Thursday, March 31, 2011
The Road to the Abolition of Slavery
Constitution Study, March 31, 2011
The Road To The Abolition of Slavery
Slavery was a huge issue during the time the U.S. Constitution was written. The word "slavery" actually never appeared in the U.S. Constitution until the addition of the 13th Amendment. It is possible that the Founding Fathers avoided using the word "slavery" because they recognized the contradiction of the idea that "all men are created equal," while many of those same men were also slaveholders. One thing is for sure, the Constitution is filled with many compromises primary because the slave states to the south were needed in order to ratify the Constitution.
There were many at the Constitutional Convention that wanted the new federal government to have the power to abolish slavery immediately, or for the United States to become a nation without the defiant slave states to the south. Instead, the necessary compromises were made, while making sure that neither the free states, or the slave states, had too much power in government.
One of the compromises is found in Article I, Section 9, where it is provided that in 1808 the Congress may pass legislation to prohibit the Atlantic slave trade. True to the Constitution, on January 1, 1808, legislation was passed to do just that. The importation of slaves from other countries was banned, but the selling of slaves within our borders continued.
The northern states had all abolished slavery by 1804, beginning with Rhode Island in 1774, and ending with New Jersey in 1804. By 1820, the worry was that if the free states were to begin to outnumber the slave states, they would use their power to overpower the slave states, and vice versa.
Missouri Compromise of 1820
Population differences produced a disparity in House seats, despite the three-fifths ratio. As long as the number of slave states equaled the number of free states, the Senate would not be lost. The Missouri Compromise would help keep the number even, they figured. Missouri would be added as a slave state, but in the future no slave state could be added north of the parallel 36°30' (the southern boundary of Missouri).
The Fugitive Slave Act 0f 1850
Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3 of the Constitution called for escaped slaves to be returned to their owners, even in the event that the slave escaped to a non-slave state. The northern states, however, were not abiding by this clause, so the southern states appealed to the federal government to ensure that the northern states follow the Constitution. In 1850 Congress passed the Fugitive Slave Act. Its main provision was that any federal marshal who did not arrest an alleged runaway slave could be fined $1,000. A person suspected of being a runaway slave could be arrested and turned over to any person who gave sworn testimony of ownership. A suspected slave could not ask for a jury trial nor testify on his or her own behalf. Any person who aided a runaway slave by providing shelter, food or any other form of assistance would be sentenced to six months' imprisonment and a $1,000 fine. Officers who captured a fugitive slave were entitled to a fee, and this encouraged some officers to kidnap free African Americans and sell them to slaveowners.
The Kansas-Nebraska Act
In 1854, Stephen Douglas introduced his Kansas-Nebraska bill to the Senate. It allowed people in the territories of Kansas and Nebraska to decide for themselves whether or not to allow slavery within their borders. The Act effectively repealed the Missouri Compromise of 1820 which prohibited slavery north of latitude 36°30´. Southerners entered the area with their slaves, while active members of the Antislavery Society also arrived. Henry Ward Beecher condemned the bill from his pulpit and helped to raise funds to supply weapons to those willing to oppose slavery in these territories.
Kansas elected its first legislature in March, 1855. Although less than 2,000 people were qualified to take part in these elections, over 6,000 people voted—mainly Missouri slave-owners who crossed the border to make sure pro-slavery candidates were elected. The new legislature passed laws that imposed the death penalty for anyone helping a slave to escape and two years in jail for possessing abolitionist literature. In 1856, Abraham Lincoln joined the Republican Party and unsuccessfully challenged Stephen Douglas for his seat in the Senate.
In 1858 when he made a speech at Quincy, Illinois. Lincoln argued: "We have in this nation the element of domestic slavery. The Republican Party think it wrong—we think it is a moral, a social, and a political wrong…that affects the existence of the whole nation."
Dred Scott
John Emerson was an Army Doctor that traveled from army base to army base. His slave, Dred Scott, followed him to these army bases in both slave states and free territory. Dr. Emerson died in 1843, at which time the Dred Scott and his wife became the property of his widow Irene Emerson. And in 1846, Dred Scott filed a lawsuit against Irene Emerson in the courthouse in St. Louis, claiming he was a free man by virtue of the fact that Dr. Emerson had, for extended periods of time, taken him to parts of the country where slavery was outlawed.
When Dred Scott originally filed his lawsuit asking for his freedom, due to the fact that many other similar lawsuits had been filed before, Scott and his lawyer were convinced that Dred Scott would win his case. In 1850 the judge ruled that Scott was free and that Mrs. Emerson even owed him the money she had received from "leasing him out."
However, Irene Emerson appealed the case to the Missouri Supreme Court. Two years later, in 1852, the Missouri high court struck down the lower court ruling -- deciding, in effect, that Scott was still a slave and that it didn't matter that he had been taken into free territory.
Another group of attorneys came forward and decided to continue fighting on behalf of Dred Scott. Irene Emerson then transferred her ownership of Dred Scott to her brother, a New Yorker named John Sanford. Since the case now involved people from two different states, it shifted from the Missouri state court to U.S. federal court.
In 1856 the Supreme Court heard the case and rendered its decision in March 1857. The court ruled that Dred Scott was still a slave, that any person descended from black Africans, whether slave or free, could not be a citizen of the United States, and it also ruled that the Missouri Compromise of 1820 was unconstitutional.
This verdict affected a lot more people than Dred Scott. It effectively meant that the series of compromises that had been worked out over the previous generation regarding the issue of slavery were no more. Southern slaveholders could take their slaves wherever they wanted, and they could take legal action to have runaway slaves from years past returned to them. Most importantly, it opened up the entire American west to slavery.
The American People, primarily in the north, were opposed to the verdict in the Dred Scott case. The issue became a key factor in the 1860 presidential election.
After the Dred Scott case finally concluded, Taylor Blow stepped forward and purchased Scott, his wife and his two daughters from John Sanford. He then took the legal steps to set them free.
Slavery was a huge issue during the time the U.S. Constitution was written. The word "slavery" actually never appeared in the U.S. Constitution until the addition of the 13th Amendment. It is possible that the Founding Fathers avoided using the word "slavery" because they recognized the contradiction of the idea that "all men are created equal," while many of those same men were also slaveholders. One thing is for sure, the Constitution is filled with many compromises primary because the slave states to the south were needed in order to ratify the Constitution.
There were many at the Constitutional Convention that wanted the new federal government to have the power to abolish slavery immediately, or for the United States to become a nation without the defiant slave states to the south. Instead, the necessary compromises were made, while making sure that neither the free states, or the slave states, had too much power in government.
One of the compromises is found in Article I, Section 9, where it is provided that in 1808 the Congress may pass legislation to prohibit the Atlantic slave trade. True to the Constitution, on January 1, 1808, legislation was passed to do just that. The importation of slaves from other countries was banned, but the selling of slaves within our borders continued.
The northern states had all abolished slavery by 1804, beginning with Rhode Island in 1774, and ending with New Jersey in 1804. By 1820, the worry was that if the free states were to begin to outnumber the slave states, they would use their power to overpower the slave states, and vice versa.
Missouri Compromise of 1820
Population differences produced a disparity in House seats, despite the three-fifths ratio. As long as the number of slave states equaled the number of free states, the Senate would not be lost. The Missouri Compromise would help keep the number even, they figured. Missouri would be added as a slave state, but in the future no slave state could be added north of the parallel 36°30' (the southern boundary of Missouri).
The Fugitive Slave Act 0f 1850
Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3 of the Constitution called for escaped slaves to be returned to their owners, even in the event that the slave escaped to a non-slave state. The northern states, however, were not abiding by this clause, so the southern states appealed to the federal government to ensure that the northern states follow the Constitution. In 1850 Congress passed the Fugitive Slave Act. Its main provision was that any federal marshal who did not arrest an alleged runaway slave could be fined $1,000. A person suspected of being a runaway slave could be arrested and turned over to any person who gave sworn testimony of ownership. A suspected slave could not ask for a jury trial nor testify on his or her own behalf. Any person who aided a runaway slave by providing shelter, food or any other form of assistance would be sentenced to six months' imprisonment and a $1,000 fine. Officers who captured a fugitive slave were entitled to a fee, and this encouraged some officers to kidnap free African Americans and sell them to slaveowners.
Northern States failed to abide by this law, and the federal government failed to enforce it.
The Kansas-Nebraska Act
In 1854, Stephen Douglas introduced his Kansas-Nebraska bill to the Senate. It allowed people in the territories of Kansas and Nebraska to decide for themselves whether or not to allow slavery within their borders. The Act effectively repealed the Missouri Compromise of 1820 which prohibited slavery north of latitude 36°30´. Southerners entered the area with their slaves, while active members of the Antislavery Society also arrived. Henry Ward Beecher condemned the bill from his pulpit and helped to raise funds to supply weapons to those willing to oppose slavery in these territories.
Kansas elected its first legislature in March, 1855. Although less than 2,000 people were qualified to take part in these elections, over 6,000 people voted—mainly Missouri slave-owners who crossed the border to make sure pro-slavery candidates were elected. The new legislature passed laws that imposed the death penalty for anyone helping a slave to escape and two years in jail for possessing abolitionist literature. In 1856, Abraham Lincoln joined the Republican Party and unsuccessfully challenged Stephen Douglas for his seat in the Senate.
In 1858 when he made a speech at Quincy, Illinois. Lincoln argued: "We have in this nation the element of domestic slavery. The Republican Party think it wrong—we think it is a moral, a social, and a political wrong…that affects the existence of the whole nation."
Dred Scott
John Emerson was an Army Doctor that traveled from army base to army base. His slave, Dred Scott, followed him to these army bases in both slave states and free territory. Dr. Emerson died in 1843, at which time the Dred Scott and his wife became the property of his widow Irene Emerson. And in 1846, Dred Scott filed a lawsuit against Irene Emerson in the courthouse in St. Louis, claiming he was a free man by virtue of the fact that Dr. Emerson had, for extended periods of time, taken him to parts of the country where slavery was outlawed.
When Dred Scott originally filed his lawsuit asking for his freedom, due to the fact that many other similar lawsuits had been filed before, Scott and his lawyer were convinced that Dred Scott would win his case. In 1850 the judge ruled that Scott was free and that Mrs. Emerson even owed him the money she had received from "leasing him out."
However, Irene Emerson appealed the case to the Missouri Supreme Court. Two years later, in 1852, the Missouri high court struck down the lower court ruling -- deciding, in effect, that Scott was still a slave and that it didn't matter that he had been taken into free territory.
Another group of attorneys came forward and decided to continue fighting on behalf of Dred Scott. Irene Emerson then transferred her ownership of Dred Scott to her brother, a New Yorker named John Sanford. Since the case now involved people from two different states, it shifted from the Missouri state court to U.S. federal court.
In 1856 the Supreme Court heard the case and rendered its decision in March 1857. The court ruled that Dred Scott was still a slave, that any person descended from black Africans, whether slave or free, could not be a citizen of the United States, and it also ruled that the Missouri Compromise of 1820 was unconstitutional.
This verdict affected a lot more people than Dred Scott. It effectively meant that the series of compromises that had been worked out over the previous generation regarding the issue of slavery were no more. Southern slaveholders could take their slaves wherever they wanted, and they could take legal action to have runaway slaves from years past returned to them. Most importantly, it opened up the entire American west to slavery.
The American People, primarily in the north, were opposed to the verdict in the Dred Scott case. The issue became a key factor in the 1860 presidential election.
After the Dred Scott case finally concluded, Taylor Blow stepped forward and purchased Scott, his wife and his two daughters from John Sanford. He then took the legal steps to set them free.
------
Special Thanks to: Faith Armory, 27498 Enterprise Cir. W #2, Temecula, CA 92562; 951-699-7500, www.faitharmory.com - For providing us with a classroom to meet in.
Holding A Hammer Video
Word has it that the Tennessee middle school assistant football coach, age 26, was fired for this song he wrote and played!!!
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Texas to Protect Those in Academia Who Question Darwin
By Douglas V. Gibbs
From the proposed House Bill 2454 by State Rep. Bill Zedler:
An institution of higher education may not discriminate against or penalize in any manner, especially with regard to employment or academic support, a faculty member or student based on the faculty member's or student's conduct of research relating to the theory of intelligent design or other alternate theories of the origination and development of organisms.
You can almost say you believe anything in academia without as much as a hiccup, until you mention intelligent design. . . then the storm troopers are released.
Baylor University Professor Bob Marks revealed his own research that challenged Darwin's theory of evolution a few years ago, and the result was that he was ordered to take it off the Internet by his employer. What is even more amazing is that Baylor is supposed to be a Christian institution.
Fact is, university administrators are fearful of the Darwinian Machine. In fact, there is an incredible system of entrenched censorship of intelligent design research by established scientists.
David Coppedge, an information-technology specialist and systems administrator on the NASA Jet Propulsion Lab's Cassini mission to Saturn, contended he was discriminated against by managers and demoted because he shared intelligent design videos with co-workers.
Darwinism is kept in place as the sole choice because of intimidation tactics that rival those used in dictatorial government systems.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Texas considers protecting those who question Darwin: 'In academia if you talk intelligent design, all of a sudden we need to get rid of you' - World Net Daily
From the proposed House Bill 2454 by State Rep. Bill Zedler:
An institution of higher education may not discriminate against or penalize in any manner, especially with regard to employment or academic support, a faculty member or student based on the faculty member's or student's conduct of research relating to the theory of intelligent design or other alternate theories of the origination and development of organisms.
You can almost say you believe anything in academia without as much as a hiccup, until you mention intelligent design. . . then the storm troopers are released.
Baylor University Professor Bob Marks revealed his own research that challenged Darwin's theory of evolution a few years ago, and the result was that he was ordered to take it off the Internet by his employer. What is even more amazing is that Baylor is supposed to be a Christian institution.
Fact is, university administrators are fearful of the Darwinian Machine. In fact, there is an incredible system of entrenched censorship of intelligent design research by established scientists.
David Coppedge, an information-technology specialist and systems administrator on the NASA Jet Propulsion Lab's Cassini mission to Saturn, contended he was discriminated against by managers and demoted because he shared intelligent design videos with co-workers.
Darwinism is kept in place as the sole choice because of intimidation tactics that rival those used in dictatorial government systems.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Texas considers protecting those who question Darwin: 'In academia if you talk intelligent design, all of a sudden we need to get rid of you' - World Net Daily
Must Gadhafi Go? - Hillary and Barry seem not to agree
By Douglas V. Gibbs
First they all sang the same chorus line, "Gadhafi must go."
Obama has since changed his tune, and now says Gadhafi can stay.
Hillary Clinton has remained with the old verse, saying on Tuesday in London, "Gadhafi has lost the legitimacy to lead, so we believe he must go."
My first thought is, who are they to make that decision? Especially since Gates has already told us that Libya poses no threat to American interests? My second thought was, weren't these the same people that screamed in blood-curdling anger that Bush was bad for going into Iraq, and taking out Saddam Hussein?
Amazing how quickly they go from hating the war-monger Bush, to becoming war-mongers of their own.
But then, that always goes back to the question. . . you know. . . any question. For the Left, the answer to any question is, "Whatever benefits their agenda most," even if it is a lie, or a contradiction.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Top diplomats agree that Libya's Gadhafi must go - Times Union
OBAMA FLIP-FLOP: NOW GADHAFI CAN REMAIN IN POWER - The Constitution Club
FLIP-FLOP: OBAMA ADMIN SENDS SIGNALS THAT GADHAFI CAN STAY IN POWER - The Blaze
First they all sang the same chorus line, "Gadhafi must go."
Obama has since changed his tune, and now says Gadhafi can stay.
Hillary Clinton has remained with the old verse, saying on Tuesday in London, "Gadhafi has lost the legitimacy to lead, so we believe he must go."
My first thought is, who are they to make that decision? Especially since Gates has already told us that Libya poses no threat to American interests? My second thought was, weren't these the same people that screamed in blood-curdling anger that Bush was bad for going into Iraq, and taking out Saddam Hussein?
Amazing how quickly they go from hating the war-monger Bush, to becoming war-mongers of their own.
But then, that always goes back to the question. . . you know. . . any question. For the Left, the answer to any question is, "Whatever benefits their agenda most," even if it is a lie, or a contradiction.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Top diplomats agree that Libya's Gadhafi must go - Times Union
OBAMA FLIP-FLOP: NOW GADHAFI CAN REMAIN IN POWER - The Constitution Club
FLIP-FLOP: OBAMA ADMIN SENDS SIGNALS THAT GADHAFI CAN STAY IN POWER - The Blaze
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
You've Come A Long Way, Baby
By Douglas V. Gibbs
There is currently a class-action lawsuit going on against Wal-mart for discriminating against women. Wal-mart has allegedly promoted men over women, and it is alleged that the salaries for women are less than their male counterparts at Wal-mart. The lawsuit has worked its way all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court, and the ruling could be a defining moment in the history of women's rights - if the courts allow them to use the "class action lawsuit" avenue in their fight in the first place.
While it is true that gender discrimination still exists, the societal norms have changed so much that it brings to mind the old Virginia Slims cigarette ad from the sixties and seventies that proclaimed, "You've come a long way, baby." My wife is a prime example. She is both a woman, and a minority. She was born in a different country which also makes her an immigrant. Her parents immigrated here when she was quite young from Mexico, so though she did not naturalize until 2007, she was raised in the American environment. As a woman she made the choice to work when she was younger, and then later become a stay-at-home wife and mother. After our youngest child finally moved out to strike out on her own, my wife returned to work, hoping to make a career in what she does. While she was at home all those years, she chose to seek education, and has a Bachelor's Degree in Psychology, and four Associate Degrees. But she did not stay home to do the laundry, clean the dishes, and change diapers because I demanded she do so, but by choice because she felt during that time period our children would be better for it. A hundred years ago, those choices would not have been available to her. Her opportunities would have been limited, and education would have been out of reach. The importance of the women's rights movement in her case is not whether or not she was being treated the same as men, but simply that the movement gave her the choice to compete in the workforce, or not to. That is the importance of the women's rights movement. . . that it created choice - and choice equals liberty.
The term "sexism" is used to describe the generalized belief that one gender is superior to another. Historically, such a belief generally presumed male superiority in all aspects of life. In modern history, the tide has turned, and gender-role norms and behavior have broken down, and women have gained opportunities not afforded to them before.
Reality dictates that there are gender differences, and that men and women differ in a number of ways, so generally men and women are best suited for certain roles. However, there are always exceptions, and through the efforts of the women's liberation movement, the choices for women usually exist in today's society.
Due to the nurturing nature of women, for example, the role as a mother is best suited with a female. But such a reality should not then dictate that women only belong at home with the kids, or do not belong in the workforce, just because women are more naturally equipped to raise children. And on the flip side of that coin, such a reality that women tend to be better suited to be the stay-at-home parent does not mean that all men are somehow incapable of performing the same tasks in regards to the upbringing of children.
In other words, reality dictates that there are differences in the sexes, and that men or women generally tend to be better suited for particular roles or tasks, but such a reality should not then result in an oppression of one group over another when a member of one of those groups decides to break with tradition.
Public awareness that women have been discriminated against because of the idea of male superiority has increased in our modern society, and in an attempt to correct what is believed by many to be prejudice against women because of their sexual identity, movements have formed, and laws have been created. But, like with anything, some parts of this effort to ensure women are treated equally from a societal viewpoint have taken the movement to an extreme.
This is not the first and only time a drive towards providing women equality has emerged, but this is the first time it has progressed to the point it has. Historically, the New Testament of the Bible reveals that it was women that first witnessed Christ had risen, and they were believed when they went to tell others of the good news - and this happened during a time when a woman's testimony held no weight. During the early years of the American experiment, Aaron Burr, Vice President under Thomas Jefferson during the first presidency of the 1800s, spoke out for women's rights, as well. Burr, inspired by his intelligent wife, ensured his daughters were educated and prepared to compete against the men in the world. Burr was also one of the few politicians of the day that spoke out for the rights of women, even suggesting that women should be able to vote - a right women would not enjoy until the ratification of the Nineteenth Amendment in 1920. Unfortunately, throughout history, due to the dominant belief that women were valuable "commodities," though there were small battles won in female land ownership, inheritance, and even voting rights, for the most part the general rule of the day was that women were subordinate to men.
The Native American culture viewed women differently, where the societies were matrilineal (When descent and inheritance pass through the female side of the family) and matrilocal (The custom of married partners settling in or near the household of the wife's family). In that culture women had considerable power because property (housing, land, tools) belonged to them and was passed down from mother to daughter. Husbands joined the wife's family, giving the male little chance to become an authoritative, domineering figure. In cases of divorce, in some of the Indian societies, the wife could simply throw out his belongings from the residence. In these societies often the women were also very influential in tribal governance.
In addition to Aaron Burr's push to give women more recognition as members of society, Abigail Adams in a letter to her husband John Adams (second president of the United States) also made a plea for equal rights for women, calling the male dominated culture she lived in "tyrannical," and that she hoped with the rise of the new United States, that the men of that country would be ". . . more generous and favorable to [the ladies] than [their] ancestors." However, as the United States grew and prospered, the attitudes that arose were that women were there to please, and men were there to achieve.
Well into the Industrial Revolution women continued to be denied the right to vote, own property in their own name, testify in court, make a legal contract, spend their own wages without their husband's permission, or even retain guardianship over their own children if their husband died or deserted them. Of course not everyone thought these were good standards, during that time period, but they were the prevailing norms. However, there were significant steps forward during the 1800s. In 1848 the New York State legislature acted to protect the property rights of married women, and in 1869 the Wyoming Territory gave women the right to vote, continuing that practice after it became a state in 1890 - the first state to do so.
The abolition movement prior to the American Civil War attracted female activists willing to fight against the continuance or expansion of slavery. But it wasn't until the Suffrage Movement that we saw how fierce the fight for women's rights could become.
- The Suffrage Movement
Societal norms, especially when they have been in place for centuries, can be difficult to change. The suffragists, though they were met with fierce resistance, marched forward. Their rallies, protest marches, and demonstrations were often met with ridicule, and even physical abuse. Often, the result of the battle for women's rights resulted in arrest, and jail. In 1913, in Washington D.C., federal troops were brought in to deal with the unrest caused by the protesters. In 1916, six months of picketing the White House resulted in mass arrests, and imprisonment when the women refused to pay what they believed to be "unjust" fines.
In 1919, Congress proposed the Nineteenth Amendment, and the States ratified it a year later. The amendment gave women the right to vote. With this new power, women were able to attempt to elect those who shared their beliefs, hoping that other measures that would push forward the fight for women's rights would also emerge.
After the Nineteenth Amendment passed, the percentage of women in the workforce increased to about 25 percent. Though discrimination continued, and women rarely held decision-making positions, it was definitely a step in the right direction.
During World War II, women were needed in all areas since many of the men went overseas to fight. The percentage of women in the workforce increased to 36 percent. The boom for women was short-lived, however. When the war ended, and the soldiers returned home, 2 million women were fired within 15 months after the end of the war to make room for the men.
Despite such setbacks, by the 1980s, the percentage of women in the workforce exceeded 50 percent.
- The Women's Liberation Movement
In other words, reality dictates that there are differences in the sexes, and that men or women generally tend to be better suited for particular roles or tasks, but such a reality should not then result in an oppression of one group over another when a member of one of those groups decides to break with tradition.
Public awareness that women have been discriminated against because of the idea of male superiority has increased in our modern society, and in an attempt to correct what is believed by many to be prejudice against women because of their sexual identity, movements have formed, and laws have been created. But, like with anything, some parts of this effort to ensure women are treated equally from a societal viewpoint have taken the movement to an extreme.
This is not the first and only time a drive towards providing women equality has emerged, but this is the first time it has progressed to the point it has. Historically, the New Testament of the Bible reveals that it was women that first witnessed Christ had risen, and they were believed when they went to tell others of the good news - and this happened during a time when a woman's testimony held no weight. During the early years of the American experiment, Aaron Burr, Vice President under Thomas Jefferson during the first presidency of the 1800s, spoke out for women's rights, as well. Burr, inspired by his intelligent wife, ensured his daughters were educated and prepared to compete against the men in the world. Burr was also one of the few politicians of the day that spoke out for the rights of women, even suggesting that women should be able to vote - a right women would not enjoy until the ratification of the Nineteenth Amendment in 1920. Unfortunately, throughout history, due to the dominant belief that women were valuable "commodities," though there were small battles won in female land ownership, inheritance, and even voting rights, for the most part the general rule of the day was that women were subordinate to men.
The Native American culture viewed women differently, where the societies were matrilineal (When descent and inheritance pass through the female side of the family) and matrilocal (The custom of married partners settling in or near the household of the wife's family). In that culture women had considerable power because property (housing, land, tools) belonged to them and was passed down from mother to daughter. Husbands joined the wife's family, giving the male little chance to become an authoritative, domineering figure. In cases of divorce, in some of the Indian societies, the wife could simply throw out his belongings from the residence. In these societies often the women were also very influential in tribal governance.
In addition to Aaron Burr's push to give women more recognition as members of society, Abigail Adams in a letter to her husband John Adams (second president of the United States) also made a plea for equal rights for women, calling the male dominated culture she lived in "tyrannical," and that she hoped with the rise of the new United States, that the men of that country would be ". . . more generous and favorable to [the ladies] than [their] ancestors." However, as the United States grew and prospered, the attitudes that arose were that women were there to please, and men were there to achieve.
Well into the Industrial Revolution women continued to be denied the right to vote, own property in their own name, testify in court, make a legal contract, spend their own wages without their husband's permission, or even retain guardianship over their own children if their husband died or deserted them. Of course not everyone thought these were good standards, during that time period, but they were the prevailing norms. However, there were significant steps forward during the 1800s. In 1848 the New York State legislature acted to protect the property rights of married women, and in 1869 the Wyoming Territory gave women the right to vote, continuing that practice after it became a state in 1890 - the first state to do so.
The abolition movement prior to the American Civil War attracted female activists willing to fight against the continuance or expansion of slavery. But it wasn't until the Suffrage Movement that we saw how fierce the fight for women's rights could become.
- The Suffrage Movement
Societal norms, especially when they have been in place for centuries, can be difficult to change. The suffragists, though they were met with fierce resistance, marched forward. Their rallies, protest marches, and demonstrations were often met with ridicule, and even physical abuse. Often, the result of the battle for women's rights resulted in arrest, and jail. In 1913, in Washington D.C., federal troops were brought in to deal with the unrest caused by the protesters. In 1916, six months of picketing the White House resulted in mass arrests, and imprisonment when the women refused to pay what they believed to be "unjust" fines.
In 1919, Congress proposed the Nineteenth Amendment, and the States ratified it a year later. The amendment gave women the right to vote. With this new power, women were able to attempt to elect those who shared their beliefs, hoping that other measures that would push forward the fight for women's rights would also emerge.
After the Nineteenth Amendment passed, the percentage of women in the workforce increased to about 25 percent. Though discrimination continued, and women rarely held decision-making positions, it was definitely a step in the right direction.
During World War II, women were needed in all areas since many of the men went overseas to fight. The percentage of women in the workforce increased to 36 percent. The boom for women was short-lived, however. When the war ended, and the soldiers returned home, 2 million women were fired within 15 months after the end of the war to make room for the men.
Despite such setbacks, by the 1980s, the percentage of women in the workforce exceeded 50 percent.
- The Women's Liberation Movement
The 1960s was the decade where social activism was at its greatest. President Kennedy appointed a Presidential Commission on the Status of Women, which documented extensive sexual discrimination in the country. After Congress failed to implement the commission's recommendations, women's rights advocates formed the National Organization for Women (NOW) in 1966 in the hopes of organizing the efforts of women, and ending many forms of sexual discrimination.
One wonders if the organization still adheres to its original platform, or has become something never originally intended. Regardless, the proof is in the pudding. When you compare ads from a LIFE Magazine dated November 6, 1939 where a woman is being the "good little woman" sitting in the car while the men stand nearby talking, to those "You've Come A Long Way, Baby" Virginia Slim ads of the 60s and 70s, to Geraldine Ferraro in 1984 being a vice presidential candidate, and Sarah Palin doing the same in 2008 while Hillary Clinton was a viable presidential candidate, it is easy to recognize that though there are still some rough spots that need to be smoothed out, in the end, the cigarette ad is absolutely correct. . . "You've Come A Long Way, Baby."
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Will Supreme Court give female Wal-Mart workers class action? - Chicago Sun Times
One wonders if the organization still adheres to its original platform, or has become something never originally intended. Regardless, the proof is in the pudding. When you compare ads from a LIFE Magazine dated November 6, 1939 where a woman is being the "good little woman" sitting in the car while the men stand nearby talking, to those "You've Come A Long Way, Baby" Virginia Slim ads of the 60s and 70s, to Geraldine Ferraro in 1984 being a vice presidential candidate, and Sarah Palin doing the same in 2008 while Hillary Clinton was a viable presidential candidate, it is easy to recognize that though there are still some rough spots that need to be smoothed out, in the end, the cigarette ad is absolutely correct. . . "You've Come A Long Way, Baby."
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Will Supreme Court give female Wal-Mart workers class action? - Chicago Sun Times
Syria's Conspiracy Theory:
Syrian president blames protests on 'conspirators'
Syrian President Bashar Assad blamed "conspirators" Wednesday for an extraordinary wave of dissent against his authoritarian rule. . . Within hours of Assad's speech, residents of the port city of Latakia said troops opened fire during a protest by about 100 people. . . Assad said Wednesday that Syria is facing "a major conspiracy" that aims to weaken this country of 23 million. The Assad family has ruled Syria for nearly 40 years, using the feared security services to monitor and control even the smallest rumblings of opposition. Draconian laws have all but eradicated civil liberties and political freedoms. . . The unrest in Syria, a strategically important country, could have implications well beyond its borders given its role as Iran's top Arab ally and as a front line state against Israel. . .
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Syrian President Bashar Assad blamed "conspirators" Wednesday for an extraordinary wave of dissent against his authoritarian rule. . . Within hours of Assad's speech, residents of the port city of Latakia said troops opened fire during a protest by about 100 people. . . Assad said Wednesday that Syria is facing "a major conspiracy" that aims to weaken this country of 23 million. The Assad family has ruled Syria for nearly 40 years, using the feared security services to monitor and control even the smallest rumblings of opposition. Draconian laws have all but eradicated civil liberties and political freedoms. . . The unrest in Syria, a strategically important country, could have implications well beyond its borders given its role as Iran's top Arab ally and as a front line state against Israel. . .
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Al Adask on the Lost 13th Amendment
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
also check out:
Temecula Constitution Study: Amendment XII, and the Lost 13th Amendment
Constitution Study with Douglas V. Gibbs, March 24, 2011
John Adams: Teaching Liberty To Our Kids
"It should be your care, therefore, and mine, to elevate the minds of our children and exalt their courage; to accelerate and animate their industry and activity; to excite in them an habitual contempt of meanness, abhorrence of injustice and inhumanity, and an ambition to excel in every capacity, faculty, and virtue. If we suffer their minds to grovel and creep in infancy, they will grovel all their lives." --John Adams, Dissertation on the Canon and Feudal Law, 1756
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
EU Carbon Cutting Master Plan: Ban Cars
By Douglas V. Gibbs
The make-believe hoax of man-made global warming is losing steam with the people, but lusting for power over the people, the governments of the world are continuing forward with "save the planet" propositions. In London, and various other cities around Europe, the environmental power grab has escalated to the point that they are considering banning cars in the hopes of cutting their carbon dioxide emissions by 60 percent before 2050.
The plan includes shifting people from an individual mode of travel like a car into a collectivist mode of travel like rail, and other public transportation options.
Part of the strategy to make this happen is to use punitive taxation on fuel that will literally force people from their cars. In other words, they wish to punish drivers for not changing their behavior using government tactics that would result in giving people no other choice.
Sound a little authoritarian to you? Perhaps the memory of Hitler and the Soviet Union has faded faster than we realize.
Of course such a plan is not only oppressive, but is economically disastrous. That kind of restriction on mobility is designed to force people to remain in the population centers. Such a restriction would compromise economic competitiveness, while spending money they don't have on alternative conveyances that people would rather not use.
An even bigger part of the equation is the assumption that in 2050 the local populace would even be willing to live in such a tight-boxed society. These leaders assume that forty years from now the demographics will remain the same, and that government on a centralized scale as they are suggesting would work more efficiently than individuals driving themselves to their destinations.
Problem is, as good as they may think it looks on paper, the truth is that the demographics in Europe will likely be very different than they are today. Besides, the very nature of government is not to improve on such systems, but actually do things worse, and slower.
9/11 was a great example on the failure of the federal government, and the triumph of local agencies. What worked that day was the small, localized municipal government: Firemen, NYPD, and rescue workers. What failed was the federal government, from the FAA to the INS, to the intelligence agencies. So how, in God's name, can these people believe that kicking individuals out of their vehicles so that they can ride in government controlled transportation be a good thing?
The bureaucratic culture in Europe wishes to contain the nimble and innovative citizenry, forcing the people into becoming a bunch of controlled subjects in an overbearing governmentally controlled system by shifting the power from individuals to government. They wish to supplant human judgment with government management. They are working to run our lives from cradle to grave.
Not only does centralized government in the fashion the Left is trying to create not work, but Europe won't have a willing populace for much longer to push around anyway. With the idiotic system of multiculturalism in place, the native Europeans are quite literally handing off their societies to whoever makes the most babies.
Western elites have been trying to convince us to celebrate all cultures, and deny our own. To keep the other groups happy we have been told that we must regulate our free expression. By doing that, we might as well fly the white flag. The Islamification of the West is being accomplished gradually, through the births of children by seemingly law-abiding Muslims that, if faced with the choice in the end, will gladly welcome an Islamification of the West.
By 2050, cars will not be totally banned as today's political elites wish because the majority population will need those cars to transport the bombs they plan to use on the elite's few remaining grandchildren.
And at this point the liberal readers of Political Pistachio are recoiling. That is why the Leftists call it a war on terror, rather than name the enemy. To the progressive mind the very concept of "the enemy" is obsolescent. There are no enemies to the Left, just people whose grievances we haven't appeased yet, just groups we have not accommodated yet, just dictators we haven't sat with diplomatically without any expectations from them.
While the Islamists bomb us, the Left is working to try and figure out what we did to make those terrorists mad. We have become a civilization that feels guilty about everything, and lack the energy and conviction to defend ourselves.
As the Left convinces itself there is no enemy, the enemy is taking root in Western Society. As the Left convinces itself that society will be no different in forty years, Islam is working to make sure the European countries are Islamic theocracies by then. While the liberal left is working to ban cars to save the planet, they fail to arm tanks to save themselves from the coming wave of Islamic terror.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
EU to ban cars from cities by 2050 - U.K. Telegraph
The make-believe hoax of man-made global warming is losing steam with the people, but lusting for power over the people, the governments of the world are continuing forward with "save the planet" propositions. In London, and various other cities around Europe, the environmental power grab has escalated to the point that they are considering banning cars in the hopes of cutting their carbon dioxide emissions by 60 percent before 2050.
The plan includes shifting people from an individual mode of travel like a car into a collectivist mode of travel like rail, and other public transportation options.
Part of the strategy to make this happen is to use punitive taxation on fuel that will literally force people from their cars. In other words, they wish to punish drivers for not changing their behavior using government tactics that would result in giving people no other choice.
Sound a little authoritarian to you? Perhaps the memory of Hitler and the Soviet Union has faded faster than we realize.
Of course such a plan is not only oppressive, but is economically disastrous. That kind of restriction on mobility is designed to force people to remain in the population centers. Such a restriction would compromise economic competitiveness, while spending money they don't have on alternative conveyances that people would rather not use.
An even bigger part of the equation is the assumption that in 2050 the local populace would even be willing to live in such a tight-boxed society. These leaders assume that forty years from now the demographics will remain the same, and that government on a centralized scale as they are suggesting would work more efficiently than individuals driving themselves to their destinations.
Problem is, as good as they may think it looks on paper, the truth is that the demographics in Europe will likely be very different than they are today. Besides, the very nature of government is not to improve on such systems, but actually do things worse, and slower.
9/11 was a great example on the failure of the federal government, and the triumph of local agencies. What worked that day was the small, localized municipal government: Firemen, NYPD, and rescue workers. What failed was the federal government, from the FAA to the INS, to the intelligence agencies. So how, in God's name, can these people believe that kicking individuals out of their vehicles so that they can ride in government controlled transportation be a good thing?
The bureaucratic culture in Europe wishes to contain the nimble and innovative citizenry, forcing the people into becoming a bunch of controlled subjects in an overbearing governmentally controlled system by shifting the power from individuals to government. They wish to supplant human judgment with government management. They are working to run our lives from cradle to grave.
Not only does centralized government in the fashion the Left is trying to create not work, but Europe won't have a willing populace for much longer to push around anyway. With the idiotic system of multiculturalism in place, the native Europeans are quite literally handing off their societies to whoever makes the most babies.
Western elites have been trying to convince us to celebrate all cultures, and deny our own. To keep the other groups happy we have been told that we must regulate our free expression. By doing that, we might as well fly the white flag. The Islamification of the West is being accomplished gradually, through the births of children by seemingly law-abiding Muslims that, if faced with the choice in the end, will gladly welcome an Islamification of the West.
By 2050, cars will not be totally banned as today's political elites wish because the majority population will need those cars to transport the bombs they plan to use on the elite's few remaining grandchildren.
And at this point the liberal readers of Political Pistachio are recoiling. That is why the Leftists call it a war on terror, rather than name the enemy. To the progressive mind the very concept of "the enemy" is obsolescent. There are no enemies to the Left, just people whose grievances we haven't appeased yet, just groups we have not accommodated yet, just dictators we haven't sat with diplomatically without any expectations from them.
While the Islamists bomb us, the Left is working to try and figure out what we did to make those terrorists mad. We have become a civilization that feels guilty about everything, and lack the energy and conviction to defend ourselves.
As the Left convinces itself there is no enemy, the enemy is taking root in Western Society. As the Left convinces itself that society will be no different in forty years, Islam is working to make sure the European countries are Islamic theocracies by then. While the liberal left is working to ban cars to save the planet, they fail to arm tanks to save themselves from the coming wave of Islamic terror.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
EU to ban cars from cities by 2050 - U.K. Telegraph
Ben Franklin: Be Pro-active
"Have you something to do to-morrow; do it to-day." --Benjamin Franklin
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
As Cudahy Unfolds, More Questions
By Douglas V. Gibbs
The new mayor of the small city tucked between Bell and Downey in Southern California fired longtime City Manager George Perez in a move that brought the corruption of Bell and Vernon to mind. The city council also voted to fire the city attorney.
The City Clerk and Human Resources Director were placed on administrative leave, and the City Clerk filed his retirement papers shortly after.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Cudahy City Council fires longtime City Manager George Perez - Los Angeles Times
The new mayor of the small city tucked between Bell and Downey in Southern California fired longtime City Manager George Perez in a move that brought the corruption of Bell and Vernon to mind. The city council also voted to fire the city attorney.
The City Clerk and Human Resources Director were placed on administrative leave, and the City Clerk filed his retirement papers shortly after.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Cudahy City Council fires longtime City Manager George Perez - Los Angeles Times
Islam: Deception Through Peace
By Keith Davies
As our leaders and media continue to try and hide what is going on in the Middle East and in your local US mosque, we as a nation choose peace over truth and justice. We choose self-deception and delusion because the truth is ugly. We choose to vilify and isolate those that speak the truth because it is easier to shoot the messenger than to face the reality.
The Middle East is on fire and on one hand we have dictators who have outlived their usefulness to the world and their people, apparently the policy makers in Washington know the next regimes are to be the Muslim Brotherhood. Our State controlled media and our foreign policy makers see the writing on the wall and are preparing the gullible public for the “peaceful” Muslim Brotherhood. Who knew? Usama Bin Laden, Ayman Al Zawahiri the chief conspirators of the 911 attacks stem from the Muslim Brotherhood; so we are now to believe that ten years later it has evolved into a peaceful cuddly organization who we can do business. We must continue to do business in the Middle East even if it is the Muslim Brotherhood, as the inane policies of the last sixty years has us addicted to foreign oil, which we have allowed to endanger our national security interests and to be subservient to the whims of evil.
Yet on the surface we see the main stream media championing the “democratic forces” in the Middle East yet sidestepping the overwhelming evidence that fundamentalist Islam is now dominant amongst the masses, as well as ignoring the acclaimed return of Muslim Brotherhood clerical leaders like Sheik Yousef Al Qaradawi to Egypt and Rashid Al-Ghanushi to Tunisia who up to recently were in forced exile by the now defunct dictators.
According to the talking heads on the liberal media the self deception and delusion is incredulous. In one astounding quote from Tarek Masoud assistant professor at the Faculty of the Harvard Kennedy school of Government in the Middle East studies department on CNN’s Fareed Zakaria Show (see link below), he says concerning the Muslim Brotherhood quote, “ They have lines that say all sorts of blood curdling things in it like, ‘Die for the sake of Allah is our highest aspiration’, but when those lines are uttered by roly poly physicians they become far less frightening.” Wow! I am really reassured Professor Masoud, was not Ayman Al Zawahiri the number two leader of Al Qaeda a qualified and former practicing pediatrician, and were not the nineteen sky jockeys who blew up the twin towers and the Pentagon all highly educated and from middle class families? The staggering naivety or deception from Muslim scholars in our finest universities is breathtaking, but the fools in the media choose to listen to these charlatans who pass themselves off as Ivy League professors.
Our conservative media is better but not much; as we continue to allow the terror front CAIR (Council for American Islamic relations) a platform to give their side of the story yet are reluctant to allow former Muslims their place as a counter balance. The right wing talk show hosts continually trot out their token “moderate Muslim” Zuhdi Jasser who I like and think he is brave, but has absolutely no constituency amongst the Muslim community in the USA or the Middle East. He was even been cast out of his own mosque.
It is so politically correct though to give the sole “moderate” Muslim a major platform so we can have hope. Hope is not reality and it is certainly not the truth, is not two years of “Hope and Change” not enough to tell us that?
Our political leaders toe the politically correct line and their favorite quote is that “most Muslims are peaceful law abiding citizens.” Well most Germans were law abiding citizens during the 1930s, yet that did not stop the Nazis from controlling Germany and we ended up with sixty million dead because of our self delusion. It is an irrelevant argument but makes us feel good.
It was politically incorrect to say we need to stamp out Nazism in 1933 and if you critique Islam you are labeled an “Islamaphobe.” If you criticized Nazism by definition you were a Naziphobe. Winston Churchill was a minority voice calling out the warning that world would not heed. The Naziphobes were right and were hated in their time, so again does history repeat and us small band of “Islamaphobes” sound the alarm to warn another great darkness that will befall us if we do not awaken from our deep stupor.
Keith Davies
Executive Director Walid Shoebat Foundation
www.shoebat.com
CNN
As our leaders and media continue to try and hide what is going on in the Middle East and in your local US mosque, we as a nation choose peace over truth and justice. We choose self-deception and delusion because the truth is ugly. We choose to vilify and isolate those that speak the truth because it is easier to shoot the messenger than to face the reality.
The Middle East is on fire and on one hand we have dictators who have outlived their usefulness to the world and their people, apparently the policy makers in Washington know the next regimes are to be the Muslim Brotherhood. Our State controlled media and our foreign policy makers see the writing on the wall and are preparing the gullible public for the “peaceful” Muslim Brotherhood. Who knew? Usama Bin Laden, Ayman Al Zawahiri the chief conspirators of the 911 attacks stem from the Muslim Brotherhood; so we are now to believe that ten years later it has evolved into a peaceful cuddly organization who we can do business. We must continue to do business in the Middle East even if it is the Muslim Brotherhood, as the inane policies of the last sixty years has us addicted to foreign oil, which we have allowed to endanger our national security interests and to be subservient to the whims of evil.
Yet on the surface we see the main stream media championing the “democratic forces” in the Middle East yet sidestepping the overwhelming evidence that fundamentalist Islam is now dominant amongst the masses, as well as ignoring the acclaimed return of Muslim Brotherhood clerical leaders like Sheik Yousef Al Qaradawi to Egypt and Rashid Al-Ghanushi to Tunisia who up to recently were in forced exile by the now defunct dictators.
According to the talking heads on the liberal media the self deception and delusion is incredulous. In one astounding quote from Tarek Masoud assistant professor at the Faculty of the Harvard Kennedy school of Government in the Middle East studies department on CNN’s Fareed Zakaria Show (see link below), he says concerning the Muslim Brotherhood quote, “ They have lines that say all sorts of blood curdling things in it like, ‘Die for the sake of Allah is our highest aspiration’, but when those lines are uttered by roly poly physicians they become far less frightening.” Wow! I am really reassured Professor Masoud, was not Ayman Al Zawahiri the number two leader of Al Qaeda a qualified and former practicing pediatrician, and were not the nineteen sky jockeys who blew up the twin towers and the Pentagon all highly educated and from middle class families? The staggering naivety or deception from Muslim scholars in our finest universities is breathtaking, but the fools in the media choose to listen to these charlatans who pass themselves off as Ivy League professors.
Our conservative media is better but not much; as we continue to allow the terror front CAIR (Council for American Islamic relations) a platform to give their side of the story yet are reluctant to allow former Muslims their place as a counter balance. The right wing talk show hosts continually trot out their token “moderate Muslim” Zuhdi Jasser who I like and think he is brave, but has absolutely no constituency amongst the Muslim community in the USA or the Middle East. He was even been cast out of his own mosque.
It is so politically correct though to give the sole “moderate” Muslim a major platform so we can have hope. Hope is not reality and it is certainly not the truth, is not two years of “Hope and Change” not enough to tell us that?
Our political leaders toe the politically correct line and their favorite quote is that “most Muslims are peaceful law abiding citizens.” Well most Germans were law abiding citizens during the 1930s, yet that did not stop the Nazis from controlling Germany and we ended up with sixty million dead because of our self delusion. It is an irrelevant argument but makes us feel good.
It was politically incorrect to say we need to stamp out Nazism in 1933 and if you critique Islam you are labeled an “Islamaphobe.” If you criticized Nazism by definition you were a Naziphobe. Winston Churchill was a minority voice calling out the warning that world would not heed. The Naziphobes were right and were hated in their time, so again does history repeat and us small band of “Islamaphobes” sound the alarm to warn another great darkness that will befall us if we do not awaken from our deep stupor.
Keith Davies
Executive Director Walid Shoebat Foundation
www.shoebat.com
CNN
March 30th is Welcome Home Vietnam Veterans Day
Welcome Home Vietnam Veterans Day from Dave Perkins on Vimeo.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Thomas Paine on Intrusive Government
"If, from the more wretched parts of the old world, we look at those which are in an advanced stage of improvement, we still find the greedy hand of government thrusting itself into every corner and crevice of industry, and grasping the spoil of the multitude. Invention is continually exercised, to furnish new pretenses for revenues and taxation. It watches prosperity as its prey and permits none to escape without tribute." --Thomas Paine, Rights of Man, 1791
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Iraq Hostages In Tikrit, 38 People Dead
At least 38 people have been killed and 67 injured after armed men stormed a government building in the northern Iraqi city of Tikrit immediately after a suicide bomber detonated explosives that cleared the way for the attack.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Deaths in Iraq Hostage Drama - aljazeera
Iran: Mahdi Is Almost Here
By Douglas V. Gibbs
The Mahdi is the Islamic Messiah. Also known as the 12th Imam, the Muslim belief is that in order to enable the figure to appear, chaos must ensue.
Ahmadinejad, and the rest of his Iranian government, believe that the moment of the coming of the Mahdi is at hand. The unrest in the Muslim world, they believe, is a signal.
Iran believes they are a large part of ushering in the Islamic version of the "End-Times," and they are willing to help the revolutionary movements in the Middle East because the regime believes the chaos is divine proof that their ultimate victory is at hand.
A video, produced by a group supported by the Iranian government, was screened recently, targeting Muslims in the Middle East and around the world with the hopes of revealing that Iran is destined to rise as a great power in the last days to help defeat America and Israel and usher in the return of the Mahdi.
"The Hadith have clearly described the events and the various transformations of countries in the Middle East and also that of Iran in the age of the coming," said a narrator, who went on to say that America's invasion of Iraq was foretold by Islamic scripture--and that the Mahdi will one day soon rule the world from Iraq.
An interesting coincidence, Biblical texts foretell that the anti-Christ will rule in "New Babylon," or the region where present day Iraq exists.
Iran's rise and the coming of the Mahdi is expected to coincide with a Muslim takeover of Jerusalem.
Mideast expert Joel Rosenberg, author of The Twelfth Imam, says: ". . . they believe the time for war with Israel may be even sooner than others had imagined."
The film, "The Coming is Near," will soon be distributed by the Iranian regime throughout the Middle East, in the hopes of instigating further uprisings in Arab countries.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Iranian Video Says Mahdi is 'Near' - CBN News
The Mahdi is the Islamic Messiah. Also known as the 12th Imam, the Muslim belief is that in order to enable the figure to appear, chaos must ensue.
Ahmadinejad, and the rest of his Iranian government, believe that the moment of the coming of the Mahdi is at hand. The unrest in the Muslim world, they believe, is a signal.
Iran believes they are a large part of ushering in the Islamic version of the "End-Times," and they are willing to help the revolutionary movements in the Middle East because the regime believes the chaos is divine proof that their ultimate victory is at hand.
A video, produced by a group supported by the Iranian government, was screened recently, targeting Muslims in the Middle East and around the world with the hopes of revealing that Iran is destined to rise as a great power in the last days to help defeat America and Israel and usher in the return of the Mahdi.
"The Hadith have clearly described the events and the various transformations of countries in the Middle East and also that of Iran in the age of the coming," said a narrator, who went on to say that America's invasion of Iraq was foretold by Islamic scripture--and that the Mahdi will one day soon rule the world from Iraq.
An interesting coincidence, Biblical texts foretell that the anti-Christ will rule in "New Babylon," or the region where present day Iraq exists.
Iran's rise and the coming of the Mahdi is expected to coincide with a Muslim takeover of Jerusalem.
Mideast expert Joel Rosenberg, author of The Twelfth Imam, says: ". . . they believe the time for war with Israel may be even sooner than others had imagined."
The film, "The Coming is Near," will soon be distributed by the Iranian regime throughout the Middle East, in the hopes of instigating further uprisings in Arab countries.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Iranian Video Says Mahdi is 'Near' - CBN News
Thoughts About Obama and Libya:
By Douglas V. Gibbs
In last night's speech, President Obama stated that the U.S. is engaged in military operations in Libya to protect the Libyan people from their government.
But, who will protect us from our government?
Ahh, that is where the people come into play. . .
Could you imagine that as the Tea Party works to change our government back to its constitutional foundation if foreign governments decided to interfere? It doesn't matter if it was to support the government, or the Tea Party. Foreign influence on our own internal affairs when our internal conflict is affecting nobody but ourselves would not be welcomed, right?
But isn't that what Obama, various European nations, and the Arab League are doing in Libya?
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
In last night's speech, President Obama stated that the U.S. is engaged in military operations in Libya to protect the Libyan people from their government.
But, who will protect us from our government?
Ahh, that is where the people come into play. . .
Could you imagine that as the Tea Party works to change our government back to its constitutional foundation if foreign governments decided to interfere? It doesn't matter if it was to support the government, or the Tea Party. Foreign influence on our own internal affairs when our internal conflict is affecting nobody but ourselves would not be welcomed, right?
But isn't that what Obama, various European nations, and the Arab League are doing in Libya?
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
3.8 Earthquake Strikes Southern California
Small enough to cause no worry, yet large enough to remind us where we live. . .
Magnitude: 3.8
Date-Time: Tuesday, March 29, 2011 at 03:43:24 AM at epicenter
Location: 33.223°N, 116.758°W
Depth: 9 km (5.6 miles)
Region: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
Distances:
2 km (1 miles) S (170°) from Lake Henshaw, CA
5 km (3 miles) N (9°) from Mesa Grande, CA
18 km (11 miles) SE (146°) from Palomar Observatory, CA
32 km (20 miles) ENE (70°) from Escondido, CA
61 km (38 miles) NE (36°) from San Diego, CA
Source: USGS
Magnitude: 3.8
Date-Time: Tuesday, March 29, 2011 at 03:43:24 AM at epicenter
Location: 33.223°N, 116.758°W
Depth: 9 km (5.6 miles)
Region: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
Distances:
2 km (1 miles) S (170°) from Lake Henshaw, CA
5 km (3 miles) N (9°) from Mesa Grande, CA
18 km (11 miles) SE (146°) from Palomar Observatory, CA
32 km (20 miles) ENE (70°) from Escondido, CA
61 km (38 miles) NE (36°) from San Diego, CA
Source: USGS
Wisconsin Stands Firm on Union Law, and the Movement Spreads
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Despite the court's temporary restraining order against Wisconsin's union law that limits collective bargaining, Wisconsin Republicans made sure the law went into effect. Once published, the governor planned to carry out the law.
The creative maneuvers, which included the Legislative Reference Bureau publishing the piece of legislation, employed by the Republicans to get the bill through, included a period where the Democrats fled the state, and protesters pounded the capitol with threats and violent rhetoric. Once the law was published, the courts backed down, realizing that their rulings meant nothing when faced with a legislature and governor determined to ensure the law went into effect.
The courts, however, are not out of the equation. Another lawsuit challenging the law has been brought by Democratic Dane County District Attorney Ismael Ozanne. In the end, it is expected that the state Supreme Court will make the final decision.
The final step for the law to take effect requires the Secretary of State Doug La Follette to order the law published in a newspaper too, and the judge last week ordered La Follette to not do it. Whether or not the GOP will press forward there, as well, is yet to be seen.
The Republicans argue the law is in effect, regardless of the final step of publication.
The lawsuits allege lawmakers broke the state open meetings law by hastily calling a special committee meeting to put the bill in a form that the Senate could pass it without the Democrats who had fled present. However, after referring to Wisconsin Senate Rule 93, it is clear the GOP acted within the established rules.
The union law being questioned requires nearly all public sector workers to contribute more to their pensions and health insurance than they currently do. The amount requested is still much lower than what is expected of their private sector counterparts. The law also limits collectively bargaining for everything except salary.
The unions, outraged by the law, see it as a move that will begin to strip them of their power. The necessity of the law as a tool for balancing the budget in Wisconsin enables the State to avoid laying off public sector employees. The clear signal is that the unions don't care about the workers, it is about preserving union power to them, and the governor and Legislature are simply trying to balance their budget, and save jobs.
The union has also claimed that the Republican assault on the union goes against the idea of democracy, despite the fact that the governor and legislature were elected through a democratic process, and are doing what they were elected to do: balance the budget.
Meanwhile, in Florida, the Florida House approved a bill banning automatic dues deduction from a government paycheck and require members to sign off on the use of their dues for political purposes.
The battle between the parties lasted nearly two hours, but in the end the bill passed the State House, beginning the process of getting the state out of the dues deduction business and let the unions take care of it.
Florida is a "right to work" state, which means a worker is not forced to join a union. But many public employees do so, and state employers typically withhold union dues from workers' paychecks. A portion of those dues is set aside by their unions for education, community action — and political contributions mostly to the Democrat Party.
Last election, the Florida teachers' union gave more than $3.4 million in campaign contributions, mostly to Democrats. The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees doled out nearly $1.4 million, much of it directly to the state Democratic Party. And the AFL-CIO and other labor groups gave hundreds of thousands of dollars more.
The Senate version of the bill, sponsored by Sen. John Thrasher, R-St. Augustine, has one more committee stop before it makes it to the floor.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Wisconsin Union Law Published Despite Court Order - ABC News
House approves bill banning automatic deduction for union dues - Orlando Sentinel
Despite the court's temporary restraining order against Wisconsin's union law that limits collective bargaining, Wisconsin Republicans made sure the law went into effect. Once published, the governor planned to carry out the law.
The creative maneuvers, which included the Legislative Reference Bureau publishing the piece of legislation, employed by the Republicans to get the bill through, included a period where the Democrats fled the state, and protesters pounded the capitol with threats and violent rhetoric. Once the law was published, the courts backed down, realizing that their rulings meant nothing when faced with a legislature and governor determined to ensure the law went into effect.
The courts, however, are not out of the equation. Another lawsuit challenging the law has been brought by Democratic Dane County District Attorney Ismael Ozanne. In the end, it is expected that the state Supreme Court will make the final decision.
The final step for the law to take effect requires the Secretary of State Doug La Follette to order the law published in a newspaper too, and the judge last week ordered La Follette to not do it. Whether or not the GOP will press forward there, as well, is yet to be seen.
The Republicans argue the law is in effect, regardless of the final step of publication.
The lawsuits allege lawmakers broke the state open meetings law by hastily calling a special committee meeting to put the bill in a form that the Senate could pass it without the Democrats who had fled present. However, after referring to Wisconsin Senate Rule 93, it is clear the GOP acted within the established rules.
The union law being questioned requires nearly all public sector workers to contribute more to their pensions and health insurance than they currently do. The amount requested is still much lower than what is expected of their private sector counterparts. The law also limits collectively bargaining for everything except salary.
The unions, outraged by the law, see it as a move that will begin to strip them of their power. The necessity of the law as a tool for balancing the budget in Wisconsin enables the State to avoid laying off public sector employees. The clear signal is that the unions don't care about the workers, it is about preserving union power to them, and the governor and Legislature are simply trying to balance their budget, and save jobs.
The union has also claimed that the Republican assault on the union goes against the idea of democracy, despite the fact that the governor and legislature were elected through a democratic process, and are doing what they were elected to do: balance the budget.
Meanwhile, in Florida, the Florida House approved a bill banning automatic dues deduction from a government paycheck and require members to sign off on the use of their dues for political purposes.
The battle between the parties lasted nearly two hours, but in the end the bill passed the State House, beginning the process of getting the state out of the dues deduction business and let the unions take care of it.
Florida is a "right to work" state, which means a worker is not forced to join a union. But many public employees do so, and state employers typically withhold union dues from workers' paychecks. A portion of those dues is set aside by their unions for education, community action — and political contributions mostly to the Democrat Party.
Last election, the Florida teachers' union gave more than $3.4 million in campaign contributions, mostly to Democrats. The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees doled out nearly $1.4 million, much of it directly to the state Democratic Party. And the AFL-CIO and other labor groups gave hundreds of thousands of dollars more.
The Senate version of the bill, sponsored by Sen. John Thrasher, R-St. Augustine, has one more committee stop before it makes it to the floor.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Wisconsin Union Law Published Despite Court Order - ABC News
House approves bill banning automatic deduction for union dues - Orlando Sentinel
Monday, March 28, 2011
Senator Frank Lautenberg: GOP Doesn't Deserve Constitutional Freedoms
By Douglas V. Gibbs
"The Republicans in Congress claim they’re concerned about the budget balance, but it’s a disguise! It’s not true! It’s a lie! That’s not what they want. They want — they want other people not to be able to have their own opinions. They don’t deserve the freedoms that are in the Constitution! But we’ll give it to them anyway." -- Senator Frank Lautenberg
Lautenberg is a great example of the liberal left line of thinking. The leftist Senator claims Republicans want to outlaw opinions, therefore they deserve to have their Constitutional rights stripped of them.
In other words, a Democrat backed centralized government should have the power to do exactly what he accuses Republicans of desiring.
What Lautenberg fails to recognize is that rights are not something that government has the right to give, or take away. It is not up to people like him to decided who deserves rights to free speech. In fact, that is the whole point of the First Amendment, which disallows the federal government from taking away rights to free speech (among other things).
The Constitution is not something that the Congress can decide to grant, or not grant. The Constitution limits the powers of the government so that they don't do something like Lautenberg is suggesting.
It was because of political elitists like Lautenberg that the Constitution was written in the manner it was. The kind of idiots like Lautenberg were exactly what the Constitution was trying to restrain.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
"The Republicans in Congress claim they’re concerned about the budget balance, but it’s a disguise! It’s not true! It’s a lie! That’s not what they want. They want — they want other people not to be able to have their own opinions. They don’t deserve the freedoms that are in the Constitution! But we’ll give it to them anyway." -- Senator Frank Lautenberg
Lautenberg is a great example of the liberal left line of thinking. The leftist Senator claims Republicans want to outlaw opinions, therefore they deserve to have their Constitutional rights stripped of them.
In other words, a Democrat backed centralized government should have the power to do exactly what he accuses Republicans of desiring.
What Lautenberg fails to recognize is that rights are not something that government has the right to give, or take away. It is not up to people like him to decided who deserves rights to free speech. In fact, that is the whole point of the First Amendment, which disallows the federal government from taking away rights to free speech (among other things).
The Constitution is not something that the Congress can decide to grant, or not grant. The Constitution limits the powers of the government so that they don't do something like Lautenberg is suggesting.
It was because of political elitists like Lautenberg that the Constitution was written in the manner it was. The kind of idiots like Lautenberg were exactly what the Constitution was trying to restrain.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Post Obama Speech: John Bolton on Freedom Watch with Judge Napolitano says President has the authority to Wage War
By Douglas V. Gibbs
President Obama campaigned for president in 2008 as a unifier. He has indeed unified America. Obama has successfully brought Americans from both parties together as a unifying voice against his decision to bring a new war involving America during his presidency.
Tonight, President spoke to the nation in an attempt to defend his decision to launch military action against Libya.
Obama claimed in his speech that his new war in Libya is a humanitarian effort designed to prevent a slaughter of civilians (which, if using that excuse, would give him the green light to go into another dozen countries as well). However, though he indicated when the unrest in Libya was new that Gadhafi must go, in tonight's speech he warned that removing Gadhafi from power could be a costly mistake.
The plan, according to President Obama, is for NATO to take command over the entire Libya operation by the middle of the week, taking the United States out of the lead, though not necessarily taking us out of the operation.
Obama avoided the word "war" because he knows that using the three letter word would not only contradict everything he has said about war, but that much of the criticism against him is that he is waging war without congressional approval - something Obama was highly critical of George W. Bush over.
The argument against Barack Obama by those who oppose his Libyan policy revolves around Article I, Section 8, Clause 11, which gives Congress the power to declare war. Democrats and Republicans together believe that Obama violated the Constitution, and that Obama seems to be roaming the world searching for dragons to slay, regardless of the will of the legislature, or the people. However, what are the president's war powers?
After a number of guests on Fox Business News claimed Obama was acting against the Constitution, and against the War Powers Act of 1973, Former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton defended the President's war authority. Though in disagreement with Obama's actions, Bolton made the case on Judge Napolitano's Freedom Watch program on Fox Business News, that the Founding Fathers debated over whether the Congress should have the authority to make war, or declare war, and decided upon the latter, leaving with the president the power to wage war as may be necessary if Congress is unable to be in session when the need to put the military into action arises.
I agree with Bolton. This is not to say I agree with Obama's choice to take military action. Libya's civil war belongs to them, and does not affect American interests. Congress, if the Constitution is important to them, and if both Republicans and Democrats alike are truly angered by Obama's decision, can put a stop to this war by simply defunding it - but if they are determined to take such an action, they need to be unlike Obama, and act quickly.
By the way, Obama lied when he said there would be no American troops on the ground in Libya. U.S. Marines are in fact on the ground in Libya at this very moment.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Obama speech strongly defends US military action in Libya - The Morning Journal
Marines on ground in Libya - One News Now
President Obama campaigned for president in 2008 as a unifier. He has indeed unified America. Obama has successfully brought Americans from both parties together as a unifying voice against his decision to bring a new war involving America during his presidency.
Tonight, President spoke to the nation in an attempt to defend his decision to launch military action against Libya.
Obama claimed in his speech that his new war in Libya is a humanitarian effort designed to prevent a slaughter of civilians (which, if using that excuse, would give him the green light to go into another dozen countries as well). However, though he indicated when the unrest in Libya was new that Gadhafi must go, in tonight's speech he warned that removing Gadhafi from power could be a costly mistake.
The plan, according to President Obama, is for NATO to take command over the entire Libya operation by the middle of the week, taking the United States out of the lead, though not necessarily taking us out of the operation.
Obama avoided the word "war" because he knows that using the three letter word would not only contradict everything he has said about war, but that much of the criticism against him is that he is waging war without congressional approval - something Obama was highly critical of George W. Bush over.
The argument against Barack Obama by those who oppose his Libyan policy revolves around Article I, Section 8, Clause 11, which gives Congress the power to declare war. Democrats and Republicans together believe that Obama violated the Constitution, and that Obama seems to be roaming the world searching for dragons to slay, regardless of the will of the legislature, or the people. However, what are the president's war powers?
After a number of guests on Fox Business News claimed Obama was acting against the Constitution, and against the War Powers Act of 1973, Former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton defended the President's war authority. Though in disagreement with Obama's actions, Bolton made the case on Judge Napolitano's Freedom Watch program on Fox Business News, that the Founding Fathers debated over whether the Congress should have the authority to make war, or declare war, and decided upon the latter, leaving with the president the power to wage war as may be necessary if Congress is unable to be in session when the need to put the military into action arises.
I agree with Bolton. This is not to say I agree with Obama's choice to take military action. Libya's civil war belongs to them, and does not affect American interests. Congress, if the Constitution is important to them, and if both Republicans and Democrats alike are truly angered by Obama's decision, can put a stop to this war by simply defunding it - but if they are determined to take such an action, they need to be unlike Obama, and act quickly.
By the way, Obama lied when he said there would be no American troops on the ground in Libya. U.S. Marines are in fact on the ground in Libya at this very moment.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Obama speech strongly defends US military action in Libya - The Morning Journal
Marines on ground in Libya - One News Now
Scientific Consensus Does Not Equal Truth
Dinosaurs and Global Warming
Santa Claus, The Easter Bunny, and [man-made] Global Warming. . .
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Global Warming, err, uhh, Climate Change, seems to be something not mentioned much by the media these days. The indoctrination is complete, or so they thought. Even with all of the glaring evidence that man-made global warming is a hoax, aside from an occasional crackpot claiming the earthquake in Japan was caused by Global Warming, or an Al Gore faithful screaming about the global warming snow they are buried under, the "theory" has more or less vanished from the propaganda networks.
Natural warming and cooling, or I guess you could say "natural climate change," is a more reasonable argument. We have seen the planet cool and warm a number of times in human history, and the majority of those trends occurred long before the first SUV hit the road. In our modern age, however, despite the evidence that the Earth warms and cools naturally, and despite the fact that the "green house gases" we throw into the atmosphere, when compared to that which is produced by the oceans and volcanoes, is a minuscule fraction of a single percentage point, alarmists have decided that industry is to be blamed for the climate trends we experience.
Carbon dioxide has become the big culprit. Never mind that all life on this big blue marble is, like oxygen, dependent on CO2. Never mind that core samples have shown that carbon level increases and decreases "follow" climate rises and drops in temperature, so it is reasonable to assume that an increase in carbon in the atmosphere is not the "cause" of temperature shifts.
Despite the obvious, the environmental wackos continue to push their hoax, and the indoctrination even continued while in November 2009 there was a release of thousands of “Climategate” emails between the meteorologists supplying the bogus data that the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was using to generate this incredible hoax that has more to do with an authoritarian idea of controlling people's use of energy, than anything to do with the environment.
The complete fabrication of "Climate Change" ranks right up there with the 100 year mistake of the brontosaurus, the "Piltdown Man" hoax, and the Easter Bunny. Pandora's Box has been opened, and it turns out that the global warming scientists have been using falsified computer model data. Why? Believe it or not, the question is best answered when you follow the money, and discover that billions of dollars in grant money was involved. In other words, continue to perpetuate the hoax, and you get your money.
The United Nations being behind the global warming hoax should have been our first clue that something was amiss. The leftist idea that fills the heads of the U.N. delegates is that the West is too rich, and their wealth must be redistributed (sound familiar?). Skeptical scientists were silenced, and money was paid to those willing to push forward the propaganda.
Despite the proof against the hoax, leaders like Obama are still trying to push "green" technologies. The EPA is unconstitutionally moving forward with a regulation scheme against energy usage and carbon emissions. Australia and the European countries have their carbon tax scheme full throttle ahead. They are putting up windmills and solar panels, wasting billions of dollars on unproven alternative energy sources at a time when the world's economies can't take much more strain.
Despite the indoctrination, however, public acceptance of the “global warming” hoax has waned. To fight their defeat, the mainstream media has been trying to conceal the truth, but the wild wild west Internet has seen to it that the truth, including things like "Climategate," works its way to the surface.
Granted, the global warming hoax still resides in the minds of the most gullible sheep out there, but like the brontosaurus, it looks like the fraud is breathing its final breaths - at least until the leftist environmentalists find another way to convince the world that capitalism and industry is to blame for something else, and it is somehow connected to Climate Change.
I have a feeling this is TO BE CONTINUED. . .
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Santa Claus, The Easter Bunny, and [man-made] Global Warming. . .
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Global Warming, err, uhh, Climate Change, seems to be something not mentioned much by the media these days. The indoctrination is complete, or so they thought. Even with all of the glaring evidence that man-made global warming is a hoax, aside from an occasional crackpot claiming the earthquake in Japan was caused by Global Warming, or an Al Gore faithful screaming about the global warming snow they are buried under, the "theory" has more or less vanished from the propaganda networks.
Natural warming and cooling, or I guess you could say "natural climate change," is a more reasonable argument. We have seen the planet cool and warm a number of times in human history, and the majority of those trends occurred long before the first SUV hit the road. In our modern age, however, despite the evidence that the Earth warms and cools naturally, and despite the fact that the "green house gases" we throw into the atmosphere, when compared to that which is produced by the oceans and volcanoes, is a minuscule fraction of a single percentage point, alarmists have decided that industry is to be blamed for the climate trends we experience.
Carbon dioxide has become the big culprit. Never mind that all life on this big blue marble is, like oxygen, dependent on CO2. Never mind that core samples have shown that carbon level increases and decreases "follow" climate rises and drops in temperature, so it is reasonable to assume that an increase in carbon in the atmosphere is not the "cause" of temperature shifts.
Despite the obvious, the environmental wackos continue to push their hoax, and the indoctrination even continued while in November 2009 there was a release of thousands of “Climategate” emails between the meteorologists supplying the bogus data that the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was using to generate this incredible hoax that has more to do with an authoritarian idea of controlling people's use of energy, than anything to do with the environment.
The complete fabrication of "Climate Change" ranks right up there with the 100 year mistake of the brontosaurus, the "Piltdown Man" hoax, and the Easter Bunny. Pandora's Box has been opened, and it turns out that the global warming scientists have been using falsified computer model data. Why? Believe it or not, the question is best answered when you follow the money, and discover that billions of dollars in grant money was involved. In other words, continue to perpetuate the hoax, and you get your money.
The United Nations being behind the global warming hoax should have been our first clue that something was amiss. The leftist idea that fills the heads of the U.N. delegates is that the West is too rich, and their wealth must be redistributed (sound familiar?). Skeptical scientists were silenced, and money was paid to those willing to push forward the propaganda.
Despite the proof against the hoax, leaders like Obama are still trying to push "green" technologies. The EPA is unconstitutionally moving forward with a regulation scheme against energy usage and carbon emissions. Australia and the European countries have their carbon tax scheme full throttle ahead. They are putting up windmills and solar panels, wasting billions of dollars on unproven alternative energy sources at a time when the world's economies can't take much more strain.
Despite the indoctrination, however, public acceptance of the “global warming” hoax has waned. To fight their defeat, the mainstream media has been trying to conceal the truth, but the wild wild west Internet has seen to it that the truth, including things like "Climategate," works its way to the surface.
Granted, the global warming hoax still resides in the minds of the most gullible sheep out there, but like the brontosaurus, it looks like the fraud is breathing its final breaths - at least until the leftist environmentalists find another way to convince the world that capitalism and industry is to blame for something else, and it is somehow connected to Climate Change.
I have a feeling this is TO BE CONTINUED. . .
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Libya and Obama's Address
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Tonight, President Obama will be addressing the nation in an attempt to explain why we have taken military action in Libya. Members of both sides of the political spectrum are not happy with the decision to take military action in Libya, feeling that not only was the decision made without Congressional approval (not necessarily necessary, but it would have been nice considering the political climate), but that Libya's civil war does not threaten American interests and is an internal conflict that really needs to be resolved by the Libyan government, and the Libyan people.
I get the morality standpoint of protecting lives that Gadhafi seems to have no remorse about snuffing out, but if that was the case, for the sake of consistency, would we not also need to be involved in a couple dozen other countries too?
We are hearing that the U.S. is getting ready to hand over all controls to NATO, and that we are getting out of the situation so that the world organizations can take care of it. Don't be under the illusion that the United States would then have absolutely no involvement. Libya will be as other conflicts we get involved in - a U.S. led operation to the end. Kosovo was that way, and I expect Libya to remain as such too. It will be our fighter jets, our ordinance, and our technology because without us, NATO is nothing more than a four letter acronym.
There will then be a natural progression when NATO falls away, and decides it is time to hand over operations to the United Nations. Such a progression may be the case in the next few weeks, or months, which will be the U.S. working to hand over operations first, and then the rest of the nations will follow suit, ultimately handing off all operations to the United Nations (with America still involved in one way or another without anybody talking about it). The United Nations will then bring in ground troops once the fighting has subsided in a "humanitarian effort" to keep the peace - usually becoming nothing more than blue-helmeted targets for the insurgents as is often the case in the past. And once that happens, because the U.N. is not exactly an efficient force, expect the blue helmets to remain in that region for the next half a dozen years minimum, acting as a presence, but not a deterrence.
This war in Libya may have created a conflict within the gray matter of the president. Obama must have wrestled with it to a point, because entering this conflict contradicted everything he has said over the last few years. The "anti-war" candidate that received a Nobel Peace Prize for his stance of pulling the U.S. out of Iraq, eventually out of Afghanistan, and closing Guantanamo Bay's prison (none of which came to fruition in the manner he prescribed) was suddenly faced with a situation where the countries and global organizations he holds in high regard were willing to go to war in Libya. Obama, being the "keep everyone happy" kind of guy that he is, decided to make the U.N. and Europe happy by getting involved, but tried to keep his angry base happy by refusing to call Libya a "war." Instead, Obama called the operation a Kinetic Military Activity (uh, in other words, a "war" without using the word), thinking that somehow changing the language would get him off the hook. Instead of making people happy, Obama's dithering, and ambivalence, simply portrayed to the American People that Barry has no idea of what he is doing.
The President, however, knows exactly what he is doing. Let's not be fooled by his antics. Every action he performs is for a reason. The dithering, and then sudden involvement, has a motive behind it. The involvement adds American presence to North Africa in a way that did not exist before.
The American People have been left confused, and I don't believe Obama took into consideration the reaction of the American People. There has never been a time in American History where we dropped bombs on another country with so little explained by the government as to why, and with so little support from the American population. The illusion is that this operation was thrown together at the last minute. I actually hope they are making this up as they go along, because if this is not a classic case of incompetence, then the possibilities become quite sinister. It is turning out that the rebel fighters include characters that fought against the U.S. in Iraq, and that the rebellion has connections to al-Qaeda.
The reality of the situation dictates that years from now Libya, and many of these other countries, may head in an extremist direction. It may very well be that these conflicts that are popping up throughout the Muslim world are leading to these countries becoming Islamic ruled nations. It is simply a matter of odds. Turmoil in a dozen countries in the Middle East and North Africa may lead to revolution in some of those countries. And regardless of the original intent, be it for democracy, or to overthrow a ruthless dictator, the reality is that some, if not many, of these uprisings will become Islamic Revolutions that will in turn change the face of the region to something much more radical. Obama, and friends, know this. I don't believe they are as stupid as they act. So, if they are not making this up as they go along, that tells me the administration wants to be a part of the transformation, to enable it along. Ultimately, through rhetoric and policy decisions, this administration has already shown us that it has something in common with radical Islamic regimes. . . a hate for Israel.
Remember, when asked if there is an imminent threat to the United States, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said, "No," over the weekend. The Obama administration realizes this is a matter where the United States is getting involved with foreign entanglements with no American interests at risk prior to our involvement. They understand that the people are not hip about the action, either. That opens up the possibility of insidious motives. The oil we receive from Libya is minuscule. European countries receive more oil from Libya than we do, so I can kind of see their concern over the strife in Libya. But just because Europe, or the United Nations, has decided to get involved in another country's civil war, it does not necessarily mean that we should too. One thing is for sure, before American involvement, Libya had no connections to Iran.
Everybody can't stand Gadhafi. We know how bad of a dirtball he truly is. Of course nobody is going to be disappointed if he is kicked out of power, and no longer holds any political influence after all the bombs are finished dropping. But Iran, al-Qaeda, and other influences, once Gadhafi is gone, will gain more influence than before in Libya. Libya won't be so isolated from the rest of the Islamic madness anymore. And the problem escalates when you draw in the other potential conflicts, be they Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, or even the future of Egypt as we watch that scenario play out.
Whether the President understands the reality of the situation, or not, and whether or not we are being given an adequate explanation, we are being impacted by what is going on. Gas prices are rising (and we must remember that many of the Democrats have indicated in the past that high gas prices are a good thing because they want you to run to unproven "green" technologies), and that is impacting the rest of our economy. High fuel prices increase the cost of transporting goods, and in turn influences all points of the market.
Tonight, Obama's Presidential Address is supposed to address these concerns, and bring about focus and clarity. We'll see if the speech has any substance, or if it will be as his speeches have been in the past - full of empty rhetoric, and self-promotion.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Libyan rebel commander admits his fighters have al-Qaeda links - U.K. Telegraph
Syria cracks down as unrest spreads - Financial Times
Surprise, Surprise! The Islamist Muslim Brotherhood Runs Egypt - Rush Limbaugh
American Foreign Policy No Longer Oriented Around Our Best Interests - Rush Limbaugh
Bahrain's king thanks Saudi troops for thwarting 'external plot' - Christian Science Monitor
Obama creates indefinite detention system for prisoners at Guantanamo Bay - Washington Post
Flashback: Obama's 2002 anti-war speech - Washington Examiner
Tonight, President Obama will be addressing the nation in an attempt to explain why we have taken military action in Libya. Members of both sides of the political spectrum are not happy with the decision to take military action in Libya, feeling that not only was the decision made without Congressional approval (not necessarily necessary, but it would have been nice considering the political climate), but that Libya's civil war does not threaten American interests and is an internal conflict that really needs to be resolved by the Libyan government, and the Libyan people.
I get the morality standpoint of protecting lives that Gadhafi seems to have no remorse about snuffing out, but if that was the case, for the sake of consistency, would we not also need to be involved in a couple dozen other countries too?
We are hearing that the U.S. is getting ready to hand over all controls to NATO, and that we are getting out of the situation so that the world organizations can take care of it. Don't be under the illusion that the United States would then have absolutely no involvement. Libya will be as other conflicts we get involved in - a U.S. led operation to the end. Kosovo was that way, and I expect Libya to remain as such too. It will be our fighter jets, our ordinance, and our technology because without us, NATO is nothing more than a four letter acronym.
There will then be a natural progression when NATO falls away, and decides it is time to hand over operations to the United Nations. Such a progression may be the case in the next few weeks, or months, which will be the U.S. working to hand over operations first, and then the rest of the nations will follow suit, ultimately handing off all operations to the United Nations (with America still involved in one way or another without anybody talking about it). The United Nations will then bring in ground troops once the fighting has subsided in a "humanitarian effort" to keep the peace - usually becoming nothing more than blue-helmeted targets for the insurgents as is often the case in the past. And once that happens, because the U.N. is not exactly an efficient force, expect the blue helmets to remain in that region for the next half a dozen years minimum, acting as a presence, but not a deterrence.
This war in Libya may have created a conflict within the gray matter of the president. Obama must have wrestled with it to a point, because entering this conflict contradicted everything he has said over the last few years. The "anti-war" candidate that received a Nobel Peace Prize for his stance of pulling the U.S. out of Iraq, eventually out of Afghanistan, and closing Guantanamo Bay's prison (none of which came to fruition in the manner he prescribed) was suddenly faced with a situation where the countries and global organizations he holds in high regard were willing to go to war in Libya. Obama, being the "keep everyone happy" kind of guy that he is, decided to make the U.N. and Europe happy by getting involved, but tried to keep his angry base happy by refusing to call Libya a "war." Instead, Obama called the operation a Kinetic Military Activity (uh, in other words, a "war" without using the word), thinking that somehow changing the language would get him off the hook. Instead of making people happy, Obama's dithering, and ambivalence, simply portrayed to the American People that Barry has no idea of what he is doing.
The President, however, knows exactly what he is doing. Let's not be fooled by his antics. Every action he performs is for a reason. The dithering, and then sudden involvement, has a motive behind it. The involvement adds American presence to North Africa in a way that did not exist before.
The American People have been left confused, and I don't believe Obama took into consideration the reaction of the American People. There has never been a time in American History where we dropped bombs on another country with so little explained by the government as to why, and with so little support from the American population. The illusion is that this operation was thrown together at the last minute. I actually hope they are making this up as they go along, because if this is not a classic case of incompetence, then the possibilities become quite sinister. It is turning out that the rebel fighters include characters that fought against the U.S. in Iraq, and that the rebellion has connections to al-Qaeda.
The reality of the situation dictates that years from now Libya, and many of these other countries, may head in an extremist direction. It may very well be that these conflicts that are popping up throughout the Muslim world are leading to these countries becoming Islamic ruled nations. It is simply a matter of odds. Turmoil in a dozen countries in the Middle East and North Africa may lead to revolution in some of those countries. And regardless of the original intent, be it for democracy, or to overthrow a ruthless dictator, the reality is that some, if not many, of these uprisings will become Islamic Revolutions that will in turn change the face of the region to something much more radical. Obama, and friends, know this. I don't believe they are as stupid as they act. So, if they are not making this up as they go along, that tells me the administration wants to be a part of the transformation, to enable it along. Ultimately, through rhetoric and policy decisions, this administration has already shown us that it has something in common with radical Islamic regimes. . . a hate for Israel.
Remember, when asked if there is an imminent threat to the United States, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said, "No," over the weekend. The Obama administration realizes this is a matter where the United States is getting involved with foreign entanglements with no American interests at risk prior to our involvement. They understand that the people are not hip about the action, either. That opens up the possibility of insidious motives. The oil we receive from Libya is minuscule. European countries receive more oil from Libya than we do, so I can kind of see their concern over the strife in Libya. But just because Europe, or the United Nations, has decided to get involved in another country's civil war, it does not necessarily mean that we should too. One thing is for sure, before American involvement, Libya had no connections to Iran.
Everybody can't stand Gadhafi. We know how bad of a dirtball he truly is. Of course nobody is going to be disappointed if he is kicked out of power, and no longer holds any political influence after all the bombs are finished dropping. But Iran, al-Qaeda, and other influences, once Gadhafi is gone, will gain more influence than before in Libya. Libya won't be so isolated from the rest of the Islamic madness anymore. And the problem escalates when you draw in the other potential conflicts, be they Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, or even the future of Egypt as we watch that scenario play out.
Whether the President understands the reality of the situation, or not, and whether or not we are being given an adequate explanation, we are being impacted by what is going on. Gas prices are rising (and we must remember that many of the Democrats have indicated in the past that high gas prices are a good thing because they want you to run to unproven "green" technologies), and that is impacting the rest of our economy. High fuel prices increase the cost of transporting goods, and in turn influences all points of the market.
Tonight, Obama's Presidential Address is supposed to address these concerns, and bring about focus and clarity. We'll see if the speech has any substance, or if it will be as his speeches have been in the past - full of empty rhetoric, and self-promotion.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Libyan rebel commander admits his fighters have al-Qaeda links - U.K. Telegraph
Syria cracks down as unrest spreads - Financial Times
Surprise, Surprise! The Islamist Muslim Brotherhood Runs Egypt - Rush Limbaugh
American Foreign Policy No Longer Oriented Around Our Best Interests - Rush Limbaugh
Bahrain's king thanks Saudi troops for thwarting 'external plot' - Christian Science Monitor
Obama creates indefinite detention system for prisoners at Guantanamo Bay - Washington Post
Flashback: Obama's 2002 anti-war speech - Washington Examiner
Separation of Powers were meant to keep government small
By Kevin Price
Separation of Powers are taught, but their importance is not, the reason why is that those in power do not like what this important political concept is intended to accomplish: limits on government.
The idea of separation of powers is not new. Some ancient and even modern European countries have exercised such options to the same extent as the United States of America. The United States was founded by people whose interest was not the central government, but the states they represented. They had already fought a war for independence and were not interested in a new tyranny, even if it was closer to home. Home for them was Virginia, New York, and Rhode Island – not the yet existent United States – and they were charged to protect their homes in writing a new constitution.
The separation of powers for the United States was seen in the form of three separate branches of government, each designed to “check” the behavior and decisions of the others and to provide “balance” in making sure the liberties of the people were protected. Those three branches were the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial. Here is a brief summary of how it worked.
Legislative: the branch nearest to the people. This branch has checks and balances of its own, being bicameral in natural (meaning two houses, one for Representatives and another for Senators). The House was up every two years and represents the smallest number of voters and was responsible for the origin of tax bills to prevent government from pursuing such. In addition it is involved in (and often takes an upper hand) in the passage of all legislation. The Senate was originally designed to protect the interests of the state governments and was appointed by governors and legislatures. The Senate is the only office where its members have executive (approve treaties and appointees), judicial (impeach office holders), and of course, legislative duties. 535 members in two Houses create a dispersion of power that makes it difficult for things to pass. This is by design, not accident.
Executive: in charge of carrying out the law. The executive branch has become incredibly powerful over the years and I believe this would be very surprising to the founders of this country. Most countries have an executive that is an extension of the majority in the legislative branch (e.g., the Prime Minister). That is because those governments are designed to “do more.” Ours is decidedly different, it can veto bills passed by Congress and the founders made it very difficult for the legislative branch to over ride such. But the imperial President we have today is an odd phenomenon who creates law through edict (regulation) and not through Constitutional channels.
Judicial: should ask the question, is it Constitutional? The Judicial branch originally had a simple job – it was to enforce the very limited government found in the US Constitution. Over time, it has become a legislative branch of its own, creating law where the Federal Constitution said nothing, meaning it should have been left to the states.
The separation of powers is one of the concepts designed to keep us free and to keep government small. The study of the Constitution and supporting those who will defend it is imperative in restoring freedom.
--
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
Separation of Powers are taught, but their importance is not, the reason why is that those in power do not like what this important political concept is intended to accomplish: limits on government.
The idea of separation of powers is not new. Some ancient and even modern European countries have exercised such options to the same extent as the United States of America. The United States was founded by people whose interest was not the central government, but the states they represented. They had already fought a war for independence and were not interested in a new tyranny, even if it was closer to home. Home for them was Virginia, New York, and Rhode Island – not the yet existent United States – and they were charged to protect their homes in writing a new constitution.
The separation of powers for the United States was seen in the form of three separate branches of government, each designed to “check” the behavior and decisions of the others and to provide “balance” in making sure the liberties of the people were protected. Those three branches were the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial. Here is a brief summary of how it worked.
Legislative: the branch nearest to the people. This branch has checks and balances of its own, being bicameral in natural (meaning two houses, one for Representatives and another for Senators). The House was up every two years and represents the smallest number of voters and was responsible for the origin of tax bills to prevent government from pursuing such. In addition it is involved in (and often takes an upper hand) in the passage of all legislation. The Senate was originally designed to protect the interests of the state governments and was appointed by governors and legislatures. The Senate is the only office where its members have executive (approve treaties and appointees), judicial (impeach office holders), and of course, legislative duties. 535 members in two Houses create a dispersion of power that makes it difficult for things to pass. This is by design, not accident.
Executive: in charge of carrying out the law. The executive branch has become incredibly powerful over the years and I believe this would be very surprising to the founders of this country. Most countries have an executive that is an extension of the majority in the legislative branch (e.g., the Prime Minister). That is because those governments are designed to “do more.” Ours is decidedly different, it can veto bills passed by Congress and the founders made it very difficult for the legislative branch to over ride such. But the imperial President we have today is an odd phenomenon who creates law through edict (regulation) and not through Constitutional channels.
Judicial: should ask the question, is it Constitutional? The Judicial branch originally had a simple job – it was to enforce the very limited government found in the US Constitution. Over time, it has become a legislative branch of its own, creating law where the Federal Constitution said nothing, meaning it should have been left to the states.
The separation of powers is one of the concepts designed to keep us free and to keep government small. The study of the Constitution and supporting those who will defend it is imperative in restoring freedom.
--
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
Sunday, March 27, 2011
George Washington: No Foreign Influence
"If we are to be told by a foreign Power ... what we shall do, and what we shall not do, we have Independence yet to seek, and have contended hitherto for very little." --George Washington
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Understanding Checks and Balances
By Douglas V. Gibbs
If the Congress feels the president is acting unconstitutional, they can defund it. If the courts feel the federal government is acting unconstitutionally, they can issue an opinion indicating such, and expect the other two branches to take that opinion into serious consideration. If the court's opinion is not followed, and the court is correct in its assessment, then the States can nullify it.
Prior to the 17th Amendment another check was in place because the House was the voice of the people and the Senate was the voice of the states. In that way, the two houses of Congress checked each other (people checked the states, and the states checked the people) and together with their ability to override a veto they checked the executive branch - and with the power of impeachment they check both executive and judicial branches.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
If the Congress feels the president is acting unconstitutional, they can defund it. If the courts feel the federal government is acting unconstitutionally, they can issue an opinion indicating such, and expect the other two branches to take that opinion into serious consideration. If the court's opinion is not followed, and the court is correct in its assessment, then the States can nullify it.
Prior to the 17th Amendment another check was in place because the House was the voice of the people and the Senate was the voice of the states. In that way, the two houses of Congress checked each other (people checked the states, and the states checked the people) and together with their ability to override a veto they checked the executive branch - and with the power of impeachment they check both executive and judicial branches.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Troopathon IV
Save the Date: Thursday, June 23 Dear Pro-Troop Supporters Every year Move America Forward puts on a single, huge fundraiser to send the troops the largest single shipment of care packages. This year we are going to try to beat our previous record, set in 2008 when we raised $1.3M on the night of the first inaugural Troopathon! As the weather in Afghanistan and Iraq heats up, we have to step up our efforts to support our troops and supply them not only with goodies and treats but also our gratitude and support. New Troopathon Logo for 2011 Revealed!  This year’s theme is "Remember Their Sacrifice" to remind us that all of our troops: Marines, Navy, Army, Air Force, Coast Guard, National Guard, and Reserves, have given up and risked so much for our sake. All of our troops are putting their lives on the line for our freedom, so we owe them our total support! In 2008 and 2009 our 8 Hour Troopathons were a huge success, but only because we had the support of the American people. We are going to need your support again this year more than ever before. We have some exciting guests this year that we will be announcing soon. So go mark your calendars RIGHT NOW and mark TROOPATHON on your schedule for THURSDAY JUNE 23, 2011. Scenes from Last Year’s Troopathon:   |
How To Do Libya Right - Political Pistachio Radio Revolution
Upcoming Episodes
Political Pistachio: Jim Kinney - How To Do Libya Right
HOV Radio Host Douglas V. Gibbs
Date / Time: 3/27/2011 1:00 PM Pacific Time
Category: Politics Conservative
Call-in Number: (646) 478-4654
Inspire and Ignite founder, Jim Kinney, Captain, U.S. Navy (Ret.), joins us today to discuss the dynamics surrounding the unrest throughout the Middle East and North Africa. While the U.S. Policy regarding the region is difficult to comprehend, from the vantage point of military and political analyst Kinney, one thing is for sure: our Commander in Chief is making decisions that are unpopular, and questions his competence. Questions have risen, and the White House seems to be unable to have answers, much less understand the questions. Kinney's ultimate question is: Is the President directly involved with the process? Or is he simply armchair quarterbacking? Conservative News and Commentary.
Leftist's Plan For Destroying America. . . a la 1934
This cartoon was in the Chicago Tribune in 1934. Look carefully at the plan of action in the lower left corner.
Leftist destruction of the American Economy through drastic spending measures is nothing new. . .
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Hey! Whose Weenie Is This In The Punch Bowl?
By J.J. Jackson
AT&T wants to buy T-Mobile. AT&T made an offer. T-Mobile has agreed. It should be a fairly straight forward transaction and no more complicated than you or I buying milk from the grocery store. Oh but wait, as they say, there’s more! Since we are not a society that embraces capitalism, but rather socialism, there is government to contend with before this simple transaction can happen.
Yes, here we are once again. We are watching the federal government stick its weenie in the punch bowl again, stir it around and tell us to drink up afterwards. As disgusting as that visual is, it happens every day. The AT&T/T-Mobile merger is just the latest example.
Remember the economic crash a few years ago? The one where the nation was dragged down into the depths of despair by millions of Americans defaulting on mortgages no reasonable person would have ever signed off on? Yep, that was government meddling too. The Community Reinvestment Act and a cadre of other federal government mandates prompted banks to put every Tom, Dick and Harry into a home whether they could reasonably afford it or not. The government even used the enticement of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which would buy these bad loans, no questions asked, to poke and prod lenders into compliance. And what if lenders would not comply? What if they still defied the government and chose to not act in an economically stupid manner? Well, all sorts of things from as their access to federal money being curtailed to threats of audits were wielded against them.
Yep. That worked out so well didn’t it? Sure, let’s let the federal regulators tackle regulating capitalism in the cell phone service provider realm too!
Dear God in Heaven help us.
Understandably some of AT&T competitors are a little anxious over this deal. Sprint Nextel Corp is already kvetching and complaining that the deal would hurt its own bottom line [1]. An executive with Sprint, Fared Adib, whined, "When one competitor has that much buying power they can determine the fate of different products.”
Well, golly gee! I was not aware that AT&T should be concerned about the fact that its competition is not able to deal with a changing business environment and whether products it competitors may want do not become profitable. And why should AT&T worry about Sprint’s ability to adapt? It certainly is not in AT&T’s best interest. Mr. Adib is of course hypocritical. He would not be bellyaching about a company gaining leverage in “buying power” if it were his own company. That is a guarantee. In fact, I guarantee you that Sprint is out there every day looking for ways to leverage its own “buying power” to lower its own costs and increase its profits.
And what if they are not? Well, then I would suggest never investing in Sprint stock for sure!
Henry Ford, as I have previously discussed, often said that many people who run businesses have no idea how to run those businesses and how economics works on its most basic level. Obviously, Sprint Nextel Corp. is one such company whose ownership and management structure falls into that category.
Other providers, that are small in nature, are also sure to get very antsy about the merger as it would hamper their ability to gain market share. Some of these companies may even think that they should go to the government and convince those in Washington to act outside of their Constitutional authority on this matter and stop the merger.
Verizon is also no doubt very concerned about this, considering when it comes to cell phone services in the United States they and AT&T are the big cocks on the walk.
One report I have seen talks about how in order for AT&T to curry favor with the federal government and gain approval for the deal, it would have to divest itself of assets [2]. Say what? Wait a minute here! I am flipping through my pocket Constitution looking for where in it the federal government is given the power to break up companies and dictate what they must do in order to buy out other companies. But that is not all. Apparently some are also having discussions about how, in order to get the deal done, AT&T not only has to sell off parts of its company, but it may even be forced to expand services to places where it is obviously not profitable to do so. Because if it was profitable AT&T would be doing it already! You know how it goes. Some aggrieved group thinks that they are owed better cell phone service access and they are going to make sure they get it by hook or by crook.
Nope. I cannot find anything regarding that power of our government in the Constitution either. So it seems logical that the federal government does not have it. Sorry for introducing facts into this discussion. I know it will upset some people.
Listen, whether you like AT&T is not the issue here. And it should have absolutely no bearing on how you feel about this deal. Personally I have AT&T as my cell phone service provider. Are they flawless? Nope. But I do get a big hoot every time someone with Verizon, Sprint, Boost Mobile, Cricket, or whatever company you can name tells me how great their coverage is and how crappy AT&T's is. Within minutes what usually winds up happening is they are sitting around, looking for a signal while I am able to pop out my iPhone and talk almost anywhere I have ever been.
Do I think AT&T over charges for services? Yep. Have I left them yet? Nope because I have a signal just about everywhere I have ever been. Does their customer service pretty much stink? Oh, yeah. So I just try to not use it.
The government needs to butt out of the free markets. We have seen the wreckage they have left in their wake when they interfere. I dread the day I wake up and see the headline proclaiming how the government manipulated cell phone service market crashed and millions of Americans who bought unaffordable phones and service plans have started to just walk away from their contracts.
Yeah, it sounds silly. So did the thought that millions of home owners would walk away from their government incentivized mortgages too not that long ago. The government needs to simply pull up its pants and back away from the punch bowl.
[1] http://money.msn.com/business-news/article.aspx?feed=OBR&date=20110323&id=13203397
[2] http://money.msn.com/business-news/article.aspx?feed=OBR&date=20110321&id=13189647
=====================================
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.
AT&T wants to buy T-Mobile. AT&T made an offer. T-Mobile has agreed. It should be a fairly straight forward transaction and no more complicated than you or I buying milk from the grocery store. Oh but wait, as they say, there’s more! Since we are not a society that embraces capitalism, but rather socialism, there is government to contend with before this simple transaction can happen.
Yes, here we are once again. We are watching the federal government stick its weenie in the punch bowl again, stir it around and tell us to drink up afterwards. As disgusting as that visual is, it happens every day. The AT&T/T-Mobile merger is just the latest example.
Remember the economic crash a few years ago? The one where the nation was dragged down into the depths of despair by millions of Americans defaulting on mortgages no reasonable person would have ever signed off on? Yep, that was government meddling too. The Community Reinvestment Act and a cadre of other federal government mandates prompted banks to put every Tom, Dick and Harry into a home whether they could reasonably afford it or not. The government even used the enticement of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which would buy these bad loans, no questions asked, to poke and prod lenders into compliance. And what if lenders would not comply? What if they still defied the government and chose to not act in an economically stupid manner? Well, all sorts of things from as their access to federal money being curtailed to threats of audits were wielded against them.
Yep. That worked out so well didn’t it? Sure, let’s let the federal regulators tackle regulating capitalism in the cell phone service provider realm too!
Dear God in Heaven help us.
Understandably some of AT&T competitors are a little anxious over this deal. Sprint Nextel Corp is already kvetching and complaining that the deal would hurt its own bottom line [1]. An executive with Sprint, Fared Adib, whined, "When one competitor has that much buying power they can determine the fate of different products.”
Well, golly gee! I was not aware that AT&T should be concerned about the fact that its competition is not able to deal with a changing business environment and whether products it competitors may want do not become profitable. And why should AT&T worry about Sprint’s ability to adapt? It certainly is not in AT&T’s best interest. Mr. Adib is of course hypocritical. He would not be bellyaching about a company gaining leverage in “buying power” if it were his own company. That is a guarantee. In fact, I guarantee you that Sprint is out there every day looking for ways to leverage its own “buying power” to lower its own costs and increase its profits.
And what if they are not? Well, then I would suggest never investing in Sprint stock for sure!
Henry Ford, as I have previously discussed, often said that many people who run businesses have no idea how to run those businesses and how economics works on its most basic level. Obviously, Sprint Nextel Corp. is one such company whose ownership and management structure falls into that category.
Other providers, that are small in nature, are also sure to get very antsy about the merger as it would hamper their ability to gain market share. Some of these companies may even think that they should go to the government and convince those in Washington to act outside of their Constitutional authority on this matter and stop the merger.
Verizon is also no doubt very concerned about this, considering when it comes to cell phone services in the United States they and AT&T are the big cocks on the walk.
One report I have seen talks about how in order for AT&T to curry favor with the federal government and gain approval for the deal, it would have to divest itself of assets [2]. Say what? Wait a minute here! I am flipping through my pocket Constitution looking for where in it the federal government is given the power to break up companies and dictate what they must do in order to buy out other companies. But that is not all. Apparently some are also having discussions about how, in order to get the deal done, AT&T not only has to sell off parts of its company, but it may even be forced to expand services to places where it is obviously not profitable to do so. Because if it was profitable AT&T would be doing it already! You know how it goes. Some aggrieved group thinks that they are owed better cell phone service access and they are going to make sure they get it by hook or by crook.
Nope. I cannot find anything regarding that power of our government in the Constitution either. So it seems logical that the federal government does not have it. Sorry for introducing facts into this discussion. I know it will upset some people.
Listen, whether you like AT&T is not the issue here. And it should have absolutely no bearing on how you feel about this deal. Personally I have AT&T as my cell phone service provider. Are they flawless? Nope. But I do get a big hoot every time someone with Verizon, Sprint, Boost Mobile, Cricket, or whatever company you can name tells me how great their coverage is and how crappy AT&T's is. Within minutes what usually winds up happening is they are sitting around, looking for a signal while I am able to pop out my iPhone and talk almost anywhere I have ever been.
Do I think AT&T over charges for services? Yep. Have I left them yet? Nope because I have a signal just about everywhere I have ever been. Does their customer service pretty much stink? Oh, yeah. So I just try to not use it.
The government needs to butt out of the free markets. We have seen the wreckage they have left in their wake when they interfere. I dread the day I wake up and see the headline proclaiming how the government manipulated cell phone service market crashed and millions of Americans who bought unaffordable phones and service plans have started to just walk away from their contracts.
Yeah, it sounds silly. So did the thought that millions of home owners would walk away from their government incentivized mortgages too not that long ago. The government needs to simply pull up its pants and back away from the punch bowl.
[1] http://money.msn.com/business-news/article.aspx?feed=OBR&date=20110323&id=13203397
[2] http://money.msn.com/business-news/article.aspx?feed=OBR&date=20110321&id=13189647
=====================================
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)