Wednesday, August 31, 2011

The Failure of Big Government

By Douglas V. Gibbs

The full control over Congress by the Democrats from 2007 until this year, and the advent of the Obama presidency, has revealed the failure of liberalism, and the Democrat's love of the platform of big government. Occasionally, something will happen where it looks like big government did something right, but more often than not it's just a clever twist of words and circumstances.

Sure, I think that every once in a while something reasonable comes out of big government. . . but even a broken clock is right twice a day.

The handling of Hurricane Irene is being hailed as an achievement of big government. In fact, Dana Milbank of the Washington Post has determined that when it came to Irene, Big Government got it right.

The problem, with these big government people, is with everything they say, the premise is wrong.

For example, in Mr. Milbank's article, he quips, "Hurricane Katrina destroyed New Orleans and obliterated the notion of a competent federal government."

As if it was the federal government's duty to jump in immediately.

As per the Constitution, and the concept of State Sovereignty, FEMA can't just jump in and take control of a situation in a State without permission from the State. Governor Blanco never gave the federal government the permission to intercede, so FEMA's hands were tied during Katrina. The federal government could not act until the state gave them permission. So the failure in Louisiana over Katrina was not due to the failure of the federal government acting, but the failure of the liberals in control of Louisiana allowing the federal government to get involved as the storm bore down on their State.

The FBI can't just walk into a county jurisdiction and start taking care of their business without first making sure it is okay with the local Sheriff. And if the Sheriff says beat it, the federal agents cannot take up position in the Sheriff's jurisdiction.

The liberal thinking is that the federal government is supreme, and therefore rules over all of the smaller governments, and ultimately, over the people. But that would create an atmosphere ripe for tyranny. The federal government does not have that kind of power, as per the founders, on purpose.

The Obama administration lucked out, the storm fizzled (though there was still significant damage and flooding - it was, after all, still a hurricane), and their incompetence was not exposed. And in response, the leftists are calling it a victory.

In fact, the establishment (that includes the party hacks of the Republican Party) are so proud of themselves, as their approval rating plummets to 12%, they gave themselves and staffers a raise! Unemployment is still out of control, the green agenda is failing badly (like Obama's solar baby filing for bankruptcy), let's the TSA feel up Americans while letting members of the Muslim jihad walk on by (and on top of that hires trans-gendered people to put their hands on our children), is granting back door amnesty by disobeying the law on the books, has refused to address the spending problem through entitlement reform, and is ensuring that Islam is promoted in the military. But don't worry, he has continued to work on making sure he still blames it on Bush (as the media works on blaming, and destroying, the Tea Party movement).

Of course if the blame does start heading towards the liberals, the media works to convince us that recessionary times is the new normal.

But the rest of us recognize the obvious. . . liberalism has failed once again.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Obama: GOP Childish, Jobs Speech More Important Than Debate

By Douglas V. Gibbs

King Obama has once again placed himself higher than anyone else, including the protocol of working out a mutually agreeable date and time before making any public announcement. The time scheduled for Obama's speech conflicts with a two hour GOP 2012 primary debate in California at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library, scheduled for 8 p.m. on Sept. 7. Speaker Boehner has asked the White House to reschedule, as the date for the debate was chosen long before Obama decided to use the same night for his speech.

The White House is calling the request to change the night of Obama's speech "childish," and are unwilling to cooperate.

Seems to be a trend, here.

Obama's administration is slamming Speaker Boehner for "rejecting" Obama's choice of date, calling Boehner's reaction "childish behavior" that is "truly historic."

Everyone else is supposed to jump around Obama's schedule. He has no interest in doing the same for others.

The White House has insisted the timing was coincidental - as if we are to believe they had no idea when the debate was going to be.

The administration has also indicated that they would "welcome" a decision by debate hosts to "adjust the timing of their debate so that it didn't conflict." The White House has given no indication that they plan to budge.

Press Secretary Carney downplayed the debate.

Of course. They are under the false presumption that the election is a mere formality, and that ruler Obama will remain on the throne.

Carney then compared the GOP Debate to the "wildlife channel or the cooking channel" in its importance, saying that there would be no change, the White House would "carry forward" with its planned speech regardless of "whatever the competing opportunities on television are."

Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus called it a "thinly-veiled political ploy."

Andrea Saul, spokeswoman for former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, said in a statement that viewers will have a choice between "Republican candidates talking about the future of America, or Barack Obama talking about the future of his presidency."

If Obama wants to compete with the GOP Debate, I think he will be in for a rude awakening. The voters see through his illusion, and recognize Barry is what he was from the beginning, a campaigner who likes the camera, likes his teleprompter, and thinks he is the smartest guy in the room. . . when he is always the biggest idiot in the room (well, the biggest idiot, or the staunchest Marxist. . . depending).

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Boehner Urges Obama to Reschedule Jobs Speech Amid Conflict With GOP Debate - Fox News

Obama schedules jobs address to coincide with GOP 2012 debate - The Hill

Myth #17: The Necessary and Proper Clause allows the federal government to pass any law it deems necessary and proper

This is the Seventeenth 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 last thing the Founding Fathers wanted to do was give the federal government free reign to do whatever it wanted. The limiting principles of the U.S. Constitution are well defined, and the original intent is clear once one delves into the writings, and cultural definitions, of the time.

The Founding Fathers understood that a central government, like the one they were creating, will do whatever it can to expand into a big government not much unlike the one in Britain they had just won independence from. However, without a central government, the union of states that had previously existed under the Articles of Confederation would be unable to defend themselves against foreign enemies, or hold together the union which was under the onslaught of internal strife.

The U.S. government under the Articles of Confederation proved to be too weak of a system. In the face of potential foreign invaders, and insurrections within America's borders rising due to unrest and various conflicts, the Founding Fathers realized they required a stronger system that could provide for the common defense, and ensure domestic tranquility. The founders did not need a lamb, they needed a lion. That lion, however, carried with it bigger teeth and stronger limbs. The fear, then, was that if not restrained the lion would eat the people. The limiting principles of the U.S. Constitution are those restraints designed to keep the stronger, centralized, governmental system caged so as not to become an oppressive system of governance.

In Article I, Section 8, Clause 18 the “necessary and proper” clause was designed to be a part of further limiting the Federal Government. The purpose behind the clause was to ensure the Congress did not make laws at will, but limited their law making to laws authorized by the Constitution that were deemed to only be necessary and proper.

The clause reads:

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

There is a difference between "necessary," and "convenient." There is an even larger gap between "constitutional," and "unconstitutional." The language of the Necessary and Proper Clause makes it clear that the purpose of the laws must be "necessary and proper" to carrying out the authorities granted to the federal government by the Constitution.

Let's take, for example, Obamacare. The proponents believe that government funded health care is necessary in order to bring down the costs of health care. The fact that the opposite is true is not the point. The fact that the supporters of Obamacare "believe" the law is necessary is all they care about. But, in accordance with the Elastic Clause (as it is sometimes called), one must ask if the Obamacare law is necessary and proper for the federal government to carry out the powers vested to them by the Constitution?

The key is the constitutionality of the law in the first place, which drags a number of other disputed clauses kicking and screaming into the debate.

In the Constitution, there is no authority granted giving the federal government the power to regulate, administer, or fund health care programs. Therefore, Obamacare could not be necessary to carry out the federal government's constitutional authorities if the law is not constitutional in the first place.

The argument will then turn to the Commerce Clause. The problem is, the Commerce Clause does not authorize the federal government to be involved in health care, either. The Commerce Clause was written with the specific intention of giving the federal government the authority to act as a mediator between the States whenever their disputes hampered the flow of interstate commerce. Obamacare clearly does not fit that definition.

Why, then, is the necessary and proper clause included in the Constitution if it doesn't give the federal government the power to do anything it feels to be necessary and proper, especially if the federal government is limited to specifically only carrying out laws in accordance with what is expressly granted by the Constitution?

The clause enables the federal government to do the things necessary and proper for the purpose of carrying out the express powers granted to it by the Constitution. For example, the Constitution grants to the Congress the authority to "establish post offices and post roads" (Article I, Section 8, Clause 7). But that is all the Constitution says about it. The Constitution does not specifically mention the necessity of buying land for those buildings, or hiring construction labor to build them. Further more, the Constitution also does not say anything about hiring mail carriers, using the sorting machines necessary for carrying out the functions of the post office, or buying trucks to deliver the mail. Does this mean the federal government is not authorized to do these things? Not at all, because buying the land, building the buildings, hiring the people, purchasing the machines, and buying the trucks are all necessary for the purpose of carrying out Article I, Section 8, Clause 7.

In order for the federal government to be authorized under the Necessary and Proper Clause, the law must be directly applicable to the main, enumerated power, and the law must be lesser than the main power. Without the Necessary and Proper Clause, the federal government would be unable to carry out many of its enumerated powers because the federal government would be limited to only those things expressly granted.

During the Constitutional Convention, the inclusion of the clause sparked great debate. Anti-Federalists argued that the clause would be used by the federal government to give itself boundless power, but the Federalists argued that the clause would only permit execution of power already granted by the Constitution. Alexander Hamilton and James Madison indicated that without the Necessary and Proper Clause, the federal government would be unable to carry out many of the enumerated powers granted to it by the States, which would in turn make the constitution a "dead letter".

Patrick Henry opposed the clause, saying at the Virginia Ratifying Convention that the Necessary and Proper Clause would lead to limitless federal power that would inevitably menace civil liberties.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Madison’s Notes Constitutional Convention - Avalon Project, Yale University

Misunderstanding Necessary and Proper - Tenth Amendment Center

Necessary and Proper - Randy Barnett, UCLA Law Review

Suicide Bombers Kill At Least 9 in Chechnya

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Three separate suicide bombers have renewed the threatening presence of an Islamist insurgency that has been haunting the Chechnya region. At last report, at least nine people are dead from the attack in Grozny. The area attacked was near Chechnya's parliament building.

One attacker blew himself up at a police post on a street about 150 meters (500 feet) from the parliament compound, killing two officers, an Interior Ministry official said on condition of anonymity.

Two others set off their explosives about 20 minutes later after more police and emergency workers had rushed to the scene, the official said -- a tactic frequently used by militants in the North Caucasus.

The attack took place during celebrations marking the end of the Muslim fasting month of Ramadan.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Police say three bombers behind Chechnya attack - Reuters

Muslims Demand Preferential Treatment in New York at Ride Park

By Douglas V. Gibbs

The safety regulation was made three years ago. The ride park's three year old rule bans any item on the head for the purpose of preventing the head garments or hats from flying off during the turbulent rides, so as to keep hats and scarves from falling onto the tracks of the roller coasters, and other rides.

Rye Playland enforces this "no headgear on rides" rule equally. No hats, no bandanas, no head scarves, no hijabs.

In an effort to enforce the rule, ride operators and officials barred a group of women from rides because of the head scarves they were wearing. The result was a demand that the women be able to ride, even trying to force their way on the rides, and then a scuffle that involved cops and a number of Muslims. Fifteen people, including three women, were charged with disorderly conduct and assault in the chaos.

Muslims filled the amusement park who were celebrating Eid-ul-Fitr (the holiday marking the end of the Islamic holy month of Ramadan).

Of course, the Muslims claim to be victims, and say that the rule was made to go against their religion.

"It's not headgear, it's my religion."

If a rule made for my safety required that I remove the crucifix necklace I was wearing, I would take it off, stick it in my pocket, and then ride the ride - either that, or not get on the ride.

The Muslim men that came to the aid of the poor headgear adorned women claim they were beaten by cops.

"She just wanted to get on a ride. That was it," Dena Meawad said of the initial confrontation. "It's clear, this all happened because we're Muslim."

Wanna get on the ride? Remove the headgear.

John Hodges, chief inspector of Westchester County Public Safety, insisted that police did not use excessive force.

When confronted with a group of people determined to act in a violent manner, I expect some kind of force to be necessary, and if that means forcing a subject to the ground, and cuffing him, then so be it.

Up to 100 cops from surrounding departments converged on the park, two park rangers were injured in the melee, and the park was then forced to shut down.

3,000 Muslims throwing a tantrum because of a headgear rule ruined the day for the rest of the park visitors.

One woman said her 4-year-old son was "traumatized" by seeing his father arrested.

However, I am sure they don't think that teaching the child hatred against all non-Muslims, or the fact that kids his age in the Middle East are already armed and taught to kill, is "traumatizing" at all.

"They treated us like animals, like we were nothing," Alrabah said. "They came with their dogs and sticks. We came to have fun."

With freedom comes responsibility, and the willingness to follow the rules of a private business. If a business wants to have a no headgear safety regulation, then you are expected to not wear the headgear where they tell you not to. Don't like it? Don't visit the amusement park. Trust me, I sometimes am bothered by some of the anti-Christian rules I see (like the youth pastor kicked out of a mall for talking about God with other patrons), but the fact is the private business has a right to have the rules they deem necessary to keep their private business safe and profitable.

The difference between the youth pastor in the mall and the Muslims in the theme park is that the man in the mall was targeted specifically for his religious speech. The Muslims were not targeted because of their adherence to Islam. They were asked not to get on the rides specifically because they refused to remove their headgear, of which was banned as a part of a general rule on all headgear.

On top of that, as much as the Muslims in this riot claim they were unaware of the rule, Peter Tartaglia, deputy commissioner of Westchester County Parks, said the Muslim American Society of New York was warned in advance of the rule barring head scarves on rides for safety reasons.

"Part of our rules and regulations, which we painstakingly told them over and over again, is that [on] certain rides you cannot wear any sort of headgear," Tartaglia said. "It's a safety issue for us on rides, it could become a projectile."

This wasn't about Islamophobia. It was about a group of Muslims doing what Islam does in any culture it begins to invade - demanding preferential treatment, exemptions because of their religion, and for the host society to bend over backwards for them.

I appreciate that the amusement park stuck to their rules.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Muslims, police scuffle at Rye Playland over amusement park’s head scarf ban; 15 arrests made - Daily News/Yahoo News

Muslims Can’t Help But Look For Trouble, This Time In A Theme Park - The Salfordian

15 arrested in New York park melee over head scarves - AZ Central

Galleria Mall: Talk About God and Get Arrested - Political Pistachio

Egypt, Democracy in Action is Muslim Control

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Remember when we were told that the poor Egyptian people just wanted a break from Mubarak, and that they just wanted democracy (Obama-style hope and changey)?

I was one of those folks that was saying that what was going to happen in Egypt was a transition into a jihad loving, Muslim Brotherhood influenced, rise of madness.

Hmmm, let's see what's been happening:

Democratic Egypt to Ban Bikinis, Beer and King Tut - Townhall

'Exterminate Christians, close pyramids, Sphinx': Rising leader in Egypt has astonishing plans - World Net Daily

Hmmmm. Would it be rude to say, "I told ya so?"

Democracy is the road to socialism, dictatorships, and mob rule.

I am not suggesting I was a fan of a dictator like Mubarak, but in hind-sight, I think he was definitely better than the alternative. . . not only for Egypt, but for the world as a whole.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary


by JASmius

They say that to the man holding nothing but a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. And for the man who knows how to do absolutely nothing other than regurgitate teleprompter gibberish and vituperate his political enemies...

Well, you get the idea:

President Barack Obama sent a letter to Speaker of the House John Boehner and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid requesting a Joint Session of Congress on September 7th at 8pm to present his economic growth plan to the nation.

Obama writes that it is his intention "to lay out a series of bipartisan proposals that the Congress can take immediately to continue to rebuild the American economy by strengthening small businesses, helping Americans get back to work, and putting more money in the paychecks of the Middle Class and working Americans, while still reducing our deficit and getting our fiscal house in order."

IOW, more of the same tedious, failed leftish bromides and phony gimmickry he's been vomiting forth for the past three years. No actual plan that he could be held accountable for or have results measured against; just a pretext for wasting more Red Chinese investment cash and delivering a campaign stump lecture to the Congress he plans on trying to run against, Harry Truman style, in the hopes of saving his foundering presidency. Nothing new here, just move along, right?

Well, not quite:

Obama's announcement conflicts with a long-scheduled debate between the Republican presidential candidates at the Reagan Library sponsored by NBC and POLITICO.

As Artie Johnson used to say on Laugh-In, "Verrrrrry interesting." So Historic Speech #10,000,000,003 isn't just the same old Hopenchange Keynesian nonsense in the same old package, isn't just a campaign lecture that uses the office Red Barry holds as a propaganda prop, but a blatant attempt to "bigfoot" the field of challengers to his vaunted, mortgaged throne. Almost as if he wants to functionally silence his opposition by ensuring that nobody will be listening to them.

There's just one slight problem with that idea, though: In order to pre-empt one's opposition, one must actually be able to draw and hold an audience. And the fact of the matter is that the public has long ago tuned out and otherwise ceased to pay attention to anything The One has to say. Why? Because his rhetoric never changes. His old & busted big government schemes have been tried (again), and they've failed miserably, as was entirely predictable. Yet he keeps pushing them, heedless of reality, public opposition, and plummeting poll numbers. He's successfully put himself over as a blind ideologue who has redefined being out of touch to a whole new level.

It is said that the opposite of love is not hate, but apathy. This has become B.O.'s nightmare come true. It isn't that Americans hate him; for whatever reason his personal approval numbers are still relatively decent, although even they have begun to slide of late. It's that his policy prescriptions - squandering trillions we don't have on economic "solutions" that don't work - have discredited him, and Americans have simply stopped listening. As I've said for over two years now, the man is a one-trick pony, and that cat is out of the bag. For a president whose entire raison d'etere is his much-balleyhooed penchant for the spoken word, this is a political death knell.

Which further explains why Obama wanted to step all over the long-ago-scheduled Republican primary debate. His well-documented arrogance, vanity, and imperiousness already made this exercise in pettiness, er, par for the course. But it also speaks to just how insecure and even panicked the White House is becoming that they're more concerned with stifling GOP criticisms that are resonating with the electorate than ensuring that the Li'l President has the national stage all to himself.

Oh, and did I mention that His Infernal Majesty publicly issued this royal command made this request to the Speaker of the House of Representatives without running it by him first? Speaks volumes about how Red Barry views himself, no?

Makes Boehner's velvet back-handing all the more satisfying:

House Speaker John Boehner requested that President Obama hold his jobs address, which Obama wants to deliver next Wednesday, next Thursday instead....

"As your spokesperson today said, there are considerations about the Congressional calendar that must be made prior to scheduling such an extraordinary event," the Speaker wrote.

"With the significant amount of time - typically more than three hours - that is required to allow for a security sweep of the House Chamber before receiving a president, it is my recommendation that your address be held on the following evening, when we can ensure there will be no parliamentary or logistical impediments that might detract from your remarks.

Boehner also noted that the House isn't scheduled to reconvene until 6:30 p.m. on Wednesday.

"As such, on behalf of the bipartisan leadership and membership of both the House and Senate, I respectfully invite you to address a Joint Session of Congress on Thursday, September 8, 2011 in the House Chamber, at a time that works best for your schedule," Boehner said.

Note-perfect, my friends. The Speaker reminded King Hussein of this little thing called the separation of powers, told him what he could go do with his little vindictive partisan power play without taking the day-glo obvious bait to react indignantly and play into Team Messiah's preferred narrative of the "obstructionist, do-nothing Congress blocking all of Godbama's efforts to create economic heaven on Earth". Dr. Chicago gets his oratorical re-run and the GOP primary debate goes forward as scheduled. Or, in other words, what The One could always have had if he really were "the adult in the room" instead of the sullen, adolescent, extremist prick he really is.

So, of course, the White House couldn't simply accept the Thursday gig and clam up about the whole self-created debacle. No, this god is a deity that will not brook or tolerate blasphemy, even if they have to make it up themselves:

WH official says "Boehner's office was consulted about the 9/7 date before the letter was released. No objection/concern was raised

Well, now, that's news to the Speaker:

Boehner office says White House ignored protocol: "No one in the Speaker's office...signed off on the date the White House announced today

This is how puerile President Awesome has become, folks. The Light-Bringer who would cause the oceans to recede, the planet to heal, put a chicken in every pot, and wipe away every tear is picking grade school playground fights. "Hope and change" has transformed into "Nuh-UH! Nuh-UH!"

You think I'm exaggerating?

"This confirms what we all know: They [the Republicans] will do anything to muck us up," the White House source childishly told Politico.

Then the White House tried to cover up its obvious embarrassment.

"What flap?" press secretary Jay Carney deadpanned at his daily briefing when asked about the scheduling battle. "Sideshows don't matter."

True to form, Obama blamed it all on Congress, just as his self-described mentor and former minister Rev. Jeremiah Wright's trademark was to blame blacks' troubles on all whites.

"It's been a long time since Congress focused on what the American people need them to be focused on," Obama said in an email to supporters expressing frustration with his inability to schedule the speech when the Republican debate was to take place.

Saying the imbroglio was a "big deal," Politico's White House source smelled a plot by Republicans. "It shows the House Republicans will do no outreach, nothing," the source said.

You first, Barry.

But then, in order to lead by example, you have to lead. And set an example.

But here's the punchline:

NFL season starts next Thursday 830pm ET, Packers vs. Saint

Exit quote via Eeyore: "Your move, champ."

[cross-posted @ Hard Starboard]

Wisconsin: Proof Conservatism Works

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Governor Scott Walker was attacked as being uncaring, willing to sacrifice the jobs of union members, and the man who would destroy Wisconsin's economy.

The Left launched every attack against him, and the conservative Republicans, they could, claiming that Wisconsin was doomed if Walker's targeting of the unions was not stopped.

The liberals lost, and the GOP in Wisconsin stood their ground.

The result of the reforms Walker put into place?

Unbelievable success!

Liberalism fails whenever it is tried. Conservatism succeeds whenever it is given the opportunity to be fully implemented.

Governor Walker was interviewed on the Rush Limbaugh Show last week by Mark Belling, and here are the highlights:

. . . Mark, as a state we are doing well. We've gone from a $3.6 B deficit to a $300 M surplus. Wauwatosa public schools, where my two sons go, have improved their outlook. Basically, all WI schools are doing better by saving money due to reforms. They're now hiring more teachers, lowering classroom size, since they don't have to have this collective bargaining. Collective bargaining is not a right but an expensive entitlement. Now, teachers are hired or fired on merit, not on tenure or seniority.

Belling: I've heard school boards are boasting that they'll now be able to freeze or cut property tax levies due to your nearly "magical" plan.

Walker: Yes, the WEA trust- union run health plan- is now saving HUGE amounts due to there being no collective bargaining. We have, literally, example after example. This saved money is able to go back to the classroom.

B: Governor, the national unions vowed to break you. But, they couldn't change the legislature, which is a victory for you. The city of Milwaukee is now 10-20 million dollars to the better due to government reforms. They'll become more popular as time goes on.

W: I disliked the recalls, as I said, and wanted to get them over and done with. But I think, actually, that later (September '11 or Jan 12) recalls would have been good for us because the situation in the schools is getting better. Parents and teachers are now constantly praising me. Good hardworking decent teachers are excited. Property taxes in WI will go down. Despite all the attack adds against me- union money- the reforms are great and helping WI attract more jobs.

B: The lesson for Republicans nationally is, that if we stick to our conservative principles, they'll work and Rs and the nation will be better off. Do you have anything to say to other Rs about your experience?

W: Republicans have to stay on point and be positive! Don't be frustrated, make your point over and over and over, how you'll make it work. Stay on point! Don't lash out! Our candidates got outspent 3-1 in the recalls but we stayed on point Mitch Daniels did the same thing in IN and the voters re-elected him. Results matter!

B: You were accused of destroying education, governor, and that people would be laid off, but in NY Bloomberg is the one laying teachers (770) off! The state of IL to our south, BORROWED money and increased taxes and are still laying off! We see layoffs coming in places that refused to cut! WI cut and is thriving!

W: I got a chuckle against people who said we were attacking the middle class. The middle class pay most of our tax burden in WI!. Our structural changes have helped our budget and protected these middle class jobs and their tax rates by asking the unions to pay just a tiny bit more. That helps our state.

B: Governor, I'm convinced that the attacks on you were so strong because the unions KNEW that your plan would work and therefore people would see that gov. unionization for the problem that it is. And, sure enough, it's happening and I think your techniques will spread.

W: We had some advantages. In OH, Gov. Kasich didn't have our advantages- his law is not being enacted right now. But in our case, over time, it has become clear and will become clearer that our reforms have been very helpful and they'll become more popular. Despite the attacks. we've been on point with our issues and the results are working.

B: America is looking for conservatives like you to stick to your guns and get rid of the government waste to help fix our problems!

W: Mark, the great thing about America is that in times of crisis is that, for over 200 years, our leaders have thought about their kids and fellow citizens rather than their own jobs.

B: Thank you, Governor.

Okay, fine, that's the whole interview. Can I help it if the whole dang thing was a highlight?

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Scott Walker Interviewed on Limbaugh Show - Daily KOS (believe it or not)

Tuesday, August 30, 2011

Too Funny. . . I was sitting at the bar when a big mean biker walked up and took my drink. . .


There I was sitting at the bar staring at my drink when a large, trouble-making biker steps up next to me, grabs my drink and gulps it down in one swig.

"Well, whatcha’ gonna do about it?" he says, menacingly, as I burst into tears.

"This is the worst day of my life," I say. "I'm a complete failure. I was late to a meeting and my boss fired me. When I went to the parking lot, I found my car had been stolen and I don't have any insurance. I left my wallet in the cab I took home. I found my wife with another man and then my dog bit me."

"So I came to this bar to work up the courage to put an end to it all, I buy a drink, I drop a capsule in and sit here watching the poison dissolve; then you show up and drink the whole thing!......... But enough about me, how's your day going?"

(that was just too good not to share)

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Message to Marines: Don't Fart Around Afghans

For Marines in Afghanistan: be careful where you fart - Marine Corps Times Battle Rattle

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

A Fast & Furious Coverup

by JASmius

How fast can Red Barry tapdance? His Watergate, which would BE a Watergate even in most other Democrat regimes, is finally triggering a cascade reaction of musical chairs at Eric The Red's hideout:

The acting director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) is leaving his post after months of controversy over “Operation Fast and Furious’’ gunrunning debacle that put assault rifles in the hands of Mexican drug dealers.

The apparent shake-up has been simmering for months, amid Republican allegations that higher-ups in the Department of Justice should be held accountable for the scandal, in which the weapons ended up at crime scenes, including murders.

Acting Director Kenneth Melson will become senior adviser to the assistant attorney general for the Office of Legal Policy, the ATF announced today. Melson has been a flash point in the investigation of the Fast and Furious program and Project Gunrunner.

Does this constitute a housecleaning at the Department of Injustice & Revenge? Holding at least one of the perps for this major scandal accountable? A flunky falling on his sword?

Nope, nope, and nope. Melson's crime, in the eyes of the White House, wasn't running guns to Mexican narco-terrorists, it was defying orders and obeying a congressional summons to testify about F&F.

Perhaps that explains this "unexpected" flurry of personnel reshuffling:

In a related development, Phoenix U.S. Attorney Dennis Burke, who worked with the ATF on the operation, has resigned. And in still more fallout, Emory Hurley, an assistant U.S. attorney in Phoenix who helped oversee Fast and Furious, is being moved out of the criminal division to the civil division.

This follows the transfer of three agents heavily involved in the scheme from the ATF’s Arizona field office to Washington, D.C.

Move the shells fast enough, and they'll never find the pea. "They" being House Government Reform & Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA49) and Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA), who in a letter to Eric The Red expressly warned the White House against avenging itself on Melson for his compliance with the law.

Said warning was in addition to the following conclusions based upon Melson's testimony:

  • The ATF isn’t the only agency to bear some responsibility for the botched operation that sent guns to Mexico. The Federal Bureau of Investigations and the Drug Enforcement Agency seem to have possessed information that could have had a material impact on Fast and Furious (i.e. info that could have eliminated or reduced the ostensible ‘need’ for the operation in the first place). Or, as the letter puts it, “We have very real indications from several sources that some of the gun trafficking ‘higher-ups’ that the ATF sought to identify were already known to other agencies and may even have been paid as informants.”

  • Taxpayer money was likely used to finance the gunrunning. “The evidence we have gathered raises the disturbing possibility that the Justice Department not only allowed criminals to smuggle weapons but that taxpayer dollars from other agencies may have financed those engaging in such activities.”

  • Senior ATF officials would have preferred to cooperate with Congressional inquiries — but “Department of Justice officials directed them not to respond and took full control of replying to briefing and document requests from Congress.”

True, Melson hasn't been terminated with extreme prejudice; this is a mothballing, not Red Barry's answer to the Saturday Night Massacre. They know that high-profile bureaucratic beheadings is what it would take to attract enough public attention to F&F to ignite it into full-fledged scandalhood, which is the last thing False Messiah needs with his economy in the waste extractor and his poll numbers in freefall. Stick Melson in a career cul-de-sac and batten down the pawns (to pre-empt any more whistleblowers) and this stuff stays "inside baseball" and easily suppressed by the Regime's Obamaedia propaganda operatives. Or so they hope.

But Chairman Issa isn't calling off the dogs:

While the reckless disregard for safety that took place in Operation Fast and Furious certainly merits changes within the Department of Justice, the Oversight and Government Reform Committee will continue its investigation to ensure that blame isn’t offloaded on just a few individuals for a matter that involved much higher levels of the Justice Department.

There's still lots of time for this stinkbomb to blow up in The One's haughty countenance at the worst possible time. Oh, my, yes.

Why else do you think this poor bastard is getting questions like this?

[cross-posted @ Hard Starboard]

Apparently My Claim that Rubio Is Not Eligible for Presidency has Caught On

News media taking stance on Marco Rubio eligibility
Those asking question called 'racists,' 'misguided adherents to Constitution'

As I have continually stated, the founders were concerned with divided loyalties.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Perry: Man, Obama Is Dumber Than A Box Of Hair, Isn't He?

by JASmius

Fun thought for you Bachmannoid TPers out there, via Eeyore: Given that Governor Perry is now the clear Republican front-runner, and is leaving Mary Tyler Less in the dust, will she put country, party, and movement first and get out of Perry's way in the interests of maximizing the chances of terminating the Obamidency next year, or will she start desperately attacking him to try and regain Tea Party support, ignite an intra-movement civil war, which can only benefit....Mitt "RomneyCare" Romney?

I reiterate, my friends: Principles are good, principles are great, principles are wonderful, but if you don't win elections, what good are they?

UPDATE: Perry might have the GOP nomination in the bag already.

[cross-posted @ Hard Starboard]

More Of That Wonderful Leftwingnut Civility

by JASmius

[cross-posted @ Hard Starboard]

Thomas Jefferson foresaw the liberal definition of General Welfare

"They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which may be good for the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please." --Thomas Jefferson, Opinion on National Bank, 1791

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

In a time of revised history by the liberals. . .

"A morsel of genuine history is a thing so rare as to be always valuable." --Thomas Jefferson

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Rick Perry, The Tea Party Front Runner That Isn't

by Douglas V. Gibbs

One of the complaints by conservatives in the 2008 election is they felt like the media, the establishment, and even the liberal left, had more to do with choosing McCain as the GOP candidate than did the voters. Yes, it was the voters that enabled him to win the primaries, but the gullible voters voted for him because the media/establishment convinced them he was the best choice.

They are at it again.

Gallup has a poll out that says among Tea Party folk Rick Perry is the favorite.

Excuse me? If that isn't a big flocking lie, I don't know what is.

Tea Party Nation, Tea Party Patriots, and just about every other Tea Party group I am in touch with, has Michelle Bachmann as the Tea Party favorite. Rick Perry is a neo-con that once, as a Democrat, was a part of the Gore team. He is an open borders guy, and the job creation magic in Texas was due to the conservative legislature (despite Perry's votes in opposition).

Sure, some of those knuckleheads out there love Perry. Many of these folks are the same people that liked Trump.

Pay attention, get informed, and understand that Rick Perry, though better than Obama, is among the worst GOP candidates. Romney and Perry are moderates, and that is not what we need, or want.

And don't believe the lies by the Left, as they try to convince you that the Tea Party just loves Rick Perry.

Research, and realize that Perry's record does not match is conservative rhetoric.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Rick Perry: The (tea party) frontrunner - Washington Post

Obama Lied About Oil, Coal. . .

Prof. Terry J. Lovell

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

George Washington - Exceptional America

"No country upon earth ever had it more in its power to attain these blessings than United America. Wondrously strange, then, and much to be regretted indeed would it be, were we to neglect the means and to depart from the road which Providence has pointed us to so plainly; I cannot believe it will ever come to pass." --George Washington, letter to Benjamin Lincoln, 1788

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Monday, August 29, 2011

Aspects of Collectivism

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Liberalism Fails - Socialism Fails

"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy,
its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery..." -- Winston Churchill

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Ballot Box Integrity

We should be unfaithful to ourselves if we should ever lose sight of the danger to our Liberties if anything partial or extraneous should infect the purity of our free, fair, virtuous, and independent elections. If an election is to be determined by a majority of a single vote, and that can be procured by a party through artifice or corruption, the Government may be the choice of a party for its own ends, not of the nation for the national good." --John Adams, Inaugural Address, 1797

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

The Feeling Is Mutual

by JASmius

[cross-posted @ Hard Starboard]

Email of the Week: We Survived as Kids

Those of You Born
1930 - 1979

1930's, 40's, 50's, 60's and 70's!

First, we survived being born to mothers
Who smoked and/or drank while they were

They took aspirin, ate blue cheese dressing,
Tuna from a can and didn't get tested for diabetes.

Then after that trauma, we were put to sleep on our tummies in baby cribs covered with bright colored lead-base paints.

We had no childproof lids on medicine bottles,
Locks on doors or cabinets and when we rode
Our bikes, we had baseball caps not helmets on our heads.

As infants & children,
We would ride in cars with no car seats,
No booster seats, no seat belts, no air bags, bald tires and sometimes no brakes.

Riding in the back of a pick-up truck on a warm day
Was always a special treat.

We drank water
From the garden hose and not from a bottle.

We shared one soft drink with four friends,
From one bottle and no one actually died from this.

We ate cupcakes, white bread, real butter and bacon.
We drank Kool-Aid made with real white sugar.
And, we weren't overweight.

Because we were
Always outside playing...that's why!

We would leave home in the morning and play all day,
As long as we were back when the
Streetlights came on.

No one was able
To reach us all day. And, we were O.K.

We would spend hours building our go-carts out of scraps
And then ride them down the hill, only to find out
We forgot the brakes. After running into the bushes
a few times, we learned to solve the problem.

We did not have Playstations, Nintendo's and X-boxes.
There were no video games, no 150 channels on cable,
No video movies or DVD's, no surround-sound or CD's,
No cell phones, No personal computers, no Internet and no chat rooms. WE HAD FRIENDS
And we went outside and found them!

We fell out of trees, got cut, broke bones and teeth
And there were no lawsuits from these accidents.

We ate worms and mud pies made from dirt,
And the worms did not live in us

We were given BB guns for our 10th birthdays,
Made up games with sticks and tennis balls and,
Although we were told it would happen,
We did not put out very many eyes.

We rode bikes or walked to a friend's house and
Knocked on the door or rang the bell, or just
Walked in and talked to them.

Little League had tryouts and not everyone made the team.
Those who didn't had to learn to deal
With disappointment.
Imagine that!!

The idea of a parent bailing us out if we broke the law
Was unheard of.
They actually sided with the law!

These generations have produced some of the best
Risk-takers, problem solvers and inventors ever.

The past 50 years
Have been an explosion of innovation and new ideas.
We had freedom, failure, success and responsibility,
and we learned how to deal with it all.

If YOU are one of them?
You might want to share this with others
who have had the luck to grow up as kids, before the
lawyers and the government regulated so much of our lives
for our own good.

While you are at it, forward it to your kids so they will know
how brave and lucky their parents were.

Kind of makes you want to run through the house
with scissors, doesn't it ?

The quote of the
month is by Jay Leno:
"With hurricanes, tornados, fires out of control,
mud slides, flooding, severe thunderstorms
tearing up the country from one end to another,
and with the threat of swine flu
and terrorist attacks.
Are we sure this is a good time
to take God out of the Pledge of Allegiance?'

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary


by JASmius

Sure, fourteen months is an eternity in politics. Sure, it's way too early in the '12 cycle to count anybody out, much less the incumbent president of the United States.

No, it's not:

The economy is so dismal that President Barack Obama will have to re-write the political history books if he hopes to win re-election, political strategists say.

The latest bad news for Team Obama: Economic growth for the second quarter was revised downward from 1.3% to a mere 1% on Friday -- far below the level of activity required to put a dent in the nation’s chronic, high joblessness.

Those slumping GDP numbers followed an economic-outlook report by the Congressional Budget Office that likely touched off alarm bells in Obama’s campaign. Despite optimistic assumptions about GDP growth, inflation, and deficit-spending, the CBO projected U.S. unemployment to be at or above 8.5% through the fourth quarter of 2012.

That means President Obama will have to earn a return engagement to the White House under virtually unprecedented circumstances. And he’ll likely have to alter his campaign strategy to do it.

Why? Because no president has ever been re-elected with an unemployment rate above 7.2%. And the one who pulled it off - Ronald Reagan in 1984 - did so because that joblessness number was plummeting beneath a roaring economic recovery produced by his supply-side economic policies. Reaganomics worked, everybody could see it, and the Gipper was freed up to run on his victory lap "Morning in America" theme.

The contrast with Red Barry couldn't be more stark. Obamanomics - which was overtly and expressly designed to roll back that quarter-century economic boom - has been wildly successful in that prosperity-destroying, job-killing, liberty-eradicating, country-weakening mission, and there isn't time to turn it around now even if more phony, debt-exacerbating statist gimmickery would even slow down the decline.

Dr. Chicago can't run on his record. So he'll employ the only strategy left to him, and the one that is nearest and dearest to his black, flinty, "Dr. Evil" heart - the politics of mass destruction:

[InsiderAdvantage CEO Matt] Towery, who served as a political strategist for former House Speaker Newt Gingrich in the 1980s and 90s, expects Obama to go sharply negative in an effort to redirect attention from the moribund economy to whether the GOP alternative can be trusted.

“There’s only one thing in politics you do when you’re that low,” he says. “You try to bloody the other guy up just as much as you can.

“I mean, it’s the only answer. I don’t care what anybody says: He can’t put enough commercials on about how hard he works or whatever. It isn’t even working in the African-American community. When Maxine Waters is out there giving you trouble, you know you’ve got problems.”

With unemployment so high, Towery says, the bottom line for Obama and the Democrats is brutally simple: “They’ve got to just bloody up whoever gets the nomination, or the party as a whole,” he says.

B.O. would, naturally, have done this anyway. But vindication of Hogzilla - which, remember, was supposed to "fix" the economy all by itself - would have given him plenty of cover for such viciousness. It would have been a secondary compliment to Hopenchange II. But it's not a viable standalone "main course" strategy. Yes, negative campaigning works, but not without a positive message to inhabit the other side of the proverbial coin. Even an incumbent has to offer SOME reason to vote for him in addition to voting against his challenger, especially as a run for re-election is a referendum on the incumbent's first term by definition. Any attempt to try to change the subject from his rotten economy after all the empty promises and strutting, self-righteous, preachy hectoring and despicable classist demogoguery will only focus public attention on the complete failure of Obamanomics all the more for how [hyuk] transparent it'll be.

There's an old saying: "What you are speaks so loudly, I can't hear what a word you're saying." The American public has already tuned out the L'il President. A year-long temper tantrum will only stiffen their resolve to take out the trash the Obamidency has become.

[cross-posted @ Hard Starboard]

Jeez, Open Borders Rick Perry Endorsed by Former Mexican President Fox

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Sunday, August 28, 2011

Professor Terry J. Lovell: Super Committee Unconstitutional

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Weekend Radio Shows: From Wild Wall Street to Rising Health Care Costs


Constitution Speaker on KCAA Sat, Aug 27, 2011

Guest: Bob Rinear, Invest Yourself dot com

5 big stories of the week - August 27, 2011

5. Google Pays off Government $500 Million to Keep Federal Government From Charging them with Knowingly Posting Illegal Canadian Pharmacy Advertisements

4. 5.8 Earthquake Strikes East Coast

3. Steve Jobs Steps Down as CEO of Apple

2. Gadhafi Defeated, Rebels Occupy His Compound in Tripoli

How do you spell his name? Jeez!

Rebels fight Loyalists in Tripoli

1. Hurricane Irene and the Great Media Hype


Nuts and Nuggets:

Nut: Representative Maxine Waters: “The Tea Party can go straight to Hell.”

Nugget: Jered Weaver of the Angels of Anaheim in press conference after media person offers that he left money on the table in his new 5 year extension to his contract with the Angels: “How much more do you possibly need?” Weaver asked, drawing a huge roar from the assembled fans. “I’ve never played this game for money purposes. I play for love and championships.

“If ($85 million) is not enough to take care of my family and other generations of family, then I’m pretty stupid.”

Constitution Speaker on KCAA Sun, Aug 28, 2011

Rising Health Costs with Bob Fredericks of Fredericks Benefits

5 big stories of the weekend

5. NYC Mayor Bloomberg: No Prayer at New York 9/11 Memorial

4. Mexican Troops and Federal Agents Raid Casinos After Arson Attack

. . . and the Mexican President says it's all the fault of the U.S.

3. Federal Agents Shut Down Gibson Guitars

2. Irene Slams Into New York, Obama Declares State of Emergency in 9 States, D.C., and Puerto Rico

Storm Irene Massive Flooding

New York City Transit Shut Down by Storm - First Time Ever!

After dire forecast, Irene falls short of the doomsday Predictions - Yes, there has been flooding, and some damage, but. . .

Little Damage Seen

Irene Packs Little Wallop

1. 150 Bodies found in Libya, Gadhafi rumored to be in Zimbabwe


Nuts and Nuggets:

Nut: Gore: Global warming skeptics are this generation’s racists

Nugget: Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker with Mark Belling: As a state we are doing well. We've gone from a $3.6 B deficit to a $300 M surplus. Wauwatosa public schools, where my two sons go, have improved their outlook. Basically, all WI schools are doing better by saving money due to reforms. They're now hiring more teachers, lowering classroom size, since they don't have to have this collective bargaining. Collective bargaining is not a right but an expensive entitlement. Now, teachers are hired or fired on merit, not on tenure or seniority.

The WEA trust- union run health plan- is now saving HUGE amounts due to there being no collective bargaining. We have, literally, example after example. This saved money is able to go back to the classroom.

Republicans have to stay on point and be positive! Don't be frustrated, make your point over and over and over, how you'll make it work. Stay on point! Don't lash out! Our candidates got outspent 3-1 in the recalls but we stayed on point. Mitch Daniels did the same thing in IN and the voters re-elected him. Results matter!

Shh, Don’t Tell Anyone. Obama Is Increasing The Cost Of Going To School.

By J.J. Jackson

I have a secret to tell you. But you cannot tell it to anyone if I tell it to you. Do you understand? Because I am super serious about how secret this secret is.

Ok, good. Now come closer. No, no, closer. No one else can overhear this.

Now you are too close. Back up a bit. Ok, that’s good.

Here is the secret which you cannot tell anyone else. President Obama is raising the cost of your kid going to school.

What? President Obama raising costs on families? That cannot be right can it? I mean, he is all for the “little people” isn't he?

Well, as hard as it is to believe, it is true. In fact in the Penn Hills School District , where I live just outside of Pittsburgh , the cost of a school lunch is going up by $0.50 this year. And all because of the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act passed by Congress and signed by President Obama in 2010.

Because of this legislation, lunches served in the Penn Hills schools will go from $1.75 each to $2.25. And while that may not seem like a lot of money, it is part of a bigger problem that most Americans are blissfully unaware of. But first, a little math lesson.

That $0.50 a day is a seemingly paltry $2.50 a week for the parents of a child that use the school lunch program. In a month it comes to $10 more one must pay for lunches. Over the course of a 9 month school year it is $90 in total if a student takes advantage of buying their lunch from the school every day. And that is if you have just one kid in school.

Now like I said, this is part of a larger problem which plagues America; the hidden cost of government. Every time government regulates something and mandates a certain action be taken it adds costs. For a family of four in Penn Hills, this hidden cost of government do-gooderism is stripping $180 from their wallets because the President and Congress decided that the meals our children eat in school needed a little bit more oversight.

Now think about how this microcosm projects onto the larger world of government regulation. If something as simple as government mandating what is in school lunches, because apparently we as parents are too dumb to decide such matters on our own, can increase your bill for just living by almost $200 in a year what are bigger and more sweeping regulations adding to our cost of life?

How many thousands of regulations are there that the federal government has passed? What if just ten of them added $200 each per year to our household expenses? Those ten regulations equal $2,000 per year more we as citizens must pay just to live. And when government is so good at covering its tracks, would you even know?

Maybe you think that, despite the evidence already presented, that there is no way that there could be ten regulations out of thousands that add these sorts of costs to your daily lives. Ok then, take for example gasoline taxes. The federal government adds $0.184 to every gallon. But you may not know that because it is not printed as an individual line item on your receipt. If you fill up once a week, fifteen gallons each time, that is $143.52 per year. If you are a two car household where both parents fill up once a week that become $287.04 a year.

Still think we cannot find just 10 federal regulations that add $200 each per year to you life?

What about taxes on businesses? Think that businesses pay those? Oh, you foolish soul!

Nope. Whether they be business income taxes or the business's share of your Medicare and Social Security, you pay somewhere around, to be very conservative, 20% extra every time you buy something. If you spend just a miniscule $500 per month, $100 is flying out of your wallet to pay for those regulations and taxes. Per year this is a sum of $1,200.

And you thought politicians like Barack Obama care about you?

Still think that regulations do not cost you dearly? So how much to you really pay every year because of government and its hand? Do you really know? Do you really want to know? And if you found out, could you handle the truth?
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 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.

Eight Is Enough

by JASmius

Should Sarah Palin finally take the plunge and run for the 2012 GOP presidential nomination? I think the answer can be found in this Des Moines Register blog post:

Eight Reasons Palin Should Run

  • 1. BELIEF IN HERSELF: “She believes that she could win,” said Republican Greg Hudson, 29, of West Des Moines, who writes the blog 1007 East Grand.

  • 2. LIKES THE LIMELIGHT: “She loves to compete, and this is the ultimate competition,” said Doug Gross, an Iowa GOP politics insider.

  • 3. STEALTH HELP: The work that a grass-roots group called Organize4Palin is doing on an unofficial, volunteer capacity in Iowa and other states rivals what some campaigns have done with paid staff, said Shane Vander Hart, 39, of Pleasant Hill, who writes the blog Caffeinated Thoughts.

  • 4. FIRING UP THE BASE: Palin would motivate the Iowa GOP base and excite those uninspired by the current field, Hudson said.

  • 5. TEA PARTY POWER: If there will be a time the tea party movement picks the nominee, this could be the year.

  • 6. MONEY MAGNET: SarahPAC has reported impressive totals ($1.67 million this year, the Open Secrets website shows) without putting much effort into it, Vander Hart said.

  • 7. ALREADY VETTED: “She has effectively weathered the media onslaught,” said tea party supporter Brett Rogers of West Des Moines.

  • 8. WINNING MESSAGE: “She could win the nomination based on message quality alone,” said Dave Funk, 53, who was Iowa co-chairman of Sportsmen for McCain-Palin in 2008 but says he is remaining neutral this cycle.

Eight Reasons She Shouldn’t Run

  • 1. HIGH NEGATIVES: Palin generates negative scores in polling that are sky-high, and that can take millions of dollars to counter, Iowa strategists said.

  • 2. QUESTIONABLE STAYING POWER: Winning a nomination is not a national race — it’s about getting 40,000 or so Iowans to support you in the caucuses, and then tackling turnout in the other early states.

  • 3. INDECISION A TURN-OFF: Palin is the Brett Favre of politics, keeping everyone guessing about her plans.

  • 4. ALREADY A KINGMAKER: Palin can alter the presidential race, and thus American history, in the role she’s already in: spokeswoman for a conservative movement, several Iowans said.

  • 5. HALF-TERM GOVERNOR: The fact that Palin quit the Alaska’s governor’s office in the middle of her first term will be underscored in a race that includes Texas’ longest-serving governor.

  • 6. ALLERGY TO REPORTERS: The live-by-the-sword Palin sometimes finds herself at war with the media. But she did a better job of working with the press during her daylong visit to the Iowa State Fair, Iowa Republicans noted

  • 7. ATTACKS ON FAMILY: The national media are ruthless in their scrutiny and criticism of Palin, and several Republicans in Iowa said they think that has taken a toll.

  • 8. WHERE’S HER TEAM?: Palin has reached out to few people who are professionals at organizing, even as she mocks them at every step, strategists in Iowa told the Register.

What do the eight pro reasons have in common? In a word, narcissism. It would all be about her, not what was best for the country, her party (which doesn't need her to fire it up), or the movement for which she purports to speak. It would be a selfish, self-indulgent ego trip, not unlike the incumbent she'd be seeking to challenge.

Why? Look at the eight reasons she shouldn't run. They're all practical, all convincing, and all undeniable. The fact of the matter is, Sarah Palin has been "Quaylized," and she's done some of it to herself (i.e. by resigning as Governor of Alaska barely half-way through her lone term). She couldn't win. She'd be the twenty-first century Barry Goldwater, with all the disastrous implications it would have down-ticket. Sure, it'd be unfair and irrational, but that's the nature of modern politics. What she stands for is popular, in the ascendancy, and must be done, but she is the worst possible vehicle for that message. Like it or not, the Obamedia accomplished its mission: they destroyed her as viable presidential timbre.

And that's assuming she could even win the Republican nomination, which I frankly doubt. The most likely outcome of her entrance into the race this late would be to kneecap Rick Perry and rescue Mitt Romney from a second-consecutive submarining.

Sarahcuda knows this. If she had ever intended to run, she wouldn't have dithered until her niche was filled by someone else equally as capable of filling it and much more capable of taking out The One.

She'll stay on the sidelines, if she truly believes her own rhethoric.

[cross-posted @ Hard Starboard]

Rising Health Costs, and the Danger of Obamacare today on Constitution Speaker Radio on KCAA 1050 AM

Tune in at at 2pm Pacific for the show that is unlike any other on the air. Today's Guest, the man behind Fredericks Benefits on the rising cost of health care, and the danger of Obamacare.

Myth #16: The Role of Government is to Ensure Equality Through Social Justice

This is the Sixteenth 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.

"The utopian schemes of leveling (re-distribution of the wealth) and a community of goods (socialism scheme of central ownership of production and distribution), are as visionary and impractical as those which vest all property in the crown. These ideas are arbitrary, despotic, and, in our government unconstitutional. Now what property can the colonists be conceived to have, if their money may be granted away by others, without their consent?" -- Samuel Adams, Boston Gazette, April 4, 1768.

“The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.” -- Thomas Jefferson

By Douglas V. Gibbs

In today's society we are told that the government must be the guarantor of social justice. Those that argue in favor of social justice claim that government is the primary, if not sole, party responsible for ensuring that social justice is maintained.

Social Justice is a catch phrase for communism.

Social Justice is a concept that claims to seek equality and fairness. A part of social justice is the myriad of entitlement programs we are told were designed to ensure those that are underprivileged are taken care of by government.

President Obama, with his argument supporting government health care, said that it is our responsibility to “look out for one another” because, in his words, “I am my brother’s keeper and I am my sister’s keeper.”

His words, paraphrased from Old Testament Biblical passages, basically said that God’s children have a religious or spiritual responsibility to help fellow Americans by pushing for government sponsored healthcare. A gross misunderstanding of the biblical passage he was butchering.

The term "My Brother's Keeper" does not mean what Obama said it meant. Though Christianity teaches we should be loving, kind, giving, and charitable, there is no passage that indicates it must be mandated through government, or that we should be our "brother's keeper." In fact, there is no place in the Bible where we are doctrinally commanded to be our "brother's keeper."

"My Brother's Keeper" comes from the story of Cain and Able, two of Adam and Eve's sons. Cain, out of jealousy of his brother, murdered Able. When confronted, he denied the action by saying he didn't know the whereabouts of his brother, and then asked, "Am I my brother's keeper?" In other words, "am I supposed to be so responsible for my brother that I am supposed to always know his whereabouts?" The passage is in no way a command that we should be our brother's keeper.

In turn, Jesus never taught we must be our brother's keeper. It is our brother's responsibility to take care of himself. Like salvation, if a Christian desires to be giving, the choice must be voluntary, and the result of a decision made with both the mind, and from the heart.

Social Justice is argued as being the responsibility of the government for reasons of morality. To not support social justice is to be immoral because that must mean you want the potential recipients of entitlement programs to suffer in their poverty.

The first question we must ask ourselves when faced with an onslaught of governmental policies that uses "social justice" as their excuse is, does the Constitution give the federal government the authority to create and fund programs designed to redistribute the wealth from the taxpayers to those seeking participation in entitlement programs?

The immediate response I often receive is that, "Yes, the Constitution authorizes the federal government to fund entitlement programs because of the General Welfare Clause."

James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, does not agree: "If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions." -- James Madison

The General Welfare Clause was not even meant to be a clause, or an authority to the federal government, but was meant to be a description of the Republic should the laws of the land be made in accordance with the authorities granted by the Constitution.

In other words, of the laws of the United States are limited to the authorities granted by the Constitution, there will be a sense of general welfare throughout the country. After all, the Preamble even tells us that one of the aims of the Constitution was "domestic tranquility."

The States were much like siblings, fighting over just about everything. They argued over commerce, borders, legal jurisdictions, currency, weights and measures, communication, religion, and a number of other issues. As a result, one of the many reasons for the need of a new government through the U.S. Constitution was so that a central government may have the authority to act as a mediator between the quarreling States.

Acting as a referee in matters that caused disputes between the States would help the federal government provide for the General Welfare of the republic.

In other words, if the federal government does what it was supposed to do, as a mediator between the States, and as a protector of the States by providing for the common defense, the States would enjoy a general welfare of the republic. The Founding Fathers wanted to make sure that squabbles, internal conflict, or foreign intrusion did not place the welfare of the union in jeopardy.

General Welfare is a description, not a Constitutional authority.

The General Welfare of the republic was the goal, which would be achieved if the federal government abides by the limiting principles of the U.S. Constitution.

From a non-governmental standpoint, the concept of "social justice" can be a good thing. The Salvation Army grew out of social justice thinking. As individuals it is important to be compassionate; feed the hungry, give water to the thirsty, help the sick, and visit prisoners. There is absolutely nothing wrong with voluntarily giving to those who are in positions less fortunate than ourselves.

When it comes to the concept of social justice, the argument is not whether or not help should be given to those that are less fortunate, but rather whether or not government should be the caregiver of those folks through entitlement programs, and policies that use taxpayer dollars.

If a neighbor is in need, some may find it to be their personal responsibility to help that neighbor, and that is commendable. We live in a culture that confuses "needs" with "desires," and both of those concepts with "rights." Entitlements have come to be defined as a right, and with that definition in place, it is no wonder that people consider government to be obligated to provide citizens with certain "necessities" of life. Government, however, does not provide entitlement programs out of the kindness of its heart, nor out of some moral obligation of responsibility.

On the surface, social justice through government intervention seems like the moral thing to do. In the long run, however, the government providing "social justice" is socially debilitating, and economically unsustainable. The founders did not give the federal government constitutional authority to provide programs designed to redistribute the wealth from one economic class to the other because such programs widen the gap between the different financial classes, makes it more difficult for those in poverty to reach a level of economic success, and because eventually the creation of such programs undermines the nation's economy, ultimately leading to collapse.

The Founding Fathers created our system through the Constitution with the intention that the Republic would stand the test of time.

Government must not be even partially responsible for taking care of the so-called down-trodden. The responsibility for taking care of our neighbors, should that need arise, belongs to each of us as individuals in a societal system where our relationships and overlapping communities demand that for the success of our communities, each part must be healthy and functional. However, when that care goes beyond individual assistance on a voluntary basis, it teaches the recipient to expect more, and set aside their own individual responsibilities. Rather than a united community, the system becomes one of producers, and takers. As the number of takers increases, the producers must work harder to ensure that everyone is taken care of. Eventually, even the producers come to the conclusion that they've been swindled. They are doing all of the work, and the takers are doing none, so they might as well become takers as well. Eventually, the takers outnumber the producers, and the society is unable to continue on.

Social Justice is unsustainable.

When government takes on the role of taking from the producers, and giving to those on the government dole, the element of political power enters the scheme, as well. The drafters of the U.S. Constitution desired to limit the powers of the federal government, not give the government the ability to manipulate the system through gifts from the treasury. The statesmen have become professional politicians battling over who can give more entitlements to more people in a hope that it will garner more votes for their next reelection. In this way, through entitlements, the politicians are literally buying votes.

Eventually, the hope of these statists is that more than fifty percent of the population will wind up on government entitlement programs, theoretically putting the political ideology whose platform is to promote entitlement programs in power in perpetuity. The number of people on entitlement programs continues to increase, and eventually the tax burden needed to provide the entitlements will become too large for the producers to manage. In fact, some may argue we have already reached that point, which is why the government has resorted to borrowing at such an incredible level, and issuing fiat currency that will ultimately destabilize our entire economic system.

"The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money." -- Margaret Thatcher

Ultimately, a governmental system that pursues social justice is unsustainable. Eventually the takers outnumber the producers, the expenses of government become larger than the system is capable of managing, and the politicians are left with no choice but to cut the spending drastically through austerity measures, or allow the entire system to collapse.

The nature of humanity, when faced with the opportunity to take advantage of "free" government programs, means that these entitlements actually serve as a disincentive for the individual. Why assume responsibility for your own actions when government will bail you out at every turn?

Self-reliance, personal responsibility, and hard work becomes something the other guy can do. The attitude devolves into, "The rich people make more than enough, therefore, should share their wealth with me," or "pay their fair share." The sense of mutual responsibility for each other through government dominates over the sense of personal responsibility for oneself. In turn, these governmental programs even take away from the effectiveness of private charities, for people begin to conclude that with government providing all of the help for others, the ball is in somebody else's court, so a personal individual decision to help is no longer necessary.

Interestingly enough, however, an extreme view of individuality may have played a part in the rise of governmental programs of social justice. In our society of individualism and self-reliance, we sometimes view ourselves more in terms of being an isolated autonomy, rather than members of a community. As individual as we may be, our independence as a sovereign does not exclude us from the fact that we are also members of a community, and therefore are responsible for our participation in that community. The individualistic refusal to participate in the community helps the statists in their argument that the government must fill a void where the needy must be taken care of.

We are individuals, and should not consign ourselves to some governmental experiment in collectivism. Our relationships with others demand that we, as individuals, share in our local communities, and as a result we do have a basic moral obligation towards other human beings. That responsibility is to help, not make the others dependent upon us or the government. When a person is taught not to pull themselves up by the bootstraps, they become slaves to the system. Sometimes the bootstraps are not so easy to tug on, which is where we, as individuals, ought to offer a helping hand.

Give a man a fish, and feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he will be fed for a lifetime.

Mutual responsibility to each other on a voluntary, individual basis is essential to the maintenance of a healthy society. The more we feel we can rely upon each other, the less some of us may be tempted to turn to government for help and quick remedies. The key to return to a society where the community takes care of its own, without governmental interference and political games, begins not only with reforming entitlement programs, but working locally to restore a sense of teamwork in the community.

To accomplish what the Founding Fathers intended includes the difficult task of reforming current governmental "social justice" policies, while also discouraging people from running to government as their primary bailout.

The U.S. Constitution does not authorize the federal government to provide "social justice," and that authority was not given to the federal government for a reason. The Founding Fathers understood that if the federal government became the provider of things the individuals and communities can provide for themselves, in the long run, the entire American System would collapse, and from the ashes would rise a tyrannical system.

"If the government is big enough to give you everything you want, it is big enough to take away everything you have." -- President Gerald Ford.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary