By Douglas V. Gibbs
A NATO airstrike against Libya took the life of Muammar Gaddafi's youngest son, and three of the Libyan leader's grandchildren.
The house the Gaddaffi's family members were in was struck by at least three missiles. The attack completely caved in the roof at some spots.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Son of Qaddafi Killed in NATO Airstrike - New York Times
Saturday, April 30, 2011
Israel's Dwindling Options
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Unrest in the Middle East and North Africa places Israel into an alert condition that goes way beyond simply worrying about a terrorist attack against the tiny nation. If any other nation in the world goes to war and loses, it creates a devastating process of retribution, and rebuilding. If Israel goes to war and loses, she ceases to exist.
The claim against Israel is that the Jews are occupiers of the land they embrace as their own. The Jews are being compared to South Africa as visitors that have forced their way onto the landscape, and then practice apartheid against the "native peoples." However, the truth is far from agreeing with that claim, for if any people has a claim to their homeland, there is no greater example than Israel. Israel reaches back thousands of years, much like China and India, predating most civilizations, and predating both Christianity and Islam. Their claim to that land goes back to the time of Moses. Even before 1948, the early Zionist movement members that moved to the region purchased the land on which they would farm and live. Any lands that were later captured as a result of war were lands that had been a part of Israel originally, anyhow.
The land Israel occupies is but a sliver of what once belonged to the Jewish People, but the fact remains that the Hebrew has called that region home as a specific people for nearly 4,000 years. The twelve tribes of Israel have always considered that land to belong to them, even when they have been scattered time and time again because of an attempt to destroy their nation as we are now currently seeing. . . once again.
On May 14, 1948 Israel became a nation once again, and as is the case throughout Jewish history, war designed to destroy the nation was immediately engaged against Israel. Within hours after Israel was given back that tiny sliver of wilderness, and after the United States recognized the new nation, the Arab League declared war against Israel with the full intent of wiping the new nation off the map.
Israel was a nation of barely more than half a million people, at that point, and had been a nation for mere hours. Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq all joined together to destroy tiny Israel. To the surprise of the attackers, the attempt to destroy Israel, commit genocide against the Jewish people, and scatter the scant survivors around the world, failed once again.
The attempt to destroy Israel arose again in 1967. Eight Arab nations joined together with the full intent to end the existence of Israel, using their "3 Nos" as their rallying cry. "No peace with Israel. No recognition of Israel. No negotiations with Israel." Israel again survived, and this time gained Jerusalem, and other pieces of land, as a result.
The Yom Kippur War in 1973 was yet another attempt to destroy Israel, commenced on one of the holiest days on the Jewish calendar, and once again the attempt by the Arab nations failed.
During the Carter administration Egypt's Anwar Sadat signed a peace treaty with Israel, one that they still abide by to this day, for the most part. The rhetoric on the streets during the ouster of Mubarak, however, proved that the animus against Israel in Egypt remains.
Jordan signed a peace treaty with Israel in 1994, resolving border disputes at least temporarily. Jordanians are rapidly concluding that there is no real tangible benefit Jordan receives by having a peace treaty with Israel, and are beginning to grow restless with Israel.
The other Muslim nations in the region remain hostile.
The Israel of today is but a small sliver of the lands Israel once called home. Historically, during the Kingdoms of David and Soloman, Israel extended into Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, the Sinai, and up to the outskirts of Iraq. In other words, to have the borders Israel has today, they did not "steal" that land. The lands Israel inhabits today they have regained. Historically, their own lands were denied to them by Arab invaders, and the Jews now have regained a small part of what was once theirs.
In reality, Jews have always lived in Israel, but as a minority among the Arab conquerors. The Jews have lived with neighbors that hold utter contempt for the Jewish people because Islam's Koran promotes as a core belief that all religions are inferior to Islam, and that the Jewish people are no more than swine.
Christianity's support for Israel befuddles some observers. The conventional wisdom of the secular population is that Christianity should hate Israel because it was the Jewish elite that fostered hatred for Jesus Christ while the Messiah walked the Earth, and it was members of the Jewish population that cried for Pontius Pilate to "crucify him" when the bloodied Jesus was presented to them as a man with no faults.
Segments of Christianity have indeed turned their back on Israel, falling victim to "Replacement Theology," which essentially teaches that the Jews are no longer God's chosen people due to their rejection of Christ as the Messiah, and that Christians have replaced the Jews as God's chosen people as a result. However, most Christians see themselves as adopted into the family of God, that Israelites are still God's children and still receives the Blessings of God despite the fact that most Jews reject Christ as the Messiah, and Christians have adopted into the family through the blood of Jesus Christ. The fact is, Christianity is the second largest faith among the Jews, and Christians believe that God still has many plans for the Jewish People as we enter this age that is considered by many to be the countdown to the return of Jesus Christ.
Christians also know that the fall of the Jewish state to present-day Muslim invaders would undoubtedly mark the end of any opportunity to visit the lands Jesus Christ once walked, and would result in the destruction of these Holy places by the hostile Islamic occupiers.
The problem is, Israel's enemies have multiplied. No longer are the forces that desire an end to the Jewish nation limited to those of the Muslim ideology. The United Nations has singled out Israel as occupiers and racists against Palestinians since 1950, putting out resolution after resolution against Israel. Even segments of the United States have turned against Israel as aid to the Palestinian Authority has increased, and the current Democrat-led government has continuously snubbed Israel while giving numerous concessions to the Muslim nations of the region.
As anti-Israel sentiment increases around the world, Iran has openly threatened to “wipe Israel off the map”, and the two-state accommodation with the Palestinians has surfaced again as a solution that historically has been refused by the Palestinians because their goal is not to split the land with Israel, but to gain possession of all the lands as a result of Israel’s destruction.
Israel has been slowly giving up land in the hopes of gaining peace. Longtime Jewish residents have abandoned their homes in Gaza. Meanwhile, Hamas has hammered Israel with constant rocket attacks, a practice that has increased since Gaza has been given to the Palestinians. In an effort to combine their forces against Israel, the rival factions of Hamas and Fatah have joined together.
Now, Israel's options have dwindled. The fight for survival has fallen solely on their own shoulders as their allies have turned their backs on them. With Benjamin Netanyahu serving as Israel’s Prime Minister, it has rapidly become obvious that Israel must stand against its enemies, assert its right to its own lands, and perhaps take action against its neighbors before another attack against Israel ensues. To protect itself, Israel may need to take action in Iran against that nation's nuclear facilities, refuse the wrongful demands to limit construction in Jerusalem, refuse the wrongful demands that Israel turn over Jerusalem to Islam, and stand up to its enemies both diplomatically, and militarily.
Otherwise, Israel's existence may be at risk.
One must remember, the very presence of Israel in the Middle East brings stability to that region that would not otherwise exist. The defeat of Israel puts the entire world at risk, and gives Islam yet another notch in their belt as they set their sights on a worldwide caliphate.
The pieces are definitely falling into place for such a scenario. The Arab League is working with the United Nations to set up a No Fly Zone over Gaza. Such a move would not only place Israel at a disadvantage, but would literally pit Western forces against Israel. That would mean that even American pilots would be ordered to face off with the Israeli air force.
Of course Israel is willing to accept a mutual ceasefire, even though they figure the Palestinians will not abide by it for long. Israel has continuously shown that they have a desire for peace, even if it means losing land and political advantages to achieve that peace. But, even as Israel backs off once again, Hamas continues to lob missiles into Israeli population centers.
Fact is, the Arab League cannot be trusted. They used deception to get the United Nations involved in Libya, and they are working to do the same in Syria and Gaza. The aim is to make The West look to be aggressors, so as to encourage Muslim vitriol against The West, and Israel. They know that the mere power of accusation with cause The West to back off, and give them a free attempt to move on Israel.
The Arab League's moves are quite literally forcing Israel's options to dwindle even more, leaving Israel with two options: Defend themselves militarily, or cease to exist.
