July 2, 2011 Ronald Reagan Centennial Celebration at Vail Lake
(Temecula) Vail Lake Resort is honoring Ronald Reagan’s legacy by hosting a day-long extravaganza on July 2 that is free to the public. The line-up includes Reagan’s oldest son Michael Reagan, Congressman Duncan Hunter, Jr. (Dist 52) as well as his father Former Congressman Duncan Hunter, Sr. The popular tribute band—CASHED OUT is one of the bands slated to perform.
Activities begin at 11:00 a.m. when the gates open and continue throughout the day and evening when there will be a fireworks display and showing of the movie Atlas Shrugged after sundown. The public is invited to take advantage of the many family-friendly activities—including kite flying, games, mimes, face painting, mini golf, swimming, and water slide.
Bill Johnson, CEO of Vail Lake believes it’s important for young people to understand the importance of Reagan’s legacy. “I’m thrilled that we have the opportunity to help the next generation understand the conservative values that leaders like Ronald Reagan espoused. We’re honored that Congressman Hunter, who served his country in both Iraq and Afghanistan is going to be on hand. He’s a great role model for young people.”Johnson said. He continued, “We’re throwing this party because we want families to come out and enjoy the beautiful surroundings and have fun celebrating our nation’s founding with thousands of other people who love this country of ours.
Event organizer Darrell Connerton agrees. “July 2 is a celebration of what’s good about America. As we’re commemorating President Reagan’s 100th birthday, we’re also celebrating America’s 235th birthday”, Connerton pointed out. “People are waking up to the fact that this is the best country in the world and that we have to return to the principles of limited government, free enterprise, lower taxes, and personal freedom and responsibility that have made us great in the first place”.
Food and beverage vendors will be on site throughout the day. Admission is free. Parking is $20.00 per vehicle. Guests wishing to register prior to July 2 can visit the web site at www.VailLakeResort.com. The event is endorsed by both the California Congress of Republicans and the Vail Lake Tea Party Patriots.
Vail Lake is one of the most affordable recreational destinations in Southern California. Located just eight miles off of Interstate 15 in Temecula, Vail Lake is the state’s largest private lake and is within 1-1/2 hours of 20 million people. The RV Resort accommodates over 1,000 RV sites and 500 tent camping sites. Vail Lake also frequently hosts concerts—providing seating for over 25,000 people.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Thursday, June 30, 2011
Numbers Don't Add Up - Approval Around 50%, Yet only 30% Will Vote For Obama - Somebody is Lying
Obama Gets 30% of Americans Certain to Support Re-Election in Economy Poll
Americans are growing more dissatisfied with President Barack Obama’s handling of the economy and say it will be hard to vote to re-elect him without seeing significant progress over the next year and a half.
By a margin of 61 percent to 37 percent, a Bloomberg National Poll conducted June 17-20 shows Americans say they believe that Obama will have had his chance to make the economy “substantially better” by the end of 2012.
Only 30 percent of respondents said they are certain to vote for the president and 36 percent said they definitely won’t. Among likely independent voters, only 23 percent said they will back his re-election, while 36 percent said they definitely will look for another candidate.
“As far as the economy goes, I don’t see that he has delivered on the change that he promised,” said Sharon Ortiz, a 38-year-old independent voter from Hampton, Virginia, who supported Obama in 2008. “The jobs that he promised -- I haven’t seen it.”
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Other related articles:
Is Obama aiding illegal aliens to vote for him? - National Law Enforcement | Examiner.com
Rasmussen: Only 24% Share Obama's Political Views - NewsMax
Americans are growing more dissatisfied with President Barack Obama’s handling of the economy and say it will be hard to vote to re-elect him without seeing significant progress over the next year and a half.
By a margin of 61 percent to 37 percent, a Bloomberg National Poll conducted June 17-20 shows Americans say they believe that Obama will have had his chance to make the economy “substantially better” by the end of 2012.
Only 30 percent of respondents said they are certain to vote for the president and 36 percent said they definitely won’t. Among likely independent voters, only 23 percent said they will back his re-election, while 36 percent said they definitely will look for another candidate.
“As far as the economy goes, I don’t see that he has delivered on the change that he promised,” said Sharon Ortiz, a 38-year-old independent voter from Hampton, Virginia, who supported Obama in 2008. “The jobs that he promised -- I haven’t seen it.”
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Other related articles:
Is Obama aiding illegal aliens to vote for him? - National Law Enforcement | Examiner.com
Rasmussen: Only 24% Share Obama's Political Views - NewsMax
Constitution Study in Temecula - Wrapping Up Article II
tonight's class wraps up Article II, which is the article in the U.S. Constitution that established the Executive Branch.
The class meets every Thursday evening in Temecula, California at:
Faith Armory
27498 Enterprise Circle W. #2
Temecula, CA 92590
A pocket Constitution is handed out to all attendees, along with a handout of the night's material. Contributions accepted.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
The class meets every Thursday evening in Temecula, California at:
Faith Armory
27498 Enterprise Circle W. #2
Temecula, CA 92590
A pocket Constitution is handed out to all attendees, along with a handout of the night's material. Contributions accepted.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Protecting Liberty Is A Constant Fight
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined." --Patrick Henry
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Burt Folsom Understands Economic History
By Kevin Price
One of the greatest crisis facing academia today is the one dimensional perspectives that are pervasive in virtually all disciplines. Consensus historians seem to rule the day as professors and our universities consistently fail to offer or even consider the various interpretations one can have on issues throughout academia and in the social sciences in particular.
Historians tend to march in a lock step fashion. Presidents who advocated and supported the consolidation of central power are seen as "good." Entrepreneurs who wisely leveraged their money in a thrifty manner that led to job growth and economic expansion are "bad." It is almost a comic book world and one of the few places where characters are treated in a most simplistic fashion.
Burton W. Folsom (born, 1947) is an exception to this dangerous trend in intellectual history today. Not only does he operate from a different worldview than from most historians, Folsom fundamentally believes that the subjects of history deserve appropriate scrutiny in order to defend the integrity of the discipline.
Folsom's degrees in history are from Indiana University (B.A.), University of Nebraska (MA), and the University of Pittsburgh (PhD). He is Charles F. Kline Chair in History and Management and Professor of History at Hillsdale College and he has been affiliated with the Foundation for Economic Education and Murray State University, as well as other educational institutions and foundations.
His commitment to challenging conventional wisdom and his concern about the philosophy of freedom can be seen in his books. Folsom publisher notes that his "The Myth of the Robber Barons describes the role of key entrepreneurs in the economic growth of the United States from 1850 to 1910… Most historians argue that these men, and others like them, were Robber Barons. The story, however, is more complicated.” “Folsom divides the entrepreneurs into two groups, market entrepreneurs and political entrepreneurs. The market entrepreneurs, such as Hill, Vanderbilt, and Rockefeller, succeeded by producing a quality product at a competitive price. The political entrepreneurs such as Edward Collins in steamships and in railroads the leaders of the Union Pacific Railroad were men who used the power of government to succeed. Interestingly, the political entrepreneurs often failed without help from government they could not produce competitive products." There are few areas that are treated with more simplicity than the so called "Robber Barons." These creatures are universally seen as "bad" by most historians. Folsom clearly proves this deserves a more serious review.
According to his publisher, Folsom’s New Deal or Raw Deal “exposes the idyllic legend of Franklin D. Roosevelt as a myth of epic proportions. With questionable moral character and a vendetta against the business elite, Roosevelt created New Deal programs marked by inconsistent planning, wasteful spending, and opportunity for political gain — ultimately elevating public opinion of his administration but falling flat in achieving the economic revitalization that America so desperately needed from the Great Depression. Folsom takes a critical, revisionist look at Roosevelt’s presidency, his economic policies, and his personal life.” Roosevelt is consistently named among the greatest Presidents in US history. Folsom does a masterful job of challenging that perspective.
If people want to understand economic freedom, they need to understand economic history. Folsom provides a greatly needed perspective.
--
One of the greatest crisis facing academia today is the one dimensional perspectives that are pervasive in virtually all disciplines. Consensus historians seem to rule the day as professors and our universities consistently fail to offer or even consider the various interpretations one can have on issues throughout academia and in the social sciences in particular.
Historians tend to march in a lock step fashion. Presidents who advocated and supported the consolidation of central power are seen as "good." Entrepreneurs who wisely leveraged their money in a thrifty manner that led to job growth and economic expansion are "bad." It is almost a comic book world and one of the few places where characters are treated in a most simplistic fashion.
Burton W. Folsom (born, 1947) is an exception to this dangerous trend in intellectual history today. Not only does he operate from a different worldview than from most historians, Folsom fundamentally believes that the subjects of history deserve appropriate scrutiny in order to defend the integrity of the discipline.
Folsom's degrees in history are from Indiana University (B.A.), University of Nebraska (MA), and the University of Pittsburgh (PhD). He is Charles F. Kline Chair in History and Management and Professor of History at Hillsdale College and he has been affiliated with the Foundation for Economic Education and Murray State University, as well as other educational institutions and foundations.
His commitment to challenging conventional wisdom and his concern about the philosophy of freedom can be seen in his books. Folsom publisher notes that his "The Myth of the Robber Barons describes the role of key entrepreneurs in the economic growth of the United States from 1850 to 1910… Most historians argue that these men, and others like them, were Robber Barons. The story, however, is more complicated.” “Folsom divides the entrepreneurs into two groups, market entrepreneurs and political entrepreneurs. The market entrepreneurs, such as Hill, Vanderbilt, and Rockefeller, succeeded by producing a quality product at a competitive price. The political entrepreneurs such as Edward Collins in steamships and in railroads the leaders of the Union Pacific Railroad were men who used the power of government to succeed. Interestingly, the political entrepreneurs often failed without help from government they could not produce competitive products." There are few areas that are treated with more simplicity than the so called "Robber Barons." These creatures are universally seen as "bad" by most historians. Folsom clearly proves this deserves a more serious review.
According to his publisher, Folsom’s New Deal or Raw Deal “exposes the idyllic legend of Franklin D. Roosevelt as a myth of epic proportions. With questionable moral character and a vendetta against the business elite, Roosevelt created New Deal programs marked by inconsistent planning, wasteful spending, and opportunity for political gain — ultimately elevating public opinion of his administration but falling flat in achieving the economic revitalization that America so desperately needed from the Great Depression. Folsom takes a critical, revisionist look at Roosevelt’s presidency, his economic policies, and his personal life.” Roosevelt is consistently named among the greatest Presidents in US history. Folsom does a masterful job of challenging that perspective.
If people want to understand economic freedom, they need to understand economic history. Folsom provides a greatly needed perspective.
--
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.
Follow Kevin on Twitter at http://Twitter.com/KevinPriceLive
Like his new Facebook page at
Kevin Price's Profile: http://www.google.com/profiles/PriceofBusiness
Wednesday, June 29, 2011
Evan Longoria - Bare-handed catch saves reporter - Sort of
Great video. Longoria, who I am a fan of, appears to save a reporter's life with a bare-handed catch of an errant foul ball. As believable as it looks, it was actually for a commercial for Gillette Razors. Longoria's hand is not broken, and the reporter was never in danger. Cool vid, though. As good as Evan is, you can almost believe it to be true.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Huntsman is one of them
By Douglas V. Gibbs
The mainstream media has been touting former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman as the only serious, and acceptable, GOP candidate for the 2012 presidential election. Without Huntsman, according to the biased media, the GOP field is weak. Of course, the liberal media likes him. He's one of them.
The former ambassador under Obama has recently announced that he is a GOP presidential candidate. He says he's a Republican, despite his liberal stance on most of the issues. And he is careful not to tell you that Jon Huntsman and his family have forged close ties to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., over the years.
There may be an "R" after Huntsman's name, but he is a progressive liberal just the same. He and his family hob-nobs with the left, he votes with the left, and his closest family members gives money to the left. Although Huntsman never has donated to a Reid campaign himself, members of his family, including his parents and brothers, have sent $25,000 to the Senate’s top Democrat.
While governor, Huntsman appointed Reid’s son, Josh, to Utah’s Board of Regents. Huntsman’s father even spread the goodwill to Democrats in general, sending $5,000 to the Nevada Democratic Party in 2008.
The liberal Democrats of the party of donkeys, and the biased media, will do all they can to get the people to put Huntsman into the GOP nomination, just as they did with McCain, because the Democrats know they can't beat a conservative. But, they believe they can beat a progressive Republican...and if they lose, they don't care, because Huntsman is one of them.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Huntsman's Family Has Donated $25,000 to Reid - NewsMax
Jon Huntsman: McCain on Wheels - National Review Online
The mainstream media has been touting former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman as the only serious, and acceptable, GOP candidate for the 2012 presidential election. Without Huntsman, according to the biased media, the GOP field is weak. Of course, the liberal media likes him. He's one of them.
The former ambassador under Obama has recently announced that he is a GOP presidential candidate. He says he's a Republican, despite his liberal stance on most of the issues. And he is careful not to tell you that Jon Huntsman and his family have forged close ties to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., over the years.
There may be an "R" after Huntsman's name, but he is a progressive liberal just the same. He and his family hob-nobs with the left, he votes with the left, and his closest family members gives money to the left. Although Huntsman never has donated to a Reid campaign himself, members of his family, including his parents and brothers, have sent $25,000 to the Senate’s top Democrat.
While governor, Huntsman appointed Reid’s son, Josh, to Utah’s Board of Regents. Huntsman’s father even spread the goodwill to Democrats in general, sending $5,000 to the Nevada Democratic Party in 2008.
The liberal Democrats of the party of donkeys, and the biased media, will do all they can to get the people to put Huntsman into the GOP nomination, just as they did with McCain, because the Democrats know they can't beat a conservative. But, they believe they can beat a progressive Republican...and if they lose, they don't care, because Huntsman is one of them.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Huntsman's Family Has Donated $25,000 to Reid - NewsMax
Jon Huntsman: McCain on Wheels - National Review Online
Islam's Plans to Manipulate American Government and Media
Posted:
The Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) which just recently held a conference on Capitol Hill to speak out against anti-Sharia legislation, has teamed up with the Islamic Center of San Gabriel Valley in Southern California. They have put forth a combined effort to train Muslims to manipulate our government and media.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Taking Back America an Effort For All
"[I]t is a common observation here that our cause is the cause of all mankind, and that we are fighting for their liberty in defending our own." -- Benjamin Franklin
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Tuesday, June 28, 2011
Thomas Jefferson regarding Bias of the Press
"During the course of administration, and in order to disturb it, the artillery of the press has been levelled against us, charged with whatsoever its licentiousness could devise or dare. These abuses of an institution so important to freedom and science are deeply to be regretted, inasmuch as they tend to lessen its usefulness and to sap its safety." --Thomas Jefferson, Second Inaugural Address, 1805
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Troopathon Success
The need for contributions is not finished..
.
.
The fight is never done.
.
.
.
You can still make a difference.
.
.
.
|
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Seattle Terrorists Wanted Another Fort Hood
By Douglas V. Gibbs
For those that have convinced themselves that Islam is not a problem, and for us concerned Americans to point out the obvious about the violent nature of the Muslim faith, I submit to you that the jihad is not just something that happens on the far corners of the Earth, produced by a few crazies who just don't know that their lives could be happy if they'd just do whatever it is you think they ought to do.
Islam teaches from childhood up to kill unbelievers, that paradise is a place achieved by killing the non-Muslims, and that along with the elimination of Israel all nations of the West must be destroyed - especially the United States.
Oh, by the way, these violent jihadists are alive and well and living in the United States - just waiting for the next opportunity to kill Americans.
Are all Muslims bad people? Probably not. I am figuring that most of them, if they knew any better, would not be seventh century barbarians inside. Problem is, despite their potential for growth if only the right opportunity presented itself, these people have been told that you are the enemy, you are less than human, they are superior, and you must be killed.
Many of these Islamists, who have been deceived by the evil teachings of Islam, idolize the terrorists whose names we plaster across the television screen after they have murdered countless civilians.
Abu Khalid Abdul-Latif was no different. He was planning to do to a military recruitment station in Seattle what Major Nidal Malik Hasan did at Fort Hood when he killed 13 people.
Abdul-Latif and his buddy Walli Mujahidh were watched for nearly a month, and after the investigation concluded they were arrested for their alleged terrorist plot.
The weapons of choice against innocent Americans were to be machine guns and grenades.
These Americans-turned-Muslim-jihadists are also known as Joseph Anthony Davis, and Frederick Domingue Jr. They were born Americans, but became something foreign when Islam got a hold of them.
War was in their minds. Such can be deduced by the language they used. "Imagine how many young Muslims, if we’re successful, will try to hit these kinds of centers," said Abdul-Latif, according to a complaint. "Imagine how fearful America will be, and they’ll know they can’t push Muslims around."
Push Muslims around? Says the guys following a cult that was an important part of the 9/11 attacks, and is behind just about all of the terrorism around the planet.
An FBI agent wrote that the pair fantasized about the headlines the attack would generate -- "Three Muslim Males Walk Into MEPS Building, Seattle, Washington, And Gun Down Everybody" -- and speculated that if they got control of the building, TV news crews would arrive to cover them.
They wanted to die violently, in the name of Allah, while everyone watched.
The deception of Islam is so great that it can take young men raised by loving American families and turn them into ugly, disgusting, violent Islamic jihadists.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Suspect in Seattle Military Recruiting Station Plot Allegedly Wanted Another Fort Hood - Fox News
For those that have convinced themselves that Islam is not a problem, and for us concerned Americans to point out the obvious about the violent nature of the Muslim faith, I submit to you that the jihad is not just something that happens on the far corners of the Earth, produced by a few crazies who just don't know that their lives could be happy if they'd just do whatever it is you think they ought to do.
Islam teaches from childhood up to kill unbelievers, that paradise is a place achieved by killing the non-Muslims, and that along with the elimination of Israel all nations of the West must be destroyed - especially the United States.
Oh, by the way, these violent jihadists are alive and well and living in the United States - just waiting for the next opportunity to kill Americans.
Are all Muslims bad people? Probably not. I am figuring that most of them, if they knew any better, would not be seventh century barbarians inside. Problem is, despite their potential for growth if only the right opportunity presented itself, these people have been told that you are the enemy, you are less than human, they are superior, and you must be killed.
Many of these Islamists, who have been deceived by the evil teachings of Islam, idolize the terrorists whose names we plaster across the television screen after they have murdered countless civilians.
Abu Khalid Abdul-Latif was no different. He was planning to do to a military recruitment station in Seattle what Major Nidal Malik Hasan did at Fort Hood when he killed 13 people.
Abdul-Latif and his buddy Walli Mujahidh were watched for nearly a month, and after the investigation concluded they were arrested for their alleged terrorist plot.
The weapons of choice against innocent Americans were to be machine guns and grenades.
These Americans-turned-Muslim-jihadists are also known as Joseph Anthony Davis, and Frederick Domingue Jr. They were born Americans, but became something foreign when Islam got a hold of them.
War was in their minds. Such can be deduced by the language they used. "Imagine how many young Muslims, if we’re successful, will try to hit these kinds of centers," said Abdul-Latif, according to a complaint. "Imagine how fearful America will be, and they’ll know they can’t push Muslims around."
Push Muslims around? Says the guys following a cult that was an important part of the 9/11 attacks, and is behind just about all of the terrorism around the planet.
An FBI agent wrote that the pair fantasized about the headlines the attack would generate -- "Three Muslim Males Walk Into MEPS Building, Seattle, Washington, And Gun Down Everybody" -- and speculated that if they got control of the building, TV news crews would arrive to cover them.
They wanted to die violently, in the name of Allah, while everyone watched.
The deception of Islam is so great that it can take young men raised by loving American families and turn them into ugly, disgusting, violent Islamic jihadists.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Suspect in Seattle Military Recruiting Station Plot Allegedly Wanted Another Fort Hood - Fox News
Silliness About Who Has To Give Up Their Day Jobs
By J.J. Jackson
Let’s think about something here. With the 2012 Presidential election already upon us, half way through 2011, several candidates have already declared their intention to run on the GOP side of the ticket. Prior to declaring however, many of them were forced to divest themselves of their day jobs because of silly rules put in place by Washington politicians and bureaucrats.
