Monday, January 31, 2011
Obama Can't Even Get Iraq and Afghanistan Right in His Head. . .
So how is the idiot capable of doing anything else?
By Douglas V. Gibbs
During a recent You Tube interview, President Barack Obama was asked about his administration’s policy in Afghanistan and Iraq.
In his answer, Obama swapped “Iraq” for “Afghanistan” when he tried to explain if he still believes soldiers need to die in the wars there.
“As I said, we will be out of Afghanistan by the end of this year,” Obama said, a misstatement of his administration’s Afghanistan policy which doesn’t call for a troop withdrawal until 2014.
“We’ll have a relationship with Iraq in the same way we have relationships with many countries around the world,” Obama continued, correcting himself.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Obama swaps Iraq and Afghanistan - Politico
By Douglas V. Gibbs
During a recent You Tube interview, President Barack Obama was asked about his administration’s policy in Afghanistan and Iraq.
In his answer, Obama swapped “Iraq” for “Afghanistan” when he tried to explain if he still believes soldiers need to die in the wars there.
“As I said, we will be out of Afghanistan by the end of this year,” Obama said, a misstatement of his administration’s Afghanistan policy which doesn’t call for a troop withdrawal until 2014.
“We’ll have a relationship with Iraq in the same way we have relationships with many countries around the world,” Obama continued, correcting himself.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Obama swaps Iraq and Afghanistan - Politico
Jefferson: Danger of Oligarchies. . . of any kind
The issue today is the same as it has been throughout all history,
whether man shall be allowed to govern himself or be ruled by a small elite. -- Thomas Jefferson
The many ruled over by the elite few was the whole reason the Constitution was designed to limit the powers of the Federal Government. The liberal progressive left has infiltrated our entertainment industry, educational system, and political atmosphere. However, as dangerous as these believers in big government tyranny are, there is an ever larger threat to our freedoms, and American way of life. . .
Islam in America’s Classrooms: History or Propaganda? - A Special Report
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
whether man shall be allowed to govern himself or be ruled by a small elite. -- Thomas Jefferson
The many ruled over by the elite few was the whole reason the Constitution was designed to limit the powers of the Federal Government. The liberal progressive left has infiltrated our entertainment industry, educational system, and political atmosphere. However, as dangerous as these believers in big government tyranny are, there is an ever larger threat to our freedoms, and American way of life. . .
Islam in America’s Classrooms: History or Propaganda? - A Special Report
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Egypt's Mubarak's Final Stand Against The Wave Of Change
By Douglas V. Gibbs
The wave of change is sweeping across Egypt. Change can be good, or it can be disastrous. The flow of information out of Egypt is being hampered by Murarak's crack-down on the Internet, and other information sources - but accurate information is finding its way out of the country. The information flow is primarily the result of the work of citizen journalists.
With a lot of people on the streets, the likelihood of violence came to fruition. The mobilization of protesters is being encouraged by various sources, and with each passing day the crowds grow larger.
Mubarak has rolled tanks into Cairo, and has flown fighter jets over the protesters, but in the end, even his own military and law enforcement personnel, are beginning to join with the protesters against the tyrannical Egyptian government.
Foreigners are scrambling to get out of the area. Turkey and the United States are assisting in the evacuation of foreigners as best they can. Some countries advised their citizens to leave Egypt or avoid traveling to its major cities if possible.
The Muslim Brotherhood, the largest Islamist organization in Egypt, is working to form a national unity government. The radical Islamist group has been banned from running for elections for parliament, though some of the movement members have presented candidacy for parliament as independents.
The Obama administration is being viewed as weak in the face of the uprisings, and many are comparing his lack of action to Jimmy Carter's weakness during the Islamic Revolution in Iran. Obama is beginning to be viewed as the president that lost Egypt.
An opportunistic radical Islamic jihadist movement is positioning itself to gain control of Egypt as the crisis worsens.
Judging by the uprisings in various other secular Muslim nations, I have a feeling Obama will go down in history as the American President that lost the entire Middle East, and Northern Africa.
One must ask, is the Suez Canal in danger? I have a feeling the important trade corridor may in fact be in serious danger.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Governments scramble to fly citizens out of Egypt - Reuters/Yahoo News
Fighter Jets Over Cairo As Egypt Demos Go On - Sky News
Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood eyes unity gov't without Mubarak - Haaretz
Obama will go down in history as the president who lost Egypt - Haaretz
The wave of change is sweeping across Egypt. Change can be good, or it can be disastrous. The flow of information out of Egypt is being hampered by Murarak's crack-down on the Internet, and other information sources - but accurate information is finding its way out of the country. The information flow is primarily the result of the work of citizen journalists.
With a lot of people on the streets, the likelihood of violence came to fruition. The mobilization of protesters is being encouraged by various sources, and with each passing day the crowds grow larger.
Mubarak has rolled tanks into Cairo, and has flown fighter jets over the protesters, but in the end, even his own military and law enforcement personnel, are beginning to join with the protesters against the tyrannical Egyptian government.
Foreigners are scrambling to get out of the area. Turkey and the United States are assisting in the evacuation of foreigners as best they can. Some countries advised their citizens to leave Egypt or avoid traveling to its major cities if possible.
The Muslim Brotherhood, the largest Islamist organization in Egypt, is working to form a national unity government. The radical Islamist group has been banned from running for elections for parliament, though some of the movement members have presented candidacy for parliament as independents.
The Obama administration is being viewed as weak in the face of the uprisings, and many are comparing his lack of action to Jimmy Carter's weakness during the Islamic Revolution in Iran. Obama is beginning to be viewed as the president that lost Egypt.
An opportunistic radical Islamic jihadist movement is positioning itself to gain control of Egypt as the crisis worsens.
Judging by the uprisings in various other secular Muslim nations, I have a feeling Obama will go down in history as the American President that lost the entire Middle East, and Northern Africa.
One must ask, is the Suez Canal in danger? I have a feeling the important trade corridor may in fact be in serious danger.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Governments scramble to fly citizens out of Egypt - Reuters/Yahoo News
Fighter Jets Over Cairo As Egypt Demos Go On - Sky News
Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood eyes unity gov't without Mubarak - Haaretz
Obama will go down in history as the president who lost Egypt - Haaretz
Crony Capitalism, A Return to British Mercantilism
By Douglas V. Gibbs
The American Revolution was fought to bring independence to the American Colonies. As a new nation, using Britain as their frame of reference of defining tyranny, the Founding Fathers wanted the United States of America to be as little like the British Empire as possible. One of the characteristics of Britain's centralized system at that time was the British mercantilist economic system, which was a system built on protectionism, government franchise monopolies, a state-run bank, and interventionism that benefited the state and its supporters at the expense of the general public. The British Mercantilist Economic System was an instrument of plunder against the people. Such a system of crony capitalism consists of governmental consolidation, the elimination of the true free market, a dominant executive power, and mercantilistic economic policies.
During the time of the Founding Fathers, as with today, the big government folks (progressives) pushed for an interventionist approach to our economy. Statism has progressed in America despite the limiting principles of the Constitution that were designed to guard against such centralized thinking. The liberal left progressives are trying, as did Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Lyndon B. Johnson (to name a few American progressives), to use the powers of the federal government to achieve some kind of national greatness through a manner that holds disdain for the private sector, truly believing that the members of a free society are unable to prosper without the regulatory powers of the federal government in place to make sure they behave. This is why the liberal left supports protectionism, bail outs for a chosen number of businesses, tax subsidies for certain corporations, and general economic interventionism.
Unfortunately, big government interventionism has spread like a virus, and is a belief that inhabits both American political parties. One must not forget that in 1995, after the Gingrich Republicans swept into power, Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich told TIME Magazine that Alexander Hamilton (a huge believer in creating a system much like the British Mercantilist Economic System in America) was one of his personal heroes. Then, after about six months of abiding by conservative principles, the Republican majority reverted back to the lusts of the political establishment, and the federal government wound up becoming larger, and more powerful.
Claims that big-government policies benefit the "public interest" by benefiting small but powerful special interests at the expense of the rest of the society is nothing new. All democracies eventually, through a method of creeping incrementalism, evolve into a state where the net beneficiaries of government (entitlement program recipients) outnumber and dominate the net taxpayers (achievers, successful). It happened in Greece (ancient and modern), Rome, and every other system that devolves into a society ruled over by a political elite. This is one of the reasons why the Founding Fathers crafted our nation to be a republic, rather than a democracy; and why the progressive left has been working tirelessly to silence the voice of the people and the states throughout history (1824 taking away State legislature's ability to appoint electors for presidential election, 1913 17th Amendment taking away State legislature's ability to appoint the members of the U.S. Senate, and in recent decades the federal government seizing power rather than requesting authorities through the amendment process).
Despite the current administration's claims, through bail out programs, executive branch czars, and the unconstitutional regulatory actions by federal agencies, the American federal government has advocated special-interest policies designed to favor some businesses while allowing others to fail or be overtaken by government control or regulations. These policies primarily benefit politically connected merchants, manufacturers, speculators, and bankers at the expense of the rest of the public.
These policies are the policies of nationalists. Nationalism is a love of government, rather than the love of country as exhibited by patriots. This is why the progressive liberal left denounces the U.S. Constitution as a worthless document. The founding document serves as an obstacle to the progressives, because it was designed to limit the powers of the federal government so that the political elite could not do as they have been doing unchecked. Their expansive view of the Constitution is practiced in the hopes of combating the views of strict constructionism. Nothing is out of bounds, to these people. They use unconstitutional concepts of judicial review, implied powers, and "interpretation" to do whatever they want. Don't be fooled, however. They do not do this through ignorance. Their big government actions are by design.
In the end, these policies of protectionism and corporate welfare are damaging to the general welfare of the republic. The policies of economic statism cripples the American economy by depriving it of the advantages of the division of labor, and halting the ability of businesses to innovate and grow without restriction. The government, under such an agenda, literally picks and chooses who are to be the winners and losers, and then decreases the number of players so that true competition is eliminated, ultimately giving the government more fascist-style regulatory control over the few survivors.
Central economic planning schemes such as with the policies the Democrats are now putting forward creates conflict, often within the system, as political elitists compete for the right to use the coercive powers of the state to benefit themselves economically at the expense of others. The American economic system, under the tight regulatory controls of the federal government, has become a scheme of statism and mercantilism that is literally enabling the Democrats (and establishment Republicans) the political power to plunder the minority. The economic conflict, ultimately, will bring down our financial system, and force America into an era of being a failed state similar, if not worse, than to what Greece, and other European nations, are currently experiencing.
Ultimately, the liberal progressive's belief in mercantilism is proof positive of their arrogance and ineptness. The liberal left is literally trying to use and enforce a creaky and antiquated system of economics that the United States fought to eliminate during the Revolutionary War. Adam Smith's free-market concepts have been set aside. The entrepreneurial spirit that has made this nation prosper is being shunned by the Democrats. It is time for Americans to link economic rights and political rights, and realize that progressive government economic policies enslave the populace, assaulting our liberties, and forcing us into a state of dependence upon the potentially tyrannical federal government.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
FDA protects Pharmaceutical Industry not the American Public: Prescription for Disaster - Drug PROFITEERING and Deceptions - GARY NULL - Natural News
British Mercantilism research:
John Taylor, Tyranny Unmasked (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 1992)
Larry Schweikart and Michael Allen, A Patriot's History of the United States (New York: Penguin Group, 2007)
Maurice, Baxter, Henry Clay and the American System (Lexington: University of Kentucky Press, 1995)
Maurice, Baxter, Henry Clay the Lawyer (Lexington: University of Kentucky Press, 2000)
Thomas J. DiLorenzo, Hamilton's Curse (New York: Three Rivers Press, 2008)
The American Revolution was fought to bring independence to the American Colonies. As a new nation, using Britain as their frame of reference of defining tyranny, the Founding Fathers wanted the United States of America to be as little like the British Empire as possible. One of the characteristics of Britain's centralized system at that time was the British mercantilist economic system, which was a system built on protectionism, government franchise monopolies, a state-run bank, and interventionism that benefited the state and its supporters at the expense of the general public. The British Mercantilist Economic System was an instrument of plunder against the people. Such a system of crony capitalism consists of governmental consolidation, the elimination of the true free market, a dominant executive power, and mercantilistic economic policies.
During the time of the Founding Fathers, as with today, the big government folks (progressives) pushed for an interventionist approach to our economy. Statism has progressed in America despite the limiting principles of the Constitution that were designed to guard against such centralized thinking. The liberal left progressives are trying, as did Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Lyndon B. Johnson (to name a few American progressives), to use the powers of the federal government to achieve some kind of national greatness through a manner that holds disdain for the private sector, truly believing that the members of a free society are unable to prosper without the regulatory powers of the federal government in place to make sure they behave. This is why the liberal left supports protectionism, bail outs for a chosen number of businesses, tax subsidies for certain corporations, and general economic interventionism.
Unfortunately, big government interventionism has spread like a virus, and is a belief that inhabits both American political parties. One must not forget that in 1995, after the Gingrich Republicans swept into power, Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich told TIME Magazine that Alexander Hamilton (a huge believer in creating a system much like the British Mercantilist Economic System in America) was one of his personal heroes. Then, after about six months of abiding by conservative principles, the Republican majority reverted back to the lusts of the political establishment, and the federal government wound up becoming larger, and more powerful.
Claims that big-government policies benefit the "public interest" by benefiting small but powerful special interests at the expense of the rest of the society is nothing new. All democracies eventually, through a method of creeping incrementalism, evolve into a state where the net beneficiaries of government (entitlement program recipients) outnumber and dominate the net taxpayers (achievers, successful). It happened in Greece (ancient and modern), Rome, and every other system that devolves into a society ruled over by a political elite. This is one of the reasons why the Founding Fathers crafted our nation to be a republic, rather than a democracy; and why the progressive left has been working tirelessly to silence the voice of the people and the states throughout history (1824 taking away State legislature's ability to appoint electors for presidential election, 1913 17th Amendment taking away State legislature's ability to appoint the members of the U.S. Senate, and in recent decades the federal government seizing power rather than requesting authorities through the amendment process).
Despite the current administration's claims, through bail out programs, executive branch czars, and the unconstitutional regulatory actions by federal agencies, the American federal government has advocated special-interest policies designed to favor some businesses while allowing others to fail or be overtaken by government control or regulations. These policies primarily benefit politically connected merchants, manufacturers, speculators, and bankers at the expense of the rest of the public.
These policies are the policies of nationalists. Nationalism is a love of government, rather than the love of country as exhibited by patriots. This is why the progressive liberal left denounces the U.S. Constitution as a worthless document. The founding document serves as an obstacle to the progressives, because it was designed to limit the powers of the federal government so that the political elite could not do as they have been doing unchecked. Their expansive view of the Constitution is practiced in the hopes of combating the views of strict constructionism. Nothing is out of bounds, to these people. They use unconstitutional concepts of judicial review, implied powers, and "interpretation" to do whatever they want. Don't be fooled, however. They do not do this through ignorance. Their big government actions are by design.
In the end, these policies of protectionism and corporate welfare are damaging to the general welfare of the republic. The policies of economic statism cripples the American economy by depriving it of the advantages of the division of labor, and halting the ability of businesses to innovate and grow without restriction. The government, under such an agenda, literally picks and chooses who are to be the winners and losers, and then decreases the number of players so that true competition is eliminated, ultimately giving the government more fascist-style regulatory control over the few survivors.
Central economic planning schemes such as with the policies the Democrats are now putting forward creates conflict, often within the system, as political elitists compete for the right to use the coercive powers of the state to benefit themselves economically at the expense of others. The American economic system, under the tight regulatory controls of the federal government, has become a scheme of statism and mercantilism that is literally enabling the Democrats (and establishment Republicans) the political power to plunder the minority. The economic conflict, ultimately, will bring down our financial system, and force America into an era of being a failed state similar, if not worse, than to what Greece, and other European nations, are currently experiencing.
Ultimately, the liberal progressive's belief in mercantilism is proof positive of their arrogance and ineptness. The liberal left is literally trying to use and enforce a creaky and antiquated system of economics that the United States fought to eliminate during the Revolutionary War. Adam Smith's free-market concepts have been set aside. The entrepreneurial spirit that has made this nation prosper is being shunned by the Democrats. It is time for Americans to link economic rights and political rights, and realize that progressive government economic policies enslave the populace, assaulting our liberties, and forcing us into a state of dependence upon the potentially tyrannical federal government.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
FDA protects Pharmaceutical Industry not the American Public: Prescription for Disaster - Drug PROFITEERING and Deceptions - GARY NULL - Natural News
British Mercantilism research:
John Taylor, Tyranny Unmasked (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 1992)
Larry Schweikart and Michael Allen, A Patriot's History of the United States (New York: Penguin Group, 2007)
Maurice, Baxter, Henry Clay and the American System (Lexington: University of Kentucky Press, 1995)
Maurice, Baxter, Henry Clay the Lawyer (Lexington: University of Kentucky Press, 2000)
Thomas J. DiLorenzo, Hamilton's Curse (New York: Three Rivers Press, 2008)
George Washington quote: Virtue and Happiness
"There exists in the economy and course of nature an indissoluble union between virtue and happiness … we ought to be no less persuaded that the propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself has ordained." --George Washington, First Inaugural Address, 1789
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Sunday, January 30, 2011
Role of Virtue in the future of Conservatism - Political Pistachio Radio Revolution
Role of Virtue in the future of Conservatism - Political Pistachio Radio Revolution
Upcoming Show: 1/30/2011 8:30 PM
| Host Name: | Douglas V. Gibbs |      |
| Length: | 2 hrs | |
| Description: h:2799 s:1498299 |
States Flirt With Bankruptcy
By Douglas V. Gibbs
In 1975, New York City was so close to bankruptcy that the city's lawyers were in State Supreme Court filing a bankruptcy petition, police cars were mobilized to serve the papers on the banks, and Mayor Abraham D. Beame had written a statement announcing the default along with an emergency effort to save the city's dwindling cash for vital services like police and fire protection.
There are a number of States that are currently even closer to bankruptcy than that.
The difference is, States cannot file bankruptcy.
So if States cannot file bankruptcy, then why are insolvency talks underway with the Obama administration?
As States with liberal leadership face the inevitability that their spending habits are unsustainable, the big question arising in 2011 is not whether or not States will need to be bailed out, or face bankruptcy. The question that seems to be emerging is: How many states will seek to declare bankruptcy this year?
Then, if we take the unfolding reality a step further, one must ask: What will insolvency do to State sovereignty?
Nobody knows the answers because this is the first time in United States history that States face insolvency. Decades of liberal policies, and unsustainable programs, have pushed most of this country to the brink.
Nonetheless, state policy makers, congressional leaders and officials in the Obama administration are already discussing whether declaring bankruptcy may be the only solution available to states with budget crises that cannot be resolved any other way.
After decades of liberal control over a number of state governments, deep structural problems have emerged that simply cannot be afforded anymore by these states. Entitlement programs, labor union demands, and pension funds are literally pulling money away from more important services, such as public safety and education. It is only a matter of time before states begin to ask for bailouts that the federal government cannot afford, and the Constitution does not allow.
Bankruptcy lawyers are being consulted by congressional aides, as well, putting bankruptcy on the table as one of the alternatives the States may have.
Bankruptcy is being pursued as a possibility, because federal bailouts of the states would result in nationalizing the states. State sovereignty, as protected by the U.S. Constitution, would never allow such move by the federal government.
Remember, the federal government always assumes that whatever the federal government pays for, it also has a right of control over.
With bankruptcy, a state may get out of contractual agreements it has agreed to pay, including destructive agreements with public employee unions, which includes public employee pensions the state may no longer be able to afford.
States declaring bankruptcy could also send major shockwaves through the unconstitutional state bond markets (note: Article I, Section 10, Clause 1 states that No State shall. . . emit Bills of Credit).
Another concern arises with the talk of Bankruptcy, as well. With California, Illinois, and New York leading the way with fiscal problems at the State level, States are struggling to continue to pay for critical public services, which includes the threat of closing hundreds of thousands of jobs. 39 states have projected budget gaps that are expected to total $112 billion for fiscal year 2012, a budget gap that is expected to grow to approximately $140 billion once all states have submitted their 2010 estimates. Even worse, the federal aid to the states provided by the February 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and to a smaller extent in the August 2010 jobs bill, estimated at $60 billion in 2011, is expected to decline to $6 billion in 2012.
By declaring bankruptcy, the governments are admitting failure, and may then be regulated into a non-Statehood status. If this were to happen, the States could lose their representation in Congress and become territories again.
The federal government would then be able to seize control over the States. However, with those liberal votes removed from Congress, the face of the federal government would change in such a dramatic manner that a move back towards a constitutional government may ensue.
This is unvisited country. We have never, as a nation, faced a crisis as this before. After the dust settles, it is simply a matter of what the final result will be. We will either be a system under the thumb of an overwhelmingly tyrannical nationalistic federal government, or the crisis will result in States taking charge and pulling us back from the brink.
The only way to avert crisis, and for bankruptcy or bailout to be taken off the table, would be for States to all but eliminate their entitlement programs, eliminate all redundant and unnecessary policies, and void the contracts with the public employee unions while replacing them with contracts without costly pensions, without costly benefits packages, and without wages that are higher than their private sector counterparts.
The reality is harsh, but to continue to spend at these levels is simply unsustainable.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
After decades of liberal control over a number of state governments, deep structural problems have emerged that simply cannot be afforded anymore by these states. Entitlement programs, labor union demands, and pension funds are literally pulling money away from more important services, such as public safety and education. It is only a matter of time before states begin to ask for bailouts that the federal government cannot afford, and the Constitution does not allow.
Bankruptcy lawyers are being consulted by congressional aides, as well, putting bankruptcy on the table as one of the alternatives the States may have.
Bankruptcy is being pursued as a possibility, because federal bailouts of the states would result in nationalizing the states. State sovereignty, as protected by the U.S. Constitution, would never allow such move by the federal government.
Remember, the federal government always assumes that whatever the federal government pays for, it also has a right of control over.
With bankruptcy, a state may get out of contractual agreements it has agreed to pay, including destructive agreements with public employee unions, which includes public employee pensions the state may no longer be able to afford.
States declaring bankruptcy could also send major shockwaves through the unconstitutional state bond markets (note: Article I, Section 10, Clause 1 states that No State shall. . . emit Bills of Credit).
Another concern arises with the talk of Bankruptcy, as well. With California, Illinois, and New York leading the way with fiscal problems at the State level, States are struggling to continue to pay for critical public services, which includes the threat of closing hundreds of thousands of jobs. 39 states have projected budget gaps that are expected to total $112 billion for fiscal year 2012, a budget gap that is expected to grow to approximately $140 billion once all states have submitted their 2010 estimates. Even worse, the federal aid to the states provided by the February 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and to a smaller extent in the August 2010 jobs bill, estimated at $60 billion in 2011, is expected to decline to $6 billion in 2012.
By declaring bankruptcy, the governments are admitting failure, and may then be regulated into a non-Statehood status. If this were to happen, the States could lose their representation in Congress and become territories again.
The federal government would then be able to seize control over the States. However, with those liberal votes removed from Congress, the face of the federal government would change in such a dramatic manner that a move back towards a constitutional government may ensue.
This is unvisited country. We have never, as a nation, faced a crisis as this before. After the dust settles, it is simply a matter of what the final result will be. We will either be a system under the thumb of an overwhelmingly tyrannical nationalistic federal government, or the crisis will result in States taking charge and pulling us back from the brink.
The only way to avert crisis, and for bankruptcy or bailout to be taken off the table, would be for States to all but eliminate their entitlement programs, eliminate all redundant and unnecessary policies, and void the contracts with the public employee unions while replacing them with contracts without costly pensions, without costly benefits packages, and without wages that are higher than their private sector counterparts.
The reality is harsh, but to continue to spend at these levels is simply unsustainable.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Unrest in Secular Muslim Countries Opportunity for Radical Islam
By Douglas V. Gibbs
As the violence in Egypt increases, and Jordan joins the ranks of Middle Eastern and North African Muslim nations that are erupting into riots, the media is careful to report that the cause is sky-rocketing food prices, fuel prices, and the fact that these various Muslim nations have been under the rule of oppressive dictators. We are being told that these uprisings have been triggered by a desire for democracy and freedom.
Perhaps the rise in food and fuel prices are a factor. Perhaps the iron rule of dictatorships have convinced the populations of these countries to take action. I hope that is the case, and I understand the drive for a freer society.
Mubarak has been in power for 30 years in Egypt, and many question the support the United States have given this piece of excrement (now there is word that the U.S. Government has thrown its support behind the rebels) in the past. With radical Islam knocking on the door, my opinion is that by keeping Mubarak in power, as bad as this jerk is, it kept out of Egypt something even worse.
That goes for Tunisia, Algeria, and the rest, as well.
The Muslim Brotherhood, or radical groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, and al Qaeda, may be influential in the uprisings. Iran may have a hand in it as well. It is not completely outside the realm of possibilities that these uprisings are being fueled by the Islamist desire to resurrect the Ottoman Empire, which would consolodate the Muslim world under a single caliphate.
Whether the jihad is behind these uprisings, or not, one thing is for sure: In crisis, the opportunistic Islamists of the jihad will try to take advantage of the void that will be exposed after each of these dictatorial leaders resign.
After all, wasn't it Rahm Emanuel that reminded us that tyranny needs crisis, because it is during a crisis that radicals can do things they couldn't normally do.
We may not see something as obvious as the Islamic Revolution that swept through Iran thirty years ago, but it is apparent that each of these secular Muslim countries that are currently experiencing unrest among the citizenry are ripe for a takeover by radical Islamism.
Turkey recently moved from being a staunch ally of the United States, to a nation under the rule of a radical Islamist government. It happened quickly, without many of us noticing.
Now eight "secular" countries are all experiencing strife. The fact that this many secular Muslim countries are all experiencing revolts at the same time is not a coincidence. Islam is working to consolodate. She is pulling the stragglers into the fold.
The violence has only just begun.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Iran Sees Rise of Islamic Hard-Liners - New York Times
Tanks roll into Cairo Saturday morning - Washington Post
Egypt's Turmoil: The Army's OK with the Protesters, for Now - TIME Magazine
Thousands protest in Jordan - Aljazeera
Egypt protests: America's secret backing for rebel leaders behind uprising - The Telegraph, U.K.
Egyptian Embassy in Venezuela Briefly Taken Over, Chavez Says - Bloomberg
Stock Market News: Dow Flirts with 12,000; Egypt Down on Coup Worries - Hispanic Business
We may not see something as obvious as the Islamic Revolution that swept through Iran thirty years ago, but it is apparent that each of these secular Muslim countries that are currently experiencing unrest among the citizenry are ripe for a takeover by radical Islamism.
Turkey recently moved from being a staunch ally of the United States, to a nation under the rule of a radical Islamist government. It happened quickly, without many of us noticing.
Now eight "secular" countries are all experiencing strife. The fact that this many secular Muslim countries are all experiencing revolts at the same time is not a coincidence. Islam is working to consolodate. She is pulling the stragglers into the fold.
The violence has only just begun.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Iran Sees Rise of Islamic Hard-Liners - New York Times
Tanks roll into Cairo Saturday morning - Washington Post
Egypt's Turmoil: The Army's OK with the Protesters, for Now - TIME Magazine
Thousands protest in Jordan - Aljazeera
Egypt protests: America's secret backing for rebel leaders behind uprising - The Telegraph, U.K.
Egyptian Embassy in Venezuela Briefly Taken Over, Chavez Says - Bloomberg
Stock Market News: Dow Flirts with 12,000; Egypt Down on Coup Worries - Hispanic Business
Senator Lee to Filibuster Raise of Debt Ceiling
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Government spending is out of control, and the federal government, rather than cut spending, would prefer to increase its levels. However, simply put, we are out of money. The current level of spending is unsustainable. This president has increased spending more than all past presidents, combined. These people can't seem to keep themselves from increasing spending, so we have to force them to stop. The best form of rehabilitation for these spend-a-holics is for them to quit increasing spending cold turkey, and one of the steps to accomplishing that would be to not increase the debt ceiling. However, the political establishment does not have the self-discipline to do this, and are currently debating over increasing deficit spending. The liberal left and the establishment Republicans wish to increase the debt limit above its current $14.3 trillion level in order to enable an increase in spending.
The GOP, however, partially listening to the voters, plans to make a compromise. If the Democrats are willing to cut some spending, they will allow the debt limit to increase. But isn't that a contradiction? Cut spending, and we'll let you spend more, is essentially the offer.
Tea Party Caucus members, largely comprised of the freshmen Congressmembers that were elected last November, say that they will not be on board with an increase to the debt limit. Of those Tea Party freshmen, Senator Mike Lee of Utah is leading the charge, promising to filibuster legislation proposed that is intended to increase the debt ceiling. The only way he will relax his stance at all, according to Lee, is if Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell agree to a balanced-budget amendment, which would make it the law of the land that they balance their budget each year.
“I'm against raising the debt ceiling, and so I'm resisting it," Lee said after the first meeting of the Tea Party Caucus Thursday. "The only scenario in which I can imagine not using the filibuster is if the leadership of both parties agrees that as a condition of that they would first pass out a balanced-budget amendment."
Although I can see Lee's position, I am a firm believer that the debt limit should not be raised for any reason.
I understand the argument that if the debt ceiling isn't raised the government will have to be shut down. Perhaps that is what is needed. Perhaps a forced shut down will encourage them to cut deeply, and begin to reduce the level of federal spending.
Perhaps.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Freshman Sen. Lee Vows Filibuster on Debt Limit - NewsMax
Islamic Rhetoric has nothing to do with Terror if you are a left-winger
By Keith Davies
When Jared Loughner murdered six innocents and injured about a dozen others within a few hours the left wing media lead by Paul Krugman of the New York Times was quick on the trigger (sorry for the language of hate) to condemn conservatives for being part of a blood libel in fomenting hate that caused Loughner to commit this horrible crime.
Now that we have yet another outrage from Islamic terrorists who have just bombed and killed dozens of innocents at the Moscow international airport, there will be no such condemnation by the left wing media of the Muslim imams who daily instill hatred for us infidels throughout the Muslim and the West, so that we should die because we are unbelievers and that Jihad should spread Islam for Allah as per the Koran, the Sunna and the Sharia. Based on Walid Shoebat’s testimony and countless other former Muslims and righteous liberal Muslims, it is beyond a shadow of a doubt that this spewing of hatred from the mosque pulpits is causing the violence, murder, intimidation and persecution of Westerners, Israel, Christians and all non believers in Islam.
The world is upside down with lies, deceptions and outrageous excuses. The left will ignore the real reasons for the terror attack and give us the usual stuff about how we need to understand Islam so that we can come together in ecumenical good will so that we can defeat the hate. They will undoubtedly compare these “isolated” incidents of violence using the false moral equivalent argument concerning the Oklahoma bomber Timothy McVeigh as a Christian motivated by his religion; an outright lie, as it is well known that he was an agnostic. Even if he were a Christian there is nothing in the Bible to justify such a crime. The left will also mention the usual nut jobs that have attacked abortion clinics with violence. All true Christians condemn the attacks on abortion clinics that may have happened a very few times over last 30 years, however it cannot be denied that the violence of Muslims on non Muslims is happening daily in thousands of instances almost all over the w
orld.
Hundreds of thousands of Christians, Hindus, Buddhists as well as Israelis suffer at the hands of Muslims driven by their scriptures and the willingness of imams to instill hatred that they quote from their “holy” books. If one cares to just dig on the surface you can find thousands of pieces of media that can be gleaned from hundreds of web sites including ours on the Internet exposing the hatred and violence from mainstream Arab TV and the imams who spew this rhetoric.
The left love to have these “peace panel” discussions that are organized by well-intentioned “useful idiots” who are being used by expert propagandists like CAIR and other Muslim organizations who are fronts for the Muslim brotherhood. The best analogy to describe what these Muslim groups are doing with their “interfaith outreach” is what the Nazis did to keep the Jews calm by lieing to them about being transferred, giving them soap before a “shower” and playing music before they headed to the gas chambers. Their strategy is simple: keep telling gullible Westerners that Islam is a peaceful religion until they are able to kill or convert us all. We are helped along by left wing Christians, who choose to be willfully ignorant, choose not to do research or at least do the minimum to invite apostates to give their side of the issue. By peace they will destroy many; we are in the middle of that very process.
Yesterday I witnessed first hand such nonsense. I attended a “peace center panel discussion” organized by the Quakers who invited two Muslims, one from CAIR, to answer concerns about Islam. For nearly two hours the audience was fed one lie after another. Unfortunately I did not get a chance to ask my question. It was also tragic that none of the audience members was able to ask detailed questions to trap the speakers. When they did get to ask a question that exposed the truth, in came the denials, lies and omissions from the speakers. According to one of the Muslim speakers, an expert on Sharia law, he stated, “the Sharia Law does not concern the life of an average Muslim.” Maybe, but it is certainly a problem for the average Christian living in Pakistan as the Sharia is incorporated into civil law especially on the law of blasphemy and as a result the Christian community is being decimated with intimidation as well as jail and murder. No Muslim country is signato
ry to
the
Hague convention concerning the abduction of women and children. Ask any American parent who has a daughter and grandchildren stuck in the Muslim world and the hell their family is going through. Abduction of women and child kidnapping is an epidemic in all Muslim countries. Our organization gets hundreds of inquiries a year concerning this issue.
Our leaders including our President, Bishops, Pastors, Rabbis, Mayors, school boards and all community leaders need to wake up and face the truth before the truth will literally kill us.
Keith Davies Executive Director Walid Shoebat Foundation
When Jared Loughner murdered six innocents and injured about a dozen others within a few hours the left wing media lead by Paul Krugman of the New York Times was quick on the trigger (sorry for the language of hate) to condemn conservatives for being part of a blood libel in fomenting hate that caused Loughner to commit this horrible crime.
Now that we have yet another outrage from Islamic terrorists who have just bombed and killed dozens of innocents at the Moscow international airport, there will be no such condemnation by the left wing media of the Muslim imams who daily instill hatred for us infidels throughout the Muslim and the West, so that we should die because we are unbelievers and that Jihad should spread Islam for Allah as per the Koran, the Sunna and the Sharia. Based on Walid Shoebat’s testimony and countless other former Muslims and righteous liberal Muslims, it is beyond a shadow of a doubt that this spewing of hatred from the mosque pulpits is causing the violence, murder, intimidation and persecution of Westerners, Israel, Christians and all non believers in Islam.
The world is upside down with lies, deceptions and outrageous excuses. The left will ignore the real reasons for the terror attack and give us the usual stuff about how we need to understand Islam so that we can come together in ecumenical good will so that we can defeat the hate. They will undoubtedly compare these “isolated” incidents of violence using the false moral equivalent argument concerning the Oklahoma bomber Timothy McVeigh as a Christian motivated by his religion; an outright lie, as it is well known that he was an agnostic. Even if he were a Christian there is nothing in the Bible to justify such a crime. The left will also mention the usual nut jobs that have attacked abortion clinics with violence. All true Christians condemn the attacks on abortion clinics that may have happened a very few times over last 30 years, however it cannot be denied that the violence of Muslims on non Muslims is happening daily in thousands of instances almost all over the w
orld.
Hundreds of thousands of Christians, Hindus, Buddhists as well as Israelis suffer at the hands of Muslims driven by their scriptures and the willingness of imams to instill hatred that they quote from their “holy” books. If one cares to just dig on the surface you can find thousands of pieces of media that can be gleaned from hundreds of web sites including ours on the Internet exposing the hatred and violence from mainstream Arab TV and the imams who spew this rhetoric.
The left love to have these “peace panel” discussions that are organized by well-intentioned “useful idiots” who are being used by expert propagandists like CAIR and other Muslim organizations who are fronts for the Muslim brotherhood. The best analogy to describe what these Muslim groups are doing with their “interfaith outreach” is what the Nazis did to keep the Jews calm by lieing to them about being transferred, giving them soap before a “shower” and playing music before they headed to the gas chambers. Their strategy is simple: keep telling gullible Westerners that Islam is a peaceful religion until they are able to kill or convert us all. We are helped along by left wing Christians, who choose to be willfully ignorant, choose not to do research or at least do the minimum to invite apostates to give their side of the issue. By peace they will destroy many; we are in the middle of that very process.
Yesterday I witnessed first hand such nonsense. I attended a “peace center panel discussion” organized by the Quakers who invited two Muslims, one from CAIR, to answer concerns about Islam. For nearly two hours the audience was fed one lie after another. Unfortunately I did not get a chance to ask my question. It was also tragic that none of the audience members was able to ask detailed questions to trap the speakers. When they did get to ask a question that exposed the truth, in came the denials, lies and omissions from the speakers. According to one of the Muslim speakers, an expert on Sharia law, he stated, “the Sharia Law does not concern the life of an average Muslim.” Maybe, but it is certainly a problem for the average Christian living in Pakistan as the Sharia is incorporated into civil law especially on the law of blasphemy and as a result the Christian community is being decimated with intimidation as well as jail and murder. No Muslim country is signato
ry to
the
Hague convention concerning the abduction of women and children. Ask any American parent who has a daughter and grandchildren stuck in the Muslim world and the hell their family is going through. Abduction of women and child kidnapping is an epidemic in all Muslim countries. Our organization gets hundreds of inquiries a year concerning this issue.
Our leaders including our President, Bishops, Pastors, Rabbis, Mayors, school boards and all community leaders need to wake up and face the truth before the truth will literally kill us.
Keith Davies Executive Director Walid Shoebat Foundation
Hannity and Walid Shoebat on Egypt Unrest
Walid Shoebat, my good friend, and a regular guest on the Political Pistachio Radio program, spent some time with Sean Hannity discussing the unrest in the Muslim world. He agrees with me that Islamism is partially behind the unrest in Egypt, Tunisia, Algeria, Jordan, Yemen, and Albania.
LISTEN HERE
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
LISTEN HERE
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Federal Government Limited to Only the Authorities Granted in Constitution - James Madison
"In the first place, it is to be remembered, that the general government is not to be charged with the whole power of making and administering laws: its jurisdiction is limited to certain enumerated objects, which concern all the members of the republic, but which are not to be attained by the separate provisions of any." --James Madison, Federalist No. 14, 1787
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Saturday, January 29, 2011
Obama’s Dangerous Gamble
By J.J. Jackson
How important is two percent? When it comes to the reduced rate employees are contributing to the federal coffers via pay roll taxes this year, it can be very important to our wallets indeed.
This year as part of the compromise struck last year between Republicans and the uber left, lead by President Obama, we all are getting a reduction of two percent in the amount we contribute every paycheck to Social Security. The contribution rate has fallen from its standard 6.2% to 4.2%. On the flip side of the equation we lost the Making Work Pay credit which reduced our tax burden by up to $400 individually when we knelt at the altar of government and filed our tax returns each year. The net result of all this is that paychecks this year have gotten bigger. Yes, even if you did not get a raise from your employer.
I personally could not believe how easily Democrats rolled over and actually allowed a tax cut, of any sort, to go on through. I was even more amazed that said tax cut was for funds headed to Social Security. That program is one of their most prized possessions and which is now running in the red according to the Congressional Budget Office. Furthermore the ponzi scheme that is Social Security is going to be whittled away until its reserves dry up by about 2037. Yeah, so I think I am clearly justified in being surprised at how easily this compromise got done without barely a bitch or a moan from the liberal left who like to use Social Security as a club to beat seniors into submission every election cycle.
Of course the deal cutting these taxes is just for one year. This semi-holiday on the payroll tax is set to expire for 2012 and will take a bite back out of paychecks in another year. A year, by the way, that is an election year.
This is a dangerous gamble for President Obama and the left. And it is one that I struggled to wrap my brain around. Yes, I understand that with Republicans controlling the House of Representatives the Senate and the White House were in a compromised position. But to agree to cut taxes on funds headed for Social Security even for one year? And then have to fight in 2012 against the Republican House, which would seemingly be very willing to keep this tax cut even longer if not permanently, and be seen as supporting a tax increase for all Americans in an election year? It is ballsy to say the least.
But after talking to some insiders down in Washington I understand it a little more than just a few weeks ago. As it has been explained to me by people in the know the ploy is that President Obama and the left are putting stock in the fact that with Republicans in control of one of the houses of Congress confidence is going to improve and so too will the economy. Then, so the theory continues, if the economy improves this year employers will be willing to give out raises to their employees. Further, the hope is that these raises will be, on average, greater than the money now seen in the paychecks of workers from the decrease of two percent in the payroll tax. Finally, that when 2012 rolls around the left will be able to stonewall any extension of the payroll tax cut into further years. While there will be initial furor from the voters over a tax increase this anger will subside by Election Day 2012 because their raises will still allow them to have still a bigger paycheck in 2012 than in 2011.
Whew.
Yeah, I can buy into the fact that liberals would adopt this long and arduous strategy. Because it is so typical of their thinking. It's all about politics. Never about what is best for America, for liberty and for the citizens.
I, however, personally like the thought of having a little bit more of my own money to invest and provide for my own retirement. I like the thought of taking that money and earning much, much more for my own wallet than the current government program generates.
But then again I have never been much for the comforting embrace of the federal nanny that our government has become. I am also hoping that the majority of Americans will see things this way too and get really upset when, come the end of the year, liberals try to raise our taxes again.
=====================================
J.J. Jackson is a libertarian conservative author from Pittsburgh, PA who has been writing and promoting individual liberty since 1993 and is President of Land of the Free Studios, Inc. He is the Pittsburgh Conservative Examiner for Examiner.com. He is also the owner of The Right Things - Conservative T-shirts & Gifts The Right Things. His weekly commentary along with exclusives not available anywhere else can be found at Liberty Reborn.
How important is two percent? When it comes to the reduced rate employees are contributing to the federal coffers via pay roll taxes this year, it can be very important to our wallets indeed.
This year as part of the compromise struck last year between Republicans and the uber left, lead by President Obama, we all are getting a reduction of two percent in the amount we contribute every paycheck to Social Security. The contribution rate has fallen from its standard 6.2% to 4.2%. On the flip side of the equation we lost the Making Work Pay credit which reduced our tax burden by up to $400 individually when we knelt at the altar of government and filed our tax returns each year. The net result of all this is that paychecks this year have gotten bigger. Yes, even if you did not get a raise from your employer.
I personally could not believe how easily Democrats rolled over and actually allowed a tax cut, of any sort, to go on through. I was even more amazed that said tax cut was for funds headed to Social Security. That program is one of their most prized possessions and which is now running in the red according to the Congressional Budget Office. Furthermore the ponzi scheme that is Social Security is going to be whittled away until its reserves dry up by about 2037. Yeah, so I think I am clearly justified in being surprised at how easily this compromise got done without barely a bitch or a moan from the liberal left who like to use Social Security as a club to beat seniors into submission every election cycle.
Of course the deal cutting these taxes is just for one year. This semi-holiday on the payroll tax is set to expire for 2012 and will take a bite back out of paychecks in another year. A year, by the way, that is an election year.
This is a dangerous gamble for President Obama and the left. And it is one that I struggled to wrap my brain around. Yes, I understand that with Republicans controlling the House of Representatives the Senate and the White House were in a compromised position. But to agree to cut taxes on funds headed for Social Security even for one year? And then have to fight in 2012 against the Republican House, which would seemingly be very willing to keep this tax cut even longer if not permanently, and be seen as supporting a tax increase for all Americans in an election year? It is ballsy to say the least.
But after talking to some insiders down in Washington I understand it a little more than just a few weeks ago. As it has been explained to me by people in the know the ploy is that President Obama and the left are putting stock in the fact that with Republicans in control of one of the houses of Congress confidence is going to improve and so too will the economy. Then, so the theory continues, if the economy improves this year employers will be willing to give out raises to their employees. Further, the hope is that these raises will be, on average, greater than the money now seen in the paychecks of workers from the decrease of two percent in the payroll tax. Finally, that when 2012 rolls around the left will be able to stonewall any extension of the payroll tax cut into further years. While there will be initial furor from the voters over a tax increase this anger will subside by Election Day 2012 because their raises will still allow them to have still a bigger paycheck in 2012 than in 2011.
Whew.
Yeah, I can buy into the fact that liberals would adopt this long and arduous strategy. Because it is so typical of their thinking. It's all about politics. Never about what is best for America, for liberty and for the citizens.
I, however, personally like the thought of having a little bit more of my own money to invest and provide for my own retirement. I like the thought of taking that money and earning much, much more for my own wallet than the current government program generates.
But then again I have never been much for the comforting embrace of the federal nanny that our government has become. I am also hoping that the majority of Americans will see things this way too and get really upset when, come the end of the year, liberals try to raise our taxes again.
=====================================
J.J. Jackson is a libertarian conservative author from Pittsburgh, PA who has been writing and promoting individual liberty since 1993 and is President of Land of the Free Studios, Inc. He is the Pittsburgh Conservative Examiner for Examiner.com. He is also the owner of The Right Things - Conservative T-shirts & Gifts The Right Things. His weekly commentary along with exclusives not available anywhere else can be found at Liberty Reborn.
What happened to the "party of the people?"
By Kevin Price
When I was a college I had a friend of mine who constantly told me that the Democratic party was for "the people." I was already a strong believer in limited government and had nothing but disdain for the socialism that I saw as pervasive in the Democratic party then and is an even more the case today. I would ask this friend to explain what he would mean and, invariably, he would point at the large tax increases his party always wanted on the rich and the social programs for the poor.
Benjamin Franklin argued that "I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I traveled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer." This goes back to an adage used in recent generations, that, "the more you tax something, the less you get of it. The more you subsidize something, the more you get of it." The Democrats have long had a strategy of taxing wealth (and job creation), while subsidizing poverty. Under the Obama administration, this strategy is in full force and, as a result, we have more people unemployed for a longer period of time than any period since the 1930s. Furthermore, we have over 44 million on Food Stamps. On the taxing side, the US is about to have the highest tax rates of any industrialized country in the world by January 2011. Franklin made it clear, subsidizing poverty is dangerous, "more will be done for their happiness by inuring them to provide for themselves, than could be done by dividing all your estates among them." Entitlement and slothfulness accompanies those who are not forced to care for themselves.
The only ones who benefit at all from a government that is growing out of control are the super rich and, if you consider getting "something for nothing" a "good thing," the poor. The super rich can afford excessive taxation because, in the vast majority of cases, they only pay taxes when their money is actively used. If it is not used in buying business, paying salaries, etc., it is not taxed. They can afford to sit while the tax laws destroy those who aspire to be rich and make it attractive for people who do not want to pursue employment at all.
Those who "support" the poor through excessive spending believe proponents of limited government are "for business," while they are for "the people." It is correct that friends of liberty support bills that encourage economic freedom. But businesses support liberal candidates as well. Liberals want us to believe that Obama raised almost ten times more than McCain in the last Presidential campaign by getting coupons and food stamps from the homeless and the destitute. According to the Federal Election Commission, the top 1 parent income group gave three to one more to Barack Obama than John McCain. How is it possible for a person who is bent on being the "Peoples' President" to be the recipient of so much support from the rich? The reason for this is simple, the mega rich are the only ones that can actually afford big government. In addition, they see big government as a tool that keeps those who aspire to be rich in their place. The reason for this is simple, the entrepreneur gets rich through business activity. If such is taxed or regulated too much, they cannot participate fully in the market place, particularly against those who can afford not to be economically active at all. In a way, high taxes are a form of protectionism for the super rich.
The big loser in such scenarios are the middle class, who find themselves pushed into poverty because of a tax system that, again, only benefits the rich and those who are poor. The "party of the people" has not been for the "forgotten man" for generations. The average American is inconsequential to liberals in their quest to control. They control the mega business through tax and regulations that small businesses cannot keep up with and they control the poor through the welfare state. A party that was actually for "the people" would strive to make prosperity an option for everyone by showing favoritism to none.
--
Kevin Price
Host, Price of Business, M-F at 11 am on CBS Radio News
Frequently found on Strategy Room at FoxNews.com
Syndicated columnist whose articles appear on a variety of media outlets.
His http://BizPlusBlog.com/ is ranked in the top 1 percent of all blogs by Technorati.
Kevin Price's Profile: http://www.google.com/profiles/PriceofBusiness
When I was a college I had a friend of mine who constantly told me that the Democratic party was for "the people." I was already a strong believer in limited government and had nothing but disdain for the socialism that I saw as pervasive in the Democratic party then and is an even more the case today. I would ask this friend to explain what he would mean and, invariably, he would point at the large tax increases his party always wanted on the rich and the social programs for the poor.
Benjamin Franklin argued that "I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I traveled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer." This goes back to an adage used in recent generations, that, "the more you tax something, the less you get of it. The more you subsidize something, the more you get of it." The Democrats have long had a strategy of taxing wealth (and job creation), while subsidizing poverty. Under the Obama administration, this strategy is in full force and, as a result, we have more people unemployed for a longer period of time than any period since the 1930s. Furthermore, we have over 44 million on Food Stamps. On the taxing side, the US is about to have the highest tax rates of any industrialized country in the world by January 2011. Franklin made it clear, subsidizing poverty is dangerous, "more will be done for their happiness by inuring them to provide for themselves, than could be done by dividing all your estates among them." Entitlement and slothfulness accompanies those who are not forced to care for themselves.
The only ones who benefit at all from a government that is growing out of control are the super rich and, if you consider getting "something for nothing" a "good thing," the poor. The super rich can afford excessive taxation because, in the vast majority of cases, they only pay taxes when their money is actively used. If it is not used in buying business, paying salaries, etc., it is not taxed. They can afford to sit while the tax laws destroy those who aspire to be rich and make it attractive for people who do not want to pursue employment at all.
Those who "support" the poor through excessive spending believe proponents of limited government are "for business," while they are for "the people." It is correct that friends of liberty support bills that encourage economic freedom. But businesses support liberal candidates as well. Liberals want us to believe that Obama raised almost ten times more than McCain in the last Presidential campaign by getting coupons and food stamps from the homeless and the destitute. According to the Federal Election Commission, the top 1 parent income group gave three to one more to Barack Obama than John McCain. How is it possible for a person who is bent on being the "Peoples' President" to be the recipient of so much support from the rich? The reason for this is simple, the mega rich are the only ones that can actually afford big government. In addition, they see big government as a tool that keeps those who aspire to be rich in their place. The reason for this is simple, the entrepreneur gets rich through business activity. If such is taxed or regulated too much, they cannot participate fully in the market place, particularly against those who can afford not to be economically active at all. In a way, high taxes are a form of protectionism for the super rich.
The big loser in such scenarios are the middle class, who find themselves pushed into poverty because of a tax system that, again, only benefits the rich and those who are poor. The "party of the people" has not been for the "forgotten man" for generations. The average American is inconsequential to liberals in their quest to control. They control the mega business through tax and regulations that small businesses cannot keep up with and they control the poor through the welfare state. A party that was actually for "the people" would strive to make prosperity an option for everyone by showing favoritism to none.
--
Kevin Price
Host, Price of Business, M-F at 11 am on CBS Radio News
Frequently found on Strategy Room at FoxNews.com
Syndicated columnist whose articles appear on a variety of media outlets.
His http://BizPlusBlog.com/ is ranked in the top 1 percent of all blogs by Technorati.
Kevin Price's Profile: http://www.google.com/profiles/PriceofBusiness
Gender Matters in Childhood Development - Glenn T. Stanton joins the Political Pistachio Radio Revolution
After I co-host Founding Truth of the Constitution radio tonight with Loki (begins at 5:00 pm Pacific) I will be discussing childhood development with Glenn T. Stanton on the Political Pistachio Radio Revolution:
NOTE: Guest was unable to join us, and will be rescheduled at a later date. . . the program wound up being about the protests in Egypt, Constitutional text regarding the authorities of the courts, and other constitutional issues.
 |
Upcoming Episodes
Gender matters when we raise our children, and Glenn T. Stanton's book, "Secure Daughters, Confident Sons," offers a clear vision for why gender matters when we raise our children. His thought-provoking, eye-opening insights expose the problems with stifling stereotypes and damaging cultural assumptions, then highlight a practical pathway for guiding children into healthy manhood and womanhood. We will discuss gender-appropriate behavior at various ages, a child's sense of significance, healthy risks and competition for boys, how moms and dads compliment each other as they discipline differently, comfort differently, and influence differently. Join us as we discuss all of this, and more, with Glenn T. Stanton, and his book that explores how a parent can nurture daily a child's God-given design and help them resist the pressure to conform to arbitrary cultural rules. Conservative News and Commentary with a Christian Edge.
No Laughing Matter
We're so very far from being near any position where we can laugh about anything regarding the Obamidency.
But ForAmerica.org gives it the old college try:
Yes, the TBS motif is as obvious as it looks. Yes, Ensign Ed took care of the equally obvious "There's already a Barack Obama Station - MSNBCCCP!" joke. But I kind of liked how close "BOS" comes to either BS or POS, if you know what I mean. Hey, if you're gonna rip on The One, why be civil about it?
Meanwhile, you remember the International Monetary Fund? That piece of multilateralist trash through which we've laundered foreign aid boodle for all these decades? Well guess what - now they're starting to give US financial advice.
And guess what else? They're....right:
U.S. officials must act quickly to control government deficits or face slower growth and even more difficult choices in the future, the International Monetary Fund said Thursday in a report criticizing the tepid U.S. response to its rising public debt.
The IMF warning comes as federal officials grapple with a congressional projection this week that the annual deficit will reach a historic $1.5 trillion this year. This was the latest report to raise concerns about how massive government debts in developed countries could undermine the global economic recovery.
“The U.S. has a lot of credibility. This does not imply their credibility can last forever,” IMF fiscal affairs director Carlo Cottarelli said as he released the IMF study. It concluded that the United States is falling behind on a promise it made to other top economic countries to halve its budget deficit by 2013.
“This is a problem many years in the making and will take a concerted effort by Democrats and Republicans working together to find a solution,” White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said in answer to a question about the IMF report.
He noted that President Obama called for a freeze on discretionary spending during this week’s State of the Union address. IMF officials have welcomed the step but said that spending cuts in pension and health entitlement programs are also needed.
What Gibbsy left out is a president who will provide the leadership and the signature for and on the necessary legislation privatizing Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, and repealing ObamaCare. Because that's what it's going to take to come close to keeping our pledge to the rest of the industrialized world, and it will never, EVER come from his misbegotten boss.
Bottom line from Mr. Morrissey:
For the IMF, this is even more worrisome than the Greek default. After all, the IMF could rely on the US to help backstop the bailout for Greece and perhaps other EU members on the ragged edge of default. If the US starts to slide, there won’t be anyone to bail out America — and the IMF will be utterly destroyed in the collapse.
But BOS will be utterly empowered by it. Because he never, EVER lets a crisis go to waste.
Still feel like laughing?
"Very scary," indeed.
Cross-posted @ Hard Starboard
Class Warfare You Can Believe In
New Jersey Governor Chris Christie keeps on Robin-Hooding the REAL bastions of greed in American society.
It's a killer that he's not presidential timbre until 2016. Is there anybody else in the GOP field who is as effective and preaching reality as the Big Man?
Cross-Posted @ Hard Starboard
Democrats Appalled by GOP Desire to Cut Spending
Before the State of the Union Speech, Rep. Wasserman Schultz appeared on Fox News to discuss her position against the Republican desire to slash the budget by cutting spending drastically. Wasserman Schultz, true to her liberal beliefs, found the idea of cutting spending to be horrendous. The hard left radicals absolutely cannot keep themselves from spending other people's money, and continuing to push their intrusive agenda of social engineering. Notice in the video linked below, when asked where she would sensibly cut spending, Representative Wasserman Schultz came up empty.
Democrat Slams GOP Cost-Cutting Strategy on Fox News
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Democrat Slams GOP Cost-Cutting Strategy on Fox News
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Obama, Reagan, and the Truth
By Douglas V. GibbsThe main-extreme media has jumped on the band-wagon that Obama is trying to moderate. But, like usual, largely because their intentions are not sincere, they take it too far, and over the top. They are putting out fires as fast as they can. Despite the tweaked polls and glowing reports by the media, Barack Obama is still one of the most loathed presidents in U.S. History. To try to save the Obama disaster from complete implosion, the propagandists of the media are now trying to draw comparisons between Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama. The latest cover of TIME Magazine (shown left) is an absurd photoshop of Reagan with his arm around Obama. The title reads, "Why Obama Loves Reagan." The liberal left knows that Reagan is revered by the American People, and ". . . even though they have never met," said Richard Stengel on MSNBC's Morning Joe, "I'd like to think they'd have a good time if they were sitting down at the White House together and it's basically how Obama from even the 1980s started looking at Reagan as a transformational politician."
Problem is, the liberal left, and definitely Barack Obama, hates Reagan with a "hate Bush"-like passion.
Granted, I don't think the Democrat sympathizers are trying to make this comparison because they think the two have similar policies. They are trying to compare the style of the two, as if Obama is anything near the level of Reagan (for example, Obama needs a teleprompter to keep him from being a mind-boggled stuttering fool; Reagan was the great communicator).
In Obama's flailing rush to failure, and in his hopes to draw himself out of the mudhole he has dug, he is appealing to the greatness of Ronald Reagan, and it even has Paul Krugman of the New York Times, yet another Nobel recipient that had no business collecting the award, angry at the big-eared man-child.
Not to worry, Paul. Obama hates Reagan just like you do, and he always has. He only likes that Reagan caught America's attention, and that is what Obama so desperately wishes to accomplish.
In The Audacity of Hope, Obama repeatedly bashed Reagan's policies, and explained how he hated with a passion Reagan and his minions. Barry's goal as president was to do away with what Reagan had accomplished. Obama's sudden embrace of Reagan, and the media jumping on the band wagon proclaiming Barry to be "Reaganesque," is propaganda. It's lies, patented lies.
Nothing to worry about, though. TIME has ceased to be a publication anybody cares about. During the Reagan Era TIME may have been something special, as was ABC, NBC and CBS for that matter, but now magazines like TIME are a dime a dozen, and with their idiotic stories like this one, nobody wants to read the old rag anymore.
A quarter of a century ago a cover like this may have been a game-changer. Now, TIME is proving to be just another hateful propaganda arm of the liberal progressive leftwing machine. And honestly, if Reagan was alive today, he would not desire to have a White House conversation with Obama. . . and if he did, it would be for the purpose of setting the big-eared moron straight, and to tell him to stop soiling America's legacy, and to stop trampling on freedom.
Ronald Reagan spoke out against the very liberal policies that Barry is trying to pass off as good for America. Reagan understood the dangers of socialism, and the underhanded methods the liberals use to get their centralized government garbage into place under our noses.
The liberal progressive leftist hate-machine despises Ronald Reagan. In fact, I remember during the Reagan administration how these people did what they could to destroy the man. They tried to pin him into a corner, force him to slip up, and every time the liberals marched into attack mode, Reagan left the Democrat Leftists standing there with pie in their faces.
In a press conference, Reagan was asked by Sam Donaldson of ABC News, "Mr. President, in talking about the continuing recession tonight, you blame the mistakes of the past, and you blame Congress. Does any of the blame belong to you?"
Ronald Reagan, quick witted, and without a teleprompter, responded, "Yes, because for many years I was a Democrat."
Every time these people tried to corner Reagan, he'd wrestle them back to the ground.
They couldn't pin him then, but now they are doing whatever they can to revise Reagan history, and make him as hated as they achieved with their "hate Bush" campaign, so that they can finally pin him down after all of these years.
The Democrats back then claimed Reagan cut taxes for the rich, and didn't care about the poor. They accused him of not only not caring about AIDS, but some of these leftist knuckleheads actually blamed Reagan for the disease. They said Mr. Reagan didn't care about the homeless. In their eyes, Reagan was some kind of cold-hearted, mean-spirited extremist. Sound familiar?
The tactics don't change, the attacks come from the same playbook. They have been making these attacks against Reagan for years. Then, suddenly, their little Barry Sotero Obama is in trouble, and the despised fallen Messiah is moving to the center, and is suddenly a parallel to the great Ronald Reagan.
Back to Richard Stengel on MSNBC's Morning Joe: "A lot of parallels. Reagan obviously lost both houses in that midterm election. His popularity went down to 35%. But the economy in Reagan's case came back that next year, came back at 7% GDP growth. If Obama gets half of that, he's lucky. But the other difference is, I mean there are a lot of similarities but one difference is you always knew where Ronald Reagan stood. I mean for 25 years he was talking about government is the problem, not the solution. And Obama doesn't quite have that same clear through line that Reagan has. And he's trying to get that. You can't say the opposite of that, that government is the solution, not the problem. And in the story, he talks about how there needed to be a correction to the Reagan correction. And that's what he's trying to do."
Wait, hit the brakes. Did he just compare Obama to Reagan, and then show Obama's contempt for Reagan in the same breath? A correction to the Reagan correction?
Remember, when it all comes down to brass tacks, these people despise Reagan with every bone in their frail little tree hugging, commie bodies. They wish to make Obama the next Reagan, while trying to keep in rhythm with their "hate everything conservative" goose step, at the same time. Fact is, Obama, or any member of the Left, will never say anything along the lines of Reagan's famous line, that government is the problem, not the solution. These people believe that a big government dictating to you your every move is somehow a good thing. They have faith in the federal government. They desire the rise of big brother. If they truly had their way, and if they could get away with it, they would be trying to compare Barack Obama to Karl Marx, instead.
Well, at least if they did that, they'd finally be honest.
Ronald Reagan saw Obama coming. He warned against chameleons such as this president we have right now. Reagan knew that the hard left liberal progressives would stop at nothing to ensure Americans somehow lost our sense of history and American exceptionalism. He warned us of the emergence of people like Obama and the things that he believes. He warned us that patriotism would stop being something everyone practiced, and would become something that is mocked. Reagan, all the way back to the Goldwater years, warned us that if we didn't get a handle on the liberal machine, it would succeed in convincing Americans that this nation is somehow guilty, and must be apologized for. The liberal progressive idiots believe America must make amends. That the only way to wrong our evil history is to revise it, and knock America down a few notches.
That hasn't been working for the Democrats, so out of desperation they are now trying to convince this country that Barack Hussein Obama somehow equals Ronald Reagan.
In the seventies and eighties they may have been able to pull it off. They had control of the entire media, and people trusted the alphabet networks. Now, however, their tactics won't work, and can't work. From conservative talk radio, to various news outlets like Fox News, and to the Internet, the Left no longer has a monopoly. The Tea Party has reminded America of what the people can do when confronted with tyranny. That is why Obama is on the ropes, and why the Left is desperately trying to compare him to Reagan.
Folks, this TIME Magazine cover, and all of the other "Obama is just like Reagan" propaganda, is a last ditch effort to avoid disaster. They are scared. They lash out against figures like Palin, and lash out at the Tea Party, because they can feel the burn of the rope sliding through their hands. Freedom is on the march, and the socialist liberal leftist progressive Democrats fear that kind of patriotic revolution. The liberal left is willing to do anything to stop Obama's slide, including comparing him to an otherwise "much hated by the Left" Ronald Reagan.
In Reagan's 1989 farewell speech from the Oval Office Reagan warned us of the kind of liberalism that Obama, and the Congressional Democrats, have forced upon America. The liberals think Reagan destroyed America, when it is the Democrats that work to do that very thing right now. In Obama's State of the Union speech, he campaigned as he has been over the last few years. And during that speech Barry Sotero tried to sound like Reagan. He tried to fake love for this country. Obama failed badly. His disdain for America, and Reagan, broke through. He couldn't fake being like Reagan because Obama hates Reagan, and everything that great president stood for. Reagan stood for America rediscovering the Wisdom of the Ages our Founding Fathers granted to us. Obama stands for forgetting. Reagan held a genuine love for this nation. Obama despises it.
Obama desires to capture America's heart as Reagan did.
I voted for Ronald Reagan, and I watched his presidency closely. Reagan was indeed a transformational figure, and you, Mr. Obama, are no Ronald Reagan.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Ronald Reagan Speaks Out Against Socialized Medicine:
Ronald Reagan Speech - 1964 Republican National Convention, "A Time For Choosing"
"Yes, because for many years I was a Democrat." -- Ronald Reagan
Farewell Speech - President Reagan's Farewell Speech from the Oval Office 1/11/89:
Obama without a teleprompter or script:
Ronald Reagan saw Obama coming. He warned against chameleons such as this president we have right now. Reagan knew that the hard left liberal progressives would stop at nothing to ensure Americans somehow lost our sense of history and American exceptionalism. He warned us of the emergence of people like Obama and the things that he believes. He warned us that patriotism would stop being something everyone practiced, and would become something that is mocked. Reagan, all the way back to the Goldwater years, warned us that if we didn't get a handle on the liberal machine, it would succeed in convincing Americans that this nation is somehow guilty, and must be apologized for. The liberal progressive idiots believe America must make amends. That the only way to wrong our evil history is to revise it, and knock America down a few notches.
That hasn't been working for the Democrats, so out of desperation they are now trying to convince this country that Barack Hussein Obama somehow equals Ronald Reagan.
In the seventies and eighties they may have been able to pull it off. They had control of the entire media, and people trusted the alphabet networks. Now, however, their tactics won't work, and can't work. From conservative talk radio, to various news outlets like Fox News, and to the Internet, the Left no longer has a monopoly. The Tea Party has reminded America of what the people can do when confronted with tyranny. That is why Obama is on the ropes, and why the Left is desperately trying to compare him to Reagan.
Folks, this TIME Magazine cover, and all of the other "Obama is just like Reagan" propaganda, is a last ditch effort to avoid disaster. They are scared. They lash out against figures like Palin, and lash out at the Tea Party, because they can feel the burn of the rope sliding through their hands. Freedom is on the march, and the socialist liberal leftist progressive Democrats fear that kind of patriotic revolution. The liberal left is willing to do anything to stop Obama's slide, including comparing him to an otherwise "much hated by the Left" Ronald Reagan.
In Reagan's 1989 farewell speech from the Oval Office Reagan warned us of the kind of liberalism that Obama, and the Congressional Democrats, have forced upon America. The liberals think Reagan destroyed America, when it is the Democrats that work to do that very thing right now. In Obama's State of the Union speech, he campaigned as he has been over the last few years. And during that speech Barry Sotero tried to sound like Reagan. He tried to fake love for this country. Obama failed badly. His disdain for America, and Reagan, broke through. He couldn't fake being like Reagan because Obama hates Reagan, and everything that great president stood for. Reagan stood for America rediscovering the Wisdom of the Ages our Founding Fathers granted to us. Obama stands for forgetting. Reagan held a genuine love for this nation. Obama despises it.
Obama desires to capture America's heart as Reagan did.
I voted for Ronald Reagan, and I watched his presidency closely. Reagan was indeed a transformational figure, and you, Mr. Obama, are no Ronald Reagan.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Ronald Reagan Speaks Out Against Socialized Medicine:
Ronald Reagan Speech - 1964 Republican National Convention, "A Time For Choosing"
"Yes, because for many years I was a Democrat." -- Ronald Reagan
Farewell Speech - President Reagan's Farewell Speech from the Oval Office 1/11/89:
Obama without a teleprompter or script:
Economist: U.S. In Worse Shape Than Greece. . . they just aren't telling us
"We must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt." --Thomas Jefferson
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Friday, January 28, 2011
Jefferson: Separation of Powers
"The principle of the Constitution is that of a separation of legislative, Executive and Judiciary functions, except in cases specified. If this principle be not expressed in direct terms, it is clearly the spirit of the Constitution, and it ought to be so commented and acted on by every friend of free government." --Thomas Jefferson
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Alexya Santi Gibbs, a Beautiful Baby Girl
I took this picture about 35 minutes after little Alexya was born. Her middle name, Santi (Sawn-tee) is a variation of her great-grandfather's name, Santiago. Alexya is the daughter of my son, Christopher, and his wife, Johanna. This is their second child, and my third grandkid.
Alexya was born at 5:05 pm tonight, and she was 6 lbs., 10 oz., and 18.75 inches long.
I was on my way home from work when she was born, and was blessed with the marvelous opportunity to see her thirty minutes after she was born. I am the first family member, aside from Alexya's parents, to get to see her. I gave her a little kiss, and then bid farewell until tomorrow.
Being Grandpa is a good thing.
Thank you for all of your well wishes. My radio listeners will remember that Joey was having false labor contractions last Saturday, and we have been in anticipation of Alexya's arrival all week.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News, Commentary, and tidbits about grandchildren. . .
Bob Chapman, Economic Update, and a guest spot on LA Talk Radio Jack Marino's show! Tonight on Political Pistachio Radio
Upcoming Episodes
Economic Update with Bob Chapman of International Forecaster - Political Pistachio Radio Revolution
Douglas V. Gibbs
Date / Time: 1/28/2011 7:00 PM Pacific Time
Category: Politics Conservative
Call-in Number: (646) 652-2940
During the first hour we will interview economist Bob Chapman, and during the second hour I will be a guest on Jack Marino's radio program at LA Talk Radio, and it will be simulcasted live on Political Pistachio! Tune in tonight for the fun! Conservative News and Commentary with a Christian Edge.
Gun Violence In The News, Logical Conclusion is. . .
By Douglas V. Gibbs
In the Los Angeles area, it began with a tragedy at Gardena High School, where a student brought a loaded gun to school in his backpack that discharged when the bag was dropped, shooting two students with one bullet. Then, outside of El Camino Real High School, a would-be car thief shot an LAUSD police officer in the chest. A few hours after that, outside of Bell High School, a 16-year-old student leaving school was shot in a drive-by attack that left the victim in serious condition.
In just a 24-hour period between Sunday and Monday, 11 officers were shot in five states.
The media reported these happenings with glee, for they want the progressive liberal leftists to put into place gun control measures.
Gun control, of course, would not take firearms out of the hands of the criminal element, only out of the hands of the law-abiding citizens - opening up the opportunity for gun violence to actually increase.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
President Obama to address gun control soon, aides say - Washington Post
Gun Facts - Your Guide to Debunking Gun Control Myths - Gun Facts
In the Los Angeles area, it began with a tragedy at Gardena High School, where a student brought a loaded gun to school in his backpack that discharged when the bag was dropped, shooting two students with one bullet. Then, outside of El Camino Real High School, a would-be car thief shot an LAUSD police officer in the chest. A few hours after that, outside of Bell High School, a 16-year-old student leaving school was shot in a drive-by attack that left the victim in serious condition.
In just a 24-hour period between Sunday and Monday, 11 officers were shot in five states.
The media reported these happenings with glee, for they want the progressive liberal leftists to put into place gun control measures.
Gun control, of course, would not take firearms out of the hands of the criminal element, only out of the hands of the law-abiding citizens - opening up the opportunity for gun violence to actually increase.
Also, remember this: The shot heard 'round the world at Lexington Green occurred because the British were headed to Concord to. . . take our guns.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
President Obama to address gun control soon, aides say - Washington Post
Gun Facts - Your Guide to Debunking Gun Control Myths - Gun Facts
Vicious Mysoginist Tingles Nuked For Channeling His Inner Olby
You think Glenn Beck has kicked libtard ass before? He's just getting started.
And from all of us at Hard Starboard, a hail and hearty "up yours!" to you too, Chris Matthews.
Although, to be fair, I have to say he trashes Michelle Bachmann so civilly, ya know?
Cross-posted @ Hard Starboard
Jefferson: America, the Great Experiment
"No experiment can be more interesting than that we are now trying, and which we trust will end in establishing the fact, that man may be governed by reason and truth. Our first object should therefore be, to leave open to him all the avenues to truth. The most effectual hitherto found, is the freedom of the press. It is, therefore, the first shut up by those who fear the investigation of their actions." --Thomas Jefferson, letter to Judge John Tyler, 1804
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
George Washington Quote on National Deficit
"As a very important source of strength and security, cherish public credit. One method of preserving it is to use it as sparingly as possible [and] not ungenerously throwing upon posterity the burthen which we ourselves ought to bear." --George Washington
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Thursday, January 27, 2011
Northeast Digging Out Again, School Closures as Far South as Tennessee
Stuck.
On the George Washington Parkway. On 16th Street NW. Interstate 66, too.
Father is killed by tree while waiting in traffic on way to job clearing snow
After D.C. storm, bewildered drivers ask: 'Dude, where's my car?'
Buses, cars, people - just plain stuck as snow, sleet and ice covered roadways and knocked down trees across the region, turning the evening commute into a seemingly endless nightmare.
And the Left still claims that man-made Global Warming exists.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Snow gridlock traps commuters for up to 13 hours - Washington Post
Lingering snow delaying start of some schools; temperatures milder - Knox News
On the George Washington Parkway. On 16th Street NW. Interstate 66, too.
Father is killed by tree while waiting in traffic on way to job clearing snow
After D.C. storm, bewildered drivers ask: 'Dude, where's my car?'
Buses, cars, people - just plain stuck as snow, sleet and ice covered roadways and knocked down trees across the region, turning the evening commute into a seemingly endless nightmare.
And the Left still claims that man-made Global Warming exists.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Snow gridlock traps commuters for up to 13 hours - Washington Post
Lingering snow delaying start of some schools; temperatures milder - Knox News
The Medical Loss Ratio In Obamacare Is Troublesome To A Lot Of People
Federal government is even dictating to insurance companies "if" they can make a profit.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Temecula Constitution Study: Articles VI, and VII
Temecula Constitution Study with Douglas V. Gibbs, January 27, 2011
Article VI, VII
Article VI, Clause 1. Validity of Prior Debts and Engagements. All prior debts and engagements, even though they were incurred under the Articles of Confederation, are transferred to the new government under the U.S. Constitution as per this clause.
Article VI, Clause 2. The Supremacy Clause. Perhaps one of the most misunderstood and misapplied clauses of the U.S. Constitution. Many believe this clause states that all federal laws supersede all State laws, and that is simply not true. To understand the true meaning of this clause, one must pay close attention to the language used.
John Marshall, the fourth Chief Justice of the United States (the justice that also wrote an opinion seizing the power of Judicial Review for the courts - Marbury v. Madison, 1803) wrote that there is a priority of national claims over state claims in his opinion regarding McCulloch v. Maryland, 1805, which upheld an act of 1792 asserting for the United States a priority of its claims over those of the States against a debtor in bankruptcy. With subsequent opinions, Marshall, Joseph Story, and many courts since, have fostered the belief that the federal courts, and laws, have total supremacy over all state courts and laws. However, this concept contradicts the 10th Amendment, which specifically states that powers not delegated to the federal government, nor prohibited to the States, belong to the States.
What this means is that not all federal laws are supreme over State laws, and the federal courts are not supreme over state courts when it comes to issues that fall under the sole authority of the States.
If the federal government has a law on the books, and the law was made under the authorities granted by the States in the United States Constitution, and a state, or city, passes a law that contradicts that constitutional federal law, the federal government’s law is supreme based on The Supremacy Clause. However, if the federal law is unconstitutional because it was made outside constitutional authority, it is an illegal law, and therefore is not supreme over similar State laws.
An example of the federal government acting upon the assumption that all federal law is supreme over State law is the medical marijuana laws in California. Though I do not agree with the legalization of marijuana, even for medicinal purposes, the actual constitutional legality of the issue illustrates my point quite well.
California passed a law legalizing marijuana for medicinal purposes, but federal law has marijuana as being illegal in all applications. Therefore, using the authority of the federal government based on the Supremacy Clause, federal agents (or at least until recently) have been raiding and shutting down medical marijuana labs in California. However, there is no place in the U.S. Constitution that gives the federal government the authority to regulate drugs, nor has there been an amendment passed to grant that authority to the federal government, therefore the raids on medical Marijuana labs in California are unconstitutional actions by the federal government.
The Supremacy Clause applies only to federal laws that are constitutionally authorized. Therefore, federal drug laws are unconstitutional. As a result, California's medical marijuana laws are constitutional because they are not contrary to any constitutionally authorized federal laws.
"Contrary" is a key word in the Article VI, Section 2.
Language plays an important part in the Constitution, and The Supremacy Clause is no different. The clause indicates that state laws cannot be contrary to constitutionally authorized federal laws. For example, Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 states that it is the job of the U.S. Congress to establish an uniform rule of naturalization. The word "uniform" means that the rules for naturalization must apply to all immigrants, and to all states, in the same way. If a state was to then pass a law that granted citizenship through the naturalization process in a way not consistent with federal law, the State would be guilty of violating the Supremacy Clause.
In the case of Arizona’s immigration law, the argument by the federal government that Arizona’s law is contrary to federal law is a bad argument. Assuming, for just a moment, that the federal government has complete authority over immigration (which is not true since immigration is one of those issues in which the federal government and the States have concurrent jurisdiction), Arizona's law would then need to be identical to federal law. And in most ways, the Arizona law is similar to federal law. However, if Arizona was to follow the federal government's recommendation, and truly pass a law completely in line with federal law, Arizona would remove its text that disallows racial profiling because the federal law does not contain such protections, which is actually the only way the law is contrary to federal law.
The language in Article VI, Clause 2 reveals clearly that only laws made under the authorities granted to the federal government have supremacy. Article VI, Clause 2 reads: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; . . . in pursuance of what? Of the Constitution.
The language is simple. The conclusion is easy. The truth is obvious.
Article VI, Clause 3. This clause indicates that all elected officials are bound to support the Constitution by oath or affirmation. An oath is to God, and an affirmation is not a sworn oath to God. This was offered because the Founding Fathers recognized that not everyone believed in God, and that there were some religions that believed swearing to God to be a sin. This clause also states that there shall be no religious test to serve. This was not the case in all of the states. For example, the Danbury Baptists in Connecticut appealed to President Jefferson because they felt they were being mistreated by the Puritans, who were the dominant religion in that state. Jefferson replied that the federal government could not help them. It was a State issue. But we will have more on that next week when we discuss the 1st Amendment.
Article VII.
To ratify the Constitution, the Founding Fathers determined it should be at least nine states. This meant that both northern and southern states would be needed to ratify the Constitution. The number “9”, of 13, represented 2/3 of the total states at the time.
When reviewing the list of signers of the Constitution, one may notice that Rhode Island was not present, and only Alexander Hamilton signed for New York. The anti-federalists feared a federal government, afraid that the system could become centralized, and ultimately tyrannical. Such a system would infringe upon States’ Rights, and the sovereignty of the States was a very important aspect of the new nation. The federal government was only supposed to protect and preserve the union, and nothing more.
The New York anti-federalists were so angry over the proceedings that they all got up and walked out, leaving Hamilton alone. Later, in the hopes of convincing the anti-federalists in New York to support the new Constitution, the 85 Federalist Papers were written by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay.
Because of the Supremacy Clause, not only is it assumed by many that the federal government’s laws are all supreme, but that the federal government has implied powers. Below is an explanation regarding the difference between expressed and implied powers.
We will also discuss "Implied v. Expressed Powers"
--------------
Thank you to Faith Armory for the use of the Classroom at 27498 Enterprise Cir. W., #2, Temecula, CA.
www.politicalpistachio.com
www.temeculaconstitutionclass.blogspot.com