By Douglas V. Gibbs
Someone recently challenged me when I said Obama presents himself as being the smartest guy in the room. They asked me to come up with examples. Aside from proclaiming himself the 4th Best President in History, and inserting himself into presidential bios on the White House website, now Obama is claiming he knows more about Judaism than any other President.
Does the arrogance of this jerk know any boundaries?
From Breitbart:
According to the liberal Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz, President Obama met yesterday with “about 20 Conservative Jewish community leaders.” At that meeting, Ha’aretz reports, Obama “stressed he probably knows about Judaism more than any other president, because he read about it.” He also asked why nobody questioned House Speaker John Boehner’s or Senator Mitch McConnell’s support for Israel. “I [am] not going to tell you again how I even feel about Israel, but why [are] we still talking about it?” he complained. He even told these Jewish leaders that “all his friends in Chicago were Jewish – and at the beginning of his political career he was accused of being a puppet of the Israel lobby.”
This is insipid in every respect. To begin at the beginning, Obama clearly does not know the most about Judaism of any president. John Adams knew Hebrew. Harry Truman knew about Jewish history. George W. Bush knew about Jewish principles. In fact, there’s a solid case to be made that Obama knows the least about Israel – at least if his behavior and views on the Middle East are any indicator. He may think he knows about Judaism, but what he really “knows” likely comes from Israel-haters
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Thursday, May 31, 2012
2nd Amendment, Front and Center at Temecula Constitution Class
The Second Amendment does not give you the right to keep and bear arms. The Second Amendment does not protect you against the government taking away your guns. Your rights are given to you by God, and protecting your rights are your responsibility.
In the Washington DC v. Heller case in 2008 the Supreme Court of the United States determined that the right to bear arms is an individual right, as opposed to a collective right which would only allow the bearing of arms for the purpose of participating in government approved groups, such as law enforcement agencies.
The Anti-Federalists feared the creation of a central government because they feared the federal government would become tyrannical, and stomp all over the people’s rights. Therefore, even though the Constitution in the first seven articles did not give the federal government any authority over gun rights, those skeptical over the creation of a central government wanted an amendment that clarified clearly that the federal government had no authority to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.
All powers belonged to the States prior to the writing of the Constitution. The first seven articles did not give to the federal government the authority to regulate firearms, therefore, any legislative power over gun rights is a state power. The 2nd Amendment simply confirms that. The argument then becomes about the tyranny of the States. In other words, if the 2nd Amendment does not apply to the States, what keeps the States from infringing on gun rights?
The State Constitutions, and the people, hold the responsibility of restraining the States from infringing on the right to keep and bear arms. The Founding Fathers were not concerned with a tyranny of the States because the State governments are closer to the people, and therefore the people have a much easier time acting to ensure the State governments do not infringe on individual rights.
The only thing that can put our rights in jeopardy concerning State governments would be if we became so complacent that we stopped taking action to protect our rights.
Once again, with freedom comes responsibility.
The question asked often is, “Why did the Founding Fathers put so much importance on gun rights?”
In early American society the need to be armed was necessary for protecting one’s property, facilitating a natural right of self-defense, participating in law enforcement, enabling people to participate in an organized militia system, deterring a tyrannical government, repelling invasion, suppressing insurrection, and hunting.
The right to keep and bear arms is not merely about protecting your home, or hunting, though those are important too. The primary point of the 2nd Amendment is to protect us against all enemies, foreign and domestic, which could include a potentially oppressive central government.
Noah Webster in his “An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution,” in 1787 said it clearly: “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States."
Some will argue that the 2nd Amendment does not apply to our current society because the militia is a thing of the past.
The National Guard now serves as the organized militia envisioned by the Founding Fathers, but an unorganized militia also exists.
Title 10 of the United States Code provides for both "organized" and "unorganized" civilian militias. While the organized militia is made up of members of the National Guard and Naval Militia, the unorganized militia is composed entirely of private individuals.
United States Code: Title 10 – Armed Forces, Subtitle A – General Military Law
Chapter 13 – The Militia:
Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
Other than age, health, gender, or citizenship, there are no additional provisions for exemption from membership in the unorganized militia. While it is doubtful that it will ever be called to duty, the United States civilian militia does legally exist.
The recent case of McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010), which challenged the City of Chicago’s ban on hand guns, brought to the surface the debate over whether or not the 2nd Amendment only applies to the Federal Government.
The 5-4 Decision of the McDonald v. City of Chicago case by the U.S. Supreme Court holds that the 2nd Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms in all cities and States. The U.S. Supreme Court concluded that originally the 2nd Amendment applied only to the Federal Government, but it is in the opinion of the court that the 14th Amendment incorporates the Bill of Rights, therefore applying those amendments, and more specifically the 2nd Amendment, to the States.
The decision by the Supreme Court, in this case, makes all State laws on fire arms null and void. By applying the 2nd Amendment to the States, that means the Second Amendment is supreme over any and all State laws on firearms. However, studying the language of the Second Amendment carefully, one concludes that would mean all persons are allowed to possess a firearm, for the language of the Second Amendment also makes all federal gun laws null and void. After all, the final words, “shall not be infringed” carries no exceptions.
The reason that the Second Amendment is absolute in its language is specifically because it was intended to only apply to the federal government. The federal government shall not infringe on the right to keep and bear arms in any way, but the States retained the authority to regulate guns as necessary based on the needs and allowances of the local electorate.
The U.S. Constitution applies to the federal government except where specifically noted otherwise.
In reference to McDonald v. Chicago, I am uneasy anytime the federal government tells a city or state what they have to do.
If we give the federal government the right to tell cities they have to allow gun ownership, what stops them from doing the opposite later? This case created a precedent of allowing the federal government to dictate to the states and cities what they have to do, and in that I recognize a great danger to state sovereignty.
----------
Join us tonight in Temecula at Faith Armory gun store (next to Birth Choice) on Enterprise Circle West at 6:00 pm for our discussion on the 2nd Amendment.
I will also discuss at the beginning a little on the discussion on the Constitution I had with Dr. Larry Arnn, and our disagreements on issues like Judicial Review and Nullification.
Conservatives Believe in Community, Just Not Through Government Dictate
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Author, Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host
The liberal left's argument is about as old as they get. Because the right-wing conservative republicans are against entitlement programs including welfare, food stamps, and now Obama's health care law, the liberal left democrats claim the GOP is out to starve the poor, leave the homeless freezing in the cold, and force grandma to have no health care, social security, and for her to resort to eating cat food.
Nothing could be farther from the truth.
Recently, in the Washington Post, liberal commentator E.J. Dionne, Jr. goes so far as to headline one of his articles with, "Conservatives used to care about community. What happened?"
Like the rest of the liberal left community, liberal left progressives have decided to believe their own bullcrap.
Dionne proclaims in the first paragraph that, "Conservatives are no longer allowed to acknowledge that government can improve citizens' lives."
The opening premise allows him to stuff just about anything he wants into his accusation. However, it is no secret that Republicans, or at least the ones that are of the conservative stripe, believe in limited government, and that it is not government's job to improve citizens' lives, or at least in the manner that Mr. Dionne is implying. Freedom hinges on our ability to pursue our own happiness, through hard work, self-reliance, and individual decision making. That is not to say that conservatives don't believe in fostering community. Conservatives just believe that fostering community is done through individualism, and the voluntary decision to participate in civic activities. When government does it, instead of individuals based on their own voluntary decisions, it stops being about community and becomes about buying votes through what politicians can offer through entitlements, and authoritarian control by the central system of governance.
Mr. Dionne goes on to say, "Today's conservatism is about low taxes, fewer regulations, less government - and little else."
Hasn't that always been the primary emphasis of the GOP platform?
Dionne's accusations go further, listing a number of republicans whose seats are in danger because of not-so-conservative actions in office.
What does the democrats think of their own that dare to be pro-life? Or pro-marriage? How about those gun-toting democrats? Aren't they reprimanded for daring to challenge the liberal mindset? Besides, it is not that the voters are abandoning community, or are ready to chuck their representatives because those rats dared to collaborate with some democrats. Conservative GOP voters have realized that republicans that have bought into the establishment way of doing things, and shun the Constitution as evidenced by their actions and voting record, are a part of the problem. The failure of the federal government, and the rise of draconian policies, are not just because of the democrats that are in place, but because of the establishment republicans that refuse to adhere to their claimed conservative principles. Since they refuse to represent the people as the people wish, their seats are in danger. That is how a republic works.
Unlike Mr. Dionne's warped opinion that America's prosperity comes from the government as much as from the private sector, the fact is capitalism and freedom from governmental regulations and intrusion is what made this nation strong over the last two centuries. Individual accomplishments, successes, and the creation of wealth promotes the community. The successful person becomes more involved in his community, creates jobs as his business thrives, and provides goods for the community. By putting the individual first, the community ultimately benefits. When community is placed higher than the individual, and government tries to dictate to communities through measures of control, the community breaks down and fails, and ultimately the individuals become slaves to The State.
The importance of individual groups to the community, like family units, corporations, and in the long run the individual states, is not a sign of communitarianism, but also a salute to individualism. Those "communal units," as Mr. Dionne calls them, succeed when they act on a voluntary, individual basis.
The Washington Post's commentator is right in the fact that Americans do have a healthy tension between individualism and community, but through the individual decision to contribute to their community, not through governmental dictates. Government is not supposed to be charity, and it is not supposed to replace the churches as the hubs of community involvement. Liberty does in fact include a responsibility to community, but once again, as a voluntary and individual decision, without the direct influence of government.
When government compels an individual to give to their community through national community organizations, or by the redistribution of wealth, that is not liberty. That is tyranny through government dictate.
Further down the article Dionne begins to really show his ignorance for history, and the Constitution, bringing up the Marine Hospital Service system of 1798, and then calling John Adams a great conservative President.
The "socialized medicine" he is referring to was more like the Veterans Administration, and less like Obamacare, than Mr. Dionne realizes. The Ports were federally owned, and the people placed in that "AdamsCare" were federal employees. As for Adams being conservative, Dionne's wrong there, too. He was a federalist, though Adams was admittedly a moderate member of the Federalist Party, and the federalists overall desired bigger government. The people, however, did not agree with the Federalist Party's idea of an ever-expanding federal government, and that is why the party faded away during the 1820s.
President Taft, also called a conservative by Mr. Dionne, is heralded in the author's article as being the man behind a federal housing program. In reality, Taft was a fiscal conservative, but not so conservative on everything else. And regardless of if he was a Republican or a Democrat, a federally funded housing program is still unconstitutional. Just because some Republican in history decided to support such a program it doesn't mean that he represents the platform of conservatism as Mr. Dionne implies.