All of this stems from the concept of “equal time” where broadcast outlets that give air time to one candidate are required to do the same for all candidates. Herman Cain had to give up his radio show. Rick Santorum had to quit his gig at FOX News. Newt Gingrich even had to wait until he was done writing books and promoting them before he could jump in because in the process of doing what he does he often did radio and television interviews. Every second that each of these men would have been on the air would have been a headache for the station or network.
Each of these candidates, good, bad or indifferent in your eyes, were private citizens earning a living. But according to electioneering rules they were forced to drop it all to seek the office of the President. Keep this in mind as we look at some of the rest of the field.
Because while these private citizens were required to cease and desist their activities, Michelle Bachmann and Ron Paul, both public servants, were allowed to jump in without quitting their day jobs. Bachmann and Paul are both sitting members in the U.S. Congress. On the other side of the isle, President Obama is going to be allowed to keep his station of public trust as well while he campaigns for another term. God help us all if he actually wins.
See what is wrong with this picture yet? What is wrong is that private citizens are being treated differently than the ruling class. Not only are they being treated differently, but they are being treated more harshly as well. Is this what equal protection under the law is all about these days?
While private citizens holding down jobs, are told to stop doing what they are doing for fear that they might use their day jobs to electioneer for President, elected officials are allowed to use the bully pulpit of their status to do just what these private citizens are omitted from doing. Again, why?
Ok, so Herman Cain might use his now former radio show to help get his message out. So what? If that is bad then why is it ok for President Obama to do the same thing from behind that fancy podium emblazoned with the Seal of the President of the United States? Anyone think for one second that Congresswoman Bachmann or Congressman Paul will not use their station to get some plumb interviews on big television outlets whenever they can? Do not make me laugh by saying no.
In 2008 when Fred Thompson was running for the Presidency stations had to actually consider whether or not his appearances as a fictional character on Law and Order would cause problems under the concept of “equal time.” Even though he was not electioneering, questions over his mere appearance in an episode raised questions of whether stations running such episodes in which he appeared would be required to give other candidates the same amount of face time as he received. When Arnold Schwarzenegger ran for governor of California, television stations were careful to not show any of his movies because of similar concerns.
This election cycle the same problem arose for Donald Trump. While I am glad that Mr. Trump, a RINO of the highest order, decided not to run, the fact that he had a prime time show was bringing up all sorts of election related questions. Even though, again, he was not electioneering. Just the fact that his face was on the television was enough to spark controversy.
But what about President Obama? Well, he is out there right now, using taxpayer funded travel, to fly all over the nation and hold rallies and pimp his agenda of more taxes, more regulation, less opportunity and more misery while getting all sorts of press coverage. His mug is all over television and you can bet that equal time is not being given to other candidates for 2012. See, politicians are special like this. Because you see equal time does not apply to documentaries, newscasts, news interview shows, or coverage of on-the-spot news events. That pretty much includes anything politicians like President Obama do. Talk about a stacked deck.
But if Newt Gingrich were to dare write a book supporting his campaign and tour around the country promoting it all Hell would break loose from the bureaucratic red tape in Washington. Then stations would be required to give other candidates air time equal to his opponents even if they were not doing anything worth of that airtime.
No wonder elected officials think themselves our betters. They have written the laws to make themselves such. How about we just go back to the simple concept of liberty? Huh? How about enough with the silly rules that make some more equal than others?
======================================================
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.
Let’s think about something here. With the 2012 Presidential election already upon us, half way through 2011, several candidates have already declared their intention to run on the GOP side of the ticket. Prior to declaring however, many of them were forced to divest themselves of their day jobs because of silly rules put in place by Washington politicians and bureaucrats.
All of this stems from the concept of “equal time” where broadcast outlets that give air time to one candidate are required to do the same for all candidates. Herman Cain had to give up his radio show. Rick Santorum had to quit his gig at FOX News. Newt Gingrich even had to wait until he was done writing books and promoting them before he could jump in because in the process of doing what he does he often did radio and television interviews. Every second that each of these men would have been on the air would have been a headache for the station or network.
Each of these candidates, good, bad or indifferent in your eyes, were private citizens earning a living. But according to electioneering rules they were forced to drop it all to seek the office of the President. Keep this in mind as we look at some of the rest of the field.
Because while these private citizens were required to cease and desist their activities, Michelle Bachmann and Ron Paul, both public servants, were allowed to jump in without quitting their day jobs. Bachmann and Paul are both sitting members in the U.S. Congress. On the other side of the isle, President Obama is going to be allowed to keep his station of public trust as well while he campaigns for another term. God help us all if he actually wins.
See what is wrong with this picture yet? What is wrong is that private citizens are being treated differently than the ruling class. Not only are they being treated differently, but they are being treated more harshly as well. Is this what equal protection under the law is all about these days?
While private citizens holding down jobs, are told to stop doing what they are doing for fear that they might use their day jobs to electioneer for President, elected officials are allowed to use the bully pulpit of their status to do just what these private citizens are omitted from doing. Again, why?
Ok, so Herman Cain might use his now former radio show to help get his message out. So what? If that is bad then why is it ok for President Obama to do the same thing from behind that fancy podium emblazoned with the Seal of the President of the United States? Anyone think for one second that Congresswoman Bachmann or Congressman Paul will not use their station to get some plumb interviews on big television outlets whenever they can? Do not make me laugh by saying no.
In 2008 when Fred Thompson was running for the Presidency stations had to actually consider whether or not his appearances as a fictional character on Law and Order would cause problems under the concept of “equal time.” Even though he was not electioneering, questions over his mere appearance in an episode raised questions of whether stations running such episodes in which he appeared would be required to give other candidates the same amount of face time as he received. When Arnold Schwarzenegger ran for governor of California, television stations were careful to not show any of his movies because of similar concerns.
This election cycle the same problem arose for Donald Trump. While I am glad that Mr. Trump, a RINO of the highest order, decided not to run, the fact that he had a prime time show was bringing up all sorts of election related questions. Even though, again, he was not electioneering. Just the fact that his face was on the television was enough to spark controversy.
But what about President Obama? Well, he is out there right now, using taxpayer funded travel, to fly all over the nation and hold rallies and pimp his agenda of more taxes, more regulation, less opportunity and more misery while getting all sorts of press coverage. His mug is all over television and you can bet that equal time is not being given to other candidates for 2012. See, politicians are special like this. Because you see equal time does not apply to documentaries, newscasts, news interview shows, or coverage of on-the-spot news events. That pretty much includes anything politicians like President Obama do. Talk about a stacked deck.
But if Newt Gingrich were to dare write a book supporting his campaign and tour around the country promoting it all Hell would break loose from the bureaucratic red tape in Washington. Then stations would be required to give other candidates air time equal to his opponents even if they were not doing anything worth of that airtime.
No wonder elected officials think themselves our betters. They have written the laws to make themselves such. How about we just go back to the simple concept of liberty? Huh? How about enough with the silly rules that make some more equal than others?
======================================================
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.
The Electoral College was Designed to Protect Liberty
By Kevin Price
I am amazed by the number of people who call themselves "conservatives" and are opposed to the Electoral College. "Why do we need such a thing when we can see exactly who the people want for president?" they ask. This is a clear misunderstanding of what the Electoral College was all about.
The United States Constitution was made by the states, for the states. It is designed to not only create a more efficient federal government, but to also protect the interest of the states. The government's Archives' website describes the Electoral College as "a compromise between election of the president by Congress and election by popular vote." Maybe, but the bigger reason is that the founders wanted each state to have a voice in elections.
Each state has a certain number of Electors. The votes are a combination of the number of US House members a state has and their number of Senators (always two). This means that even one of the smallest states, like Vermont, has at least 3 Electoral votes (it has one Congressman and two Senators). Meanwhile the largest state (California) has 55 Electoral votes (two Senators, 53 House members). Vermont's population is only 621,000, while California has over 36 million. Mathematically, California is 57 times larger than Vermont. However, it is only 18 times more powerful in the Electoral College. It is designed to make sure that Vermont and all the other smaller states have political influence.
Because of the Electoral College, a presidential candidate must garner a minimum of 270 votes in order to win. It takes a minimum of 11 states to win the White House, thanks to the Electoral College. If it were pure popular vote, the voice of most of the states would not be heard. In fact, without the Electoral College several cities would only have a voice. In 2008, for example, 138 million voted for President. In fact, urban areas would be the only ones that would matter to presidential candidates.
Advertising is, without question, one of the single biggest costs of running for office. Advertising in cities is expensive, but nationwide it is outrageous and the cost per vote in big cities is a fraction of what it is when you are trying to reach every state. With that, urban areas will be the only ones that matter to presidential candidates. The needs of entire states and regions outside urban areas would be of little consequences.
Interestingly, with the exception of a few major urban areas, the vast majority of big cities vote for candidates that support larger government, less individual responsibility, and with disregard for economic growth. The death of the Electoral College would lead to the demise of liberty.
Continue reading on Examiner.com The Electoral College was designed to protect liberty - National fiscal responsibility | Examiner.com
---------------------
I am amazed by the number of people who call themselves "conservatives" and are opposed to the Electoral College. "Why do we need such a thing when we can see exactly who the people want for president?" they ask. This is a clear misunderstanding of what the Electoral College was all about.
The United States Constitution was made by the states, for the states. It is designed to not only create a more efficient federal government, but to also protect the interest of the states. The government's Archives' website describes the Electoral College as "a compromise between election of the president by Congress and election by popular vote." Maybe, but the bigger reason is that the founders wanted each state to have a voice in elections.
Each state has a certain number of Electors. The votes are a combination of the number of US House members a state has and their number of Senators (always two). This means that even one of the smallest states, like Vermont, has at least 3 Electoral votes (it has one Congressman and two Senators). Meanwhile the largest state (California) has 55 Electoral votes (two Senators, 53 House members). Vermont's population is only 621,000, while California has over 36 million. Mathematically, California is 57 times larger than Vermont. However, it is only 18 times more powerful in the Electoral College. It is designed to make sure that Vermont and all the other smaller states have political influence.
Because of the Electoral College, a presidential candidate must garner a minimum of 270 votes in order to win. It takes a minimum of 11 states to win the White House, thanks to the Electoral College. If it were pure popular vote, the voice of most of the states would not be heard. In fact, without the Electoral College several cities would only have a voice. In 2008, for example, 138 million voted for President. In fact, urban areas would be the only ones that would matter to presidential candidates.
Advertising is, without question, one of the single biggest costs of running for office. Advertising in cities is expensive, but nationwide it is outrageous and the cost per vote in big cities is a fraction of what it is when you are trying to reach every state. With that, urban areas will be the only ones that matter to presidential candidates. The needs of entire states and regions outside urban areas would be of little consequences.
Interestingly, with the exception of a few major urban areas, the vast majority of big cities vote for candidates that support larger government, less individual responsibility, and with disregard for economic growth. The death of the Electoral College would lead to the demise of liberty.
Continue reading on Examiner.com The Electoral College was designed to protect liberty - National fiscal responsibility | Examiner.com
---------------------
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.
Follow Kevin on Twitter at http://Twitter.com/KevinPriceLive
Like his new Facebook page at
Kevin Price's Profile: http://www.google.com/profiles/PriceofBusiness
The Eternal Optimist
I live in a very liberal state. To many, California is lost. When I defended California, claiming it is not lost, at a website, a responder disagreed. Here is his response, and my follow up:
.
- Permalink Reply by
- yal voted for jerry brown for govenor. that does not sound 2 conservative to me.you tend to be known by the company u keep. if california isn't lost. it's totally invisable 2 me lol but we do love our tea party friends out there ,
- Permalink Reply by
- The big cities voted for Jerry Brown. Conservatives are outnumbered, but I never count anything lost. If there is only one person standing for liberty, freedom is not lost. The State of California is liberal as heck, but the conservatives here are working to gain back control. There is always hope. Always.
.
.
.
.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Monday, June 27, 2011
Medal of Honor Mistake for Obama Shows His Opinion of the Military
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Last Thursday at Fort Drum, President Obama was addressing troops from the 10th Mountain Division. He told them that he previously had the great honor of seeing some of them "because a comrade of yours, Jared Monti, was the first person who I was able to award the Medal of Honor to who actually came back and wasn’t receiving it posthumously."
Obama remembered wrongly. Sgt. 1st Class Jared Monti was actually killed in Afghanistan on June 21, 2006. In September 2009, President Obama awarded him the Medal of Honor posthumously.
The Medal of Honor is not something one should easily forget. One would think that, especially considering how few are awarded, Obama would remember the circumstances of each ceremony - especially his first.
We must then ask ourselves, "Why did Obama so easily forget that the first Medal of Honor award he had awarded to a service member was done posthumously?"
The reason is along the same lines of why Hillary Clinton banned military uniforms in the White House, and then later lied about it.
Like Hillary, Barry Obama holds disdain for the United States Military. When you hate something, like Obama hates our armed services, it may be easy to forget the details of things you do in regards to your duties regarding those military forces.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
President Obama Apologizes to Family of Fallen Soldier - ABC News
"How Hillary banned wearing military uniforms in the White House -- and then lied about it later on," The Truth About Hillary by Edward Klein.
Last Thursday at Fort Drum, President Obama was addressing troops from the 10th Mountain Division. He told them that he previously had the great honor of seeing some of them "because a comrade of yours, Jared Monti, was the first person who I was able to award the Medal of Honor to who actually came back and wasn’t receiving it posthumously."
Obama remembered wrongly. Sgt. 1st Class Jared Monti was actually killed in Afghanistan on June 21, 2006. In September 2009, President Obama awarded him the Medal of Honor posthumously.
The Medal of Honor is not something one should easily forget. One would think that, especially considering how few are awarded, Obama would remember the circumstances of each ceremony - especially his first.
We must then ask ourselves, "Why did Obama so easily forget that the first Medal of Honor award he had awarded to a service member was done posthumously?"
The reason is along the same lines of why Hillary Clinton banned military uniforms in the White House, and then later lied about it.
Like Hillary, Barry Obama holds disdain for the United States Military. When you hate something, like Obama hates our armed services, it may be easy to forget the details of things you do in regards to your duties regarding those military forces.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
President Obama Apologizes to Family of Fallen Soldier - ABC News
"How Hillary banned wearing military uniforms in the White House -- and then lied about it later on," The Truth About Hillary by Edward Klein.
Tobacco vs. Marijuana
By Douglas V. Gibbs
The liberal left Democrats, for the most part, and an incredibly strong selection of libertarians, would have you believe that tobacco is bad smoke, and marijuana is good smoke. While tobacco, they say, kills millions upon millions of poor, miserable victims, marijuana is not only good for you, but that marijuana is even something that should be elevated to the level of being medicinal.
I am aware of the alleged benefits of marijuana. I know about its properties that are supposed to soothe the stomach, and ease the pain of something like cancer. Great. If that's the case, then allow it to be used for those purposes, but under the same kind of safety measures used in regards to, say, morphine.
New cigarette warning labels have been unveiled that depict the dangers of smoking with horrifying images of corpses, rotting and cancer ridden body parts, and rotten teeth. Smoke from cigarettes, we are told to believe, is as dangerous as any other poison out there, and any kind of contact with cigarette smoke immediately makes you a candidate for a painful, slow, miserable death.
As a smoker for 21 years, before I quit in 2005, I was well aware of the possible dangers. I also knew that my grandfather smoked from the age of fourteen like a speeding locomotive in an old western reel to reel, and he made it well into his eighties before he wrote the closing chapter of his bucket list. The warning labels, the movies, the ads on television, and the hysteria put forth by the statists of government did not persuade me to quite smoking. The promise of a slow and painful death coupled with the difficulty to breath was not enough to scare me to quit smoking. And, honestly, I was not a smoker because I was addicted to Nicotine. The fact is, I simply enjoyed smoking. It was nice to sometimes just stand out on the deck, look at the trees, listen to the creek and the birds as the cool breeze raked across the rising hairs on my arms, and have a relaxing smoke.
In December of 2005 I was going to go under the knife to repair a hole in my abdominal muscle - one of the reasons, by the way, that I quit running, playing basketball, and participating in other health oriented activities (yes, I did all those things as a smoker). A couple months before the surgery I was advised that as a smoker I had an increased risk of death under anesthesia. It would be in my best interest, they told me, to quit smoking for at least the time period approaching the operation.
In early November I smoked my last cigarette. I smoked it all the way down to the butt, and I made sure I thoroughly enjoyed each puff. After I finished the cigarette, I was determined to just quit cold turkey, and be done with it.
Two weeks later a friend of mine lit up around me and I asked him for one. He at first protested, not wishing to be the one that got me started up again. Nonetheless, he handed me the cigarette, and I blazed it up.
The cigarette did not taste bad, or good. It literally did nothing for me. Smoking that final cigarette was a complete waste of my time and efforts. From that point on, I never craved another cigarette again.
Atta-boy, Doug. I was congratulated for my feat, told I wouldn't regret it, and expected to join the anti-smoking effort.
Isn't that amazing? The promise of an emphysema, cancer, and slow death from cigarettes was not enough to make me quit smoking. But death on an operating table while I slept soundly during a surgery was enough to make me quit for good.
I have no problem with smokers, and I think they are being singled out unfairly. Government is trying to forcefully change their behavior by jacking up tobacco taxes, and launching campaign after campaign of propaganda against the smokers.
Yet, these same people that hate tobacco so much are often the very same folks pushing for a legalization of marijuana. Their reasoning ranges all the way from health reasons, to the erroneous belief that legalizing marijuana will kill the drug cartel problems... at least regarding marijuana.
We are told constantly about the dangers of putting the poisons from only one cigarette into your lungs, and the incredible benefits of putting the other cigarette into your lungs. Never mind the studies that indicate that smoking marijuana kills brain cells, or studies like a recent one that claims there is a suspected link between marijuana, schizophrenia, and other psychotic disorders.
This disconnect, or these strange contradictions, is not because the promoters of legalizing marijuana somehow have solid evidence that tobacco kills and marijuana doesn't. It is all driven by their own desires. Statism wishes to control, therefore your tobacco use must be regulated. But a drugged populace is easier to control, so marijuana is the good drug. Besides, when looking at numbers, how many liberal Democrats and liberatarians are pot smokers compared to conservatives?
It's just a matter of pushing for what they like and want, regardless of the truth.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
FDA reveals bigger, graphic warning labels for cigarette packages - CNN
Suspected link between marijuana and schizophrenia, psychotic disorders - Examiner
Horse Meat Consumption Ban Piles Up Unintended Consequences
By Douglas V. Gibbs
In October of last year I wrote that horse meat bans would have serious unintended consequences. The desire to protect horses would actually make the entire situation more miserable.
In 1998 California passed a law banning the shipping, transporting, moving, delivering, receiving, possessing, purchasing, selling, or donation of horses and other equines to be humanely slaughtered (processed) for human consumption, and for other purposes. The U.S. Government followed suit recently. Supporters of the laws were successful in their campaign to create an atmosphere of disgust among the voters when one considered that there are actually people out there that enjoy consuming horse meat. The image of a slaughterhouse full of able-bodied horses that just wanted to be cared for by some loving and caring human was used with great success. After speaking with a couple people, despite arguments of the unintended inhumane consequences of the law, people who know little about horses argued with me in support of the horse meat ban.
We have a tendency to humanize horses, and wrongly view them as very intelligent animals.
Sure, there is a part of us that is appalled by the fact that there are people out there that eat horse meat. Without being properly educated, we assume the meat's an acquired taste of an otherwise not very tasty meat. We imagine the poor animals shaking in fear as the owner decides that old Sea Biscuit needs to become Friday Night's Blue Plate Special.
Some of us may imagine the scene being more like a van showing up to take sweet Boxer to the glue factory, as in Orwell's dystopian allegory, Animal Farm.
When a horse dies the disposal process is incredibly difficult. Between the red tape, and the heavy regulatory laws on the books, it is very difficult to dispose of the poor animals. Whenever a horse is injured, or suffering from other sources, it used to be much easier, quicker, and humane, to put the animals down, and then be simply picked up by those that wish to profit from the sales of the meat.
The laws to ban horse meat consumption, intended by animal rights groups like PETA, to be humane, are actually very inhumane to the poor animals. Horses have no concept of death, but they do understand pain, and to string out the time they must suffer because there is no van to pick of the body for a meat processing plant because some people have a problem with horses being used for meat consumption is actually much more inhumane to the animals.
"Horses are good eating," a ranch owner once explained to me. "The meat is real red, like venison, and is very tasty. Think about it, these animals are fed the best food. They aren't sent out to graze on weeds. They are given alfalfa and grains their whole lives, ensuring their bodies are healthy."
The meat ban also results in a rise in the rate of horses that are abandoned. These unwanted horses now are worth nothing because their meat can't be sold, and the increasing number of unwanted horses has been saturating public animal rescue facilities.
There are even economic consequences, because eliminating the allowance of horse meat for human consumption, eliminates an entire market. The overall national export value for horse meat was in the tens of millions of dollars, and since California has the second largest number of horses, the law in California to ban horse meat consumption largely impacted that number. This also affects governmental revenues, which vanished in this State once the law went into effect. Since the horses are not being consumed, it also raises the question, 'What to do with the body?' Burying the body, or disposing of them in landfills, gets the environmentalists upset because of the negative impact on the environment. Adoption has gone down as well, increasing the number of unwanted animals that literally live lives of suffering because they aren't put down, and they aren't adopted. The law has also hugely impacted the cost of buying horses, as well. You can buy a horse for $25 dollars if you really want to. But the people that are now beginning to buy horses are those that have no understanding of what goes into horse ownership, and who have no ability to properly care for the animals. This also adds to the number of horses that live miserable lives.
Now, since there is no option stateside regarding the disposal of these poor animals, they are still going to slaughter, but must make the long miserable trip to Canada or Mexico for the final moments of life.
The Government Accountability Office said the policy of banning horse meat consumption has led to “unintended consequences” such as depressed prices for all horses and an increase in reports of animal neglect, abuse and abandonment.
“Those horses are traveling farther to meet the same end in foreign slaughtering facilities where U.S. humane slaughtering protections do not apply,” GAO said in unusually blunt language that said that the horses are sometimes shipped in too-small containers for hundreds of miles, and that the inspection regime is too lax to help.
Horse meat is regularly used for consumption by circuses and zoos, and it is now sent to Eastern Hemisphere countries where it is an accepted food. But slaughter is a prickly issue in the U.S., where animal-rights activists and some horse lovers pushed to close slaughterhouses and ban exports.
While banning the consumption of horse meat, the Congress also eliminated funding for inspections of horses in transit and of slaughterhouses.
The market has shifted to neighboring countries, and the horses that once were destined for U.S. slaughter are now sent across the border.
GAO said policymakers could either go back to the previous state of affairs, when slaughter was allowed and created a market for surplus horses, or go the other direction and ban export of horses for slaughter.
The latter choice would simply prolong the miserable lives of horses that need to be mercifully put to death.
The ban as it is now is not only causing undue misery for the horses, but is costing jobs and hurts the horse industry as a whole.
The GAO report makes it clear ending horse processing has had a detrimental effect on both the economy and animal welfare. From what we know now, Congress should re-evaluate their misguided policy banning horse meat consumption so as to allow responsible horse management which would create jobs, generate revenue and strengthen a struggling horse industry.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Horse Meat Ban has Unintended Consequences - Political Pistachio
Slaughter Ban Sending Horses Across Borders - Washington Times
Mexican Military Once Again Crosses Border Into United States
Transcript of Video:
A convoy of three military trucks loaded with Mexican soldiers crosses the border at Bridge Number Two clearly violating international law.
It happens as Customs and Border Protection inspectors try to figure out what to do.
A CBP spokesperson says they got on the phone with Mexican authorities after being alerted that the military trucks were heading their direction loaded down with soldiers and weapons.
Mexican leaders say the soldiers, who had just been deployed to Nuevo Laredo, didn't know the area, got lost and then made their way through Bridge Two.
It's important to note that CBP did not tell us about the potentially serious situation. It came from another law enforcement agency.
Some callers to our newsroom were upset inspectors allowed the Mexican military to get so close to all those inspection booths over at Bridge Number Two.
Some noted had it been Mexican drug lords they could have taken inspectors by surprise and easily crossed the international border deeper into the United States.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative news and Commentary
Muslim Brotherhood Spokesman Calling For Arab Youth To Launch Jihad In The West To Establish a Global Islamic State
MEMRI (The Middle East Media Research Institute) reports that in an “interview with the Egyptian daily Al-Shorouq, Dr. Kamal Al-Helbawy, former Muslim Brotherhood spokesman in the West, called upon the Arab youth to launch a new revolution that would eliminate the borders drawn by imperialist nations and bring about the establishment of a global Islamic state – called ‘The United States of Islam.’ According to Al-Helbawy, the Muslim Brotherhood is active in approximately 80 countries and strives to realize the dream of becoming a global organization.”
Interview excerpt:
“The Muslim Brotherhood is organized in 80 countries, and they and the Islamists have a right to establish a global movement, much like global socialism or Zionism…”
“Why Shouldn‘t We Have A Country Called ’The United States Of Islam’… I Propose That the Arab Peoples… Take To the Streets With the Slogan ‘The Arab People Wants To Remove the Borders [Between Its Countries]‘
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
‘THE UNITED STATES OF ISLAM’: MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD SPOKESMAN CALLS ON ARAB YOUTH TO LAUNCH A NEW REVOLUTION IN THE WEST & ESTABLISH A GLOBAL ISLAMIC STATE - The Blaze
Liberal Women Photo Gallery
.
I thought that I had stumbled upon the hot new spread of liberal women of the Democrat Party...
But it turned out to be photographs and an article about the ugliest dog contest.
But, hey, my friend says he's a liberal because liberal women are loose...
He can have them.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
I thought that I had stumbled upon the hot new spread of liberal women of the Democrat Party...
But it turned out to be photographs and an article about the ugliest dog contest.
But, hey, my friend says he's a liberal because liberal women are loose...
He can have them.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Sunday, June 26, 2011
FDR Playbook Dangerously In Use
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Barack Obama believes in the policies of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who liberals proclaim was the savior of America from the Great Depression. Problem is, FDR actually worsened, and lengthened, the depression. The theory of priming the pump with excessive federal spending in order to get consumers to spend does not work. Though consumer spending is a key in getting an economy moving again, it is worthless without a private sector that produces. In order to free up industry so that it may produce, government needs to literally back off, allowing the free market to turn the engine crank. This is accomplished with reduced regulations against the business sector, and a reduction in taxes across the board. I am not talking about temporary fixes, like the tax deferments or tax credits offered by the Obama administration, but permanent, worthwhile tax cuts that encourage growth and confidence.
As a result of Obama's FDR playbook, we are not in recovery mode. In fact, of late, a cacophony of bad economic news has been ringing through Wall Street. The federal government has been smarting over continually declining home prices, and a major unanticipated slowdown in private-sector job growth. Investors are adding to the worries by quickly shifting into sell mode, weakening the Dow by 280 points in one day.
Obama is using the same failed economic playbook we used 80 years ago in dealing with the Great Depression, which resulted in a false recovery, followed by the most painful contraction in U.S. history, with a 25 percent unemployment rate.
In 1929, we decided to borrow, print and spend money we did not have in order to promote a recovery. The strategy failed then, and it is failing now. The fear is that the leftists are going to continue to spend, because they think the problem is they just haven't primed the pump enough, and the spending is not going to stop until Republicans put a stop to it, or we as a nation wind up with a credit downgrade, and possibly the loss of the U.S. dollar’s Global Reserve Currency status.
Such an economic event will make the dollar virtually worthless, and the economic difficulties of the sick man in Europe prior to Margaret Thatcher that Britain encountered, due largely to the over-printing of money and the fact that the British economy had become the most socialized in Europe, will be nothing compared to the pain associated with the fall of America's position as the economic leader in the world.
U.S. spending will eventually lead to austerity measures similar to those being attempted in some European nations, such as Greece, because the fact is that spending at the rate the U.S. currently is doing is absolutely unsustainable. The problem is, the entitlement mentality is so ingrained in some segments of American society, if we get to the point of austerity measures there will be riots in America. There will be fighting in the streets over government cutting back on the freebies it hands out. Without those cuts, the nation is doomed. With those cuts, blood in the streets is inevitable.
The resiliency of the dollar is beginning to crack. Inflation data confirms the cost of living is rising much faster than wages. Because of Obama's liberal policies that are largely fashioned after FDR's failed policies, America is on a one way course of crushing the middle class in less than a decade, if not within five years.
The federal government's blatant inflation policy will hurt us all, and our pain will be primarily due to the fact that this administration is using the catastrophic FDR playbook to try and fix our economy. But Obama has an added twist that makes it even worse - Environmental legislation and the blind chase after market killing green technology.
In other words, as failed as FDR's policies were, Obama's are worse.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Worrisome economic reports trigger big stock sell-off - Los Angeles Times
Obama's czar Cass Sunstein admits there are job killing regulations - National public safety | Examiner.com
FOOD STAMP PROGRAM UNDER OBAMA..... GREW BY 39%.... 21 MILLION AMERICAN HOUSEHOLDS OR 14% - Patriot Action Network
Morning Bell: Unemployment Is No Laughing Matter - The Heritage Foundation
Enviro Elitists Keep America Unemployed - Net Right Daily
Obama: We Can't Just Cut Way to Prosperity - MSNBC
FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate - UCLA Newsroom
How FDR Made the U.S. Depression Worse - Liberty For Life
Britain—Sick Man of Europe? - The Trumpet
The Economic Ruin of Europe - CATO Institute
Barack Obama believes in the policies of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who liberals proclaim was the savior of America from the Great Depression. Problem is, FDR actually worsened, and lengthened, the depression. The theory of priming the pump with excessive federal spending in order to get consumers to spend does not work. Though consumer spending is a key in getting an economy moving again, it is worthless without a private sector that produces. In order to free up industry so that it may produce, government needs to literally back off, allowing the free market to turn the engine crank. This is accomplished with reduced regulations against the business sector, and a reduction in taxes across the board. I am not talking about temporary fixes, like the tax deferments or tax credits offered by the Obama administration, but permanent, worthwhile tax cuts that encourage growth and confidence.
As a result of Obama's FDR playbook, we are not in recovery mode. In fact, of late, a cacophony of bad economic news has been ringing through Wall Street. The federal government has been smarting over continually declining home prices, and a major unanticipated slowdown in private-sector job growth. Investors are adding to the worries by quickly shifting into sell mode, weakening the Dow by 280 points in one day.
Obama is using the same failed economic playbook we used 80 years ago in dealing with the Great Depression, which resulted in a false recovery, followed by the most painful contraction in U.S. history, with a 25 percent unemployment rate.
In 1929, we decided to borrow, print and spend money we did not have in order to promote a recovery. The strategy failed then, and it is failing now. The fear is that the leftists are going to continue to spend, because they think the problem is they just haven't primed the pump enough, and the spending is not going to stop until Republicans put a stop to it, or we as a nation wind up with a credit downgrade, and possibly the loss of the U.S. dollar’s Global Reserve Currency status.
Such an economic event will make the dollar virtually worthless, and the economic difficulties of the sick man in Europe prior to Margaret Thatcher that Britain encountered, due largely to the over-printing of money and the fact that the British economy had become the most socialized in Europe, will be nothing compared to the pain associated with the fall of America's position as the economic leader in the world.
U.S. spending will eventually lead to austerity measures similar to those being attempted in some European nations, such as Greece, because the fact is that spending at the rate the U.S. currently is doing is absolutely unsustainable. The problem is, the entitlement mentality is so ingrained in some segments of American society, if we get to the point of austerity measures there will be riots in America. There will be fighting in the streets over government cutting back on the freebies it hands out. Without those cuts, the nation is doomed. With those cuts, blood in the streets is inevitable.
The resiliency of the dollar is beginning to crack. Inflation data confirms the cost of living is rising much faster than wages. Because of Obama's liberal policies that are largely fashioned after FDR's failed policies, America is on a one way course of crushing the middle class in less than a decade, if not within five years.
The federal government's blatant inflation policy will hurt us all, and our pain will be primarily due to the fact that this administration is using the catastrophic FDR playbook to try and fix our economy. But Obama has an added twist that makes it even worse - Environmental legislation and the blind chase after market killing green technology.
In other words, as failed as FDR's policies were, Obama's are worse.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Worrisome economic reports trigger big stock sell-off - Los Angeles Times
Obama's czar Cass Sunstein admits there are job killing regulations - National public safety | Examiner.com
FOOD STAMP PROGRAM UNDER OBAMA..... GREW BY 39%.... 21 MILLION AMERICAN HOUSEHOLDS OR 14% - Patriot Action Network
Morning Bell: Unemployment Is No Laughing Matter - The Heritage Foundation
Enviro Elitists Keep America Unemployed - Net Right Daily
Obama: We Can't Just Cut Way to Prosperity - MSNBC
FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate - UCLA Newsroom
How FDR Made the U.S. Depression Worse - Liberty For Life
Britain—Sick Man of Europe? - The Trumpet
The Economic Ruin of Europe - CATO Institute
Doug at KCBQ Studio
Last Wednesday, June 22, 2011, I guest co-hosted the Rick Amato show on KTIE AM 590 - The Talk of the Inland Empire. The mother ship for the Rick Amato Show is KCBQ, so we had to go down to the KCBQ studios in La Jolla to broadcast. While I was listening to a guest, this picture was snapped.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Political Pistachio Radio Revolution: Effort to Ban Red Light Cameras in Southern California - Diana Serafin Guest
Political Pistachio: Ban The Cams
- by HOV Radio
- in Politics Conservative
- on Sun, Jun 26, 2011 01:00PM
.
.
.
Diana Serafin is heading an effort in Southern California to ban Red Light Cameras. Los Angeles has banned them, and lawsuits are popping up everywhere. What has the Supreme Court said about these cameras? Where does the Constitution stand? And how has Diana's efforts taken hold? Conservative News and Commentary
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)