-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Thursday, January 31, 2013
Who is the Militia?
Temecula Constitution Class: Bankruptcy, Currency, and Post Roads
The U.S. Constitution is taught for free on Thursday Nights in Temecula, California.Care to join us?
Join us at 6:00 pm Pacific on Enterprise Circle West at Faith Armory (next door to Birth Choice) for the class.
Senator Sessions Demands Obama Administration Enforce Existing Immigration Law
Sessions: Comprehensive Reform Won’t Pass As Long As Admin Defies Existing Immigration Law
WASHINGTON—U.S. Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL), Ranking Member of the Senate Budget Committee and former Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, issued the following statement on the new push for comprehensive immigration reform and amnesty:
“Americans overwhelmingly oppose illegal immigration. They have pleaded with Congress to end the mass illegality for decades to little avail. All the while, millions have been added to the total of those illegally here.
It’s time to fix that broken system. Now we are told that the Obama Administration and members of Congress say they have a plan that they promise will do the job. So, the American people will need to watch closely. And, members of Congress must insist that they have a full and complete opportunity to study and amend such legislation.
No comprehensive plan can pass Congress as long as this administration continues to defy existing federal law. What good are promises of future enforcement when the Administration covertly undermines those laws now in place?We would be in a much better position to achieve immigration reform if the Obama Administration had spent that last four years enforcing federal law rather than dismantling it. Brave immigration agents have been left with no recourse but to sue their own Department head, simply so that they—like any other law officers—will be allowed to do their jobs. Just last Friday a federal judge made an important preliminary ruling in their favor. The ICE union also held their own agency head, John Morton, in no confidence with a unanimous vote. The first task for every media agency in the country ought to be to study this lawsuit, to listen to the long-documented complaints of ICE agents, and to review the record of stymied attempts at congressional oversight of DHS.
Yet, without consulting the law officers who have the duty to enforce the law, another group of senators, meeting in secret—just like the last time comprehensive reform failed—have set forth an outline with no legislative language. We have seen too often before that the promises made by bill sponsors do not match up to the reality when the language is produced. No secret accord with profound consequences for this nation’s future can be rushed through. That means a full committee process and debate and amendments on the floor of the Senate.
Several points need to be understood. Amnesty will not help balance our budget. In fact, a large-scale amnesty is likely to add trillions of dollars to the debt over time, accelerate Medicare’s and Social Security’s slide into insolvency, and put enormous strain on our public assistance programs. We know already that the administration refuses to enforce existing law restricting immigrant welfare use, and in fact promotes expanded welfare use to immigrants—including food stamps, public housing, and Medicaid. I joined with four Ranking Members to obtain answers from the Department of Homeland Security about this evisceration of law, and the Administration has suspiciously defied three consecutive oversight requests.
These and other critical issues must be carefully considered as we go forward. Certainly, our current system is broken. Work must be done to fix it. That effort must occur.
All Americans, immigrant and native born, will have a better future if American continues to stand unique among nations for the special reverence it places in the rule of law.”
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Conservatives Support Immigration, Just Not Illegal Immigration
"Born in other countries, yet believing you could be happy in this, our laws acknowledge, as they should do, your right to join us in society, conforming, as I doubt not you will do, to our established rules." --Thomas Jefferson
By Douglas V. Gibbs
One of the keys to the success of the United States has been our rich tradition of receiving immigrants. President Obama, in his speech in Las Vegas, said that this is not an "us versus them" thing because we used to be them. Mr. Obama, however, is trying to compare apples to tangerines.
By Douglas V. Gibbs
One of the keys to the success of the United States has been our rich tradition of receiving immigrants. President Obama, in his speech in Las Vegas, said that this is not an "us versus them" thing because we used to be them. Mr. Obama, however, is trying to compare apples to tangerines.
The part about immigration that makes this nation flourish is when the immigrants desire to become Americans. To do so it means they are willing to learn English, and assimilate completely into our society. This nation isn't about groups, but about how individuals earn success, and make the country greater because of it. But to accomplish those successes, the federal government must get out of the way.
Now, we are hearing about amnesty, and "being fair."
Reagan, we are told, supported amnesty, after all.
Ronald Reagan did not support amnesty. He thought it was a bad idea. However, Reagan believed in compromising. He made the liberal democrats promise border enforcement, and that this would be the only time we granted amnesty. As with the tax hike versus spending cuts deal, they lied, and now here were are with amnesty knocking on our door again.
The problem is politics. The democrats want amnesty for more voters, and the GOP believes the liberals when they say the party is done if they don't capitulate on amnesty.
Instead of politics, why not look at the Constitution.
For example, amnesty grants citizenship to people that have been hear illegally, retroactively.
Retroactive law is ex post facto law, which according to Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution is forbidden. The federal government cannot make ex post facto laws.
I am against amnesty, I am against rewarding illegal aliens for breaking our laws, and I am for enforcing the existing laws. A nation that does not protect its borders, and is willing to accept more than just the ones willing to assimilate, will destroy itself.
My wife was an immigrant. She was here with a resident alien card, making her a legal resident. She naturalized in 2007.
Amnesty is a slap in her face.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Wednesday, January 30, 2013
Israel Strikes Against Syria
Recently, Ahmadinejad claimed that an attack against Syria would be an attack against Iran.
Israel decided to ignore his rhetoric. . .
JERUSALEM — Israeli warplanes carried out a strike deep inside Syrian territory on Wednesday, American officials reported, saying they believed the target was a convoy carrying sophisticated antiaircraft weaponry on the outskirts of Damascus that was intended for the Hezbollah Shiite militia in Lebanon.
Read more at the NYTimes
Israel decided to ignore his rhetoric. . .
JERUSALEM — Israeli warplanes carried out a strike deep inside Syrian territory on Wednesday, American officials reported, saying they believed the target was a convoy carrying sophisticated antiaircraft weaponry on the outskirts of Damascus that was intended for the Hezbollah Shiite militia in Lebanon.
Read more at the NYTimes
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
China Hacks New York Times
Hackers in China Attacked The Times for Last 4 Months
For the last four months, Chinese hackers have persistently attacked The New York Times, infiltrating its computer systems and getting passwords for its reporters and other employees.
After surreptitiously tracking the intruders to study their movements and help erect better defenses to block them, The Times and computer security experts have expelled the attackers and kept them from breaking back in.
The timing of the attacks coincided with the reporting for a Times investigation, published online on Oct. 25, that found that the relatives of Wen Jiabao, China’s prime minister, had accumulated a fortune worth several billion dollars through business dealings.
READ MORE
For the last four months, Chinese hackers have persistently attacked The New York Times, infiltrating its computer systems and getting passwords for its reporters and other employees.
After surreptitiously tracking the intruders to study their movements and help erect better defenses to block them, The Times and computer security experts have expelled the attackers and kept them from breaking back in.
The timing of the attacks coincided with the reporting for a Times investigation, published online on Oct. 25, that found that the relatives of Wen Jiabao, China’s prime minister, had accumulated a fortune worth several billion dollars through business dealings.
READ MORE
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Tuesday, January 29, 2013
Constitution Newsletter - Join the Liberty Revolution
Subscription is paid by credit card or paypal, and is available at douglasvgibbs.com, or you can go directly to our Newsletter Link here.
Al-Qaeda Working with Syrian Rebels
Al-Qaida-linked group claims deadly Syria blast
An al-Qaida-linked group fighting alongside Syrian rebels claimed responsibility Monday for a suicide car bombing that reportedly killed dozens of President Bashar Assad's loyalists last week.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Dana Loesch on Piers Morgan Pulls Out AR15 Lighter to drive home her point
Hah! Dana Loesch Pulls Out AR15 Lighter on Piers Morgan Show (Video)
Dana Loesch was on with Piers Morgan tonight to discuss gun rights in America. Piers is still on a mission to ban automatic weapons in America. During the segment Dana pulled out an AR15 lighter on the show and began to school Piers on automatic weapons. He didn’t like it much. Piers told her,
“Dana, stop talking for a moment.”
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Illinois Defies Immigration Law, Gives Licenses to Illegal Aliens
Are you kidding me?
As Illinois becomes the fourth and most populous state to give illegal immigrants permission to drive, nagging concerns remain about whether there are enough safeguards to avoid the identity fraud and other pitfalls other states faced.
Democratic Gov. Pat Quinn signed Illinois' measure into law Sunday in Chicago. Backers, including Quinn, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel and some of the state's top Republicans, tout it as a public-safety measure. They argue that required facial recognition technology is reliable enough to prevent fraud.
They hailed it as an important step for immigrant rights in Illinois, which approved its own Dream Act in 2010 to create a privately-funded scholarship program for immigrant students. President Barack Obama plans to discuss his plan to overhaul the immigration system during a trip to Las Vegas on Tuesday.
"This was a bipartisan effort to pass an important law," Quinn said. "When the president speaks on Tuesday, he can say about his home state of Illinois ... we not only passed the Dream Act last year, we passed driver's licenses for those who are undocumented ."
However, the law's opponents have pointed to hundreds of fraudulent cases in New Mexico, Washington and Utah after those states began giving illegal immigrants permission to drive. Illinois will not require applicants to be fingerprinted, for fear that would discourage immigrants from applying.
"How many people would apply for this document knowing that fingerprints will be going to (federal authorities)? Probably not all that many," said Fred Tsao, policy director of the Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights, a driving-force behind the measure.
Proponents say it will allow an estimated 250,000 people unlawfully residing in the state to apply for a three-year temporary driver's license and require them to get training and insurance. The Illinois secretary of state's office said the licenses will be available starting in October.
Democratic Gov. Pat Quinn signed Illinois' measure into law Sunday in Chicago. Backers, including Quinn, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel and some of the state's top Republicans, tout it as a public-safety measure. They argue that required facial recognition technology is reliable enough to prevent fraud.
They hailed it as an important step for immigrant rights in Illinois, which approved its own Dream Act in 2010 to create a privately-funded scholarship program for immigrant students. President Barack Obama plans to discuss his plan to overhaul the immigration system during a trip to Las Vegas on Tuesday.
"This was a bipartisan effort to pass an important law," Quinn said. "When the president speaks on Tuesday, he can say about his home state of Illinois ... we not only passed the Dream Act last year, we passed driver's licenses for those who are undocumented ."
However, the law's opponents have pointed to hundreds of fraudulent cases in New Mexico, Washington and Utah after those states began giving illegal immigrants permission to drive. Illinois will not require applicants to be fingerprinted, for fear that would discourage immigrants from applying.
"How many people would apply for this document knowing that fingerprints will be going to (federal authorities)? Probably not all that many," said Fred Tsao, policy director of the Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights, a driving-force behind the measure.
Proponents say it will allow an estimated 250,000 people unlawfully residing in the state to apply for a three-year temporary driver's license and require them to get training and insurance. The Illinois secretary of state's office said the licenses will be available starting in October.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
It's Illegal to Unlock Your Cell Phone
I bought it, and now they are telling me what I can do with my own private property?
Remember, seizing private property is one of the Ten Planks of the Communist Manifesto. . . along with a progressive tax rate, going after inheritance. . .
Here's the beginning of the article on cell phones:
You likely have a cellphone that you bought from a carrier, like AT&T, Verizon or Sprint, and that phone only works on that carrier's cellular and data network -- unless you "unlock" it.
That is a software process that allows the phone to work on other carriers if you put in a new SIM card or want to take the phone to another carrier for service.
If that sounds complicated to you and like something you wouldn't bother with, then today's news won't matter to you. But if that's something you've done before or have thought about doing, then you should know that starting today it is illegal to unlock a subsidized phone or tablet that's bought through a U.S. carrier.
Remember, seizing private property is one of the Ten Planks of the Communist Manifesto. . . along with a progressive tax rate, going after inheritance. . .
Here's the beginning of the article on cell phones:
You likely have a cellphone that you bought from a carrier, like AT&T, Verizon or Sprint, and that phone only works on that carrier's cellular and data network -- unless you "unlock" it.
That is a software process that allows the phone to work on other carriers if you put in a new SIM card or want to take the phone to another carrier for service.
If that sounds complicated to you and like something you wouldn't bother with, then today's news won't matter to you. But if that's something you've done before or have thought about doing, then you should know that starting today it is illegal to unlock a subsidized phone or tablet that's bought through a U.S. carrier.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Monday, January 28, 2013
No calls from Paul. . .
Yesterday, I wrote about how my very close friend, Paul "Prying1" Young passed away Saturday Night. We talked on the phone nearly every day, and he was a follower of all of my efforts. My Sunday Morning "Constitution Study Radio" show receives a thousand podcast listens per week, but live I usually get less than half a dozen. Paul, however, was always there. On Sunday Morning, I thought it was strange that he wasn't in the chatroom. "Death" was the least of my thoughts when it came to wondering about the reasons he was unable to make it.
During my workday, we talked nearly everyday - sometimes for hours upon hours. We would talk about everything, from the Constitution, to Obama's antics, the Islamization of America, and spiritual matters regarding our Christian Faith. He regularly prayed for me right there on the phone. We joked, and sometimes talked about nothing at all, and laughed about that, too.
Today, there was no call. It was strange. One time I even ran down my contacts list, staring at his name on that list, realizing I would never hit "send" for it again.
My wife spent the day at work with me, telling a couple folks when they called her that with the loss of my friend, she felt I needed the company.
She was right.
But it felt strange, Paul not calling me, and all. He's gone, and though I have cried over it, I am still working to come to grips.
I can just imagine him in Heaven, singing joyfully with the others, and probably telling them about my Constitution efforts.
I miss him.
He was a dear friend.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
American Christians Under Attack in Iran, and in the United States
Iran sentences American pastor Saeed Abedini to 8 years in prison
Christian pastor Saeed Abedini, an American imprisoned in Iran on charges of evangelizing, was sentenced this morning to eight years in prison.
According to the American Center for Law and Justice, Abedini was verbally sentenced in Tehran by Judge Pir-Abassi, known as the “hanging judge,” to eight years in prison for threatening the national security of Iran through his leadership in Christian house churches. He will serve the time in Iran’s notorious Evin Prison, known as one of the most brutal.
The evidence, the ACLJ reports, was based on Abedini’s activities primarily during the early 2000s, when house churches were not considered a threat in Iran.
Read more at Fox News
--------------
Skokie School District 68 adding Muslim holiday this fall
Skokie School District 68’s 2013-14 calendar for the first time calls for a day off on Eid ul Adha, a major Muslim holiday.
Not long ago, adopting a school calendar for the following year was perfunctory for Niles Township school districts, but not anymore. The village’s growing ethnic diversity has inspired more districts to break away from old patterns.
The township used to be heavily Jewish and many of its schools closed down only for high Jewish holidays and a few others like Good Friday.
Neighboring Skokie School District 73.5, though, was one of the first township districts to recognize the area’s demographic change in deciding on its calendar. That district’s school board made the controversial decision — at least at the time — to remain open for all religious holidays, sparking an annual lively debate.
More districts have followed District 73.5’s lead, even if remaining open on all religious holidays results in certain heavy non-attendance days.
---------------
Islam is Naziism, under the guise of religion,.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Bombing of Iran Nuclear Facility You Didn't Hear About
It seems the Brenner Brief is the only outlet willing to tell the truth about this. . .
Iran nuclear facility bombed, 240 trapped
Unconfirmed reports are trickling out of the Middle East stating last Monday an explosion rocked the Fordo nuclear enrichment facility in Iran. Western news agencies haven’t corroborated the story; however, World News Daily is reporting that Hamidreza Zakeri, formerly a member of Iran’sMinistry of Intelligence and National Security, has confirmed the facility had been hit.
While accurate information can be difficult to get out of this notoriously secretive regime, there are reportedly over 240 people trapped underground in Iran’s second largest nuclear facility.
Iranian officials out of Tehran believe the explosion was the result of sabotage.
Rumors of this being pulled off by Israel are already circulating. Israel has been an outspoken opponent of Iran becoming nuclear capable, and in 1981 Israel was able to dismantle Iraq’s nuclear program through a bombing raid — known as Operation Opera – on largely centralized, above ground facilities.
Finish Reading
Iran nuclear facility bombed, 240 trapped
Unconfirmed reports are trickling out of the Middle East stating last Monday an explosion rocked the Fordo nuclear enrichment facility in Iran. Western news agencies haven’t corroborated the story; however, World News Daily is reporting that Hamidreza Zakeri, formerly a member of Iran’sMinistry of Intelligence and National Security, has confirmed the facility had been hit.
While accurate information can be difficult to get out of this notoriously secretive regime, there are reportedly over 240 people trapped underground in Iran’s second largest nuclear facility.Iranian officials out of Tehran believe the explosion was the result of sabotage.
Rumors of this being pulled off by Israel are already circulating. Israel has been an outspoken opponent of Iran becoming nuclear capable, and in 1981 Israel was able to dismantle Iraq’s nuclear program through a bombing raid — known as Operation Opera – on largely centralized, above ground facilities.
Finish Reading
---------------
We explain: why isn’t the MSM reporting on the Iran bombing?
Earlier this morning, we reported on the apparent bombing of a nuclear facility inIran. We reported on this before many of the major news outlets, including having it up over 12 hours before Breitbart.com posted a link to another site.
Our contributor, Jason Blair, and The Brenner Brief have been questioned via social media today regarding the validity of this story. We stand behind the story, as other news outlets had then and have now reported on it. Of course, we do not have any direct assets in Iran, as only the government would in that closed society. However, several outlets, including reputable direct sources listed in those other stories, have proclaimed that this explosion did indeed take place and that a bombing, or sabotage, of some sort did occur.
So the question is, why isn’t the mainstream media reporting on the Iran bombing story? We have been asked this question in a manner to suggest that because the “MSM” isn’t reporting on it, it cannot be true. Perhaps this is the first story where we have truly done as our slogan suggests: “The Brenner Brief — rendering the mainstream media useless.”
We asked Blair his opinion on the MSM’s failure to report on this. We are not supporting a conspiracy theory and neither is Blair; however, we are thinking through the various reasons why this complete avoidance of the topic by mainstream media could be possible.
We explain: why isn’t the MSM reporting on the Iran bombing?
Earlier this morning, we reported on the apparent bombing of a nuclear facility inIran. We reported on this before many of the major news outlets, including having it up over 12 hours before Breitbart.com posted a link to another site.Our contributor, Jason Blair, and The Brenner Brief have been questioned via social media today regarding the validity of this story. We stand behind the story, as other news outlets had then and have now reported on it. Of course, we do not have any direct assets in Iran, as only the government would in that closed society. However, several outlets, including reputable direct sources listed in those other stories, have proclaimed that this explosion did indeed take place and that a bombing, or sabotage, of some sort did occur.
So the question is, why isn’t the mainstream media reporting on the Iran bombing story? We have been asked this question in a manner to suggest that because the “MSM” isn’t reporting on it, it cannot be true. Perhaps this is the first story where we have truly done as our slogan suggests: “The Brenner Brief — rendering the mainstream media useless.”
We asked Blair his opinion on the MSM’s failure to report on this. We are not supporting a conspiracy theory and neither is Blair; however, we are thinking through the various reasons why this complete avoidance of the topic by mainstream media could be possible.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Confiscation of Our Guns is the Goal
History shows that National Registries lead to gun confiscation. Gun Control is the tool of tyrants, and politicians positioning themselves for more power. The defenseless is easy to control. Evil, however, does not expose itself as evil, but poses as an Angel of Light.
We are told that gun control must be put into place for the children. They are only acting for our own good - for the common good - for our safety.
We must rid the world of "assault weapons", we are told, for the safety of the children - never mind that the criminal element will still find a way to get their hands on these guns, and removing guns from law-abiding citizens are simply changing the former gun owners into targets.
In Britain, after guns were confiscated in 1997, the rate of home invasions and violent crimes shot up dramatically.
We are told they must take the guns because of the irresponsible gun owners that use their guns in school shootings, theater shootings, etc.
I wonder if we should yank everyone's driver's licenses because there are drunks on the road?
Okay, now for some of the latest madness. Sit down, for this, some of these headlines will confound you. . .
Obama seems to think he is king, and when the ruler says there had better be gun control, the peasants better comply. The Republicans, however, aren't all willing to play ball, so easily, and this is making Heir Obama pretty mad:
Obama suggests Republicans unwilling to compromise in gun control debate - Fox News
I suppose Obama doesn't quite understand the meaning of "shall not be infringed" - or, he doesn't care.
Of course, Obama has figured out he can't blame President Bush for everything, anymore, and though he has been President for over four years, and two of those years the democrats controlled both Houses of Congress, Obama needs someone to blame - so now everything is simply the GOP's fault - especially those pesky TEA Party types.
How dare they not confirm to the dictator's wishes.
Barack Obama is not pleased; The President on his enemies, the media, and the future of football - New Republic
Remember when Obama said years and years ago he will not go after your guns? And remember when the democrats said they only want your "assault weapons?"
Ooops, they were lying again!
Feingstein says she wants to go after more than just "Assault Weapons." - Freedom Outpost
Fortunately, gun owners have this funny thing about freedom, and their God-given rights. In New York, where the gun control laws have gone way beyond expectations, the subjects are refusing to register their firearms.
Gun Owners Refuse to Register Under New York Law - New American
and the number of County Sheriffs refusing to implement these unconstitutional federal gun regulations is growing:
Number of Nation's Sheriffs Refusing to Enforce Unconstitutional Gun Laws Snowballs - CNS News
The 2nd Amendment was written to tell the federal government "hands off" the guns because the right to keep and bear arms is necessary for the Security of freedom against a tyrannical government.
You can have mine if you can get past the last thirty yards, and can pry them from my cold, dead hands.
An illegal search and seizure will be met with force - and the only departure will be in a body bag.
Hey, Obama! Hands off my right to keep and bear arms!
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Sunday, January 27, 2013
Madison's Notes, and Gun Regulations
Doug, I'm going over Madisons notes, and August 23, 1787 it reads: "Mr. KING added, to his former explanation that arming meant not only to provide for uniformity of arms, but included [4] authority to regulate the modes of furnishing, either by the Militia themselves, the State Governments, or the National Treasury: that laws for disciplining, must involve penalties and every thing necessary for enforcing penalties."
My question is regarding the National Treasury, which seems to fall under the executive branch. When Mr. King talks about "authority to regulate the modes of furnishing, either by....National Treasury, it suggests that the President may have the power to regulate firearms. Unless it would suggest that he can regulate the militia? I'm a bit confused on that.
Today
4:41pm
Douglas V. Gibbs
National Treasury in reality falls under [the legislature] as per Article I, Section 7 - the executive cannot spend the money unless it has been apportioned by the House.
Regulate, remember, meant "to put in good order." That is the second definition in the 1828 Webster's dictionary. Control and restrict was the last definition. To understand the reasoning, think about the history of the militia. During the American Revolution the members of the various militias were not in good order. Some didn't even have shoes. The muskets were often of different sizes, and there was no standard when it came to guns, so repair was near impossible, as well as the sharing of ammunition. The federal government, by being given the right to regulate the militias, was tasked with making sure the militia was in good order so that it may function as a fighting force, not a hodge-podge of a bunch of riflemen.
Understand, also, that with the Constitution we now have a standing army, so why would they keep the militias around, and why would the militias be important regarding the second amendment? "being necessary to the security of a free State." That is a "free State" - a free New York, a free Virginia, a free Massachusetts, etc. If keeping and bearing arms is "necessary" for the security of the States, but an army exists to repel invasion by foreign armies, then one must ask of whom was it necessary to provide security from? I believe the language was used to remind us that the purpose of the second amendment was because it was necessary to the security of a free State against a tyrannical federal government. Therefore, if gun rights are for protection against the federal government, why would the federal government have the authority to restrict those same firearms?
Also, consider that the Second Amendment was not necessary. The Tenth Amendment was already an understood concept before the Bill of Rights. All powers not granted to the federal government, and not prohibited to the States, are "reserved" to the States. The word "reserved" was used because those powers were already State powers. Nowhere in the first seven articles of the Constitution is the authority to regulate firearms given to the federal government (and remember the commerce clause was only for the federal government to settle disputes between the States, not an excuse for control and restrictions), and there is no place in the Constitution that prohibits the States from regulating firearms, therefore the federal government has "no authority to restrict firearms in any way" through federal legislation, or unconstitutional executive actions.
---------
"Shall not be infringed" means something.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
I Lost My Best Friend, Paul "Prying1" Young
My good friend Paul Young, who I was on the phone with for 45 minutes last night from 3:15 pm to 4:00 pm as I drove home from the radio studio, passed away just before he went to bed last night. Paul has been a blessed friend and brother, and an important part of my radio program with his Book of the Week segment, and his offer of a free book to listeners who answer the Constitution Quest Question of the Week accurately. He has been an important prayer partner, and a Godly voice when I have needed an ear. We have been very good friends for seven years, and I am going to miss him dearly. Please keep his wife, Rene, in your prayers, who was in the hospital at the time of Paul's death.
We first met as fellow bloggers, commenting on each other's websites back in 2006. By 2007 we had become good friends, and he was a regular listener of my BlogTalkRadio program. A couple years later, he was a member of a choir performing "Handel's Messiah" in Temecula, California. After the performance we met face to face for the first time in the parking lot after the concert, munching on cookies and shivering in the cold December air. Immediately, the reality that both of us have been blessed with the gift of gab became apparent to our wives. The discussion was furious, but somehow we found a way to get a word in edge-wise without interrupting each other. The women were amazed, and cold in the night air. Finally, they put their foot down, and Paul and I parted ways for the moment.
The once a year meeting at the concert extended to lunch before the rehearsal the day before, too - at the same Chinese place. Then, we went to events together, a convention where we listened to the speeches of former Muslims for example, and he and his wife came to my public speaking events that were down towards his Los Angeles area home, such as in Los Alamitos and Seal Beach. Our phone calls became a daily occurrence, and our friendship became a brotherhood.
Once a month his church also held a Sunday Night service at a local church in Temecula, and we got together for that too.
On August 6, 2011, I left BlogTalkRadio and began to broadcast out of KCAA 1050 AM, and Paul joined me as a listener, and a participant. He encouraged me and inspired me, helping spread the word about my radio efforts (and Constitution Class efforts), and became a weekly part of the program with his Book of the Week, and Book Giveaway. He also handed my business cards to everyone he came across interested in the Constitution, and at his concerts in Temecula, handed out my flyers. At the Handel's Messiah concert last December, as we were talking shortly after the concert ended, Paul asked me if I had any flyers and cards on me. I pulled them out, and he stood at the door handing them to people as they were leaving, pointing them in my direction, saying "That's the teacher of the class right there," if they began asking questions. It got to the point that I had a line of people waiting to talk to me.
His boldness was amazing.
Last June, in Manhattan Beach, California at the A Summer Night for Human Rights event, Paul, Rene, and I got the opportunity to meet in person a number of folks working to educate people about the danger of Islamism, and the Islamization of the United States, like Pamela Geller of Atlas Shrugs, and Walid Shoebat (Paul's first time to meet him).
In the image to the right, Paul is sitting on the right side of the picture, three rows back, between me and his wife, wearing a white shirt, a bald head, and his gray beard.
One of the speakers, Dr. Bushra Qader, is a former Muslim from Iraq who fled the Middle East (Pakistan at that time, if I remember properly) with her children because of the attacks against her children because they bucked Islam as individuals. She moved to Dearborn, Michigan where she took on the job of being a teacher, and it was then that she began to realize that Islam was non-relenting in its pursuit to force her children to conform to the Koran here in America, as well. Her story was incredible, and her testimony brought tears to us all.
In the corridor, after the event, as we were preparing to leave (Paul and his wife had ridden with me), we bumped into Dr. Qader, and Paul said to her how blessed he was to have had the opportunity to hear her testimony. She thanked him, and then he asked if he could pray for her.
He held Dr. Qader's left hand, his wife held the other one, and I placed my hand on top of Paul's and Dr. Qader's. Paul's prayer was uplifting and encouraging, thanking the Lord for Dr. Qader, and asking that He continue to bless her life and keep her and her children safe. After the prayer Paul asked his wife to pray for Dr. Qader's healing, and Rene did so. After the prayers were over, Dr. Bushra Qader looked up with tears in her eyes, and thanked him, saying that no one had ever done something like that for her before. It was an appreciated gift, and a meeting that Dr. Qader would never forget.
This is the kind of man Paul was. He was caring, placed others before himself, and he was bold in his Christianity.
Paul believed in America, in the United States Constitution, and he loved The Lord so much. I know that as Paul stands there at the Gates of Heaven, the chorus from those waiting for him are singing, "Welcome Home." And God, with his arms outstretched, is saying, "Well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful. Welcome home, and rest."
We don't have a soul. We are souls that have a body. His body was finished, and Paul's soul is home.
Welcome Home, my friend. I will miss you.
Keep a seat saved for me, just like you did at the concert in Temecula. I will know it is mine because you will drop a copy of the Constitution on it, to keep it ready for me.
You inspired me. You encouraged me. And you gave me a great example to follow as a bold Christian. For that, I am forever grateful.
-- Political Pistachio
27 Years Ago - Anniversary of Space Shuttle Challenger Disaster
Andrea Shea King said it best:
"Obviously a Major Malfunction"
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
"Obviously a Major Malfunction"
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Star Spangled Fire Arms
Love my guns, but I really love this gun:
I love to shoot, but I really appreciate being able to defend myself. . .
Especially against a tyrannical government. . .
And luckily there are Sheriffs out there that understand that "ANY" federal gun regulation is unconstitutional!
Number Of Nation's Sheriffs Refusing To Enforce Unconstitutional Gun Laws Snowballs
I love to shoot, but I really appreciate being able to defend myself. . .
Especially against a tyrannical government. . .
And luckily there are Sheriffs out there that understand that "ANY" federal gun regulation is unconstitutional!
Number Of Nation's Sheriffs Refusing To Enforce Unconstitutional Gun Laws Snowballs
From Florida to California, a growing number of the nation's sheriffs are standing up to gun control measures proposed by both the administration and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.).
Many law enforcement officials have written letters to President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden voicing their concerns over what they believe is an effort to infringe upon the Second Amendment.
In New Mexico, 30 of the state's 33 county sheriffs have reminded state lawmakers that they are under oath to support the U.S. Constitution, and that includes the Second Amendment.
CNSNews.com previously reported that 28 of the 29 sheriff's in Utah sent a letter to President Obama stating that they will not enforce any new gun laws they believe to be unconstitutional.
A host of Oregon sheriffs have said that they will not comply with any new unconstitutional gun regulations:
Sheriff Craig Zanni wrote, "I have and will continue to uphold my Oath of Office including supporting the Second Amendment," in a letter to Coos County citizens.
Douglas County Sheriff John Hanlin said he would refuse to enforce any new Federal gun law he believes is unconstitutional.
In a letter to Vice President Joe Biden, Grant County Sheriff, Glenn Palmer writes: "I will not tolerate nor will I permit any federal incursion within the exterior boundaries of Grant County, Oregon, where any type of gun control legislation aimed at disarming law -abiding citizens is the goal or objective."
Sheriff Gil Gilbertson of Josephine County told Biden in a letter: "Any rule, regulation, or executive order repugnant to the constitutional rights of the citizens of this County will be ignored by this office."
Sheriff Tim Mueller of Linn County, Oregon says his department will not participate in any overreaching and unconstitutional federal firearms restrictions.
In California, Sheriff Adam Christianson of Stanislaus County wrote to the vice president: "I refuse to take firearms from law abiding citizens and will not turn law-abiding citizens into criminals by enforcing useless gun control legislation."
A letter sent to Sen. Dianne Feinstein from Sheriff Jon Lopey of Siskiyou County, California states: "Our founding fathers got it right and many politicians are getting it wrong."
In Missouri, Lawrence County Sheriff Brad Delay tells the president: "I will...rise to the defense and aid of all Americans should the federal government attempt to enact any legislation, or executive order that impedes, erodes, or otherwise diminishes their constitutional right to keep and bear arms."
At a town hall meeting, Sheriff Denny Peyman of Jackson County, Kentucky told citizens "you are never going to pull a gun from Jackson County."
Smith County, Texas Sheriff, Larry Smith has said, "I will not enforce an unconstitutional law against any citizen in Smith County. It just won't happen."
In Florida, Martin County Sheriff, Bill Snyder said that he will not enforce federal gun laws: "Local law enforcement authorities are not empowered to enforce Federal law," Snyder said.
For a list of more sheriffs who are standing up against new gun regulations, please click here.
Many law enforcement officials have written letters to President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden voicing their concerns over what they believe is an effort to infringe upon the Second Amendment.
In New Mexico, 30 of the state's 33 county sheriffs have reminded state lawmakers that they are under oath to support the U.S. Constitution, and that includes the Second Amendment.
CNSNews.com previously reported that 28 of the 29 sheriff's in Utah sent a letter to President Obama stating that they will not enforce any new gun laws they believe to be unconstitutional.
A host of Oregon sheriffs have said that they will not comply with any new unconstitutional gun regulations:
Sheriff Craig Zanni wrote, "I have and will continue to uphold my Oath of Office including supporting the Second Amendment," in a letter to Coos County citizens.
Douglas County Sheriff John Hanlin said he would refuse to enforce any new Federal gun law he believes is unconstitutional.
In a letter to Vice President Joe Biden, Grant County Sheriff, Glenn Palmer writes: "I will not tolerate nor will I permit any federal incursion within the exterior boundaries of Grant County, Oregon, where any type of gun control legislation aimed at disarming law -abiding citizens is the goal or objective."
Sheriff Gil Gilbertson of Josephine County told Biden in a letter: "Any rule, regulation, or executive order repugnant to the constitutional rights of the citizens of this County will be ignored by this office."
Sheriff Tim Mueller of Linn County, Oregon says his department will not participate in any overreaching and unconstitutional federal firearms restrictions.
In California, Sheriff Adam Christianson of Stanislaus County wrote to the vice president: "I refuse to take firearms from law abiding citizens and will not turn law-abiding citizens into criminals by enforcing useless gun control legislation."
A letter sent to Sen. Dianne Feinstein from Sheriff Jon Lopey of Siskiyou County, California states: "Our founding fathers got it right and many politicians are getting it wrong."
In Missouri, Lawrence County Sheriff Brad Delay tells the president: "I will...rise to the defense and aid of all Americans should the federal government attempt to enact any legislation, or executive order that impedes, erodes, or otherwise diminishes their constitutional right to keep and bear arms."
At a town hall meeting, Sheriff Denny Peyman of Jackson County, Kentucky told citizens "you are never going to pull a gun from Jackson County."
Smith County, Texas Sheriff, Larry Smith has said, "I will not enforce an unconstitutional law against any citizen in Smith County. It just won't happen."
In Florida, Martin County Sheriff, Bill Snyder said that he will not enforce federal gun laws: "Local law enforcement authorities are not empowered to enforce Federal law," Snyder said.
For a list of more sheriffs who are standing up against new gun regulations, please click here.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Women in Combat a Disgusting Political Move for the sake of Political Power
By Douglas V. Gibbs
With a stroke of a pen, outgoing Defense Secretary Leon Panetta changed the rules of the military, lifting the ban on women in combat. Senator John McCain stated that the standards must not be altered for women. They must be able to pass the requirements afforded to men.
Before I address the issue, let's understand something. Obama, and the hard left democrats, always have their own hidden motives. They have shown us time and time again that their policies are not based on what's best, but on what they think will gain them more support from groups, in an effort to solidify their power, and keep themselves at the top in perpetuity. The liberals separate Americans into rival groups, and then cater to those groups to gain their support, granting to the groups crumbs the liberal democrats claim are "rights," and would never be given to the poor, oppressed groups by the opposition.
The "Divide and Conquer" strategy is one that the democrats use against the differing parts of the Republican Party, persons of the different economic levels in this nation, the races, and the sexes. It is a normal battle tactic for them.
Understanding typical liberal motives, the decision to allow females to fight on the front line in the United States Military is not a move they feel is best for the military, or for women, but a move the liberal left democrats believes will continue growing their popularity with the women vote - and any opposition will be labeled just another part of the so-called, and mythical, republican war on women.
The Democrats could care less about women, in reality. This is all a part of political strategy, and class warfare - driving groups against each other - in this case, pitting the genders against each other in a divisive political move.
When it comes to combat, anymore, with the technology of modern warfare, there is often no front line. Women are involved in nearly all aspects of combat, except ground operations. The argument has been over whether or not women are capable of the physical vigor of operating on the front line. Men, we are being told, are stronger and have more stamina, and women may often fail in being able to keep up. It's the ol' "stronger sex, weaker sex" argument - and nobody likes to be considered weaker, making this a powerful argument that can assist those pushing for full equality for women on the battlefield. As one broadcaster said, "Are you saying that Pee Wee Herman would do a better job than Serena Williams?"
Reality dictates that though overall men tend to be stronger, and better able in combat situations on the front line, we are individuals, so making a general statement over strength and brute ability may not be accurate all of the time. Some women are more than capable, but ability is not the real reason that it may not be a good idea to put women on the front line.
Women, because of the scope of their physical capacities and greater vulnerabilities upon capture, have a diminished opportunity for survival in battle. The enemy does not play by the rules, and will exploit the vulnerabilities of the women, and of the men who have a natural instinct to protect members of the opposite sex.
I am not suggesting that women are unable to endure the suffering that may accompany capture, or the rigors that may need to be endured during combat. A woman's ability to withstand incredibly violent circumstances, I am sure, is incredible. After all, women are biologically designed to withstand the difficulties of child labor. But the hands of the enemy are something entirely different, and the enemy will use our vulnerabilities against us, to lure the men in, playing on the natural instinct by men to protect women, killing more military members in the long run.
With a stroke of a pen, outgoing Defense Secretary Leon Panetta changed the rules of the military, lifting the ban on women in combat. Senator John McCain stated that the standards must not be altered for women. They must be able to pass the requirements afforded to men.
Before I address the issue, let's understand something. Obama, and the hard left democrats, always have their own hidden motives. They have shown us time and time again that their policies are not based on what's best, but on what they think will gain them more support from groups, in an effort to solidify their power, and keep themselves at the top in perpetuity. The liberals separate Americans into rival groups, and then cater to those groups to gain their support, granting to the groups crumbs the liberal democrats claim are "rights," and would never be given to the poor, oppressed groups by the opposition.
The "Divide and Conquer" strategy is one that the democrats use against the differing parts of the Republican Party, persons of the different economic levels in this nation, the races, and the sexes. It is a normal battle tactic for them.
Understanding typical liberal motives, the decision to allow females to fight on the front line in the United States Military is not a move they feel is best for the military, or for women, but a move the liberal left democrats believes will continue growing their popularity with the women vote - and any opposition will be labeled just another part of the so-called, and mythical, republican war on women.
The Democrats could care less about women, in reality. This is all a part of political strategy, and class warfare - driving groups against each other - in this case, pitting the genders against each other in a divisive political move.
When it comes to combat, anymore, with the technology of modern warfare, there is often no front line. Women are involved in nearly all aspects of combat, except ground operations. The argument has been over whether or not women are capable of the physical vigor of operating on the front line. Men, we are being told, are stronger and have more stamina, and women may often fail in being able to keep up. It's the ol' "stronger sex, weaker sex" argument - and nobody likes to be considered weaker, making this a powerful argument that can assist those pushing for full equality for women on the battlefield. As one broadcaster said, "Are you saying that Pee Wee Herman would do a better job than Serena Williams?"
Reality dictates that though overall men tend to be stronger, and better able in combat situations on the front line, we are individuals, so making a general statement over strength and brute ability may not be accurate all of the time. Some women are more than capable, but ability is not the real reason that it may not be a good idea to put women on the front line.
Women, because of the scope of their physical capacities and greater vulnerabilities upon capture, have a diminished opportunity for survival in battle. The enemy does not play by the rules, and will exploit the vulnerabilities of the women, and of the men who have a natural instinct to protect members of the opposite sex.
I am not concerned about abilities and courage when it comes to this issue, because there is no question that women can be quite able, and quite courageous. There are many cases of women ending up in a combat situation and performing in a heroic manner that goes above and beyond anything you can muster. Women excel in many military jobs, such as sharpshooter, or pilot. Biology, the willingness of the enemy to use vulnerabilities against women, and the instinct of the men that the enemy can also use against the unit, is the concern.
When it comes to biology, remember that these kids are more often than not right out of high school. Youngsters. Kids. The guys are pumped up on testosterone, which not only drives them sexually, but provides a natural sense of aggression necessary to participate in military maneuvers against an enemy that has the sole aim of killing them. Military units depend on the members of the unit being the best they can be. Women, lacking the hormonal makeup that drives men to be able to aggressively kill, aggressively defend their position, and perform other tasks that requires a large amount of aggression, will be vulnerable, and place the unit in danger.
The more alarming part of this argument, which should really convince those that support women on the front lines to rethink their position, is that we must remember that war is the act of aggressively engaging and attacking the enemy with deliberate offensive action using whatever necessary to gain an advantage, which will likely also end up in a face-to-face condition with the enemy. Like us, the enemy is also engaging in an aggressive offensive action seeking ways to gain an advantage. Whether the woman is weaker than the men in her unit, or not, from a physical standpoint, the enemy sees her as such, will single her out like a wolf hunting a herd of caribou, taking out the straggler, weak, or injured.
The enemy will also be willing to use other tactics to exploit a female's vulnerabilities. Women face special torture, including rape. And the men, because of our natural instincts, cannot be trained to ignore the screams of their female personnel - nor is that a condition we want to create in our society.
The instincts of men will also create distraction, which allows an opportunity for hesitancy, which in the end will also kill more members of our military - not just the women, but the members of the unit around her.
In other words, this proposition of putting women in combat is dangerous, not necessarily just because of women, but because of the natural tendencies of men (be it our men, or the men of the enemy units), as well.
That is a lot of life to lose for the sake of a political power grab.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Military leaders lift ban on women in combat roles - Fox News
Women in combat spells trouble - NYPost
Military leaders lift ban on women in combat roles - Fox News
Women in combat spells trouble - NYPost
More than 245 People Die in Brazilian Nightclub Fire
Fox News Television is reporting:
At least 245 people dead after fire sweeps through nightclub in Southern Brazil. . .
Security refused to allow club-goers from leaving as fire broke out because they hadn't paid their tab.
The nightclub is one of the largest in Santa Maria, Brazil. Club was full because of local celebrations.
Authorities were on the scene quickly, but had difficulty getting in, breaking down the walls to allow the smoke out of the building. It is believed most deaths were due to smoke inhalation.
A search for bodies is on-going.
Read more about the event:
At least 245 die in Brazilian nightclub fire 'after indoor fireworks display during band performance'
At least 245 people dead after fire sweeps through nightclub in Southern Brazil. . .
Security refused to allow club-goers from leaving as fire broke out because they hadn't paid their tab.
The nightclub is one of the largest in Santa Maria, Brazil. Club was full because of local celebrations.
Authorities were on the scene quickly, but had difficulty getting in, breaking down the walls to allow the smoke out of the building. It is believed most deaths were due to smoke inhalation.
A search for bodies is on-going.
Read more about the event:
At least 245 die in Brazilian nightclub fire 'after indoor fireworks display during band performance'
Death toll still unknown and may be higher as more bodies are pulled from wreckage while hundreds more are expected to be injured
Official cause unknown, but reports claim it was caused by a firework during a band performance
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Official cause unknown, but reports claim it was caused by a firework during a band performance
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
27 Die in Egypt due to Riot
27 die in Egypt riot after soccer violence verdict
Angry relatives and residents rampaged through an Egyptian port city Saturday in rioting that killed at least 27 people after a judge sentenced nearly two dozen soccer fans to death for involvement in deadly violence after a game last year.
The unrest was the latest in a bout of violence that has left a total of 38 people dead in two days, including 11 killed in clashes between police and protesters marking Friday's second anniversary of the uprising that overthrew longtime leader Hosni Mubarak.
President Mohammed Morsi canceled a scheduled trip to Ethiopia Saturday and instead met for the first time with top generals as part of the newly formed National Defense Council.
The violence in Port Said erupted after a judge sentenced 21 people to death in connection with the Feb. 1 soccer melee that killed 74 fans of the Cairo-based Al-Ahly team. Executions in Egypt are usually carried out by hanging.
Angry relatives and residents rampaged through an Egyptian port city Saturday in rioting that killed at least 27 people after a judge sentenced nearly two dozen soccer fans to death for involvement in deadly violence after a game last year.
The unrest was the latest in a bout of violence that has left a total of 38 people dead in two days, including 11 killed in clashes between police and protesters marking Friday's second anniversary of the uprising that overthrew longtime leader Hosni Mubarak.
President Mohammed Morsi canceled a scheduled trip to Ethiopia Saturday and instead met for the first time with top generals as part of the newly formed National Defense Council.
The violence in Port Said erupted after a judge sentenced 21 people to death in connection with the Feb. 1 soccer melee that killed 74 fans of the Cairo-based Al-Ahly team. Executions in Egypt are usually carried out by hanging.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Saturday, January 26, 2013
Promises to Grandchildren. . . Monster Truck Jam
After seeing the commercial on TV, Ezekiel told his daddy to call Grandpa, because he wants to go. We got tickets, and tonight Ezekiel, my son, and I are going to the event.
Gonna be fun!
Advance Auto Parts Monster Jam
Angel StadiumAnaheim, CA
January 26, 2013
FeaturingMonster Jam® Trucks: Grave Digger® driven by Pablo Huffaker, El Toro Loco® driven by Aaron Basl, Grave Digger the Legend® driven by Adam Anderson, Captain America driven by Chad Fortune, Mohawk Warrior® driven by George Balhan, Monster Mutt® Dalmatian driven by Taryn Laskey, Iron Man™ driven by Lee O'Donnel, The Patriot driven by Dan Rodoni, Tropical Thunder driven by Andrew Peckham, Bounty Hunter driven by Ben Winslow, Iron Outlaw driven by Darren Migues, Titan driven by Donald Epidendio, Playin For Keeps driven by Tony Canedo, Obsession driven by Jim Lehnertz, Obsessed driven by Rick Swanson and Blue Thunder® driven by Dan Evans!!
Ted Nugent: The War Is Coming
"The war is coming to the streets of America and if you are not keeping and bearing and practicing with your arms then you will be helpless and you will be the victim of evil." - Ted Nugent
Meanwhile, the doctors are being used as federal government snitches. . .
From the Chicago Tribune:
Later that day, Sam told her what the doctors had asked him.
"By the way, Mom," she recalled him saying, "when you were out of the room they asked me if we had any guns in the house."
Guns?
"Yes, it was none of their business," she said. "Where do they get off? I was furious.
"By the way, he answered 'no.' We don't have guns. But that's not the point. The point is that they use bureaucratic leverage to break down our privacy. And the last time I checked, I was an American."
Insley said she wasn't a gun rights crusader hoping to get her name in the paper. She said she was a mom who wanted to make sure other parents know what doctors are asking their children.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Gun Control Advocate: You Can Be Shot By An Unloaded Gun
Remember, she is among those brilliant minds that want to take away your guns. . . they hate what they don't understand - you know, like guns, freedom, and self-reliance.
Constitution Radio with Douglas V. Gibbs welcomes back Harmon Kaslow: Atlas Shrugged Part II Now On DVD!
Today's guest is Harmon Kaslow to discuss the movie Atlas Shrugged Part II now being available on DVD.
After the interview we will discuss Prying1Book's Book of the Week, and a have book giveaway (and Pocket Constitution giveaway) to the listener that answers the Constitution Quest Question of the Week correctly.
Then, JASmius will join me for the. . .
5 Big Stories of the Week, January 26, 2013
Honorable Mention: Roe v. Wade 40th Anniversary
Honorable Mention: Sarkozy flees France over High Taxes
Honorable Mention: Netanyahu wins election in Israel
Honorable Mention: Algeria death toll over 80
Honorable Mention: Morsi receives gift of F-16s
Honorable Mention: Gun Control in America Begins
5. Boehner: Obama Out To Annihilate Republican Party
4. North Korean Nuclear Tests Eye United States
3. Universities Suffer Under The Weight of Obamacare
2. Hillary Clinton Testifies Before the United States Senate
1. Court Finds Obama Recess Appointments to have been Unconstitutional
-----
And don't forget! Today's program will also be available as a podcast later on our podcast page.
Share the show!
American Daily Review Radio previews the 5 Big Stories
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
5 Big Stories of the Week, January 26, 2013
Honorable Mention: Roe v. Wade 40th Anniversary
Honorable Mention: Sarkozy flees France over High Taxes
Honorable Mention: Netanyahu wins election in Israel
Honorable Mention: Algeria death toll over 80
Honorable Mention: Morsi receives gift of F-16s
Honorable Mention: Gun Control in America Begins
5. Boehner: Obama Out To Annihilate Republican Party
4. North Korean Nuclear Tests Eye United States
3. Universities Suffer Under The Weight of Obamacare
2. Hillary Clinton Testifies Before the United States Senate
1. Court Finds Obama Recess Appointments to have been Unconstitutional
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)