his team was making sure that the long form version of his birth certificate from Hawaii was not being made available. And if Obama was truly born in Hawaii as he stated, I wondered what the big deal was about his birth certificate. If he was born in Hawaii, then why not show us the document? Was there something else he could be hiding? Did the line that reads "Father's Name" embarrass him or something?
Even though I did not necessarily fully accept the possibility that Barack Obama was not born in the United States, I did question his eligibility anyway. By Obama's own admission, his father was not an America citizen at the time of Barack's birth. Since the Founding Fathers, derived many of their legal definitions from Vattel's Law of Nations, and that document indicates that in order for a person to be a natural born citizen their parents must also be citizens at the time of the child's birth, it seemed reasonable to assume that based on Constitutional grounds, Barack Obama was not eligible to be the President of the United States because his father was not a citizen at the time of his birth.
All of the cases brought against Obama's eligibility for President of the United States has keyed in on the birth certificate. However, now there is a case the United States Supreme Court is considering taking that challenges Obama's eligibility based on the definition of "Natural Born Citizen," using his father's failure to be an American citizen as the disqualifying factor.
The case is Kerchner v. Obama, and the team bringing the lawsuit have shown standing, and that they have a valid argument regarding Obama's eligibility. If after conferring on the case, the Supreme Court determines that the merits of the case should be heard, it will make this case truly unprecedented. If the Supreme Court decides to grant the "writ of certiorari," the case may be directed to a federal trial court in New Jersey to hear the merits of the case, or the United States Supreme Court may choose to hear the merits itself. The court's decision on the writ could be announced as early as Wednesday.
One of the lawyers bringing the case said it is "undisputed fact" that Obama's father was a British subject. The Law of Nations is clear that both parents must be American citizens at the time of birth for the person to be a natural born citizen. But even more important is that if the Supreme Court decides there should be a hearing on the merits of the case, it will mean that in discovery all of Obama's records must be made available, including his long form birth certificate. If, as birthers expect, it is proven that Obama was not born in the United States, it would show that he is not only not a natural-born citizen, but also that Barack is an undocumented alien that has never been naturalized, nor given even resident status. Therefore, not only would his presidency be invalid, but he would also need to be deported (if not imprisoned for being criminally fraudulent first).
Another attorney who has brought Obama eligibility cases to the Supreme Court, Philip Berg, agrees that discovery would sink Obama's presidency.
"The Supreme Court has never decided to hear the merits of an eligibility case," Berg added. "If the Supreme Court would decide to hear a case, Obama would be out of office instantly. If Congress decided to hear a case, Obama would be out of office."
The "Vattel theory," which asserts that the term "natural born citizen" as used in the Constitution was defined by French writer Emer de Vattel in his work, "The Law of Nations," was widely known and respected by the founding fathers, and the definition in that work defines the term 'natural born citizen' to mean an individual born of two citizens. This is important because it guards against the possibility of divided loyalties, and as Commander in Chief, a President's loyalty must be solely with the United States of America.
-- Political Pistachio conservative News and Commentary
U.S. Supreme Court confers on Obama eligibility - World Net Daily
When Obama's birth certificate became the talk in some circles, I considered the possibility that the birth certificate was not valid. I did not believe he was necessarily born in Kenya, but I found it curious that Barack Obama was doing all he could to seal records, and how his team was making sure that the long form version of his birth certificate from Hawaii was not being made available. And if Obama was truly born in Hawaii as he stated, I wondered what the big deal was about his birth certificate. If he was born in Hawaii, then why not show us the document? Was there something else he could be hiding? Did the line that reads "Father's Name" embarrass him or something?
Even though I did not necessarily fully accept the possibility that Barack Obama was not born in the United States, I did question his eligibility anyway. By Obama's own admission, his father was not an America citizen at the time of Barack's birth. Since the Founding Fathers, derived many of their legal definitions from Vattel's Law of Nations, and that document indicates that in order for a person to be a natural born citizen their parents must also be citizens at the time of the child's birth, it seemed reasonable to assume that based on Constitutional grounds, Barack Obama was not eligible to be the President of the United States because his father was not a citizen at the time of his birth.
All of the cases brought against Obama's eligibility for President of the United States has keyed in on the birth certificate. However, now there is a case the United States Supreme Court is considering taking that challenges Obama's eligibility based on the definition of "Natural Born Citizen," using his father's failure to be an American citizen as the disqualifying factor.
The case is Kerchner v. Obama, and the team bringing the lawsuit have shown standing, and that they have a valid argument regarding Obama's eligibility. If after conferring on the case, the Supreme Court determines that the merits of the case should be heard, it will make this case truly unprecedented. If the Supreme Court decides to grant the "writ of certiorari," the case may be directed to a federal trial court in New Jersey to hear the merits of the case, or the United States Supreme Court may choose to hear the merits itself. The court's decision on the writ could be announced as early as Wednesday.
One of the lawyers bringing the case said it is "undisputed fact" that Obama's father was a British subject. The Law of Nations is clear that both parents must be American citizens at the time of birth for the person to be a natural born citizen. But even more important is that if the Supreme Court decides there should be a hearing on the merits of the case, it will mean that in discovery all of Obama's records must be made available, including his long form birth certificate. If, as birthers expect, it is proven that Obama was not born in the United States, it would show that he is not only not a natural-born citizen, but also that Barack is an undocumented alien that has never been naturalized, nor given even resident status. Therefore, not only would his presidency be invalid, but he would also need to be deported (if not imprisoned for being criminally fraudulent first).
Another attorney who has brought Obama eligibility cases to the Supreme Court, Philip Berg, agrees that discovery would sink Obama's presidency.
"The Supreme Court has never decided to hear the merits of an eligibility case," Berg added. "If the Supreme Court would decide to hear a case, Obama would be out of office instantly. If Congress decided to hear a case, Obama would be out of office."
The "Vattel theory," which asserts that the term "natural born citizen" as used in the Constitution was defined by French writer Emer de Vattel in his work, "The Law of Nations," was widely known and respected by the founding fathers, and the definition in that work defines the term 'natural born citizen' to mean an individual born of two citizens. This is important because it guards against the possibility of divided loyalties, and as Commander in Chief, a President's loyalty must be solely with the United States of America.
-- Political Pistachio conservative News and Commentary
U.S. Supreme Court confers on Obama eligibility - World Net Daily
Pro-Gay Marriage Judges Voted Out in Iowa
By Douglas V. Gibbs
The judicial oligarchy that claims to be the rule of law is being dismantled piece by piece by the American People. The uproar in California over the court's attempts to overturn Proposition 8, a state constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and woman, is reaching a crescendo. In Iowa, however, the people took their anger a step farther, and kicked out three judges who overturned the state's ban on gay marriage.
Three State Supreme Court justices have been voted out because of their 2009 decision overturning the ban on gay marriage because 54 percent of voters said no to their retention at the ballot box. In Iowa, this is the first time since 1962 that any justices have been rebuffed like this.
The message being sent around the country is that the unchecked power exhibited by the courts, powers that are both unconstitutional, and against the will of the people, will not be tolerated by the voters. Republican Congressman Steve King said of the vote, "Iowans voted to correct a problem with out-of-control judges. We understand that marriage is between a man and a woman, that debate already took place in 1998 in Iowa. This debate was about reinforcing the authority of the people and about asserting that we would rather have constitutional and lawful decisions by judges, and that ignoring the law and ignoring the constitution and bending it to their will in such a way as they did, that Iowans can understand the constitution and the rule of law a lot better than the lawyers think they can, and they can understand the law a lot better than some of the judges."
The judges, by legislating from the bench, therefore acting outside their constitutional authorities, brought this upon themselves. The people spoke, and the true rule of law (Constitution) prevailed.
This is why federal judges, who are appointed rather than voted in, can be dangerous. By being checked by the ballot box, it ensures that judges base their decisions on the law and the Constitution. If they do not, they can be removed with ease on election day.
Judges are only supposed to apply the law, not determine the constitutionality of the law. Judicial review is a power that has been seized by the courts without voter approval, and such a seizure of power is just another example of how tyrannical our judicial system has truly become.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Iowa Voters Kick Out 3 Judges Who Overturned State Ban on Same-Sex Marriage - CNS News
The judicial oligarchy that claims to be the rule of law is being dismantled piece by piece by the American People. The uproar in California over the court's attempts to overturn Proposition 8, a state constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and woman, is reaching a crescendo. In Iowa, however, the people took their anger a step farther, and kicked out three judges who overturned the state's ban on gay marriage.
Three State Supreme Court justices have been voted out because of their 2009 decision overturning the ban on gay marriage because 54 percent of voters said no to their retention at the ballot box. In Iowa, this is the first time since 1962 that any justices have been rebuffed like this.
The message being sent around the country is that the unchecked power exhibited by the courts, powers that are both unconstitutional, and against the will of the people, will not be tolerated by the voters. Republican Congressman Steve King said of the vote, "Iowans voted to correct a problem with out-of-control judges. We understand that marriage is between a man and a woman, that debate already took place in 1998 in Iowa. This debate was about reinforcing the authority of the people and about asserting that we would rather have constitutional and lawful decisions by judges, and that ignoring the law and ignoring the constitution and bending it to their will in such a way as they did, that Iowans can understand the constitution and the rule of law a lot better than the lawyers think they can, and they can understand the law a lot better than some of the judges."
The judges, by legislating from the bench, therefore acting outside their constitutional authorities, brought this upon themselves. The people spoke, and the true rule of law (Constitution) prevailed.
This is why federal judges, who are appointed rather than voted in, can be dangerous. By being checked by the ballot box, it ensures that judges base their decisions on the law and the Constitution. If they do not, they can be removed with ease on election day.
Judges are only supposed to apply the law, not determine the constitutionality of the law. Judicial review is a power that has been seized by the courts without voter approval, and such a seizure of power is just another example of how tyrannical our judicial system has truly become.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Iowa Voters Kick Out 3 Judges Who Overturned State Ban on Same-Sex Marriage - CNS News
North Korea Deploys Surface To Air Missiles to its West Coast
By Douglas V. Gibbs
North Korea has deployed SA-2 surface-to-air missiles near their Yellow Sea border with South Korea. This move happens as naval drills, led by the United States, have commenced in the region. The positioning of the missiles make it look as if they are targeting American fighter jets as they fly near the Northern Limit Line (NLL).
This deployment by North Korea follows an attack by North Korea on Yeonpyeong Island, a South Korean island, where four people were killed and 18 others wounded.
The Soviet-designed SA-2 missile that North Korea has deployed have a range of between 13 and 30 kilometers. These missiles join other missiles deployed on North Korea's west coast. The already existing missiles, Samlet and Silkworm, whose ranges are up to 95km, have also been put onto launch pads. The implication is that North Korea is preparing for a strike.
South Korea, and neighbors like Japan, have prepared for the possibility of further provocations by the North Korean military.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
N. Korea deploys SA-2 surface-to-air missiles near Yellow Sea border - Yonhap News Agency
North Korea has deployed SA-2 surface-to-air missiles near their Yellow Sea border with South Korea. This move happens as naval drills, led by the United States, have commenced in the region. The positioning of the missiles make it look as if they are targeting American fighter jets as they fly near the Northern Limit Line (NLL).
This deployment by North Korea follows an attack by North Korea on Yeonpyeong Island, a South Korean island, where four people were killed and 18 others wounded.
The Soviet-designed SA-2 missile that North Korea has deployed have a range of between 13 and 30 kilometers. These missiles join other missiles deployed on North Korea's west coast. The already existing missiles, Samlet and Silkworm, whose ranges are up to 95km, have also been put onto launch pads. The implication is that North Korea is preparing for a strike.
South Korea, and neighbors like Japan, have prepared for the possibility of further provocations by the North Korean military.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
N. Korea deploys SA-2 surface-to-air missiles near Yellow Sea border - Yonhap News Agency
Freedom Once Lost
"A Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever." --John Adams
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Sunday, November 28, 2010
Leslie Nielson has died, age 84
Comedy Legend Leslie Nielsen Dead at 84 by Hollywoodland
Very sad news:
Canadian actor Leslie Nielsen, who most famously achieved global success in comedy movies such as “Airplane!” and “The Naked Gun,” has died aged 84. . .
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Very sad news:
Canadian actor Leslie Nielsen, who most famously achieved global success in comedy movies such as “Airplane!” and “The Naked Gun,” has died aged 84. . .
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Understanding Article V. Conventions, and the U.S. Constitution
By Douglas V. Gibbs
The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, but in today's society we are seeing the rise of human deviance from the rule of law.
Constitutional scholars will tell you that the rule of law is case law, a complex web of legal cases that present precedent and constitutional interpretation. I do not necessarily always trust people who have come to that conclusion because they often assume that case law is a part of the web of understanding when it comes to the U.S. Constitution. Folks that adhere to the belief that case law is a part of Constitutional Law support the ideas of implied powers, implied law, and Judicial Review - all of which are not in line with the original intentions of the U.S. Constitution, and the framers of that document.
Judicial Review is especially a sticky matter. In 1803, John Marshall, the Chief Justice of the United States at the time, in his opinion regarding Marbury v. Madison, seized the power of Judicial Review by writing in his opinion that the courts had the final say on the constitutionality of law. Considering that the U.S. Constitution is filled with limitations on the federal government, one must realize that it would not be in the Founding Father's original plans for the federal government, through the courts, to decide for itself what its own authorities are. Judicial Review does just that. The Judicial Branch is only supposed to apply the law, regardless of its opinion of the law. If the law is unconstitutional, it is not the Judiciary's job to strike down the law, it is the people's duty to vote out the people making unconstitutional law, and for the new statesmen to enact laws that are constitutional, and to repeal any unconstitutional law when necessary.
This reasoning goes entirely against what is being taught in the colleges, and often puts me at odds with "Constitutional scholars." Such is the danger of an educational system that has been infiltrated by progressives that do not care about the rule of law, but about increasing the powers of the federal government through a process of compromising the original intentions, and therefore the validity, of the U.S. Constitution.
As a person who has spent 30 years with my nose dug deep into the writings of our Founders, though I am still pursuing a degree, I have written a great number of articles on the Constitution, and I derive all of my knowledge from studying the writings of the people that were there, not the interpretations by a bunch of legal scholars who have disregarded history, and bases their opinions on what best supports their own personal agenda.
My good friend, Dr. Bill Smith, recently wrote an article explaining his fear of a new Constitutional Convention being called. He believes that the call for a new convention comes from groups that would like to change the Constitution into something that would completely change our form of govenernment into something tyrannical, and hardly what the Founding Fathers intended.
I agree that there are groups out there who believe that a Constitutional Convention can change the Constitution, and therefore completely shake the foundations of our governmental system. But understand that the majority of the people pushing for these Article V. Conventions are not necessarily liberals wishing to change the Constitution outside the bounds of the law. I believe that those who believe, or are willing to believe if they understood it, the purist view of the amendment process outnumber those working to attack the Constitution and change it. Therefore, I do not fear an Article V. Convention. I believe the wisdom of the Founding Fathers, and the required vote of 3/4 of the States to ratify any amendments, would prevail.
The fact that people tend to only be concerned with their own needs, and can be fooled easily, is exactly the reason the Founding Fathers chose this to be a republic, rather than a Democracy entirely controlled by the vote of the people. In their wisdom, they did not place too much power in any one place, including the power to change the Constitution. All of the changes in the world can be proposed, but it still takes 3/4 of the State legislatures to approve such proposals before they can become a part of the law of the land.
The call for an Article V. Convention is nothing new. All 50 states have called for it, many of those calls beginning longer than over a 100 years ago. The convention has never taken place because the Congress will not set a time and place, for fear of the people proposing amendments, and the States ratifying them, that would limit the powers of the federal government. Centralized systems do not like it when the individual mind gets involved.
Understand, the deception that many fear may surface if an Article V. Convention convenes, is nothing new. Alexander Hamilton was thrilled about the original Constitutional Convention because he desired a more centralized government, and figured it could be achieved in 1787 during the original Constitutional Convention. However, the minds that believed in limiting the authorities of the federal government prevailed, and so Hamilton and his allies had to find another way to give the government more power. John Marshall was a student of Hamilton's, and that is one of the reasons the push for a more centralized government moved from a political means to a means through the judiciary. Our greatest danger, I believe, is not a bunch of citizens getting together at a Constitutional Convention to try to change the Constitution, but through a judiciary that is working to eventually rule that the Constitution is not legally valid.
Of course there was never supposed to be a Constitutional Convention in the first place. I understand that the original intention was to fix the Articles of Confederation. A year before at the Annapolis Convention they had come to this conclusion because of the inability of the federal government to properly deal with Shays' Rebellion. And yes, Madison and Hamilton were intent on writing a new Constitution, based on framework already worked out by Madison, regardless of the original intention of fixing the Articles of Confederation as everyone else intended. However, Madison and Hamilton had very different reasons for the desire of a new Constitution. Madison wanted one that better enabled the federal government to promote, protect and preserve the union, while remaining limited in its authorities, and Hamilton wished for a new American empire to arise from the proceedings, equipped with an American King, and a military that was at the government's disposal for any and all reasons the government so desired.
The original push for fixing the Articles of Confederation, or writing a new Constitution, was not a popular one. That is the reason most states did not send delegates to the Annapolis Convention in 1786. The states feared losing their state sovereignty. The Anti-Federalists feared that with an update the governmental system could become like the one they fought against in the Revolutionary War. The key had to be to create a federal government with enough powers to preserve the union, while limiting it enough to protect State sovereignty. Most people, for fear of change, did not believe it to be possible. But those fears, had the Constitution never been written, would have allowed America to fall back under British Control in 1812. The greatest miracle in history, some may say, is the fact that the United States remained united, and a large part of that miracle is the U.S. Constitution.
Shays' Rebellion was the kick in the butt they needed to realize the Articles of Confederation was completely inadequate. And yes, the general public was not told that the intent of the proposed meetings were to replace the current form of government with a new form of government. Rhode Island did not attend the Constitional Convention in 1787, and the New York delegation, save for Hamilton, walked out. The Federalist Papers were written afterward specifically to convince New York to ratify the new constitution. These State's objections to the new U.S. Constitution were simply because they feared losing State Sovereignty. However, without the new federal government, the union could not last. Without it, our nation was doomed. Fortunately, the attendees of the Constitutional Convention were able to convince the required number of states that though the new government would have more powers than the old one, the authorities of the new government were still limited enough to protect state sovereignty.
Deception, of course, is abound. But the way to battle deception is not to hide in the closet, and refuse to allow an Article V. Convention. I do have faith that we are on the precipice of a new great awakening. Like in 1787, it will not be strongly supported at first. But conservatives are still the majority, and those that believe in divine providence are still in the majority. I do believe in America that God does reign in the majority of people's hearts, just not in the majority of the younger generation's hearts, which is why if an Article V. Convention is to be had, it needs to be now.
The leftist enemy is not stupid. This is why liberalism deceives through creeping incrementalism. I do not believe they are so bold as to simply write a new constitution at a Constitutional Convention, for they know a revolution would erupt as a result. Their goal is not to replace the Constitution, anyway, but to render it invalid - and they are working to do so through the judiciary.
Madison originally intended for states to determine amendments, but to ensure more states would ratify the Constitution, the Founders added near the end of the Constitutional Convention for the Congress to be able to propose amendments to the Constitution as well - being very careful to make sure that the States remained in the loop, ensuring that no matter who proposed the amendment, the states still needed to ratify such an amendment with a 3/4 vote. And, they only included the Bill of Rights for ratification to ease the fears of states like Rhode Island, to assure them that their rights were not at risk with the creation of this new government.
Things were messy then, and I agree they are more messy now, but let's understand the liberal left's position on the Constitution. They do not believe, as many people have stated to me, that the Constitution is a living document and must be adjusted to reflect the present times and events. They believe the Constitution is a living document and that it must be interpreted to reflect the present times and events. They don't want to replace it, they wish to invalidate it, or at least invalidate the original intention. They need to only do that through judicial review.
Deception and deceit does not bother with things as trivial as replacing something. They simply ignore it, treat it as if it does not exist, or invalidate it through judicial means. Our only weapon to combat that is to give power back to the States, and protect state sovereignty, and I believe one of the tools to do so is an Article V. Convention. I believe that in addition to nullification, and the ballot box, an Article V. Convention is one of the necessary tools in taking back our nation.
The present Constitution cannot remain unchanged, but the process of changing it is not an easy one so that it isn't changed willy-nilly. The law is the law, and amendments must be ratified by 3/4 of the states. This is why you see a federal government doing as they please, regardless of the Constitution, and refusing to propose amendments. They wish to keep the States out of the picture, make the State legislatures irrelevant. They won't try to change the Constitution through a convention because that alerts the states to be involved, and that is the last thing they want. They plan to do it as they are now, through ignoring the law, and invalidating the original intent of the U.S. Constitution through the judiciary whenever possible.
Somewhere, among the disagreements and bickerings, the truth finds a way to the surface. That is what happened in 1787, and that is what will hopefully happen now.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Basic Constitution Study, Including Articles V and VI, tonight on the Political Pistachio Radio Revolution
Upcoming Show: 11/28/2010 7:00 PM Pacific Time
Political Pistachio Radio Revolution, Host Name: Douglas V. Gibbs
Show Description: U.S. Constitution Study - Articles V, VI, and more - Political Pistachio Radio Revolution
As the argument about con-cons, the supremacy clause, and other parts of the Constitution are misrepresented, tonight on the Political Pistachio Radio Revolution we will clear up some of the confusion, and set the record straight. Conservative News and Commentary.
Join us live at 7:00 pm Pacific, or catch the archive later, at BlogTalkRadio.com/PoliticalPistachio
Pakistan Muslims Threaten Anarchy If Christian Pardoned
By Douglas V. Gibbs
The Christian mother was sentenced to death for blasphemy. Minority affairs minister Shahbaz Bhatti has presented a clemency plea to the government on the grounds that the case against Bibi was based only on personal enmity. In addition to Bhatti's plea for a pardon, Pope Benedict XVI has also called for Bibi's release and said Christians in Pakistan were "often victims of violence and discrimination". Most of those convicted of blasphemy in Pakistan have their sentences overturned or commuted on appeal through the courts. The non-Muslim population in Pakistan is only around 3%, and this is the first time a woman has been sentenced to be executed for blasphemy.
Aasia Bibi, a mother of five children, was arrested in June 2009 after Muslim women laborers refused to drink from a bowl of water she was asked to fetch while out working in the fields. Days later, the women complained that she made derogatory remarks about the Prophet Mohammed. Bibi was set upon by a mob, arrested by police and sentenced on November 8.
The very possibility of Bibi being pardoned has brought hundreds of Pakistani Muslims to the streets, threatening anarchy if the government pardons the woman. The crowd called for "Jihad" and pledged to sacrifice their lives to protect the honor of the Prophet Mohammad.
The fear by many government officials is that a pardon would indeed lead to anarchy, leading the government to lean in the direction of following the demands of the mob whose members are angry over a mere verbal accusation. However, doing so also gives more voice and power to the Taliban militants the government has been fighting with government troops in parts of northwest Pakistan.
Pakistan has yet to execute anyone for blasphemy, but the demands by the Muslim public exposes the mood of the population in regards to the Islamic Jihad, and to meet such demands would encourage Islamism to take on more radical activities in a nation already wracked by Taliban attacks.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Pakistan Muslims warn of anarchy over Christian - AFP
The Christian mother was sentenced to death for blasphemy. Minority affairs minister Shahbaz Bhatti has presented a clemency plea to the government on the grounds that the case against Bibi was based only on personal enmity. In addition to Bhatti's plea for a pardon, Pope Benedict XVI has also called for Bibi's release and said Christians in Pakistan were "often victims of violence and discrimination". Most of those convicted of blasphemy in Pakistan have their sentences overturned or commuted on appeal through the courts. The non-Muslim population in Pakistan is only around 3%, and this is the first time a woman has been sentenced to be executed for blasphemy.
Aasia Bibi, a mother of five children, was arrested in June 2009 after Muslim women laborers refused to drink from a bowl of water she was asked to fetch while out working in the fields. Days later, the women complained that she made derogatory remarks about the Prophet Mohammed. Bibi was set upon by a mob, arrested by police and sentenced on November 8.
The very possibility of Bibi being pardoned has brought hundreds of Pakistani Muslims to the streets, threatening anarchy if the government pardons the woman. The crowd called for "Jihad" and pledged to sacrifice their lives to protect the honor of the Prophet Mohammad.
The fear by many government officials is that a pardon would indeed lead to anarchy, leading the government to lean in the direction of following the demands of the mob whose members are angry over a mere verbal accusation. However, doing so also gives more voice and power to the Taliban militants the government has been fighting with government troops in parts of northwest Pakistan.
Pakistan has yet to execute anyone for blasphemy, but the demands by the Muslim public exposes the mood of the population in regards to the Islamic Jihad, and to meet such demands would encourage Islamism to take on more radical activities in a nation already wracked by Taliban attacks.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Pakistan Muslims warn of anarchy over Christian - AFP
Jesus Was No Socialist
By Douglas V. Gibbs
A Political Pistachio reader, occasionally, leaves me a comment alluding to his belief that "Jesus was a socialist." Such madness is always pushed by people who don't read the Bible, and have no idea who Jesus Christ truly was. Yet, somehow they believe themselves to be experts on the attributes of Christ.
Ultra-liberal television commentator Ed Schultz, during the approach to the vote for the Democrat's health care legislation, said, "Socializing healthcare is a moral obligation. . . Christian ministers should be leading their congregations to support this president on healthcare reform."
Never mind the fact that liberals constantly claim that we aren't allowed to "legislate morality," and that ministers must avoid politics in the pulpit lest they violate the progressive's unsubstantiated idea of the separation of church and state.
My favorite is when Obama says, "Aren't we supposed to be our brother's keeper?" Talk about having no clue about what the scripture says, or the context of biblical text.
Rather than putting words into Jesus' mouth, or jumping to conclusions that He would embrace socialism, would it not be better to study the scripture for what it really says?
Having a relationship with Christ is a voluntary decision that one makes based on his or her own free will. The ministry of Jesus Christ undeniably focused on individuality, personal responsibility, and self-reliance, not what a civil government ought to do for the people the governmental body deems to be a bunch of failures.
Ed Schultz was right when he said that Jesus fed the hungry, clothed the poor, and healed the sick. He didn't ask for an insurance card, and He didn't ask for the government to pay for his services. Jesus Christ did what He did based on His own individual decision. He performed those acts to model personal compassion for us, to show us what we should do as individuals, through our own personal decisions and voluntary choices. Jesus never took payment, and He commanded us to be generous, giving, and compassionate - but He wanted us to do these things in a charitable manner based on our own voluntary choice. If the government confiscates our money through taxes, and then applies our money to programs of their choosing against our will, it is not an example of being charitable.
The difference between Jesus and the Democrats is the same as the difference between individualism and socialism: personal choice, or the loss thereof.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Obama: Christian by Choice. . . Yeah, by Political Choice - Political Pistachio
GOP Plans to Take Down Obama's Czars
By Douglas V. Gibbs
"Czars" in the Executive Branch are unconstitutional. Every President that has used them has acted in a manner against the Constitution. Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution reads: “He (the President) shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consults, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein provided for, and which shall be established by law; but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.”
As with the rest of Article II, there are not many things the Executive Branch can do without the consent of the Senate, or Congress as a whole. And then, even actions the President can pursue without their consent, are subject to approval by the Congress in other ways - such as the ability to "wage war." Though the Commander in Chief can wage war without a declaration, Congress can stop such a waging of war by defunding it (a power the Democrats had available to them during the Iraq War, but they never decided to use that ability, which leaves me questioning their rhetoric against the war - they could have stopped it any time they wanted, but they preferred to just complain about it, without taking any action).
The Constitution is very specific about appointments to the Executive Branch. Appointments to the President's Cabinet, and other positions, must be vetted and approved for their positions by the Senate. The Czars are appointed without consent of the Senate, and without any oversight by the Congress. The Czars have significant authority, and therefore are subject to a vote of the U.S. Senate.
Obama’s Czars not only have significant authority, but their influence varies greatly based on Obama's decisions in regards to their responsibilities, which allows these officers to function in the dark, and at the President's pleasure only.
The Czars under the Obama administration have seemingly unlimited powers, and their powers go unchecked by any other part of government. Allowing this kind of power to be seized by one of the branches of the federal government is dangerous not only to our freedoms, but to the stability of our republic as a whole.
What Obama is doing with the appointment of so many Czars is a systematic destruction of the American Form of Government, making the Democrat's actions, in a very literal sense, anti-American. Of course, during Obama's presidential campaign, he did say he planned to fundamentally change America, and by creating a shadow government through the Executive Branch filled with people having undefined powers, he is literally making the Congress, and the authorities of the States, irrelevant.
By not being approved by the Senate, as provided by the U.S. Constitution, the people occupying the positions called "czars" do not exist under the Constitutional bounds of checks and balances. There are no checks regarding these people. If there is any oversight whatsoever, it is coming from the Oval Office, giving the President of the United States unprecedented power, much like one would expect of a king or a totalitarian dictator, without any constraint coming from the People, the States, or the U.S. Congress.
These nearly three dozen "czars" represent a direct threat to the authority of the Congress, and are in position to be used without any outside control if a crisis were to arise, giving the President complete control regardless of the rule of law.
Many of the Republicans have recognized Obama's use of his czars in a manner that circumvents the Congress' authorities. The White House has been using the czars to enforce regulatory powers by the Executive Branch not allowed by the Constitution, and the GOP is poised to call Obama on his unconstitutional actions. The czars, being appointed without Senate confirmation or congressional oversight, must be eliminated.
The Republicans will be in control of the House of Representatives in January, and are poised to gain the same kind of control in the Senate in 2012. With the GOP in control of the House, they plan to go after the funding of the czars. After all, according to the Constitution, funding begins at the House of Representatives. With no money to pay the czars, their positions should be coming to an end.
There have been no relevant congressional oversight committees that have exercised any oversight over the czars and other administration regulatory efforts during the last two years, but the Republicans plan to change that immediately.
Republican Congressman Fred Upton out of Michigan says, "The presidents’ czars need to justify why they were appointed and why they continue to have jobs that frequently overlap work done by previously existing government officials. . . we have a duty to oversee all of the federal spending in each of our committees’ jurisdictions. We have a $1.5 trillion deficit this year and last year, and one of our policy goals will be that we have a lower deficit and less spending a year from now."
"Czars" in the Executive Branch are unconstitutional. Every President that has used them has acted in a manner against the Constitution. Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution reads: “He (the President) shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consults, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein provided for, and which shall be established by law; but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.”
As with the rest of Article II, there are not many things the Executive Branch can do without the consent of the Senate, or Congress as a whole. And then, even actions the President can pursue without their consent, are subject to approval by the Congress in other ways - such as the ability to "wage war." Though the Commander in Chief can wage war without a declaration, Congress can stop such a waging of war by defunding it (a power the Democrats had available to them during the Iraq War, but they never decided to use that ability, which leaves me questioning their rhetoric against the war - they could have stopped it any time they wanted, but they preferred to just complain about it, without taking any action).
The Constitution is very specific about appointments to the Executive Branch. Appointments to the President's Cabinet, and other positions, must be vetted and approved for their positions by the Senate. The Czars are appointed without consent of the Senate, and without any oversight by the Congress. The Czars have significant authority, and therefore are subject to a vote of the U.S. Senate.
Obama’s Czars not only have significant authority, but their influence varies greatly based on Obama's decisions in regards to their responsibilities, which allows these officers to function in the dark, and at the President's pleasure only.
The Czars under the Obama administration have seemingly unlimited powers, and their powers go unchecked by any other part of government. Allowing this kind of power to be seized by one of the branches of the federal government is dangerous not only to our freedoms, but to the stability of our republic as a whole.
What Obama is doing with the appointment of so many Czars is a systematic destruction of the American Form of Government, making the Democrat's actions, in a very literal sense, anti-American. Of course, during Obama's presidential campaign, he did say he planned to fundamentally change America, and by creating a shadow government through the Executive Branch filled with people having undefined powers, he is literally making the Congress, and the authorities of the States, irrelevant.
By not being approved by the Senate, as provided by the U.S. Constitution, the people occupying the positions called "czars" do not exist under the Constitutional bounds of checks and balances. There are no checks regarding these people. If there is any oversight whatsoever, it is coming from the Oval Office, giving the President of the United States unprecedented power, much like one would expect of a king or a totalitarian dictator, without any constraint coming from the People, the States, or the U.S. Congress.
These nearly three dozen "czars" represent a direct threat to the authority of the Congress, and are in position to be used without any outside control if a crisis were to arise, giving the President complete control regardless of the rule of law.
Many of the Republicans have recognized Obama's use of his czars in a manner that circumvents the Congress' authorities. The White House has been using the czars to enforce regulatory powers by the Executive Branch not allowed by the Constitution, and the GOP is poised to call Obama on his unconstitutional actions. The czars, being appointed without Senate confirmation or congressional oversight, must be eliminated.
The Republicans will be in control of the House of Representatives in January, and are poised to gain the same kind of control in the Senate in 2012. With the GOP in control of the House, they plan to go after the funding of the czars. After all, according to the Constitution, funding begins at the House of Representatives. With no money to pay the czars, their positions should be coming to an end.
There have been no relevant congressional oversight committees that have exercised any oversight over the czars and other administration regulatory efforts during the last two years, but the Republicans plan to change that immediately.
Republican Congressman Fred Upton out of Michigan says, "The presidents’ czars need to justify why they were appointed and why they continue to have jobs that frequently overlap work done by previously existing government officials. . . we have a duty to oversee all of the federal spending in each of our committees’ jurisdictions. We have a $1.5 trillion deficit this year and last year, and one of our policy goals will be that we have a lower deficit and less spending a year from now."
Eliminating the czars will be one of the major first steps in getting the out-of-control spending in Washington under control.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Republicans plan January takedowns of Obama's 'czars' - The Daily Caller
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Republicans plan January takedowns of Obama's 'czars' - The Daily Caller
Portland, Oregon: Christmas Tree Lighting Ceremony Almost Scene of Bomb Attack
By Douglas V. Gibbs
The Islamic Jihad is alive and well in the United States of America. In Portland, Oregon, a Somali-born 19 year old has plotted an act of terrorism for months, willing to kill children if he felt necessary. His plot was planned to come to fruition during a crowded Christmas tree lighting ceremony where he could be the orchestrator of the death of many people in a "spectacular" manner.
The plot failed.
Mohamed Osman Mohamud was arrested in downtown Portland after trying to use his cell phone to detonate a bomb in a van that turned out to be a dummy bomb put together by FBI agents.
The young Somali believed he was receiving help from a larger ring of jihadists as he communicated with undercover federal agents. Government officials have indicated that Mohamud was very committed to the plot and planned the details alone, including where to park the van to hurt the most people.
"I want whoever is attending that event to leave, to leave dead or injured." Mohamud said, according to an affidavit.
Moments before the Somali's arrest, the lighting ceremony commenced. Babies sat on shoulders, and children cheered at the first appearance of Santa Claus onstage. Had Mahamud's threat been real, and the explosives had been real, the terrorist attack by a Muslim in America would have killed many people - families, children, all gathered to celebrate the beginning of the Christmas season, a holiday that celebrates the birth of Jesus Christ, and His message of good will toward men.
But the fear now exists. The terrorists have once again reminded us that they are here. And once again, the planner was a Muslim.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Oregon bomb-plot suspect wanted 'spectacular show' - Associated Press/Yahoo News
The Islamic Jihad is alive and well in the United States of America. In Portland, Oregon, a Somali-born 19 year old has plotted an act of terrorism for months, willing to kill children if he felt necessary. His plot was planned to come to fruition during a crowded Christmas tree lighting ceremony where he could be the orchestrator of the death of many people in a "spectacular" manner.
The plot failed.
Mohamed Osman Mohamud was arrested in downtown Portland after trying to use his cell phone to detonate a bomb in a van that turned out to be a dummy bomb put together by FBI agents.
The young Somali believed he was receiving help from a larger ring of jihadists as he communicated with undercover federal agents. Government officials have indicated that Mohamud was very committed to the plot and planned the details alone, including where to park the van to hurt the most people.
"I want whoever is attending that event to leave, to leave dead or injured." Mohamud said, according to an affidavit.
Moments before the Somali's arrest, the lighting ceremony commenced. Babies sat on shoulders, and children cheered at the first appearance of Santa Claus onstage. Had Mahamud's threat been real, and the explosives had been real, the terrorist attack by a Muslim in America would have killed many people - families, children, all gathered to celebrate the beginning of the Christmas season, a holiday that celebrates the birth of Jesus Christ, and His message of good will toward men.
But the fear now exists. The terrorists have once again reminded us that they are here. And once again, the planner was a Muslim.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Oregon bomb-plot suspect wanted 'spectacular show' - Associated Press/Yahoo News
Saturday, November 27, 2010
Constitutional Convention, Article V. Convention - Fears Belayed
My good friend, Dr. Bill Smith of the Arkansas Republican Assembly, wrote a piece about the dangers of the States calling for a Constitutional Convention. In my opinion, his feelings on the subject are in error. The following is my letter back to him to explain my position on the subject of an Article V. Convention.
Dr. Bill,
Your article is in error. There has only been one Constitutional Convention, and as per the authorities granted by the U.S. Constitution, that will be the only Constitutional Convention in America's history. What the States are calling for is an Article V Convention. As you explained, the delegates would be given the opportunity to propose amendments, but that is all.
The Constitution cannot be rewritten. As Article V. states, only amendments may be proposed, and then those amendments still have to be ratified by 3/4 of the States. The Constitution cannot be changed without the authority of 3/4 of the States, and changes may only be made through the process of amendments, be it by proposals by the Congress, or by the States at an Article V. Convention. Also note that the only influence the federal government would have on these proceedings, should the call for an Article V. Convention be taken seriously, would be choosing the time and place of the convention. The Congress has no other authorities regarding this in regards to a convention called by the States. However, the U.S. Congress won't call a place and time because, as you may guess, they do not wish to give the States that kind of power.
Also, note that as indicated by Madison's Notes on the U.S. Constitution, originally the States, through a chosen delegation, were going to originally be the only source of amendments, and it wasn't until the second to last day of the convention that they added as an after thought to let Congress propose amendments too. Interestingly enough, all amendments since then have only been proposed by Congress.
So, though I understand your concern that the Constitution could be inadvertently allowed to be rewritten, following the letter of Article V, it is not possible.
Blessings,
Douglas V. Gibbs
Flyer Going Around Regarding Temecula Mosque Public Hearing
ATTENTION! ATTENTION!
All Those Living In & Around the Temecula Area
25,000 Sq ft proposed
Islamic Training Center in Temecula
Imam is affiliated with CAIR, MPAC and Muslim Brotherhood
(which recently declared war on the U.S.)
= All Terror Front Groups =
Supports HAMAS and Hezbollah, held anti-Israeli rallies in Temecula
WILL look to bring Sharia Law to our area as commanded by Islam
(Has already commented that islam will rule again and we will all be happy under islam)
HEARING IS CURRENTLY SCHEDULED DEC.1 AT 6PM WITH PROTEST BEFORE
(CONFIRM WITH PLANNING DEPARTMENT – HAVE PREVIOUSLY CHANGED DATES)
Location: Temecula City Hall - 43200 Business Park Dr 92590
Sign up to speak is at 4. NO SPEAKING REQUIRED. NUMBERS = STRENGTH!
They refuse to disclose who owns the land and where the funding is coming from for multi-million dollar center!
For more information: ITCTemecula@gmail.com
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
"American Midnight" book authors on the Political Pistachio Radio Revolution
American Midnight is a contemporary Christian political thriller that explores a possible future in the United States where the persecution of the church in America reaches a level similar to as it was in the Soviet Union. The Unity Party has used a platform of unity to sweep into power, but such an allegiance to unity comes at a price: complete and unquestioned loyalty to the party. Opposition to the party is met with arrest, especially when one refuses to abide by the secular nature of the party's agenda.
Authors Mike Lynch, and Brandon Barr, joins the Political Pistachio Radio Revolution tonight to discuss the frightening implications their novel suggests, and the fascinating parallels to the current power structure in Washington.
Join us live at 7:00 pm Pacific, or catch the archive later, at BlogTalkRadio.com/PoliticalPistachio.
AirTran Flight 297 Confirmed to be True
I received the following as an Email. In an attempt to verify its authenticity, I found confirmation at Debbie Schlussel's site. If this is indeed true, we are in a big heap of problems. . . While TSA frisks Americans to the point of humiliation in the name of security, 11 Muslims disrupted this flight and everyone was careful not to offend them. . . as they acted obnoxious and in a threatening manner.
Profiling is the answer. Note that profiling includes many parameters, mostly considering psychological profiling that zeros in on behavior, and responses to particular questioning.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Profiling is the answer. Note that profiling includes many parameters, mostly considering psychological profiling that zeros in on behavior, and responses to particular questioning.
One week ago, I went to Ohio on business and to see my father. On Tuesday, November the 17th, I returned home. If you read the papers the 18th you may have seen a blurb where a AirTran flight was cancelled from Atlanta to Houston due to a man who refused to get off of his cell phone before takeoff. It was on Fox.This was NOT what happened.
I was in 1st class coming home. 11 Muslim men got on the plane in full attire. 2 sat in 1st class and the rest peppered themselves throughout the plane all the way to the back.
As the plane taxied to the runway the stewardesses gave the safety spiel we are all so familiar with. At that time, one of the men got on his cell and called one of his companions in the back and proceeded to talk on the phone in Arabic very loudly and very aggressively. This took the 1st stewardess out of the picture for she repeatedly told the man that cell phones were not permitted at the time. He ignored her as if she was not there.
The 2nd man who answered the phone did the same and this took out the 2nd stewardess. In the back of the plane at this time, 2 younger Muslims, one in the back, isle, and one in front of him, window, began to show footage of a porno they had taped the night before, and were very loud about it. Now….they are only permitted to do this prior to Jihad. If a Muslim man goes into a strip club, he has to view the woman via mirror with his back to her. (don’t ask me….I don’t make the rules, but I’ve studied) The 3rd stewardess informed them that they were not to have electronic devices on at this time. To which one of the men said “shut up infidel dog!” She went to take the camcorder and he began to scream in her face in Arabic. At that exact moment, all 11 of them got up and started to walk the cabin. This is where I had had enough! I got up and started to the back where I heard a voice behind me from another Texan twice my size say “I got your back.” I grabbed the man who had been on the phone by the arm and said “you WILL go sit down or you Will be thrown from this plane!” As I “led” him around me to take his seat, the fellow Texan grabbed him by the back of his neck and his waist and headed out with him. I then grabbed the 2nd man and said, “You WILL do the same!” He protested but adrenaline was flowing now and he was going to go. As I escorted him forward the plane doors open and 3 TSA agents and 4 police officers entered. Me and my new Texan friend were told to cease and desist for they had this under control. I was happy to oblige actually. There was some commotion in the back, but within moments, all 11 were escorted off the plane. They then unloaded their luggage.
We talked about the occurrence and were in disbelief that it had happen, when suddenly, the door open again and on walked all 11!! Stone faced, eyes front and robotic (the only way I can describe it). The stewardess from the back had been in tears and when she saw this, she was having NONE of it! Being that I was up front, I heard and saw the whole ordeal. She told the TSA agent there was NO WAY she was staying on the plane with these men. The agent told her they had searched them and were going to go through their luggage with a fine tooth comb and that they were allowed to proceed to Houston . The captain and co-captain came out and told the agent “we and our crew will not fly this plane!” After a word or two, the entire crew, luggage in tow, left the plane. 5 minutes later, the cabin door opened again and a whole new crew walked on.
Again…..this is where I had had enough!!! I got up and asked “What the hell is going on!?!?” I was told to take my seat. They were sorry for the delay and I would be home shortly. I said “I’m getting off this plane”. The stewardess sternly told me that she could not allow me to get off. (now I’m mad!) I said “I am a grown man who bought this ticket, who’s time is mine with a family at home and I am going through that door, or I’m going through that door with you under my arm!! But I am going through that door!!” And I heard a voice behind me say “so am I”. Then everyone behind us started to get up and say the same. Within 2 minutes, I was walking off that plane where I was met with more agents who asked me to write a statement. I had 5 hours to kill at this point so why the hell not. Due to the amount of people who got off that flight, it was cancelled. I was supposed to be in Houston at 6pm. I got here at 12:30am.
Look up the date. Flight 297 Atlanta to Houston .
If this wasn’t a dry run, I don’t know what one is. The terrorists wanted to see how TSA would handle it, how the crew would handle it, and how the passengers would handle it.
I’m telling this to you because I want you to know….
The threat is real. I saw it with my own eyes….
-Tedd Petruna
**** UPDATE: A. Gene Hackemack is now sending out this update:
Hi,
My emails are now running into the thousands each day, which is actually a very good sign, but it also now prevents me from answering each one personally – a 24 hour job for the last 3 days! Let me assure you that the events on AirTran Flight 297 did occur. Mr. Petruna almost got fired from his job, so he is no longer available, however, now other eye-witnesses are also stepping forth, such as Chaplain Dr. Keith Robinson who was on that same flight. His appearance on Fox News adds the validity that this event it deserves.
You can go to www.google.com now and type in either Chaplain Dr. Keith Robinson or Petruna or Hackemack (or all three) and find the information that you might be searching for when you sent me this email.
Thank you again for your email and rest assured that these events that you are checking validity to – did indeed occur. – Gene
H/T: Debbie Schlussel
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Power-Tripping TSA Still Over The Top
Security is important, but not like this. . .
Woman with nipple rings was told to remove them: “It’s for safety, Maam. Here’s the pliers. Now cut them off.”
This video portrays a woman slammed to the floor for arguing with a TSA agent, another 71 year-old man with a knee implant forced to pulled down his pants, and a 16 year-old girl with a prosthetic leg had her pants removed.
Do any of these people fit the profile of a terrorist? Were they asked anything? Israel has a safer security program than we do, and they don't resort to this kind of humiliation:
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Woman with nipple rings was told to remove them: “It’s for safety, Maam. Here’s the pliers. Now cut them off.”
This video portrays a woman slammed to the floor for arguing with a TSA agent, another 71 year-old man with a knee implant forced to pulled down his pants, and a 16 year-old girl with a prosthetic leg had her pants removed.
Do any of these people fit the profile of a terrorist? Were they asked anything? Israel has a safer security program than we do, and they don't resort to this kind of humiliation:
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Universal Periodic Review of the United States before the United Nations Human Rights Council
Note in this video that the critics of the United States are all huge Human Rights violators, that their unsubstantiated claims are not only deeply in error, but in line with the hideous beliefs of the American Liberal Left, and note the demand for the U.S. to comply with "International Standards."
November 5, 2010, UN Human Rights Council, Geneva, Switzerland:
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
November 5, 2010, UN Human Rights Council, Geneva, Switzerland:
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Battling Liberalism Comes Down To One Truth:
There are no good collective answers to individual problems.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Friday, November 26, 2010
The Euro Game Is Up - Nigel Farage
"Who in the hell do you people think you are?"
European Parliament, Strasbourg - 24 November 2010
Speaker: Nigel Farage MEP, UKIP, Co-President of the EFD group
Liberalism fails wherever it is tried.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
European Parliament, Strasbourg - 24 November 2010
Speaker: Nigel Farage MEP, UKIP, Co-President of the EFD group
Liberalism fails wherever it is tried.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Which Do You Prefer?
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Compare and Contrast:
At Tea Party Rallies, and Conservative Events, the activities begin with the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance to the American Flag and the Republic for Which it Stands, or the playing of the National Anthem. . . Liberal events normally, at one point or another, includes the American Flag being stepped on, burned, or thrown in the trash.
Conservatives believe that life is precious, especially the lives of our children. . . liberals believe that murdering the unborn is fine and dandy, in the name of "choice" (though if your choice is life, you are attacked for it).
Right-of-center talk show hosts, Republicans, and Conservatives all exclaim the importance of the U.S. Constitution. . . liberals believe the Constitution is outdated, and unimportant.
Conservatives say that the U.S. Constitution limits the power of the federal government. . . liberals say the federal government can do whatever it wants, regardless of the Constitution, or the will of the people.
Shall I go on? Or is the point clear?
No longer is this struggle merely about Right vs. Left. . . this has become about Right vs. Wrong, Good vs. Evil - and ultimately the life, or death, of the United States, and our liberty.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
WHERE’S THE OUTRAGE? U.S. FLAG BURNED AT LEFT-WING PROTEST - Breibart TV
Obama’s Buddy, Bill Ayers Stomping the American Flag - NewsBusters
Arizona Immigration Law Protesters Desecrate American Flag - Political Pistachio
Obama Convention throw US Flags in the Trash - Stop the ACLU
Catholic Bishop Says Democrats Becoming "Party of Death" Over Abortion - Life News
United States Supreme Court Will Soon Issue a Landmark Decision on the Validity of the Constitution - Breitbart/PR NewsWire
DEMOCRATIC CONGRESSMAN: ‘I THINK THE CONSTITUTION IS WRONG’ - Breitbart TV
Pete Stark: We Can Do Whatever We Want. We’re The Federal Government - All American Blogger
Compare and Contrast:
At Tea Party Rallies, and Conservative Events, the activities begin with the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance to the American Flag and the Republic for Which it Stands, or the playing of the National Anthem. . . Liberal events normally, at one point or another, includes the American Flag being stepped on, burned, or thrown in the trash.
Conservatives believe that life is precious, especially the lives of our children. . . liberals believe that murdering the unborn is fine and dandy, in the name of "choice" (though if your choice is life, you are attacked for it).
Right-of-center talk show hosts, Republicans, and Conservatives all exclaim the importance of the U.S. Constitution. . . liberals believe the Constitution is outdated, and unimportant.
Conservatives say that the U.S. Constitution limits the power of the federal government. . . liberals say the federal government can do whatever it wants, regardless of the Constitution, or the will of the people.
Shall I go on? Or is the point clear?
No longer is this struggle merely about Right vs. Left. . . this has become about Right vs. Wrong, Good vs. Evil - and ultimately the life, or death, of the United States, and our liberty.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
WHERE’S THE OUTRAGE? U.S. FLAG BURNED AT LEFT-WING PROTEST - Breibart TV
Obama’s Buddy, Bill Ayers Stomping the American Flag - NewsBusters
Arizona Immigration Law Protesters Desecrate American Flag - Political Pistachio
Obama Convention throw US Flags in the Trash - Stop the ACLU
Catholic Bishop Says Democrats Becoming "Party of Death" Over Abortion - Life News
United States Supreme Court Will Soon Issue a Landmark Decision on the Validity of the Constitution - Breitbart/PR NewsWire
DEMOCRATIC CONGRESSMAN: ‘I THINK THE CONSTITUTION IS WRONG’ - Breitbart TV
Pete Stark: We Can Do Whatever We Want. We’re The Federal Government - All American Blogger