Monday, April 30, 2012

Curious Scene at the Democrat Headquarters

There is a couple fascinating things about this picture. First, obviously, the space is up for lease - which is a surprise, because most democrats are up for sale to the highest bidder.

Second, the jackass in the sign looks like it is ready to kick the crap out of the Obama logo.


-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Breitbart's Coroner Poisoned. . .



Police probe mysterious demise of L.A. medical examiner.

Medical examiners in Los Angeles are investigating the possible poisoning death of one of their own officials who may have worked on the case of Andrew Breitbart, the conservative firebrand who died March 1, the same day Sheriff Joe Arpaio announced probable cause for forgery in President Obama’s birth certificate.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Making Illegal Illegal

These morons are about to make any word that makes sense ILLEGAL so they can win an argument. Think about it. How do you win an argument with a progressive? Use facts, stick to your guns, take the emotion out of their hands. The OPEN BORDER CROWD needs to remove the word ILLEGAL because it’s FACTUAL. It’s THE ONE THING THAT TIES IT ALL TOGETHER AND THEY CAN’T ARGUE IT! So rewrite the language, rewrite the text books, label it something else.. Communists are now “Progressives” Liberals are “Progressive” Change the label to win the argument to hell with the outcome or the damage done to the nation.

Read about it, and view video, at American and Proud

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

NASA Scientists Rebel Against Global Warming

By Douglas V. Gibbs

According to World Net Daily 49 former members of NASA, including astronauts, engineers, and scientists, have come to the conclusion that not only is the Global Warming scam a bunch of hooey, but that efforts by top executives of NASA to use the federal agency to promote the hysteria over the global warming lie is wrong.

In a letter to the NASA administrator, these great minds accuse NASA of endangering “the reputation of science itself” by advocating the “extreme” position that carbon dioxide is the major cause of climate change. According to the letter, the agency needs to “refrain from including unproven and unsupported remarks in its future releases” and contend that the claim “that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change” is “not substantiated.”

James Hansen, director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, a division of NASA, stated in an interview with BBC Scotland that averting global warming was a “great moral issue”equivalent to slavery. He called for a worldwide tax on carbon emissions and advocated a ban on the construction of coal-fired power plants.

As evidenced by that statement, radical environmentalism is being used as a mechanism for control, tyrannical control over the population through government regulation.

Ice core samples have proven that carbon increases have historically happened after changes in temperature, showing that global warming does not cause a rise in carbon, but as a natural cycle, rises in temperature causes a rise in carbon. Greenland, which scientists are arguing is melting, used to be green, and in fact was the home of farming villages at one point in history.

Global Warming is caused by increased solar activity, rather than humanity.

If the Earth's climate is changing, it is a natural occurrence.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Rebellion at NASA against Global Warming - World Net Daily

Greenhouse Effect is a Myth, say Scientists - Mail Online

Are U.S. Stealth Fighters in Middle East A Sign America Is Preparing For War With Iran?

By Douglas V. Gibbs

In a surprise show of military presence in the Middle East, the Obama administration has deployed F-22 Raptors at Iran's back door.  The sophisticated stealth fighters are less than 200 miles from Iran's mainland, in the United Arab Emirates. The U.S. Air Force claims the jets in the Middle East are not for the purpose of preparing for war, and that these aircraft haven't even been combat-tested. The deployment, according to officials, is a normal deployment designed to strengthen military relationships, promote sovereign and regional security, improve combined tactical air operations and enhance interoperability of forces.

The exact mission, or how many planes have been deployed, has not been released.

With Iran arming up, with the rhetoric by Iran's leadership, and with suggestions that Israel may be preparing for a strike, one wonders if the military response is hiding the possibility that the aircraft are in the area specifically in case a confrontation between Iran and Israel becomes a reality.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

New US Stealth Fighters Now at Iran's Back Door - Yahoo News

Sunday, April 29, 2012

Baseball Scramble Results in Child Crying In The Stands

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Honestly, I hate stories like this. It shows how fouled up our society has gotten. However, as you read, be reminded that I may not take the angle on this you may expect. . .

The story is that at a Texas Rangers Major League Baseball game a ball was tossed into the stands by Rangers First Baseman Mitch Moreland, and a couple grabbed the ball triumphantly as a little boy next to them, who wanted the ball too, burst into tears over missing out on the ball.  The couple, feeling bad, claims they were not aware of their surroundings, and if they had seen the crying child, they would have given him the ball.  The couple, soon to be married, already has seven children between them, and claim they are sensitive to the feelings of children. They love children, and would never hurt the feelings of a child intentionally.

Yankees broadcaster Michael Kay criticized them throughout the late innings of the Rangers' 7-3 win, describing them as "oblivious." The Internet reaction to the video that went viral Online was that the couple were villains.

How sad. How sad that this kind of crap is going on in our society. Tough, kid, you missed out. Life isn't fair. Quit whining and crying, and work to get a baseball next time. I am tired of our society bending over backwards worried about the precious self-esteem of the children of this nation. As a result of garbage like this, we are creating a society of weak whiners that have no idea how to deal with the harsh realities of life when they become adults.

This situation was a great opportunity for the parents of the child to explain how life works. Sometimes you get the baseball, and sometimes somebody quicker and bigger get it.

The boy did not earn the baseball, for he did not pull off getting it when it was tossed into the stands. Giving it to him because you feel bad he began to drop tears would have reinforced that whiny behavior. Do we really want a society of people that start crying every time they don't get what they want?

Don't give him the ball. Let him learn from this, and become more determined to get a baseball next time by improving his reflexes to give himself a fighting shot, or whatever else he decides to do to give himself a chance. We become successes because of our failures. We learn how to succeed by learning what not to do when we fail. That is life. It may seem harsh, but that is the reality.

If it would have been me in the stands, I would have kept the ball too, and I would not have felt guilty about the crying child next to me. I would have been satisfied that he is learning a valuable lesson in life. . . despite what the democrats want to convince you, there is no fair share, and life isn't fair. Grab the ball, or don't, that is up to you. If at first you don't get the baseball, try, try again. Don't start crying and expect it to be given to you.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Rangers Baseball Couple Tells Its Side Of The Story, Wants An Apology From Michael Kay - Big League Stew, Yahoo Sports

What it means when Obama says, "I Was Not Born Wealthy"

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Whether Mitt Romney was Barack Obama's opponent in the upcoming presidential election, or not, Barry would still say he was not born wealthy. The claim of humble birth and upbringing is key to the Democrat Party's vote buying strategy, as well as the approach they are using in regards to fundamentally changing America. Romney, the son of a former auto executive, and governor of Michigan, having grown up in a very comfortable environment, is just a fantastic coincidence for Obama, and serves as a stark representation of the bourgeois. Obama, having been raised by a not-so-rich family (or so he claims), is representing himself as the candidate for the proletariat.

In Karl Marx's theory of communism, to belong to the bourgeois is to be a member of the property-owning class, and to believe in the hated system of capitalism; to be a proletarian, or a member of the proletariat, is to be a member of the propertyless class, a class of poor lower citizens, the class of industrial wage earners who must grind out a living by selling their labor. Revolution by the proletariat to bring down the bourgeois to make them contribute their fair share to society was the goal, for in a communal system all things must be equitable. Members of the ruling elite were the exception to the equity rule, tasked with the administration of the general will, a will of the people that allegedly only the ruling elite recognize.

In North Carolina Obama reminded the crowd earlier this week that he was not born wealthy, and this came a week after he told folks in Ohio he was not born with a silver spoon in his mouth.  Barry is a millionaire, but says his roots enables him to identify with college students and the families that struggle to make ends meet. He is constantly reminding us that he did not come from a family of means, so he understands the mountains of debt people face, the struggle to exist, the hardship of selling one's labor to survive.

Never mind the fact that Barack Obama has never worked for an honest wage a day in his life.

Why is Obama hammering on this? Why is Obama, who is actually quite wealthy, waging war against those who he says are in the 1%?

It all goes back to the battle between the bourgeois and the proletariat.

His speech in Elyria, Ohio gives us a clue to that fact.  Obama said, “I wasn’t born with a silver spoon in my mouth. Michelle wasn’t. But somebody gave us a chance -- just like these folks up here are looking for a chance.”

Barack Obama has a communitarian view of society. Communitarians hold that wealth is not created, but is finite. They believe when someone succeeds, someone at the bottom loses. He does not believe the pie gets bigger, or that there is enough pie for everyone as long as there are wealthy people around.

People like Obama view success as not being an achievement of the person, but rather a success only possible because of the contributions of the community along the way. They think personal achievement is not what leads to success, but that success is reached because of the helping hands along the way. They believe the wealth must be redistributed back to those that helped.

The Communitarianism Obama believes in is a Marxist idea.

The problem for Barack Obama is everyone does not see it that way. There are too many unique individuals out there that refuse to see government as being very beneficial much at all. Therefore, as with other past authoritarians in history, the democrats believe the youth of the nation must be taught the liberal way, and the best way to do that is to make sure they are all in the liberal public school system and college system for indoctrination.  They congratulate the foot soldiers of their regime, the teachers, for educating tomorrow's leaders, continuously pushing their policies into the schools, from collectivism to radical environmentalism, cramming as much liberal policy into the skulls of the children as they can so that by the time they graduate, they will be good little sheep and support the despotic leftist establishment.

Obama did not win the election in 2008 on his policies, and in fact he hid those inclinations quite well, only revealing them in small ways, or when confronted by people like Joe the Plumber.  He rose to power as a cult of personality. The media created a celebrity status for Barack, and the youth picked it up enthusiastically. Obama became the savior of America. He would bring fairness to the table, lower the rising sea levels, and unite a beleaguered America who had been besieged by the horrible Bush administration and his greedy, warmongering comrades.

In 2012, the messiah song and dance has grown old. The light-being has been revealed to be a fake and a failure, an ignorant charlatan hiding behind a curtain pulling a bunch of levers that do nothing but worsen the situation with a dull light show. The imagery that surrounded Obama's 2008 candidacy has fallen flat, and people have realized that his flash was nothing more than a fizzle, and now we have realized we need someone who knows more than how to organize a community.

The masses don't look up to Obama as some kind of god, anymore, and the liberal left is scrambling to return to that recipe. Michelle Obama recently told a Nashville audience that Obama "has brought us out of the dark and into the light."

From darkness into the light. From the dark founding of this nation by a bunch of rich, white slave owners into the brave new world of collectivism, led by an authoritarian system where the federal government protects us from the big bad bankers, big bad oil speculators, and from ourselves. The government, according to the liberals, will give you free stuff, take care of your health, make sure the smokers don't poison your air, make sure the corporations are properly censored and controlled, make sure through forcing upon you strong environmental and energy regulations that the planet is saved. . . and all you have to do is pledge your undying loyalty to The One, Barack Obama, for without him, we will descend back into a sort of dark age where rich people will plunge you into poverty, corporations will destroy the planet and the economy, and racists will go around shooting as many Trayvon Martins as they can.

America, without Barack Obama, we are being led to believe, is a downright mean country. Capitalism is designed to keep the rich wealthy, and make the poverty-stricken even more poor.

In his 2010 book "The Promise: President Obama, Year One," Jonathan Alter recounts a kind of transfiguration that occurred on Inauguration Day. St. John's Church on Lafayette Square was filled with dignitaries as well as the newly elected President and his family. When Bishop Vashti McKenzie, an advocate of black liberation theology, told everyone to rise, a rabbi in attendance described what he saw when he glanced over at Mr. Obama: A beam of morning light shown [sic] through the stained-glass windows and illuminated the president-elect's face. Several of the clergy and choir on the altar who also saw it marveled afterward about the presence of the Divine.

Barack Obama, the savior of the proletariat.

Judging by the words of Barack Obama, the President hates this nation as it was founded. He believes the Constitution was written in a manner to keep the rich rich, and the poor poor. The practice of only property owners being able to vote in the elections back then is a sign to him that the Founding Fathers were the bourgeois. This nation has been a racist, hell-hole for over 200 years, and as far as Barack is concerned, we have not, as a nation, begun to steer towards the light until the last three years, thanks to him.

Obama is sitting in the White House thinking that America still views him as The Messiah. He believes the opposition has been successfully relegated down to the level of extremists by his propaganda machine. Obama thinks that everyone hates America's founding as much as he does.

He has underestimated the American People.

Obama is a narcissist, and if you're a narcissist, you live in a dream world where you construct your own reality. For the purpose of the illusion, the world created is one without any sense of reality, or common sense. Obama believes everybody feels the same as he does about things. He believes everyone agrees with him when he determines the United States is guilty, racist, sexist, bigoted, and anything else he can come up with. The colonial history of America makes this nation guilty of being a part of the world's imperialistic past, and one that has done all it can to stomp all over the down-trodden, and keep the rich people's pockets full of gold and power.

A small portion of the population does agree with Obama and the democrat party. The enemies of America agree with him, and have infiltrated the institutions they believe they need to use to change this country at its very foundations. Thanks to the progressive liberal left, we are educating and importing communists and Marxists.

We did not begin as a nation teaching communism. We did not prosper promoting the redistribution of wealth. The problem is, if you were a socialist, communist, Marxist, liberal, or whatever you want to call it, you lived in the shadows because everyone knows that such an ideology is everything the founding of this nation wasn't.

They have come out of the shadows, they are fomenting revolution, and they are calling for the proletariat to rise up and proclaim the democrats the national party, and Obama the leader of the brave new America.

Obama believes he is doing good. He is succeeding, as far as he is concerned. He has accomplished a lot, creating division through racism, and economic class warfare, and now he has created a cry by Americans for peace and safety.

And according to Obama, these victories are not nearly as good as what he plans to do when he gets re-elected. As he told former Russian President Medvedev, after the election he'll be even more flexible when it comes to doing what he wants to do.

They are even working on stomping on the First Amendment right of free speech. Nancy Pelosi has indicated that it's time to allow Congress to regulate political speech, especially when it is engaged by corporations.

I suppose these superpacs that have emerged as a result of the Citizens United case has the democrats realizing they may lose the next election, and they are willing to take away free speech from certain groups to ensure they hang on to their power.

Obama is doing exactly what he intended to do, and he won't stop until your liberties are gone forever. In the process of convincing the proletariat to rise up against their bourgeois oppressors, he must convince the dependents upon the federal government that he is one of them, he is one with their fight, that he is not a member of the wealthy class they are fighting.

Then, once the socialist model is fully in place, he aims to be the man at the helm of the brave new America.

Obama is on a mission to fundamentally reform and transform this country. He doesn't like it the way it was founded. That is why he agrees with Reverend Wright, and Barack Obama Sr., and the way the communists  view this country.  Now, he is in a leadership position over the American System he hates so much. And what he is doing is not because he is in over his head, as some in the conservative media make it out to be. The job losses, stalling of economic growth, standing in the way of the Keystone Pipeline, the drilling moratoriums in the Gulf of Mexico and Alaska, the rise of racial violence and the appearance of roving mobs egged on by people like Reverend Sharpton, the nationalization of private industries, and the punishments dealt out without due process against BP, the banks, and the oil speculators - none of what Obama is doing is accidental.

When Obama tells you he was not born wealthy, he is trying to play the people of America, and many want to believe him so bad that they look right past the obvious lie. He is pleased with himself, glad to deceive you, he is a grand manipulator and he is happy to use that gift if that is what it takes to force America to pay for what it has done. He believes this country to be guilty, unjust, immoral and in great need of being put in its place. He is the planner, the judge, jury and executioner. Obama sees himself as doing good, and his victories are the destruction of the system as founded.

Contrary to Obama's belief, you have not completely fallen for his deception. He's walking on thin ice. There is only a small percentage of the population that believes he's doing a good job.

Obama can't win this November on his record, because all that he has done in the eyes of informed voters has been destructive. The problem for Barry is that Obama needs his next four years. He needs his next four years to finish the transformation of America into his socialist model. To do that, he's gotta get elected in 2012.

Since Obama can't win on his record, he has to divide America even more, destroy his opposition, and convince America to hate the Republicans. The democrats plan to use the same playbook they always use, the one they used to convince people to hate Bush, the same playbook Obama used to win his Senate seat, and his State Senate seat. He is going to work to convince America that the Republicans are standing in the way of the progress he is promising, that it is the Republicans that created all of these problems, and if you let the GOP back in charge they will get rid of everything he has accomplished.  The democrats are excited about blaming the Republicans. That is what they do. What is amazing is the republican establishment didn't even see it coming. The GOP is still upset about the conservatives rising in their ranks to even notice what Obama is doing, and it may be possible that a number of the republicans are in on it.

The country is going to hell in a handbasket because of the ideas of the liberal democrats, the American people are upset, and it is all going to come down to how many people are willing to believe Obama's lie about being able to relate to the poor laborers, the people who aren't wealthy, the proletariat.

Obama has accomplished much of what he set out to do. . . divide America, and bring on the class warfare, the battle between the bourgeois, and the the proletariat. . . Revolution.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Obama Again Reminds Voters He and First Lady ‘Didn’t Come From Wealthy Families’ - CNS News

Obama Administration Honors 78 Schools for Educating ‘Tomorrow’s Environmental Leaders’ - CNS News

Obama as Messiah is Getting Really Old - American Thinker

At the Founding of America Only Property Owners Could Vote - Political Pistachio

Obama Hates the White Man - World Net Daily

Pelosi: Amend the First Amendment - CNS News

Pelosi and Democrats Move to Change First Amendment - Tea Party Nation

President Obama Asks Medvedev for Space on Missile Defense - "After My Election I Have More Flexibility - ABC News

Marine Sergeant Gary Stein Other Than Honorable Discharge for Criticizing Obama

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Somebody asked me if Gary Stein's Other-than-Honorable Discharge was too severe of a punishment for a military member expressing a not-so-favorable opinion of the President of the United States on a website created by the service member, and upon which he reveals that he is a member of the United States Marine Corps.


Personally, I think a punishment less than a discharge for career military personnel guilty of this kind of offense may be more appropriate, but if the punishment was handed down by someone even higher than the brass, then it is not something that can be challenged.

As a United States Navy Veteran, I am fully aware of the oath I took when I entered my military service, and the rules and regulations I was expected to follow. Like it or not, Constitutional protections do not factor into a person's military rules of conduct.  Article I, Section 8, Clause 14 in the United States Constitution indicates that Congress shall have the power "To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval forces." No matter how correct Gary Stein's assessment of Barack Obama's presidency was, and no matter how much he feels that every order by The President is an unlawful order because the man in the White House is not eligible to be President of the United States because of the fact that his father was not a citizen of the United States at the time of O'Barry's birth, like it or not Obama is the Commander in Chief, and as military members we are not to espouse political opinions as representatives of the branch of military service we serve in, no matter how correct those opinions may be.

Had Mr. Stein created a Facebook page, or blog, as an individual, without the fact that he is serving in the military attached, then as per the UCMJ, he would be perfectly safe to say anything he wanted about Barack Obama short of something stupid like assassination.

The Constitution does not apply to military personnel, as much as some people would like it to. Nobody has a constitutional right to serve in the military (as the opposition to "don't ask don't tell" falsely claimed), nobody has freedom of speech in the military (ask any recruit during boot camp), and nobody on base has any right to any kind of privacy (inspections kind of kill that whole idea). The purpose of such strict rules and regulations is so that the military forces do not become some mamsy-pamsy group of whiners claiming they have rights to everything. A member enters the military for the purpose of service to the United States that may include confrontation with an enemy. When in a situation where a member is squaring up against the enemy, the last thing anyone needs is hesitation, worries about one's rights, or political disagreements. None of that matters in battle. Training matters. Killing matters. Breaking stuff matters. That is war.

The Uniform Code of Military Justice is the service member's Constitution, and as much as I feel for United States Marine Sergeant Gary Stein, and as much as I believe an other-than-honorable discharge may be a little severe, he broke the rules. He went against the UCMJ. Punishment was handed down, and rather than acting like a victim, he needs to step up and admit he broke the rules.

Yes, it is ridiculous that someone is getting discharged for criticizing Barack Obama, and yes I know that there were cases in which members criticized George W. Bush during his presidency and nothing happened. There is a glaring double standard that exists, I am not denying that. But, the facts are the facts. I may agree with everything Stein had to say about Obama, for the most part, and I feel for him. It has to be very frustrating to serve your country for nearly ten years, plan to stay in uniform until retirement, and then be thrown out for having an opinion about a Marxist that is occupying the White House. The UCMJ, however, has spoken. Stein broke military rules and regulations, and he is paying dearly for his mistake.

Now, however, as a civilian, he can moan and groan about Obama all he wants. He will no longer be a representative of our fine United States Marine Corps. He is becoming the individual he wanted to be.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Marine Sergeant Discharged for Criticizing Obama: Was That Fair? - Christian Science Monitor/Yahoo News

Government Invading Your Rights? Then Protect Your Rights...

"The invasion of private rights is chiefly to be apprehended, not from acts of Government contrary to the sense of its constituents, but from acts in which the Government is the mere instrument of the major number of the Constituents." --James Madison, letter to Thomas Jefferson, 1788

The members of government are the instruments that we as voters put into place. They are in Washington because we put them there. It is our responsibility to put into place good and virtuous leaders. If we don't, then the resulting tyranny is nobody's fault but our own. Vote them out, and replace them with people who will not act in such a way. And that includes who you vote in locally, for if you do not vote into place people who will respect and protect your private rights at the local level, how can you expect any different at the national level?

We like to complain about our political leaders, and we should hold them to high standards, but whose fault is it that the capitol if filled with bureaucrats that march around as if they are members of a ruling elite? Whose fault is it that Washington DC thinks it can run our lives, and is unconstitutionally dictating local issues?

If you don't like it, throw them out, and replace them with the right people.

It can be done. I am an optimist. Remember, that an elephant can be eaten, but it takes time - one bite at a time.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Constitution Study Radio - Myth #25: War Powers

Douglas V Gibbs

Myth #25: The President has to ask Congress for permission to wage war because the Constitution gives the Congress the authority to declare war.

Saturday, April 28, 2012

Founding Truth and the Fate of the Nation

Did you miss Loki and I arguing over the fate of this nation, the Republican Party, and whether or not it is a tossing away of principles to vote for Romney?

That's Okay, we have it on Podcast. . . Founding Truth Radio on BlogTalkRadio

Congressional Candidate Clay Thibodeau on Constitution Radio

CALL IN NUMBER: 888-909-1050

Join us live at 2:00 PM Pacific Time at KCAA 1050 AM in Southern California's Inland Empire for Constitution Radio with Douglas V. Gibbs.

Catch the show Online at Podcasts available on our Podcast Page.

Today's guest is running for the United States Congress in California's 42nd District. Clay Thibodeau is a Constitutionalist that plans, if elected, to work to return the federal government to the limiting principles of the U.S. Constitution.

In the second segment the Book of the Week by Prying1Books and the Question of the Week by Constitution Quest Game will give you the chance to win a free book!

During Constitution Corner I will go after a Harvard Professor that dared to say that the Founding Fathers not only would approve of Obamacare, but that they passed mandates similar to the health care mandate pushed by the Affordable Care Act.

The 5 Big Stories of the Week will be:

5. In Oregon: Protected Bird Must Die to Save Protected Fish

4. Gingrich to Romney: I Quit, and I Endorse You

3. North Korea Threatens South Korea with Annihilation

2. Obama Goes After Oil Speculators

Rachel Maddow's Version

Heritage Foundation's Version

Criminal Charges Filed Against BP

1. U.S. Growth Falls to 2.2%

We will carry over last week's Nuts and Nuggets to this week's show. . .

ADR Radio Hits The Stories of the Week

ADR Radio

Time for the pre-game show for Constitution Radio on the Political Pistachio Radio Network [(KCAA-1050AM (Los Angeles), KCXL-1140AM (Kansas City), and WHTH-790AM (Youngstown, Ohio)]! Hang on every word. . . 

Friday, April 27, 2012

Ben Franklin and the Liberty of the Press

"If by the liberty of the press were understood merely the liberty of discussing the propriety of public measures and political opinions, let us have as much of it as you please: But if it means the liberty of affronting, calumniating and defaming one another, I, for my part, own myself willing to part with my share of it, whenever our legislators shall please so to alter the law and shall chearfully consent to exchange my liberty of abusing others for the privilege of not being abused myself." --Benjamin Franklin, 1789

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

James Madson: Obama's Excess of Power

"As a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights. Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions." --James Madison, National Gazette Essay, 1792

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Obama Wok'd my Dog

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Control of the People of Government

"If, then, the control of the people over the organs of their government be the measure of its republicanism, and I confess I know no other measure, it must be agreed that our governments have much less of republicanism than ought to have been expected; in other words, that the people have less regular control over their agents, than their rights and their interests require." --Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Taylor, 1816

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Axelrod: GOP Controlled by Far Right "Reign of Terror"

Axelrod: GOP Controlled by Far Right 'Reign of Terror'

David Axelrod, senior Obama 2012 strategist, awaits certain rebuke by President Barack Obama today after he violated the guidelines for civil dialogue laid down by the President in the wake of the Gabby Giffords shooting in January 2011 by referring to Republicans as terrorists.

At the ceremony for the victims and survivors in Tucson, President Obama made a new commitment to the nation (emphasis added):

But at a time when our discourse has become so sharply polarized -- at a time when we are far too eager to lay the blame for all that ails the world at the feet of those who think differently than we do -- it's important for us to pause for a moment and make sure that we are talking with each other in a way that heals, not a way that wounds.

(the double standard is incredible)

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Thursday, April 26, 2012

Constitution For a Moral People. . .

"[A] good moral character is the first essential in a man, and that the habits contracted at your age are generally indelible, and your conduct here may stamp your character through life. It is therefore highly important that you should endeavor not only to be learned but virtuous." --George Washington

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Temecula Constitution Class Meets Tonight to Discuss Article V. Convention

Join us tonight at Faith Armory on Enterprise Circle West next to Birth Choice for our weekly meeting at 6:00 pm. Tonight we wrap up Article IV, and discuss Article V., which explains the amendment process, and more importantly, Article V. Convention.

Defending Obamacare, Professor Einer Elhauge of Harvard Law School Reveals His Constitutional Ignorance

By Douglas V. Gibbs

A couple weeks ago The New Republic published an article by Einer Elhauge, a Harvard Law professor, who argues in the piece that Obama's Health Care Law mandate is not only constitutional, but that the founders of this nation backed similar mandates during the early years of this nation. In the article the professor, however, reveals his ignorance of the Constitution by trying to compare apples to oranges and squeezing the Constitution into a little box he has constructed in order to prove the health care agenda is acceptable.  Professor Elhauge's inability to understand the issue of federal jurisdiction as granted by the Constitution is apparent.

Elhauge's argument centers around the nation's ports, where in 1790 Congress passed a law requiring ship owners to buy medical insurance for their seamen. The professor goes on to explain how in 1792, in order to prove his "mandates are constitutional" theory, Congress passed another statute requiring all able-bodied men to buy firearms. Then, in 1798, or so the good professor tells us, Congress returned to the medial insurance realm, and mandated employers to buy medical insurance for seamen that covered drugs and physician services, but not hospital stays. Then, they enacted a federal law requiring the seamen to buy hospital insurance for themselves.

"That’s right," Professor Elhauge triumphantly writes, "Congress enacted an individual mandate requiring the purchase of health insurance. And this act was signed by another founder, President John Adams."

Professor Elhauge then muddles around about the Commerce Clause, and other federal mandates, with a couple of incoherent arguments he thinks his opposition might present, and then argues that the early mandates that required shippers and seamen to buy health insurance didn't even take into account whether or not the people being ordered to buy medical insurance were even considering buying health insurance or even health care, in the first place.

The article wraps up arguing that apparently mandates by the federal government were just fine, and his historical treatises prove it.  History, according to the professor, provides a precedent, and when it comes to those that thinks the interpretation of the Constitution is all about case law, precedent means everything.

I did not spend the time to verify whether or not Professor Elhauge's account of history is accurate, but for the sake of argument let's just assume he's nailed it, and things happened exactly as he portrays in his article. Let's assume that the federal government did indeed mandate medical insurance for seamen, dictated to ship builders they had to provide insurance, and mandated that every able-bodied male must buy a firearm and have that baby locked, loaded, and at the ready. With all of that, like most liberal left ideologues, he misses the whole point.

Before the ratification of the United States Constitution the States held original authority in regards to all powers. There was no central government they had granted any powers to, yet. Sure, the Articles of Confederation established a national government, of sorts, but it had no real powers, and was really nothing more than a loose-knit union not much unlike the one you see in Europe (European Union). After a number of episodes, including Shays' Rebellion, the minds of the time realized that as much as they feared a strong central government, they needed one. As a friend used to tell me, they realized they needed a lion.

Central governments are the root of tyranny, historically speaking. Like a lion, a strong central government can be dangerous. The problem with lions is they will eat you if not properly restrained. The problem with central governments is that they become tyrannies if not properly limited in their authorities. This is where the Constitution comes into play. The U.S. Constitution serves as the cage, restraining the powers of the federal government to only those granted by the States through the Constitution.

One of the purposes of the creation of the federal government, as stated in the Preamble, and the primary purpose in my opinion, was "in order to form a more perfect union."  The union needed a protector, and the federal government was created to provide that protection. The federal government would also be empowered to handle issues that went beyond the States, and affected the union as a whole. These issues, according to the Constitution, range from treaties, to naturalization, the post (mail), the high seas, and even ensuring that commerce flowed in good order whenever the States began to bicker with each other.

In addition to these granted authorities, the federal government was also given, as per Article I, Section 8, Clause 17, the right to exercise exclusive legislation over federal places. This would also give them the right to exercise authority over the persons in those federal places, especially in the case of persons employed by the federal government.

Professor Elhauge's article specifically refers to the health care mandates of early America being directed at seamen and ship owners.  These persons worked at the ports, and for sea going groups such as the merchant marines. The medical facilities these people used were also normally at the ports. Most ships were under the employ of the federal government, and all ports were federal property. There were no private ports back then, and even the States were not in the financial position to own and operate a port. Therefore, because it was just a necessary part of life, the ports were all federal.

If the federal government has full jurisdiction over federal places, like ports, federal personnel, sailors and ship owners who are employed by the federal government, then it would stand to reason they would be well within their authority to mandate health coverage. . . especially when it was for the purpose of treating disabled veterans from the Revolutionary War, and other conflicts.  In fact, I would say that the mandates the good professor is referring to were quite similar to the same mandates we have for our active duty personnel, and the services provided to our veterans through the Veteran's Administration.

To bring things into a more modern view, in the case of the Affordable Care Act, a.k.a. Obamacare, Congress would be well within their constitutional authorities to impose the law on Washington DC, which is a federal district, falling well within the exclusive legislative powers of the United States Congress.

The problem with Obamacare, and the mandate, is not whether or not the federal government can impose mandates in the first place, as the professor seems to be arguing, but whether or not health care laws, and mandates, can be imposed on person's other than those that fall under federal jurisdiction.  There is no place in the Constitution that authorizes the federal government to be involved in health care outside federal places, or to dictate to States what they have to do in regards to that issue. There is nothing in the Constitution that gives the federal government the authority to mandate a person buy something outside of people who are under federal authority, such as sailors.

Ah, but that brings us back to that mandate about firearms, doesn't it.

The militia was a part of the common defense, at that time, and all able-bodied males were members of the unorganized militia. If the mandate Elhauge refers to did in fact exist, I would venture to say that it was necessary at a time when the small population of the United States needed every fighter they could get to stand up to the enemy if invaded.  The concern of the time period, as revealed by the 2nd Amendment, was not that the federal government would force people to be armed, anyway. The concern was that the federal government would try to infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms. A central government that infringes on the right of the people to keep and bear arms is one that desires the people be unable to defend themselves against tyranny. An armed populace, therefore, keeps the government honest by keeping the leaders fearful of the people.

If a people has a right to be armed, they are citizens. If a people loses the right to be armed, they are subjects.

Professor Einer Elhauge only knows that he likes Obamacare, and he is willing to twist history, and the Constitution, any way he can to prove the health care law is legal. But he misses the whole point. The federal government wasn't created to protect us from ourselves, or to dictate to private industries what they can and can't do, nor was it created to provide us with gifts from the treasury like socialized health care. The role of the federal government is to protect, preserve and promote the union, and nothing more. For if the federal government can provide health care, and destroy the health insurance industry in the process, how long before, in the name of keeping us healthy and keeping their costs down, will be be before the federal government begins to mandate what you eat, how often you exercise, what kind of activities you can partake in, how to raise your children, and ultimately whether or not to provide care to save your life based on your value to them and society as a whole?

Tyranny like the Affordable Care Act was exactly what the Constitution was written to protect us against in the first place.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

If Health Insurance Mandates Are Unconstitutional, Why Did the Founding Fathers Back Them? - The New Republic

Obama Appearance on Fallon Violated Campaign Law


. . . President Obama appeared on Jimmy Fallon’s unwatchable show to “slow-jam the news.” By this, Fallon meant that Obama would read a campaign speech about student loans, Fallon would utter a few lines to back him up every so often, and his lead band singer would warble in support of Obama’s propaganda.

Only one problem, aside from the fact that this was possibly the worst “comedy” segment in the history of mankind: it violated campaign finance law.

The equal time rule states that if a licensee permits a person “who is a legally qualified candidate for any public office to use a broadcasting station, he shall afford equal opportunities to all other such candidates for that office in the use of such broadcasting station.”

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Brain Dead Son Saved by Father from Doctors

Dad rescues ‘brain dead’ son from doctors wishing to harvest his organs – boy recovers completely

According to the Daily Mail newspaper, a young British man owes his life to an insistent father who would not allow his son’s organs to be removed from his body, despite assurances from four doctors that his son could not recover from the wounds he had suffered in a recent car accident.

The Mail reports that Stephen Thorpe, then 17, was placed in a medically-induced coma following a multi-car pileup that had already taken the life of his friend Matthew, who was driving the vehicle.

Stephen Thorpe, who four doctors had declared brain dead

Although a team of four physicians insisted that his son was “brain-dead” following the wreck, Thorpe’s father enlisted the help of a general practitioner and a neurologist, who demonstrated that his son still had brain wave activity. The doctors agreed to bring him out of the coma, and five weeks later Thorpe left the hospital, having almost completely recovered.

Today, the 21-year-old with “brain damage” is studying accounting at a local university. “‘My impression is maybe the hospital weren’t very happy that my father wanted a second opinion,” he told the Mail.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Wednesday, April 25, 2012

Egypt Legalizes Necrophilia

Liberated “Democratic” Egypt Legalizing Necrophilia Between Husbands & Dead Wives

Yet another “democratic” reform in Islamic Egypt, yet another reason to back up Barack Obama’s forcing out of Hosni Mubarak: the Muslim fanatics now running the country are enacting a new “farewell intercourse law,” which allows husbands to have sex with their dead wives up to six hours after their deaths. Very convenient: get rid of the wife in an honor killing, then have make-up sex right after, without any resistance. Well, it isn’t really rape if she can’t say no, right? Oh, and girls can now be married off at the new lowered age of 14.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

God's Fingerprint: Fibonacci Sequence

Fascinating video:

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Wild Bill for America: Gun Therapy for Liberals

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Email of the Week: Upside Down Land

Upside-Down Land.......

You know you live in an Upside-down Land if...
A Muslim officer crying "Allah Akbar" while shooting up an army base is considered to have committed "Workplace Violence" while an American citizen boasting a Ron Paul bumper sticker is classified as a "Domestic Terrorist".
You know you live in an Upside-down Land if...
You can get arrested for expired tags on your car but not for being in the country illegally.
You know you live in an Upside-down Land if...
Your government believes that the best way to eradicate trillions of dollars of debt is to spend trillions more of our money.
You know you live in an Upside-down Land if...
A seven year old boy can be thrown out of school for calling his teacher "cute" but hosting a sexual exploration or diversity class in grade school is perfectly acceptable.
You know you live in an Upside-down Land if....
The Supreme Court of the United States can rule that lower courts cannot display the 10 Commandments in their courtroom, while sitting in front of a display of the 10 Commandments.
You know you live in an Upside-down Land if...
Children are forcibly removed from parents who appropriately discipline them while children of "underprivileged" drug addicts are left to rot in filth infested cesspools.
You know you live in an Upside-down Land if...
Working class Americans pay for their own health care (and the health care of everyone else) while unmarried women are free to have child after child on the "State's" dime while never being held responsible for their own choices.
You know you live in an Upside-down Land if...
Hard work and success are rewarded with higher taxes and government intrusion, while slothful, lazy behavior is rewarded with EBT cards, WIC checks, Medicaid and subsidized housing.
You know you live in an Upside-down Land if...
The government's plan for getting people back to work is to provide 99 weeks of unemployment checks (to not work).
You know you live in an Upside-down Land if...
Being self-sufficient is considered a threat to the government.
You know you live in an Upside-down Land if...
Politicians think that stripping away the amendments to the constitution is really protecting the rights of the people.
You know you live in an Upside-down Land if...
The rights of the Government come before the rights of the individual.
You know you live in an Upside-down Land if...
Parents believe the State is responsible for providing for their children.
You know you live in an Upside-down Land if...
You can write a post like this just by reading the news headlines.
You know you live in an Upside-down Land if...
You pay your mortgage faithfully, denying yourself the newest big screen TV while your neighbor defaults on his mortgage (while buying iphones, TV's and new cars) and the government forgives his debt and reduces his mortgage (with your tax dollars).
You know you live in an Upside-down Land if...
Your government can add anything they want to your kid's water (fluoride, chlorine, etc.) but you are not allowed to give them raw milk.
You know you live in an Upside-down Land if...
Being stripped of the ability to defend yourself makes you "safe".
You know you live in an Upside-down Land if...
You have to have your parents signature to go on a school field trip but not to get an abortion.
You know you live in an Upside-down Land if...
An 80 year old woman can be stripped searched by the TSA but a Muslim woman in a burqa is only subject to having her neck and head searched.
You know you live in an Upside-down Land if...
Using the "N" word is considered "hate speech" but writing and signing songs about raping women and killing cops is considered "art".
Unfortunately, this list could go on and on.
Our world has been turned upside-down.
We are in distress. Where do we go from here?
"COWARDICE asks the question - is it Safe?"
"EXPEDIENCY asks the question - is it Politically Correct?"
"VANITY asks the question - is it Popular?"
"But the CONSCIENCE asks the question - is it Right?"
"And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither, Safe, nor Politically Correct, nor Popular, but one must take it, because its RIGHT!!"

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Ronald Reagan on Making a Difference

"Some people wonder all their lives if they made a difference. The Marines don't have that problem." - Ronald Reagan

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

At the Founding of America Only Property Owners Could Vote

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Early American voters were required to be property owners. If a person did not own property, they could not vote. This practice by the founders of this nation is viewed in both a positive and negative light by today's observers. It is argued that such a practice is hardly one that portrays freedom to all people, nor shows that the Founding Fathers believed that all men were created equal.  Since women could not own property, nor could slaves, and most newcomers and the poor could not afford to own property, the practice ensured only the rich, white slave owners were able to vote - however, that is a view of the practice by collectivists, those that view the founding of this nation in a bad light. The real reasons for limiting the voting to property owners are actually very different from the collectivist viewpoint, and in truth, was designed in the way it was in order to preserve liberty, not limit it.

Since there was no direct tax on income, the tax payers were primarily those that paid property taxes. People who owned property were also sometimes business owners, who also paid taxes. People who paid taxes, and those that owned businesses, were directly influenced by the actions of the politicians. Laws influenced their tax payments, business structure, and daily dealings in the financial industry.  Therefore, when it came to politics, those people had "skin in the game," since they were directly influenced by the decisions made by the politicians. As a result, property owners were directly involved, and knowledgeable, with the policies offered by the various candidates, and politicians.

People who did not own property had no concern for a majority of the issues in the political realm, and as a result were often uninformed of the issues, and the various policies of the political leaders. Their votes, if allowed to be offered, would be based on nothing but guessing, limited knowledge, or influence by the popular media of the day.  Politicians were aware of this, and in societies where the propertyless could vote, their votes were won by the politicians offering them gifts from the treasury. The practice of buying votes through entitlements was something the Founding Fathers did not desire to exist in the American System, therefore unless you were directly influenced by a majority of the policies by the politicians because of your ownership status in society, it was better for society that you did not vote.

This election policy did not mean that some people would never have the opportunity to vote in their lifetime. In fact, it provided another encouragement in regards to working hard, succeeding, and reaching the upper echelon of society. Self-reliance, personal responsibility, and the financial success that would accompany such an ethic, in other words, would also result in the benefit of being able to vote.

As time passed, the cry for adhering to the "will of the people", which apparently means "all people", turned the tide, and eventually voting rights became the norm for all persons that had reached the minimum age requirement.  Voting rights for all would be fine if the electorate ensured they remained properly informed, considered all of the issues, and the politicians did not try to take advantage of those that really have no stake in the election. However, as human nature dictates, the propertyless have demanded gifts from the treasury in exchange for their vote, and the politicians have been more than happy to acquiesce.  What we have as a result is a permanent voting block that cares less about the issues, and votes based on who will continue to issue them government checks, food stamps, free health care, and anything else they can get from the government, or as a woman in Detroit, Michigan put it, "Obama's stash."

The practice of providing gifts from the treasury is something that never stops growing, and eventually in society those that take from the system will outnumber the producers. Such a system is not sustainable. As Margaret Thatcher so eloquently put it, "Eventually you run out of other people's money."

I think my point is most clearly articulated by Alexander Tytler in 1787, who said, "A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship."

Alexis de Tocqueville said, "The American Republic will endure, until politicians realize they can bribe the people with their own money."

“When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.” - Benjamin Franklin

"There are two ways to conquer and enslave a country. One is by the sword. The other is by debt." - John Adams

"Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters . . . . . but they mean to be masters." - Noah Webster (1758–1843)

 "Give me control over a nation's currency, and I care not who makes its laws." - Baron Rothschild

"What good fortune for governments that the people do not think." - Adolf Hitler

"The people who cast the votes don't decide an election, the people who count the votes do." - Joseph Stalin

"Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it." - George Bernard Shaw

"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them." - Thomas Jefferson

"Collecting more taxes than is absolutely necessary is legalized robbery." - Calvin Coolidge

 "Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters." - Benjamin Franklin

 "We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle." - Winston Churchill

 "An economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenue to balance the budget, just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits." - John F. Kennedy

"You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the great struggle for independence." - Charles Austin Beard (1874-1948)

"The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter." - Winston Churchill

"A government that is big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take it all away." - Barry Goldwater

“It is freedom itself that still hangs in the balance, and freedom is never more than one generation from extinction.” - Ronald Reagan

and finally:

"The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of 'liberalism,' they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened." - Norman Thomas (US Socialist Presidential Candidate)

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Tuesday, April 24, 2012

Final Class at Murrieta Calvary Chapel

Today we go through the final amendments, and complete our journey through the Constitution at Calvary Chapel Murrieta. We plan to hold the course again. Stay tuned for when that will begin.

Tonight's class begins at 6:00 pm.

Muslim Barbaric Practice of Female Genital Mutilation

Here's an excellent article from the UK's "Daily Mail" for you to take a look at.... a pity it doesn't actually mention the words "Muslim" or "Islam", however it is still extremely helpful to do everything possible to raise public awareness of this utterly disgusting and (at least as far as Islam is concerned) typically barbaric practice:

Daily Mail

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

College Campus Christian Groups Being Forced To Allow Muslim Leaders

Would Muslim Groups Accept Christian Leaders?

Of course not.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Obama the Village Idiot Puppet: Harvard Writings Show Inability to Write

Political puppets must be stupid. Then they follow orders much better. Old classmates of Obama say in High School he did not do too well as far as grades go, and hung out with the socialists and Marxists. . . and now this:

Early Obama Letter Confirms Inability to Write

On November 16, 1990, Barack Obama, then president of the Harvard Law Review, published a letter in the Harvard Law Record, an independent Harvard Law School newspaper, championing affirmative action.

Although a paragraph from this letter was excerpted in David Remnick's biography of Obama, The Bridge, I had not seen the letter in its entirety before this week. Not surprisingly, it confirms everything I know about Barack Obama, the writer and thinker.

Obama was prompted to write by an earlier letter from a Mr. Jim Chen that criticized Harvard Law Review's affirmative action policies. Specifically, Chen had argued that affirmative action stigmatized its presumed beneficiaries.

The response is classic Obama: patronizing, dishonest, syntactically muddled, and grammatically challenged. In the very first sentence Obama leads with his signature failing, one on full display in his earlier published work: his inability to make subject and predicate agree.

"Since the merits of the Law Review's selection policy has been the subject of commentary for the last three issues," wrote Obama, "I'd like to take the time to clarify exactly how our selection process works."

If Obama were as smart as a fifth-grader, he would know, of course, that "merits ... have." Were there such a thing as a literary Darwin Award, Obama could have won it on this on one sentence alone. He had vindicated Chen in his first ten words.

Finish Reading at American Thinker

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Monday, April 23, 2012

North Korea Threatens South Korea with Annihilation

North Korea issues unusually specific threat

North Korea's military vowed a new and unusually specific threat to its neighbors, saying it would reduce South Korea "to ashes" in less than four minutes.

The statement, released Monday when programming was interrupted on North Korea's state TV by a special report, comes amid rising tensions on the Korean peninsula.

Earlier this month, North Korea was unsuccessful in a long-range missile launch, prompting worries that North Korea may conduct another nuclear test. South Korean officials say new satellite images show that North Korea has been digging a tunnel in what appears to be preparation for a third atomic test.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Obama Rewriting History to Hide Truth About Fraudulent Birth Certificate

Wow, once again Obama has allegedly committed fraud. . . 

Obama’s Lawyers Move to Censor Videos of New Jersey Ballot Challenge Hearing, Rewrite History

According to multiple reports, a series of videos from a New Jersey Ballot Challenge Hearing are so damning to Obama that his lawyers are actively trying to get them removed from the internet.

The videos document the recent New Jersey ballot challenge hearing in regards to Barack Obama’s fraudulent birth certificate and his possible ineligibility to appear on the New Jersey presidential ballot.

A report from Conservative News and Views confirmed that attorney Mario Apuzzo has been threatened by Obama’s lawyers for supposedly filming the court hearing. The lawyers went on to claim that they would have it scrubbed from the public domain. (rewriting history)

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

2008 Voter Fraud by Obama Campaign

Will we see that kind of fraud again?

You betcha. That is who these people are. . .

LEAKED STRATFOR EMAILS: Democrats Manipulated The 2008 Election Results

A successful challenge of Obama's wins in Pennsylvania and Ohio would not have overturned his victory but would have tarnished the subsequent celebratory atmosphere.

John McCain's 2008 campaign staff allegedly had evidence that Democrats stuffed ballot boxes in Pennsylvania and Ohio on election night, but McCain chose not to pursue voter fraud, according to internal Stratfor emails published by WikiLeaks.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Obama's Opposition To Keystone Falling Apart

Obama faces Keystone pipeline defeat as Dems defect.

Despite an Obama veto threat, 69 House Dems voted last Wed. to move the pipeline forward by a veto-proof majority, 293 to 127. And, a Senate source says “We’re right around the corner from actually passing it. 293 votes in the House is a gigantic number. People want this thing.” Hey, Barry is a uniter, not a divider, just like he promised! He's uniting all of us against him.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary