Tuesday, April 30, 2013


By Don Jans

The American Experiment is unique to all history. It was never tried before the American Revolution and has never been duplicated since. It proved to be extremely successful. So why does the Marxist/Progressive party in America and elsewhere continue to try to destroy it?

WHAT IS THE AMERICAN EXPERIMENT? The American Experiment is contradictory to any ruling class and intellectual elite thinking of any time. The ruling class has always believed they are superior beings because of social superiority and birthrights. The intellectual elite place themselves in a superior position because they perceive themselves to be superior intellectually. Neither can nor do they claim these positions because of accomplishments. Both non accomplishing classes still believe they are best suited to be the caretaker of the common man, since the common man is incapable of being socially and economically self-reliant. The common man must be protected from himself. He can only survive by relying on these superior beings.

The American Experiment is the antithesis of that thinking. The American Experiment is common man saying I am not common. I am a unique individual and as such I not only can be but should be independent and self-reliant in all facets of life. This belief also says that government is a necessary evil. As an evil institution, it should be limited in all ways, because less government is always better government. This is essential to allow the conglomeration of unique individuals to flourish.

This concept of the unique individual was able to develop, grow and flourish, because of the discovery of the New World. The rulers in power in Europe coveted this New World because of the riches they knew it would bring them. In order to cultivate these riches, they needed people in this land across the sea. This presented the ruling class with a wonderful opportunity to solve two problems at the same time; they could capture the profits and rid themselves of non-conformists and malcontents. This included people who insisted on practicing religion as they saw fit and not as the state dictated, and those who refused to accept the station in life to which they were assigned by birth or otherwise.

These “rejects” once transported, were literally weeks away from those who sought to control them. They were now free to practice their religion as they desired, live in their nonconforming manner and allow their unique individuality to develop. This they did and THEY FLOURISED. They became even more independent and self-reliant. This led to 1776 when these “rejects” against all odds, declared themselves as free men. This declaration said we are free from the enslavement of an egalitarian and conforming society dictated by a ruling class and intellectual elites.

The result of this experiment produced the most astonishing results in world history. The American Experiment resulted in the most unique people the world had or has ever known. These unique individuals became the most energetic, innovative, generous, pioneering, independent, self-reliant and powerful people ever. Instead of using their power to capture and enslave others, they used their power to free and to help others.

The world ruling class and intellectual elite were confused and angered. Common man is not supposed to do extraordinary things. Common man is not to strive for excellence, achievement and self-reliance. Common man should never consider himself unique, for they are all equal and must conform to the wishes and desires of us, the ruling class and intellectual elite, for only we are capable.

If the American Experiment was allowed to continue, the ruling class and intellectual elite would become even more irrelevant. This brought the intellectual elite, led by the likes of Karl Marx to declare these unique individuals evil. It is they who are oppressors and represent all that is wrong in the world. Marx’s philosophy says man by nature is an underachiever and seeker of mediocrity. Because of this nature of common man, he needs to be other (government) reliant.

America is now at a crossroads. The Marxist/Progressives have convinced many Americans they are not unique. These convinced Americans now believe they need evil government because they are not capable of being self-reliant. These convinced Americans believe they should not even attempt excellence or achievement, but be content with mediocrity and conform.

FLAG WAVING AND SLOGANS WILL NOT REVERSE THIS TREND. Only truth and action will reverse it. Only the SPIRIT AND COMMON SENSE OF 1776 can restore the American Experiment and allow unique individuals to again flourish. WHAT SHOULD THIS ACTION BE?

1. All freedom loving and independent Americans must understand this Marxist movement and how it is intended to transform us.

2. We must then discuss this with the convinced Americans, using the terms and results of the Marxist movement and not terms like Communist, Socialist or Marxist.

3. We must put forth spokesmen to Boldly and Directly Confront Marxist/Progressives.

4. We must be willing to commit time and finances to restore true American values.

Don Jans, Author and Speaker If you also wish to restore our American Experiment by Boldly and Directly Confronting Marxist/Progressive, please share this with all you know and even those you do not. Please visit www.mygrandchildrensamerica.com

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Ted Cruz: GOP Senators yelled at him "at the top of their lungs" for derailing gun control

File Under: The GOP Establishment Aligning Itself With Liberal Left Statists

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Islam Jihadists in U.S., as Muslims Position in U.S. Government

FBI informant: Taliban already in U.S.

A man who describes himself as an FBI informant and says he worked to infiltrate the world of terror sympathizers has told a Miami television station that members of the Taliban already are in the United States.

It was the Taliban that controlled the largely ungoverned Afghanistan when the U.S. coalition went into that nation to clean out the influences that allowed Osama bin Laden’s agenda to thrive before the 9/11 terror attacks on the U.S.

And the comments from South Floridian David Mahmood Siddiqui come just as the nation is breathing a sigh of relief over the death of one of the Boston Marathon bombing suspects, and the capture of the other.

“I am an informant and all I can tell you is that Talibans are walking freely right here in the soil of America right now, right now,” he told CBS4 in Miami.

The interview was conducted by CBS4 Chief Investigator Michele Gillen.

He told the station that America is at risk of another such attack any time.

“They can commit a jihad at any time, they hate America, you have an enemy living here in American soil, do not know when they will take action to kill innocent Americans,” he said.


You mentioned earlier that one of things you have been criticized for is saying that President Obama’s policies in the Middle East are leading to a “new Ottoman Empire.” From your perspective, is he naïve about what his policies are producing? Or is there some other explanation in your opinion?

I think a couple of things. I don’t ascribe any ill motive to Obama, but I think two things. No. 1, naiveté is one. And that’s — it’s just not being wise, and naively believing that he can change people’s hearts with a good speech. You know, going to Egypt, going to the Middle East, make a good speech and you totally change the hearts of people who hate us. That’s what I think he naively believes. And not only that, but then throw gratuities toward your enemies and all of a sudden they’ll love you. Well, it doesn’t work that way. So it’s one thing, naively thinking he can shape people’s positions and make them love us by a good speech. We’ve seen from his ratings in Muslim countries — they’re now far lower than [former President George W.] Bush’s ever even were, down like 15 percent, the last one we saw approval in Muslim countries for Obama.

And then the other second aspect is — looking for the best way to say — he has advisers around him that do not have the same goal as he does. He has people around him giving advice who support the Muslim Brotherhood and who steer him in wrong directions.

Now when you say “support the Muslim Brotherhood” do you mean they have the same goals of the Muslim Brotherhood or that they think the Muslim Brotherhood is a moderate force?
No, I will say based on the findings of the Dallas Federal Court and the Fifth Circuit of Appeals, the two largest front groups for the Muslim Brotherhood are ISNA, the Islamic Society of North America, and CAIR, Council on American-Islamic Relations. And people from ISNA, like the President Imam [Mohamed] Magid, has access to him. He had access in the State Department and Justice Department. And it appears that he is pretty much welcome most places. Helped the FBI supposedly with their redirection. So you have people like that who are actual members of organizations that federal courts have said are the largest Muslim Brotherhood front organizations in America. So it’s not me saying it, it’s the federal courts.

But you think they are significant influencers of Obama’s foreign policy — not just peripheral figures? I mean, do you think these are the people President Obama is relying on to shape his foreign policy?
I think it’s born out that this administration believes that the best advice they can get on how to deal with radical Islam is to listen to people who happen to be in or have ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. And it’s just not right.


The controversial imam of a prominent mosque in Arlington, Va., has urged immigrant Muslims in the United States to wage war for Islam.

“The enemies of Allah are lining up. The question for us is, are we lining [up] or are we afraid because they may call us terrorists?” Shaker Elsayed told a crowd of Ethiopian Muslims during a lecture at T.C. Williams High School in Alexandria, Va.

“Let me give you the good news: they are already calling us terrorists anyway. Whether you sitting at home, watching TV, drinking coffee, sleeping or playing with your kids, you are a terrorist because you are a Muslim.”

“Well, give them a run for their money. Make it worth it. Make this title worth it, and be a good Muslim,” said the Cairo-born Muslim.

“Muslim men when it is a price to pay, they are first in line. … They are the first in the community-service line. They are the first in jihad line,” he declared to applause.

At the end of the imam’s incendiary speech, a representative of the Ethiopian group walked to the podium and declared the speech was not calling for jihad.

Read more at the Daily Caller

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Illegal Immigration: Undermining America, Gaining Democrat Voters

By Douglas V. Gibbs

The Democrat Party is not out to do what is best for America, but what they think is best for the Democrat Party.  Everything these people do is about ideology, and moving the party of fools forward.  Amnesty is one of those tools.  Amnesty will make legal millions of potential democrat voters.  Why vote democrat?  The border jumpers have been told the Republican Party is the party of racists, anti-immigration, and the party of the rich - and the bulk of minorities, including the illegal aliens, believes that well-designed onslaught of propaganda.

The drain on our system caused by illegal immigrants, who have no interest in assimilation, and carry with them an allegiance to their home country over any inclination towards American laws and culture, is more than our system can maintain.  There are billboards in Mexico instructing potential border jumpers to use our system of entitlements, to take advantage of programs paid for by American tax payers.

Once here, an illegal act in itself, the general tendency is to refuse to abide by our laws, refuse to learn to speak English, and to suck on the millions of our tax dollars that goes into translating every single document so that Spanish can be on the back of these documents.

Article 4, Section 4 of the United States Constitution requires that the federal government protect the States from invasion.  Immigration laws are on the books.  But the leftists, and their GOP Establishment allies, refuse to enforce the law, and believe it or not the biggest contention over new immigration laws are whether or not the border should be secured.

Meanwhile, the invading army of illegals are using our services, and are taking our jobs.  And why are the democrats perfectly happy to allow this?  Because it equals, in the long run, more democrat voters.

Opportunities are being granted, and the border runners are taking advantage of these things.  And the democrats are doing anything they can to keep pushing this to their advantage, taking away the privilege of citizenship, and handing it out freely.  Holder even went so far as to call amnesty a "civil right."  Does that mean that each and every human on this planet as the "right" to come to America, regardless of our immigration laws, and become a leech on our taxpayers?

A California bill even goes so far as to propose that non-citizens can serve jury duty in California, allowing the people who have no respect for our laws to serve on a jury in a court of law.

The message?  The rule of law means nothing, and the democrats are your friends.  The leftists are on your side.  La Raza, and the Mexican government, are telling these people that if you enter illegally you should be able to access the American job market, have all of the Constitutional rights afforded citizens (remember, Holder even believes jumping the border is a "right"), and it doesn't matter if you are not a citizen.  Borders mean nothing, and citizenship means nothing.  As my liberal left cousin likes to say, "We are all Americans, from Canada down to the southern tip of South America."

The democrats then say that the GOP is the enemy, not because of the law, but because they don't like the color of your skin.  Everything is turned upside down.  But the problem is, the democrats don't really care about these people.  They see them only as a political weapon.  Tools.  The left does not see the illegals as human beings, but as potential voters, and a means in their plans to eliminate the opposition.

Socialism is the root cause.  The people in power promise government, while hiding that they are gaming the system, and are accumulating power for themselves.  The leaders game the system, moving themselves through the power structure for their own benefit, and then promise government goodies to anyone that will help them achieve such power.  The democrat voters, and the illegals, are simply pawns to be used.  They are not important to the democrats, except as they can be manipulated to allow the leftists to gain more power.

Individualism, or any desire by people to make a better life for themselves through self-reliance, is frowned upon by the liberal left socialists.  They preach equality, but consider themselves above everyone else.  They take from those that have succeeded through hard work and taking risks, and redistribute it to those who don't, claiming it is for equality, when it is really just another tool to enable the ruling class to remain at the top, and force everyone else into mediocrity.  Leave the people in misery - equal misery - while the ruling class accumulates more and more power.  They try to take everything over, for power.  Car companies, the banks, health care.  All tyrants in history have attempted that.  It is the way of tyranny, communism, and any other ideology that places itself above the people, and kills liberty.  Misery for all, except for the chosen few at the top.

The illegal aliens think the democrats are in their corner, willing to help them out, but they are nothing more than tools.  They are simply numbers of people being manipulated into position to secure liberal left power.

Illegal aliens are not even people, to the left.  They are simply a means for power.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Was Mom Involved in Boston Marathon Bombing?

By Douglas V. Gibbs

The mother of the two Boston Marathon Bombers has claimed it is all a conspiracy.  Her boys are innocent. She can't believe they would do such a thing.

The older became more radical in his Islamic ideological brainwashing after visiting home.

Female DNA has been found showing that a female may have assisted in the bombing in Boston.

Does that DNA belong to Mom?  A girlfriend?  Ex-wife?  A female suspect nobody suspects?  Or is it just the DNA of the store clerk that sold the men the pressure cooker, or other components?

The female DNA was found on at least one of the bombs used in the Boston Marathon Massacre.

As the DNA evidence unfolds, investigators are also finding more evidence that the brothers were in touch with a radical Islamist group in Russia.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Female DNA Found on Bomb in Boston Attack - Wall Street Journal

Domestic Terrorism Targets "Anti-Gay Groups"

Remember, the media and leftist political establishment keeps searching for a conservative terrorist each time an act of terror, or shooting, happens.  The federal government lists conservatives, veterans, Christians and constitutionalists as potential domestic terrorists.  Yet, all of the shootings and terror attacks have been by Muslim groups (who ally themselves traditionally with the liberal left in the United States) and leftwing thinking individuals.

Now, this:

FBI video: Domestic terrorist says he targeted conservative group for being ‘anti-gay’

Family Research Council (FRC) officials released video of federal investigators questioning convicted domestic terrorist Floyd Lee Corkins II, who explained that he attacked the group’s headquarters because the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) identified them as a “hate group” due to their traditional marriage views.

“Southern Poverty Law lists anti-gay groups,” Corkins tells interrogators in the video, which FRC obtained from the FBI. “I found them online, did a little research, went to the website, stuff like that.”

The Washington Examiner’s Paul Bedard reported that Corkins, who pleaded guilty to terrorism charges, said in court that he hoped to “kill as many as possible and smear the Chick-Fil-A sandwiches in victims’ faces, and kill the guard.” As Bedard explained, “the shooting occurred after an executive with Chick-Fil-A announced his support for traditional marriage, angering same-sex marriage proponents.”

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Monday, April 29, 2013

Muslim Brotherhood Tinkering In The United States Boston Bomber Case

SHOCK: Judge Who Ended Interrogation Of Boston Bomber Without DOJ Knowledge Linked To Muslim Brotherhood, Muslim Countries

Watching this video after reading the article below it will be one of the most disturbing experiences you’ve ever had.

Related – FBI ‘Stunned’ As Judge Mysteriously Shuts Down Boston Bomber Interrogation Before Truth Can Be Learned

UPDATE: Judge Bowler lists herself as “a dedicated international traveler” on her bio in Business Week. Where does she travel to in such a dedicated fashion? Who does she see there, and what does she do, so regularly as to be self-described as “dedicated”. And, perhaps, “dedicated” to anything in particular? Did she take on a radical Muslim boyfriend in her travels?

UPDATE – BOWLER’S APPROVAL TO SPEAK IN EGYPT CAME FROM THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD – Excerpted from The Conservative Tree House:That 2012 trip is “Post Morsi” – Meaning she was delivering her speech at Cairo University after the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood and the release from jail of Ayman al-Zawahiri. Meaning…. she had to have the approval of The Muslim Brotherhood to be an American Judge in Egypt – delivering a lecture, at Cairo University in 2012.

Excerpted from FRONT PAGE MAG: As FOX News reported and Robert Spencer noted, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev stopped talking once he was prematurely read his Miranda rights. That helps the authorities establish the lone wolf narrative. Whatever else we might have learned from him is probably lost.

Pat Dollard

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Americans Fear Government Under Obama, Conservatives Are Not Surprised

The country is a mess, our economy is flopping on the ground, some of the most radical policies in the history of this country are in place, and folks for the first time ever are questioning if this nation can survive the devastation unleashed upon it by the 44th President of the United States.

A recent poll says that Americans fear the government more than terrorism.

And not a single conservative is surprised.  We knew exactly who Obama is, and the Marxist/Alinsky radicalism he represents.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

If the GOP Continues to Cave, It Will Cease To Exist As A Party Any Different From the Democrat Party

By Douglas V. Gibbs

The political narrative by the media, and the so-called political experts, has been that if the Republican Party wants to win over voters, and begin winning elections, they need to moderate more than they already have.  They believe they need to appeal to the various groups by caving in on their position regarding illegal immigration, by reversing their position regarding the gay agenda, backing off on abortion and other imagined facets of the "War on Women," and begin working with the democrats on issues like the debt limit, government spending, and taxes.  In other words, to get the voters that don't like them, people that have been voting democrat, and to get them to not completely hate the GOP, the democrats are telling the republicans to turn their back on their base, to walk away from the TEA Party folks, and the Christians, and to appeal to voters that will probably never vote for them in the first place.  In other words, turn your back on your principles, and lose the people that vote for you.  You won't win any elections, but at least the leftists won't hate you anymore - even though they will continue to hate the Republicans.

The astonishing part of all of that is that the Republican Establishment actually believes that bull crap, and they are moderating more and more.

For some of the republicans, it comes naturally, because many of them are actually as liberal as their democrat counterparts.  They crave the political power, and they are convinced that to hold on to that political power they must play the game of the Washington cesspool.

When the TEA Party conservatives took office after the landslide 2010 election, the establishment went to work on them.  Play the game, do what the party says, or never get re-elected.  Some of the freshmen caved, and followed the lead of the party, but others stuck to their principles.  Those are the ones that became the enemy, singled out by the professional politicians, and in the case of Allen West, he was pushed out by a GOP-led redistricting that changed the voter demographic to the left, making reelection for West an uphill battle, and one that he ultimately lost.

As the budget battles continue, and the democrats work to continue to demonize much needed spending cuts with their false accusations that the sequester is shutting things down, the call for the GOP to cave on the debt limit debate is reaching a crescendo.  The final day to raising the debt limit, I suppose you could call it yet another judgment day, is May 19, 2013.  The date for that showdown is on the horizon, and we are falsely being told that if the republicans don't cave, and allow the federal government to once again increase its spending, we will face a government shutdown - and as the leftists prepare the public to believe that spending cuts are devastating with political theater produced by the sequester, the public is ripe and ready to believe the propaganda.

If the republicans continue to cave on economics, no good will come from it.  Just like the response to Bush 41's betrayal of his "No New Taxes" pledge, the conservatives will continue to abandon the GOP.  Principled conservatives do not want compromise because there is nothing to compromise on.  The liberal policies being offered by the democrats are wrong, Marxist in nature, and are killing our economy, across the board.

In the 2010 mid-term election the nation showed us what the sleeping giant wanted.  But if the GOP caves, the TEA Party, the conservatives, the liberatarians, and all other U.S. Constitution supporting groups, will bail on the republicans.

What is worse is that the republicans have no real reason to cave.  Most Americans want the progressive democrats out of Washington.  President Obama has nothing positive to hang his hat on.  He is powerless when conservatives face off against him.  But the conservative voters want more than to vote against Obama and the democrats.  They are looking for leadership, principles, and republicans that will stand their ground.

The republicans have not been caving because of pressure from the democrats, but from the pressure of the moderates and leftists within their own party.  The GOP Establishment hates the TEA Party, and are convinced that if they don't compromise with the liberal democrats, it will somehow politically hurt the party

If the Republican Party continues to cave in to the attacks by the liberal left democrats, the conservatives will complete their exodus from the party.  If Boehner compromises with a raise in the debt ceiling, and caves to more tax hikes, the TEA Party, and all conservatives alike, will be done with the Grand Ol' Party.

The GOP Establishment is a part of the Washington cesspool.  Spending money is what they do.  They keep spending what isn't there, and then search for new ways to wrestle money out of our hands.  Be it a new mining tax (a Nevada State Legislature push), Internet tax, going after retirement accounts, or raising the debt limit, the big spenders at both the State level and the federal level are looking for new ways to take your money from you.

The liberals in both parties consider any opposition to be right-wing extremists.  It's a language game they play to turn people against sanity.  We can't afford to compromise because we have nothing in common with the statist goals of the liberal left.  The problem is, like libertarians have been claiming for some time, we are rapidly approaching the point where there will be absolutely no difference between the parties.

Action is needed, and it is needed now.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Assembly GOP Renews Opposition to Mining Tax - Yahoo! News

California Congressman Who Loves Cop Killers Calls American Patriots Extremists - Independent Film News and Media

AFP's Phillips: Internet Tax Plan's a Nightmare - NewsMax

The e-tax Scam - Patriot Post

Obama budget to target retirement accounts - Tea Party dot org

Florida GOP trying to force Allen West out of Congress through redistricting? - Hot Air

The Difference Between George W. Bush and Barack Hussein Obama

By Douglas V. Gibbs

The vitriol for Bush 43 by the liberal left still rages.  Obama has reached some kind of messianic level, in the meantime.  The assumption by the left is if you oppose Obama, you loved every little thing that that Bush did as President.  One thing is for sure; on September 11, 2001 when the United States was attacked by the cowards of Islam, I would have preferred no other president than Bush to have been in office.

Some of Bush's domestic policies were not in line with my constitutional principles.  "No Child Left Behind," for example, was bad law, and unconstitutional to boot.

When I was recently asked by a liberal leftist what the difference between Bush and Obama is, he was expecting a very different answer than I gave.

Bush was not perfect.  No man is.  But the difference between the two men goes deeper than just politics.

Barack Obama is an arrogant man who thinks he is above us, anointed to rule over us.

Bush believed he was one of us, granted the privilege and opportunity to serve us.

That difference was evident during the Bush Presidential Library dedication in Texas.

Just listen to the men talk. . .

Oh, and by the way, Mr. Obama?  This is not a democracy, it is a republic.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Sunday, April 28, 2013

Danger of an Unfettered Federal Government

By Douglas V. Gibbs

The federal government does not have the authority to do whatever it wants.  The Constitution was written to transfer from the States only the authorities necessary for the federal government to handle external issues, and issues necessary to preserve the union while also protecting State Sovereignty.  I don't care how benevolent the politicians say their federal policies are.  The federal government was not given the authority to handle internal issues for a reason.  The issues closer to the people must be the realm of the governments closest to the people, not to be handled by a central government that is prone to tyranny.  An unfettered government acting without checks and balances, and acting on issues that does not concern protecting, preserving, and promoting the union only, is a dangerous proposition, and can only result in unstoppable progression towards statism, tyranny, and ultimately the collapse of our system of liberty.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Airline Delayed Flights a Political Strategy by Liberal Left

By Douglas V. Gibbs

We keep hearing about delays at the airports of America.  The planes can't run on time, it is being blamed on the sequester, and the forced furlough of air traffic controllers.  In other words, we are being told by the federal government that without their big government intrusion into the industry, the planes can't run on time.

See how badly you need big government?

The Obama administration is purposely doing this.  It is a political strategy.  Blame the republicans.  That is the narrative.  The republicans are always the ones getting in the way, according to the democrats.  They are bigoted, racist, obstructionists, and don't want you to get to your destination.

Someone was telling me recently that they were talking to people about political issues, and as long as the discussion was about the issues, and any mention of political parties was left out of the conversation, the people agreed with conservative policies.  Once, however, it was revealed that what the person was agreeing to was in line with the Republican platform, the persons immediately changed their tune, changed their mind, and many even claimed they misunderstood what was being presented to them.

It looks like the liberal left has done a bang-up job demonizing republicans so that voters will run away from the GOP, not because of their stance on the issues, but because the voters believe the leftist propaganda.  They hear the word "republican" and they go running for the hills.

The voters are becoming tools that can't think for themselves, and only respond to the leftist narrative as presented by the educators, media, and politicians.

Back to the airports, the reality is that there is no reason for delays.  The whole point of the charade is to convince people that the republicans are making life harder on them through the sequester, and that big government is necessary for everything to run on time.

In reality, history has shown us time and time again that central planning by big government is disastrous.  Innovation, efficiency, and prosperity is caused by the free market, not government.

The government can't be innovative or efficient, because they don't make a profit.

The democrats are deliberately punishing airline customers to gain more support for their political agenda.  They need the chaos.  The leftists need the situation to become a crisis.  That is how they put their agenda in play.  They create a crisis, blame their opposition, and then shove their statist policies into place claiming it will resolve the crisis.  Then, if it backfires, they blame the opposition, and then promise to inject even more government to fix the problem their government policies caused in the first place.

Then, the democrats will claim the planes are again running on time because of big government, when finally the do begin to run on time (not because of government, but the private sector's drive for efficiency despite the government's action of sabotage.  That is the goal.  They want to get the public crying out, "We need big government to do more!  We need big government to make the planes run on time."

Then, when things go wrong, it's those anti-government conservatives that are at fault, and the whole cycle begins again.

Don't forget, Karl Marx said, "The meaning of peace is the absence of opposition to socialism."  The democrats are working on eliminating the opposition, and each of these actions, including the delays at the airports, and designed to be a part in doing just that.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Flight Delays as Political Strategy - Wall Street Journal

The Liberal Gun Control Agenda: Statist Dreams of a Controlled Population

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut was the sight of a horrendous shooting, and was just the event needed for the democrats to politicize and launch a new round of gun control legislation.  Like nationalized health care, going after the guns of Americans has been a long-held desire of the liberal left, but in the past such attempts had proven unsuccessful.  The strategists in the Democrat Party reasoned that in order to achieve gun control, they could not simply change definitions, or make their statist intentions look more like it was for the common good than it really was.  They would need to change the minds of Americans.  The liberal left realized they needed to make Americans fear guns, to hate guns so much that they would be willing to allow the government to take away that fundamental right - and then applaud the politicians as they signed the gun confiscation order.

During Obama's first term I wrote often that the White House and liberal democrats were preparing to go after our guns.  They were waiting for the right moment, because that is what the liberal left does.  Readers that support progressivism left me comments and emails calling me a kook, saying that Obama never stated he was going after guns, and in fact that the President had stated he had no interest in increasing federal regulatory gun legislation.

It is interesting.  I have not heard from a single one of those critics of late.

Now, the attempt to increase federal gun control efforts is in full swing.  Never mind that the Constitution does not give the federal government any authority at all to enact any gun legislation.  The phrase, "...shall not be infringed," from the Second Amendment, is pretty clear and definitive.

What is fascinating is that the liberal left has never been willing to enforce the gun laws already on the books, and it is apparent that no new gun laws would have stopped those shootings they are using as examples of why they think we need more gun laws.  That is because wanting new gun laws to protect everyone is not really driving force, as they are claiming for the gun control push.  The reason, though they won't admit it, is an ultimate desire for full gun confiscation.  They will begin with people they can sell as not deserving guns, for the safety of the community, of course.  The mentally disturbed, military veterans with PTSD, and anyone that has shown any anti-government tendencies.  Doctors are already beginning to ask people if they own guns, and if the doctor thinks the person is mentally unstable, it will be used as an excuse to take the guns.

When the government begins defining who can or can't participate in a fundamental, God-given right, tyranny is on the march.

Barack Obama doesn't care if you think keeping and bearing arms is a fundamental right.  Statists can't control an armed populace.  How can you be a good subject if you have the ability to fight back?  But since Congress refuses to be a rubber stamp, and the gun control legislation failed in the Senate (which angered Obama to no end because he wanted it to die in the House of Representatives so the democrats could use the issue as a campaign argument in 2014 - "Those Republicans stopped the gun bill because they don't care about protecting your children"), Obama is deciding he must act more like a king, than a lowly president, and use "executive actions" to make sure we become safe from guns.

Oh, by the way, gun control actually kills more people.  Though gun deaths are down in Britain since their gun confiscation in 1997, violent crime rates have sky-rocketed, home invasions have risen to unbelievable numbers, the murder rate has reached incredible heights, and the people live in fear because of being unable to defend themselves.  In one documentary, I even watched how a home owner, who had refused to turn in his guns in 1997, shot two home burglars.  One died, and the other was only injured.  The criminal that survived got 18 months in jail.  The home owner, for protecting his property from the criminal element, and killing one of the invaders with an "illegal firearm," received life in prison.

Yet, the liberal left does not heed the evidence that shows the best way to stop a maniac with a gun is a bunch of good guys with guns.  Law-abiding citizens carrying firearms are the best defense against gun crime.  It is no coincidence that the deadly shootings the democrats are using as proof we need gun control all happened in gun-free zones.  The liberal left is willing to do whatever it takes to get their gun control legislation in place, even if it means using deception and unscrupulous means because it has nothing to do with guns, nothing to do with safety, and everything to do with controlling the populace, and setting up bigger government and more statism.

If you dare try to remain a gun owner, even after all of their legislation, the plan is to fine you, make you register each time you buy bullets, and force you to buy liability insurance as a gun owner.

What about the guy who slashed people at the Texas college with a razor knife?  Are they going to require us to register our knives?  Should I get a background check each time I walk into the home-improvement store because the tools can be used to assault?

One thing is for sure.  If there had been armed law-abiding citizens on that campus, the Lone Star College Slasher would have been stopped real fast.

The very idea of wanting to take guns from the law-abiding citizens for the actions of criminals (who will still find a way to get their hands on guns, or to injure or kill with other devices - such as we saw with the razor knife slasher at the Texas college) is like taking away the law-abiding driver's right to drive on the roadways because of the actions of drunk drivers.

The liberal left is now going after the guns, when they said they wouldn't.  They have caused a shortage in ammunition by the government buying up massive amounts of ammo, and they say it has nothing to do with civilians. - - - Wait a second.  Don't forget. Liberals lie.  Obama lied during his first term when he said he wasn't going to go after our guns, and the entire leftist establishment, in both parties, are lying now.

Statism is predictable.  Theirs is a pursuit of an ever growing government, veiled in a ridiculous notion of collectivism, and that they somehow know what is best for the community.  They see individuals as stupid, dangerous, and see individualism as an obstacle to their plan of government-led progress towards a communal utopia.  Taxes will be applied at all levels because they don't believe your money is your property.  Your guns are going to be taken because they don't trust you with your property.  Health care is moving into a nationalized system because you are easier to control if they are paying the bills, and can dictate to you what you can and can't do for the sake of the system.  This is what they do.  Progression never stops, until it is forced to be stopped.  The envelope never stops being pushed, and the statists never stop taking power.

They consider theirs to be a revolution that is changing America at its very foundations, and view property ownership as being one of the primary obstacles to their plans.  The Founding Fathers saw property ownership as among the most important of our fundamental, God-given rights.

Theirs is a revolution to take your property, to take your rights, and to take your freedoms.

What is the best way to meet a tyrannically driven revolution?

The answer to that question is why they want to disarm you.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Obama taking executive action on guns after Senate vote - Fox News

Obama: Doctors Should Ask About Guns In Homes - NewsMax

Gun Control Forces Seek New Path After Big Loss - Yahoo! News

Dem Proposal: $10k fine for gun owners who don't have liability insurance - Michelle Malkin

England Warns America: Don't Let Them Take Your Guns - YouTube

More Guns, Less Crime Again - NRA/ILA

The Facts About Mass Shootings - National Review Online

Debunking Gun Control Myths - Gun Facts

Suspect at Lone Star College slashing spree fantasized about killing people, planned attack, police say - Fox News

DHS Denies Ammo Purchases Aimed at Civilians - US News

Free Markets and Self-Reliance

Free Markets don't work if you don't allow for failure.  Innovation is forged through failure.  Bailouts by the government handcuffs innovation, and holds back the free market.  Those that oppose the Free Market say that you can succeed too much, and those that do not succeed are victims.  As long as there are people in poverty, and government is able to convince those people they are victims, there will always be someone to blame, and a reason not to be self-reliant.  There is no limit to the creation of wealth.  Everyone can have a slice of the ever-expanding pie, if only they are willing to do the work to achieve that success, and if only the government is willing to step out of the way.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Israel Strikes Gaza in Response to Palestinian Rocket Fire

IAF strikes Gaza targets in response to rocket fire

The Air Force struck a terror facility and weapons storage site in southern Gaza early Sunday in response to a rocket fired on the Sdot Negev Regional Council Saturday night.

The IDF Spokesperson's Office confirmed a precise hit on the target.

"The IDF will not tolerate any attempt to harm Israeli civilians, and will not allow for a return to the reality before Pillar of Defense where Israeli civilians are threatened," they said in a statement.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

No Constitution Study Radio This Morning

For the third Saturday in a row, I will not host my Constitution Study Radio program.  The last two Saturdays it was due to technical difficulties.  This time, I was up late at an old friends, and simply need the sleep.  On May 5 we will resume, and the topic will be The Bill of Rights.


Douglas V. Gibbs

Saturday, April 27, 2013

Islam Identification

The height of absurdity

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Netherlands Abandons Multiculturalism

The truth shall set you free. . .

The Netherlands to Abandon Multiculturalism

The Netherlands , where six per cent of the population is now Muslim, is scrapping multiculturalism:

The Dutch government says it will abandon the long-standing model of multiculturalism that has encouraged Muslim immigrants create a parallel society within the Netherlands ..

A new integration bill, which Dutch Interior Minister Piet Hein Donner presented to parliament on June 16, reads:

“The government shares the social dissatisfaction over the multicultural society model and plans to shift priority to the values of the Dutch people.

In the new integration system, the values of the Dutch society play a central role.”

With this change, the government steps away from the model of a multicultural society.

The letter continues: “A more obligatory integration is justified because the government also demands that from its own citizens.

It is necessary because otherwise the society gradually grows apart and eventually no one feels at home anymore in the Netherlands ..
The new integration policy will place more demands onimmigrants.

For example, immigrants will be required to learn the Dutch language and the government will take a tougher approach to immigrants who ignore Dutch values or disobey Dutch law.”

The government will also stop offering special subsidies for Muslim immigrants because, according to Donner; “It is not the government’s job to integrate immigrants.”

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Jury Finds Democrats Guilty of Ballot Petition Fraud in 2008 Election

Personally, I think the fraud was even worse in 2012. . . and that will come to light as well, and then be ignored by the Left.

Officials found guilty in Obama, Clinton ballot petition fraud

A jury in South Bend, Indiana has found that fraud put President Obama and Hillary Clinton on the presidential primary ballot in Indiana in the 2008 election. Two Democratic political operatives were convicted Thursday night in the illegal scheme after only three hours of deliberations. They were found guilty on all counts.

Former longtime St. Joseph County Democratic party Chairman Butch Morgan Jr. was found guilty of felony conspiracy counts to commit petition fraud and forgery, and former county Board of Elections worker Dustin Blythe was found guilty of felony forgery counts and falsely making a petition, after being accused of faking petitions that enabled Obama, then an Illinois Senator, to get on the presidential primary ballot for his first run for the White House.

Morgan was accused of being the mastermind behind the plot.

According to testimony from two former Board of Election officials who pled guilty, Morgan ordered Democratic officials and workers to fake the names and signatures that Obama and Clinton needed to qualify for the presidential race. Blythe, then a Board of Elections employee and Democratic Party volunteer, was accused of forging multiple pages of the Obama petitions.

Read more at Fox News

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Constitution Radio: Lawyer Pulls No Punches on Second Amendment

Our guest ran for Superior Court Judge in Riverside, County, California, is a practicing Criminal Defense Attorney in Indio, California, and is a raging Constitutional Originalist.  After listening to him give a presentation on the Second Amendment at a recent Murrieta/Temecula Republican Assembly meeting, I just had to have him on the show.  His name is Michael Kennedy.

Tune in to listen to this important interview about our fundamental right to keep and bear arms, the recent gun control push by government, and how must we work to keep a hold of our country as the statists work to wrestle it from our grip.

Constitution Radio with Douglas V. Gibbs.  Listen live at 2:05 pm Pacific on KCAA 1050 AM in the Inland Empire, or tune in Online at KCAAradio.com.  Listen to the podcast later on our Podcast Page.  Call in number is 888-909-1050.

After the interview, we will discuss the Constitution Quest Question of the Week, the Book of the Week (The Green Beret In You), and tackle the. . .

5 Big Stories of the Week, April 27, 2013

Honorable Mention: Are Democrats Realizing ObamaCare is a Train Wreck?





Honorable Mention:  Benghazi a Plot of Pure Deception



5.  Tennessee Nuclear Power Plant, Shots Fired


4.  Obama Praises Planned Parenthood, finishes with, “God Bless”


http://washingtonexaminer.com/article/2528221 (Obama: Planned Parenthood Isn't Going Anywhere)




3.  Proposed Internet Tax



2.  Syria Using Chemical Weapons Against Rebels




1.  Immigration: Undocumented Democrats?  A Civil Right?



American Daily Review Radio with JASmius and Douglas V. Gibbs

ObamaCare, Benghazi, Shots Fired at a Nuclear Power Plant, Abortion, Internet Tax, Syria, Immigration. . .

02:00 Hours

American Daily Review

Welcome to the pre-game show for Constitution Radio on the Political Pistachio Radio Network - Hang on every word of... more

Sat, April 27, 2013 12:00 pm Pacific

Noah Webster: Educating the Youth of America

"Every child in America should be acquainted with his own country. He should read books that furnish him with ideas that will be useful to him in life and practice. As soon as he opens his lips, he should rehearse the history of his own country; he should lisp the praise of liberty, and of those illustrious heroes and statesmen, who have wrought a revolution in her favor." -- Noah Webster, On the Education of Youth in America, 1788

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Four Star Admiral James Lyons: Benghazi a "Plot of Pure Deception"

By Douglas V. Gibbs

On Thursday Night, as my Constitution Class mulled over the final clause in Article II regarding impeachment, one student said, "This President has a whole list of reasons he should be impeached."  I agreed.  But, bringing impeachment is one thing.  The hearing before the Senate going the way of removal from office is a whole different ball of wax.

"But what about Fast and Furious, and Benghazi?"

A non-liberal president would be in big trouble over stuff like that, but not this guy, even with the mounting evidence that is still piling up.

For example, when it comes to Benghazi, it is now known that Hillary Clinton purposely lied, and the actions, or lack thereof, of the White House resulted in the deaths of Americans at the U.S. Consul in Libya.  The Obama administration even altered the talking points to purposely cover-up their involvement, and to divert attention away from the truth.

The poor handling of the Benghazi terrorist attack also led to a domino effect that led to terrorist attacks against U.S. diplomatic buildings throughout the Middle East and North Africa.  These all, to this day, remain largely uninvestigated by the federal government, unprosecuted by AG Eric Holder’s Depart of Justice, and the Obama administration refuses to bring the guilty parties to justice while many know the truth and are not coming forward.

Enter into the picture Admiral James Lyons, who has knowledge of the true story of what did happen without the lies and cover-ups, which could lead to blowing the Benghazi scandal wide open.

From Your Daily Dose of Conservatism:  

According to a report from the Washington Times, retired 4 Star Admiral James Lyons reveals the entire plot that led to the deaths of Americans in Libya that could have been prevented, who gave the orders, and why events took place as they tragically did. Admiral James Lyons is probably the highest ranking figure ever to intervene in a federal government criminal case, and testify. Thanks to this man’s dedication to his country and the truth, we will finally know the truth and who was responsible.

In his words Lyons says that the attack on Benghazi was a bungled kidnapping attempt to be perpetrated upon Ambassador Stevens. This was to appear to be a hostage exchange for a terrorist prisoner who was to be released in trade for a supposedly captured US ambassador. The trade would have been for Omar Abdel Rahman an international prisoner, known as the Blind Sheikh.

This apparent abduction by terrorists of our ambassador and then negotiated trade for the Blind Sheikh would have been the “October Surprise” that would have elevated President Obama’s flagging popularity and boosted his approval ratings for a re-election. A dramatic prisoner exchange that saved our ambassador’s life However, something went horribly wrong. A cunning and illegal bit of treachery by the Obama White House turned into something entirely different. Obama’s October surprise turned into a carnage orchestrated by the White House itself as the President, Leon Panetta, and CIA Director, David Petraeus watched via a UAV real-time feed as a 7 hour attack on the Benghazi Embassy raged. Reportedly, stand down orders were given several times to different units within striking distance.

A plot of pure deception

With what should have been only a staged kidnapping of Ambassador J. Christian Stevens, instead, Navy Seals Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty refused a stand down order and began doing their job of protecting the ambassador using force. Immediately the well-trained Seals began inflicting heavy casualties upon the terrorists who thought they were merely in a cake walk to abduct Ambassador Stevens without mishap. As a result of the plan going awry, a massive attack arose from the anger of the terrorists who felt they had been betrayed by President Obama. In the aftermath of the battle which saw Navy Seal Glen Doherty was killed after the embassy had been overrun along with the ambassador’s staff. Ambassador Steven’s whose body showed up 5 hours later at a Benghazi hospital supposedly overcome by smoke as the initial press reports indicated was, in fact, raped, tortured, and dragged around Benghazi in retaliation for the botched Obama White House plan.

Obama hands over Libya to Al Qaeda

Was this just a freak occurrence that belies the true nature of dealings in Libya with American diplomatic efforts, just one glitch in normal standard operating procedure? No, according to former Admiral Lyons and many others such as Glen Beck, who have all uncovered evidence that lead to much more sinister deeds being undertaken. Evidence of a working relationship between the US and its alleged terrorist enemies had already delivered Libya to the Al Qaeda terrorist organization through infiltration of the government, media, and general society prior to the rebellion against Muammar Gaddafi that toppled the dictator last year. That the US has worked with Al Qaeda awarding them security contracts for all US embassies and consulates as well as border protection has instead allowed Libya to become a haven for numerous terrorist operators who have automatic access to Libya’s territory to carry out their training. All this with the support and blessing of the Obama administration. This is not only unthinkable, but beyond excuse or rationalization. There should already be indictments for many in the state department, in the DOJ, all the way up to the oval office, yet, so far nothing has been done.

Treason plain and simple

It goes even farther than that. Evidence indicates that Ambassador Stevens was being used as an arms dealer to supply Jihadists in the region to support yet another uprising in Syria. Just prior to the murder of our ambassador, he was trying to locate guns that had been walked across Libya’s border to other countries just as the ATF had done in operation Fast and Furious on the border of Mexico. These are not the actions of inexperience or bad intelligence. They are the actions of traitorous intention. President Obama will, no doubt, be linked to these deaths and operations if Congress will only act, and do its duty in prosecuting a treasonous president who is endangering national security.

There is no where else for a Congressional investigation to turn other than naming the conspirators, determining when officials knew, and assembling the evidence that murder was committed on behalf of the White House to silence those who knew and could testify. Through out the Obama presidency over the last four years the administration has master minded operations that have caused numerous controversies and crises.

When will the GOP take action?

The Republicans have missed opportunities to discredit the President, to impeach Obama in the wake of waging war against Libya without Congressional approval, and allowed executive privilege to quash subpoenaed demands for evidence on Fast and Furious never released by AG Eric Holder. John Boehner, Speaker of the House, has refused to exercise initiative whenever the GOP could have used much-needed momentum to stem the tide against the incessant assaults against state’s rights, constitutional rights, and the traditional institutions of America. Will the recent damning evidence now uncovered over the Benghazi fiasco thanks to Admiral James Lyons be implemented to convict the President of potential high treason, or will we see yet another case of criminal acts ignored and hidden at the expense of the American people? If you bother to take interest and act as a responsible citizens contact your congressman and demand action!

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Friday, April 26, 2013

Freedom of Speech Compromised: Pentagon Blocks Hostile Southern Baptist Website, among other things

By Douglas V. Gibbs

The liberal left, and the federal government, say they believe in freedom of speech. . . yeah, as long as it agrees with their agenda.

A military member attempted to access the website of the Southern Baptist Convention's website, and it was blocked, and labeled as containing "hostile content."  This comes mere weeks after the Army labeled Evangelical Christians and Roman Catholics as examples of religious extremism.  The Southern Baptist denomination is known for its pro-life and pro-traditional marriage stances.

Southern Baptist chaplains have reported that SBC.net has been blocked at military installations around the nation.

A liberal recently told me that churches can't have an opinion on any subject considered political.  "That is why they don't pay taxes.  If they want to have an opinion, they need to pay taxes like the rest of us."

Using that argument, the lower income folks that pay no taxes should have no allowance to have a political opinion, either.

This is not the only hostility we are seeing pointed at Christianity in this nation.

In Arizona, Pastor Michael Salman served a 60-day sentence for holding a home Bible study.  Zoning laws were used to imprison Salman for holding home Bible studies.

“If you have a small gathering in your home for any kind of religious meeting, you’re going to be harassed by the government to somehow square with the zoning regulations for a formal institution," he said.

In New Orleans, street preachers have been forced, by law, to become a thing of the past.  New Orleans Mayor Mitch Landrieu, in 2011, approved a ban prohibiting loitering on Bourbon Street "for the purpose of disseminating any social, political or religious message between the hours of sunset and sunrise."  Punishment includes a fine and jail time.  An Assembly of God pastor that has preached on Bourbon Street for the past 30 years has been told he may no longer share his religious views on the street.  

Joseph La Rue of the Alliance Defending Freedom legal counsel said of the ban, "New Orleans cannot make criminals of people simply because they want to talk about their faith."

City Officials in New Orleans have chosen to criminalize speech about faith while allowing just about every other conceivable topic to be discussed and exposed. Its not up to the government to decide the topics we can and cannot discuss.  Coincidentally, the ban came on the heels of President Obama's UN address that threatened to curtail speech denigrating religion, notably Islam

Of course, flashing your breasts for beads is still legal in New Orleans.

Christians are being targeted for daring to speak out against abortion, homosexuality, and a myriad of political issues.  If those that oppose Faith decide to speak out against Christianity, or use government to force The Church to accept the gay agenda, or the genocide of the unborn, that is considered to be just fine.

Could you imagine if the Pentagon blocked a gay website, or told Muslims they could not speak of their religion on Bourbon Street, or a city used zoning laws to shut down a pro-abortion meeting in someone's home, and then jail the person hosting the meeting?

All hell would break loose.

No prayer is allowed in school because they don't want Christians forcing their religion upon anyone through the school system.  Yet, the liberal agenda, the gay agenda, anti-religious topics like evolution, and pro-abortion topics are being forced on our children without even a consideration that they are doing exactly what they dared to accuse the Christians of wanting to do.

My daughter was once told in school to tuck her crucifix under her shirt, because it being exposed was offensive to some students.  Other students wearing pro-gay T-shirts, shirts with images of the Marxist murderer Che Guevara on them, peace signs on tie-dye shirts, a shirt with a fish with feet and the word "Darwin" inside the walking fish, and Muslim shirts were never addressed by that same school.

The Left supports the First Amendment's call for Freedom of Speech, as long as you dare not disagree with them.  Otherwise, you will be forced into silence, or ridiculed into silence (i.e. accusations of homophobia, Islamophobia, War on Women, etc.).

The goal of the progressive left is to eliminate all opposition, force the church into the four walls of a church, and force individualism and opinions that disagree with their agenda into silence.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Religious Expression Banned on Bourbon Street? - Christian Persecution Magazine

Fair Taxes, Fred Thompson

"A new Gallup poll shows that 55% of Americans say their income taxes are 'fair.' I'm guessing that'd be the 47% who pay none, plus a few Obama cabinet appointees." -- Fred Thompson

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, would have opposed proposed Internet Tax

This is yet another tax grab by government, and a way to tax everyone, while stifling the free market.

"We may be assured by past experience, that such a practice [as some states charging high taxes on goods from other states] would be introduced by future contrivances..." --James Madison (1788)
According to Patriot Post:

Executive Summary: Senate Democrats and Republicans voted 74-20 in a cloture to move S743, the "online sales tax," to the Senate floor for a vote early next week. This huge tax collection scheme will stifle product and market competition, and innovation and entrepreneurship. That is precisely why, in addition to the Obama administration, mega-retailers like Walmart back this oppressive legislation, and why all advocates of free enterprise need oppose it.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

California's Global Warming Big Business

thanks Audrey. . . 

Global Warming is Big Business for CA Government

Just when Californians thought implementation of the state’s Global Warming Solutions Act couldn’t get any worse, it is.

AB 32, California’s Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, and SB 375, the sustainable communities companion bill enacted in 2008, both are under implementation by the California Air Resources Board. But CARB has taken a great deal of liberty, particularly with its interpretation of AB 32.

CARB devised a cap-and-trade system whereby it holds a quarterly auction program “requiring many California employers to bid significant amounts of money for the privilege of continuing to emit carbon dioxide — or be faced with closing their doors in California, laying off their employees, and moving their businesses to other states,” the Pacific Legal Foundation recently said.

The PLF ought to know. They are suing CARB over its cap-and-trade scheme, calling it an “unconstitutional state tax.”

Now, using the guise of AB 32 and SB 375 implementation, a new bill would assist the cap-and-trade program by directing the hundreds of millions of dollars of revenues into the “Sustainable Communities Infrastructure Program.” However, AB 574 by Assemblywoman Bonnie Lowenthal, D-Long Beach, also is about justifying the the cap-and-trade tax revenues for use on the California High-Speed Rail Authority.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Conspiracy Theories Surround Boston Marathon Bombing

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Immediately after the terror attack in Boston at the finish line of the Boston Marathon, folks like Alex Jones jumped to the conclusion that the federal government, or more specifically, the Obama administration, was somehow behind the event.  Jones called it a "false flag operation."  Since then, Glenn Beck has joined the circus of cries that "the government did it."

Islam hates The West, and especially the United States.  They attack us because they hate us, and they hate us because of Islam, not because of our involvement in wars, or support for Israel.

As for the government conspiracies, understand that the last thing the Obama administration wanted was a terror attack against the U.S. by Muslims.  Not because they want us protected, but because such an attack goes against their agenda.  It sets them back.

The narrative has been that Obama's policies of peace, love and appeasement, and capturing Osama bin Laden, has made the Muslims love us, and the war against terror is over.  Attacks like Benghazi and Boston go against that narrative.  This does not mean they weren't willing to use the attacks for political purposes, because they have.  But why would they orchestrate such an attack if it goes against the narrative they are trying to put across?

That said, trust me, they would have loved it if the attacker was non-Muslim and non-liberal.

Interestingly enough, all of the terror attacks and shootings under Obama's watch has been by liberal left democrats, or Muslims.

Here's a list of the conspiracies floating around:

Obama Buries Boston Massacre Saudi Connection - Western Journalism (this one might have legs)

Beck Says He Has Proof There Is Government Coverup on Boston Bombing - Clash Daily

That all said, there is evidence that there may have been more people involved in the bombing:

Boston Bombers' former Brother-in-law: There Were Others Involved - Rush Limbaugh

Time will tell, but I will say that Islam is the key component, here.

Two Saturdays from now my guest on my KCAA radio program will be Walid Shoebat - and his theories will shock all of you.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Muslim Terrorists Behind Boston Marathon Bombing Planned To Hit New York's Times Square

Confessed Boston Marathon Terrorist Intended to Bomb Times Square

While reports on Wednesday night suggested that the suspected Boston Marathon bombers, Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, planned to head to New York after their bombing in order to “party,” newer information suggests that their party may have involved bombing Times Square. Yesterday, New York Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly said that the two had planned to “party,” and added, “There is some information that they may have been intent to come to New York but not to continue what they were doing. The information we received [from interrogating Dzhokhar] is something about a party – having a party. Something to the effect of coming to party in New York.”

But on Thursday, Rep. Peter King (R-NY) told Megyn Kelly of Fox News that police actually think that the Tsarnaev brothers wanted to set off bombs in Times Square. New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Kelly are scheduled to hold a press conference early Thursday afternoon.


Boston bomb suspects also wanted to attack New York: officials

The two men suspected of carrying out last week's deadlyBoston Marathon bombing decided after authorities identified them to drive to Manhattan and set off additional explosives in Times Square, New York City officials said on Thursday.

Their plan unraveled only when they realized that a Mercedes sport utility vehicle they had hijacked on April 18, three days after the bombing, did not have enough gasoline for the journey, Police Commissioner Ray Kelly said.

New York has been on heightened alert since the September 11, 2001, hijacked plane attacks that destroyed the World Trade Center. Officials said the Tsarnaev brothers' alleged impromptu plan showed America's most populous city remained a magnet for those who want to strike at the United States.


-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Thursday, April 25, 2013

Syria Uses Sarin Gas Against Rebels

Remember, Iraq's weapons of mass-destruction were transferred to Syria prior to the American invasion of Iraq. . .

U.S.: Intelligence points to small-scale use of sarin in Syria

The United States has evidence that the chemical weapon sarin has been used in Syria on a small scale, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said Thursday.

But numerous questions remain about the origins of the chemical and what effect its apparent use could have on the ongoing Syrian civil war and international involvement in it.

When asked whether the intelligence community's conclusion pushed the situation across President Barack Obama's "red line"that could trigger more U.S. involvement in the war, Hagel said it's too soon to say.

"We need all the facts. We need all the information," he said. "What I've just given you is what our intelligence community has said they know. As I also said, they are still assessing, and they are still looking at what happened, who was responsible and the other specifics that we'll need."

In a letter sent to lawmakers before Hagel's announcement, the White House said that intelligence analysts have concluded "with varying degrees of confidence that the Syrian regime has used chemical weapons on a small scale in Syria, specifically the chemical agent sarin."

The White House cautioned that the "chain of custody" of the chemicals was not clear and that intelligence analysts could not confirm the circumstances under which the sarin was used, including the role of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's regime.

But, the letter said, "we do believe that any use of chemical weapons in Syria would very likely have originated with the Assad regime."

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Temecula Constitution Class: State of the Union and other duties, Impeachment

Join us at 6:00 pm at Faith Armory, 27498 Enterprise Circle West, Temecula, California.

Just a taste:

4.3 - State of the Union and Other Duties


The first word of Article II, Section 3 is “He.”  The word refers to the President of the United States.  I have actually had some people, who oppose the Constitution, tell me that the word “He” being used is evidence that the Constitution disallows women from being President.  They then argue that if a woman was to become President, because of the word “He” being used in the Constitution, anything she did in office would be unconstitutional since the Constitution does not allow women to be President of the United States.

Not necessarily.

As with other writings, such as the Holy Bible, often the word “He” may be used as a general term to represent both sexes.

Being politically correct, or gender neutral, was not a concern during those days, as in today’s pluralistic, topsy-turvy society.  In the case of the Constitution, it is conceivable, considering the mindset of the day, that the founders did not think a woman would someday become President of the United States.  I assure you, people like John Adams and Aaron Burr were exceptions to that line of thinking.

Aaron Burr was Vice President under Thomas Jefferson, and he actually was one that proposed that there be a uniform rule across the nation that enabled women to vote.

If you look through the Constitution, there is no place in the Constitution that says women cannot vote, or run for office.  The reason women were not able to vote, or run for office, was because the States were given the authority over the rules of elections, and during that time the States did not generally allow women to vote or hold office.  Much of that changed in some States and territories long before the Suffrage Movement, but it took a Constitutional amendment to make the practice uniform among all States.

Therefore, the first word being “He,” in my opinion, is simply a general term, and so when someone like Sarah Palin, Hillary Clinton, Michelle Bachmann, or whoever the first female President is in the future, becomes President, don’t worry, she is fully entitled upon being elected, to assume the Office of the President of the United States.

State of the Union

“He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient.”

This clause establishes the State of the Union address.  The State of the Union address is supposed to be as it is worded in the Constitution, a speech about the state of the union addressed to Congress by the President.  It is not supposed to be a campaign speech, it is not supposed to be a popularity speech, nor a chance to take a stab at political opposition.  The speech is simply supposed to be an opportunity for the President to give the Congress information regarding the state of the union.

Also, notice, the speech is not for the people, per se.  Yes, it is fine that we get to hear the speech, and it is in our interest to know what the state of the union is.  But, the specific reason for the State of Union address is to give Congress information of the state of the union.

There is an additional reason for the State of Union address should the President deem it necessary.  He may during the speech “recommend to their Consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient.”  Of course, he can do this during the normal course of his presidency, as well.

Let’s go back to Article I, Section 1 for a moment.  Article I, Section 1 reads: “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.”

This means that the authority to make law, modify law, repeal law, and strike down law - “all” legislative powers - are granted to the Congress by the States.

Article II, Section 3 says the President can “recommend” to their “consideration” such measures. . .

The President can “recommend to their consideration,” because he has no legislative capacity.  He cannot make Congress do anything.

Executive Orders

The President has the authority to issue Executive Orders.  An Executive Order is a proclamation or change within the Executive Branch.  Executive Orders began back when George Washington was President.  His Thanksgiving Proclamation was an Executive Order.  Executive Orders serve two functions.  They may be used to change the processes within the Executive Branch, because the rules of the internal workings of the Executive Branch are up to the President.  Or, an Executive Order may be used to issue a proclamation.

No place in the Constitution does it give the President the allowance through Executive Order to modify, repeal or make law.  Executive Orders have been used often in history to modify law, but that is unconstitutional.  The President does not have that kind of authority.

With that in mind, all of the regulatory agencies in the United States Government are a part of the Executive Branch. Whenever they make a regulation that is not to regulate an existing constitutional law, but to regulate an unconstitutional law, or to create a new law, such as the EPA did with Cap and Trade, or the FCC’s move to establish Net Neutrality, it is unconstitutional.

The agencies are under the Executive Branch, and therefore do not have the authority of legislative powers.

Extraordinary Occasions

“He may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them.”

What is an extraordinary occasion?  That would be an emergency, or during a time that matters are urgent.  If the President believes a matter needs to be tended to, he can compel the Congress to be in session.  In other words, it is Constitutional when the President says something like, “I’m working, so Congress needs to be too.”

An extraordinary occasion can be wartime, budget discussions, or anything else the President judges as an extraordinary occasion.

This includes when there is a “disagreement between them (the Houses).”  The President may choose when the Houses will meet, as he feels is proper.

You may remember in Article I that the Houses may not adjourn without the permission of the other House.  But what if they refuse to allow the other House to adjourn?  This is where the President comes in.  If, because of disagreement, the Houses won’t allow each other to adjourn, the President, if he feels it is necessary, “may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper.”

The president can compel the Houses to convene, or adjourn, as he feels necessary.

He can’t force them to make particular laws, per se, but he can make them be in session to get the work done, or take a break if he sees it as necessary.

As much as Congress has control over when they convene or adjourn, the President does have the authority if things are getting out of hand, or for whatever other reason he deems necessary, to override Congress’ decision of when to convene or adjourn.

An example would be during wartime.  His war powers enable him to put the military into action.  If he feels there should be a declaration of war, or would like to discuss his war plans with the Congress, he can compel them to be in session.  He cannot make them declare war, or approve of his actions, but he can ensure they are in session so that the politics of war may be discussed.

If some of the members of Congress have a problem with the actions of the President so they refuse to convene, he can then order Congress to convene so that he may discuss with them the issues at hand.

Receiving Ambassadors and Other Public Ministers

The President may invite important people to Washington, be they ambassadors, or other officials.  Having the Chinese leader over for a dinner at the White House, for example, is completely constitutional.

Regulatory Agencies

“He shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”

This is the establishment of the enforcement arm of the Executive Branch.  In turn, this clause is what eventually became the regulatory agencies.

Notice, however, what the clause says: he “shall” - remember, shall is definitive - “take Care” - notice in your Constitution that “Care” is capitalized, placing emphasis on the word (sort of like we do today with italics.  This makes “Care” a very important word.  - “that the Laws be faithfully executed.”

 Laws, under the federal government, are only laws, if they are constitutional.  If the laws are not made in line with the authorities granted to the federal government by the Constitution, they are not legal laws.  The executive branch shall “execute” the laws - Constitutional laws.  In the case of immigration laws, for example, it is unconstitutional for the President to refuse to execute those constitutional laws.

Some people say the Executive Branch is supposed to “enforce” the laws - and in a sense that is correct.  But really, the Executive Branch is supposed to execute the laws - ensure they are carried out - Laws that were put into place constitutionally.

We are the final arbiters of the Constitution, but there are other steps along the way to ensure that unconstitutional laws don’t go into effect.  The President is one of those checks.

When President Obama determined DOMA was unconstitutional, and decided his agencies would not execute that law, he was acting Constitutionally.  The law is the law, however, and there is much discussion regarding if, considering that the President has decided the law is unconstitutional, if he is compelled to ensure the law is executed.  Also, if he refuses to execute constitutional law, calling it unconstitutional, it is our responsibility that he is removed, and replaced with somebody that will execute the laws appropriately.

In 1817, when President Madison deemed a Public Works bill unconstitutional, he simply refused to sign the bill into law, indicating in his written reason why he vetoed the bill that the proposed law was unconstitutional.

Congress can override a President’s decision not to execute a law on the books because he deems it unconstitutional, just like they can override a veto.  The States may also enforce the law if the President refuses.

The reverse is also true.  If the President tries to execute law, calling it constitutional, when it is not constitutional, the States can ignore those federal laws, or “nullify” them.

Officers of the United States

“… and shall commission all the Officers of the United States.”

The “United States,” as mentioned here in this final part of Article II, Section 3, does not mean The United States as a country.  The United States is mentioned often in the Constitution, and whenever the “United States” is mentioned, it means one of two things.  Either, it means “these States that are united,” or the “federal government.”

Remember, to these early Americans, who considered themselves citizens of their States before they considered themselves “Americans,” the United States meant “these States that are united,”  rather than a single, nationalistic, entity.

In this case, however, the “United States” means “federal government.”

As a result of that definition, you could also say that this part of the Constitution reads: “and shall commission all the officers of the federal government.”  The Officers of the United States are members of the President’s Cabinet, department heads, and other officers approved by the Senate.

The Senate must give consent, as indicated in Article II, Section 2 and Article I, Section 3, to the appointment of these officers.  Therefore, giving the U.S. Senate (and therefore “the States” prior to the 17th Amendment) the power of oversight over the President’s choices.  This, in turn, means that the President’s czars are unconstitutional.

Congress has no oversight over the czars.


Executive Order: An Executive Order is an order issued by the President of the United States that may be a proclamation, or an order to change the processes within the Executive Branch.

Regulatory Agencies: Agencies within the Executive Branch tasked with executing the laws of the nation. The enforcement arm of the Executive Branch.

State of the Union address: A speech about the state of the union addressed to Congress by the President.

Questions for Discussion:

1.  Why does the Constitution instruct the President to give a State of the Union speech?

2.  What can executive orders be used for?

3.  Name some extraordinary occasions that might compel the President to call Congress into session.

4.  What kind of laws can the regulatory agencies execute?

5.  Who are the officers of the United States?

6.  Are the President’s “czars” constitutional?


Joseph Andrews, A Guide for Learning and Teaching The Declaration of Independence and The U.S. Constitution - Learning from the Original Texts Using Classical Learning Methods of the Founders; San Marcos: The Center for Teaching the Constitution (2010).

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

4.4 - Impeachment

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Impeachment is a term that means “To charge with misconduct.”  Removal from office does not happen unless the official is “convicted.”  In the case of the President and Vice President, the hearings are held by the U.S. Senate.

The reasons for impeachment may be for “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

Treason is defined in Article III, Section 3 as “levying War against them (United States, these States are united), or adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.”

Bribery is defined as meaning the exchange of money, promises, or other things, with someone in office, in order to influence that person’s views or conduct.

The real confusion comes when we talk about the final part: “or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

When it comes to the phrase, "high crimes and misdemeanors" and the meaning of that phrase to the Founding Fathers, we must recognize the language used.

The word “high” in this context does not necessarily mean "more serious".  It refers to those punishable offenses that only apply to high persons, meaning “public officials,” or those who, because of their official status, are under special obligations that ordinary persons are not under.

For an official that was placed in office by the people, a crime offends the sense of justice of the people.  When a public official commits these crimes, they can be more serious than if the same crime is committed by a citizen, because of the trust put into the office the official holds.

One of those high crimes is Perjury, which is more than merely “lying under oath".  Under the definitions used by the founders, Perjury also means "violation of one's oath (or affirmation)".  Therefore, the President refusing to protect and defend the Constitution, could be considered Perjury.

The President is bound by his oath of office in all matters until he leaves office to follow the oath of office. While he holds that office, he is always under oath, failing to uphold the oath, or lying at any time, constitutes perjury if it is not justified for national security.

An executive official is also ultimately responsible for any failures of his subordinates and for their violations of the oath he and they took, which means violations of the Constitution and the rights of persons.  The president's subordinates include everyone in the executive branch, and their agents and contractors. It is not limited to those over whom he has direct supervision. He is not protected by "plausible deniability". He is legally responsible for everything that everyone in the executive branch is doing.

Impeachment and removal proceedings may then encompass a full range of offenses against the Constitution and against the rights of persons committed by subordinate officials and their agents which have not been adequately investigated or remedied.

The meaning of the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors," was common knowledge during the time of the founding of this nation.  The phrase imports a concept in English Common Law of the word “misdemeanors” that essentially means bad behavior.

“Misdemeanors" in the language of the founders, then, did not necessarily refer to a criminal act as many believe, but opened up the opportunity for impeachment of the President should he be guilty of gross incompetence, gross negligence, or outright distasteful actions which clearly show "malevolence toward this country and constitution, which is unabated."

The subject of impeachment was adopted from the English concept of this idea. In England impeachment was a device to remove from office someone who abused his office or misbehaved but who was protected by the Crown.

Madison said impeachment was to be used to reach a bad officer sheltered by the President and to remove him “even against the will of the President; so that the declaration in the Constitution was intended as a supplementary security for the good behavior of the public officers.”

At first, during the debates in the Constitutional Convention, the grounds for removal of the president were to be upon conviction “of mal-practice or neglect of duty” and subsequently this was changed to “Treason, or bribery.” George Mason objected to this limitation, saying that the term did not encompass all the conduct which should be grounds for removal.  So, Mason proposed adding the term ''or maladministration'' following ''bribery.''

Madison objected, believing the term to be too vague.  Mason then suggested ''other high crimes and misdemeanors,'' which was adopted without further recorded debate.


Bribery: The exchange of money, promises, or other things, with someone in office, in order to influence that person’s views or conduct.

High Crimes: Punishable offenses that only apply to high persons, meaning “public officials,” or those who, because of their official status, are under special obligations that ordinary persons are not under.

Impeachment: To charge with misconduct.  Formal process that may lead to removal of an official accused of unlawful activity; impeachment does not mean the removal from office, though removal from office is often the result of impeachment proceedings.

Misdemeanors: In the Constitution the definition is bad behavior including, but not limited to, gross incompetence, gross negligence, or outright distasteful actions which clearly show "malevolence toward this country and constitution, which is unabated."

Perjury: Lying under oath, violation of one's oath (or affirmation).

Treason: Levying war against the States, or adhering to the enemies of the States, giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

Questions for Discussion:

1.  In the United States Government, who has the sole power of impeachment, and who holds all impeachment hearings?

2.  Based on the definitions of bad behavior, could the President, an officer, or judge be impeached for unconstitutional actions?

3.  Why do you suppose James Madison changed the term “maladministration?”


James Madison, Veto of Federal Public Works Bill 1817; Constitution.org: http://www.constitution.org/jm/18170303_veto.htm

Jon Roland, Meaning of "High Crimes and Misdemeanors"; Constitution Society: http://www.constitution.org/cmt/high_crimes.htm, (1999)

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

Philip B. Kurland and Ralph Lerner, The Founder’s Constitution - Volume Four - Article 2, Section 2 through Article 7; Indianapolis: Liberty Fund (1987).

Vincent Gioia, What is a ‘Misdemeanor’ Under the Constitution and Why is it Important?; Right Side News: http://www.rightsidenews.com/2010091511636/editorial/rsn-pick-of-the-day/what-is-a-misdemeanor-under-the-constitution-and-why-is-it-important.html, (2010)

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary