Obama Urges Supreme Court to Disregard the Law, and Act in His Favor in regards to gay marriage case

| BREAKING NEWS ALERT

BREAKING NEWS Thursday, February 28, 2013 3:58 PM EST

Obama Administration Urges Supreme Court to Overturn California Gay Marriage Ban The Obama administration on Thursday will throw its support behind a broad claim for marriage equality, urging the Supreme Court to rule that voters in California were not entitled to ban same-sex marriage there, according to an administration official.

After receiving the above Breaking News Alert from the New York Times, my first thought was, "So the courts are supposed to apply the law, but Obama is telling them to disregard what they think about the law, and do what he wants, instead.

When it comes to marriage, from a personal moral standpoint, I have a real problem with a group of people practicing an immoral sexual behavior, of which they can act upon if they want, it's their own business and their consequences, deciding to hijack the institution of marriage, of which just a few decades ago they were ridiculing.

I believe the attack on marriage is a step by the homosexual agenda to destroy the church.  Their goal is to eventually gain marriage as a "constitutional right," and then sue churches for denying them their constitutional right, and destroying Christianity by forcing homosexuality into the four walls of the various Christian establishments.

A great example of how the agenda of perversion is accomplishing this is a separate story where a transgender student is suing California Baptist University for kicking him out of school, because he lives as a she, and put he is a she on his application.  The school claims they expelled the student because of the fraudulent claim on the application that he was a she.

Why would a transgender student choose a Baptist university to enroll at in the first place?  The fix was on from the very beginning.

This is the first step towards their goal to destroy religious institutions in America.  First, a Christian University, next, the churches themselves.

This is what happens when government gets involved in marriage.  Marriage should not even be a political or governmental issue.  I get it, it is for legal reasons, but if government did not have a hand in marriage, the churches would act independently as they feel they should.  Some churches may allow gay marriage in a world like that, some may not.  The flock would then choose which ones they should attend based on those doctrinal decisions.

Then, if we bring the Constitution into the puzzle, another interesting fact arises.

Nowhere in the Constitution is the federal government authorized to have any authority over marriage.  It is a State issue.  If you don't like the way your State legislates on marriage, you can work to change it, put up and shut up, or move to a State that agrees with you.

Proposition 8 was a change to the State Constitution voted in by the people.  The federal government has no legal authority over the issue.  That means the federal courts have no business taking the case.  But, the Supreme Court is getting ready to hear the case, and Obama is urging the High Court to ignore the Constitution, ignore the law, and ignore the vote of the people.

This is supposed to be a system that exists under the rule of law (Constitution), but instead, it has become a system under the rule of man. . . and Obama thinks he is the ultimate decision-maker.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Justices Should End California Gay Marriage Ban, U.S. Urges - NYTimes

Transgender student sues California Baptist University for expulsion - ABC7

Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution launches tonight, at the Temecula Constitution Class

Join us at Faith Armory at 27498 Enterprise Circle West for this very important class. . .


3.3 - Article I, Section 9; Prohibitions to the Federal Government

The Slave Trade and Immigration

Article I, Section 9, Clause 1 is obsolete, or so we are told. The clause addressed the Atlantic slave trade, and the migration of people into the United States. Slavery was abolished by Amendment 13 so the part of Article I, Section 9, Clause 1 that addresses slavery is obsolete. But is the part about migration still in force?

One could say that the “migration” portion of the clause is still in force because the 13th Amendment only addresses slavery. The standard belief among historians is that the entire clause is no longer in force.

The ramifications of this clause may indeed reach into today's issue regarding illegal immigration.

Why would the Founding Fathers include a mention of migration in a clause that is essentially geared toward the abolition of the importation of slaves?

The word “importation” in this clause applies wholly to slaves.

The word, migration, then, would seem to apply wholly to non-slaves.

The intention was that since the Constitution, as the contract that created our federal government, is a document that grants powers to the federal government, and that all authorities not expressly delegated, are reserved to the States, it was expected that immigration would remain as an issue that would be addressed by the States.

Other national governments prohibited migration as they saw fit, so the Founding Fathers determined that the new United States Government must have that same authority.

According to the clause, however, from the year 1808 Congress would possess the power to stop the importation of slaves, as well as the migration of people the Congress felt must be prohibited from entering this country as immigrants, through the Congress’ power of legislation.

The Constitution was written specifically in regards to the federal government.  All powers originally belonged to the States.  Some of those authorities were granted to the federal government for the purpose of protecting and preserving the union.  Therefore, all authorities regarding immigration originally belonged to the States, and before 1808 the States had sole authority regarding all immigration issues.

In Article I, Section 9, the federal government was given the opportunity to regulate immigration, but not until 1808.  The reason for delaying the power to prevent migration were, to be simply put, to give the States twenty years to attract as many people as possible without Congressional regulatory consideration. After all, at this time in history we had immense and almost immeasurable territory, peopled by not more than two and a half million inhabitants. Therefore, migration was encouraged, especially of the kind of people that would bring a benefit to the new nation. The immigration of able, skilful, and industrious Europeans was encouraged.

Note that this clause gives the federal government the authority to prohibit certain persons from migrating into the United States, but it does not give the federal government the authority to dictate to the States which persons the States must admit inside their borders.

Habeas Corpus

Article I, Section 9, Clause 2 states that “The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.”

Habeas corpus is a legal term that means quite literally in Latin: "you may have the body." In legal terms, Habeas corpus is a writ that releases a prisoner from unlawful detention. Habeas corpus comes from British common law, and has historically served as an important legal instrument safeguarding individual freedom against arbitrary state action that includes detention without the due process of law.

A writ of habeas corpus is a summons with the force of a court order that demands a prisoner be taken before the court, and that the custodian present proof of authority, allowing the court to determine if the custodian has lawful authority to detain the person. If the custodian does not have authority to detain the prisoner, then the prisoner must be released from custody.

Habeas corpus is designed to protect citizens against any detention that is forbidden by law. The U.S. Constitution specifically includes the habeas procedure, and instructs the Congress not to suspend such unless the detainment is the result of a “Rebellion or Invasion,” adding that “the public Safety may require it.”

Normally, habeas corpus proceedings accompany questions of jurisdiction and authorities of the court that sentenced a defendant. The suspension of habeas corpus has recently become an issue regarding the detainment of terrorists, but one must ask if the public safety requires the suspension of habeas corpus in the case of terrorists, as prescribed in the Constitution. Secondly, one must consider that the Constitution applies to American citizens, so the question on whether or not Article I, Section 9, Clause 2 applies to captured combatants seems to be a moot point since it is obvious that the detained are not American Citizens, and therefore are not protected by Constitutional protections.  Also, remember that Congress has the sole authority to make rules regarding captures on land and water as per Article I, Section 8, Clause 11.

Bills of Attainder

A Bill of Attainder is when the legislature declares the guilt of a person or group of persons, and punishes them without due process (the benefit of a trial).

In Britain, bills of attainder were used as a convenient way for the King to convict subjects of crimes and confiscate their property without the bother of a trial, and without the need for a conviction or indeed any evidence at all. Such actions were seen as tyrannical because often this power was used against political enemies, and the Founding Fathers did not wish to give the new federal government those same kinds of powers. Some states, prior to the Constitution, did use attainders against British loyalists, but the practice all but disappeared after the Constitution so specifically forbid the use of attainders by the U.S. Congress, and the States.

Prohibiting the use of bills of attainder serves a number of purposes. One purpose is that by disallowing the bills of attainder the separation of powers is reinforced. By disallowing bills of attainder, it literally forbids the legislature from performing a judicial function. Another purpose is in regard to the protection of the concept of due process, which was later reinforced by the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.

The true danger of a bill of attainder is that such a legislative act inflicts punishment without a judicial trial, and takes away the life, liberty or property of the target.

Ex Post Facto law

Ex post facto Law is literally retroactive law, or a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences (or status) of actions committed or relationships that existed prior to the enactment of the law. Ex post facto law could criminalize actions that were legal when committed, or in the case of amnesty laws, decriminalize certain acts or alleviate possible punishments. Generally speaking, ex post facto laws are seen as a violation of the rule of law as it applies in a free and democratic society. Ex post facto laws are expressly forbidden by the United States Constitution.

Direct Taxation

The U.S. Constitution originally forbade direct taxation upon the people by the federal government.  Taxation of the people by the federal government could only be laid in relation to population.  When the idea for the income tax came to fruition, an amendment (16th) had to be passed to allow for the direct taxation of the people without dependence upon the enumeration of the population.

Article I, Section 9, Clause 4 states that in addition to direct taxation, the federal government was forbidden from using Capitation.  Capitation is a head tax.  A Poll Tax is a kind of head tax.  In the context of the period, any tax that singles out groups both directly and indirectly regardless of possession of lands or personal property is Capitation. Since Article I, Section 9 is a prohibitory section, the specific call by the Founding Fathers in that clause was that there shall be No Capitation, which included No Poll Tax.

In early New England, in keeping with traditions from the homeland, capitation (caput, meaning head), or poll taxes, were common. These taxes were levied as a way to manipulate the people for the “good of the government.”

Alexander Hamilton, though condemning capitation taxes in his Federalist Papers writings, was in favor of “head taxes” for emergency revenue reasons. He felt that since sources for revenue were so few, if the government needed to expand for any reason, the ability to lay head taxes, or direct taxation, needed to be an option. However, most of the Founding Fathers disagreed, not only because of their belief that taxation must be indirect and small, but also because of their opinion that the federal government must remain limited to the few authorities granted to it by the U.S. Constitution.

Article I, Section 9, Clause 4 forbids Congress to lay a tax upon individuals except uniformly, and in proportion to the census provided for in Article I, Section 2, Clause 3, where this subject is first brought up.  In other words, direct taxation was forbidden.  What the federal government did was tax the States, based on proportion to the census, or enumeration.  The States then taxed the people in order to pay the tax to the federal government.  The method of taxation by the States was left up to each individual State.  The federal government, in this way, used indirect taxation to tax the people.

As we have learned, the U.S. Constitution is not designed to necessarily tell the federal government what it can't do as much as it is designed to tell the federal government what few authorities it has. But the Founders felt this to be so important that in addition to not giving direct taxation to the Federal Government as an authority, they felt they must also spell it out that the Federal Government cannot tax in this manner in any form. This clause restricts the Congress a lot more because it is prohibitive. Article 1, Section 8 provides a list of "enumerated powers," but knowing that politicians would bend and twist meanings to gain more power, Article 1, Section 9 was designed to spell out some very specific things the Congress is prohibited from doing (such as direct taxation and capitation taxes).

Preference in Commerce

Article I, Section 9, Clause 6 states that “No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.”

This proposal was placed before the Constitutional Convention by the delegates from Maryland, their fear being that congressional legislation might prefer Chesapeake Bay ports of Virginia to those of their State. Under the Articles of Confederation, each State was free to impose duties and make regulations to the disadvantage of others, and it was desired that equality in commerce be maintained in the future. This also gives us a clue to the intentions of the Commerce Clause in Article I, Section 8. The Founding Fathers did not wish to give the Federal Government control over commerce, only the ability to ensure that commerce was maintained in an equitable manner in regards to the several States.

U.S. Treasury

Article I, Section 9, Clause 7 reads: “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.”

This clause was inspired by the lessons learned in regards to merry old England. The Founding Fathers did not believe it should be in the power of the Executive alone, or of the legislature alone, to raise or spend the money at will. Article I, Section 7, Clause 1 requires that all bills for raising money must originate in the House of Representatives; but they must then pass the Senate and be signed by the President. In 1842 Congress began to make appropriations by joint resolution; but as that also must be approved by both Houses, and signed by the President, there is no real difference. Also, in the interest of transparency to the people, the records of all monetary transactions both of receipts and expenditures must be made available for public scrutiny.

Divided Allegiance

Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 reads: “No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.”

The Founding Fathers did not believe there should be any foreign influences in the affairs of our government.

This provision was taken from a provision in the first section of Article VI of the Articles of Confederation. It permitted persons holding office under a State to accept, with the consent of Congress, the objectionable gifts or distinctions; but the constitutions of at least two of the States at that time forbade them altogether. This republic, being a nation born as a result of the tyranny of a monarchy, should not grant titles of nobility, that much was easily understood. Nobility betrayed the trust and honor of the people through the use of prestige and favoritism. This was the kind of government that did not protect the liberties of the people.

Jefferson, as President, accepted from Alexander I of Russia a bust of that Emperor, which he said would be "one of the most valued ornaments of the retreat I am preparing for myself at my native home." He said that he had laid it down as a law of his official conduct not to accept anything but books, pamphlets, or other things of minor value; but his "particular esteem" from the Emperor "places his image in my mind above the scope of the law." However, without the consent of Congress, who was the final determining factor, he could not have accepted that gift.

In 1810 Congress proposed an amendment, the original Thirteenth amendment (some would call it the lost 13th Amendment because some records showed it was ratified, then suddenly disappeared - as explained below), to add a heavy penalty to this clause by this wording:

"If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive or retain any title of nobility or honor, or shall, without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding office of trust or profit under them, or either of them."

The people were told that the proposed amendment lacked the necessary ratifying votes. Ongoing research has shown that the proposed amendment was indeed properly ratified, the State Department WAS notified, and the amendment was on the books and records of the various States until at least 1876. From 1810 to 1812, twelve states ratified this amendment. The War of 1812 destroyed the library of Congress and these documents were thought destroyed, but in 1994 it was discovered they still exist after a chance discovery in Maine in 1983 made historians aware of the existence of the original 13th Amendment.

Terms:

Indirect Taxation: An indirect tax is contrasted with a direct tax which is collected directly by government from the people.  An indirect tax, for example, may increase the price of a good so that consumers are actually paying the tax by paying more for the products.  Another example of indirect taxation is for one entity to tax another entity, and then the second entity taxing the people to recoup the taxes it paid.

Joint Resolution: A joint resolution is a legislative measure requiring approval by the Senate and the House and then is presented to the President for approval or disapproval.  There is generally no legal difference between a joint resolution and a bill.  Laws enacted by virtue of a joint resolution are not distinguished from laws enacted by a bill. Constitutional amendments are passed by joint resolutions, which are instead presented to the States for ratification.  Resolutions are often temporary in nature.

Questions for Discussion:

1.  How was immigration regarded by the Founding Fathers?

2.  Why is Habeas Corpus so important?

3.  If the Founding Fathers disagreed with divided allegiance, what would they think of dual citizenship?

Resources:

Articles of Confederation, March 1, 1781; http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/artconf.asp

Larry Schweikart and Michael Allen, A Patriot’s History of the United States; New York: Sentinel (2004).

Madison’s Notes on the Constitutional Convention, Avalon Project, Yale University: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/debcont.asp

The Original 13th Article of Amendment;
American Patriot Friend’s Network:
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/13th.htm

Thomas J. DiLorenzo, Hamilton's Curse; New York: Three Rivers Press (2008).

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Obama Releases Illegal Alien Criminals, Denies Involvment

President Obama, the administration claiming it is because of the coming sequester (or which Obama chooses what to cut, according to the sequester) has conducted an illegal prisoner release.  The release of illegal alien criminals, later, was claimed to be the actions of ICE, and not the Obama administration.  In fact, Obama claims to have no knowledge of the action.

Amazing how he can separate himself from his own policies.  It's like he is still voting "present."

If it turns out to be a fantastic deal, he will take credit. If it blows up in his face, he will claim no responsibility, and try to find a way to blame the outcome on the republicans.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

DHS Releasing Hundreds Of Illegal Immigrants, Blaming Budget Cuts - Fox News

Detained Immigrants Released; Officials Cite Sequester Cuts - LA Times

Congressman Keith Ellison Goes Nuts on Hannity

Attitude of a loser?  Or is the anger of the Democrat Party a carefully measured tactic so that they sound like revolutionaries battling the bourgeois?

@ Yahoo! News

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Congressman Duncan of South Carolina Explains Obama's Sequestration

Congressman Jeff Duncan

I try to be solution oriented, but I won't shy away from stating the truth. President Obama is playing politics with "sequestration" to make a 2.4% spending cut seem harsh and unreasonable. The White House is cutting the most essential functions first, and leaving the waste untouched in order to build a case for higher taxes. Is this responsible? Is this leadership? Absolutely not. These are corrupt Chicago-style politics, and the American people should reject them.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Bobby Jindal Calls Obama's Sequester Warnings "Political Theater"

Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal (R - La.) accused President Obama of playing "political theater" by warning that looming across-the-board spending cuts set to go into effect on Friday will have a devastating impact on the government's ability to function and provide for the nation's most vulnerable, saying the cuts can be made in ways that are less damaging.

"The reality is that this is just part of political theater, part of the campaign," Jindal told Politics Confidential following a luncheon at the White House for the National Governors Association. "He's trying to scare the American people. He's trying to distort the impact."

The White House released a report Sunday night detailing the state-by-state impact of the cuts known as 'the sequester'; the report says that just in Jindal's state of Louisina, 1,730 fewer children will receive vaccines, while $488,000 will be cut from a nutrition assistance programs that provides meals to seniors, among other cuts.

But Jindal says the president could cut the $85 billion required by sequestration without impacting programs like these.

Finish Reading, and see video, at Yahoo! News

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Florida City Proposes Ordinance to Disarm Individuals During a Disaster

City Wants Power to “Disarm Individuals” During Crisis

Guntersville (Ala.) Mayor Leigh Dollar is working with city officials to pass an ordinance that would give police the power to “disarm individuals” during a disaster, a chilling example of how the second amendment is being assaulted via the back door.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

NRA Exposes Justice Memo on Guns

NRA Uses Justice Memo to Accuse Obama on Guns

The National Rifle Association is using a Justice Department memo it obtained to argue in ads that the Obama administration believes its gun control plans won't work unless the government seizes firearms and requires national gun registration — ideas the White House has not proposed and does not support.

The NRA's assertion and its obtaining of the memo in the first place underscore the no-holds-barred battle under way as Washington's fight over gun restrictions heats up.

The memo, under the name of one of the Justice Department's leading crime researchers, critiques the effectiveness of gun control proposals, including some of President Barack Obama's. A Justice Department official called the memo an unfinished review of gun violence research and said it does not represent administration policy.

Read the rest at Newsmax

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Bloomberg's Totalitarian Soda Ban Also Affects 2-Liter Bottles From The Pizza Guy

Take a big gulp, New York: Hizzoner is about to give you a pop.

Nanny Bloomberg unleashes his ban on large sodas on March 12 — and there are some nasty surprises lurking for hardworking families.

Say goodbye to that 2-liter bottle of Coke with your pizza delivery, pitchers of soft drinks at your kid’s birthday party and some bottle-service mixers at your favorite nightclub.

They’d violate Mayor Bloomberg’s new rules, which prohibit eateries from serving or selling sugary drinks in containers larger than 16 ounces.

Bloomberg’s soda smackdown follows his attacks on salt, sugar, trans fat, smoking and even baby formula.

Finish Reading at New York Post

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Japan's Inevitable Collapse Another Lesson in the Failure of Liberalism

By Douglas V. Gibbs

My son overheard me the other day talking about the American economy, and the financial failure of the European countries.  He's a video game nut, and based on his observation that Japan dominates the video game industry, he said, "Japan's doing good, why don't those countries just follow Japan's example?"

I replied, "Actually, Japan has been in big trouble.  Theirs is pretty bad.  They've been trying to pump all kinds of money into their economy, and it's not working."

"Really?"

"Really."

Then a couple days later an article appeared on Z3 News that confirmed what I told my son.  The article begins:

After more than twenty years of economic troubles, Japan now appears to be entering a terminal phase. They are running out of options as they approach a total economic melt-down.

Since their recession began with the 1990 collapse of the Nikkei stock market, the Japanese government has tried to stimulate their economy with more government spending. Unfortunately, all they have to show for it is massive sovereign debt. The promised economic recovery never happened. They have become Exhibit A in the case against socialism, proving what free market economists have said all along, government spending cannot drive economic growth. The private sector is the engine for growth.

The results in Japan should not come as a surprise. The same results have occurred wherever governments have tried to spend their way out of recession. The United States has made the same mistake repeatedly, including President Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal in the 1930′s, President Johnson’s Great Society in the 1960′s, President Carter’s recession in the 1970′s, and President Obama’s failed stimulus program in 2009, which spent nearly a trillion dollars to produce the slowest economic recovery in American history. The evidence is clear, government spending cannot drive economic growth. Progressive politicians, otherwise known as socialists and communists, don’t like to hear that, but that does not change the facts.

The liberal left, however, could care less about the facts.  The blindness of their ideology does not let them recognize that they are wrong, or that their policies are failures.  Even in Japan, after twenty years of Obama-style policies that have also failed in Europe, the Prime Minister will be doubling down on the chaos, trying to use government spending to end the recession.

Granted, the 2011 tsunami didn't help, but that, and the global recession that allegedly began in 2008, are merely excuses.  Japan is in trouble because they have brought it upon themselves.

Europe, Japan, and the United States, if we don't change course soon, are all on an unsustainable path towards economic collapse.  The big government policies are unsustainable, and what will be next is a faster devaluation of the currencies.  The economies are being artificially propped up by the spending, and printing of fiat money, but the longer these governments refuse to face the piper, the more violent the financial collapses will be.

These economies will fail.  The global economy will collapse.  The severity depends upon when these governments finally read the writing on the wall, and cut spending, cut big government, back off on taxes, reduce regulations, and let the free market do its magic.

I fear their arrogance will never allow them to see the light, and the collapses will be so devastating that folks will wonder if civilization will ever be able to rise from the smoldering ashes.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Japan's Economy Has Entered a Terminal Phase - Z3 News

Kerry Immediately Proves as Secretary of State he was the wrong idiot for the job

On the eve of his first trip abroad, John Kerry invented the Central Asian country of “Kyrzakhstan.” He was attempting to praise U.S. diplomats’ work in emerging democracies in the region, and said “they support democratic institutions in Kyrzakhstan and Georgia.” Unfortunately, the secretary of state seems to have conflated Kyrgyzstan, one of the U.S.’s allies in the War on Terror, with Kazakhstan, its northern neighbor.

National Review

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

The Shot Heard Around The World may be on the Horizon

"You will march...with the utmost expedition and Secrecy to Concord, where you will seize and destroy all the Artillery, Ammunition, Provisions...Small Arms, and all Military Stores whateverr..." -- General Gage's orders to Lt. Col. Smith, April 18, 1775

By Douglas V. Gibbs

A reader of this site, or perhaps a listener to my Constitution Study radio program, or Constitution Radio with Douglas V. Gibbs radio program, wrote me last Sunday with an interesting series of observations about the right to keep and bear arms, and that right's role in the history of this nation.

He told me that while surfing the net he found that, "There were just four pieces of artillery possessed by the colonies at the onset of the Revolution. Two were owned by several citizens of Boston and two were owned by the Government of Massachusetts. They were returned to the citizens after the war, the other two having been captured by the enemy. Henry Knox had the guns inscribed with these words, [Sacred to Liberty: This is one of four cannons, which constituted the whole train of Field Artillery possessed by the British Colonies of North America, at the commencement of the war, on the 19th of April, 1775. This cannon and its fellow belonging to a number of citizens of Boston, were used in many engagements during the war. The other two, the property of the Government of Massachusetts were taken by the enemy. By order of the United States in Congress assembled May 19th, 1788.].  One is on display at Minute Man Park in Concord."

The email continues to tell us that "the US maritime Museum has record [of] the information on Privateers. These are privately owned and heavily armed ships. During the Revolution there were just 64 ships in the Continental Navy that were armed with 1200 or so mounted cannon and swivel guns. Te Privateers ships were in excess of 2000 and the number of mounted cannon and swivel guns numbered over 14,000. Without this civilian Navy we may not have won the fight. This should put a wrinkle in the pants of the... well what ever you call them. Scalia's statement that frightening weapons could be banned is one in a vacuum  The facts are very simple and do not lie or twist meaning.  They simply are."

We must remember that the founders expected the citizenry to have firearms equal to or greater than the government's forces.

The writer continued along those lines, saying that while the fervor in today's gun grab is said to be over getting military-type weapons off the streets, in revolutionary times, that is what everyone had. . . military-type weapons.  He then added that just because people fear those kinds of firearms, it doesn't mean others shouldn't have them, or that everyone is out to get them.

The liberal left uses paranoia to gain their aims, meaning that they capitalize on fear, and use that fear as an excuse to take away from everyone else the things they possess.

The email'r then commented on Justice Roberts' reference to a headsman's axe, and how those weapons are banned from people carrying them.  Sure, such an item is scary.  "They are only for taking the head off a helpless tied up and subdued person. I would agree with Roberts. The consideration that I may be subdued and at the mercy of the headsman is pretty scary. But absent the tied up and subdued the fellow with the axe would not fare well. Even bare handed all you would have to do is avoid the first swing and close the distance to make the axe useless in combat. A good knife then would do. The whole concept is outlandish. Besides the headsman's axe has no miitary application. It is not durable enough to be of combative use. It is too heavy and unwieldy to be used in combat as well. So the whole example in light of the second amendment is absurd."

He concludes, "Finally 'Well regulated is defined in Federalist Paper 29. . . It means well trained and practices in movement and drill. The fallacy that it means regulated as creating a limitation on the weapons that were required is equally absurd. The mention of weapons in the militia statutes were the bare minimum that one was to report with. Even today a soldier reporting with less than a full kit can be charged with an Article 15 for failure to repair. The entire scene is one of absurdity when you see the lawyers arguments flying about when you deal with those who have no military experience. The arguments have been so utterly twisted it is difficult to know if these poor misguided idiots could pour water out of a boot even if the directions were on the heel. I am equally sure that if the general public were to realize that the so-called 'interpreters of the law' don't really have a clue, it might inspire the people to find out on their own and ignore their blithering blather..."

He called himself a "Watchman on the Wall" at the end of the email.

I responded quickly:

Sir,

Well said, my friend. As I remind folks constantly, it took only 3% of the population to fight the Revolutionary War, and win it, against the mightiest military power of the time. We wore the British out, and we were emptying the pocketbook of The Crown by the mere length of the campaign. The British found it difficult to fight the war because all of the colonists were armed, and the Redcoats never knew when they were going to be hit, nor from where.

The words "well regulated" are a key to the 2nd Amendment. In addition to Madison's explanation in Federalist 29, the 1828 Webster's Dictionary also gives us a clue to the meaning of the 2nd Amendment, and the words, "well regulated." If we look up the word "regulate" in that dictionary, we will notice the order of definitions has changed over the years. The definition for "control and restrict," as the word "regulate" is assumed to mean in today's society, was the third and final definition listed, meaning that it was the least used. The first definition had to do with weights and measures. When you put sugar in your coffee, you are regulating the amount. Or, when you turn on your garden hose, you are regulating the flow, whether you restrict it, or let it flow freely.

The second definition is the one the Founding Fathers were using when writing the Constitution, and applies to the use of the word in both the Commerce Clause, and the Second Amendment. The second definition for "regulate" in that case is "to put in good order."

When one understands history, the need to put in good order the militia makes all of the sense in the world. During the Revolutionary War the militia was hardly in good order. They were not well trained, did not understand tactics of movement and drill, many didn't even have shoes, and the muskets were all kinds of different sizes. The militia was hardly in good order, indeed.

Once we understand what "regulate" truly means, we must also understand "who" the militia is. Title 10 of the U.S. Code, to this day, still breaks the militia down into two groups - The organized militia, and the unorganized militia. The organized militia includes the State Militias, Naval Militias, and National Guard. The unorganized militia is the citizen force. It consists of able-bodied people ready to take arms and fight. Though the U.S. Code also gives us an age-range, among other requirements to be a part of the unorganized militia, I am here to tell you that if the need arises, there will be an awful lot of people outside those parameters that will also be willing to take arms, and do what is necessary.

Your email was very well put because it reminds us that it didn't take much to win the Revolutionary War. The drive for Liberty, and as the Declaration of Independence puts it, the willingness to pledge their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor, was what it took to win that war. In today's world, as the rumblings of tyranny are being met with a pledge to defend the nation as founded, banning what The Left believes to be "scary looking" weapons will not calm the fires of freedom. The primary reason the Second Amendment was written was to remind the federal government that they have no right over the firearms of the populace, and because it is necessary to the security of freedom of each of the States, the federal government shall not infringe on that right. The Second Amendment is in place not necessarily to protect the States from a foreign invasion, but from an internal invasion. The right to keep and bear arms is there to repel a tyrannical government.

The shot heard around the world in 1775 at Lexington Green started the War of Independence, and what was the final straw for the colonists in that instance was that the British were marching to Concord to seize our largest arsenal. In other words, what began the bloody war that forged this nation was when they [the British] came for our guns. The right to keep and bear arms is a very important part of the American experience, and this new threat to disarm the American People with gun control legislation is unleashing a lion the democrats were not prepared to face. It has now become a game of chicken, and if the government is unwilling to back down, I expect that there will be blood in the streets. As in Lexington Green, it won't be the oppressed that fires first, but the people being controlled by tyranny will not back down in the face of subjugation.

A new Lexington Green may be on the horizon. This drive to disarm the people is only the first step towards eventual confiscation, and the people know it, and they won't stand for it.

Blessings,

Douglas V. Gibbs
Constitution Radio, KCAA 1050 AM
www.politicalpistachio.com
www.douglasvgibbs.com

P.S. I thought this old episode of School House Rock - Shot Heard 'Round the World was an appropriate end to this post. . .

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

7th Circuit: Concealed Carry Must Be Allowed

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Illinois is trying to step up their gun control tactics, but the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the democrat attack on gun rights.  Regardless, Chicago's nutcakes will still try to steer around it all, and craft a tough law.

They are calling for all schools to be gun-free zones, or as killers like to call them, "easy pick-ins".

“Government owned and operated buildings should be gun-free zones. … One should not be able to possess a weapon in a hospital or a nursing home. Houses of worship should be gun-free zones.”

You know, it is interesting. . . all of these shootings everyone is upset about happened in gun-free zones.  Killers like gun-free zones.  They know they can go into these areas and kill at will, because nobody will be armed to fight back.

The courts disagreed.

I am not a fan of the courts, but even a broken clock can be right a couple times a day.

What is interesting is the democrats are demanding that Chicago needs tougher gun laws because of how dangerous the city has become.

Have they considered that there might be a correlation between the already very tough gun laws in Chicago and the increase in violence?  Funny, areas with more relaxed gun laws have a much lower crime rate.

The court has given Illinois a June 9 deadline to either pass a concealed-carry law, or allow anyone with a valid firearm owners’ card to carry any firearm they want almost anywhere they choose.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Reluctant Chicago Democrats Change Tune on Concealed Carry - Fox 55/27 Illinois

Representative Sheila Jackson Lee - Entitlements are Earned

Dem Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee: “Entitlements Are Not Handouts, They Are Earned”…

Earned?  How did they earn them?  Besides, where in the hell in the Constitution does the federal government have the authority for any of these programs?

They don't.

The money for these programs aren't even stolen from the taxpayers anymore.  It is all borrowed money.  We can't afford these programs, anymore.  There is no money!

Remember, Sheila Jackson Lee was also one of the idiots fighting against making sure all welfare recipients are eligible to receive the aid, which republicans claimed would, if the measure passed, reduce waste, and reduce the spending being thrown into those ridiculous programs.

My God, these people give me a headache.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

California Democrats Lose Super-Majority. . . for the moment

Resignation drops Democrats below two-thirds in California Senate

State Sen. Michael Rubio resigned unexpectedly Friday, a move that drops Democrats below the two-thirds threshold they need to pass tax changes or override vetoes.

The Democrat from the San Joaquin Valley town of Shafter, which is near Bakersfield, announced that he was stepping down immediately to take a government affairs job with Chevron Corp. He was in the middle of his first term in the Senate, after being elected with 60 percent of the vote in 2010.

Read more at Politico

Don't hold your breath, conservatives. . . but this may hold off the higher taxes for a moment - but probably not massive gun control measures they have planned.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Former Muslim Walid Shoebat: "Prophecy: What Lies Ahead"

By Walid Shoebat

The U.S. and Israel are concerned about Iran’s Uranium Enrichment; Iran experiments with Duetrium, Brillium and Tritium – agents that are only used to detonate a Nuclear bomb. They have no waste facilities and it’s like the 9/11 hijackers learning how to take off but have no interest in learning how to land.

However, Israel and the U.S. cannot afford attacking Iran who will blockade the Hormuz. I was right all along; no attack happened and Iran will possess a nuclear weapon.

Iran is returning to it’s original historic state.

Eventually, the United States will fight against the Islamist nations. The good news (unlike what the modern prophecy buffs have taught) is that the U.S. will continue to be the strongest military power and will stand against Turkey in the end.

The U.S. is “the strongest of fortresses” (Daniel 11:39) which will eventually destroy the Islamic alliance:

“Behold, therefore I will bring strangers upon thee, the terrible of the nations: and they shall draw their swords against the beauty of thy wisdom, and they shall defile thy brightness. They shall bring thee down to the pit, and thou shalt die the deaths of [them that are] slain in the midst of the seas”. (Ezekiel 28:7-8)

The naval armada of the U.S., Italy, Greece, Spain and others will crush the Islamic alliance in the sea.
The use of the phrase, “Terrible of the nations” does not mean awful or ugly but “terrible in battle”, as in “the most powerful nations on earth”.

Antichrist does not rule the entire globe as is commonly thought, nor is he the ruler of the most powerful nation on earth.

Just read your Bible and not the Left Behind series.

This is the U.S. alongside other allies that will wake up in the end.

Christians need to stop heeding the warnings of fatalists who warn of the utter doom of America. Instead, they must pursue their nationalist aspirations – which stem from the Bible – against the universalists of Satan.

This defeatist mentality is hardly Christian; God ordained nationalism and has set up America for His purpose, to destroy tyrannies as it has always done.

I can already hear my critics but may I remind them that for years, they said Turkey was secular and that because that nation was an ally of Israel, our prophetic model would be far-fetched at best.

Where are these critics today?

Today, we do not see Europeans threatening Israel but we find Turkey parking it’s naval fleet on the Mediterranean, threatening Israeli and Greek oil exploration.

Today, Erdogan of Turkey has emerged as the hero of the Muslim world.

Erdogan was able gain admiration of the Muslim world when he walked out on Perez at the Davos debate and even regained Perez’s admiration later.

While the U.S., the E.U. and the U.N. begged Hamas to release Gilad Shalit, it was Erdogan of Turkey who finally brokered a deal, ordering Hamas to release him which portrayed the Turkish Prime Minister as the perfect broker between Islamists and Israel.

In Libya, Tunisia and Turkey are rising Islamist regimes that speak about entering Jerusalem triumphant. It is why Erdogan tells the more than 50 Muslim states O.I.C (Organization of Islamic Cooperation)…

“Jerusalem is the apple of the eye of every Muslim.”

Even if Israel gives up the Golan Heights, it will be used by such regimes to advance on Israel’s Adam’s apple. It’s not a Palestinian land issue but the issue of an existence of Jews within Muslim lands.

I have been saying it for years… “Hamas will recognize Israel” and become the dominant Palestinian force.

Today, this is becoming reality. Hamas today is courting Israel for a peace deal and while the recent elections in Israel saw the re-election of Netanyahu, election results seemed to indicate a lurch toward the middle in Israeli government and the further left that government moves, the more open it will be to signing treaties with Islamists.

Al-Quds al-Arabi has reported that Mashaal, who is expected to retire from being head of Hamas’s political bureau, has his eye on the Palestine Liberation Organization’s top position, aiming to replace Mahmoud Abbas as head of the PLO’s Executive Committee.

After the PA’s successful bid to upgrade its status at the UN, Hamas is moving closer than ever to play the same political game Yasser Arafat played even though many within Hamas deny it.

Take Hamas legislator Salah Bardaweel, who denied that his movement was prepared to accept the two-state solution.

But if you look at his answer closely: “Hamas’s political program can’t change overnight,” he said that there was a difference between accepting a Palestinian state based on the 1967 territories and recognizing Israel’s right to exist – something which he added, “Hamas would never do.”

It’s a contradiction. In other words, “We accept two states, but we don’t.” Translation: we will never accept Israel’s right to exist.

The change of position is fueled by Hamas’s interest in replacing Mahmoud Abbas as the head of the PLO. King Abdullah, an outspoken advocate of the two-state solution, is backing Meshal’s bid.

Hamas has solid support in Palestine and could conceivably replace Fatah.

They are all jumping on the bandwagon to make a deal. Saeb Erekat and Deputy Foreign Minister Ghazi Hamad supported the motion.

Even the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine’s (PFLP) Kayed Al-Ghul calls it “political adaptation” in order to gain International recognition. Saleh Zeedan of the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (DFLP) also welcomes the move.

This is why they are currently going to Egypt for reconciliation between the PLO and Hamas. Egypt will be where this peace-deal will happen. (Isaiah 28:14-15)

Hamas insists on arranging elections in order to basically take over the Palestinian arena, especially since the European Union shows much support for establishing a Palestinian state as has been seen in the United Nations recently. Of course, the only way to jump on the bandwagon is to accept a two-state solution.

Couple this with latest boost of Islamic success in the Arab Spring. Egypt, for example, is the most powerful Arab country and will see to it that Hamas follows its mother – the Muslim Brotherhood. If Hamas wants to have a Hudna, it must first get the approval of the Muslim Brotherhood. This is why I had always stated that the Camp David Accords will not be broken soon. In fact, it will be reconfirmed until the strength of Islam takes root in the global arena.

Egypt is in economic collapse. Israel knows that Egypt needs help from the West and that the latter wants to bank on this to keep peace with Israel.

Mahmoud Zahar visited Iran recently, so it’s an Iranian strategy to push this peace initiative in order to divert attention from its nuclear program and to halt any Israeli attacks on Iran. This will thwart Israel’s efforts (Iran supplied Fajr 5 to Hamas) and isolate it further within the region.

But who will broker this deal?

Even European leaders like former French President Sarkozy confess that Turkey and not the E.U. is the perfect government that will broker any peace deals with Israel in the Middle East.

What has been coming to pass is not what many modern prophecy buffs have been saying for the last several decades but what we have gleaned from the scholars of the past. Hilaire Belloc, Bishop Fulton Sheen, Gregory Palamus of Thessalonica, Vernon Richards, Sir Robert Anderson, Cyril of Jerusalem, Sophronius the Patriarch of Jerusalem (560-638), Maximus The Confessor (580-662), John of Damascus (676-749), Eulogius of Cordova, Paul Alvarus, the Martyrs of Cordova, John Calvin and Jonathan Edwards the great American Revivalist all saw Islam as playing the major roll in the End-Times. These and many others simply focused on the literal proclamations in the Bible – as we have done for several years in our book God’s War on Terror; Islam Prophecy and the Bible.

So where are my critics today?

What I have written fifteen years ago in Why I Left Jihad is coming to pass. Today, Turkey, North Africa (Libya, Tunisia), Egypt will all elect to be ruled by Islamic Sharia.

Some might view this as a sense of pride.

Hardly.

Do they prefer we be wrong rather than right?

Indeed, “set times and set laws” are changing throughout the Middle East and this revived law is Islamic Sharia. The Gog of Turkey Recep Tayyip Erdogan succeeded as we have been saying for years in establishing himself permanently by concocting the Ergenekon Conspiracy, thwarting the Generals and the judges. Erdogan does not “honor the desire of women” (Daniel 11:37)and prohibits them entry into the government while he promoted the Hijabization of women.

It is not any European leader that is setting his eyes on Jerusalem, but Erdogan of Turkey who declared during his speech to the most important Islamist body in the Muslim world – the O.I.C Organization of Islamic Council, saying that “Jerusalem is the apple of the eye of every Muslim”.

No French, Italian or German European Union leader made such proclamations. And as we predicted, Turkey failed entry into the European Union since the beast is the body of a Leopard (Revelation 13:2) (The Greco-Roman) and not European. With its feet of the Bear (Iran) and its mouth of the Lion (Babylonia).

Today, Turkey is courting Russia and China to join the Shaghai-5 and not the E.U.

The biblical prophecies are accurate but misunderstood.

Daniel 7 and 8 are not about ancient historic events dealing with the Babylonian Empire exclusively but there are parallels: Lion standing on feet, bear rising on one side, leopard coming up in the end.

Iraq (The Babylonian Empire) was the major power in the Middle East when Saddam was in charge; its wings were clipped, then plucked before being humbled by the U.S. Iran rose (bear on one side without Media-Kurdistan) and today we have the Shia-Crescent – the Persian Bear – rising.

This term “Shia-Crescent” was coined by Abdullah II, king of Jordan, after which it became popular in political debates. References to the Shia Crescent are often made with the belief that the common religion gives good potential for cooperation.

The countries included in this are Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Azerbaijan.

Now we have Turkey coming out exactly where Greece used to be. Ever wonder why Zechariah 9 (Ionia/Greece) is one of the four Grecian kingdoms?

But perhaps the Ottoman was intended as well, which was broken into 4 and out of one of them will arise the last one. Mehmed II made Constantinople (present-day Istanbul) the new capital of the Ottoman Empire, and he assumed the title of Kayser-i Rûm (Caesar Romanus = Roman Emperor).

Mehmed II wanted to gain control over the Western capital, Rome, and Ottoman forces occupied parts of the Italian peninsula. After Mehmed II’s death on 3 May 1481, the campaign in Italy was cancelled and Ottoman forces retreated.

Today, the contest between Iran (the bear) and Turkey (the Leopard) will see Turkey emerge victorious. As a result, Iraq will continue to weaken after being gobbled up by Iran following America’s exit.

By this, Turkey will control the Suez and the Bosporus while Iran controls the Hormuz. This will undermine the U.S. naval hegemony in the region, which eventually will use its military armada alongside other allied European nations to fight in the Middle East.

With the end of Arab Nationalism, we have a void to be filled with the Turkish Model; that model is ‘moderate Islam’. The fall of Arab Nationalism will cause the Arab world to be looking for a protector and a guard – “be a guard unto them”. (Ezekiel 38:7)

Who?

Gog (Antichrist) will be the guardian of Libya, Persia and Somalia/Sudan (Cush).

You might ask, how will Iran accept him as guardian?

Well…

In March 2011, Muqtada Sadr (Shia) welcomed Erdogan in Iraq.
The Shia religious institution in Persia are Azeri Turks, not Persians.
Iran and Sadr would like Turkey to mediate in Bahrain, which is majority Shia. Turkey—During Erdogan’s trip to Cairo, Tunis and Tripoli, he told rapt audiences that Islam and democracy can co-exist. This is part of the stealth (Muruna) Islam can adapt to times until it gains its goals. Part of his fame comes from an economic explosion. Erdogan has embraced the free market and overseen a near tripling of per capita income since taking power a decade ago. Last year, the economy grew at 8.9 percent, one of the highest rates in the world. Today, Turkey boasts one of the fastest growing middle classes in the Middle East. The beast is constructed of strong and weak nations.

Today, the West will welcome Turkey as a better option to replace Iran’s revolution. In the Western view this will moderate Hamas and Syria, which will take it’s orders from Turkey instead of Iran. It will also give Saudi Arabia security being an ally with Sunni Turkey protecting it from Iran. Turkey appeased the U.S. by allowing it to place the RADAR system in Turkey.

Mustafa Aykol, a Turkish newspaper columnist and frequent Erdogan defender, said his Justice and Development Party, known by its Turkish initials, AKP, is amodel for Islamist parties in Egypt, Tunisia and Libya. In a new book, Islam Without Extremes: A Muslim Case for Liberty, Aykol told Rueters that there can be liberalism within Islam and challenges the authoritarian interpretations of Iran, Saudi Arabia and militant groups.

The prudent in the western Church will begin to realize that the Antichrist system will not be the European Union – as modern prophecy buffs have stated for years – but an Islamic Union led by Turkey. In Zechariah 9:13, the Lord declares:

“I will rouse your sons, O Zion, against your sons, O Yavan.”

In this passage, Israel is seen fighting against Ionia or Yavan, not the European Union. In several Bibles, this word is translated as “Greece” but Ionia/Yavan was simply a province that was located on the western coast of modern Turkey. This is crucial because the clear context of this battle is the return of Christ: “Then Jehovah will appear over them” and fight on their behalf. So in the End-Times, at the time when Jesus returns, the Jews (Zion) will be engaged in a war with Turkey (Yavan).

As we predicted several years ago, Egypt has fallen. We stated that Egypt will end up in civil war between secularists and Salafists / Muslim Brotherhood with the Christians of Egypt slaughtered in the process.

All this is spelled out in Isaiah 19. Egypt – in the coming years – will be weakened to the point that the Turks (Iron) will take over the weakened clay nations of Egypt, Tunisia and Libya (Daniel 11:42). These just opted for the fad of Sharia over western secularism exactly as we stated long ago.

The Babylon of the end-times is not Iraq, which is soon to be gobbled up by Iran. While modern prophecy buffs predicted the revival of Iraq’s Babylon by Saddam, their predictions are in the garbage bin of history.

They failed to examine Scripture closely and isolated verses from their own pre-conceived context. The Bible in end-time prophecy never even mentions ancient cities of Babylon; in every verse in the Bible where a region or city within this predicted Babylon is mentioned, that region or city is in Arabia, not Iraq (Isaiah 21, Jeremiah 49). It is Kedar, Dumah and Arabia; there is no mention of Babel, Sumer, Accad, Erech, Calneh in any of these verses.

Arabia is the mouthpiece (mouth of a lion), which Islam emanates from. It is the Harlot from the desert Island (Revelation 17:3) that sits on many waters, the “desert of the sea” (Isaiah 21) which John saw.

The Antichrist is said to rule from Pergamum (Revelation 2:12-13), which Christ proclaimed would be the future seat of Satan. This is on the sides of the northern lands (Asia Minor / Turkey).

Riyadh reacted with intense anger after the US revealed a plot laid by a secret Iranian military unit, the Quds force, to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to Washington. The attempted assassination of Adel Al-Jubeir, Saudi Ambassador to the U.S., caused Iranians to cancel the Haj. The rift between Iran and Saudi Arabia will cause Iran to nuke Arabia (Isaiah 21) “Arise O Elam” against Babylon of Arabia.

What is left for 2013 and beyond is for Turkey to spread its tentacles into the Muslim nations and eventually Egyptians, Libyans, Tunisians, Algerians, Moroccans, Mauritanians, Sudanese, Somalis, Syrians, Pakistanis, Azerbaijanis, Uzbeks, and Turkmens will all be looking at Turkey’s Islamist model while pledging allegiance to the New Ottomans.

We have said for years that the Ottoman Empire will be revived. Lo and behold, here we are. While many of these nations speak Arabic, they are hardly Arab. Arab Nationalism is out and Islamist Universalism is in. Just look at every Muslim country on earth.

A Caliphate will arise out of Turkey and the Gog of Turkey will portray himself as the re-incarnation of Muhammad, Saladin and the Ottoman Sulaiman Al-Qanuni (Solomon the law-giver).

Islam being controlled by non-Arabs will eventually put Saudi Arabia at risk of destruction by Iran (Isaiah 21); Arabia, the source of Islam, will be no more(Isaiah 34, Ezekiel 25:13); and the oil of the Arabs will burn forever (Isaiah 34:9). All this will happen despite the U.S. effort to arm Arabia to the teeth.

Unlike western media, which is in collective denial, I read the Arabic and the “Turkish Model” today is a household name in the Muslim political arena; millions in the Muslim world are calling for Erdogan to lead them with his modernistic Islamist model. With the Turkish model, Turkey and the Muslims will snooker the West into thinking that at least “moderate” Islam is better than fundamentalist Islam. Peaceful Islam will be the talk for the next few years to come and…

“by peace he [Antichrist] will deceive many” (Daniel 8:25).

The West will enter another Neville Chamberlain era, buying into the “peace in our time” mantra.

In so doing, it will fulfill more Biblical truths:

“just when they say peace and safety sudden destruction will come…” 1 Thessalonians 5:3

At this point, the West will find out in the end that “Secular Islam” and “Fundamentalist Islam” are two faces of the same coin.

You heard it here first… again.

Is it a good thing to be afflicted with Islamophobia? Pre-order the...

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Afghanistan to U.S. Special Forces: GET OUT

Afghanistan's president ordered all U.S. special forces to leave a strategically important eastern province within two weeks because of allegations that Afghans working with them are torturing and abusing other Afghans.

The decision Sunday seems to have surprised the coalition and U.S. Forces Afghanistan, a separate command. Americans have frequently angered the Afghan public over issues ranging from Qurans burned at a U.S. base to allegations of civilian killings.

Read More

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

The Rubio Ruse

By Douglas V. Gibbs

As Marco Rubio has climbed into the driver's seat as the Republican Party's favorite rising star, I have sat quietly, watching and waiting.  His fans have declared Rubio to be the next Ronald Reagan, and his detractors claim he will be the death of conservatism and that Marco is nothing more than a snake in the grass.  I try not to jump to conclusions.  I have waited for the evidence to reveal itself.  With Marco Rubio, the jury has finally walked back into the courtroom, and I am afraid the verdict is, "Guilty.  Guilty as charged by those that have accused him of being a RINO."

When Rubio first burst onto the scene, I was fascinated by the immediate cries that he should run for president.  Conservatives are so hungry for someone, anyone, other than the turds we have been handed by the GOP every four years, that the moment someone sounds like they can articulate conservatism in a better than average manner, they are always quick to proclaim he should be President of the United States.  However, upon examination, I immediately learned that the son of Cuban parents was indeed born in the United States, but at the time of his birth his parents were not American Citizens, making Rubio a native born American, but not a Natural Born American.  Therefore, as much as everyone might think he would make a wonderful President, Marco Rubio is not eligible to run for President of the United States.  The Constitution requires that the President be a Natural Born Citizen, which is a person born of two citizen parents.

Floridians, after Marco Rubio entered the Halls of Congress, and took his seat as United States Senator, began to notice that Rubio's votes did not always match his conservative rhetoric.  Their complaints about the questionable conservatism of the Republican reached a crescendo, and even accused me of "taking an oath to the Republican Party," and "carrying Rubio's banner" for not being willing to speak out against the young GOP phenom.

Evidence, my friends.  I needed more evidence.

Riding into the U.S. Senate on a wave of TEA Party support, conservatives viewed Rubio as a champion that was willing to take on the Republican Establishment.  Instead, he has decided to join forces with the establishment.  The evidence is mounting, and two pieces of evidence have me greatly concerned.

Marco Rubio is a member of the Gang of Eight that are trying to put together an immigration reform package that will make everyone happy.  Rubio's position does not seem to be one that adheres to the rule of law.  As immigration stands, there are laws on the books that are simply not being enforced.  The answer is not to try to deport millions of illegal aliens, or make them legal in one fell swoop, but to simply enforce the laws that are already in place.  The solution is simple: As the security at the border tightens, businesses are expected to make sure through something like E-Verify that all employees are indeed legal to work in the U.S., and the immigration authorities are allowed to stop and deport illegal aliens when they come across them, the problem of illegal immigration would lessen - not because we are deporting the offenders, but because being here illegally would no longer be an easy way to go.  As for those already here, they already have a pathway to legality - it is called returning home, and getting in line like everyone else.

Enforcing the law would encourage a large number of illegal aliens to simply return home.

As for the children that have been raised in the United States and are American in every way except for a piece of paper, there has got to be a common sense way to deal with them, but amnesty is not it.

Marco Rubio disagrees, and he has embraced amnesty as the great solution. Amnesty, however, would be nothing more than an unmitigated disaster. History has proven that giving amnesty to these people simply creates new Democrat voters, and amnesty rings the dinner bell for millions more to come rushing across the border for their opportunity to slap in the face any immigrants that have gone through the process legally, and are interested in assimilating into the American experience.

Reagan learned the truth the hard way in the eighties when he signed his own amnesty bill.  The democrats refused to live up to their end of the bargain and ensure the border was secure, and millions upon millions of illegal aliens have rushed the border, hoping to be the next lottery winners in the game of amnesty politics in the United States.

In 2000, the Clinton administration ordered that the naturalization processing for hundreds of thousands of immigrants be sped up.  They did this for the same reason the democrats do it now - new immigrants tend to vote overwhelmingly for Democrats. The Democrats characterize themselves as the party of the poor and downtrodden, and the party ready to lend a helping hand to the new Americans - and the new immigrants, illegal or not, always fall for the propaganda.

The new immigrants don't realize that what they are really being offered is a one way ticket to despair, for the America the democrats fight for is not the freedom loving one we inherited from the Founding Fathers, and the one of prosperity and opportunity enjoyed by legal immigrants of generations past.

Rubio's other disappointment has been his alignment with Karl Rove since "The Architect" decided to launch a war against the TEA Party.  Like Rove, Rubio believes the TEA Party is dead.  He used the movement to get where he is, and now that it seems to be of no more use to him, Rubio has tossed the movement aside, and has embraced with both arms wide open the enticements of the Republican Establishment.

Expressing support for Karl Rove’s new PAC that is designed to pick the winners in the Republican Primary has Rubio at a disadvantage, now.  Rove’s PAC wants to exclude TEA Party candidates and support establishment candidates, and the strong conservative base views Rove's move, and Rubio's alliance with him on this, as being a form of betrayal.

Perhaps Rubio feels like he owes Rove because Rove’s PAC did support him in the general election. Let us also realize that if Karl Rove's PAC had been around back then in its current warped form, it would have supported Charlie Crist as the great RINO hope of electability.  Rubio would not have won that election.

So, Rubio's support for amnesty, and support for destroying the TEA Party that put him where he is at, has emerged as evidence, and Rubio is guilty of being a RINO in the face of that evidence.  So, don't run out and get that water bottle, just yet.  Perhaps a sip of water should not have destroyed Rubio's speech, but his positions on amnesty and Karl Rove's decision to target the TEA Party ought to have you realizing that perhaps that wasn't water Rubio was reaching for, after all.  He might have been drinking the Kool-Aid.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Oh, were the Academy Awards on last night?

By Douglas V. Gibbs

An Oscar in the hand is better than two in a bush, right?

The Oscars?  Did anyone watch the Oscars?

Not I.

I am not a huge fan of Hollywood, for the most part.  I don't mind going to the movies, and there are some that I truly enjoy, but I don't hold these people up as some kind of heroes, or anything.

I am not anti-Hollywood, I just don't think that we should hold up too high people that are basically good at pretending.  Sure, it takes a lot of talent.  I took acting classes in 1995, and even had an agent for a while, but the arrogance and the attitudes drove me nuts.  I was happy when I left the industry after a short stint, a couple vouchers, and a couple commercials.

What did I learn?

Most actors tend to be very short, the snack table is awesome, and behind all of the makeup and fake personalities, they are simply your average, everyday, people.

Now, getting back to the Academy Awards. . .

I am sure in their industry this is huge. I get it.  A great big pat on the back is nice, every once in a while. When I have won awards for something or other, I enjoyed the instance.  I smiled.  I waved.  I appreciated the applause, and the kind words everyone threw my way.  Then I went home, put the trophy on the shelf, and went back to just being unglamorous me.

The Oscars is something different.  It is a celebration of being one of the beautiful people.  It is the high school clicks all over again.  You can feel the fakeness of the hugs and kisses - mwah, mwah - and you can almost hear the piercing scream of the knives as they are plunge into each other's backs.  And if you aren't a liberal in Hollywood, and a hard left activist at that, there won't be any awards coming your way - more than likely.

Naw, that's okay.  I kept my TV off.  There's nothing to watch, anyway.  Football season is over, and Opening Day for Baseball is still over a month away.

I will let the actors, and the rest of the beautiful people, keep their fantasy world.  It's not for me.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Will Obama Punish Gun and Ammunition Companies for Refusing to Sell to Law Enforcement in Anti-Second Amendment States?

By Douglas V. Gibbs

In 2010, as the mid-term election approached, President Barack Obama, in a speech to a crowd of Hispanics, said, “If Latinos sit out the election instead of saying, ‘We’re gonna punish our enemies and we’re gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us,’ if they don’t see that kind of upsurge in voting in this election, then I think it’s gonna be harder and that’s why I think it’s so important that people focus on voting on November 2.”

Barack Obama is an Alinsky Radical that believes he must get his way, or punish those that get in his way.  The rest of the Democrat Party, and the liberal media, has embraced this hard-hitting method of politics.  Sure, they've always been the party of personal destruction when it comes to those that dare to oppose them, but now the tactics have taken a whole new route.

As the Obama administration, and democrats at the State level around America, continue to wage their war on the right to keep and bear arms, gun and ammunition companies are essentially pulling a "Who's John Galt" on the governments that oppose gun rights, and are refusing to play ball by not selling their wares to the law enforcement agencies in those States.

The democrats may want to take firearms away from citizens, but they still need them for their own activities, and if these companies continue to starve the liberals of their guns and ammo, remembering Obama's speech about punishing his enemies, one wonders what is next from the dictator-in-chief.

He loves to rule with executive orders.  These unilateral actions are going to continue to pile up, and they are going to get even more dictatorial down the line.  Will Americans finally realize what kind of arrogant ruling elitist is in the White House?  Or will they continue to buy the propaganda?

Either, America will wake up, or this war on guns will take an ugly turn.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Obama to Latinos: 'Punish' your 'Enemies' in the Voting Booth - The Weekly Standard

Gaining Momentum: Now 44 Gun Companies Have Stopped Selling to Law Enforcement in Anti-2nd Amendment States - The Blaze

Actor Kevin Sorbo on Obama, and Hollywood

Hollywood is prone to blackballing those who don’t align ideologically and that the industry includes “the least tolerant people you’ll meet.”
Earlier this month, actor Kevin Sorbo spoke with TheBlaze about his career, the politics of Hollywood and his views about President Barack Obama and the current political schema.

The “Hercules” actor’s statements spawned a plethora of reaction, as critics and fans, alike, were surprised by his moderate — and some might argue right-of-center — perspective. We decided to speak with Sorbo, again, this week to see what he thinks about the monumental response and to chat further about his life and career.

While he hasn’t heard much from his Hollywood compatriots regarding the negative comments he uttered about Obama during his Blaze interview, Sorbo said that some of his close friends reacted favorably, commending him for his honesty.

As for Tinseltown, he doesn’t expect a favorable reaction from the elite. But he noted that they likely won’t be surprised, as many already know where he stands on the theological and political fronts. Sorbo noted that his outspoken views and general failure to align with the industry’s left-of-center political outlook is “enough to piss them off” regardless of whether they saw the interview.

[...]

Complete text linked here at The Blaze.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Islam: Death and Fear

Imagine if you became a member of a new church in town, everything seemed to be wonderful at first, and then once you were a part of the body, they told you, "Welcome to the family of our church.  If you ever leave, we will kill you."

That is what Islam does.

Nonie Darwish, former Muslim, has written an incredible article on this, as well as provided a video.  The piece begins:

The most influential Sunni leader in the Middle East has just admitted what many of us who grew up as Muslims in the Middle East have always known: that Islam could not exist today without the killing of apostates.

Yusuf al-Qaradawi, head of the Muslim Brotherhood and one of the most respected leaders of the Sunni world, recently said on Egyptian television, "If they [Muslims] had gotten rid of the punishment [often death] for apostasy, Islam would not exist today."

The most striking thing about his statement, however, was that it was not an apology; it was a logical, proud justification for preserving the death penalty as a punishment for apostasy.
Read the article for yourself at Islam Watch

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Hemet TV Brings you another episode of Know Your Constitution: Article I, Section 8, Clauses 7-14

Subscribe at YouTube.com/hemettv

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

It Most Certainly IS Constitutional To Withhold Congressional Pay

By J.J. Jackson

There are a lot of fools who fancy themselves smart. Sometimes these fools even exist within the Conservative and Libertarian movement. Seriously, if I hear one more of these yo-yos whine about how it is “unconstitutional” for Congressional pay to be withheld pending the passage of an actual budget, I am going to scream. And if I hear one more supposedly Constitutionally literate talking head on the right claim this, I am going to demand that they permanently turn in their membership in the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.

It is so utterly incompressible that people can be so dumb. To claim that withholding Congressional pay when Congress is not doing its job is impossible? Especially when all one has to do is pull out their handy dandy pocket Constitution and turn to Article I, Section 6.

Here is what is said, verbatim, about Congressional pay:

“The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States.”

That’s it. It doesn’t say how much they should get or how that amount is ascertained, except that such pay is to be determined, by law.

So, if a law is passed saying that Congress gets paid $0 if they don’t do their job and pass a budget then there is no Constitutional conflict. After all, $0 is an amount of compensation.

So let’s stop with the lies. Let’s stick to the truth. And let’s all just be happy and do the right things.

Look, if you’re like me, and work in the private sector, and don’t do your job, you don’t get paid. Congress should be held to the same standards. And it is perfectly Constitutional to hold them to said standards.

==================

J.J. Jackson is a libertarian conservative author from Pittsburgh, PA who has been writing and promoting individual liberty since 1993 and is President of Land of the Free Studios, Inc. He is the Pittsburgh Conservative Examiner for Examiner.com. He is also the owner of The Right Things - Conservative T-shirts & Gifts The Right Things. His weekly commentary along with exclusives not available anywhere else can be found at Liberty Reborn

Obama's Dr. Ben Carson Problem

By Douglas V. Gibbs

The Democrat Party has hoisted Barack Obama up as some kind of liberal, god-like, superhero.  Barry has been very happy to fill the britches of such a false god, but as some kind of anti-hero that, armed with his arrogance, can destroy federal budgets with a single bound.  To the horror of Republicans, even no-nos like gun control and stomping all over freedom of religion has proven to be areas this president is willing go after.  Like every cloud-skipping false-prophet, however, Barry Sotero has his own kind of Kryptonite.

In the case of Barack Obama, the thing that can bring him down, make him falter in mid-air, and drop him miserably to his political knees, is anyone that is willing to articulate American values, and do it in his face.

While the Republicans run around in circles trying to figure out a way to co-exist with the democrats, and their presidential messiah, Dr. Ben Carson took a stab into the side of Barack Obama, and his ultra-liberal policies, with a single speech at this year's National Prayer Breakfast.  Obama's balloon began to whistle as the air came rushing out of his ego.  How dare this man embarrass our king, err, uhh, messiah, err, uhh, president like this.  How dare he!

Dr. Ben Carson is not your typical (as the liberal left sees the world) white, racist, right-wing, extremist, religious-nut, gun clinging, Bible-thumping, conservative maniac.  In fact, Dr. Carson isn't even a white republican.  He, to the amazement of the democrats, is an honest, God-fearing, common sense, American that was willing to simply take Obama to the mat, and expose Barack Obama for the leftist ideologue, and coward, that he really is.

After Dr. Carson's speech, a giant sigh released somewhere in the conservative stratosphere.  "Yeah," the TEA Party folks, and the Constitutionalists, and the conservatives cried out.  "That is what I have meant all along!  I just didn't know how to say it."

Dr. Carson doesn't even really consider himself a conservative.  In fact, I am sure that on some issues he may not be one hundred percent in line with the conservative narrative.  But, conservative or not, he articulated conservatism in such a manner that Barack Obama, the democrats, and the liberal media did not know how to respond, at first.

Common Sense sometimes does that to people.

Well, the liberal left can't have somebody walking around making their favorite son look bad.  As they did with Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, and Mitt Romney, they have got to make Dr. Benjamin Carson look like a fool.  They know, in their dark little hearts, that they need to do all they can to stop this guy before he does something, or says something else, really damaging to their collectivist cause.

And Dr. Benjamin Carson being black, but viewing himself not as a race, but as an American, makes it all the more difficult.

The liberal media immediately took up the task.

The liberal left is in absolute hysterics over Dr. Ben Carson's remarks at the National Prayer Breakfast because, in addition to making sense to a lot of people, and daring to challenge Barack Obama to his face, in his presence, he weighed in on one particular topic that he knows more about than Barack Obama, exposing Obama for the unknowing fool that he is.

The Holy Grail of liberalism has always been health care, and Carson, a prominent pediatric surgeon from Johns Hopkins University, knows a little something about the subject too.

Dr. Ben Carson said, taking on taxation right out of the gate, "What we need to do is come up with something simple. And when I pick up my Bible, you know what I see? I see the fairest individual in the universe, God, and he's given us a system. It's called a tithe. We don't necessarily have to do 10% but it's the principle. He didn't say if your crops fail, don't give me any tithe or if you have a bumper crop, give me triple tithe. So there must be something inherently fair about proportionality. You make $10 billion, you put in a billion. You make $10 you put in one."

Then Dr. Carson turned on health care: "Here's my solution: When a person is born, give him a birth certificate, an electronic medical record, and a health savings account to which money can be contributed -- pretax -- from the time you're born 'til the time you die. When you die, you can pass it on to your family members, so that when you're 85 years old and you got six diseases, you're not trying to spend up everything. You're happy to pass it on and there's nobody talking about death panels.

"Number one. And also, for the people who were indigent who don't have any money we can make contributions to their HSA each month because we already have this huge pot of money. Instead of sending it to some bureaucracy, let's put it in their HSAs. Now they have some control over their own health care."

Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky went so far as to comment that it was “… not really an appropriate place to make this kind of political speech and to invoke God as his support for that kind of point of view.”

Am I right?  Did she say God was not an appropriate thing to mention at a National Prayer Breakfast?  Who were they praying to, then?  Barack Obama?

As for the political end of it, every time Obama opens his mouth it serves as an opportunity to politicize whatever it is he is targeting.  Just ask every group of grieving parents after mass shootings, or or the families of dead heroes coming home with flags draped over their coffins.

What Dr. Ben Carson did was publicly challenge Obama's policies, and do so in the context of faith. For liberal Democrats, such articulation of conservatism is blasphemous.  Disagreement, and doing so in a way that can damage one's opponent, is not a luxury allowed to non-liberal political types.  Opposition to liberalism is especially not permitted when the offender dares to use their faith to disagree.  And what is worse, Dr. Carson was willing to use a tool that no politician has used since anyone can remember. . . The Truth.

The "God-Thing" is what really has the liberal left in a tizzy.  They use "religion" all of the time to support their policies of entitlement, calling such programs a kind of "charity."  Barack Obama has told us straight out that God approves of his health care policies, because it is all about "social justice," and as Barry has put it, being our brother's keeper.  Obama, even, in 2009 to a crowd of raging liberal religious-types, proclaimed that, “We are God’s partner in matters of life and death.”

Never mind that he's got that whole brother's keeper thing screwed up, or that murdering thousands of unborn babies a day hardly seems like the work of a group of people in line with God's plan. . . it seems more like the work of folks in league with somebody else.

Of course, if a republican says anything about God in reference to politics, the "separation of church and state" slogan comes flying across the room, and slaps that conservative evil-doer right upside the head.

Two years ago, coincidentally at the National Prayer Breakfast, Obama stood before the huddled masses and proclaimed, “But sometimes what I can do to try to improve the economy or to curb foreclosures or to help deal with the healthcare system — sometimes it seems so distant and so remote, so profoundly inadequate to the enormity of the need. And it is my faith, then, that biblical injunction to serve the least of these, that keeps me going and that keeps me from being overwhelmed.”

"AMEN, Brother!" must have been the uproarious response inside the heads of the liberal faithful in attendance.

Brother?  Or did they say in those skulls of mush, "Messiah!"?

Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky, or any other liberal democrat, didn't say anything about that being an inappropriate thing to say at a National Prayer Breakfast back then.  In fact, Obama had no problem making that kind of political speech, and invoking God, to support his kind of point of view  Not a single liberal cried out, "Wait a second, buddy.  What about that separation of church and state thing?"

Such a tactic is nothing new to Obama.  He has invoked his supposed faith, and his misunderstandings of the Bible, not only on behalf of healthcare reform, but on the behalf of gay marriage, and a litany of other liberal agenda items, as well.

And then, here comes along the way at the National Prayer Breakfast in 2013, Dr. Ben Carson, pediatric surgeon, and a man that dares challenge the liberal saint of health care, and social justice.  How dare he.  How dare he challenge the great and powerful Barack Obama, and do so to his face, and in the presence of the liberal faithful.

Dr. Ben Carson took it to Obama, aiming his arrow of truth directly at the liberal president's health care law, at the National Prayer Breakfast, and the good doctor did it with more than just the truth - he sent that arrow on a trajectory straight and true of common sense.  How dare he.  How dare he go after the young messiah that sits behind the presidential seal, with a teleprompter nearby to ensure he remembers the holy word.

The liberal media is angry.  I am surprised they didn't start turning tables right there in the room as Dr. Carson spewed his opposition to President Obama's holy work.

They did something else.  As Paul Kengor at the American Spectator put it, Dr. Ben Carson's price for daring to challenge President Obama was "... political excommunication and denunciation. In Alinsky fashion, he must now be isolated and demonized. The Religious Left grabs its stones to cast them at the good doctor. How dare Ben Carson mention healthcare at the National Prayer Breakfast! How dare he disagree with Obama!"

The conservatives poured into the streets.  "Finally, someone not too afraid to challenge Obama has spoken up.  Finally, we have seen someone that can articulate conservatism in a manner that wipes that smug sneer right off Barack's arrogant face.  Finally, someone with a brass pair."

"Why, this guy ought to be," cried out the celebrating conservatives, "our next President!"

Dr. Ben Carson, being the humble man of God that he is, smiled, nodded, and said, "I'll leave that up to God."

That's the one and true God, he was referring to.  Not the false, pseudo-demigod in Washington DC, mind you.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

The Stoning of Dr. Ben Carson - The American Spectator

Dr. Benjamin Carson Addresses National Prayer Breakfast, Criticizes Obamacare - RealClearPolitics

Now Media Matters Targets Ben Carson - World Net Daily

Dr. Ben Carson for President? 'I'll Leave That Up To God' - Yahoo! News