-- Political Pistachio
Monday, December 31, 2012
2013 is upon us. . . Let's Make It A Good One!
-- Political Pistachio
2nd Email of the Week: Why Carry A Gun?
I have been watching the news (due to the 20 children killed) and people turning in their guns, and I have yet to see any gangs or criminals giving their guns back..
...Read this and weep for those people who are so naive as to think this can't happen to them.
Why Carry a Gun?
My old grandpa said to me 'Son, there comes a time in every man's life when he stops bustin' knuckles and starts bustin' caps and usually it's when he becomes too old to take an ass whoopin.' I don't carry a gun to kill people.
I carry a gun to keep from being killed.
I don't carry a gun to scare people.
I carry a gun because sometimes this world can be a scary place.
I don't carry a gun because I'm paranoid.
I carry a gun because there are real threats in the world..
I don't carry a gun because I'm evil.
I carry a gun because I have lived long enough to see the evil in the world.
I don't carry a gun because I hate the government.
I carry a gun because I understand the limitations of government.
I don't carry a gun because I'm angry.
I carry a gun so that I don't have to spend the rest of my life hating myself for failing to be prepared.
I don't carry a gun because I want to shoot someone.
I carry a gun because I want to die at a ripe old age in my bed, and not on a sidewalk somewhere tomorrow afternoon.
I don't carry a gun because I'm a cowboy.
I carry a gun because, when I die and go to heaven, I want to be a cowboy.
I don't carry a gun to make me feel like a man.
I carry a gun because men know how to take care of themselves and the ones they love.
I don't carry a gun because I feel inadequate.
I carry a gun because unarmed and facing three armed thugs, I am inadequate..
I don't carry a gun because I love it.
I carry a gun because I love life and the people who make it meaningful to me.
Police protection is an oxymoron.
Free citizens must protect themselves.
Police do not protect you from crime, they usually just investigate the crime after it happens and then call someone in to clean up the mess.
Personally, I carry a gun because I'm too young to die and too old to take an ass whoopin'.....author unknown (but obviously brilliant)
...Read this and weep for those people who are so naive as to think this can't happen to them.
Why Carry a Gun?
My old grandpa said to me 'Son, there comes a time in every man's life when he stops bustin' knuckles and starts bustin' caps and usually it's when he becomes too old to take an ass whoopin.' I don't carry a gun to kill people.
I carry a gun to keep from being killed.
I don't carry a gun to scare people.
I carry a gun because sometimes this world can be a scary place.
I don't carry a gun because I'm paranoid.
I carry a gun because there are real threats in the world..
I don't carry a gun because I'm evil.
I carry a gun because I have lived long enough to see the evil in the world.
I don't carry a gun because I hate the government.
I carry a gun because I understand the limitations of government.
I don't carry a gun because I'm angry.
I carry a gun so that I don't have to spend the rest of my life hating myself for failing to be prepared.
I don't carry a gun because I want to shoot someone.
I carry a gun because I want to die at a ripe old age in my bed, and not on a sidewalk somewhere tomorrow afternoon.
I don't carry a gun because I'm a cowboy.
I carry a gun because, when I die and go to heaven, I want to be a cowboy.
I don't carry a gun to make me feel like a man.
I carry a gun because men know how to take care of themselves and the ones they love.
I don't carry a gun because I feel inadequate.
I carry a gun because unarmed and facing three armed thugs, I am inadequate..
I don't carry a gun because I love it.
I carry a gun because I love life and the people who make it meaningful to me.
Police protection is an oxymoron.
Free citizens must protect themselves.
Police do not protect you from crime, they usually just investigate the crime after it happens and then call someone in to clean up the mess.
Personally, I carry a gun because I'm too young to die and too old to take an ass whoopin'.....author unknown (but obviously brilliant)
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
1st Email of the Week: Theater Shooting in San Antonio Proves Gun Advocates Right
On Sunday, 2 days after the Connecticut shooting, a man went to a restaurant in San Antonio to kill his X-girlfriend.
After he shot her, most of the people in the restaurant fled next door to a theater.
The gunman followed them and entered the theater so he could shoot more people.
He started shooting and people in the theater started running and screaming.
It's like the Aurora, CO theater story plus a restaurant!
Now aren't you wondering why this isn't a lead story in the national media along with the school shooting?
There was an off duty county deputy at the theater.
SHE pulled out her gun and shot the man 4 times before he had a chance to kill anyone.
So since this story makes the point that the best thing to stop a bad person with a gun is a good person with a gun, the media is treating it like it never happened.
Only the local media covered it. The city is giving her a medal next week.
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_news/article/Two-wounded-in-theater-shooting-4122668.php
After he shot her, most of the people in the restaurant fled next door to a theater.
The gunman followed them and entered the theater so he could shoot more people.
He started shooting and people in the theater started running and screaming.
It's like the Aurora, CO theater story plus a restaurant!
Now aren't you wondering why this isn't a lead story in the national media along with the school shooting?
There was an off duty county deputy at the theater.
SHE pulled out her gun and shot the man 4 times before he had a chance to kill anyone.
So since this story makes the point that the best thing to stop a bad person with a gun is a good person with a gun, the media is treating it like it never happened.
Only the local media covered it. The city is giving her a medal next week.
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_news/article/Two-wounded-in-theater-shooting-4122668.php
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Give Me Liberty, or Give Me Welfare?
By Douglas V. Gibbs
The final sentence of the Declaration of Independence reads: "And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor."
Today, it might read: "And for the support of my fat ass, with a firm reliance on the goodies offered by the federal government, I accept food stamps, a liberal education, and an indoctrination by political correctness and the liberal media. Go Hollywood!"
Then again, let's not get too down, just yet.
The American Revolution was fought by 3% of the population, and the drive for independence was only supported by a third of the population in the colonies. Those that engaged in it did it because it was the right thing to do, and their sacred honor would not allow them to do otherwise.
The difference today is we have more support in our corner. This is a center-right country. A vast majority of Americans are people who believe that this nation is exceptional, and that Americanism is alive and well if we'd just embrace it. Unfortunately, these people haven't been voting, because the Republican Party has left us.
Obama is not supported by the majority of the country. He is not the beneficiary of a nation leaning left. The nation's entitlement dependency has not topped over 50%, and to be truthful, many of those people using government programs would just assume not be in that kind of position.
It isn't time to hang up our hat. It is time to rally the troops. Be it around the GOP, or a new conservative party, Americans willing to pledge to each other their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor can still turn this around. We just have to be willing to join together, and work our way back to the Constitution.
United We Stand, Combined We Kick Butt.
The liberal left is all about collectivism, so of course they are better at the game than we are. Conservatives are individuals, so we are all just a little different. But while we are arguing over our differences, the collectivists of the Democrat Party are assimilating into a single force, joining together like a bunch of mindless Borg, and are getting their base out for the vote.
Okay, fine, it has become a fight, and the leftists are going for broke. They have spent more than any administration in history. They are trying to hammer the producers in society with a Marxist progressive tax rate. They have moved towards nationalizing the automobile industry, banking, credit, and health care. And now they have set their sights on our guns.
The American Revolution became a reality when the British went after our guns in Concord, but the Minutemen stopped them at Lexington Green.
The move against our guns is the final straw. The silent majority, as it did in 2010, is ready to roar. The sleeping tiger is ready to strike. It is time to stand up for Americanism. If they disarm us, we will no longer be citizens. . . we will become subjects.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Hillary Clinton's Health Woes Build
First it was a concussion, and now it is a blood clot. Will Hillary Clinton's health ever allow her to testify regarding Benghazi?
The blood clot was discovered during a follow-up exam associated with the concussion she suffered when she fainted due to a stomach virus she had a few weeks ago. She is being treated with anti-coagulants and is being closely monitored. Whether or not there will be a need for further action should be determined within the next 48 hours.
The fascinating coincidences keep piling up.
How fortunate for Barack Obama.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Obama Finally Admits He Wants Gun Control
Barack Obama is the kind of politician that doesn't say anything until he thinks it is popular enough for him to say it.
In other words, he's pretty typical, when it comes to the rats of Washington DC.
If an issue is unpopular, he hides his true feelings, says a few not-so-specific things about the issue, and as a Senator he would vote "present" on such issues, just so as not to commit himself in case the polls head in a direction away from his position. However, if you pay close attention, his rhetoric has always revealed he is an anti-gun kind of guy.
During Obama's first term I remember occasionally mentioning on this website Obama's desire to increase the federal government's regulations on firearms, and liberals would freak out, leaving comments asking me to name just once when Obama claimed he was for banning guns. Obama's position was obvious, without him ever saying it, and the rhetoric I could come up with vaguely insinuated he was for gun control, but was dated prior to him leaping onto the national scene. Things like the Fast and Furious scandal, where the Obama administration practically handed guns to the Mexican drug cartels in the hopes they would use them to murder thousands (of which they did), so that the democrats could create an anti-gun sentiment in the United States over it, were just not solid enough proof to convince these liberals that Obama wants to disarm America.
I would guess that most of those liberals wanted gun control, too, but understood that at the time it was a losing issue for the liberal left.
Obama was waiting for the right crisis, hoping that it would become popular to get on the gun control bandwagon - and the Newtown School Shooting was just the crisis Obama, and the democrats, were waiting for to politicize, and move America towards gun control.
Now, after all of the dust has settled, and it is looking like it might be time for him to let the clown out of the box, Obama has pledged to make gun control legislation his top priority.
According to the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution, federal gun laws restricting firearms in any way are unconstitutional. Such illegal legislation would be met with fierce opposition, and could prove to be a battle that becomes more volatile than the democrats believe.
Those that oppose federal gun control legislation understand that the States, not the federal government, have an authority to regulate firearms as they see fit. The State governments are closer to the people, and therefore are supposed to be more accountable to the people. A centralized federal government is distant, and is not going to be sympathetic to the local needs, or unique culture. Besides, when a centralized government bans firearms, it opens up the opportunity for tyranny. An armed populace guards against the federal government becoming anything other than servants to the people. A disarmed populace become nothing more than subjects that can be pushed in any direction the ruling elite thinks it sees fit.
Senator Feinstein has pledged to propose legislation a lot like her old anti-gun feather in her cap that banned assault-style weapons from 1994 to 2004. She has stated she plans to add high-capacity magazines to that.
Obama, echoing his colleagues, because he refuses to ever take the lead, says his plan is to rally Americans around an agenda to limit gun violence, adding he supports increased background checks and bans on assault weapons and high-capacity bullet magazines.
The wheels are in motion. It won't be long before they go for confiscation.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Obama makes passing gun control measures a priority for 2013 - Fox News
Obama hopes to enact new gun-control measures in 2013 - The Hill
British Citizens to Americans: Don't Let Them Take Your Guns!
Britain confiscated its citizen's guns in 1997. Crime skyrocketed as the law-abiding were disarmed. The British have a message for Americans:
Freedom matters. Fight for it.
Link for video: http://youtu.be/n9ZvwPmjJu4
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Freedom matters. Fight for it.
Link for video: http://youtu.be/n9ZvwPmjJu4
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Germany One Step Away from Death Panels for Elderly because of High Care Costs
In a system like ours (well, if we were following the system created by the Founding Fathers, anyway) the elderly would have either planned for their retirement, or family would be taking care of them. In the event that they did not plan, nor have any family, the charities would step in. However, in systems where the government acts as the caretaker of society, the costs are unsustainable - especially when the next generation's fertility rate is lower.
In Germany, the cost of care for the elderly has caught up to them. . .
From the U.K. Mail Online:
Germany accused of 'deporting' its elderly: Rising numbers moved to Asia and Eastern Europe because of sky-high care costs
Country's elderly and sick being sent abroad due to rising care costs
Situation described as 'inhumane deportation' and a huge 'alarm signal'
Warning to Britain where pensioners are selling homes to pay for healthcare
German pensioners are being sent to care homes in Eastern Europe and Asia in what has been described as an ‘inhumane deportation’.
Rising numbers of the elderly and sick are moved overseas for long-term care because of sky-high costs at home.
Some private healthcare providers are even building homes overseas, while state insurers are also investigating whether they can care for their clients abroad.
Experts describe a time bomb’ of increasing numbers unable to afford the growing costs of retirement homes.
Read more at the Daily Mail
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
In Germany, the cost of care for the elderly has caught up to them. . .
From the U.K. Mail Online:
Germany accused of 'deporting' its elderly: Rising numbers moved to Asia and Eastern Europe because of sky-high care costs
Country's elderly and sick being sent abroad due to rising care costs
Situation described as 'inhumane deportation' and a huge 'alarm signal'
Warning to Britain where pensioners are selling homes to pay for healthcare
German pensioners are being sent to care homes in Eastern Europe and Asia in what has been described as an ‘inhumane deportation’.
Rising numbers of the elderly and sick are moved overseas for long-term care because of sky-high costs at home.
Some private healthcare providers are even building homes overseas, while state insurers are also investigating whether they can care for their clients abroad.
Experts describe a time bomb’ of increasing numbers unable to afford the growing costs of retirement homes.
Read more at the Daily Mail
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Sunday, December 30, 2012
Labor Union Brownshirt Thuggery Strikes in the Form of Arson in Philadelphia
By Douglas V. Gibbs
The contractor decided to only higher non-union workers. The union offered, and was rejected. So, in labor union fashion, the union members lashed out. . . violently.
Suspects have yet to be identified, but investigators do not doubt the small Quaker building in Philadelphia was targeted because it is being built with non-union labor.
If union members were involved, the attack would be the second violent incident in Philadelphia this year related to the use of non-union construction workers.
The vandals used an acetylene torch, which requires a skilled operator who must wear a special mask and gloves, to ignite the cab of a large, mobile building crane, to shear off the steel bolts on nearly a dozen columns, and to hack halfway through at the base, as if someone were trying to cut down a tree.
The attack has been declared an arson.
The cost of the damage could run over $500,000.
This is not the first time E. Allen Reeves, a firm that maintains an open shop, with a history of hiring both union and non-union subcontractors, has had to tangle with union members over his hiring practices.
Several days before the attack, according to Reeves, representatives of several construction unions appeared at the site to discuss hiring their members. After being rejected, one representative from the ironworkers union "basically said to the superintendent that 'he would do what he had to do.' "
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
The contractor decided to only higher non-union workers. The union offered, and was rejected. So, in labor union fashion, the union members lashed out. . . violently.
Suspects have yet to be identified, but investigators do not doubt the small Quaker building in Philadelphia was targeted because it is being built with non-union labor.
If union members were involved, the attack would be the second violent incident in Philadelphia this year related to the use of non-union construction workers.
The vandals used an acetylene torch, which requires a skilled operator who must wear a special mask and gloves, to ignite the cab of a large, mobile building crane, to shear off the steel bolts on nearly a dozen columns, and to hack halfway through at the base, as if someone were trying to cut down a tree.
The attack has been declared an arson.
The cost of the damage could run over $500,000.
This is not the first time E. Allen Reeves, a firm that maintains an open shop, with a history of hiring both union and non-union subcontractors, has had to tangle with union members over his hiring practices.
Several days before the attack, according to Reeves, representatives of several construction unions appeared at the site to discuss hiring their members. After being rejected, one representative from the ironworkers union "basically said to the superintendent that 'he would do what he had to do.' "
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Phila. police tie construction-site arson to union sabotage - Philadelphia Inquirer
Courts Delay France's Collapse by Rejecting 75% Millionaire Tax
By Douglas V. Gibbs
The people of France had a liberal president that was considered to be quite conservative on European standards, and they replaced him with an out-and-out socialist. It was no surprise when the Socialist President decided to push, and get, a 75% income tax on millionaires.
The parasites of society were dancing with joy. Socialism, after all, characterizes the rich as the enemy, and taxing them through a scheme of the redistribution of wealth. The government claims that it is through this progressive style of taxation that the government pays for the entitlements and socialist programs showered on the common folk.
Then the rich began packing their bags and began to flee France. The way it was looking, the massive tax was going to wind up costing France in revenue, since the producers were running for the hills.
The French high court rejected the tax, saying it is unfairly applied, setting back President Hollande's socialist plans.
I wonder if the American democrats are watching this, and what they think.
Obama could care less, to be honest. Nations could collapse over and over again under policies similar to his, but he still thinks his will work. He hates individuality, success in the private sector, and self-reliance. He is a socialist beyond those in Europe. He believes not only that it takes a ruling elite to run a country, but that in his arrogance, he is the ruler destined to take America to a new level of utopianism.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Obama Birth Certificate Controversy Not Over - Obama Hustle Reports Hawaii State Registrar Admits Forgery
According to the Obama Hustle:
BREAKING NEWS – Hawaii state registrar Alvin Onaka has publicly certified to AZ SOS Ken Bennett that Barack Obama’s HI birth certificate is legally non-valid and the White House image is a forgery.
Note: Obama's constitutional eligibility does not hang as much on where he was born, but if his parents were citizens at the time of his birth. By his own admission his father was not a US Citizen when he was born. However, if Obama's birth certificate is a fraud as many still believe, this opens up more than just whether or not Obama is eligible. A forgery would reveal that Obama lied under oath that he was born in Hawaii, and it would reveal he has more to hide than even many conservatives believed. If this turns out to be true, it could make things very interesting.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Islamism, Like a Disease, Overtaking Zanzibar
Extremism on the rise in Zanzibar
Under the peach arches of Al-Noor charitable agency for the needy just outside Stone Town in Zanzibar, a 24-hour Islamic radio station broadcasts religious guidance.
Female tourists should wear headscarves and cover their knees, says Mohamed Suleiman Ali, director of Radio Al-Noor, echoing the opinions voiced on radio. “It’s too early to fight for an Islamic state because there are several stages to that, but a lot of things are being done contrary to the teachings of Islam,” he says. “There’s no social responsibility; the government keeps producing more [social] freedom.”
Under the peach arches of Al-Noor charitable agency for the needy just outside Stone Town in Zanzibar, a 24-hour Islamic radio station broadcasts religious guidance.
Female tourists should wear headscarves and cover their knees, says Mohamed Suleiman Ali, director of Radio Al-Noor, echoing the opinions voiced on radio. “It’s too early to fight for an Islamic state because there are several stages to that, but a lot of things are being done contrary to the teachings of Islam,” he says. “There’s no social responsibility; the government keeps producing more [social] freedom.”
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Killing Baby Turtles: A Window To Our Culture's Soul
By Douglas V. Gibbs
A student at Clemson University wanted to figure out a way to assist the small box turtles as they made their trek across highways towards the waters of the sea. The numbers of these turtles are in decline, and the several minute journey across roadways don't exactly help out when it comes to their survival. It takes many years before box turtles reach the age of maturity that allows them to reproduce, and of the hundreds of eggs laid by females, only a few of her offspring will grow to their own age of reproductive maturity. Nathan Weaver decided to study the journey, and see what happens when the turtles make it to the highway. What he witnessed was horrifying, and as Associate Press Writer Jeffrey Collins puts it, "a peek into the dark souls of some human beings."
Small, realistic-looking rubber turtles, were placed on the road. The false turtles matched the size of the infant box turtles, no bigger than a saucer. Then, for the next hour, Nathan Weaver watched as seven drivers intentionally ran over the turtle, and several more appeared to try to hit the defenseless animal, but missed.
I recognize that animals are animals, and I don't give them human attributes like some people try to do. I eat meat, and I do a little hunting on rare occasion. However, aside from the activity of consumption, or pest removal, I try to respect the lives of animals. It is not their fault that they live among humans, and I would just assume leave them alone if I don't plan to eat them.
That said, I find it absolutely disgusting that the sick minds of people are willing to go out of their way to squash baby box turtles as they cross the road. It reminds me of stories of people who try to run down rabbits with their cars on the road, or the story I heard as a child of the idiot that tied two cats' tails together on a short tether, and then hung them on a clothes line to fight it out, swinging back and forth, upside down, until one of them was dead.
These are the kinds of people that are so dead inside that they can walk into a school and shoot innocent children to death.
Our culture has a dark side because we as humans have a dark side. We are all sinners, biblical text tells us, and we all fall short of His Glory. Some, however, are willing to embrace that sinful nature, and nurture it into a monstrous killing machine.
Sure, for some it may be an innocent sport, chasing little animals with a steel cage on wheels. Perhaps that is how they try to justify it. I wonder if these were the people pulling wings off flies as kids.
Our culture has a dark side because we as humans have a dark side. We are all sinners, biblical text tells us, and we all fall short of His Glory. Some, however, are willing to embrace that sinful nature, and nurture it into a monstrous killing machine.
Sure, for some it may be an innocent sport, chasing little animals with a steel cage on wheels. Perhaps that is how they try to justify it. I wonder if these were the people pulling wings off flies as kids.
It takes real bravery to run over a helpless little turtle.
What did we expect would happen when we took prayer out of schools, and began working to remove God from the public square?
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Clemson, S.C.: Clemson Student's turtle project takes dark twist - Rock Hill Herald Online
Last Ditch Effort to Avoid Fiscal Cliff
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Everyone's taxes are going up, and any deal will be a bad deal. Congress thinks a bad deal is better than the "fiscal cliff," which would be the expiration of the Bush Tax Rates, and the implementation of draconian cuts to the military budget. What the republicans are looking for is a compromise, but what the democrats have proven up to this point is that they don't plan to compromise. It is their way, or over the cliff. Besides, with Obamacare, the rich are going to get taxed heavily, whether a deal is struck, or not. The democrats win no matter what - deal, or no deal.
The idea of a Fiscal Cliff was created by the democrats to create fear. Fear of blame, fear of calamity. Remember, the democrats love crisis, and will even create them if they have to. After all, as Rahm Emanuel said, "Never let a crisis go to waste."
Only the Tea Party members of Congress have stuck to their principles, and have refused to play Obama's game.
When it comes to manipulating the Republican Establishment, however, it is working for the democrats like a charm.
Taxes are going up, and there won't be any entitlement reform. Obama won the election, and so he believes that means he has a mandate to do whatever he wants, and that is how they are playing the game. In fact, the democrats are even willing to disregard the Constitution and use the Senate to create a fiscal deal, and then force the republicans of the House into a corner with it. The democrats have no interest in protecting our economic future, preventing this nation from going into default or earning yet another downgrade in our credit rating, reducing the deficit, or protecting Americans from an overreaching federal government. Obama ran on raising taxes, and moving America even closer to his ultimate goal, a socialist America.
Obama is going to get everything he wants, and the Republicans will be left blamed for anything that goes wrong because they dared to argue. That is what happens when conservatives in America allow the hard left to gain control of the education system, the media, the entertainment industry, and buy votes with entitlements.
In the end, this goes beyond making America a model of socialism based on the framework failing on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean. The democrats are looking for a global solution. Without borders, without sovereignty. It is their goal to destroy the system as it is, change it to a socialist system, and then join the global meltdown we are seeing in Europe. We are the World, they are singing, just like the band playing on the Titanic as the iceberg tore into that great vessel. The only difference is the democrats are eagerly searching for icebergs, and are ramming into them on purpose.
The republicans believe that the democrats care about the economy, and America, so they are trying to play fair and concede this and that. Compromise is their game, but liberals don't compromise, and The Right has nothing in common with the Marxists of the Left, so there is nothing to compromise over. The democrats and republicans in Washington are acting like they are making a last ditch effort, but as the republicans think there is a deal to be struck, the truth is Obama wants none. They are trying to deal with someone unwilling to deal, because no deal gives him more of what he is trying to achieve than any deal could ever offer.
Obama's attitude is basically, give me everything, or you get nothing. Make a choice.
For this, 2013 will be a very challenging year. The question will simply be, will the socialists achieve the tyranny they are gunning for, or will the resolve of the American People finally halt the oncoming train wreck from happening? Can we save our Constitutional Republic, or has collapse finally come to America.
Time will tell.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
The Rich Will Pay More Taxes Next Year No Matter What - Yahoo! Finance
Congress Returns Sunday to Strike Deal to Avert Fiscal Crisis, Details and Times Fluid - Fox News
Death of Tea Party appears exaggerated, members in House appear to hold key to fiscal vote - Fox News
Everyone's taxes are going up, and any deal will be a bad deal. Congress thinks a bad deal is better than the "fiscal cliff," which would be the expiration of the Bush Tax Rates, and the implementation of draconian cuts to the military budget. What the republicans are looking for is a compromise, but what the democrats have proven up to this point is that they don't plan to compromise. It is their way, or over the cliff. Besides, with Obamacare, the rich are going to get taxed heavily, whether a deal is struck, or not. The democrats win no matter what - deal, or no deal.
The idea of a Fiscal Cliff was created by the democrats to create fear. Fear of blame, fear of calamity. Remember, the democrats love crisis, and will even create them if they have to. After all, as Rahm Emanuel said, "Never let a crisis go to waste."
Only the Tea Party members of Congress have stuck to their principles, and have refused to play Obama's game.
When it comes to manipulating the Republican Establishment, however, it is working for the democrats like a charm.
Taxes are going up, and there won't be any entitlement reform. Obama won the election, and so he believes that means he has a mandate to do whatever he wants, and that is how they are playing the game. In fact, the democrats are even willing to disregard the Constitution and use the Senate to create a fiscal deal, and then force the republicans of the House into a corner with it. The democrats have no interest in protecting our economic future, preventing this nation from going into default or earning yet another downgrade in our credit rating, reducing the deficit, or protecting Americans from an overreaching federal government. Obama ran on raising taxes, and moving America even closer to his ultimate goal, a socialist America.
Obama is going to get everything he wants, and the Republicans will be left blamed for anything that goes wrong because they dared to argue. That is what happens when conservatives in America allow the hard left to gain control of the education system, the media, the entertainment industry, and buy votes with entitlements.
In the end, this goes beyond making America a model of socialism based on the framework failing on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean. The democrats are looking for a global solution. Without borders, without sovereignty. It is their goal to destroy the system as it is, change it to a socialist system, and then join the global meltdown we are seeing in Europe. We are the World, they are singing, just like the band playing on the Titanic as the iceberg tore into that great vessel. The only difference is the democrats are eagerly searching for icebergs, and are ramming into them on purpose.
The republicans believe that the democrats care about the economy, and America, so they are trying to play fair and concede this and that. Compromise is their game, but liberals don't compromise, and The Right has nothing in common with the Marxists of the Left, so there is nothing to compromise over. The democrats and republicans in Washington are acting like they are making a last ditch effort, but as the republicans think there is a deal to be struck, the truth is Obama wants none. They are trying to deal with someone unwilling to deal, because no deal gives him more of what he is trying to achieve than any deal could ever offer.
Obama's attitude is basically, give me everything, or you get nothing. Make a choice.
For this, 2013 will be a very challenging year. The question will simply be, will the socialists achieve the tyranny they are gunning for, or will the resolve of the American People finally halt the oncoming train wreck from happening? Can we save our Constitutional Republic, or has collapse finally come to America.
Time will tell.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
The Rich Will Pay More Taxes Next Year No Matter What - Yahoo! Finance
Congress Returns Sunday to Strike Deal to Avert Fiscal Crisis, Details and Times Fluid - Fox News
Death of Tea Party appears exaggerated, members in House appear to hold key to fiscal vote - Fox News
Gun Ignorance of the Liberal Left: Case in Point - Daily KOS
By Douglas V. Gibbs
If a conservative doesn't like guns, they don't buy one. If liberals don't like guns, they don't want anyone to be able to buy one. Liberal prejudices against guns are primarily born from their ignorance - not only about human nature, but the firearms themselves.
Also, The United States Constitution's Second Amendment restricts the federal government from regulating guns at all. Technically, it is a State issue, but a concept like State Sovereignty normally flies high above the heads of today's American Liberal. The Liberal Left believes that a strong, centralized federal government is what we need. . . except when someone like George W. Bush is President. Then they think it is a bad idea.
In Mexico gun control is in full swing, and as a result the drug cartels are practically running the country. Notice that the criminal element could care less about the laws, and found ways to get their hands on guns. In Britain and Australia, after instituting gun control laws, the occurrence of violent crimes went up.
Criminals love unarmed victims.
Tyrannical governments love unarmed victims even more.
The American Liberal Left is salivating over the current talk about gun control. These people have been waiting for this for so long, and now their dream of disarming the "gun nuts" has come to fruition. Sites like the Daily KOS are not shy about proclaiming they support bans on not only "assault" weapons, but all guns.
The liberal left can't stand the fact that guns are considered a right, and that owning guns is even allowed in our country. The conservative "right wing" extremists, as they like to call us, are rebellious against their version of America, and the private property of firearms must be confiscated.
The first plank of the Communist Manifesto is the abolition of private property.
The fourth plank of the Communist Manifesto is the confiscation of all the property of emigrants and rebels.
Sporks, a writer for the Daily KOS, recently wrote a piece titled: How to Ban Guns: A step by step, long term process.
The writer is not shy about stating that they believe all guns should be banned. However, this person speaks from an incredible position of ignorance. Let's use the article to explain my point.
Paragraph 1: The vast majority of firearm deaths occur with handguns. Only about 5% of people killed by guns are killed by guns which would be banned in any foreseeable AWB.
Paragraph 2: Furthermore, there seems to be no talk about high powered rifles. What gun nuts don't want you to know is many target and hunting rifles are chambered in the same round (.223/5.56mm) that Lanza's assault weapon was.
Paragraph 3: I like that we're talking about assault weapons, machine guns, and high capacity clips. But it only takes one bullet out of one gun to kill a person.
Paragraph 4: The only way we can truly be safe and prevent further gun violence is to ban civilian ownership of all guns.
The Turkish Ottoman Empire established gun control in 1911. It then proceeded to exterminate 1 and a half million Armenians from 1914 to 1917.
The Soviet Union established gun control in 1929. Subsequently, from 1928 to 1953, 60 million dissidents were imprisoned and then exterminated.
China enacted gun control laws in 1935. After the communist takeover, from 1948 to 1952, 20 million Chinese, unable to defend themselves, were murdered.
Nazi Germany fully established gun control in 1938. That helped the government to round up 13 million defenseless Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, mentally ill and impaired human beings. Many were imprisoned in concentration camps, then destroyed.
Guatemala passed gun control laws in 1964. Then, from 1964 to 1981, 100,000 defenseless Mayan Indians were exterminated.
Uganda established gun control measures in 1970. Predictably, from 1971 to 1979, 300,000 defenseless Christians met a similar fate.
Cambodia established gun control measures in 1956. Subsequently, from 1957 to 1977, 1 million Cambodians met their deaths.
Paragraph 6: The very first thing we need is national registry. We need to know where the guns are, and who has them.
Paragraph 7: Along with this, make private sales illegal.
- Is this really a Pandora's Box Sporks wants to open? The author of the Daily KOS piece wants to ban private sales because if the gun is not registered, nothing needs to be done. An individual, who is not engaged in the business of firearms sales, and who wishes to sell his own personal firearm to another individual, has a right to do so freely. This person-to-person sale does not require a background check because it is a non-commercial, non-dealer transaction founded on the fundamental right to engage in personal commerce. Is Sporks suggesting that the federal government should regulate person-to-person sales? Once you begin with one thing, the government will take a mile. Well, there is that, in addition to the unconstitutionality of the federal government getting involved in such a manner. Perhaps the Constitution means nothing to Sporks.
Paragraph 11: I would suggest an immediate, national ban on concealed carry. A ban on internet sales of guns and ammunition is a no brainer.
Paragraph 13: We must make guns expensive and unpopular.
Paragraph 14: I know this seems harsh, but this is the only way we can be truly safe. I don't want my kids being shot at by a deranged NRA member.
If a conservative doesn't like guns, they don't buy one. If liberals don't like guns, they don't want anyone to be able to buy one. Liberal prejudices against guns are primarily born from their ignorance - not only about human nature, but the firearms themselves.
Also, The United States Constitution's Second Amendment restricts the federal government from regulating guns at all. Technically, it is a State issue, but a concept like State Sovereignty normally flies high above the heads of today's American Liberal. The Liberal Left believes that a strong, centralized federal government is what we need. . . except when someone like George W. Bush is President. Then they think it is a bad idea.
In Mexico gun control is in full swing, and as a result the drug cartels are practically running the country. Notice that the criminal element could care less about the laws, and found ways to get their hands on guns. In Britain and Australia, after instituting gun control laws, the occurrence of violent crimes went up.
Criminals love unarmed victims.
Tyrannical governments love unarmed victims even more.
The American Liberal Left is salivating over the current talk about gun control. These people have been waiting for this for so long, and now their dream of disarming the "gun nuts" has come to fruition. Sites like the Daily KOS are not shy about proclaiming they support bans on not only "assault" weapons, but all guns.
The liberal left can't stand the fact that guns are considered a right, and that owning guns is even allowed in our country. The conservative "right wing" extremists, as they like to call us, are rebellious against their version of America, and the private property of firearms must be confiscated.
The first plank of the Communist Manifesto is the abolition of private property.
The fourth plank of the Communist Manifesto is the confiscation of all the property of emigrants and rebels.
Sporks, a writer for the Daily KOS, recently wrote a piece titled: How to Ban Guns: A step by step, long term process.
The writer is not shy about stating that they believe all guns should be banned. However, this person speaks from an incredible position of ignorance. Let's use the article to explain my point.
Paragraph 1: The vast majority of firearm deaths occur with handguns. Only about 5% of people killed by guns are killed by guns which would be banned in any foreseeable AWB.
- The words "killed by guns" are used twice. Understand, there is a person behind that trigger. Guns are tools. A greater number of people are killed by automobiles. Should we ban cars, too? The problem in shootings is not the guns, but the individuals that used the guns in these tragedies. As Ronald Reagan once said, "We must reject the idea that every time a law's broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions."
- Handguns are used in the vast majority of firearm deaths because though they are 34 percent of the total number of firearms (Cook, P. and Ludwig, J. Guns in America. Police Foundation, 1996), they are easier to handle, conceal, and carry. Of those firearm deaths by handgun, we have to consider how many were by suicide (someone who is suicidal will use whatever is available, so gun control will not decrease that number, but will simply alter the method of suicide), and self-defense. Gun control will decrease the number of gun deaths by suicide and self-defense, but will not decrease the number of deaths caused by assault and criminal activity. People willing to act criminally will not only fail to follow any gun laws in place (after all, they are law-breakers), but that number will increase because now they are assured that the victims have been disarmed by gun control laws.
Paragraph 2: Furthermore, there seems to be no talk about high powered rifles. What gun nuts don't want you to know is many target and hunting rifles are chambered in the same round (.223/5.56mm) that Lanza's assault weapon was.
- The term "high powered rifles" is interesting. The media's definition of "high powered" seems to be anything above .22 caliber. For others, "high powered" might mean "center-fire," as opposed to "rim fire". In other words, the term "high powered" seems to be at the discretion of the individual. The term "high powered" is used to make the guns sound scarier.
- In Paragraph 2, Sporks states that Adam Lanza's firearm was an "assault weapon." Sporks couldn't be more wrong. An assault weapon is a rifle with a fire selector switch that can select between single shot, a three-round burst shot, or full-auto fire. These kind of guns are not readily available, are not sold in gun shops, and was not what Lanza had. Adam Lanza had semi-automatics, which only means that they fire one shot at a time, but do not need to be reloaded by hand. For example, two of my revolvers and my 9mm Spanish Astra 1921 are semi-automatic because the round automatically loads, so all I need to do to fire the next shot is pull the trigger again. My Ruger Single-Six revolver, however, is not a semi-automatic, because I have to pull back the hammer before I can fire it again. Most of my rifles require me to pull back the bolt action to dislodge the shell, and for the next round to be put into place, which means that they, also, are not semi-automatic. My 7mm rifle, however, automatically kicks out the used shell, and the next round from the clip slides into place. All I have to do is pull the trigger. There is nothing sinister about these guns. The semi-automatic feature is simply a convenience, and saves a fraction of a second. Sporks assumes Lanza's rifles were "assault weapons" because they look scary. However, the firepower he assumes those guns have, which would classify them as "assault weapons," are reserved exclusively for the U.S. military.
- Machine Guns? Really? Sporks watches too many movies. He is assuming what is being used in these shootings is some gun with a spinning carbine and a belt of a hundred rounds being fed to it. Once again, that kind of firepower is reserved exclusively for the U.S. Military.
- Banning high capacity clips do nothing to slow down a shooter. If my smaller clip empties out, I can change magazines pretty fast. The difference of having a bunch of smaller-capacity clips, and fewer high-capacity clips is a matter of a second, or two.
- It only takes one bullet out of one gun to kill a person. However, often it only takes the knowledge that the potential victim is armed to stop the shooting altogether. While the writer is suggesting banning all guns, we must once again remind ourselves that banning gun ownership by law-abiding citizens simply disarms those citizens. It does not disarm lawbreakers, or governmental tyrannies.
- The best way to respond to this ignorant statement is to throw some numbers out.
Mexico has strong gun control laws, and as a result the unarmed populace is at the mercy of the drug cartels.
The Turkish Ottoman Empire established gun control in 1911. It then proceeded to exterminate 1 and a half million Armenians from 1914 to 1917.
The Soviet Union established gun control in 1929. Subsequently, from 1928 to 1953, 60 million dissidents were imprisoned and then exterminated.
China enacted gun control laws in 1935. After the communist takeover, from 1948 to 1952, 20 million Chinese, unable to defend themselves, were murdered.
Nazi Germany fully established gun control in 1938. That helped the government to round up 13 million defenseless Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, mentally ill and impaired human beings. Many were imprisoned in concentration camps, then destroyed.
Guatemala passed gun control laws in 1964. Then, from 1964 to 1981, 100,000 defenseless Mayan Indians were exterminated.
Uganda established gun control measures in 1970. Predictably, from 1971 to 1979, 300,000 defenseless Christians met a similar fate.
Cambodia established gun control measures in 1956. Subsequently, from 1957 to 1977, 1 million Cambodians met their deaths.
- The Weimar Republic instituted a gun registry, primarily to stop the Nazis and the Communists in Germany. The action did little to stop the Nazis. In 1938, the Nazis passed a weapons law adding restrictions to the previous law, especially for Jews and other "non-citizens." The national registry was the first step towards stronger gun control laws, which helped the Nazis suppress political dissidents and round up German Jews for extermination. The Nazis benefited from the inability of their victims to fight back.
- Knowing where the guns are, and who has them, enables the government to know who to confiscate the guns from. Criminals will not participate in the national registry, and since their guns are largely obtained illegally, they have no fear of the firearms being traced to them. Therefore, the only guns you would know where they are, and who has them, is those owned by law-abiding citizens, which are not the ones behind most of the gun deaths in America. Also, this sets up the opportunity for a tyrannical government to disarm the public, and for a totalitarian system to rise up. Before you scoff at that possibility, remember that the Germans didn't think that could happen in their country, either.
- Knowing where the guns are, and who has them, enables the government to know who to confiscate the guns from. Criminals will not participate in the national registry, and since their guns are largely obtained illegally, they have no fear of the firearms being traced to them. Therefore, the only guns you would know where they are, and who has them, is those owned by law-abiding citizens, which are not the ones behind most of the gun deaths in America. Also, this sets up the opportunity for a tyrannical government to disarm the public, and for a totalitarian system to rise up. Before you scoff at that possibility, remember that the Germans didn't think that could happen in their country, either.
- Is this really a Pandora's Box Sporks wants to open? The author of the Daily KOS piece wants to ban private sales because if the gun is not registered, nothing needs to be done. An individual, who is not engaged in the business of firearms sales, and who wishes to sell his own personal firearm to another individual, has a right to do so freely. This person-to-person sale does not require a background check because it is a non-commercial, non-dealer transaction founded on the fundamental right to engage in personal commerce. Is Sporks suggesting that the federal government should regulate person-to-person sales? Once you begin with one thing, the government will take a mile. Well, there is that, in addition to the unconstitutionality of the federal government getting involved in such a manner. Perhaps the Constitution means nothing to Sporks.
- Aside from the unconstitutionality of a national ban on concealed carry, it is also a very dangerous proposition. Studies have shown that "allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons deters violent crimes and
it appears to produce no increase in accidental deaths." http://www.law.uchicago.edu/files/files/41.lott_.final_.pdf
it appears to produce no increase in accidental deaths." http://www.law.uchicago.edu/files/files/41.lott_.final_.pdf
- The myth believed by people like Sporks is that Online sales allows people to actually buy guns Online, which is not entirely true. You can PAY for a gun online, but gun dealers cannot (and will not) ship a firearm directly to any customer. All guns that are PAID FOR online must be shipped to FFL dealers, which are federally licensed and regulated by the ATF. The requirements for a background check, and anything else that accompanies buying a gun in a gun store, still applies, and must be done before the buyer can pick up their gun at the FFL dealer.
Paragraph 12: A national Firearms Owner Identification Card might be good, but I'm not sure if it's necessary if we have a national database. We should also insist on comprehensive insurance and mandatory gun safes, subject to random, spot checks by local and federal law enforcement.
Paragraph 12: A national Firearms Owner Identification Card might be good, but I'm not sure if it's necessary if we have a national database. We should also insist on comprehensive insurance and mandatory gun safes, subject to random, spot checks by local and federal law enforcement.
- This paragraph has Big Brother written all over it. The part about mandatory gun safes is especially disturbing. Does Sporks realize the cost of gun safes? Is he saying that the federal government should be able to require someone to buy something? Remember, that was the same concern over the Obamacare mandate. Besides, responsible gun owners, who can't afford gun safes, already take other actions, such as using trigger locks. The problem, in truth, is not the gun, in this case, but the responsibility of the gun owner as an individual.
- Random, spot checks by law enforcement? I wonder if Sporks would also support random, spot checks by law enforcement to make sure we aren't smoking in our homes, or to make sure we aren't eating trans-fats. Maybe Sporks would also suggest random, spot checks by law enforcement regarding the literature we are reading, or the people we associate with? Again, aside from the unconstitutionality of Sporks' suggestions, it also creates a dangerous opportunity for the government to be the very tyranny the American System was created to avoid. I am not thrilled by Sporks' suggestion that we be some kind of Orwellian Dystopia.
- You mean like Mexico did? Now that the populace is unarmed, the drug cartels have control of the country, and the people live in fear.
- Being truly safe is impossible. In China, just recently, 23 children were attacked by knife at a school. Also note that all of the shootings we have seen in the last few years have happened at locations considered to be "gun-free" zones. The shooters chose these locations because they knew they would be met with no armed resistance. As Wayne LaPierre of the NRA said, "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun." Oh, and none of these shootings were by "deranged" NRA members. Members of the NRA tend to be responsible gun owners who recognize that their guns are tools that must be respected, and used responsibly.
Thanks, Sporks, for your ignorance. People like you are entertaining to the rest of us who have a bit of common sense.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Call in to Constitution Study Radio and Ask Questions!
Constitution Study Radio: Next episode we will begin our studies of the Constitution from the start. Today's episode is merely an introduction. Why is the Constitution so important? Why should you learn the Constitution? What makes me the person that should be teaching it to you? What did the Founding Fathers have to say about the importance of the American society being educated about the principles held in the Constitution? It can be a call-in free for all, if you dare to call in.
Daniel Webster: Hold On To The Constitution
“Hold on, my friends, to the Constitution and to the Republic for which it stands. Miracles do not cluster and what has happened once in 6,000 years, may not happen again. Hold on to the Constitution, for if the American Constitution should fail, there will be anarchy throughout the world.” - Daniel Webster
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Saturday, December 29, 2012
As Fiscal Crisis Looms and Deficit Spending Continues to Rise, Obama Signs Executive Order to Give Federal Employees Raises, Including Vice President Biden
Obama Orders Pay Raise for Biden, Members of Congress, Federal Workers
President Barack Obama issued an executive order to end the pay freeze on federal employees, in effect giving some federal workers a raise. One federal worker now to receive a pay increase is Vice President Joe Biden.
According to disclosure forms, Biden made a cool $225,521 last year. After the pay increase, he'll now make $231,900 per year.
Members of Congress, from the House and Senate, also will receive a little bump, as their annual salary will go from $174,000 to 174,900. Leadership in Congress, including the speaker of the House, will likewise get an increase.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Howard Kurtz' Shameful Defense of David Gregory's High-Capacity Magazine is a call for the rule of man
By Douglas V. Gibbs
David Gregory broke the law, but he didn't intend to break the law, according to Howard Kurtz. What David Gregory committed when he waved around an illegal high-capacity gun magazine (illegal in Washington DC where his Meet the Press show is filmed, anyway - and after NBC had been denied the allowance to do so by Washington's Metropolitan Police Department) was an act of journalism - as if that gives Gregory the allowance to break any law he wants, as long he is trying to prove a point as a journalist.
I wonder if Howard Kurtz would feel the same way if the journalist considered himself to be a conservative.
Washington's police are investigating David Gregory's actions, and for good reason. He broke the law, and did so after being told not to. Any non-journalist without massive liberal ties would already be in jail, and would have a court date.
Washington DC law says that violators are subject to a year in jail and $1,000 fine for possessing a “large capacity” magazine, whether or not it contains bullets, and whether or not it is slapped into a gun.
As an example, to try to prove Gregory's actions were harmless, Howard Kurtz uses when investigative reporters sneak weapons or banned material through airport security and then get accused of breaking the law - as if that makes it okay.
Washington DC law says that violators are subject to a year in jail and $1,000 fine for possessing a “large capacity” magazine, whether or not it contains bullets, and whether or not it is slapped into a gun.
As an example, to try to prove Gregory's actions were harmless, Howard Kurtz uses when investigative reporters sneak weapons or banned material through airport security and then get accused of breaking the law - as if that makes it okay.
Uh, Mr. Kurtz? Sneaking weapons or banned material through airport security "is" breaking the law.
Members of the liberal media are not above that law, or any law.
Sure, if the investigative reporter had gained permission from the law enforcement agency involved, had gone through the proper channels, and worked closely with that agency while doing their investigative reporting, that would be something different.
As a gun owner, and defender of the 2nd Amendment, I am not championing Washington's ridiculous gun laws. In fact, I think they are unconstitutional, tyrannical, and the direct cause of the high violent crime rate in that city. But, just because I don't like a law, it doesn't mean that I will congratulate someone for breaking it. We are, after all, a nation under the rule of law, not the rule of man.
If we don't like certain laws, then it is our responsibility to work to change them.
In the case of Washington DC's gun laws, or any law in any State that you don't agree with, in a place like the United States, you have one of three choices. You can fight to change the law, put up and shut up, or move to a place in the country where the laws better suit your belief system.
That's one of the great things about State Sovereignty - The States can be different from each other, like the individuals that inhabit this great country.
David Gregory committed a crime, regardless of the fact that he was trying to show his disdain for guns, and regardless of the fact that he was being a journalist.
For committing his crime, he should be prosecuted.
I guarantee you that if the journalist brandishing the high-capacity clip in Washington DC was a member of the Fox News group of hosts, Sarah Palin, or any other republican political figure, or any journalist that considers themselves conservative, Howard Kurtz would be calling for their head, and would be expecting the Washington Metropolitan Police Department to prosecute that individual to the full extent of the law.
Besides, David Gregory should be happy he's being investigated. The second-rate journalist couldn't ask for better free publicity.
Besides, David Gregory should be happy he's being investigated. The second-rate journalist couldn't ask for better free publicity.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Why David Gregory Shouldn't be Behind Bars - Daily Download
Email of the Week: When Idiots Bring Up The War in Iraq
Thanks, Robert for the facebook rant. As always, you nailed it, while pulling no punches.
I'm so tired of idiots... Every time a fiscal issue comes up, they bring up "Unpaid for Wars" Democrats and Republicans BOTH voted to go to war. PERIOD. America by 5 to 1 supported it. Only difference? Men and women continued to support it when it got tough. Wimpy little spoiled rotten pricks chose to act like Jane Fonda and John Kerry. They love to talk about Iraq, here's a test: Can you measure what didn't happen?
You see a drunk driver on the road, he's headed for a school zone. You see a lot of kids playing on the sidewalk. You ram the drunks car into a wall and he's killed. How many kids did you save? He may not have hit any.. Are you a hero? a Murderer? If you didn't act and he killed many kids how would you live with that?
Basically, that's the position George Bush was in. He along with everyone in the world KNEW that Sadaam Hussien was going to do something eventually. it was only a matter of time. Regardless of all the hype and spin. NOBODY can dispute that the man was an evil POS. So WE all made a decision to stop it. I can live with it. We can debate HOW we stopped it all we want. But the action was NEEDED. FACT.
I'm so tired of idiots... Every time a fiscal issue comes up, they bring up "Unpaid for Wars" Democrats and Republicans BOTH voted to go to war. PERIOD. America by 5 to 1 supported it. Only difference? Men and women continued to support it when it got tough. Wimpy little spoiled rotten pricks chose to act like Jane Fonda and John Kerry. They love to talk about Iraq, here's a test: Can you measure what didn't happen?
You see a drunk driver on the road, he's headed for a school zone. You see a lot of kids playing on the sidewalk. You ram the drunks car into a wall and he's killed. How many kids did you save? He may not have hit any.. Are you a hero? a Murderer? If you didn't act and he killed many kids how would you live with that?
Basically, that's the position George Bush was in. He along with everyone in the world KNEW that Sadaam Hussien was going to do something eventually. it was only a matter of time. Regardless of all the hype and spin. NOBODY can dispute that the man was an evil POS. So WE all made a decision to stop it. I can live with it. We can debate HOW we stopped it all we want. But the action was NEEDED. FACT.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Restore America! on Constitution Radio with Douglas V. Gibbs
Restore America's General Election Report has a section on "How Obama Won." The section begins:
"Barack Obama continued his campaign efforts after the 2008 election with campaign offices in every major metropolitan area of the nation, aggressively identifying and registering his likely voters, with no competition from within his party. He increased unemployment benefits to 18 million unemployed, floated his amnesty program to Hispanics, knowing it would go nowhere in Congress, and met 552 times with union leaders including AFL-CIO, and SEIU, and left wing organizations such as moveon.org, all to garner and mobilize their support. He protected the Unions and auto industry manufacturers when he bailed our General Motors, enabling him to carry their votes in Ohio, and Michigan. He engaged in a partisan, class warfare campaign pitting the wealthy against the poor, and labeled Republicans as obstructionists at virtually every campaign rally and televised opportunity."
Podcasts will be available on the Podcast Page.
After the interview, we will discuss the Book of the Week by Prying1Books, and ask the Constitution Quest Question of the Week, where you can win a free book, and free Pocket Constitution.
Then:
5 Big Stories of the Week, December 29, 2012
Honorable Mention: Jailed Marine in Mexico Returns Home
5. George H.W. Bush, Ill, but Singing
4. General Norman Schwarzkopf Dies at the age of 78
3. Call for Gun Control Increases
2. Over the Fiscal Cliff
1. Christmas
Social Justice, and the Constitution
"The utopian schemes of leveling (re-distribution of the wealth) and a community of goods (socialism scheme of central ownership of production and distribution), are as visionary and impractical as those which vest all property in the crown. These ideas are arbitrary, despotic, and, in our government unconstitutional. Now what property can the colonists be conceived to have, if their money may be granted away by others, without their consent?" -- Samuel Adams, Boston Gazette, April 4, 1768.
“The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.” -- Thomas Jefferson
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Barack Obama won the election of 2012 with a number of strategies in place, and the one that made the largest impact was his offer of the federal government as the giver of gifts from the treasury, at the expense of the producers in society. In other words, the redistribution of wealth. The liberal left calls this Social Justice. The Founding Fathers called it despotic and unconstitutional. Today's conservatives call it communism.
Enough voters, however, have bought into the lie that only government must be the guarantor of social justice.
The concept of Social Justice begins with the claim that the government is simply seeking to achieve "fairness." In this pursuit, the Democrats cry out that those with more must "pay their fair share" in order for the "less fortunate" to achieve equity in our unfair society. Equality and fairness. Sounds good to most. A tool used by the statists to achieve their big government aims, Social Justice is a myriad of entitlement programs we are told were designed to ensure those that are underprivileged are taken care of by government.
Social Justice is argued as being the responsibility of the government for reasons of morality. To not support social justice is to be immoral because that must mean you want the potential recipients of entitlement programs to suffer in their poverty. In reality, the statists are paying the poor to remain poor, not only to buy their votes, but to keep them under the control of the government.
Does the Constitution give the federal government the authority to create and fund programs designed to redistribute the wealth from the taxpayers to those seeking participation in entitlement programs?
The answer is "No," though folks that oppose a system of self-reliance and personal responsibility will argue otherwise. They will erroneously use all kinds of constitutional clauses to justify their slavery of the poor by the government, rejecting that such an authority needs to be expressly granted.
James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, said, "If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions."
Social Justice is not a bad thing when not in the hands of government. Conservatives believe in the importance of social justice, but call it something very different. "Charity," is the social justice of conservatism, and the Founding Fathers. Charity is a voluntary choice by individuals to help those that are in need. The Salvation Army grew out of a yearning for social justice. As individuals it is important to be compassionate; feed the hungry, give water to the thirsty, help the sick, and visit prisoners. There is absolutely nothing wrong with voluntarily giving to those who are in positions less fortunate than ourselves.
When it comes to the concept of social justice, the argument is not whether or not help should be given to those that are less fortunate, but rather whether or not government should be the caregiver of those folks through entitlement programs, and whether or not government should institute policies that use the redistribution of wealth through a system of progressive taxation.
If a neighbor is in need, some may find it to be their personal responsibility to help that neighbor, and that is commendable. We live in a culture that confuses "needs" with "desires," and both of those concepts with "rights." Entitlements have come to be defined as a right, and with that definition in place, it is no wonder that people consider government to be obligated to provide citizens with certain "necessities" of life. Government, however, does not provide entitlement programs out of the kindness of its heart, nor out of some moral obligation of responsibility.
Social Justice through government intervention is socially debilitating, and economically unsustainable. The founders did not give the federal government constitutional authority to provide programs designed to redistribute the wealth from one economic class to the other because such programs widen the gap between the different financial classes, makes it more difficult for those in poverty to reach a level of economic success, and because eventually the creation of such programs undermines the nation's economy, ultimately leading to economic collapse.
The Founding Fathers created our system through the Constitution with the intention that the Republic would stand the test of time because the citizens were good and moral, and was willing to take care of local issues locally.
The responsibility for taking care of our neighbors, should that need arise, belongs to each of us as individuals in a societal system where our relationships and overlapping communities demand that for the success of our communities, each part must be healthy and functional. Doing the same through government, eliminates choice (an important part of "liberty"), and teaches the recipient to expect more, and set aside their own individual responsibilities. Rather than a united community, the system becomes one of producers, and takers. As the number of takers increases, the producers must work harder to ensure that everyone is taken care of. Eventually, even the producers come to the conclusion that they've been swindled. They are doing all of the work, and the takers are doing none, so they might as well become takers as well. Eventually, the takers outnumber the producers, and the society is unable to continue on.
Social Justice is unsustainable.
Government, however, is not concerned with sustainability. For the "professional politicians" it is all about power and control. Through entitlements, the politicians are literally buying votes.
"The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money." -- Margaret Thatcher
Ultimately, a governmental system that pursues Social Justice is unsustainable. Eventually the takers outnumber the producers, the expenses of government become larger than the system is capable of managing, and the politicians are left with no choice but to cut the spending drastically through austerity measures, and eventually allow the entire system to collapse.
Self-reliance, personal responsibility, and hard work becomes something the other guy can do. The attitude devolves into, "The rich people make more than enough, therefore, should share their wealth with me," or "pay their fair share." The sense of mutual responsibility for each other through government dominates over the sense of personal responsibility for oneself. In turn, these governmental programs even take away from the effectiveness of private charities, for people begin to conclude that with government providing all of the help for others, the ball is in somebody else's court, so a personal individual decision to help is no longer necessary.
We are individuals, and should not consign ourselves to some governmental experiment in collectivism. Our relationships with others demand that we, as individuals, share in our local communities, and as a result we do have a basic moral obligation towards other human beings. That responsibility is to help, not make the others dependent upon us, or the government. When a person is given by government their welfare, they become slaves to the system.
Give a man a fish, and feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he will be fed for a lifetime.
The U.S. Constitution does not authorize the federal government to provide "Social Justice," and that authority was not given to the federal government for a reason. The Founding Fathers understood that if the federal government became the provider of things the individuals and communities can provide for themselves, in the long run, the entire American System would collapse, and from the ashes would rise a tyrannical system.
"If the government is big enough to give you everything you want, it is big enough to take away everything you have." -- President Gerald Ford.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Gun Denial
By Paul Young
I have not jumped on the firearm issue that has been building since the Newtown Conn event until now because I like to wait till the dust settles some before deciding which bandwagon to jump onto. I will admit that I had a good idea in advance on which side I was going to aim at. In this case I am not jumping on the side that wants to remove guns from the hands of law abiding citizens in an attempt to 'protect the children'. I say that we need to put the training and the guns in the hands of those willing to conceal carry them. - Notice I put the words 'training' and 'willing' in bold. This is because when it is suggested by liberals that it is foolish and dangerous to have school principals and teachers (amongst other professions) conceal-carry they act as though these people are incapable of being trained. Well "Hells bells!" I say. If a person can receive instructions on how to open a book and teach others what is in that book then they should be able to learn about firearms and the proper ways to use them. So could a lawyer or a candlestick maker for that matter. - A gun is a tool. - People can learn to use tools. -
Often times I hear about schools being a 'gun-free zone'. Anyone that thinks that just bandying about that line is a good thing is nuts. There are evil people in this world and being in denial about that is nuts too. It is evil to enter a school with intentions of murdering people. Whatever other motives, all of these nuts have one thing in common. They are evil! ... Telling them in advance that everyone that is in any school (or whatever location) is unarmed is an invitation for them to murder more people and thereby get their name in a larger font in the papers.
I had a friend once tell me that when people said to him, "Does your dog bite?" his reply was, "He has teeth!" - To say that a certain location is a gun free zone is to say that the dog does not have teeth and that the animal is of no use for protection. Hence no threat to any assailant. Same guy said that he would never tell people or boast about whether he owned a gun or not. He would let 'em wonder. (I still don't know...) That way he removed any idea that some people might get of stealing said gun because they would not know if try to steal it would be a waste of time. They would seek a sure thing as opposed to a 'maybe'.
The amount of misinformation that is being spewed by the liberals is staggering. That is another reason I stand on the side of arming law abiding citizens that seek to be armed. - I saw one 'supposed news article' that listed the 2009 Fort Hood shooting as an example of why we need more gun control. The Fort Hood shooting took place at a 'gun free zone' section of the base. -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Hood_shooting - The people surrounding Husan were in denial of the danger he posed due to political correctness. They did not want to accuse an American born Muslim of being a potential terrorist threat. Indeed, the Obama administration still is in denial and refuses to call the murder of 13 people and injury to 29 more an act of premeditated terrorism but instead call it an act of 'workplace violence'. - Why they haven't yet convicted Hasan of treason and given him the death penalty can only be attributed to more denial of the truth. It was an act of premeditated murder by a single American born terrorist. - Had that section of the base NOT been a gun free zone Hasan would most likely have been stopped sooner by others that were armed or perhaps he would have found another place, an off base gun free zone most likely, to wreak havock. - Whatever, the fact still remains that the signs for potential danger were there and Hasan, a major in our military, was not stopped in advance most likely due to fear and denial. Fear of being called a racist. Denial that he was a threat.
The second amendment was NOT put into the Constitution for people to go hunting with muzzle loaded guns. It was put in place because the founding fathers saw the need for people, citizens, to protect themselves from an overreaching government. - The text, as ratified by the states, simply reads: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." - Nothing about hunting is mentioned. No matter what side you stand on concerning our government, that statement, that amendment, protects you and I from a tyrannical government. Some feel we have that government now and that guns are what stops the current government from becoming a dictatorship. - You like our government now? Fine! Four years down the line a government may be put in place that you totally disagree with and stand against. Guns in the hands of citizens will slow them down quite a bit and that without a shot being fired.
There are really only two sides to our form of government and this nation is really evenly divided on both sides. Half wants more government and the other half wants less. Both sides have their points on the gun issues that they push. The side that calls for less government points out that after Hitler came to power he confiscated guns from the people. Then what happened? - The side that calls for more government control points out that there are nutty people out there that have guns. Newtown, Conn is the latest example of (evil) nuts with guns.
Do we rid ourselves of all guns and place ourselves at the mercy of a potential tyrannical government. Evil takes many forms and a desire for political power is one of them. Yes there are evil people with guns out there but there are many more good, honest and law abiding citizens with guns than evil people and to take the guns from the law abiding would reduce all of us to potential slavery to whoever comes down the line and holds the power of our police and military forces. Not to mention that the bad guys won't turn in their guns.
We, on both sides of the gun issues, need to get out of denial that a potential terrorist attack is currently in the planning and educate ALL the people in this country of the signs to watch for and how to react to those signs. We need to be taught of what nutty behaviour to look for and what we can do to stop attacks such as Newtown before they happen. I'm not suggesting that we, as a nation, form groups of brownshirts to run around searching for those who are nutty and likely to be a threat. But I think we can be taught of what signs in ourselves, family members and others to be aware of and actions we can take to alleviate some of the potential troubles in the future. Getting out of denial is the first step. Taking guns from law abiding citizens is not.
I have not jumped on the firearm issue that has been building since the Newtown Conn event until now because I like to wait till the dust settles some before deciding which bandwagon to jump onto. I will admit that I had a good idea in advance on which side I was going to aim at. In this case I am not jumping on the side that wants to remove guns from the hands of law abiding citizens in an attempt to 'protect the children'. I say that we need to put the training and the guns in the hands of those willing to conceal carry them. - Notice I put the words 'training' and 'willing' in bold. This is because when it is suggested by liberals that it is foolish and dangerous to have school principals and teachers (amongst other professions) conceal-carry they act as though these people are incapable of being trained. Well "Hells bells!" I say. If a person can receive instructions on how to open a book and teach others what is in that book then they should be able to learn about firearms and the proper ways to use them. So could a lawyer or a candlestick maker for that matter. - A gun is a tool. - People can learn to use tools. -
Often times I hear about schools being a 'gun-free zone'. Anyone that thinks that just bandying about that line is a good thing is nuts. There are evil people in this world and being in denial about that is nuts too. It is evil to enter a school with intentions of murdering people. Whatever other motives, all of these nuts have one thing in common. They are evil! ... Telling them in advance that everyone that is in any school (or whatever location) is unarmed is an invitation for them to murder more people and thereby get their name in a larger font in the papers.
I had a friend once tell me that when people said to him, "Does your dog bite?" his reply was, "He has teeth!" - To say that a certain location is a gun free zone is to say that the dog does not have teeth and that the animal is of no use for protection. Hence no threat to any assailant. Same guy said that he would never tell people or boast about whether he owned a gun or not. He would let 'em wonder. (I still don't know...) That way he removed any idea that some people might get of stealing said gun because they would not know if try to steal it would be a waste of time. They would seek a sure thing as opposed to a 'maybe'.
The amount of misinformation that is being spewed by the liberals is staggering. That is another reason I stand on the side of arming law abiding citizens that seek to be armed. - I saw one 'supposed news article' that listed the 2009 Fort Hood shooting as an example of why we need more gun control. The Fort Hood shooting took place at a 'gun free zone' section of the base. -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Hood_shooting - The people surrounding Husan were in denial of the danger he posed due to political correctness. They did not want to accuse an American born Muslim of being a potential terrorist threat. Indeed, the Obama administration still is in denial and refuses to call the murder of 13 people and injury to 29 more an act of premeditated terrorism but instead call it an act of 'workplace violence'. - Why they haven't yet convicted Hasan of treason and given him the death penalty can only be attributed to more denial of the truth. It was an act of premeditated murder by a single American born terrorist. - Had that section of the base NOT been a gun free zone Hasan would most likely have been stopped sooner by others that were armed or perhaps he would have found another place, an off base gun free zone most likely, to wreak havock. - Whatever, the fact still remains that the signs for potential danger were there and Hasan, a major in our military, was not stopped in advance most likely due to fear and denial. Fear of being called a racist. Denial that he was a threat.
The second amendment was NOT put into the Constitution for people to go hunting with muzzle loaded guns. It was put in place because the founding fathers saw the need for people, citizens, to protect themselves from an overreaching government. - The text, as ratified by the states, simply reads: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." - Nothing about hunting is mentioned. No matter what side you stand on concerning our government, that statement, that amendment, protects you and I from a tyrannical government. Some feel we have that government now and that guns are what stops the current government from becoming a dictatorship. - You like our government now? Fine! Four years down the line a government may be put in place that you totally disagree with and stand against. Guns in the hands of citizens will slow them down quite a bit and that without a shot being fired.
There are really only two sides to our form of government and this nation is really evenly divided on both sides. Half wants more government and the other half wants less. Both sides have their points on the gun issues that they push. The side that calls for less government points out that after Hitler came to power he confiscated guns from the people. Then what happened? - The side that calls for more government control points out that there are nutty people out there that have guns. Newtown, Conn is the latest example of (evil) nuts with guns.
Do we rid ourselves of all guns and place ourselves at the mercy of a potential tyrannical government. Evil takes many forms and a desire for political power is one of them. Yes there are evil people with guns out there but there are many more good, honest and law abiding citizens with guns than evil people and to take the guns from the law abiding would reduce all of us to potential slavery to whoever comes down the line and holds the power of our police and military forces. Not to mention that the bad guys won't turn in their guns.
We, on both sides of the gun issues, need to get out of denial that a potential terrorist attack is currently in the planning and educate ALL the people in this country of the signs to watch for and how to react to those signs. We need to be taught of what nutty behaviour to look for and what we can do to stop attacks such as Newtown before they happen. I'm not suggesting that we, as a nation, form groups of brownshirts to run around searching for those who are nutty and likely to be a threat. But I think we can be taught of what signs in ourselves, family members and others to be aware of and actions we can take to alleviate some of the potential troubles in the future. Getting out of denial is the first step. Taking guns from law abiding citizens is not.
----------------------
Paul Young
Prying1books
http://www.prying1books.com/
http://www.alibris.com/booksearch?quserid=PRYING1B
http://www.bookbase.com/search?dealer_id=1274
http://www.abebooks.com/Prying1-Books-Inglewood-CA-U.S.A/5636874/sf
................................................
http://shop.ebay.com/prying1/m.html
http://prying1.blogspot.com
Paul Young
Prying1books
http://www.prying1books.com/
http://www.alibris.com/booksearch?quserid=PRYING1B
http://www.bookbase.com/search?dealer_id=1274
http://www.abebooks.com/Prying1-Books-Inglewood-CA-U.S.A/5636874/sf
................................................
http://shop.ebay.com/prying1/m.html
http://prying1.blogspot.com