The answer is obvious.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
And It Begins - Monkey in the Middle
Fatah and Hamas Announce Outline of Deal - New York Times
Founding Truth: Constitution Radio
Founding Truth of the U.S. Constitution
- by HOV Radio Host
- in Politics Conservative
- on Sat, Apr 30, 2011 05:00PM
Reading Bible in Public Leads to Arrest of Pastors
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Right up the road a couple months ago one assistant pastor and two elders from Calvary Chapel of Hemet, California, went to the Hemet DMV before it opened and one of the men started to read the Bible aloud. Less than thirty minutes later, he was arrested for "impeding an open business" under Penal Code Section 602.1(b).
A security guard told them to stop reading the Bible, and then about ten minutes later, a California Highway Patrolman approached the pastor, took the Bible out of his hands, and arrested him. As the CHP officer was arresting him and putting him in his patrol car, the two men who were with him asked the officer, "What law was he breaking?" Instead of identifying a legal violation, the officer asked, "Were you preaching too?"
The other two pastors were then also arrested. Neither of them ever read the Bible out loud anywhere on DMV premises.
The charge against the pastors of "impeding an open business" is designed to protect businesses against protestors who block the doors of an open business. The pastors, however, read the Bible at a time when the DMV was closed, and they were standing at least fifty feet away from the entrance.
The arrests were performed without any appropriate charge against any appropriate penal code. The purpose of the arrests seems to have been simply to censor the pastors.
The pastors have been since released, and no criminal charges have been pursued by the District Attorney. Advocates for Faith & Freedom has filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of these three men for violation of their right to free speech and for unlawful arrest.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Constitution Quest game: Designer of the game today's guest on the Political Pistachio Radio Revolution
Political Pistachio Radio Revolution: Constitution Quest game Designer
- by HOV Radio Host: Douglas V. Gibbs
- in Politics Conservative
- on Sat, Apr 30, 2011 01:00PM Pacific
Douglas V. Gibbs returns to American Daily Review Radio
ADR Week In Review
- by ADR Radio
- in Politics Conservative
- on Sat, Apr 30, 2011 12:00PM Pacific
Syria Killings Usher Pressure on Obama to Intervene
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Security forces killed more than 60 people across Syria on Friday during demonstrations demanding the ouster of President Bashar al-Assad, and the United States imposed new sanctions on key figures.
Obama is facing increased pressure to call for the ouster of Syrian President Bashar Assad, as Assad's government continues a violent crackdown on protesters that activists say has killed more than 450 people.
But is intervention in Syria something we should be considering, or is it none of our business. . . or at least none our business until it begins to affect American interests?
In George Washington's farewell address in 1796, he was careful to explain that unless American interests are directly affected, we should keep out of foreign entanglements, or involving ourselves in foreign affairs. This is not a call for isolationism, only a call to be careful in our choices when it comes to our foreign policies.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Syrian forces kill 62, U.S. toughens sanctions - Reuters
Obama Under Pressure to Call for Syrian Leader's Ouster - Fox News
George Washington's Farewell Address 1796 - Avalon Project
Security forces killed more than 60 people across Syria on Friday during demonstrations demanding the ouster of President Bashar al-Assad, and the United States imposed new sanctions on key figures.
Obama is facing increased pressure to call for the ouster of Syrian President Bashar Assad, as Assad's government continues a violent crackdown on protesters that activists say has killed more than 450 people.
But is intervention in Syria something we should be considering, or is it none of our business. . . or at least none our business until it begins to affect American interests?
In George Washington's farewell address in 1796, he was careful to explain that unless American interests are directly affected, we should keep out of foreign entanglements, or involving ourselves in foreign affairs. This is not a call for isolationism, only a call to be careful in our choices when it comes to our foreign policies.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Syrian forces kill 62, U.S. toughens sanctions - Reuters
Obama Under Pressure to Call for Syrian Leader's Ouster - Fox News
George Washington's Farewell Address 1796 - Avalon Project
DNC Protest Filmed, Obama Administration Throws Down Gauntlet
By Douglas V. Gibbs
"We paid our dues, now where's our change," sang the protesters as Obama looked on from the stage. A San Francisco Chronicle reporter filmed the song, and the White House is not happy about it. Then, the Obama administration lied.
According to the White House, the San Francisco Chronicle reporter that filmed the protest at the DNC fundraiser broke the rules. The agreement, according to the Obama administration, was for the reporter to only use paper and pen as well as sharing her notes with the White House so that it may be distributed to other reporters. The newspaper says the Obama administration needs to join the 21st century.
I personally don't like the idea of the government dictating to reporters what they must and must not do in regards to their reports on the government. Feels kind of Soviet-like when the White House makes that kind of demands of reporters.
The reporter in question is Carla Marinucci, and the pool reporting arrangement she had agreed to is a common thing designed to limit the number of reporters at smaller events, while still giving all of the other reporters access to the notes taken by those that attended.
During Marinucci's coverage, about a half-dozen protesters attending the breakfast broke into a song chastising Obama for the government's treatment of Pfc. Bradley Manning, an Army intelligence analyst suspected of illegally passing government secrets to the WikiLeaks website.
Marinucci pulled out her ever-present small video recorder and captured video of the protest. The video was posted with her written story online. The White House complained, saying the agreement was that she would provide a print-only report.
Off the record, the Obama administration threatened Marinucci that she could lose future opportunities to cover presidential appearances. The White House then later threatened to freeze out Chronicle and other Hearst Newspaper chain reporters if they reported on the threat against Marinucci.
Josh Earnest, a White House spokesman, later said that officials made no such threat.
The president that claimed to be unlike any other politician, and a unifier, has turned out to be just another cockroach. Rather than being open and transparent, the Democrats have revealed themselves to be the thugs we knew they are.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
White House, newspaper clash over protest video - Associated Press, Yahoo News
Chronicle responds after Obama Administration punishes reporter for using multimedia, then claims they didn't - SF Gate
"We paid our dues, now where's our change," sang the protesters as Obama looked on from the stage. A San Francisco Chronicle reporter filmed the song, and the White House is not happy about it. Then, the Obama administration lied.
According to the White House, the San Francisco Chronicle reporter that filmed the protest at the DNC fundraiser broke the rules. The agreement, according to the Obama administration, was for the reporter to only use paper and pen as well as sharing her notes with the White House so that it may be distributed to other reporters. The newspaper says the Obama administration needs to join the 21st century.
I personally don't like the idea of the government dictating to reporters what they must and must not do in regards to their reports on the government. Feels kind of Soviet-like when the White House makes that kind of demands of reporters.
The reporter in question is Carla Marinucci, and the pool reporting arrangement she had agreed to is a common thing designed to limit the number of reporters at smaller events, while still giving all of the other reporters access to the notes taken by those that attended.
During Marinucci's coverage, about a half-dozen protesters attending the breakfast broke into a song chastising Obama for the government's treatment of Pfc. Bradley Manning, an Army intelligence analyst suspected of illegally passing government secrets to the WikiLeaks website.
Marinucci pulled out her ever-present small video recorder and captured video of the protest. The video was posted with her written story online. The White House complained, saying the agreement was that she would provide a print-only report.
Off the record, the Obama administration threatened Marinucci that she could lose future opportunities to cover presidential appearances. The White House then later threatened to freeze out Chronicle and other Hearst Newspaper chain reporters if they reported on the threat against Marinucci.
Josh Earnest, a White House spokesman, later said that officials made no such threat.
The president that claimed to be unlike any other politician, and a unifier, has turned out to be just another cockroach. Rather than being open and transparent, the Democrats have revealed themselves to be the thugs we knew they are.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
White House, newspaper clash over protest video - Associated Press, Yahoo News
Chronicle responds after Obama Administration punishes reporter for using multimedia, then claims they didn't - SF Gate
Friday, April 29, 2011
Comic Book Superman Renounces U.S. Citizenship
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Hmmmm. Disturbing, isn't it? Did Superman ever naturalize? We know he was born elsewhere, and I don't recall him ever going through the legal process to be a resident alien. Heck, his planet exploded, so Superman doesn't even have a birth certificate, much less the long form.
Then again, if he is going to be hob-nobbing with the United Nations, as the comic indicates, he's hardly worthy of being an American anyway.
Wow, the more I think about it, perhaps it is better Superman heads on out. If he's not even willing to follow immigration law, how can he be trusted to protect the American Way?
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Superman Renounces U.S. Citizenship in 'Action Comics' #900 - Comics Alliance
Hmmmm. Disturbing, isn't it? Did Superman ever naturalize? We know he was born elsewhere, and I don't recall him ever going through the legal process to be a resident alien. Heck, his planet exploded, so Superman doesn't even have a birth certificate, much less the long form.
Then again, if he is going to be hob-nobbing with the United Nations, as the comic indicates, he's hardly worthy of being an American anyway.
Wow, the more I think about it, perhaps it is better Superman heads on out. If he's not even willing to follow immigration law, how can he be trusted to protect the American Way?
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Superman Renounces U.S. Citizenship in 'Action Comics' #900 - Comics Alliance
Royal Wedding Coverage. . . Who Cares?
By Douglas V. Gibbs
The billboard read, "Royal Wedding All This Week!"
All week? Doesn't overkill make people sick of things?
I am not impressed over the wedding, nor do I care. These people still sneeze, puke, crap and wipe their nose like the rest of us. They are nothing special to me, and I could care less about their wedding.
Sure, I hope they do well, and that this is a match made in heaven - but I will leave the details up to them. I have better things to do than to drool in front of a television, wishing I was a royal, or acting excited over the dress the bride wears, or the attitude of the groom, or whatever else catches folk's fancies.
Luckily, I'm not one to watch much television. My TV comes on for football, baseball, and UFC - with an occassional stint into hockey, basketball, Fox News, or Firefly. You know. . . the important stuff.
Therefore, I have not been bombarded with that bloody royal wedding.
Thank God.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
The billboard read, "Royal Wedding All This Week!"
All week? Doesn't overkill make people sick of things?
I am not impressed over the wedding, nor do I care. These people still sneeze, puke, crap and wipe their nose like the rest of us. They are nothing special to me, and I could care less about their wedding.
Sure, I hope they do well, and that this is a match made in heaven - but I will leave the details up to them. I have better things to do than to drool in front of a television, wishing I was a royal, or acting excited over the dress the bride wears, or the attitude of the groom, or whatever else catches folk's fancies.
Luckily, I'm not one to watch much television. My TV comes on for football, baseball, and UFC - with an occassional stint into hockey, basketball, Fox News, or Firefly. You know. . . the important stuff.
Therefore, I have not been bombarded with that bloody royal wedding.
Thank God.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
What's Wrong With Ron Paul?
By Douglas V. Gibbs
One of the couples that attends my Constitution Class in Temecula on Thursday Nights belongs to Campaign for Liberty, which is a group that supports Ron Paul for President. As is customary after class, a group formed around me in the parking lot asking questions. One of the main questioners is often a young man in the 8th Grade who is homeschooled, and has been a regular with his mom to my class for quite a while. The young man had a list of questions, and reading from his notes, he asked me if I thought Obama could win in 2012.
I replied, "No." However, I added that we must not underestimate the power of Democrat Party tactics, and the power of accusation. A great example is their attacks against Sarah Palin. Nearly all of the Left's accusations against Palin are false, and have been proven to be so. Yet, I still hear liberals spout the lunacy. Many of the sheep still believe that Palin was a book burner, separatist, and said that she could see Russia from her house (Tina Fey said that while impersonating Palin). It didn't matter to the Left how insanely inaccurate their accusations were. The mere utterance of the inaccuracies lured people in, and made a mockery of the woman. Meanwhile, nobody noticed when Obama claimed there was 57 states, called Pennsylvanians bitter gun and religion clingers, was willing to talk to Iran without pre-conditions while also uttering that the U.S. needed to work to bring about "changes in behavior" by rewarding Iran when they do good, said in a speech that Pearl Harbor was destroyed because of "a bomb that fell on Pearl Harbor," said his Grandpa helped liberate Auschwitz (when it was the Russians), and of course all of the flip flops that are still going on.
"This is where Trump will be so valuable, should he run," I continued. "I don't think Donald Trump is a conservative, nor is he electable. However, he has fire that the Republicans don't have, and Trump's presence in the campaign will ignite other fires. Of course who I would really like to see is either Allen West or Rand Paul, but as freshmen in Washington, they will sit this one out. Michelle Bachmann is great, but I don't think she will overcome the attacks, or shake that idea that Representatives don't get elected. She will, however, by running, ensure that the Tea Party message (and influence) remains a main point in the election. DeMint will do the same, but not gain the nod. Idealy, I'd like to see Herman Cain gain it, but I think lack of recognition will be his undoing. After all of the dust settles, I think we will be surprised, because I think the one that has the strongest chance is Tim Pawlenty."
"What about Ron Paul?" asked the Campaign for Liberty couple.
"I disagree with Ron Paul on the same things his son, Rand Paul, disagrees with him on."
"Foreign policy," the couple inserted.
"Yeah," I said, "That's a part of it."
Let me explain. . .
I agree with Ron Paul that we should not get involved in foreign entanglements that do not concern us. I think, unlike Ron Paul, that there can be made a fair argument in favor of invading Iraq and Afghanistan. I believe Saddam's association with al-Qaeda, and the practice of supporting terrorists, made it our problem as well, giving us the green light on military operations. I am not real hip on the Libya thing, however, and question the current American foreign policy regarding the upheavals in other Muslim states.
Ron Paul is a fine Representative, and understands the Constitution more than most of those cockroaches. However, aside from his foreign policy, I am rubbed the wrong way by the crowds he attracts. . . like "Truthers" (9/11 conspiracy nuts).
I believe that Ron Paul is on the money 80% of the time. Unfortunately, he's loony the other 20% of the time - and I can do without that 20%.
I hear Ron Paul is launching an exploratory committee. More power to him. It is great that he is involved. But of all the Republicans considering running, I think he (and maybe Trump) is the candidate that would most likely be beat by Obama.
And that is saying something since I have said that I think Mickey Mouse and Elmer Fudd could beat Obama in this upcoming election.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Thursday, April 28, 2011
Benjamin Franklin: American Privileges
"It is very imprudent to deprive America of any of her privileges. If her commerce and friendship are of any importance to you, they are to be had on no other terms than leaving her in the full enjoyment of her rights." --Benjamin Franklin
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Tornado Deaths Reach 280
By Douglas V. Gibbs
America's deadliest tornado outbreak in almost four decades has now claimed at least 280 lives in six states. The majority of the deaths have occurred in Alabama, where large cities served as ground zero for the killer twisters.
Technology's warning capabilities was unable to stop the carnage. With larger than usual storms bearing down on heavily populated areas, it was just too much for the entire population to prepare for. These supercell storms came astonishingly quickly, were astonishingly thick, and the most powerful tornado of the group threw debris around freely as it leveled neighborhoods.
The loss of life is the greatest from an outbreak of U.S. tornadoes since April 1974, when 329 people were killed by a storm that swept across 13 Southern and Midwestern states.
It is believed that the tornado that struck Tuscaloosa, Alabama, was an EF5, which is the strongest category of tornado, with winds of more than 200 mph.
Now, intense flooding is invading the affected areas along the Mississippi and Ohio Rivers.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Tornadoes devastate South, killing at least 280 - Associated Press, Yahoo News
Historic Flooding Unfolding Along Mississippi, Ohio Rivers - AccuWeather
America's deadliest tornado outbreak in almost four decades has now claimed at least 280 lives in six states. The majority of the deaths have occurred in Alabama, where large cities served as ground zero for the killer twisters.
Technology's warning capabilities was unable to stop the carnage. With larger than usual storms bearing down on heavily populated areas, it was just too much for the entire population to prepare for. These supercell storms came astonishingly quickly, were astonishingly thick, and the most powerful tornado of the group threw debris around freely as it leveled neighborhoods.
The loss of life is the greatest from an outbreak of U.S. tornadoes since April 1974, when 329 people were killed by a storm that swept across 13 Southern and Midwestern states.
It is believed that the tornado that struck Tuscaloosa, Alabama, was an EF5, which is the strongest category of tornado, with winds of more than 200 mph.
Now, intense flooding is invading the affected areas along the Mississippi and Ohio Rivers.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Tornadoes devastate South, killing at least 280 - Associated Press, Yahoo News
Historic Flooding Unfolding Along Mississippi, Ohio Rivers - AccuWeather
Constitution Class in Temecula: Twentieth Amendment
Twentieth Amendment of the United States Constitution
Ratified in 1933, the Twentieth Amendment establishes the beginning and end of the terms of the elected federal offices.
The amendment moved the beginning of the Presidential, Vice Presidential and Congressional terms from March 4. Congress would convene on the third day of January, reducing the amount of time a lame duck Congress would be in session. The terms of the President and Vice President were moved to the 20th day of January.
Also, another key point as a result of this amendment, is that if the Electoral College fails to resolve who will be the President or Vice President, the newly elected Congress, as opposed to the outgoing one, would choose who would occupy the unresolved office or offices.
In addition to the 20th Amendment, tonight we will also be discussing The Electoral College.
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 every Thursday night at 6:00 pm.
www.politicalpistachio.com
www.temeculaconstitutionclass.blogspot.com
Ratified in 1933, the Twentieth Amendment establishes the beginning and end of the terms of the elected federal offices.
The amendment moved the beginning of the Presidential, Vice Presidential and Congressional terms from March 4. Congress would convene on the third day of January, reducing the amount of time a lame duck Congress would be in session. The terms of the President and Vice President were moved to the 20th day of January.
Also, another key point as a result of this amendment, is that if the Electoral College fails to resolve who will be the President or Vice President, the newly elected Congress, as opposed to the outgoing one, would choose who would occupy the unresolved office or offices.
In addition to the 20th Amendment, tonight we will also be discussing The Electoral College.
-----------
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 every Thursday night at 6:00 pm.
www.politicalpistachio.com
www.temeculaconstitutionclass.blogspot.com
Myth #4: The Supreme Court interprets the Constitution, and can decide if a law is constitutional or not.
"In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution." --Thomas Jefferson
This is the Fourth Myth in the series: 25 Myths of the U.S. Constitution.
Note: These articles later were updated and combined into my first book: 25 Myths of the United States Constitution.
By Douglas V. Gibbs
The idea of the federal court system determining the constitutionality of laws has become as common as hot dogs and apple pie in America. Laws are constantly challenged regarding their constitutionality, and inevitably these challenges wind up being decided by a federal court. The common belief is that the U.S. Supreme Court is the final arbiter of the U.S. Constitution.
The problem is, there is no place in the U.S. Constitution that gives the courts that kind of authority.
The judges of the British judiciary, during the time of the American Revolution, carried nearly as much power as the king. The smug old men wore their powdered wigs arrogantly. Save for the occasional kingly correction, the rulings of the judges were final. They served the aristocracy, and suppressed dissent. The law was interpreted by these powerful judges, especially when it was in accordance to the whims of the monarchy.
When George Washington was elected president of the United States, the people around him asked what he would like to be called. Your majesty? Your excellency? Your honor?
Washington told his admirers that Mr. President would be sufficient. Like most of the founders, Washington did not desire status for the sake of status. A lust for position was better left to the aristocrats of Britain, as far as Washington was concerned. No American was better than any other. Some were fortunate enough to serve the new country in an official capacity, but that opportunity belonged to anyone that should decide to pursue it. In America there was no aristocracy, no preferentially treated position of privilege, and no elite ruling class.
As a result of the founder's negative opinion of elitism, the word "uniform" was used often in the U.S. Constitution. "All men are created equal" was more than just a phrase from the Declaration of Independence.
As with today, there were those back then that believed governments run best when guided by a political elite made up of educated aristocrats who have some hidden wisdom that enables them to recognize the presence of a General Will. These folks looked up to the British system of aristocracy, mercantilism, and empire. The only obstacle between these elitists, and empire, was the Constitution, and the vote of the people - which brings us back around to the courts.
The attempt to centralize the United States Government into a system reminiscent of the British system failed. Alexander Hamilton's Bank of the United States did not work, and the political headway achieved through Adams' presidency was all but erased when Thomas Jefferson won the presidency in the close election in 1800. Unable to achieve their statist end through political means, Hamilton, and his fellow big government cronies, turned to the judiciary, and more specifically, Chief Justice John Marshall.
During John Adams' final moments in the presidency, he appointed a whole host of "midnight judges" (appointing 16 Federalist circuit judges and 42 Federalist justices of the peace to offices created by the Judiciary Act of 1801) in the hopes of retaining federalist control of the courts as Jefferson's Democratic-Republicans gained control of the Congress, and Jefferson himself accepted the presidency.
While Adams was still in office, most of the commissions for these newly appointed judges were delivered. However, unable to deliver all of them before Adams' term expired, some of them were left to be delivered by the incoming Secretary of State, James Madison. Jefferson ordered them not to be delivered, and without the commissions delivered, the remaining new appointees were unable to assume the offices and duties to which they had been appointed to by Adams. In Jefferson's opinion, the undelivered commissions were void.
One of those judges was a man named William Marbury. He sued, and the case worked its way up to the Supreme Court. After all of the dust settled, on February 24, 1803, the Court rendered a unanimous (4-0) decision that Marbury had the right to his commission, but the court did not have the power to force Madison to deliver the commission. Chief Justice Marshall wrote the opinion of the court, and in that opinion he wrote that the federal court system has the power of judicial review. Rather than simply apply the law to the cases, Marshall had decided based on case law that the courts have the authority to determine the validity of the law as well. This opinion, however, went against all of the limitations placed on the courts by the Constitution.
One of the most obvious fundamental principles of the Constitution is the limitations it places on the federal government. The Constitution is designed not to tell the federal government what it can't do, but to offer enumerated powers to which the authorities of the federal government are limited to. The powers are granted by the States, and any additional authorities must also be granted by the States. The process by which this can be accomplished is through the amendment process. Remember, it takes 3/4 of the States to ratify an amendment.
The power of Judicial Review, or the authority to determine if laws are constitutional, was not granted to the courts by the States in the Constitution. The courts took that power upon themselves through Justice Marshall's opinion of Marbury v. Madison.
Let's think about this for a moment. The federal courts are a part of the federal government. The Constitution was designed to limit the authorities of the federal government by granting only a limited number of powers. Judicial Review enables the federal government, through the courts, to determine if the laws that the federal government made are constitutional. In other words, the federal government, through Judicial Review, can determine for itself what its own authorities are. The Supreme Court took that power for itself (and a government that takes power, or should I say "seizes" power, is a tyranny in my book).
Do you think that is in line with the limiting principles the Founding Fathers originally set forth?
So, the idea that the federal courts, or the United States Supreme Court, has the authority to interpret the Constitution, and can decide if a law is constitutional or not, is unconstitutional. The myth has been perpetuated by the courts in the attempt to gain power, and work towards a more centralized big federal governmental system.
One of the ways subverting the Constitution is achieved, aside from Judicial Review, is Implied Law, but we'll discuss that when we get to Myth #22.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
This is the Fourth Myth in the series: 25 Myths of the U.S. Constitution.
Note: These articles later were updated and combined into my first book: 25 Myths of the United States Constitution.
By Douglas V. Gibbs
The idea of the federal court system determining the constitutionality of laws has become as common as hot dogs and apple pie in America. Laws are constantly challenged regarding their constitutionality, and inevitably these challenges wind up being decided by a federal court. The common belief is that the U.S. Supreme Court is the final arbiter of the U.S. Constitution.
The problem is, there is no place in the U.S. Constitution that gives the courts that kind of authority.
The judges of the British judiciary, during the time of the American Revolution, carried nearly as much power as the king. The smug old men wore their powdered wigs arrogantly. Save for the occasional kingly correction, the rulings of the judges were final. They served the aristocracy, and suppressed dissent. The law was interpreted by these powerful judges, especially when it was in accordance to the whims of the monarchy.
When George Washington was elected president of the United States, the people around him asked what he would like to be called. Your majesty? Your excellency? Your honor?
Washington told his admirers that Mr. President would be sufficient. Like most of the founders, Washington did not desire status for the sake of status. A lust for position was better left to the aristocrats of Britain, as far as Washington was concerned. No American was better than any other. Some were fortunate enough to serve the new country in an official capacity, but that opportunity belonged to anyone that should decide to pursue it. In America there was no aristocracy, no preferentially treated position of privilege, and no elite ruling class.
As a result of the founder's negative opinion of elitism, the word "uniform" was used often in the U.S. Constitution. "All men are created equal" was more than just a phrase from the Declaration of Independence.
As with today, there were those back then that believed governments run best when guided by a political elite made up of educated aristocrats who have some hidden wisdom that enables them to recognize the presence of a General Will. These folks looked up to the British system of aristocracy, mercantilism, and empire. The only obstacle between these elitists, and empire, was the Constitution, and the vote of the people - which brings us back around to the courts.
The attempt to centralize the United States Government into a system reminiscent of the British system failed. Alexander Hamilton's Bank of the United States did not work, and the political headway achieved through Adams' presidency was all but erased when Thomas Jefferson won the presidency in the close election in 1800. Unable to achieve their statist end through political means, Hamilton, and his fellow big government cronies, turned to the judiciary, and more specifically, Chief Justice John Marshall.
During John Adams' final moments in the presidency, he appointed a whole host of "midnight judges" (appointing 16 Federalist circuit judges and 42 Federalist justices of the peace to offices created by the Judiciary Act of 1801) in the hopes of retaining federalist control of the courts as Jefferson's Democratic-Republicans gained control of the Congress, and Jefferson himself accepted the presidency.
While Adams was still in office, most of the commissions for these newly appointed judges were delivered. However, unable to deliver all of them before Adams' term expired, some of them were left to be delivered by the incoming Secretary of State, James Madison. Jefferson ordered them not to be delivered, and without the commissions delivered, the remaining new appointees were unable to assume the offices and duties to which they had been appointed to by Adams. In Jefferson's opinion, the undelivered commissions were void.
One of those judges was a man named William Marbury. He sued, and the case worked its way up to the Supreme Court. After all of the dust settled, on February 24, 1803, the Court rendered a unanimous (4-0) decision that Marbury had the right to his commission, but the court did not have the power to force Madison to deliver the commission. Chief Justice Marshall wrote the opinion of the court, and in that opinion he wrote that the federal court system has the power of judicial review. Rather than simply apply the law to the cases, Marshall had decided based on case law that the courts have the authority to determine the validity of the law as well. This opinion, however, went against all of the limitations placed on the courts by the Constitution.
One of the most obvious fundamental principles of the Constitution is the limitations it places on the federal government. The Constitution is designed not to tell the federal government what it can't do, but to offer enumerated powers to which the authorities of the federal government are limited to. The powers are granted by the States, and any additional authorities must also be granted by the States. The process by which this can be accomplished is through the amendment process. Remember, it takes 3/4 of the States to ratify an amendment.
The power of Judicial Review, or the authority to determine if laws are constitutional, was not granted to the courts by the States in the Constitution. The courts took that power upon themselves through Justice Marshall's opinion of Marbury v. Madison.
Let's think about this for a moment. The federal courts are a part of the federal government. The Constitution was designed to limit the authorities of the federal government by granting only a limited number of powers. Judicial Review enables the federal government, through the courts, to determine if the laws that the federal government made are constitutional. In other words, the federal government, through Judicial Review, can determine for itself what its own authorities are. The Supreme Court took that power for itself (and a government that takes power, or should I say "seizes" power, is a tyranny in my book).
Do you think that is in line with the limiting principles the Founding Fathers originally set forth?
So, the idea that the federal courts, or the United States Supreme Court, has the authority to interpret the Constitution, and can decide if a law is constitutional or not, is unconstitutional. The myth has been perpetuated by the courts in the attempt to gain power, and work towards a more centralized big federal governmental system.
One of the ways subverting the Constitution is achieved, aside from Judicial Review, is Implied Law, but we'll discuss that when we get to Myth #22.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Allen West to Hecklers: You Are Not Going To Intimidate Me
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
Flooding and Violent Tornadoes Devastate South
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Storms brought major flooding in Arkansas and Missouri, and at last count 138 violent tornadoes have ripped through Alabama, Tennessee, Mississippi and Georgia. At least 72 people have perished as a result of these storms. Tuscaloosa is claiming over 100 injured, and 375,000 Alabama residents are without power.
The tornadoes are a result of a line of severe thunderstorms extending from eastern West Virginia to southern Alabama.
CNN is reporting that this swarm of tornadoes could be one of the most devastating tornado outbreaks in the nation's history.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Storms kill 72 around South, including 58 in Ala. - Associated Press/Yahoo News
Large, Violent Tornadoes Devastate Ala., Miss., Ga., Tenn. - Accu. Weather
Mayor confirms more fatalities in Tuscaloosa - Tuscaloosa News
Experts: Severe weather across South could set tornado record - CNN
Storms brought major flooding in Arkansas and Missouri, and at last count 138 violent tornadoes have ripped through Alabama, Tennessee, Mississippi and Georgia. At least 72 people have perished as a result of these storms. Tuscaloosa is claiming over 100 injured, and 375,000 Alabama residents are without power.
The tornadoes are a result of a line of severe thunderstorms extending from eastern West Virginia to southern Alabama.
CNN is reporting that this swarm of tornadoes could be one of the most devastating tornado outbreaks in the nation's history.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Storms kill 72 around South, including 58 in Ala. - Associated Press/Yahoo News
Large, Violent Tornadoes Devastate Ala., Miss., Ga., Tenn. - Accu. Weather
Mayor confirms more fatalities in Tuscaloosa - Tuscaloosa News
Experts: Severe weather across South could set tornado record - CNN
Obama Birth Certificate: Long Form Proves Ineligibility
By Douglas V. Gibbs
At long last Barack Hussein Obama has released the long form of his birth certificate. A couple years ago it was suggested that the White House was working on a forgery. If this is a forgery, then the question would be: Why wait so long to release the copy?
If it is not a forgery, then the question would be: Why wait so long to release the copy?
Could it be that as long as the people asking about his birth certificate were considered a fringe group of kooky loons, not releasing it made him look good because their lunacy made them look bad? But once more Americans began to ask, and it became a huge issue, the birth certificate issue began to make him look bad, therefore it was time to release the long-form.
Donald Trump, who has been pushing this issue of late, was not devastated at all, either. He thumped himself on the chest, saying that it took him to do what nobody else could accomplish.
When I heard about this earlier today, the radio broadcaster announced, "Obama has released the long form of his birth certificate, proving he was born in Hawaii, which makes him eligible to be President of the United States."
Not exactly.
My fascination with the birth certificate question has been not that without it he is ineligible, but instead, why was he not presenting it? What was Obama hiding? I wondered if under the father's name it read "Frank Marshall Davis," or something. But as I have explained a number of times, I really don't care if he was born in Hawaii, Kenya, Indonesia, or the moon. His eligibility for the presidency has hinged on the definition of Natural Born Citizen, and the definition of a Natural Born Citizen is not simply being born in the United States.
A woman recently argued with me at an event saying that us Tea Party folk had the 14th Amendment all screwed up, and that was why there was a question. She said, "It clearly states in the 14th Amendment that all one must do to be a natural born citizen is be born in the United States."
Not exactly. In fact, Natural Born Citizen is not mentioned in the 14th Amendment. The text of that amendment only covers citizenship, specifically in order to protect the children of the emancipated slaves. Natural Born Citizenship is only brought up in Article II where it requires the president to be such.
And where did the Founding Fathers get their definition of Natural Born Citizen?
Vatell's Law of Nations. And in section 212 of that book, it states:
§ 212. Citizens and natives.
The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.
Ben Franklin owned three copies of the book. Two for the Constitutional Convention, and one for himself. The importance of the Law of Nations was so prevalent that a couple years after the Constitutional Convention, George Washington checked it out from the New York Public Library. Unfortunately, for the library, he never returned the book.
So, on the long-form that has been presented, Barack Obama Sr. is listed as Barry's father. Barry has admitted himself that daddy was born in Kenya, and was not an American Citizen. But to be a Natural Born Citizen, both of your parents need to be Americans at the time of your birth. Therefore, regardless of any birth certificate, or other proof of where Barry was born, he is still ineligible.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Obama Birth Certificate Forgery - Political Pistachio
Obama releases birth certificate: Will that stop birthers? - Christian Science Monitor
Obama birth certificate released – Donald Trump claims credit - Christian Science Monitor
Definition: Natural Born Citizen - Political Pistachio
Obama Eligibility Case Considered by Supreme Court - Political Pistachio
George Washington and Vatell's Law of Nations - Political Pistachio
Vatell's Law of Nations, Book I
Thomas Jefferson: A Rigid Economy
"A rigid economy of the public contributions and absolute interdiction of all useless expenses will go far towards keeping the government honest and unoppressive." --Thomas Jefferson, letter to Lafayette, 1823
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
ICNA Seeks Global Caliphate
The Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA) is preaching a global Caliphate and Islamic Shari'a law over America to its members, according to the 2010 ICNA Member's Hand Book. This is a very different message than the group's public outreach efforts, and contradicts claims that the organization is a tolerant, mainstream Islamic group.
As the hand book spells out, the organization's ultimate goal is "the Establishment of Islam" as the sole basis of global society and governance. It also encourages members to deceive people in its proselytizing campaign to help fulfill this goal. This aim is one that ICNA has been actively pursuing as the group has set its sights on America's constitutional separation of religion and state.
Full Article
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
As the hand book spells out, the organization's ultimate goal is "the Establishment of Islam" as the sole basis of global society and governance. It also encourages members to deceive people in its proselytizing campaign to help fulfill this goal. This aim is one that ICNA has been actively pursuing as the group has set its sights on America's constitutional separation of religion and state.
Full Article
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Teachers Union and the Socialist Indoctrination Centers They Teach In
Sarah Knopp, a Los Angeles teachers union leader (in the Tax the Rich shirt) and Megan Behrent a New York City teacher affiliated with the International Socialist Organization, explain how to push Marxism in the public school classroom.
Meanwhile. . .
Homeschooling under attack:
Shocker! On his own, judge demands homeschool student IDs: Issues order for attendance officers to provide names, addresses
A Mississippi state judge has issued an order to public school attendance officers in his judicial district to provide the names of all homeschoolers there, prompting alarm at the Home School Legal Defense Association, which fights for the rights of homeschooling worldwide.
The order apparently is because the judge himself wants the information, as there appeared to be no case, motion or dispute prompting the request.
The HSLDA, which was alerted by its members in the 13th Chancery Court district in Mississippi, where Judge Joe Dale Walker issued the order, immediately sought and obtained a stay of the order from the state Supreme Court.
The judge's order noted that the "cause" for the order "came on for hearing on the court's own motion," but the HSLDA said apparently no hearing ever was held – and the order is the only document in the court file.
Full Article
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Meanwhile. . .
Homeschooling under attack:
Shocker! On his own, judge demands homeschool student IDs: Issues order for attendance officers to provide names, addresses
A Mississippi state judge has issued an order to public school attendance officers in his judicial district to provide the names of all homeschoolers there, prompting alarm at the Home School Legal Defense Association, which fights for the rights of homeschooling worldwide.
The order apparently is because the judge himself wants the information, as there appeared to be no case, motion or dispute prompting the request.
The HSLDA, which was alerted by its members in the 13th Chancery Court district in Mississippi, where Judge Joe Dale Walker issued the order, immediately sought and obtained a stay of the order from the state Supreme Court.
The judge's order noted that the "cause" for the order "came on for hearing on the court's own motion," but the HSLDA said apparently no hearing ever was held – and the order is the only document in the court file.
Full Article
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
A Just and Impartial Eye
"In observations on this subject, we hear the legislature mentioned as the people's representatives. The distinction, intimated by concealed implication, through probably, not avowed upon reflection, is, that the executive and judicial powers are not connected with the people by a relation so strong or near or dear. But is high time that we should chastise our prejudices; and that we should look upon the different parts of government with a just and impartial eye." --James Wilson, Lectures on Law, 1791
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
James Madison: Government Abuse of Power
"The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse." --James Madison
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
President Give Attention to Muslims, Ignores Easter
By Douglas V. Gibbs
President Barack Obama claims to be a devout Christian, yet has a history of mocking Christianity, attending churches run by anti-American preachers, and pays more homage to Islam.
The White House has provided statements recognizing the observance of major Muslim holidays, while refusing to participate in the National Day of Prayer, and making Easter a side note.
The White House even gave more attention to Earth Day (for the religion of environmentalism), than to Easter.
The president’s weekend address did not mention Good Friday, and only gave Easter a slight mention.
If you will remember, last year Obama snubbed Easter in a different manner, releasing an all-inclusive Easter greeting that reached out to Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and people of no faith at all in a statement about a holiday that is uniquely Christian.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
What? No Easter Greeting? - White House Dossier
President Barack Obama claims to be a devout Christian, yet has a history of mocking Christianity, attending churches run by anti-American preachers, and pays more homage to Islam.
The White House has provided statements recognizing the observance of major Muslim holidays, while refusing to participate in the National Day of Prayer, and making Easter a side note.
The White House even gave more attention to Earth Day (for the religion of environmentalism), than to Easter.
The president’s weekend address did not mention Good Friday, and only gave Easter a slight mention.
If you will remember, last year Obama snubbed Easter in a different manner, releasing an all-inclusive Easter greeting that reached out to Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and people of no faith at all in a statement about a holiday that is uniquely Christian.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
What? No Easter Greeting? - White House Dossier
Democrats, Socialists, Communists, Fascists: They All Go After The Children
Sounds like a Marxist Soviet, doesn't he? And these scum are in America, going after the children, and working to destroy the American Form of Government. . . and they are the allies of the progressive liberal left.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
American Fascism: Federal Government Dictates To Private Corporations
By Douglas V. Gibbs
The last time gas prices reached four dollars a gallon, George W. Bush threatened to drill domestically, and immediately prices dropped. And this is not the first time this has happened. During the early 1980s Ronald Reagan announced that we were going to start drilling to drive down prices, and the mere threat of drilling made the Jimmy Carter oil crisis history overnight.
Supply and Demand.
The Democrats say that "Drill Baby Drill" won't do anything to bring down prices. Yet, Obama was willing at one point to release some of our emergency reserve. Why? Because an added supply brings down oil prices, and he knows it.
But, simply because the GOP supports domestic drilling, the Democrats oppose it - despite the reality of Supply and Demand.
Enter into the picture Shell Oil Company. Shell Oil Company planned on drilling in the Arctic Ocean off the northern coast of Alaska. However, they now have announced that they will be scrapping those efforts because the EPA’s Environmental Appeals Board decided to withhold critical air permits.
It is as if these progressive liberal left loons want America to fail, and want the gas prices to keep going up.
And this is not even mentioning Obama's decision to pay Brazil to drill, while enforcing a moratorium in the Gulf against American companies.
Besides, since when does the EPA have the constitutional authority to dictate to a private business in such a way?
Shell abandoning these plans to drill follows five years and nearly $4 billion dollars on plans to explore for oil in the region. The leases alone cost $2.2 billion.
The EPA’s appeals board ruled that Shell had not taken into consideration emissions from an ice-breaking vessel when calculating overall greenhouse gas emissions from the project (because of the man-made global warming myth). Our economy, and gas pumps, will suffer as a result.
What are we missing out on? An estimated 27 billion barrels of oil. That would be about two and a half times more oil than has flowed down the Trans Alaska pipeline throughout its 30-year history (which is currently at only a third of capacity).
“It’s driving investment and production overseas,” said Alaska’s DNR Commissioner Dan Sullivan. “That doesn’t help the United States in any way, shape or form.”
The EPA believes it is above the law, above the constitution, above any checks by other agencies, and the final word on anything they decide to undertake.
Didn't we fight a revolution against a king for the British acting the same way?
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Energy in America: EPA Rules Force Shell to Abandon Oil Drilling Plans - Fox News
IED in America: Brownsville
Improvised Explosive device Discovered on an Overpass in Brownsville (Texas)
Police say a passerby on the southbound side of Highway 77 noticed what looked like a grenade near the FM 1732 overpass and alerted authorities around 5 p.m. Sunday.
The improvised explosive device or I-E-D was disarmed by a bomb squad using a robot. No one was hurt. Parts of Highway 77 were closed for several hours.
Police are continuing to investigate.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Police say a passerby on the southbound side of Highway 77 noticed what looked like a grenade near the FM 1732 overpass and alerted authorities around 5 p.m. Sunday.
The improvised explosive device or I-E-D was disarmed by a bomb squad using a robot. No one was hurt. Parts of Highway 77 were closed for several hours.
Police are continuing to investigate.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Monday, April 25, 2011
Atheist Challenge To National Day Of Prayer Falls Short
By Douglas V. Gibbs
A proclamation is not a law. The executive branch has no legislative powers. Therefore, the National Day of Prayer is not unconstitutional. No law was passed requiring participation, and besides, no particular religion is offered anyway.
Nonetheless, atheists took the National Day of Prayer, claiming it violates the establishment clause, to court. A federal appeals court tossed the challenge to the proclamation, rejecting the arguments because there was no legal injury. . . just hurt feelings.
"We're extremely pleased that the appeals court rejected a flawed decision and determined that while some may disagree with a presidential proclamation, they do not have the right to silence the speech they don't agree with," said Jay Sekulow, chief counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice.
"The appeals court correctly concluded that the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the National Day of Prayer. This decision represents a victory for our nation's heritage and history – protecting a long-standing tradition that's been a part of our country for centuries," he said.
The court found "the 'psychological consequences presumable produced by observation of conduct with which one disagrees' is not an 'injury' for the purpose of standing … Plaintiffs have not altered their conduct one whit or incurred any cost in time or money. All they have is disagreement with the president's action. But unless all limits on standing are to be abandoned, a feeling of alienation cannot suffice as injury in fact."
Prayer goes all the way back to the founding of this nation. In fact, Benjamin Franklin recommended prayer before each session of the Constitutional Convention. Later, prayer began each session of Congress as a result of Franklin's letter suggesting prayer. In 1952 President Harry Truman established an annual National Day of Prayer. It was amended in 1988 by President Ronald Reagan, making the day of the event the first Thursday in May each year.
The tradition of designating an official day of prayer began with the Continental Congress in 1775, after which George Washington issued a National Day of Thanksgiving Proclamation.
Historically, all 50 governors have issued proclamations in honor of the National Day of Prayer.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
LETTER: Ben Franklin’s ‘Appeal for Prayer’ - The Morning Journal
History of the National Day of Prayer - Religious Tolerance
Court to atheists: Gee, sorry about your 'hurt feelings': Tosses challenge to 'National Day of Prayer' based on 'offense' - World Net Daily
A proclamation is not a law. The executive branch has no legislative powers. Therefore, the National Day of Prayer is not unconstitutional. No law was passed requiring participation, and besides, no particular religion is offered anyway.
Nonetheless, atheists took the National Day of Prayer, claiming it violates the establishment clause, to court. A federal appeals court tossed the challenge to the proclamation, rejecting the arguments because there was no legal injury. . . just hurt feelings.
"We're extremely pleased that the appeals court rejected a flawed decision and determined that while some may disagree with a presidential proclamation, they do not have the right to silence the speech they don't agree with," said Jay Sekulow, chief counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice.
"The appeals court correctly concluded that the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the National Day of Prayer. This decision represents a victory for our nation's heritage and history – protecting a long-standing tradition that's been a part of our country for centuries," he said.
The court found "the 'psychological consequences presumable produced by observation of conduct with which one disagrees' is not an 'injury' for the purpose of standing … Plaintiffs have not altered their conduct one whit or incurred any cost in time or money. All they have is disagreement with the president's action. But unless all limits on standing are to be abandoned, a feeling of alienation cannot suffice as injury in fact."
Prayer goes all the way back to the founding of this nation. In fact, Benjamin Franklin recommended prayer before each session of the Constitutional Convention. Later, prayer began each session of Congress as a result of Franklin's letter suggesting prayer. In 1952 President Harry Truman established an annual National Day of Prayer. It was amended in 1988 by President Ronald Reagan, making the day of the event the first Thursday in May each year.
The tradition of designating an official day of prayer began with the Continental Congress in 1775, after which George Washington issued a National Day of Thanksgiving Proclamation.
Historically, all 50 governors have issued proclamations in honor of the National Day of Prayer.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
LETTER: Ben Franklin’s ‘Appeal for Prayer’ - The Morning Journal
History of the National Day of Prayer - Religious Tolerance
Court to atheists: Gee, sorry about your 'hurt feelings': Tosses challenge to 'National Day of Prayer' based on 'offense' - World Net Daily
Angels' Jared Weaver Complete Game Shutout is Historic
By Douglas V. Gibbs
With a 5-0 win, Weaver goes the distance against the Oakland A's, becoming the first Major League pitcher in history to win his sixth game by April 25th. This is his second straight complete game of the season, his 6th for his career.
Congratulations, Weaver. You are definitely an ace.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
With a 5-0 win, Weaver goes the distance against the Oakland A's, becoming the first Major League pitcher in history to win his sixth game by April 25th. This is his second straight complete game of the season, his 6th for his career.
Congratulations, Weaver. You are definitely an ace.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Jihad Calls For Muslims In American Military to Revolt
In April the Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula put out a call for all Muslims in the American military to revolt: READ HERE
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Thomas Jefferson: Prudence in Spending
"The same prudence which in private life would forbid our paying our own money for unexplained projects, forbids it in the dispensation of the public moneys." --Thomas Jefferson, letter to Shelton Gilliam, 1808
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
George Washington: Patriotism
"Citizens by birth or choice of a common country, that country has a right to concentrate your affections. The name of American, which belongs to you, in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of patriotism, more than any appellation derived from local discriminations." --George Washington
Patriotism is love of country.
Nationalism is love of government.
Which are you?
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Patriotism is love of country.
Nationalism is love of government.
Which are you?
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Euthanasia Video Being Shown To 14-year-olds in U.K. Schools
By Douglas V. Gibbs
European society is where the Democrats wish to lead America. We are about a decade behind them, we are told, and need to catch up. Personally, I take great pride in America's exceptionalism. Liberalism in Europe has proven to fail. Progressives in Europe have destroyed those societies, and it would do us well not to follow in their footsteps.
Case in point:
Pupils in some schools in the United Kingdom are being taught about euthanasia with a video featuring a notorious assisted suicide campaigner nicknamed Dr. Death.
Dr. Philip Nitschke is shown in these "educational" videos demonstrating his machine that delivers lethal injections. The film is being shown to pupils as young as 14 years of age across Britain.
There is also footage of him giving workshops on assisted suicide methods, footage that have led local church leaders to criticize the film as an 'invitation to commit suicide'.
The argument supporting the use of the video in schools points out that the video provides both viewpoints of the issue, including many comments from opponents of euthanasia.
The promoters of the practice of assisted suicide who are behind showing this film to kids in school state that they have been receiving extremely positive responses from both pupils and teachers.
Those that oppose the film being used in schools claims that irregardless of parental opinion, the extreme views of Dr. Nitschke are being pushed on these children at a critical stage in their development when these children are most impressionable.
While it seems on the surface reasonable to discuss this issue on euthanasia and assisted dying to some folks, I am appalled that the feeling that there even needs to be a discussion in the first place even exists. What kind of society have we become when death has evolved into something that is nothing more than yet another method one can inflict upon oneself? And to take it a step further, we don't know the mental makeup of the people viewing this heinous material. How do we know that this video isn't promoting suicide among these children in their minds, or that due to mental difficulties these children are being affected in other damaging ways by viewing this video? As Psychologist Dr Arthur Cassidy, a director of the Yellow Ribbon anti-suicide program, has said: "This video. . . has the potential for young people to think about ending their lives."
This is just another way for the progressive madness to encourage the people they see as mere numbers to experiment in suicide, and further more, desensitize the population to the point that other methods of death, like eugenics, which is used to eliminate what is considered by the elite to be "defective" citizens, will be seen as nothing more than standard fare. We are being moved in the direction of becoming a culture of death, with abortion and euthanasia now considered as nothing more than normal procedure. So, the logical conclusion of this kind of progressivism is to work to create a perfect race by weeding out the undesirables, and doing it through the culture of death that the progressives have created.
Throw in the belief that we are over-populated, and the masses can be manipulated to accept such heinous programs of eugenics, compulsory sterilization, and other methods of bringing about a utopia - a master race - with relative ease.
This film even could encourage young people to think they are a burden, and that if they don't fit in to society according to the standards of the elite, the way out is as easy as euthanasia. In that sense, it creates a system where eugenics may not even have to be forced upon the people, for the undesirables will be voluntarily be removing themselves from the populace.
Dangerous stuff, with horrific potential.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Dr Death suicide film being shown in schools: Euthanasia fanatic gives workshop on how to kill yourself in educational video for 14-year-olds - U.K. Mail Online
European society is where the Democrats wish to lead America. We are about a decade behind them, we are told, and need to catch up. Personally, I take great pride in America's exceptionalism. Liberalism in Europe has proven to fail. Progressives in Europe have destroyed those societies, and it would do us well not to follow in their footsteps.
Case in point:
Pupils in some schools in the United Kingdom are being taught about euthanasia with a video featuring a notorious assisted suicide campaigner nicknamed Dr. Death.
Dr. Philip Nitschke is shown in these "educational" videos demonstrating his machine that delivers lethal injections. The film is being shown to pupils as young as 14 years of age across Britain.
There is also footage of him giving workshops on assisted suicide methods, footage that have led local church leaders to criticize the film as an 'invitation to commit suicide'.
The argument supporting the use of the video in schools points out that the video provides both viewpoints of the issue, including many comments from opponents of euthanasia.
The promoters of the practice of assisted suicide who are behind showing this film to kids in school state that they have been receiving extremely positive responses from both pupils and teachers.
Those that oppose the film being used in schools claims that irregardless of parental opinion, the extreme views of Dr. Nitschke are being pushed on these children at a critical stage in their development when these children are most impressionable.
While it seems on the surface reasonable to discuss this issue on euthanasia and assisted dying to some folks, I am appalled that the feeling that there even needs to be a discussion in the first place even exists. What kind of society have we become when death has evolved into something that is nothing more than yet another method one can inflict upon oneself? And to take it a step further, we don't know the mental makeup of the people viewing this heinous material. How do we know that this video isn't promoting suicide among these children in their minds, or that due to mental difficulties these children are being affected in other damaging ways by viewing this video? As Psychologist Dr Arthur Cassidy, a director of the Yellow Ribbon anti-suicide program, has said: "This video. . . has the potential for young people to think about ending their lives."
This is just another way for the progressive madness to encourage the people they see as mere numbers to experiment in suicide, and further more, desensitize the population to the point that other methods of death, like eugenics, which is used to eliminate what is considered by the elite to be "defective" citizens, will be seen as nothing more than standard fare. We are being moved in the direction of becoming a culture of death, with abortion and euthanasia now considered as nothing more than normal procedure. So, the logical conclusion of this kind of progressivism is to work to create a perfect race by weeding out the undesirables, and doing it through the culture of death that the progressives have created.
Throw in the belief that we are over-populated, and the masses can be manipulated to accept such heinous programs of eugenics, compulsory sterilization, and other methods of bringing about a utopia - a master race - with relative ease.
This film even could encourage young people to think they are a burden, and that if they don't fit in to society according to the standards of the elite, the way out is as easy as euthanasia. In that sense, it creates a system where eugenics may not even have to be forced upon the people, for the undesirables will be voluntarily be removing themselves from the populace.
Dangerous stuff, with horrific potential.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Dr Death suicide film being shown in schools: Euthanasia fanatic gives workshop on how to kill yourself in educational video for 14-year-olds - U.K. Mail Online
CA Democrat Rep. Sanchez Mocks Tea Party Republicans as Slow with Bigoted Southern Accent
Perfect example of the elitist mentality. . .
Says the woman that doesn't even understand the Constitution.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Says the woman that doesn't even understand the Constitution.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Sunday, April 24, 2011
George Washington and Vatell's Law of Nations
By Douglas V. Gibbs
In Article I, Section 8, Clause 10, the Constitution makes reference to the Law of Nations, capitalizing the title of Vatell's book in the text. It has long been my argument that Vatell's Law of Nations was highly influential on the Founders, especially when it came to definitions such as the one for Natural Born Citizen.
Benjamin Franklin owned three copies of the book, having two for the Constitutional Convention, and one for himself.
The liberal left has combated me on this issue, saying to me that there is no indication that Vatell's Law of Nations had the kind of influence that I claim on the Founding Fathers.
Interestingly enough, the truth has a way of revealing itself.
One such indication that Vatell's Law of Nations was indeed something the Founding Fathers read, and relied upon, comes from a recent story about George Washington, and his debt to the New York Library.
It seems that George Washington failed to return his library book, which by the way was Vatell's Law of Nations. The fee for his failure to return the book and another book? Today it has reached over $300,000.
In 1789, Washington borrowed from the New York Public Library Vatell's Law of Nations and the twelfth volume of a 14-volume collection of debates from the English House of Commons. Neither book was ever returned.
The library doesn't want the fine, just the books, and word has it that Mount Vernon has a couple copies of the book from Washington's collection, and promptly returned the books (though it is possible the returned ones weren't necessarily "the" books) to the library.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
How George Washington racked up a $300,000 fine for overdue library books - Christian Science Monitor
In Article I, Section 8, Clause 10, the Constitution makes reference to the Law of Nations, capitalizing the title of Vatell's book in the text. It has long been my argument that Vatell's Law of Nations was highly influential on the Founders, especially when it came to definitions such as the one for Natural Born Citizen.
Benjamin Franklin owned three copies of the book, having two for the Constitutional Convention, and one for himself.
The liberal left has combated me on this issue, saying to me that there is no indication that Vatell's Law of Nations had the kind of influence that I claim on the Founding Fathers.
Interestingly enough, the truth has a way of revealing itself.
One such indication that Vatell's Law of Nations was indeed something the Founding Fathers read, and relied upon, comes from a recent story about George Washington, and his debt to the New York Library.
It seems that George Washington failed to return his library book, which by the way was Vatell's Law of Nations. The fee for his failure to return the book and another book? Today it has reached over $300,000.
In 1789, Washington borrowed from the New York Public Library Vatell's Law of Nations and the twelfth volume of a 14-volume collection of debates from the English House of Commons. Neither book was ever returned.
The library doesn't want the fine, just the books, and word has it that Mount Vernon has a couple copies of the book from Washington's collection, and promptly returned the books (though it is possible the returned ones weren't necessarily "the" books) to the library.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
How George Washington racked up a $300,000 fine for overdue library books - Christian Science Monitor
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)