Mr. Dionne's examples then brings up Eisenhower's creation of the interstate highway system, and the federal student loan programs, in the 1950s. Again, just because Eisenhower was a republican, it does not mean that everything he did was conservative. In the case of the interstate highway system, which is a State responsibility, not a federal one, Eisenhower actually did exactly what James Madison refused to do in 1817. The Federal Public Works bill of 1817 was vetoed by Madison because it was unconstitutional, and the Congress made the same arguments in their bill in 1817 as did the Congress to Eisenhower in the 50s. The difference is that Eisenhower did not have the same understanding of the original intent of the Constitution as Madison did, and erroneously signed an unconstitutional bill into law.
In the article Mr. Dionne misrepresents Ronald Reagan's humor regarding taxes drastically, and also misrepresents Reagan's view of community, as well. Of course Reagan promoted community, with people working together, tidy neighborhoods, and the importance of the centrality of families and neighborhoods. All of those things are important, but they ought to be achieved without governmental interference. Refusing to allow government intrusion does not make Conservatives anti-community, but instead makes them people who understands the limiting principles of the Constitution, and the importance that community is something that is fostered by individuals on a voluntary basis, not by an overly intrusive government.
Mr. Dionne including George W. Bush in his article was the richest of all. I agree, Bush 43 was not a conservative when it came to his domestic policies, therefore by Dionne using Dubya's presidency as an example of conservatism shows us that the writer has no clue what conservatism is truly about. Bush's No Child Left Behind law, and the prescription drug benefit, were examples of Bush's progressive nature on domestic issues. I don't care how often the man called himself a "compassionate conservative." Actions speak louder than words, and those actions by Bush were anything but conservative.
Government, unlike what the liberal leftists like Mr. Dionne believes, is not supposed to possess the role of serving the common good. That is our responsibility. The federal government is there to promote the General Welfare by protecting the union from foreign enemies, ensuring the union remains united by acting as a mediator in disputes between the States, and making laws that promote and preserve the union pursuant of the Constitution - and nothing else.
Mr. Dionne goes on to blame today's difficult political environment on the conservatives being unwilling to play ball. The problem, my dear Mr. Dionne, is actually coming from the democrats. They have moved so far to the left that the conservative voters are sincerely afraid. We are watching this President use executive orders to bypass Congress, and pass draconian laws like Obamacare designed to enlarge the federal government's authoritarian control over the populace. The voters believe that if we don't stop this socialist madness, we will lose our country. Conservatives are not being partisan and anti-community. They are afraid that this nation as founded is slipping through their fingers, and believe the way to get it turned around is to resort to what worked originally to make us the great and prosperous nation we are. Those principles are present in the pages of the Constitution, and include limited government, low taxation (and in reality an absence of direct taxation), low government spending that only follows Constitutional guidelines and can be paid back by the present generation, and community through individual successes and voluntary choices. That is the America they remember, and the community we are trying to return to.
Mr. Dionne can throw around as many scare tactics, misrepresentations, and allude to people like McCarthy all he wants, but in the end, it comes down to the facts, and he has those all fouled up.
Community is an individual endeavor, not a governmental mandate, and the sooner people like E.J. Dionne realizes that, the sooner we can get back to the United States as it was founded, and not one built in the progressive image that the Founding Fathers would have never desired.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Conservatives used to care about community. What happened? - Washington Post
James Madison's Veto of Federal Public Works Bill, 1817 - Constitution.org
Defending Obamacare, Professor Einer Elhauge of Harvard Law School Reveals His Constitutional Ignorance - Political Pistachio
Author, Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host
The liberal left's argument is about as old as they get. Because the right-wing conservative republicans are against entitlement programs including welfare, food stamps, and now Obama's health care law, the liberal left democrats claim the GOP is out to starve the poor, leave the homeless freezing in the cold, and force grandma to have no health care, social security, and for her to resort to eating cat food.
Nothing could be farther from the truth.
Recently, in the Washington Post, liberal commentator E.J. Dionne, Jr. goes so far as to headline one of his articles with, "Conservatives used to care about community. What happened?"
Like the rest of the liberal left community, liberal left progressives have decided to believe their own bullcrap.
Dionne proclaims in the first paragraph that, "Conservatives are no longer allowed to acknowledge that government can improve citizens' lives."
The opening premise allows him to stuff just about anything he wants into his accusation. However, it is no secret that Republicans, or at least the ones that are of the conservative stripe, believe in limited government, and that it is not government's job to improve citizens' lives, or at least in the manner that Mr. Dionne is implying. Freedom hinges on our ability to pursue our own happiness, through hard work, self-reliance, and individual decision making. That is not to say that conservatives don't believe in fostering community. Conservatives just believe that fostering community is done through individualism, and the voluntary decision to participate in civic activities. When government does it, instead of individuals based on their own voluntary decisions, it stops being about community and becomes about buying votes through what politicians can offer through entitlements, and authoritarian control by the central system of governance.
Mr. Dionne goes on to say, "Today's conservatism is about low taxes, fewer regulations, less government - and little else."
Hasn't that always been the primary emphasis of the GOP platform?
Dionne's accusations go further, listing a number of republicans whose seats are in danger because of not-so-conservative actions in office.
What does the democrats think of their own that dare to be pro-life? Or pro-marriage? How about those gun-toting democrats? Aren't they reprimanded for daring to challenge the liberal mindset? Besides, it is not that the voters are abandoning community, or are ready to chuck their representatives because those rats dared to collaborate with some democrats. Conservative GOP voters have realized that republicans that have bought into the establishment way of doing things, and shun the Constitution as evidenced by their actions and voting record, are a part of the problem. The failure of the federal government, and the rise of draconian policies, are not just because of the democrats that are in place, but because of the establishment republicans that refuse to adhere to their claimed conservative principles. Since they refuse to represent the people as the people wish, their seats are in danger. That is how a republic works.
Unlike Mr. Dionne's warped opinion that America's prosperity comes from the government as much as from the private sector, the fact is capitalism and freedom from governmental regulations and intrusion is what made this nation strong over the last two centuries. Individual accomplishments, successes, and the creation of wealth promotes the community. The successful person becomes more involved in his community, creates jobs as his business thrives, and provides goods for the community. By putting the individual first, the community ultimately benefits. When community is placed higher than the individual, and government tries to dictate to communities through measures of control, the community breaks down and fails, and ultimately the individuals become slaves to The State.
The importance of individual groups to the community, like family units, corporations, and in the long run the individual states, is not a sign of communitarianism, but also a salute to individualism. Those "communal units," as Mr. Dionne calls them, succeed when they act on a voluntary, individual basis.
The Washington Post's commentator is right in the fact that Americans do have a healthy tension between individualism and community, but through the individual decision to contribute to their community, not through governmental dictates. Government is not supposed to be charity, and it is not supposed to replace the churches as the hubs of community involvement. Liberty does in fact include a responsibility to community, but once again, as a voluntary and individual decision, without the direct influence of government.
When government compels an individual to give to their community through national community organizations, or by the redistribution of wealth, that is not liberty. That is tyranny through government dictate.
Further down the article Dionne begins to really show his ignorance for history, and the Constitution, bringing up the Marine Hospital Service system of 1798, and then calling John Adams a great conservative President.
The "socialized medicine" he is referring to was more like the Veterans Administration, and less like Obamacare, than Mr. Dionne realizes. The Ports were federally owned, and the people placed in that "AdamsCare" were federal employees. As for Adams being conservative, Dionne's wrong there, too. He was a federalist, though Adams was admittedly a moderate member of the Federalist Party, and the federalists overall desired bigger government. The people, however, did not agree with the Federalist Party's idea of an ever-expanding federal government, and that is why the party faded away during the 1820s.
President Taft, also called a conservative by Mr. Dionne, is heralded in the author's article as being the man behind a federal housing program. In reality, Taft was a fiscal conservative, but not so conservative on everything else. And regardless of if he was a Republican or a Democrat, a federally funded housing program is still unconstitutional. Just because some Republican in history decided to support such a program it doesn't mean that he represents the platform of conservatism as Mr. Dionne implies.
Mr. Dionne's examples then brings up Eisenhower's creation of the interstate highway system, and the federal student loan programs, in the 1950s. Again, just because Eisenhower was a republican, it does not mean that everything he did was conservative. In the case of the interstate highway system, which is a State responsibility, not a federal one, Eisenhower actually did exactly what James Madison refused to do in 1817. The Federal Public Works bill of 1817 was vetoed by Madison because it was unconstitutional, and the Congress made the same arguments in their bill in 1817 as did the Congress to Eisenhower in the 50s. The difference is that Eisenhower did not have the same understanding of the original intent of the Constitution as Madison did, and erroneously signed an unconstitutional bill into law.
In the article Mr. Dionne misrepresents Ronald Reagan's humor regarding taxes drastically, and also misrepresents Reagan's view of community, as well. Of course Reagan promoted community, with people working together, tidy neighborhoods, and the importance of the centrality of families and neighborhoods. All of those things are important, but they ought to be achieved without governmental interference. Refusing to allow government intrusion does not make Conservatives anti-community, but instead makes them people who understands the limiting principles of the Constitution, and the importance that community is something that is fostered by individuals on a voluntary basis, not by an overly intrusive government.
Mr. Dionne including George W. Bush in his article was the richest of all. I agree, Bush 43 was not a conservative when it came to his domestic policies, therefore by Dionne using Dubya's presidency as an example of conservatism shows us that the writer has no clue what conservatism is truly about. Bush's No Child Left Behind law, and the prescription drug benefit, were examples of Bush's progressive nature on domestic issues. I don't care how often the man called himself a "compassionate conservative." Actions speak louder than words, and those actions by Bush were anything but conservative.
Government, unlike what the liberal leftists like Mr. Dionne believes, is not supposed to possess the role of serving the common good. That is our responsibility. The federal government is there to promote the General Welfare by protecting the union from foreign enemies, ensuring the union remains united by acting as a mediator in disputes between the States, and making laws that promote and preserve the union pursuant of the Constitution - and nothing else.
Mr. Dionne goes on to blame today's difficult political environment on the conservatives being unwilling to play ball. The problem, my dear Mr. Dionne, is actually coming from the democrats. They have moved so far to the left that the conservative voters are sincerely afraid. We are watching this President use executive orders to bypass Congress, and pass draconian laws like Obamacare designed to enlarge the federal government's authoritarian control over the populace. The voters believe that if we don't stop this socialist madness, we will lose our country. Conservatives are not being partisan and anti-community. They are afraid that this nation as founded is slipping through their fingers, and believe the way to get it turned around is to resort to what worked originally to make us the great and prosperous nation we are. Those principles are present in the pages of the Constitution, and include limited government, low taxation (and in reality an absence of direct taxation), low government spending that only follows Constitutional guidelines and can be paid back by the present generation, and community through individual successes and voluntary choices. That is the America they remember, and the community we are trying to return to.
Mr. Dionne can throw around as many scare tactics, misrepresentations, and allude to people like McCarthy all he wants, but in the end, it comes down to the facts, and he has those all fouled up.
Community is an individual endeavor, not a governmental mandate, and the sooner people like E.J. Dionne realizes that, the sooner we can get back to the United States as it was founded, and not one built in the progressive image that the Founding Fathers would have never desired.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Conservatives used to care about community. What happened? - Washington Post
James Madison's Veto of Federal Public Works Bill, 1817 - Constitution.org
Defending Obamacare, Professor Einer Elhauge of Harvard Law School Reveals His Constitutional Ignorance - Political Pistachio
PetroPlus: The Soros, Obama, ACORN Connection
Read About PetroPlus's bankruptcy at Zero Hedge
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Collapse Christianity
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Islamism and the liberal left get along better than they should. Liberalism supports militant feminism, while Islam treats women worst than slaves. Liberalism supports the homosexual lifestyle, treating gays as if they are members of a minority group. Islam hangs gays from nooses, beheads them, and worse. Liberalism demands that all remnants of religion be removed from government, and the public square. Islam combines religion and government into a theocratic authoritarian system that includes encouraging their followers to kill in the name of the ideology for the sake of salvation. So, why is it, with these drastic differences, do Muslims in America tend to be democrats, and the liberals bend over backwards to appease Islam when these two groups share almost no common ground, and if anything, reside on the extreme opposing ends of most issues?
Among the answers is the fact that Islam and liberalism have common enemies. Among those enemies, at the top of the list, is Christianity. Both ideologies, in their quest to rise to the level of ruling elite, hate the Christian Faith, and they are both working to collapse Christianity.
Islam and the secular liberal left both think they may have something. . .
In the case of secularism, the Theory of Evolution, they believe, is their saving grace. One scientist has predicted that the answers are on the horizon, and the debate over evolution will be over soon enough.
The thing is, these knuckle-heads have been saying this regularly over the last hundred years.
Do we adapt? I suppose a little, but not enough to change a species into another one. Doesn't that idea fly in the face of the "like begets like" law of nature?
Besides, until the evolutionists can come up with a definitive answer about how it all began, and they won't without including intelligent design by God, their arguments fall flat.
Islam would rather rely on age-old propaganda by the gnostics and the Muslims' own village idiots to try to silence Christianity. Islam's latest claim is an old one, and has been proven as fake over and over and over. In the case of their current example, The Gospel of Barnabas, the likely writer is a Spanish Muslim from the Middle Ages.
Centuries after the Gospels were written (the Gospels, many argue, were completed by A.D. 60), a Pagan-like group called Gnostics decided to write books challenging Christianity. Their propaganda included claims that Jesus never died on the cross, had offspring, and so forth. Writer Dan Brown made the silly renditions of the Story of Christ famous with his book, The Da Vinci Code." Their books inspired copy-cats, and before long a whole group of non-Christian gospels claiming to be of Christian origin emerged.
The Gospel of Barnabas has been embraced by the Muslims, with a claim that the book even foretells the emergence of Mohammad. The book uses strong language to denounce the teachings of Apostle Paul, in a sense trying to nullify nearly all of the New Testament. Among the flaws of the book is that the Apostle Barnabas received that name only after the ascension of Jesus because of the generous act he had done which had heartened the spirits of the early Christians. The Gospel of Barnabas has Jesus call him by this name some three years before he ascended to heaven.
The writing of Barnabas does not even date back to before the time of Muhammad, much less shortly after the death of Christ. According to experts, the Gospel of Barnabas dates at least seven hundred years after the time of Muhammad and it is in the circumstances of no historical value at all. The book is a clear forgery, but because of their hate for Christianity, the Muslim World will probably remain blind to that fact.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Scientist: Evolution debate will soon be history - Yahoo News
Gospel of Barnabas Will Cause Christianity's Collapse, Iran Claims - U.K. Mail Online
Origins and Sources of the Gospel of Barnabas - John Gilchrist
Islamism and the liberal left get along better than they should. Liberalism supports militant feminism, while Islam treats women worst than slaves. Liberalism supports the homosexual lifestyle, treating gays as if they are members of a minority group. Islam hangs gays from nooses, beheads them, and worse. Liberalism demands that all remnants of religion be removed from government, and the public square. Islam combines religion and government into a theocratic authoritarian system that includes encouraging their followers to kill in the name of the ideology for the sake of salvation. So, why is it, with these drastic differences, do Muslims in America tend to be democrats, and the liberals bend over backwards to appease Islam when these two groups share almost no common ground, and if anything, reside on the extreme opposing ends of most issues?
Among the answers is the fact that Islam and liberalism have common enemies. Among those enemies, at the top of the list, is Christianity. Both ideologies, in their quest to rise to the level of ruling elite, hate the Christian Faith, and they are both working to collapse Christianity.
Islam and the secular liberal left both think they may have something. . .
In the case of secularism, the Theory of Evolution, they believe, is their saving grace. One scientist has predicted that the answers are on the horizon, and the debate over evolution will be over soon enough.
The thing is, these knuckle-heads have been saying this regularly over the last hundred years.
Do we adapt? I suppose a little, but not enough to change a species into another one. Doesn't that idea fly in the face of the "like begets like" law of nature?
Besides, until the evolutionists can come up with a definitive answer about how it all began, and they won't without including intelligent design by God, their arguments fall flat.
Islam would rather rely on age-old propaganda by the gnostics and the Muslims' own village idiots to try to silence Christianity. Islam's latest claim is an old one, and has been proven as fake over and over and over. In the case of their current example, The Gospel of Barnabas, the likely writer is a Spanish Muslim from the Middle Ages.
Centuries after the Gospels were written (the Gospels, many argue, were completed by A.D. 60), a Pagan-like group called Gnostics decided to write books challenging Christianity. Their propaganda included claims that Jesus never died on the cross, had offspring, and so forth. Writer Dan Brown made the silly renditions of the Story of Christ famous with his book, The Da Vinci Code." Their books inspired copy-cats, and before long a whole group of non-Christian gospels claiming to be of Christian origin emerged.
The Gospel of Barnabas has been embraced by the Muslims, with a claim that the book even foretells the emergence of Mohammad. The book uses strong language to denounce the teachings of Apostle Paul, in a sense trying to nullify nearly all of the New Testament. Among the flaws of the book is that the Apostle Barnabas received that name only after the ascension of Jesus because of the generous act he had done which had heartened the spirits of the early Christians. The Gospel of Barnabas has Jesus call him by this name some three years before he ascended to heaven.
The writing of Barnabas does not even date back to before the time of Muhammad, much less shortly after the death of Christ. According to experts, the Gospel of Barnabas dates at least seven hundred years after the time of Muhammad and it is in the circumstances of no historical value at all. The book is a clear forgery, but because of their hate for Christianity, the Muslim World will probably remain blind to that fact.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Scientist: Evolution debate will soon be history - Yahoo News
Gospel of Barnabas Will Cause Christianity's Collapse, Iran Claims - U.K. Mail Online
Origins and Sources of the Gospel of Barnabas - John Gilchrist
Wednesday, May 30, 2012
Culture of the Washington Establishment: Unanimous Consent
According to Senator DeMint, 90% of bills that are passed into law don't even get debated. Passing bills without a roll call vote is called Unanimous Consent, and is a practice that flies in the face of the Founding Fathers.
The importance of debate to the Founders was made evident by the very nature of the Constitutional Convention, and the State ratifying conventions. The purpose of the system as founded included debate. Arguing the merits of these bills is important. Debate in Congress is what separates us from authoritarian systems where the legislatures are rubber stamps for the executive. The roll call vote, with debate, is one of the things that makes us exceptional, and is an important part of the checks and balances designed into our governmental system.
Obama, when Congress doesn't come to an agreement, claims it is proof that Congress is broken. The Founding Fathers see partisan battles and debates in the Houses of Congress as our government working exactly as designed. Dictatorships are efficient. Republics are a slow grind. . . for a reason.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Showdown in Drive-Thru
By Douglas V. Gibbs
I am not a big fast-food connoisseur, but occasionally I will grab something from the junk food menu. I do have fast-food I prefer if I do go for it, preferring places that are Southern California products, like In-N-Out Burger, Miguel's Jr., and Wahoo's Fish Taco. More rarely, I will go to Taco Bell, McDonald's, Subway, Jack in the Box, or Arby's. Burger King, Del Taco, Wendy's and El Pollo Loco even more rarely. I can't stand KFC (so my wife eats alone when he has a craving for fried chicken).
Anyway, one thing I do like at McDonald's quite a bit is their Mango/Pineapple smoothie. I find myself grabbing one of those at least once every week or two. Today, after picking up my truck from the Smog Test shop, I had a hankering for one of those smoothies, and pulled into the Drive-Thru.
I was third in line, but the line behind me grew rapidly, growing down the driveway and around the corner into the parking lot. I could tell, after the mega-order that took forever from the vehicle in front of me, that the person on the speaker was a little flustered.
"Can I take your order?"
I was figuring she'd be thrilled with my simple, one item, order.
"A large, Mango/Pineapple smoothie, please. Oh, and I have a coupon for a dollar off."
"I'll have your total at the window."
The woman with the huge order had paid and was waiting for her monster-order when I pulled up to the first window. I gave the young woman the coupon, and then began fishing for change from my coin holder as I waited for the final verdict on the damage.
After studying the coupon, the woman in the window said, "You have to get a medium or a large with this coupon."
I remembered saying "large" when I ordered. I never order any other size of the smoothie. Perhaps she didn't hear me since it was among the first words of my order.
"I asked for a large."
"No you didn't," she replied. "I have you down for a small."
Perplexed, I was silent a moment. Before I could repeat that I know I had asked for a large, the woman said, "So, which will it be? Medium, or large?"
"I asked for a large," I repeated.
Then the young woman really surprised me. "I didn't ask you what you asked for. I asked you what you want."
McDonald's has been on my black list for a while. I check every order at the window because they are notorious for leaving things out. One store got so bad that I have stopped going to it. The final straw was when I had bought 12 burgers, got home, and not a single one had a patty of meat in it.
One time I was at a McDonald's near a construction job I was on, and as me and the guys sat down after getting our order I noticed that instead of giving me a double cheeseburger meal, the guy had given me the two cheeseburger meal. When I confronted him about it, he told me I said two cheeseburgers, and I didn't get my proper order until going to a manager.
This woman, however, was taking McDonald's bad record with me to the limit. However, being the usually pretty calm person I am, I replied, "I asked for a large originally, and since then it hasn't changed."
She came up with the total, I gave her the money, and as she handed me the receipt, she added, "See? That wasn't so hard, was it?"
I know that us older folks are sort of like the ones before us, and the ones before them, in the sense that we have doubts about the next generation just as those before us did. But the rudeness of this generation is really out of control. I can't count how many times I have seen people throw both arms out the window to flip another person off with both hands, fights at intersections over someone looking at someone wrong, I have seen people throw bottles of Sobe at each other at a gas station, and once a person lowered his shoulder into me as he passed me at a Wal-Mart. When I said something, he flipped me off, laughed, and walked away.
At what point does the next generation get so bad that something needs to be said?
I understand that this is not indicative off all members of the younger generation. Thank God there are those that aren't a bunch of arrogant, narcissistic punks. Every once in a while a younger person will call me Sir, or show that they understand the concept of respecting one's elders, or even respect itself beyond the surface claim of respect by their generation. I am not generally lumping all young folks into the mix of jerks, but it seems that the jerks of this generation out number those that aren't, and the lengths the jerks are willing to go to be jerks has worsened.
As I pulled around the woman with the big order was waiting for the rest of her order in one of those "wait here for your food" spaces. I parked my car and walked into the restaurant.
I asked for the manager. I didn't want to jeopardize anyone's job, but this kind of treatment of customers is not good for the store, or for the company as a whole. Perhaps the person was reprimanded, perhaps they have a long record of acting this way and it hurt her chances for promotion or keeping her job. Maybe, though I hope this is not the case, they shrugged it off or laughed it off as the rantings of a ridiculous old guy.
I wonder.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
I am not a big fast-food connoisseur, but occasionally I will grab something from the junk food menu. I do have fast-food I prefer if I do go for it, preferring places that are Southern California products, like In-N-Out Burger, Miguel's Jr., and Wahoo's Fish Taco. More rarely, I will go to Taco Bell, McDonald's, Subway, Jack in the Box, or Arby's. Burger King, Del Taco, Wendy's and El Pollo Loco even more rarely. I can't stand KFC (so my wife eats alone when he has a craving for fried chicken).
Anyway, one thing I do like at McDonald's quite a bit is their Mango/Pineapple smoothie. I find myself grabbing one of those at least once every week or two. Today, after picking up my truck from the Smog Test shop, I had a hankering for one of those smoothies, and pulled into the Drive-Thru.
I was third in line, but the line behind me grew rapidly, growing down the driveway and around the corner into the parking lot. I could tell, after the mega-order that took forever from the vehicle in front of me, that the person on the speaker was a little flustered.
"Can I take your order?"
I was figuring she'd be thrilled with my simple, one item, order.
"A large, Mango/Pineapple smoothie, please. Oh, and I have a coupon for a dollar off."
"I'll have your total at the window."
The woman with the huge order had paid and was waiting for her monster-order when I pulled up to the first window. I gave the young woman the coupon, and then began fishing for change from my coin holder as I waited for the final verdict on the damage.
After studying the coupon, the woman in the window said, "You have to get a medium or a large with this coupon."
I remembered saying "large" when I ordered. I never order any other size of the smoothie. Perhaps she didn't hear me since it was among the first words of my order.
"I asked for a large."
"No you didn't," she replied. "I have you down for a small."
Perplexed, I was silent a moment. Before I could repeat that I know I had asked for a large, the woman said, "So, which will it be? Medium, or large?"
"I asked for a large," I repeated.
Then the young woman really surprised me. "I didn't ask you what you asked for. I asked you what you want."
McDonald's has been on my black list for a while. I check every order at the window because they are notorious for leaving things out. One store got so bad that I have stopped going to it. The final straw was when I had bought 12 burgers, got home, and not a single one had a patty of meat in it.
One time I was at a McDonald's near a construction job I was on, and as me and the guys sat down after getting our order I noticed that instead of giving me a double cheeseburger meal, the guy had given me the two cheeseburger meal. When I confronted him about it, he told me I said two cheeseburgers, and I didn't get my proper order until going to a manager.
This woman, however, was taking McDonald's bad record with me to the limit. However, being the usually pretty calm person I am, I replied, "I asked for a large originally, and since then it hasn't changed."
She came up with the total, I gave her the money, and as she handed me the receipt, she added, "See? That wasn't so hard, was it?"
I know that us older folks are sort of like the ones before us, and the ones before them, in the sense that we have doubts about the next generation just as those before us did. But the rudeness of this generation is really out of control. I can't count how many times I have seen people throw both arms out the window to flip another person off with both hands, fights at intersections over someone looking at someone wrong, I have seen people throw bottles of Sobe at each other at a gas station, and once a person lowered his shoulder into me as he passed me at a Wal-Mart. When I said something, he flipped me off, laughed, and walked away.
At what point does the next generation get so bad that something needs to be said?
I understand that this is not indicative off all members of the younger generation. Thank God there are those that aren't a bunch of arrogant, narcissistic punks. Every once in a while a younger person will call me Sir, or show that they understand the concept of respecting one's elders, or even respect itself beyond the surface claim of respect by their generation. I am not generally lumping all young folks into the mix of jerks, but it seems that the jerks of this generation out number those that aren't, and the lengths the jerks are willing to go to be jerks has worsened.
As I pulled around the woman with the big order was waiting for the rest of her order in one of those "wait here for your food" spaces. I parked my car and walked into the restaurant.
I asked for the manager. I didn't want to jeopardize anyone's job, but this kind of treatment of customers is not good for the store, or for the company as a whole. Perhaps the person was reprimanded, perhaps they have a long record of acting this way and it hurt her chances for promotion or keeping her job. Maybe, though I hope this is not the case, they shrugged it off or laughed it off as the rantings of a ridiculous old guy.
I wonder.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Dumbing Down of America Exposed in Florida Schools
By Douglas V. Gibbs
It has been no secret that we are having an educational crisis in the United States. Public schools are doing worse and worse, unable to compete with private schools, homeschooled children, and for that matter the rest of the world. Some suggest that this is on purpose. By dumbing down our children we are preparing the future generations for more easily accepting authoritarian control by leftist systems of governance.
We are raising young people in our public schools that are illiterate. We are cramming them with bad information from experimental teaching techniques, political correctness, and liberal philosophies so that they will be good, obedient citizens. Informed voters think for themselves, and seek freedom. A dumbed down population is always eager to depend on the government overlords. Mind-numbed followers don't ask questions.
History is our students' worst subject. They can't even answer the simplest questions about history in regards to the Revolutionary War, World War II, or the Korean War. The fault partly lies in the fact that history textbooks are poorly written, and partly because they are not being taught the information in the first place. I remember when my nephew came to me upset because in his History Class they skipped the chapter about the U.S. Constitution. When he inquired why, the teacher explained to him that the class was limited in time and had to skip unnecessary lessons.
In addition to skipping over important parts of history, new history uses political correctness, and caters to pop culture and particular groups in an effort to appease the same groups the leftist political wing-nuts are also trying to appease. As a result, the generations of students that come out of our schools don't know our past, and as the old dictum goes, he who forgets the past is doomed to repeat it.
Educational malpractice in the public schools is not only a problem presented by liberal democrats and Marxists that have infiltrated our educational system, but is also the fault of bone-headed, and unconstitutional, legislation like the "No Child Left Behind" Act. The law that was Bush 43's baby, despite its good intentions, worsened our education system, took the emphasis away from knowing our history, and of course was unconstitutional just like the Education Department. The federal government has no authority over education in this country. That is a local issue, and for good reason.
The problem is, the local systems have been so influenced by federal dictate that they have also become a part of the madness that is dumbing down America. An example revealed itself recently in Florida schools where, because only 27% of the students were able to pass a fourth grade state written exam, the Florida Department of Education lowered the performance level standard. The decision was made by a four-three vote, reasoning that the kids did so poorly because the test was too hard.
Yes, I just defended that our schools belong in local hands, and here we are with a state board doing stupid things too. Understand, though, that is because of the federal, and hard left, influence.
If our public schools are to succeed, they need to change their models, right down to the curriculum, to models that work. In the United States, those models are home-schooling and private schools (largely the ones of the Christian nature). Discipline, a strict curriculum based on un-revised history, phonetics, traditional math techniques, and a strict moral structure, all contribute to the success of these models, and they do it on budgets much smaller than those of the public schools.
While Florida's public school system is arguing that a state test is too hard when it expects a fourth grader to know what a camel is, at the private school and home school level kids are aware of the entire animal kingdom. . . and the details of why, and how, we fought for our independence during the Revolutionary War.
It is time for a change back to the more traditional methods, or there will never be improvement, and the next generation will be lost to the authoritarian dictates of a worsening progressive and authoritarian government system.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
The Dumbing Down of America - Human Events
Liberalism and the Dumbing Down of America - American Thinker
Florida Lowers Passing Grade for State Writing Exam After Over 70 Percent of Fourth Graders Fail - Fox News
It has been no secret that we are having an educational crisis in the United States. Public schools are doing worse and worse, unable to compete with private schools, homeschooled children, and for that matter the rest of the world. Some suggest that this is on purpose. By dumbing down our children we are preparing the future generations for more easily accepting authoritarian control by leftist systems of governance.
We are raising young people in our public schools that are illiterate. We are cramming them with bad information from experimental teaching techniques, political correctness, and liberal philosophies so that they will be good, obedient citizens. Informed voters think for themselves, and seek freedom. A dumbed down population is always eager to depend on the government overlords. Mind-numbed followers don't ask questions.
History is our students' worst subject. They can't even answer the simplest questions about history in regards to the Revolutionary War, World War II, or the Korean War. The fault partly lies in the fact that history textbooks are poorly written, and partly because they are not being taught the information in the first place. I remember when my nephew came to me upset because in his History Class they skipped the chapter about the U.S. Constitution. When he inquired why, the teacher explained to him that the class was limited in time and had to skip unnecessary lessons.
In addition to skipping over important parts of history, new history uses political correctness, and caters to pop culture and particular groups in an effort to appease the same groups the leftist political wing-nuts are also trying to appease. As a result, the generations of students that come out of our schools don't know our past, and as the old dictum goes, he who forgets the past is doomed to repeat it.
Educational malpractice in the public schools is not only a problem presented by liberal democrats and Marxists that have infiltrated our educational system, but is also the fault of bone-headed, and unconstitutional, legislation like the "No Child Left Behind" Act. The law that was Bush 43's baby, despite its good intentions, worsened our education system, took the emphasis away from knowing our history, and of course was unconstitutional just like the Education Department. The federal government has no authority over education in this country. That is a local issue, and for good reason.
The problem is, the local systems have been so influenced by federal dictate that they have also become a part of the madness that is dumbing down America. An example revealed itself recently in Florida schools where, because only 27% of the students were able to pass a fourth grade state written exam, the Florida Department of Education lowered the performance level standard. The decision was made by a four-three vote, reasoning that the kids did so poorly because the test was too hard.
Yes, I just defended that our schools belong in local hands, and here we are with a state board doing stupid things too. Understand, though, that is because of the federal, and hard left, influence.
If our public schools are to succeed, they need to change their models, right down to the curriculum, to models that work. In the United States, those models are home-schooling and private schools (largely the ones of the Christian nature). Discipline, a strict curriculum based on un-revised history, phonetics, traditional math techniques, and a strict moral structure, all contribute to the success of these models, and they do it on budgets much smaller than those of the public schools.
While Florida's public school system is arguing that a state test is too hard when it expects a fourth grader to know what a camel is, at the private school and home school level kids are aware of the entire animal kingdom. . . and the details of why, and how, we fought for our independence during the Revolutionary War.
It is time for a change back to the more traditional methods, or there will never be improvement, and the next generation will be lost to the authoritarian dictates of a worsening progressive and authoritarian government system.
The Dumbing Down of America - Human Events
Liberalism and the Dumbing Down of America - American Thinker
Florida Lowers Passing Grade for State Writing Exam After Over 70 Percent of Fourth Graders Fail - Fox News
Syria Massacre: Blood on Leftist Hands
By Douglas V. Gibbs
What is interesting to me is that Assad's killing in Syria, now six months short of being two years long, never got a peep out of the U.N. or the Obama administration. Why? They didn't have to, they didn't want to offend the Muslims, and in all reality Islam and the Leftists have similar enemies (Judaism and Christianity) so they try not to give each other too hard of a time. But last weekend's slaughter of women and children appalled the world so much, the U.N. and American Left figured now they ought to condemn the brutality. It was a political move, and nothing more.
Since early 2011 the death toll under the brutal fist of Assad's regime has reached 13,000. I'll be damned if I want the U.N. to necessarily get involved, though. We saw what happened when the United Nations peacekeeping department arrived in Rwanda. The slaughter of 800,000 continued, and worsened.
The primary problem is that international leftists and American liberals refuse to see the potential of the Muslim War Machine. It reminds me of Neville Chamberlain before World War II trying to make nice-nice with Hitler. The Middle East is becoming, even more so than before, a death arena, and our ally, Israel, is their primary target. Islam will not stop until they have destroyed Israel, killed every Christian and Jew they can get their hands on, and dominate the world with their 7th Century madness. The Left thinks they can reason with these people, thinks they can appease these people, and then when the worst happens finally pulls out a condemnation.
The rise of the Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran was as a result of Jimmy Carter's policies enabling the rise of an Islamist faction in Iran when he turned his back on The Shah of Iran. Barack Obama has done the same in Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, and Syria. Thanks to Obama's Middle East policies, the Muslim Brotherhood, and other similar Islamist groups, are taking control and are radicalizing the Muslim nations of the region.
In Syria, the Houla massacre of people continues. Last weekend more than a hundred people, half of them children, lay dead under the onslaught of the Islamic killing machine.
The United Nations finally condemned the murderers, as has American officials.
Bashar al-Assad has been on a killing spree in Syria for a year and a half. Obama verbally went after Mubarak because the people cried for his removal, and it was not only none of our business in that case, but Mubarak, though a heavy handed leader, had kept the peace, was willing to abide with the treaty with Israel, and worked with the United States. Obama worked with NATO to attack Libya, and Ghadafi was also a heavy handed ruler. The guy needed to someday be gone. But with the Muslim Brotherhood waiting for an opportunity, and the timing of intervention by The West was atrocious. All of this has now led to the battle in Syria, and the death in Syria, and the murders are a direct result of the policies of the international leftists in the area.
In Iraq a dictator that had been acting in a manner that was a direct threat to the United States, and allies (namely Israel) was removed, and then a force remained to help the country adjust to its new order so that the Islamists did not gain control - so the comparison the liberal left wants to make cannot be applied.
What is interesting to me is that Assad's killing in Syria, now six months short of being two years long, never got a peep out of the U.N. or the Obama administration. Why? They didn't have to, they didn't want to offend the Muslims, and in all reality Islam and the Leftists have similar enemies (Judaism and Christianity) so they try not to give each other too hard of a time. But last weekend's slaughter of women and children appalled the world so much, the U.N. and American Left figured now they ought to condemn the brutality. It was a political move, and nothing more.
Since early 2011 the death toll under the brutal fist of Assad's regime has reached 13,000. I'll be damned if I want the U.N. to necessarily get involved, though. We saw what happened when the United Nations peacekeeping department arrived in Rwanda. The slaughter of 800,000 continued, and worsened.
The primary problem is that international leftists and American liberals refuse to see the potential of the Muslim War Machine. It reminds me of Neville Chamberlain before World War II trying to make nice-nice with Hitler. The Middle East is becoming, even more so than before, a death arena, and our ally, Israel, is their primary target. Islam will not stop until they have destroyed Israel, killed every Christian and Jew they can get their hands on, and dominate the world with their 7th Century madness. The Left thinks they can reason with these people, thinks they can appease these people, and then when the worst happens finally pulls out a condemnation.
Understand, the problem is not the people, it is the ideology. But as long as these people adhere to the dangerous and barbaric ideology of Islam, the war will not stop, and we will need to engage it. This is not warmongering. This is reality. And realize, Russia is doing what she can to arm the madness.
The Leftists did not do anything about Rwanda until it was too late, and I am afraid the same thing may be happening in Syria. It is Neville Chamberlain all over again.
As for the U.N. investigation into the Syrian massacre? Remember, these are the same people whose watch the U.N. Oil for Food scandal went down under.
In the case of the United States, it is in our best interest to tell the United Nations goodbye, and exit that organization as fast as we can.
The Leftists did not do anything about Rwanda until it was too late, and I am afraid the same thing may be happening in Syria. It is Neville Chamberlain all over again.
As for the U.N. investigation into the Syrian massacre? Remember, these are the same people whose watch the U.N. Oil for Food scandal went down under.
In the case of the United States, it is in our best interest to tell the United Nations goodbye, and exit that organization as fast as we can.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Russian arms shipment en route to Syria - Reuters
Syria Blames Rebels for Houla Massacre - Yahoo News
U.N. Talk Only Exploits Syrian Massacre - Canada Free Press
Loss of Unemployment Benefits will Drop Unemployment Rate
U.S. Winds Down Longer Benefits for the Unemployed
Hundreds of thousands of out-of-work Americans are receiving their final unemployment checks sooner than they expected, even though Congress renewed extended benefits until the end of the year.
The checks are stopping for the people who have the most difficulty finding work: the long-term unemployed. More than five million people have been out of work for longer than half a year. Federal benefit extensions, which supplemented state funds for payments up to 99 weeks, were intended to tide over the unemployed until the job market improved.
In February, when the program was set to expire, Congress renewed it, but also phased in a reduction of the number of weeks of extended aid and effectively made it more difficult for states to qualify for the maximum aid. Since then, the jobless in 23 states have lost up to five months’ worth of benefits.
Next month, an additional 70,000 people will lose benefits earlier than they presumed, bringing the number of people cut off prematurely this year to close to half a million, according to the National Employment Law Project. That estimate does not include people who simply exhausted the weeks of benefits they were entitled to.
Hundreds of thousands of out-of-work Americans are receiving their final unemployment checks sooner than they expected, even though Congress renewed extended benefits until the end of the year.
The checks are stopping for the people who have the most difficulty finding work: the long-term unemployed. More than five million people have been out of work for longer than half a year. Federal benefit extensions, which supplemented state funds for payments up to 99 weeks, were intended to tide over the unemployed until the job market improved.
In February, when the program was set to expire, Congress renewed it, but also phased in a reduction of the number of weeks of extended aid and effectively made it more difficult for states to qualify for the maximum aid. Since then, the jobless in 23 states have lost up to five months’ worth of benefits.
Next month, an additional 70,000 people will lose benefits earlier than they presumed, bringing the number of people cut off prematurely this year to close to half a million, according to the National Employment Law Project. That estimate does not include people who simply exhausted the weeks of benefits they were entitled to.
Note: Now think about this for a moment. Think about the timing. They will lose their benefits, but they will still be unemployed. Because these people will fall off the roles, however, that will reduce the unemployment rate. . . just in time for the election. And the gullible people, as with all of the other manipulations of the employment numbers (reduction of the universe of jobs, etc.), will not think about it, and will believe the propaganda put out by the liberal democrats and the media.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Obama Calls Nazi Death Camp a "Polish Death Camp"
By Douglas V. Gibbs
For good reason, the Polish are angry. I am not surprised. Obama has proven to have his history all screwed up. Remember, he claimed his uncle was a part of freeing Auschwitz, except the Americans weren't involved in the liberation of that camp. It was the Russians.
Here's some more of Obama's famous history gaffes:
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
President Obama Causes Outrage With Reference To "Polish Death Camp" - Yahoo News
For good reason, the Polish are angry. I am not surprised. Obama has proven to have his history all screwed up. Remember, he claimed his uncle was a part of freeing Auschwitz, except the Americans weren't involved in the liberation of that camp. It was the Russians.
Here's some more of Obama's famous history gaffes:
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
President Obama Causes Outrage With Reference To "Polish Death Camp" - Yahoo News
Tuesday, May 29, 2012
Thomas Jefferson: Original Intent
"On every question of construction carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." --Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 1823
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Latest Earthquake in Italy: 16 Dead
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Yet another powerful earthquake has struck Italy, and resulted in death. This latest quake, a 5.8, follows nine days after a 6.0 magnitude trembler, leaving thousands homeless. In both earthquakes, the majority of the dead were workers killed by collapsing factories and warehouses. The two earthquakes were split by dozens of aftershocks, many more than 5.0 in magnitude.
The morning quake in northern Italy collapsed a number of buildings, and the pair of quakes are the worst since the 1300s. The area is known for earthquakes, but usually the quakes are not as powerful as those in the Pacific Ocean's "Ring of Fire."
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Workers Among 16 Dead in Latest Big Italian Quake - Yahoo News
Arguing with Dr. Larry Arnn about the Constitution
By Douglas V. Gibbs
I have looked behind Superman's Cape, and I am not sure I was happy with what I saw. Hillsdale College has always stood as a beacon of truth in regards to the Constitution, and surely the president of the institution, Dr. Larry Arnn, would encompass that truth in a manner that I could only stand in awe of. Then, when I interviewed Dr. Arnn on my Constitution Radio with Douglas V. Gibbs program on KCAA 1050 AM on Saturday, I realized that as much as I respect the man, the flaws in his thinking regarding the Constitution were extensive. I wrapped the hour long interview up in disappointment, but I was a wiser man in regards to how I view my constitutional superheroes.
Dr. Arnn argued with me about Judicial Review, claiming it is implied by the Constitution. Implied Powers, however, was a concept created by Alexander Hamilton with the specific intention of using it to usurp the Constitution. As for the constitutionality of Judicial Review, the power is expressly granted no place in the Constitution to the federal courts. The power was seized by the courts in an opinion by Chief Justice John Marshall in the 1803 Marbury v. Madison case. Since the Supreme Court is a part of the federal government, and determining if a law is constitutional is the determination of authority in regards to the federal government, Judicial Review by the federal courts is literally the federal government deciding for itself what its own authorities are. When I then presented to Dr. Arnn that as a result of Judicial Review, in the case of Obamacare, since we have four conservative justices (Roberts, Scalia, Alito, and Thomas) and four liberal justices (Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan and Sotomayor), the fate of over 300 million people's health care lies on the shoulders of one man, Justice Kennedy, he remained silent.
Another bone of contention between Dr. Arnn and myself regarding the Constitution was the State power of Nullification. He argued against nullification, claiming it is unconstitutional, and that in fact the founders were against it. He referred to Madison's Federalist 36, which in my opinion did not make the argument Dr. Arnn claimed, and he also brought up the Nullification Crisis of 1832 between President Andrew Jackson and South Carolina's 1832 Ordinance of Nullification and Vice President John C. Calhoun. Then, when I used Jefferson's draft of the Kentucky Resolution, Dr. Arnn replied that the word nullification was not even present in that document.
In the case of Jackson and Calhoun, the determination was not against nullification in general, but that South Carolina was nullifying a completely constitutional law. As for Jefferson's draft of the Kentucky Resolution, Dr. Arnn is correct, the word nullification is not used, but the whole point of the resolution was that Kentucky was nullifying what the State believed to be an unconstitutional federal law. Jefferson's essay, despite Dr. Arnn's claim, was all about nullification. In the essay, Jefferson wrote, "Whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force."
Furthermore, by taking nullification away from the States, Dr. Arnn is handcuffing them, giving the federal government the power to do as it pleases, without consequence from the States, and then also giving the federal government the opportunity to justify its actions through its own courts using Judicial Review.
Hardly the limiting principles the Constitution was equipped with.
Also contrary to Dr. Arnn's opinion, the federal government was created to serve the States, not rule over them.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Myth #22: The Federal Government has Implied Powers that are not Specifically Enumerated by the Constitution - Political Pistachio
Obama, Health Care, and the Nine Justices - Political Pistachio
Myth #4: The Supreme Court interprets the Constitution, and can decide if a law is Constitutional or Not - Political Pistachio
Understanding the States' Right of Nullification: Thomas Jefferson's Draft of the Kentucky Resolution - Political Pistachio
Heritage Gets it Wrong: Nullification is NOT Unconstitutional - Tenth Amendment Center Blog
I have looked behind Superman's Cape, and I am not sure I was happy with what I saw. Hillsdale College has always stood as a beacon of truth in regards to the Constitution, and surely the president of the institution, Dr. Larry Arnn, would encompass that truth in a manner that I could only stand in awe of. Then, when I interviewed Dr. Arnn on my Constitution Radio with Douglas V. Gibbs program on KCAA 1050 AM on Saturday, I realized that as much as I respect the man, the flaws in his thinking regarding the Constitution were extensive. I wrapped the hour long interview up in disappointment, but I was a wiser man in regards to how I view my constitutional superheroes.
Dr. Arnn argued with me about Judicial Review, claiming it is implied by the Constitution. Implied Powers, however, was a concept created by Alexander Hamilton with the specific intention of using it to usurp the Constitution. As for the constitutionality of Judicial Review, the power is expressly granted no place in the Constitution to the federal courts. The power was seized by the courts in an opinion by Chief Justice John Marshall in the 1803 Marbury v. Madison case. Since the Supreme Court is a part of the federal government, and determining if a law is constitutional is the determination of authority in regards to the federal government, Judicial Review by the federal courts is literally the federal government deciding for itself what its own authorities are. When I then presented to Dr. Arnn that as a result of Judicial Review, in the case of Obamacare, since we have four conservative justices (Roberts, Scalia, Alito, and Thomas) and four liberal justices (Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan and Sotomayor), the fate of over 300 million people's health care lies on the shoulders of one man, Justice Kennedy, he remained silent.
Another bone of contention between Dr. Arnn and myself regarding the Constitution was the State power of Nullification. He argued against nullification, claiming it is unconstitutional, and that in fact the founders were against it. He referred to Madison's Federalist 36, which in my opinion did not make the argument Dr. Arnn claimed, and he also brought up the Nullification Crisis of 1832 between President Andrew Jackson and South Carolina's 1832 Ordinance of Nullification and Vice President John C. Calhoun. Then, when I used Jefferson's draft of the Kentucky Resolution, Dr. Arnn replied that the word nullification was not even present in that document.
In the case of Jackson and Calhoun, the determination was not against nullification in general, but that South Carolina was nullifying a completely constitutional law. As for Jefferson's draft of the Kentucky Resolution, Dr. Arnn is correct, the word nullification is not used, but the whole point of the resolution was that Kentucky was nullifying what the State believed to be an unconstitutional federal law. Jefferson's essay, despite Dr. Arnn's claim, was all about nullification. In the essay, Jefferson wrote, "Whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force."
Furthermore, by taking nullification away from the States, Dr. Arnn is handcuffing them, giving the federal government the power to do as it pleases, without consequence from the States, and then also giving the federal government the opportunity to justify its actions through its own courts using Judicial Review.
Hardly the limiting principles the Constitution was equipped with.
Also contrary to Dr. Arnn's opinion, the federal government was created to serve the States, not rule over them.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Myth #22: The Federal Government has Implied Powers that are not Specifically Enumerated by the Constitution - Political Pistachio
Obama, Health Care, and the Nine Justices - Political Pistachio
Myth #4: The Supreme Court interprets the Constitution, and can decide if a law is Constitutional or Not - Political Pistachio
Understanding the States' Right of Nullification: Thomas Jefferson's Draft of the Kentucky Resolution - Political Pistachio
Heritage Gets it Wrong: Nullification is NOT Unconstitutional - Tenth Amendment Center Blog
Assassination Czar
Media Blackout As Obama Appoints First Ever Assassination Czar
Corporate news blackout as Obama appoints John Brennan as the sole person in charge of designating people to be assassinated.
John Brennan, Obama’s chief counterterrorism advisor was a name that you did not see on the Mainstream media today as they continue to run stories that serve to distract the masses from stories that matter.
Most recently he publicly spoke about the drone program calling it moral and ethical and just.
According to reports from the Associated Press, John Brennan has now seized the lead in choosing who will be targeted for drone attacks and raids after Obama delegated him as the sole authority to designate people for assassination under the United States top-secret assassination program.
Yes, if it such a secret program then why is the Associated Press running a story on it? Because it is only a “top-secret” matter of National Insecurity when the public and organizations such as the ACLU request more details on it than is revealed int the propagandized reports the public is fed through the corporate media.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Obama Promises Strict Enforcement on Wall Street
By Douglas V. Gibbs
After J.P. Morgan's rough time including a $2 billion trading loss the Democrats have realized that the so-called problems their reforms were supposed to guard against didn't work. So, how does Obama plan to fix that problem? Heavier enforcement by the federal government, of course. Well, that, class warfare like Franklin Delano Roosevelt used in 1936, and the usual smear tactics that always accompanies the Left's campaigns of personal destruction.
One of the democrat's complaints when it comes to the private financial industry is the risk involved in the investments in Wall Street.
That's called the free market. The chance for success involves risk, and sometimes those risks don't work, and sometimes they pay off. Without risk, innovation and new growth is not possible.
The republicans have been critical of the liberal left's banking industry reforms, but one wonders if they really understand the dangers of these reforms. When the government begins to dictate to the private banking industry, mercantilism emerges, where the government begins picking favorites, and penalizing those that refuse to play ball, or front money to their party.
The interference by the federal government into the banking and investment industries goes deeper than that, however. Not only is such intrusion into the system by the federal government unconstitutional, for there are no authorities granted to the federal government for such an intrusion, but historically such actions have proven to be one of the causes of failed economic systems, and can lead to authoritarian actions by the central government. The financial collapses we are seeing in Europe is a testament to the danger of these socialist systems of governance where the central governments work to control the financial systems, while also working to control the means of production.
The Obama administration claims that his banking industry reforms protected the U.S. taxpayers from being on the hook for Wall Street's mistakes when J.P. Morgan faced losses. Why would that be, Mr. Obama? Are you talking bail-out again?
Bail-outs do nothing but feed more money into an already failing system, without resolving the problems. When a business fails, the market needs to take care of the situation, either by letting the company fail and smaller enterprises picking up the pieces for themselves, or through the venture capitalists that the democrats are so critical of. What companies, like Romney's Bain Capital, does is when a company is failing private capital is invited in to help turn the company around. What happens is that the venture capitalists invest money into the company, and with the precision of a scalpel they cut out what is causing the company to fail. Sometimes, that means a loss of some jobs, but if it saves the company, then that means the other jobs are saved.
In short, what Obama does with bail-outs only momentarily delays the complete failure of a business, while what Romney and venture capitalists do often turns around failing businesses.
The question in that matter is which would you rather have in the White House? A socialist? Or a capitalist?
If the republicans want to remain true to the Constitution, and any hope of turning our financial difficulties around, the GOP will work to defund, and dismantle, the draconian financial industry reforms the democrats have imposed on the private financial industry.
Obama says his reforms promote fair play. They do not create fair play. Fair play is not forcing companies to abide by damaging government regulations. Fair play is the allowance for financial institutions to freely decide their fate, meaning they are free to succeed, or fail, based on their own financial decisions that often involve taking risks. In the end such free market principles will encourage investment, encourage growth, and help the economy as a whole. Government influence only stifles growth, encourages the smart money to flee the country overseas, and grows the leviathan that is the federal government.
One must remember, however, that this isn't just the Democrat Party's push towards socialism. International socialists are pushing for worldwide socialism under a globalistic system of governance. The United Nations is currently initiating the final push for such a system. In fact, the U.N. has gone so far to straight out admit that is their plans, through things like Agenda 21, and other sustainable development policies. Theirs is a plan of massive redistribution from rich countries to poor ones, using both economic and environmental tactics.
Think about this a moment. The policies that have led Europe to financial collapse, has the world in a major recession, and policies the democrats are using that is deabilitating our own financial system, are the policies the international leftists want to implement worldwide. We are talking global authoritarianism of the communist variety, which in the end is designed to destroy individuality, regulate freedom, and steal America's sovereignty.
Don't like it? The Obama administration, and the political establishment in Washington as a whole, has an answer for that too! Through the National Defense Authorization Act they can define you as a domestic terrorist and detain you without due process. Or they can use their propaganda machine and "Ministry of Truth" via the The Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012 to use Orwellian tactics that will force you into silence.
Believe it. That is what they want. The Constitution is only ink and paper if we don't fight for it.
The ball's in your court.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Obama's Strategy Is From FDR's 1936 Playbook - Dick Morris
Congress Seeks to Establish Ministry of Truth! - Tea Party Nation
George Washington: The Duty to Our Country
"The consciousness of having discharged that duty which we owe to our country is superior to all other considerations." --George Washington, letter to James Madison, 1788
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Liberals SWATing Conservatives
CNN Contributor Erickson and Family Targeted in Latest 'SWATing' Attack
Erik Erickson, editor-in-chief of RedState.com and a CNN political contributor, reports that he is the latest conservative to be "SWAT"ed.
Local police received a call from an individual claiming to be Erickson, stating that an accidental shooting had occurred at his home. Says Erickson, "Tonight, my family was sitting around the kitchen table eating dinner when sheriffs deputies pulled up in the driveway."
MORE
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Monday, May 28, 2012
Obama Appoints Samantha Power to Atrocities Prevention Board. . . Powers Once Called for U.S. Invasion of Israel
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Obama, true to his anti-Israel form, spoke at the Holocaust Museum recently. I wonder if it was to quell the fears he has fostered regarding his perceived negative opinion of Israel. Meanwhile, Samantha Power, a woman that once called for a U.S. invasion of Israel, and has a history of anti-Israel rhetoric while supporting continued Muslim attacks against the small country, has been appointed by President Barack Obama to be the new Atrocities Prevention Board chair.
Oh, and Samantha has also had some unflattering things to say about America's Jewish population, providing us with a whole gang of greatest hits of anti-Jewish comments during the 2008 presidential campaign.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Walker Works In Wisconsin
Conservatism works, and Governor Walker has proven it in Wisconsin. The thanks for all he's done from the Left? The idiots try to recall him.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Sunday, May 27, 2012
Constitution Study Radio on Blog Talk Radio
Listen at BlogTalkRadio.com/PoliticalPistachio, or get a list of the archives on the blog page set up for Constitution Radio.
Executive Orders, Regulatory Agencies, and the Constitution
His Question: Doug, I stumbled on to this site that apparently creates new federal regulations under Executive Orders by the President. Can you look at it. If I'm reading this correctly, Unconstitutional executive orders are given to an agency to unconstitutionally create unconstitutional federal regulations. Let me know. http://www.reginfo.gov/public/
My Response: Okay, so the question I have is does the regulations regulate existing laws made pursuant to the Constitution? Executive Orders can create agencies, and create regulations of existing laws, but if the rule-making is not related to existing laws made pursuant to the Constitution, the Executive Orders are unconstitutional. The Executive Branch was created to execute the laws of the nation, so creating regulations is not a problem, unless those regulations are creating new rules for laws that don't exist, or if those regulations are for laws that do not fall within the authorities of the federal government as per the Constitution. If the Executive's actions are creating law, then that is unconstitutional. This President, unfortunately, has been doing exactly that. He has been creating new laws via his regulatory agencies and Executive Orders (such as Energy Department's Cap and Trade regulations after the law failed in Congress), and he has been modifying laws which is also not within his constitutional authorities, or the authorities granted to his regulatory agencies. This is where We the People, through our States, need to step in and work to stop the madness. This can be accomplished by communicating to our representatives, voting out those representatives that refuse to abide by the Constitution, and ultimately for the States to nullify unconstitutional laws.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Capitalism Doesn't Work. . .
It is because of capitalism that these dirt bags have the right to protest capitalism. . . Over two hundred years of capitalism has made this nation the richest, most powerful nation on the planet, enabling these idiots to say what they want, and they think it doesn't work. Marxism is alive and well in the United States, and unfortunately in the White House, too.
Oh, by the way, a job is not a right. Get off your ass and find one, instead of wasting our time with your communist rantings and ravings. We have the right to Pursue Happiness. In the end, it is all up to you, not government.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Abortion: America's Genocide. . . A Baby At 12 Weeks Gestation
This is a baby at 12 weeks gestation, which is legal to kill in all 50 states. Does this baby look like a blob of cells to you?
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Email of the Week: Obama's Feet on Resolute Desk
This Resolute Desk was built from the timbers of the HMS Resolute and was a gift from Queen Victoria to President Rutherford B. Hayes. It is considered a national treasure and icon of the presidency.
Mr. Obama, you are not in a hut in Kenya, or public housing in Chicago.
With all due respect ... MR. OBAMA... get your damn feet off OUR desk!
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Darkness Ahead, Like in Detroit
By Douglas V. Gibbs
There are dark days ahead, and I don't necessarily mean the tyrannical system that seems to be growing in power in Washington. Electricity is costly, and for the City of Detroit, Michigan, darkness may be one of a few temporary fixes.
The population of Detroit, under the hand of rampant liberalism, has been dropping to numbers that boggles the mind. Currently, the population of Detroit is less than 60 percent of what it was in 1950. Funds are short, manpower is short, and so the bureaucrats that have destroyed the city now want to herd the people, like cattle, into a smaller living space in order to save on costs, and better maintain peace. To do this, the leaders of Detroit plan to eliminate nearly half of its streetlights, dropping much of the city into darkness.
According to Bloomberg, 40% of the streetlights are already broken, and the city can't afford to fix them as it is. The city plans to borrow some money, fix what they can, upgrade what they will use, and reduce the number of streetlights in the city from 88,000 to 46,000.
This is nothing new. Other cities have gone partially dark to save money. But Detroit is taking this move to never before seen lengths, leaving the sparsely populated areas without lights at all. The goal is to concentrate the population in certain neighborhoods, while letting the neighborhoods with the lowest populations go dark.
One wonders what kind of areas the abandoned zones will become. Will they return to the wild? Will gangs run freely under the blanket of darkness?
I suppose when you are broke, you've got to do what you've got to do. In Europe they are resorting to austerity measures. In Detroit they are shutting off the lights. The result may be that the fearful residents will be secluded in their homes, afraid to leave at night.
In southwest Detroit individual resolve has set in, and the businesses in that area are working to fix the situation themselves. Government has failed, and burglaries are up. One business owner states that "In the dark, criminals are comfortable."
As Detroit goes dark, we may see the city itself fade away.
Is this the kind of darkness that is in store for all of us?
A total loss of all electricity is a possibility. The repercussions for a loss of power can be great. Imagine the chaos that would spread if entire grids went down. Shootings would begin to spread. Criminals, comfortable in the darkness, would begin their crusade of lawlessness. Businesses and homes would be vulnerable as their security systems go down. The fragile order of society would hang in the balance.
Flashlights, lamps, and lanterns may very well provide help, but in such a situation food, water, and armed defense will also be important. The darkness may bring riots in the streets. We have become so dependent upon electricity that we would not know where to turn. Our dependence on electricity has made us weak. It is a lot like entitlements. We have become dependent upon government's gift of electricity, and if we lose it, we will literally be in a world of hurt. And as in the case of New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, in a grid-wide loss of electricity, killing, looting and plundering would turn civil neighborhoods into war zones. This is when pacifists die, and those prepared survive.
Low lights that don't bring attention to your house will be an important tool. This would include lanterns, battery powered or oil/kerosene fueled; and candles. I have a crank flashlight, which uses LED lights, that simply recharges the battery by turning the crank. It's bright, but easy to hold alongside my guns. There are lanterns that are similar, and they work wonderfully, using a crank to recharge their batteries. Low lights may be something that can be spotted at short range, but they are not bright enough to be seen far away. Lighting up your whole house with a generator may be more comfortable, but will draw the attention of those with ill intentions on their minds. Low lights will protect you by not making your home stand out, which would make it a target.
Food is another important thing to keep in mind when preparing for the possibility of a black-out. Understand, your refrigerator will become useless, so a non-perishable food supply is important. MREs and canned goods are a must. Keeping your other foods in the freezer with already frozen bottles of water should help keep the perishable foods good for a few days after the loss of electricity. Water on hand is also important, as is a non-electrical filtration system in case your supply dwindles, and you must retrieve your water from natural sources.
Keep in mind that these precautions are not just important for black-outs, but natural disasters, too. I have prepared because I live in earthquake country here in Southern California. Around the nation there is always the threat of ice storms, tornadoes, hurricanes, thunderstorms, and earthquakes, so even if you scoff at the idea of grid-wide black-outs, even in the case of natural disasters, we need to be prepared.
There are dark days ahead, and I don't necessarily mean the tyrannical system that seems to be growing in power in Washington. Electricity is costly, and for the City of Detroit, Michigan, darkness may be one of a few temporary fixes.
The population of Detroit, under the hand of rampant liberalism, has been dropping to numbers that boggles the mind. Currently, the population of Detroit is less than 60 percent of what it was in 1950. Funds are short, manpower is short, and so the bureaucrats that have destroyed the city now want to herd the people, like cattle, into a smaller living space in order to save on costs, and better maintain peace. To do this, the leaders of Detroit plan to eliminate nearly half of its streetlights, dropping much of the city into darkness.
According to Bloomberg, 40% of the streetlights are already broken, and the city can't afford to fix them as it is. The city plans to borrow some money, fix what they can, upgrade what they will use, and reduce the number of streetlights in the city from 88,000 to 46,000.
This is nothing new. Other cities have gone partially dark to save money. But Detroit is taking this move to never before seen lengths, leaving the sparsely populated areas without lights at all. The goal is to concentrate the population in certain neighborhoods, while letting the neighborhoods with the lowest populations go dark.
One wonders what kind of areas the abandoned zones will become. Will they return to the wild? Will gangs run freely under the blanket of darkness?
I suppose when you are broke, you've got to do what you've got to do. In Europe they are resorting to austerity measures. In Detroit they are shutting off the lights. The result may be that the fearful residents will be secluded in their homes, afraid to leave at night.
In southwest Detroit individual resolve has set in, and the businesses in that area are working to fix the situation themselves. Government has failed, and burglaries are up. One business owner states that "In the dark, criminals are comfortable."
As Detroit goes dark, we may see the city itself fade away.
Is this the kind of darkness that is in store for all of us?
A total loss of all electricity is a possibility. The repercussions for a loss of power can be great. Imagine the chaos that would spread if entire grids went down. Shootings would begin to spread. Criminals, comfortable in the darkness, would begin their crusade of lawlessness. Businesses and homes would be vulnerable as their security systems go down. The fragile order of society would hang in the balance.
Flashlights, lamps, and lanterns may very well provide help, but in such a situation food, water, and armed defense will also be important. The darkness may bring riots in the streets. We have become so dependent upon electricity that we would not know where to turn. Our dependence on electricity has made us weak. It is a lot like entitlements. We have become dependent upon government's gift of electricity, and if we lose it, we will literally be in a world of hurt. And as in the case of New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, in a grid-wide loss of electricity, killing, looting and plundering would turn civil neighborhoods into war zones. This is when pacifists die, and those prepared survive.
Low lights that don't bring attention to your house will be an important tool. This would include lanterns, battery powered or oil/kerosene fueled; and candles. I have a crank flashlight, which uses LED lights, that simply recharges the battery by turning the crank. It's bright, but easy to hold alongside my guns. There are lanterns that are similar, and they work wonderfully, using a crank to recharge their batteries. Low lights may be something that can be spotted at short range, but they are not bright enough to be seen far away. Lighting up your whole house with a generator may be more comfortable, but will draw the attention of those with ill intentions on their minds. Low lights will protect you by not making your home stand out, which would make it a target.
Food is another important thing to keep in mind when preparing for the possibility of a black-out. Understand, your refrigerator will become useless, so a non-perishable food supply is important. MREs and canned goods are a must. Keeping your other foods in the freezer with already frozen bottles of water should help keep the perishable foods good for a few days after the loss of electricity. Water on hand is also important, as is a non-electrical filtration system in case your supply dwindles, and you must retrieve your water from natural sources.
Keep in mind that these precautions are not just important for black-outs, but natural disasters, too. I have prepared because I live in earthquake country here in Southern California. Around the nation there is always the threat of ice storms, tornadoes, hurricanes, thunderstorms, and earthquakes, so even if you scoff at the idea of grid-wide black-outs, even in the case of natural disasters, we need to be prepared.
There are more things, too, such as firearms, plenty of ammunition, a vehicle capable of driving off road (considering that roads will probably be blocked in an emergency scenario), and knowing your area and neighbors well.
All in all, the keys to survival are food, water, defense, and common sense (such as using low lights). I may not be a survivalist, but I do plan to survive. Precaution is the key.
Hopefully, we will never have to go through the possibility of a nationwide shutdown of electricity, or a grid-wide failure, but you know as well as I do, the possibility is strong, and only the properly prepared will survive.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Half of Detroit's Streetlights May Go Out as City Shrinks - Bloomberg/Yahoo Finance
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Half of Detroit's Streetlights May Go Out as City Shrinks - Bloomberg/Yahoo Finance
Constitution Study Radio: Constitutional Concepts and the Preamble
Constitution Study Radio: Lessons 1.6-2.1, Concepts/Preamble
- by Douglas V Gibbs
- in Politics Conservative
- 6:00 am Pacific, or click above link to listen as archive
LoLo Jones: My New Olympic Hero
By Douglas V. Gibbs
It strikes me as strange that a story about a woman who is approaching thirty, and is still a virgin, has become a popular news story viewed with awe, and confusion. Shouldn't we be excited that in this society of rampant sexual insanity from the media to various lifestyles that there is a shining light of purity? How awesome is it that LoLo Jones has decided to be true to her faith, and hold on to her sexual purity until she's married?
In the article at The Times LoLo actually admits that there have been men that, because she won't put out until the commitment of marriage is in place, have walked away from any relationship with her. If I was still single, I would be honored to spend time with such a woman. Decency is only one of many words I can think of. Awe inspiring is her courage. I am delighted to know that among the sexual perversion that seems to run rampant through our society, there are still a few out there that believe purity until marriage is an important thing.
The degree of difficulty she has experienced in her journey is fascinating. Imagine that. It has been difficult because of the pressures put on her by society, to remain pure. But if LoLo is capable of winning that fight, just imagine how great her Olympic prowess will be.
LoLo Jones is my new Olympic Hero. Her resolve to remain faithful and obedient to the important virtue of purity is commendable, and appreciated. What a wonderful role model for young women.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
LoLo Jones: Olympian says she'll be a virgin 'til she's married - Los Angeles Times
It strikes me as strange that a story about a woman who is approaching thirty, and is still a virgin, has become a popular news story viewed with awe, and confusion. Shouldn't we be excited that in this society of rampant sexual insanity from the media to various lifestyles that there is a shining light of purity? How awesome is it that LoLo Jones has decided to be true to her faith, and hold on to her sexual purity until she's married?
In the article at The Times LoLo actually admits that there have been men that, because she won't put out until the commitment of marriage is in place, have walked away from any relationship with her. If I was still single, I would be honored to spend time with such a woman. Decency is only one of many words I can think of. Awe inspiring is her courage. I am delighted to know that among the sexual perversion that seems to run rampant through our society, there are still a few out there that believe purity until marriage is an important thing.
The degree of difficulty she has experienced in her journey is fascinating. Imagine that. It has been difficult because of the pressures put on her by society, to remain pure. But if LoLo is capable of winning that fight, just imagine how great her Olympic prowess will be.
LoLo Jones is my new Olympic Hero. Her resolve to remain faithful and obedient to the important virtue of purity is commendable, and appreciated. What a wonderful role model for young women.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
LoLo Jones: Olympian says she'll be a virgin 'til she's married - Los Angeles Times
Saturday, May 26, 2012
When Will We, America ’s Debt Slaves, Demand Liberty Be Given A Chance?
By J.J. Jackson
Have we given the various flavors of liberalism enough chances to destroy America yet? We have entrenched big S Socialism into our society over the past century so that we know little else. I understand that. We have even dabbled with the various cousins small s socialism too such as Communism, Marxism, etc. And where has it gotten us? How many trillions of dollars in debt for how many broken promises have these foolish endeavors heaped upon both our children and us?
Well, in case you don’t know, it is fast approaching $16 trillion. That is in excess of the entire Gross Domestic Product of the United States for a whole year. Meaning what? Well, meaning that if the federal government confiscated every ounce of productivity for 2012 it would just not be able to pay off the debts liberals have brought upon us. Liberalism has turned generations of Americans into debt slaves controlled by Washington and who each have a personal share of the load hovering around $50,000 for every man, woman and child. Got the money to pay up? Probably not. The worst part is that the some Americans seem content to keep on selling their own children and grandchildren deeper into debt so that they can pretend that they are getting what the ghosts of liberals past promised.
I know that some people like to believe that we have had periods of liberty over the past few decades in between hard-core leftist Presidents named Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama and even as far back as Woodrow Wilson and FDR. But the fact is that even under Presidents such as Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, America has still suffered from socialism. Yes, yes, it was certainly to a lesser degree. However, it was still socialism. Remember, even Reagan, despite pledges to the contrary, kept the U.S. Department of Education in tact and allowed it to rain its centralized authority down upon America . He also allowed the federal government to continue to force Americans to have their wages garnished to pay for the old age pensions of retired workers in classic wealth redistribution fashion. President George W. Bush presided over TARP and the bailout of the banks among many other things that leftists would have had orgasms over had they been in charge of the White House at the time. Yes, he was smart enough to see the mortgage crisis coming and it was hard-core leftists like Rep. Barney Frank (D – MA ) that stood in the way of reform. I know that. But when the collapse came, Bush’s response to the failure of socialism was more socialism.
Oh yeah, and as much as President Obama and his cronies are trying to pin all that spending on President Bush, let us all recall that then Senator Obama supported and voted for TARP. It is as much his mess as anyone's despite the fallacious claims that Obama is somehow such a fiscal hawk.
No, America has not had liberty for quite some time. And, yes, honestly, when we did have it, we did stupid things with it. You know, like that whole enslave the inferior black man tripe that liberals of their own day tried to pass off as just. Again however it was liberals that were the problem, not liberty. It was liberals who bastardized the meaning of liberty to freedom for whites and not for blacks.
So maybe it is just time that we go back to liberty. You know, real liberty? Pure liberty? Personal freedom? Equal protection under the law? Limited government? The right to what one has earned by the sweat of their own brow and not what has been confiscated at the point of a gun? Huh? Maybe? What do you say?
============================
J.J. Jackson is a libertarian conservative author from Pittsburgh, PA who has been writing and promoting individual liberty since 1993 and is President of Land of the Free Studios, Inc. He is the Pittsburgh Conservative Examiner for Examiner.com. He is also the owner of The Right Things - Conservative T-shirts & Gifts The Right Things. His weekly commentary along with exclusives not available anywhere else can be found at Liberty Reborn.
Have we given the various flavors of liberalism enough chances to destroy America yet? We have entrenched big S Socialism into our society over the past century so that we know little else. I understand that. We have even dabbled with the various cousins small s socialism too such as Communism, Marxism, etc. And where has it gotten us? How many trillions of dollars in debt for how many broken promises have these foolish endeavors heaped upon both our children and us?
Well, in case you don’t know, it is fast approaching $16 trillion. That is in excess of the entire Gross Domestic Product of the United States for a whole year. Meaning what? Well, meaning that if the federal government confiscated every ounce of productivity for 2012 it would just not be able to pay off the debts liberals have brought upon us. Liberalism has turned generations of Americans into debt slaves controlled by Washington and who each have a personal share of the load hovering around $50,000 for every man, woman and child. Got the money to pay up? Probably not. The worst part is that the some Americans seem content to keep on selling their own children and grandchildren deeper into debt so that they can pretend that they are getting what the ghosts of liberals past promised.
I know that some people like to believe that we have had periods of liberty over the past few decades in between hard-core leftist Presidents named Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama and even as far back as Woodrow Wilson and FDR. But the fact is that even under Presidents such as Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, America has still suffered from socialism. Yes, yes, it was certainly to a lesser degree. However, it was still socialism. Remember, even Reagan, despite pledges to the contrary, kept the U.S. Department of Education in tact and allowed it to rain its centralized authority down upon America . He also allowed the federal government to continue to force Americans to have their wages garnished to pay for the old age pensions of retired workers in classic wealth redistribution fashion. President George W. Bush presided over TARP and the bailout of the banks among many other things that leftists would have had orgasms over had they been in charge of the White House at the time. Yes, he was smart enough to see the mortgage crisis coming and it was hard-core leftists like Rep. Barney Frank (D – MA ) that stood in the way of reform. I know that. But when the collapse came, Bush’s response to the failure of socialism was more socialism.
Oh yeah, and as much as President Obama and his cronies are trying to pin all that spending on President Bush, let us all recall that then Senator Obama supported and voted for TARP. It is as much his mess as anyone's despite the fallacious claims that Obama is somehow such a fiscal hawk.
No, America has not had liberty for quite some time. And, yes, honestly, when we did have it, we did stupid things with it. You know, like that whole enslave the inferior black man tripe that liberals of their own day tried to pass off as just. Again however it was liberals that were the problem, not liberty. It was liberals who bastardized the meaning of liberty to freedom for whites and not for blacks.
So maybe it is just time that we go back to liberty. You know, real liberty? Pure liberty? Personal freedom? Equal protection under the law? Limited government? The right to what one has earned by the sweat of their own brow and not what has been confiscated at the point of a gun? Huh? Maybe? What do you say?
============================
J.J. Jackson is a libertarian conservative author from Pittsburgh, PA who has been writing and promoting individual liberty since 1993 and is President of Land of the Free Studios, Inc. He is the Pittsburgh Conservative Examiner for Examiner.com. He is also the owner of The Right Things - Conservative T-shirts & Gifts The Right Things. His weekly commentary along with exclusives not available anywhere else can be found at Liberty Reborn.
