At an exclusive Hollywood party on Christmas Eve, an A-list star dies of an apparent overdose. A detective holds a protesting core group of Hollywood insiders for questioning. The group, consisting of an A-list director, a top agent, a movie star, a media mogul, a writer, a wannabe actress, a studio head, and others, begin a deep and profound discussion on the meaning of life, including the existence of God.
Live Fast, Die Young is currently being hailed as one of the best Christian movies of the year. The film was directed by Tim Chey, the force that was also behind "Impact: The Passion of the Christ."
During the first hour of the Political Pistachio Radio Revolution tonight, Director Tim Chey returns to the program to discuss his newest movie, and the socio-political impact of Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ worldwide.
In the second hour of tonight's program my guest will be Adam Bitely of NetRight Nation and Americans for Limited Government.
Tune in Live at 7:00 pm Pacific (or catch the archive later) HERE.
Saturday, March 14, 2009
Friday, March 13, 2009
Slaughterhouse 535
Earmarks, pork, or whatever you wish to call it, is out of control, and has been for a while. Barack Obama, during his hope and change campaigning, recognized America's desire to eliminate pork spending, and made the campaign promise to eliminate earmarks. Now, he has determined that not all pork is bad, if it is considered to be responsible by someone, somewhere. Why did he make this statement? Perhaps it is because of all of the hub-bub about the incredible amount of ridiculous pork stuffed into Obama's precious stimulus package.
The response to my rantings about the pork filled stimulus package by a number of leftists that read Political Pistachio has been the accusation that the biggest porkers in the stimulus package are Republicans.
This brings to mind one of the major differences between Liberals and Conservatives. With Liberals, it is all about the party. After all, if thou proclaims righteousness, you better not mess up and act unrighteous, or else they (the Liberals) will call you on it - and you don't actually have to mess up, because someone in the Republican Party messing up is good enough for the demonizations to begin.
However, Conservatives are not about party. Conservatives are about principles. One of those principles is limiting the size of government. Pork barrel spending is an unconstitutional practice, and should be eliminated completely. I will never say that it is wrong if Democrats do it, and okay if Republicans do it. If some of the pork participants are Republicans, they should be chastised as well. Notice, however, that the Republicans of a more conservative stripe are not participating in bringing home the pork.
Conservatism does not believe that the government is the savior of anything, and actually believes that too much government is often the cause of the problems in the first place. Conservatives recognize that Obama cannot sustain the amount of money he is spending. The burden will remain for generations. You cannot spend your way out of economic difficulties. And the fiat money being printed to cover this is devaluing the dollar rapidly, and dangerously.
Yes, yes, I know that George W. Bush had a spending habit too, and honestly, that is one of the beefs I had with him.
Democrats, however, are the ones that tend to support bigger government, and the use of earmarks. Liberalism is Marxism in sheeps clothing. They manipulate through the power of government. The policies of Barack Obama have nothing to do with the economy, or what's best for America. The Democrats are all about gaining power, and keeping power. Democrats have no standards, but sure are quick to accuse Republicans when one of their own misses their proclaimed standards.
Oh, and one more thing:
The Left will say one thing out of one side of their mouth, and something else out of the other, regardless of standards.
Example?
Obama: From "Greatest Economic Crisis Since The Great Depression" to "It Is Not As Bad As It Seems."
435 Representatives and 100 Senators, or both parties, have filled the stimulus package with pig ears, and Obama has changed his tune about the evil of pork. With it, they are slaughtering the remnants of the Free Market, Liberty, and our economy - and Obama is gleefully leading the charge against America, against taxpayers, against you.
The response to my rantings about the pork filled stimulus package by a number of leftists that read Political Pistachio has been the accusation that the biggest porkers in the stimulus package are Republicans.
This brings to mind one of the major differences between Liberals and Conservatives. With Liberals, it is all about the party. After all, if thou proclaims righteousness, you better not mess up and act unrighteous, or else they (the Liberals) will call you on it - and you don't actually have to mess up, because someone in the Republican Party messing up is good enough for the demonizations to begin.
However, Conservatives are not about party. Conservatives are about principles. One of those principles is limiting the size of government. Pork barrel spending is an unconstitutional practice, and should be eliminated completely. I will never say that it is wrong if Democrats do it, and okay if Republicans do it. If some of the pork participants are Republicans, they should be chastised as well. Notice, however, that the Republicans of a more conservative stripe are not participating in bringing home the pork.
Conservatism does not believe that the government is the savior of anything, and actually believes that too much government is often the cause of the problems in the first place. Conservatives recognize that Obama cannot sustain the amount of money he is spending. The burden will remain for generations. You cannot spend your way out of economic difficulties. And the fiat money being printed to cover this is devaluing the dollar rapidly, and dangerously.
Yes, yes, I know that George W. Bush had a spending habit too, and honestly, that is one of the beefs I had with him.
Democrats, however, are the ones that tend to support bigger government, and the use of earmarks. Liberalism is Marxism in sheeps clothing. They manipulate through the power of government. The policies of Barack Obama have nothing to do with the economy, or what's best for America. The Democrats are all about gaining power, and keeping power. Democrats have no standards, but sure are quick to accuse Republicans when one of their own misses their proclaimed standards.
Oh, and one more thing:
The Left will say one thing out of one side of their mouth, and something else out of the other, regardless of standards.
Example?
Obama: From "Greatest Economic Crisis Since The Great Depression" to "It Is Not As Bad As It Seems."
435 Representatives and 100 Senators, or both parties, have filled the stimulus package with pig ears, and Obama has changed his tune about the evil of pork. With it, they are slaughtering the remnants of the Free Market, Liberty, and our economy - and Obama is gleefully leading the charge against America, against taxpayers, against you.
Obama Signs Pork-Filled Spending Bill In Private, Announces Earmark Reforms
Isn't Obama the guy that said he would eliminate earmarks? Suddenly, some are okay?
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Redistribution Quote
You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is about the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.
The late Dr. Adrian Rogers
The late Dr. Adrian Rogers
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Destructive Nature of Liberalism
I said on my radio show, The Political Pistachio Radio Revolution, recently, that Barack Obama's fiscal policies (specifically: trying to spend his way out of economic difficulties) may bring temporary relief for a moment in the near future, but will in the end create a devastating collapse that may knock America out of the position of being the economic leader in the world.
Bloomberg recently reported that the Dow Jones Industrial Average has fallen 20 percent since Inauguration Day, the fastest drop under a newly elected president in at least 90 years. For some, this may be evidence that investors are showing what they think of Obama's economic plan by removing their money from the markets, well knowing that economic stability is not created by spending and borrowing.
Could you imagine if someone ran their business, or household, that way? "Hey, honey, we're broke, break out the credit cards and the loan applications, and while you are at it, raise the kid's allowances."
Problem is, not only is the Democrat's plan to increase spending, but also to impose a greater tax burden on investors and small businesses in America - in other words, place a greater burden on the entities that are the ones that could, if given the wiggle room, pull us out of this economic downturn.
In the long run, then, it turns out that Obama's economic policies are destroying the free market, and placing us on a path towards the very socialistic economic policies that caused the Soviet Union to eventually collapse, and China to abandon for a more successful capitalistic financial system.
How is that being for the poor?
The liberal left, in its "intent" to be fair is destroying the opportunities that have made this nation great - which not only does not assist the less fortunate, but leaves them unemployed and in the soup line next to the business owners that used to employ them.
Obama's policies are going to devastate more poor than Hurricane Katrina.
Ultimately, liberalism is destructive. It is poised to destroy the last remnants of America's economy, just as it has destroyed morality and liberty. Despite all of their supposed good intentions, it turns out that the Liberals are mean and heartless - because in reality, progressive policies have nothing to do with helping anyone other than the leftist politicians, and their desire to retain their power any way they can.
-- Political Pistachio, Conservative Commentary
Bloomberg recently reported that the Dow Jones Industrial Average has fallen 20 percent since Inauguration Day, the fastest drop under a newly elected president in at least 90 years. For some, this may be evidence that investors are showing what they think of Obama's economic plan by removing their money from the markets, well knowing that economic stability is not created by spending and borrowing.
Could you imagine if someone ran their business, or household, that way? "Hey, honey, we're broke, break out the credit cards and the loan applications, and while you are at it, raise the kid's allowances."
Problem is, not only is the Democrat's plan to increase spending, but also to impose a greater tax burden on investors and small businesses in America - in other words, place a greater burden on the entities that are the ones that could, if given the wiggle room, pull us out of this economic downturn.
In the long run, then, it turns out that Obama's economic policies are destroying the free market, and placing us on a path towards the very socialistic economic policies that caused the Soviet Union to eventually collapse, and China to abandon for a more successful capitalistic financial system.
How is that being for the poor?
The liberal left, in its "intent" to be fair is destroying the opportunities that have made this nation great - which not only does not assist the less fortunate, but leaves them unemployed and in the soup line next to the business owners that used to employ them.
Obama's policies are going to devastate more poor than Hurricane Katrina.
Ultimately, liberalism is destructive. It is poised to destroy the last remnants of America's economy, just as it has destroyed morality and liberty. Despite all of their supposed good intentions, it turns out that the Liberals are mean and heartless - because in reality, progressive policies have nothing to do with helping anyone other than the leftist politicians, and their desire to retain their power any way they can.
-- Political Pistachio, Conservative Commentary
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Obama's Failure
For eight years the Democratic Party proclaimed that George W. Bush was a failure, and that they wanted him to fail because they did not agree with any of his policies. I disagreed with a number of George W. Bush's policies, but I never wanted him to fail. I recognized that in his policies that I agreed with, such as the war against the Islamic Jihad, success was not only preferable, but necessary.
Now the shoe is on the other foot. President Barack Obama does not have a single policy that runs in line with conservative principles, yet expecting failure is somehow not the right thing to do, according to The Left. They proclaim that by indicating one expects Obama to fail, and in turn, wants him to fail because none of his policies are good for the country, it somehow means that one desires America to fail as a nation.
Fear of America failing is the very reason it is hoped that Obama's policies will not succeed.
Conservatives, for some reason, get nervous when liberals point fingers at them and accuse them of being insensitive or unfair. It is as if folks on the right hear the leftists spew such drivel, and then ask themselves, "Am I?"
It is like when your kids come crying to you because one of the neighbor kids called them stupid. The child comes to you crying because for that split moment, because someone said so, they assume it may be possible they are stupid after all. Of course, as a loving parent, you reassure them that not only are they not stupid, but the person calling them stupid is wrong for even daring to say such a thing. When the child grows older, they reason that people who tend to accuse people of such things are usually more guilty of what they are accusing, themselves.
Likewise, whenever the liberal left proclaims that conservatives are being stupid, others on the right come running up to assure the left that such actions by the conservatives are irrational.
Why?
Newt Gingrich, as much as I respect the guy, pulled that one recently, essentially calling Rush Limbaugh irrational for wanting the president to not succeed. Somehow, Newt seems to think that by desiring Obama not to succeed, that means one does not wish the country to succeed.
So, that brings to mind the question, is it right to hope that the Obama Administration fails? Is proclaiming that liberalism is a failure, and will fail every time it is injected into U.S. policy, like hoping that America will fail?
Such thinking is fusing together the hopes for the nation with its occupying force.
Do you think that it was wrong for non-Nazis to wish for Nazism to fail in Germany during the early 20th Century? Should have free people in Russia not desired that communism fail because that was like wanting their country to fail?
What is irrational is giving an ideology known to fail every time it has been used in history the benefit of the doubt. The policies of Barack Obama are failed policies time and time again. History shows that socialism is a failed ideology, no matter how it is applied. Much wiser for their own path to destruction, Russian intellects are now predicting an American collapse should Obama's policies continue on to fruition.
It is not only appropriate for conservatives to voice that Obama's policies are destined to fail, and will bring down America as they do - it is our duty to do so.
-- Political Pistachio, Conservative Commentary
--------------
Russian Scholar Predicts U.S. Collapse
Now the shoe is on the other foot. President Barack Obama does not have a single policy that runs in line with conservative principles, yet expecting failure is somehow not the right thing to do, according to The Left. They proclaim that by indicating one expects Obama to fail, and in turn, wants him to fail because none of his policies are good for the country, it somehow means that one desires America to fail as a nation.
Fear of America failing is the very reason it is hoped that Obama's policies will not succeed.
Conservatives, for some reason, get nervous when liberals point fingers at them and accuse them of being insensitive or unfair. It is as if folks on the right hear the leftists spew such drivel, and then ask themselves, "Am I?"
It is like when your kids come crying to you because one of the neighbor kids called them stupid. The child comes to you crying because for that split moment, because someone said so, they assume it may be possible they are stupid after all. Of course, as a loving parent, you reassure them that not only are they not stupid, but the person calling them stupid is wrong for even daring to say such a thing. When the child grows older, they reason that people who tend to accuse people of such things are usually more guilty of what they are accusing, themselves.
Likewise, whenever the liberal left proclaims that conservatives are being stupid, others on the right come running up to assure the left that such actions by the conservatives are irrational.
Why?
Newt Gingrich, as much as I respect the guy, pulled that one recently, essentially calling Rush Limbaugh irrational for wanting the president to not succeed. Somehow, Newt seems to think that by desiring Obama not to succeed, that means one does not wish the country to succeed.
So, that brings to mind the question, is it right to hope that the Obama Administration fails? Is proclaiming that liberalism is a failure, and will fail every time it is injected into U.S. policy, like hoping that America will fail?
Such thinking is fusing together the hopes for the nation with its occupying force.
Do you think that it was wrong for non-Nazis to wish for Nazism to fail in Germany during the early 20th Century? Should have free people in Russia not desired that communism fail because that was like wanting their country to fail?
What is irrational is giving an ideology known to fail every time it has been used in history the benefit of the doubt. The policies of Barack Obama are failed policies time and time again. History shows that socialism is a failed ideology, no matter how it is applied. Much wiser for their own path to destruction, Russian intellects are now predicting an American collapse should Obama's policies continue on to fruition.
It is not only appropriate for conservatives to voice that Obama's policies are destined to fail, and will bring down America as they do - it is our duty to do so.
-- Political Pistachio, Conservative Commentary
--------------
Russian Scholar Predicts U.S. Collapse
Obama: Stem Cell Research
One of Barack Obama's campaign promises was to reverse Bush's ban on federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research, and he has made good on that promise.
Showing little faith in the private sector, as well as adult stem-cell reasearch, President Obama signed an executive order today ending the ban on federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research.
Some pro-life groups see this as an opening of the floodgates for the destruction of tiny human beings.
Barack Obama stated that is reasoning, in part, was because ". . .scientific decisions should be based on facts, not ideology."
Though many believe this opens up the opportunity for abuse, the president assured his critics this would not be the case, adding that "strict guidelines will be developed to avoid misuse or abuse in the field, such as human cloning."
So far embryonic stem-cell research has not produced a single cure or treatment for disease, and opponents of Obama's Executive Order believe that using tax dollars for obsolete and innefective research that also destroys human embryos is irresponsible and extreme. What the order really does is enable scientists to become very rich selling their embryonic stem-cell lines, while continuing to fail to make any headway.
Adult stem cells, however, are readily available, and do not involve the killing of a tiny human being. Adult stem cell research has already produced success in treatment of more than 70 diseases and conditions.
Showing little faith in the private sector, as well as adult stem-cell reasearch, President Obama signed an executive order today ending the ban on federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research.
Some pro-life groups see this as an opening of the floodgates for the destruction of tiny human beings.
Barack Obama stated that is reasoning, in part, was because ". . .scientific decisions should be based on facts, not ideology."
Though many believe this opens up the opportunity for abuse, the president assured his critics this would not be the case, adding that "strict guidelines will be developed to avoid misuse or abuse in the field, such as human cloning."
So far embryonic stem-cell research has not produced a single cure or treatment for disease, and opponents of Obama's Executive Order believe that using tax dollars for obsolete and innefective research that also destroys human embryos is irresponsible and extreme. What the order really does is enable scientists to become very rich selling their embryonic stem-cell lines, while continuing to fail to make any headway.
Adult stem cells, however, are readily available, and do not involve the killing of a tiny human being. Adult stem cell research has already produced success in treatment of more than 70 diseases and conditions.
Monday, March 09, 2009
Economists Against Obama's Stimulus
The Liberal Left tends to argue a lot using the word "consensus." They did so with Global Warming, even though it was a total lie. And now they use that word when it comes to economists and the Liberal way of doing business economically.
Well, here is a list of economists that think that Obama's plans are dangerous, and detrimental to our financial stability as a nation.
Well, here is a list of economists that think that Obama's plans are dangerous, and detrimental to our financial stability as a nation.
Sunday, March 08, 2009
United Nations Could Dictate American Parental Rights
The U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), which could destroy American sovereignty by imposing international rulings on American Law, could reach the Senate within 60 days.
California Democrat, Senator Barbara Boxer, demands a 60-day timeframe for the State Department to complete its review so the Senate can move toward ratification of the UNCRC treaty.
U.N. Ambassador-designate Susan Rice told Boxer in a Senate Confirmation hearing on January 15 that the UNCRC treaty is designed to "protect the most vulerable people of society."
The United States Constitution warns that we do not enter into treaties lightly because once a treaty is signed, it becomes law. Under the Supremecy Clause (Article VI) of the U.S. Constitution, ratified treaties preempt state law. Since nearly all laws regarding children in the United States are state laws, this treaty would negate nearly 100% of existing American family law, and grant the federal government and international organizations authority to override parental decisions by applying even to good parents a standard now only used against those parents convicted of abuse or neglect.
Rice has expressed her commitment to the treaty's objectives, noting the challenges of domestic implementation.
Possible results of this treaty could be parents prohibited from spanking their children, parents prohibited from homeschooling their children, parents forbidden from deciding their family's religion, a ban of youngsters from facing the death penalty regardless of how heinous the crime is or how close to 18 the child is, the government the ability to override every decision made by every parent if a government worker disagreed with the parent's decision in the name of their version of "what's best for the child," a child's "right to be heard" would allow him (or her) to seek governmental review of every parental decision with which the child disagreed, according to existing interpretation, it would be illegal for a nation to spend more on national defense than it does on children's welfare, children would acquire a legally enforceable right to leisure, teaching children about Christianity in schools has been held to be out of compliance with the CRC so it could place into jeopardy the ability of parents to send their children to private schools that are not secular in nature, allowing parents to opt their children out of sex education would be eliminated, and children would have the right to reproductive health information and services, including abortions, without parental knowledge or consent.
This treaty will transfer responsibilities from the parent to the government, and all parental rights will be forfeited. The government would decide what is in the best interest of a child in every case, and the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child would be considered superior to state laws. Parents could be treated like criminals for making every-day decisions about their children's lives.
Tonight on Political Pistachio Radio my guest is Mike Donnelly, Esq. of the Home School Legal Defense Association. He is coming on the show to discuss this very topic during the first half hour segment of the show. Join us tonight at 7:00 pm Pacific Time for the interview, and afterward for a discussion on the matter. Call in to join that discussion at 646-652-2940. Listen live, or to the archive later, HERE.
California Democrat, Senator Barbara Boxer, demands a 60-day timeframe for the State Department to complete its review so the Senate can move toward ratification of the UNCRC treaty.
U.N. Ambassador-designate Susan Rice told Boxer in a Senate Confirmation hearing on January 15 that the UNCRC treaty is designed to "protect the most vulerable people of society."
The United States Constitution warns that we do not enter into treaties lightly because once a treaty is signed, it becomes law. Under the Supremecy Clause (Article VI) of the U.S. Constitution, ratified treaties preempt state law. Since nearly all laws regarding children in the United States are state laws, this treaty would negate nearly 100% of existing American family law, and grant the federal government and international organizations authority to override parental decisions by applying even to good parents a standard now only used against those parents convicted of abuse or neglect.
Rice has expressed her commitment to the treaty's objectives, noting the challenges of domestic implementation.
Possible results of this treaty could be parents prohibited from spanking their children, parents prohibited from homeschooling their children, parents forbidden from deciding their family's religion, a ban of youngsters from facing the death penalty regardless of how heinous the crime is or how close to 18 the child is, the government the ability to override every decision made by every parent if a government worker disagreed with the parent's decision in the name of their version of "what's best for the child," a child's "right to be heard" would allow him (or her) to seek governmental review of every parental decision with which the child disagreed, according to existing interpretation, it would be illegal for a nation to spend more on national defense than it does on children's welfare, children would acquire a legally enforceable right to leisure, teaching children about Christianity in schools has been held to be out of compliance with the CRC so it could place into jeopardy the ability of parents to send their children to private schools that are not secular in nature, allowing parents to opt their children out of sex education would be eliminated, and children would have the right to reproductive health information and services, including abortions, without parental knowledge or consent.
This treaty will transfer responsibilities from the parent to the government, and all parental rights will be forfeited. The government would decide what is in the best interest of a child in every case, and the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child would be considered superior to state laws. Parents could be treated like criminals for making every-day decisions about their children's lives.
Tonight on Political Pistachio Radio my guest is Mike Donnelly, Esq. of the Home School Legal Defense Association. He is coming on the show to discuss this very topic during the first half hour segment of the show. Join us tonight at 7:00 pm Pacific Time for the interview, and afterward for a discussion on the matter. Call in to join that discussion at 646-652-2940. Listen live, or to the archive later, HERE.
Saturday, March 07, 2009
Rush Limbaugh, Context, And Our Rapidly Deteriorating Economic Environment
Context is important. One can argue that they "quoted you," but if the context is not there, the interpretation of what you said can be in error. Politicians and political speakers say time and time again, "I was taken out of context." Sometimes, they will even proclaim they "misspoke," which doesn't always mean that they think they said the wrong thing, but that they said whatever it was they said in the wrong way.
By definition, context is even often taken out of context. Sometimes, I truly believe this is no accident. After all, if one has an agenda to push, why would they wish that anything their opponents had to say came across with any clarity?
Biblical passages are taken out of context on a regular basis. Those that argue against the Scriptures don't take into consideration that the Bible is filled as much with historical data as it is with doctrinal messages. Some passages are to be taken literally, while others are parables, or stories told to show a point. Song of Solomon, for example, was written at a time when the author was questioning God, and doing so in the least flattering way. Considering the nature and context of that Biblical Book, it is not wise to look upon that text for doctrinal data.
When observations of limited data create an environment of misunderstanding, or the originator of the writings (or verbal communications) is taken out of context, the constructor of such data, of course, has the immediate desire to try to correct his or her critics by attempting to apply the proper context to whatever passages are in question. More often than not, then, the opposition will proclaim that the person in question is simply "back pedaling," or changing their position, when all they are doing is trying to clarify their point in something they thought was pretty clear-cut in the first place.
Recent discussions regarding Rush Limbaugh, for example, and how the Liberal Left has turned its sights on him and has begun to fire with both barrels, led me to proclaim that Rush Limbaugh is not "The Leader of the Republican Party," or even the leader of the Conservative Movement. The closest thing we have ever been to having a leader was Ronald Reagan, and in his humility, he would have never accepted that as being his role. The nature of Conservatives, in my opinion, is not to follow a single leader, but to be inspired by leading voices. Rush Limbaugh, as much as I respect him and his political savvy, is not the leader of any party or movement, but he is definitely a huge leading voice for Conservatives.
Leaders of the kind the Liberal Left keep referring to are more in line with dictators, than of leading voices of a political movement.
Knowing that Rush Limbaugh is a highly respected voice among Conservatives, and because the Leftists are frightened of the power he wields when it comes to energizing the GOP's Conservative Base, the Democrats have placed Rush Limbaugh in their cross hairs. They fear him, and for good reason.
What amazes me is that while in normal conversation throughout the day how many times I hear Rush Limbaugh taken completely out of context. I understand that the people who tell me what they think Limbaugh said did not hear it from the horse's mouth, but instead are simply replaying for me what they heard from MSNBC, or NPR, or whatever non-journalistic, liberal agenda driven member of the mainstream media they listen to. One individual was telling me about how angry he was that Obama was going around saying that this is Obama's Recession. Well, in a sense, it is Obama's Recession, now that he is President of the United States, but not in the way that this individual interpreted that remark.
During one of my business stops during the day at one of the facilities in the California Prison System, while in the office of two individuals that are employed by the California Prison system, I heard a small radio spewing commercials in the corner of the office. Simply being the conversational person that I am, I asked, "Talk Radio, or music?"
The taller individual in the office says to me, pointing at his shorter, Hispanic counterpart, "He has to listen to his Rush Limbaugh."
"You don't like Rush?" I asked.
"No," said the guard, "He's just another blowhard."
At this point in the conversation I think about the few criticisms I have had of Rush Limbaugh in the past. His arrogance has always turned me off. Yes, I know that his "Smarter Than Thou" attitude is simply a part of his "shtick" on the radio. He is an entertainer, and statements like "half my brain tied behind my back just to make it fair" is simply a part of the show, and his persona. But, I have never been a big fan of that attitude.
However, I have only disagreed with Rush Limbaugh twice in my couple of decades of catching his shows when I can, and one of those times it turned out I was wrong in the first place.
Rush voiced support for NAFTA when it was first uttered into existence, and I have always been in staunch opposition of it. My position is not because I don't believe we should be freely trading with other global partners, but that the agreement gave too much leeway to the other countries, and not enough free to our own businesses to do business right here in the good ol' USA. This, I felt, opened up the opportunity for abuse, and a loss of American Businesses stateside because it would become more practical for them to move their operations out of the country.
I am, after all, a believer that treaties should never be entered into lightly, for once we agree to a treaty, that treaty becomes law under the U.S. Constitution.
The other disagreement with Rush was over a proposition in California on the funding of our school system, and I didn't recognize the dangers written into the provisions of the proposition that Rush recognized. My opinion may have been tainted by the fact that at the time I was the Parliamentarian of the local PTA.
My response to the tall prison guard in our conversation over Rush Limbaugh is that sometimes Rush can come across as a blowhard, but he is almost always right. I have only disagreed with Rush a couple of times that I know of. I suppose it would be safe to say that I believe Rush is right somewhere between 98 and 99 percent of the time.
"Well," he says, "since you think he is always right. . . "
"That is not what I said," I insert.
"Yes it is. You just said Rush is always right."
"No," I replied, "I said I have disagreed with him a couple of times, so obviously I don't think he is always right. However, he usually is, and I respect what he has to say."
I was beginning to realize I was in a conversation with someone who wasn't listening to what I was saying, he was simply hearing me speak.
The prison guard asked me, "Do you agree with Rush Limbaugh that the drop in stocks, and the economic recession is all Obama's fault?"
I usually recognize when someone is taken out of context, and this was definitely one of those instances. I replied, "Rush never said that."
"Yes he did, he's saying it right now. He says that Obama's policies are driving this nation into the ground. So, do you agree with him?"
Hoping to educate this individual, to explain to him how our economic difficulties were caused by a number of factors, and Obama's policies are simply deepening the situation, I said to my opponent, "You have to realize there are many variables that caused this."
He snaps back, "You are not answering the question. We are a couple of intelligent individuals here, or at least you seem to be fairly intelligent, so answer the question. Do you agree with Rush Limbaugh that this is all Obama's fault?"
"But that is not what Rush is saying. . ."
Before I could go into the importance of keeping Rush in context, the guard says to me, "See, you won't answer the question. Well, okay, one of us is intelligent here."
That kind of assault on one's intelligence is a common tactic by The Left. I ignored it, and continued on about the many variables that have caused the current economic downturn, including Carter, Clinton, the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, and so forth. I then asked him, "Does it seem strange to you that after being attacked on 9/11, rather than plummeting into recessionary times, our economy, under Bush's policies at the time, rebounded, and we went into a period of great economic growth? In fact, the problems in our economy, if you'll notice, didn't become prevalent until the Democrats gained control of Congress in 2006. If they would have left the Free Market alone. . . "
At the very mention of The Free Market, my opponent in this discussion practically jumped to his feet. His face reddened a little, as if the very mention of the Free Market and Capitalism disgusted him. He said, "The Free Market caused all of this."
"No," I replied. "The governmental manipulation of The Free Market caused this. The Free Market is self-adjusting. Capitalism is a sound system. It is because of a Free Market Economy that during the first 200 years this nation's existence it became prosperous, and the wealthiest nation on the Earth."
He went into a ramble about the problems of capitalism, and the reasons the free market caused this "recession," and I stopped him and said, "You know, I have heard this argument many times. Your talking points are nothing new. In fact, your position has been argued for many decades. You sound exactly like the opponents of Capitalism in the 1950's, 60's and 70's from the Soviet Union."
He must have realized the truth in what I had just said, because he fell suddenly silent.
I continued on to try to explain how Obama's policies, though not the sole source of economic difficulties in this nation, are definitely a driving force in weakening an already rapidly deteriorating economic environment.
I explained it to somebody else later using Baseball as an example. When the relief pitcher comes into the game, and the effort is close to becoming a lost game, it is up to the relief pitcher to turn the game around, or save it if the lead is small. If he gives up a bunch of hits, walks a few batters, and a couple runs cross the plate, the argument is that the efforts of the relief pitcher lost the game for the team. His actions worsened an already bad situation. But by saying that, the people are not necessarily saying that the relief pitcher is totally at fault. The guy that got caught stealing in the third inning, the error made in the fourth, and the home run ball that didn't get over the fence and was caught instead in the sixth, are all contributing factors to the loss.
Rush recognizes that Obama's policies are disastrous for this nation, and that implementing these policies will in fact continue to drive our economy into the ground. For this reason, he is indicating that Obama is hurting our economy, and he hopes (or should I say "knows") that Obama's policies will fail.
Of course, that brought on another instance of Rush Limbaugh being taken out of context. Rush proclaiming he wants Obama to fail is being taken way out of context by the Liberal Left. Barney Frank even went so far to say that Rush said he wants Obama to fail because the GOP wants to be able to take credit for recovery when economic recovery should come.
Limbaugh does not want Obama to fail for some vindictive reason, nor is he saying he wishes America's economy to fail just because some Democrat is at the helm.
As a football fan, if I knew my team had a chance at a winning season someday in the future, but the plays the Head Coach was calling were a large part of the reason for the current difficulties my team was having, wouldn't I want him to continue to fail? Why would I want a head coach that obviously doesn't know how to take his team to the championship to get lucky and succeed, so that his poor coaching skills remained a part of my team? I would want him to fail so that eventually the team ownership would recognize the guy is an idiot, and bring in a coach with policies that could turn the team around, and return it to its winning ways.
Obama's policies are detrimental to this nation's future, and Rush desires Obama to fail so that the owners of this nation, specifically the American People, will recognize that those policies are doomed to fail, and vote in someone with Conservative policies that have been historically proven to succeed.
Interestingly, those upset over anything said against Obama are the same people that demonized George W. Bush for eight years.
And as a final thought, I wonder how many Liberals will still succeed in taking me out of context after reading this piece? Rush, I feel your pain.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative Commentary
By definition, context is even often taken out of context. Sometimes, I truly believe this is no accident. After all, if one has an agenda to push, why would they wish that anything their opponents had to say came across with any clarity?
Biblical passages are taken out of context on a regular basis. Those that argue against the Scriptures don't take into consideration that the Bible is filled as much with historical data as it is with doctrinal messages. Some passages are to be taken literally, while others are parables, or stories told to show a point. Song of Solomon, for example, was written at a time when the author was questioning God, and doing so in the least flattering way. Considering the nature and context of that Biblical Book, it is not wise to look upon that text for doctrinal data.
When observations of limited data create an environment of misunderstanding, or the originator of the writings (or verbal communications) is taken out of context, the constructor of such data, of course, has the immediate desire to try to correct his or her critics by attempting to apply the proper context to whatever passages are in question. More often than not, then, the opposition will proclaim that the person in question is simply "back pedaling," or changing their position, when all they are doing is trying to clarify their point in something they thought was pretty clear-cut in the first place.
Recent discussions regarding Rush Limbaugh, for example, and how the Liberal Left has turned its sights on him and has begun to fire with both barrels, led me to proclaim that Rush Limbaugh is not "The Leader of the Republican Party," or even the leader of the Conservative Movement. The closest thing we have ever been to having a leader was Ronald Reagan, and in his humility, he would have never accepted that as being his role. The nature of Conservatives, in my opinion, is not to follow a single leader, but to be inspired by leading voices. Rush Limbaugh, as much as I respect him and his political savvy, is not the leader of any party or movement, but he is definitely a huge leading voice for Conservatives.
Leaders of the kind the Liberal Left keep referring to are more in line with dictators, than of leading voices of a political movement.
Knowing that Rush Limbaugh is a highly respected voice among Conservatives, and because the Leftists are frightened of the power he wields when it comes to energizing the GOP's Conservative Base, the Democrats have placed Rush Limbaugh in their cross hairs. They fear him, and for good reason.
What amazes me is that while in normal conversation throughout the day how many times I hear Rush Limbaugh taken completely out of context. I understand that the people who tell me what they think Limbaugh said did not hear it from the horse's mouth, but instead are simply replaying for me what they heard from MSNBC, or NPR, or whatever non-journalistic, liberal agenda driven member of the mainstream media they listen to. One individual was telling me about how angry he was that Obama was going around saying that this is Obama's Recession. Well, in a sense, it is Obama's Recession, now that he is President of the United States, but not in the way that this individual interpreted that remark.
During one of my business stops during the day at one of the facilities in the California Prison System, while in the office of two individuals that are employed by the California Prison system, I heard a small radio spewing commercials in the corner of the office. Simply being the conversational person that I am, I asked, "Talk Radio, or music?"
The taller individual in the office says to me, pointing at his shorter, Hispanic counterpart, "He has to listen to his Rush Limbaugh."
"You don't like Rush?" I asked.
"No," said the guard, "He's just another blowhard."
At this point in the conversation I think about the few criticisms I have had of Rush Limbaugh in the past. His arrogance has always turned me off. Yes, I know that his "Smarter Than Thou" attitude is simply a part of his "shtick" on the radio. He is an entertainer, and statements like "half my brain tied behind my back just to make it fair" is simply a part of the show, and his persona. But, I have never been a big fan of that attitude.
However, I have only disagreed with Rush Limbaugh twice in my couple of decades of catching his shows when I can, and one of those times it turned out I was wrong in the first place.
Rush voiced support for NAFTA when it was first uttered into existence, and I have always been in staunch opposition of it. My position is not because I don't believe we should be freely trading with other global partners, but that the agreement gave too much leeway to the other countries, and not enough free to our own businesses to do business right here in the good ol' USA. This, I felt, opened up the opportunity for abuse, and a loss of American Businesses stateside because it would become more practical for them to move their operations out of the country.
I am, after all, a believer that treaties should never be entered into lightly, for once we agree to a treaty, that treaty becomes law under the U.S. Constitution.
The other disagreement with Rush was over a proposition in California on the funding of our school system, and I didn't recognize the dangers written into the provisions of the proposition that Rush recognized. My opinion may have been tainted by the fact that at the time I was the Parliamentarian of the local PTA.
My response to the tall prison guard in our conversation over Rush Limbaugh is that sometimes Rush can come across as a blowhard, but he is almost always right. I have only disagreed with Rush a couple of times that I know of. I suppose it would be safe to say that I believe Rush is right somewhere between 98 and 99 percent of the time.
"Well," he says, "since you think he is always right. . . "
"That is not what I said," I insert.
"Yes it is. You just said Rush is always right."
"No," I replied, "I said I have disagreed with him a couple of times, so obviously I don't think he is always right. However, he usually is, and I respect what he has to say."
I was beginning to realize I was in a conversation with someone who wasn't listening to what I was saying, he was simply hearing me speak.
The prison guard asked me, "Do you agree with Rush Limbaugh that the drop in stocks, and the economic recession is all Obama's fault?"
I usually recognize when someone is taken out of context, and this was definitely one of those instances. I replied, "Rush never said that."
"Yes he did, he's saying it right now. He says that Obama's policies are driving this nation into the ground. So, do you agree with him?"
Hoping to educate this individual, to explain to him how our economic difficulties were caused by a number of factors, and Obama's policies are simply deepening the situation, I said to my opponent, "You have to realize there are many variables that caused this."
He snaps back, "You are not answering the question. We are a couple of intelligent individuals here, or at least you seem to be fairly intelligent, so answer the question. Do you agree with Rush Limbaugh that this is all Obama's fault?"
"But that is not what Rush is saying. . ."
Before I could go into the importance of keeping Rush in context, the guard says to me, "See, you won't answer the question. Well, okay, one of us is intelligent here."
That kind of assault on one's intelligence is a common tactic by The Left. I ignored it, and continued on about the many variables that have caused the current economic downturn, including Carter, Clinton, the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, and so forth. I then asked him, "Does it seem strange to you that after being attacked on 9/11, rather than plummeting into recessionary times, our economy, under Bush's policies at the time, rebounded, and we went into a period of great economic growth? In fact, the problems in our economy, if you'll notice, didn't become prevalent until the Democrats gained control of Congress in 2006. If they would have left the Free Market alone. . . "
At the very mention of The Free Market, my opponent in this discussion practically jumped to his feet. His face reddened a little, as if the very mention of the Free Market and Capitalism disgusted him. He said, "The Free Market caused all of this."
"No," I replied. "The governmental manipulation of The Free Market caused this. The Free Market is self-adjusting. Capitalism is a sound system. It is because of a Free Market Economy that during the first 200 years this nation's existence it became prosperous, and the wealthiest nation on the Earth."
He went into a ramble about the problems of capitalism, and the reasons the free market caused this "recession," and I stopped him and said, "You know, I have heard this argument many times. Your talking points are nothing new. In fact, your position has been argued for many decades. You sound exactly like the opponents of Capitalism in the 1950's, 60's and 70's from the Soviet Union."
He must have realized the truth in what I had just said, because he fell suddenly silent.
I continued on to try to explain how Obama's policies, though not the sole source of economic difficulties in this nation, are definitely a driving force in weakening an already rapidly deteriorating economic environment.
I explained it to somebody else later using Baseball as an example. When the relief pitcher comes into the game, and the effort is close to becoming a lost game, it is up to the relief pitcher to turn the game around, or save it if the lead is small. If he gives up a bunch of hits, walks a few batters, and a couple runs cross the plate, the argument is that the efforts of the relief pitcher lost the game for the team. His actions worsened an already bad situation. But by saying that, the people are not necessarily saying that the relief pitcher is totally at fault. The guy that got caught stealing in the third inning, the error made in the fourth, and the home run ball that didn't get over the fence and was caught instead in the sixth, are all contributing factors to the loss.
Rush recognizes that Obama's policies are disastrous for this nation, and that implementing these policies will in fact continue to drive our economy into the ground. For this reason, he is indicating that Obama is hurting our economy, and he hopes (or should I say "knows") that Obama's policies will fail.
Of course, that brought on another instance of Rush Limbaugh being taken out of context. Rush proclaiming he wants Obama to fail is being taken way out of context by the Liberal Left. Barney Frank even went so far to say that Rush said he wants Obama to fail because the GOP wants to be able to take credit for recovery when economic recovery should come.
Limbaugh does not want Obama to fail for some vindictive reason, nor is he saying he wishes America's economy to fail just because some Democrat is at the helm.
As a football fan, if I knew my team had a chance at a winning season someday in the future, but the plays the Head Coach was calling were a large part of the reason for the current difficulties my team was having, wouldn't I want him to continue to fail? Why would I want a head coach that obviously doesn't know how to take his team to the championship to get lucky and succeed, so that his poor coaching skills remained a part of my team? I would want him to fail so that eventually the team ownership would recognize the guy is an idiot, and bring in a coach with policies that could turn the team around, and return it to its winning ways.
Obama's policies are detrimental to this nation's future, and Rush desires Obama to fail so that the owners of this nation, specifically the American People, will recognize that those policies are doomed to fail, and vote in someone with Conservative policies that have been historically proven to succeed.
Interestingly, those upset over anything said against Obama are the same people that demonized George W. Bush for eight years.
And as a final thought, I wonder how many Liberals will still succeed in taking me out of context after reading this piece? Rush, I feel your pain.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative Commentary
Friday, March 06, 2009
California Gays ask California Supreme Court to Overturn Proposition 8
Proposition 8 was passed by the voters last November in California. The Proposition amended the California State Constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman. This is the second time the voters have voted for banning gay marriage. Last year's voter-approved law banning gay marriage was overturned by the same court listening to arguments regarding Proposition 8 today.
The court heard three hours of arguments from groups representing both sides of the gay marriage issue, and have up to 90 days to issue an opinion.
Should the courts overturn Proposition 8, it will be a devastating decision not just because of the marriage issue, but because it would set a precedence dictating that the least-democratic branch of government be able to override the precious right of the people to determine how they are governed.
This Saturday (5 pm Pacific), on the internet radio show "Founding Truth," Loki and I are going to tackle this issue, and discuss the Constitutionality of Proposition 8, and the Constitutionality of the argument being presented by those that support Gay Marriage.
Thursday, March 05, 2009
Newt Gingrich CPAC
Rush Limbaugh is not the leader of the Republican Party, but he is a leading voice of Conservatism, and the leading voice on talk radio. Another leading voice of Conservatives is Newt Gingrich. During the Conservative Political Action Conference his speech was critical of Obama's tax policies. By the end of the speech he was asking regarding the liberal Democrats, "How Dumb Do They Think We Are?"
Key Democrats Oppose Obama
President Barack Obama would like to limit itemized tax deductions for high income earners. However, some key Democrats in Congress don't like it, worried that charities and the housing market may be hurt by such a move.
Is the Honeymoon over?
I thought Obamassiah could do nothing wrong!
What will the voters think?
2010 is looking better and better for the Republicans every day. Let's just hope the GOP remembers its Conservative principles and standards.
Is the Honeymoon over?
I thought Obamassiah could do nothing wrong!
What will the voters think?
2010 is looking better and better for the Republicans every day. Let's just hope the GOP remembers its Conservative principles and standards.
Wednesday, March 04, 2009
Rush Limbaugh GOP Leader?
George W. Bush is gone, and the Liberal Left no longer has someone to point their derangement syndrome of hate at. The Republican Party, for the most part has no leader, they say, and they are in a desperate need to find one. That way, the Democrats can make that person their new target.
A "Progressive Agenda" organization, Americans United For Change, along with a large portion of the Liberal Left, have decided that after Rush Limbaugh's electric speech at CPAC, he must be the new target - which, in their eyes, makes him the Leader of the Republican Party. Their ad linked in the previous sentence makes their proclamation that Rush is the new target, loud and clear. Even the Democratic Party is jumping on the band wagon of attacking Rush Limbaugh with their I'm Sorry Rush letter.
I suppose the Democrats think they need to punish Rush Limbaugh for being such a solid voice for conservatism. After all, that is what the liberal left is all about, isn't it?
Obama has said that he desires to punish companies who leave America, rather than give them incentive to come back. Obama is out to punish the rich for being successful by hitting them with higher taxes, rather than give them incentive to grow their businesses and spend their money on goods and services. Obama wants to punish any CEO that receives a golden parachute while saving failed companies with government money, and then punishing the CEOs that remain with a limit in wages. How about he just let the market take care of itself?
Oh, that's right, Capitalism is the enemy. Does that make us Capitalist Pigs in the eyes of The Left? Perhaps the Democrats should change the name of their party to the Soviet Party.
When it comes to Rush Limbaugh, however, it is funny that the leftists have turned on him like they did Bush. It is a typical lefty tactic. They strike out at a figure, demonize him or her, and then the moderate and liberal Republicans turn away from that figure fearful of upsetting the screaming and yelling liberals. Conservatives, however, stick to their guns, and don't let the Dem's tactics dictate to them what to do. And of course, then the Dems proclaim the party is divided, and in shambles.
They did it to "W," Sarah Palin, Joe the Plumber, Tom Delay, Newt Gingrich, and the list goes on and on. In reality, George W. Bush kept this country safe, and though I did not agree with a lot of what he did in office, I do not believe he was the oaf the liberals made him out to be. Sarah Palin was demonized as being stupid, a book burner, and religious zealot, etc. Of course, every last item was a lie - but when it comes to the Democratic Attack Machine, the truth doesn't matter. If an accusation is made, that is as good as a conviction as far as they are concerned. Just ask Joe the Plumber and Tom Delay on that one.
But there is a couple of problems with their latest anti-Rush tactics. I know they think they have struck gold by pinning Rush Limbaugh down as the GOP leader - but first of all, they have definitely bitten off more than they can chew on this one. Rush Limbaugh is hardly a lightweight, and he is used to this type of treatment anyway, and always comes out on top. Secondly, trying to make Limbaugh the leader of the GOP proves how little they know about conservatism.
Sure, out of fun, and since he's an entertainer, Rush is going to play along - proclaiming himself the leader just as the Democrat Party and Liberal Left (one and the same?) hopes. And Rush is indeed the leader of the talk radio circuit. That is clear. For decades he has been a major voice for conservatism, and he is the father of modern talk radio, and one of the reasons AM radio remains on the dial. However, Rush Limbaugh is hardly the leader of the GOP.
In fact, I can never recall there ever being a leader of the Republican Party.
Conservatives don't think that way. We don't proclaim someone leader and then blindly follow every little thing that so-called leader does. That is a liberal trait. George W. Bush is a fine example. He proclaimed he was a compassionate conservative, but his conservatism was hardly the Reagan conservatism that most Republicans appreciate. Most Conservatives, when they saw the word "compassionate" in front of the word "Conservative," recognized it for what it was - a proclamation that Bush believed is throwing taxpayer money at problems, on some occassions. Disgruntled Conservatives spoke out against Bush's amnesty plans, medicare supplement programs, the idiotic "No Child Left Behind Act," and almost every Republican (especially conservative Republicans) were aghast when Bush's stimulus plans were unveiled. The Democrat's said Bush was the leader of the party, but unlike the Democrats, and the way they swoon over everything Obama says and does, conservatives have minds of their own and expect their principles and the basics of the policies put forth to have something in common with conservative ideals.
The Liberal Left, of course, ignored all this. After all, demonizing Bush wouldn't be very successful unless they made sure that anyone that agreed with anything that Bush did were seen as "Bush-bots," therefore further encouraged to distance themselves even farther from "W."
Now, they are trying to do the same thing with Rush. In fact, according to Politico dot com, this began last October. What kind of people schemes to bring someone down, hoping that it will destroy a party as well?
Well, whatever the Left does, it is always underhanded and unethical, and eventually, the American People will recognize the deja vue (Remember Carter's years?). Many Obama voter are beginning to recognize the nightmare already. Many leftists in the media, for example, are already beginning to recognize that Obama's economic plans are destined to fail, and drop this nation deeper into recessionary times.
But you see, Obama's economic package has nothing to do with the economy. It is all about gaining more governmental control while the Democrats are at the helm, and punishing anyone that Obama believes deserves it. And at the rate he's going, eventually all of us will feel Obama's wrath. That is what Obama is all about. He uses government to punish, rather than encourage and reward.
--Political Pistachio, Conservative Commentary
A "Progressive Agenda" organization, Americans United For Change, along with a large portion of the Liberal Left, have decided that after Rush Limbaugh's electric speech at CPAC, he must be the new target - which, in their eyes, makes him the Leader of the Republican Party. Their ad linked in the previous sentence makes their proclamation that Rush is the new target, loud and clear. Even the Democratic Party is jumping on the band wagon of attacking Rush Limbaugh with their I'm Sorry Rush letter.
I suppose the Democrats think they need to punish Rush Limbaugh for being such a solid voice for conservatism. After all, that is what the liberal left is all about, isn't it?
Obama has said that he desires to punish companies who leave America, rather than give them incentive to come back. Obama is out to punish the rich for being successful by hitting them with higher taxes, rather than give them incentive to grow their businesses and spend their money on goods and services. Obama wants to punish any CEO that receives a golden parachute while saving failed companies with government money, and then punishing the CEOs that remain with a limit in wages. How about he just let the market take care of itself?
Oh, that's right, Capitalism is the enemy. Does that make us Capitalist Pigs in the eyes of The Left? Perhaps the Democrats should change the name of their party to the Soviet Party.
When it comes to Rush Limbaugh, however, it is funny that the leftists have turned on him like they did Bush. It is a typical lefty tactic. They strike out at a figure, demonize him or her, and then the moderate and liberal Republicans turn away from that figure fearful of upsetting the screaming and yelling liberals. Conservatives, however, stick to their guns, and don't let the Dem's tactics dictate to them what to do. And of course, then the Dems proclaim the party is divided, and in shambles.
They did it to "W," Sarah Palin, Joe the Plumber, Tom Delay, Newt Gingrich, and the list goes on and on. In reality, George W. Bush kept this country safe, and though I did not agree with a lot of what he did in office, I do not believe he was the oaf the liberals made him out to be. Sarah Palin was demonized as being stupid, a book burner, and religious zealot, etc. Of course, every last item was a lie - but when it comes to the Democratic Attack Machine, the truth doesn't matter. If an accusation is made, that is as good as a conviction as far as they are concerned. Just ask Joe the Plumber and Tom Delay on that one.
But there is a couple of problems with their latest anti-Rush tactics. I know they think they have struck gold by pinning Rush Limbaugh down as the GOP leader - but first of all, they have definitely bitten off more than they can chew on this one. Rush Limbaugh is hardly a lightweight, and he is used to this type of treatment anyway, and always comes out on top. Secondly, trying to make Limbaugh the leader of the GOP proves how little they know about conservatism.
Sure, out of fun, and since he's an entertainer, Rush is going to play along - proclaiming himself the leader just as the Democrat Party and Liberal Left (one and the same?) hopes. And Rush is indeed the leader of the talk radio circuit. That is clear. For decades he has been a major voice for conservatism, and he is the father of modern talk radio, and one of the reasons AM radio remains on the dial. However, Rush Limbaugh is hardly the leader of the GOP.
In fact, I can never recall there ever being a leader of the Republican Party.
Conservatives don't think that way. We don't proclaim someone leader and then blindly follow every little thing that so-called leader does. That is a liberal trait. George W. Bush is a fine example. He proclaimed he was a compassionate conservative, but his conservatism was hardly the Reagan conservatism that most Republicans appreciate. Most Conservatives, when they saw the word "compassionate" in front of the word "Conservative," recognized it for what it was - a proclamation that Bush believed is throwing taxpayer money at problems, on some occassions. Disgruntled Conservatives spoke out against Bush's amnesty plans, medicare supplement programs, the idiotic "No Child Left Behind Act," and almost every Republican (especially conservative Republicans) were aghast when Bush's stimulus plans were unveiled. The Democrat's said Bush was the leader of the party, but unlike the Democrats, and the way they swoon over everything Obama says and does, conservatives have minds of their own and expect their principles and the basics of the policies put forth to have something in common with conservative ideals.
The Liberal Left, of course, ignored all this. After all, demonizing Bush wouldn't be very successful unless they made sure that anyone that agreed with anything that Bush did were seen as "Bush-bots," therefore further encouraged to distance themselves even farther from "W."
Now, they are trying to do the same thing with Rush. In fact, according to Politico dot com, this began last October. What kind of people schemes to bring someone down, hoping that it will destroy a party as well?
Well, whatever the Left does, it is always underhanded and unethical, and eventually, the American People will recognize the deja vue (Remember Carter's years?). Many Obama voter are beginning to recognize the nightmare already. Many leftists in the media, for example, are already beginning to recognize that Obama's economic plans are destined to fail, and drop this nation deeper into recessionary times.
But you see, Obama's economic package has nothing to do with the economy. It is all about gaining more governmental control while the Democrats are at the helm, and punishing anyone that Obama believes deserves it. And at the rate he's going, eventually all of us will feel Obama's wrath. That is what Obama is all about. He uses government to punish, rather than encourage and reward.
--Political Pistachio, Conservative Commentary
Obama Socialism Encourages Conservatism
Newt Gingrich and Tom Delay are confident that the socialism movement spearheaded by President Barack Obama will bring success to Conservatism, and lead the Republican Party back towards its conservative roots. The huge expansion of government and massive spending will not take long to further weaken the economy, and open the eyes of the American People. Many Conservative Republicans are becoming excited over the prospect of the 2010 Congressional races.
Last weekend's Conservative Political Action Conference served as evidence of how conservatism's reenergization is currently in progress, and how the retaking of Congress by a GOP backed by conservatism will take place.
The final speech of CPAC was by the longtime voice of conservatism, Rush Limbaugh. In Limbaugh's first address to the nation, he rallied conservatives, and encouraged those under direct assault by the Obama Socialist Revolution. Limbaugh revealed that Obama's leftist liberal plans are ". . . not new. . . not change. . . not hope."
Limbaugh explained in great detail why he knows that Obama's leftist plans will fail, and spent even more time detailing what conservatism is all about.
Slowly, but surely, Americans are waking up to the infuriating tactics of the progressive movement, and are rejecting the radical Leninistic socialism being applied. In addition to individuals taking action, such as by participating in the nationwide "Tea Parties," the calls for an Article V Convention and State Sovereignty are gaining strength.
So I guess I should say "Thank you" to Obama. After all, he is such a radical, it is scaring the American Public towards the sanity of Conservatism.
-- Political Pistachio, Conservative Commentary
Last weekend's Conservative Political Action Conference served as evidence of how conservatism's reenergization is currently in progress, and how the retaking of Congress by a GOP backed by conservatism will take place.
The final speech of CPAC was by the longtime voice of conservatism, Rush Limbaugh. In Limbaugh's first address to the nation, he rallied conservatives, and encouraged those under direct assault by the Obama Socialist Revolution. Limbaugh revealed that Obama's leftist liberal plans are ". . . not new. . . not change. . . not hope."
Limbaugh explained in great detail why he knows that Obama's leftist plans will fail, and spent even more time detailing what conservatism is all about.
Slowly, but surely, Americans are waking up to the infuriating tactics of the progressive movement, and are rejecting the radical Leninistic socialism being applied. In addition to individuals taking action, such as by participating in the nationwide "Tea Parties," the calls for an Article V Convention and State Sovereignty are gaining strength.
So I guess I should say "Thank you" to Obama. After all, he is such a radical, it is scaring the American Public towards the sanity of Conservatism.
-- Political Pistachio, Conservative Commentary
Tuesday, March 03, 2009
The Pledge? and CPAC
Alphonzo Rachel is one of my favorite, if not the one at the very top of the list, You Tube'r. I subscribe to the Macho Sauce Productions videos, and every time I watch them I find myself nodding my head in agreement, as well as inspired by his style of presentation. And yes, Alphonzo has been on my Political Pistachio Radio Show as a guest.
It is from Alphonzo's videos that I learned about Reasons To Believe, a Science-Faith Think Tank that constantly provides me with scientific and archeological evidence that confirms the fact that the Holy Bible is true. It was because of Alphonzo's videos that I learned about Victoria Jackson, the talented comedien from Saturday Night Live who after announcing her conservative political views was essentially run out of Hollywood, and whose agent began to receive threatening communications as a result.
Well, now that I have talked about him so much, how about a couple videos from Alphonzo. The Pledge, and CPACKIN'
It is from Alphonzo's videos that I learned about Reasons To Believe, a Science-Faith Think Tank that constantly provides me with scientific and archeological evidence that confirms the fact that the Holy Bible is true. It was because of Alphonzo's videos that I learned about Victoria Jackson, the talented comedien from Saturday Night Live who after announcing her conservative political views was essentially run out of Hollywood, and whose agent began to receive threatening communications as a result.
Well, now that I have talked about him so much, how about a couple videos from Alphonzo. The Pledge, and CPACKIN'
Monday, March 02, 2009
Real Men Wear Gowns
A commercial on the radio from the Ad Counsel regarding men going in to see the doctor for necessary exams includes the slogan "Real Men Wear Gowns."
I thought to myself, "Is there a question to what a real man is? Are there hordes of men out there not sure what a real man is? Now that the Ad Counsel has proclaimed that real men wear gowns, thus clarifying this for men questioning their manhood, are these men going to rush out to the medical offices so that they can finally feel like real men?"
Offering the suggestion that real men wear gowns, obviously, is a play on words. Of course men don't need such an ad to affirm they are men. However, using such a suggestion as a selling tool says heaps about the symptoms our society is currently enduring when it comes to gender identity.
As a result of a push for gender neutrality by the secular liberals, and those who desire a justification for their questionable activities, a question has seriously arisen in our society regarding what it takes to be a real man.
Women often say they desire a man with sensitivities, one that isn't some "Me Tarzan, You Jane, Neanderthal." However, the modern woman complains there are no real men left out there with masculinity bursting from their veins.
Which is it? Which do you want? And why are women constantly trying to turn men into something more like them?
I am not bashing on women, but the feminization of the masculine gender, I believe, plays a serious role in the societal symptoms that led the Ad Counsel to essentially offer a definition of what a real man is.
Why would the question even arise in the first place? What is the root of any doubts that may arise regarding the definition of a real man?
Growing up I had no question of what a real man is, or whether or not I would navigate the waters to the wonderful world of manhood. I learned early on that being a real man wasn't some false image, or walking around acting macho while wearing the most stylish clothing.
Being a man, I realized, is very simple. I live up to my responsibilities. I perform my role as a husband, a father, and as an "individual" with the utmost care and careful attention to doing what is right. I do not ignore my spiritual side, and carefully fulfill my role as the spiritual leader of my household. I am involved in the environment around me. I am knowledgeable about the things that I believe matter to me and my family, like politics, faith, and news. I do the things that are necessary to survive in a world where it seems like obstacles crop up from all directions.
In this world of wavering morality, feminism, the feminization of men (you gotta be sensitive, boys!), and societal messages of gender neutrality, I suppose it would make sense that the question of real manhood would pop up. What is a real man? and am I a real man? are becoming serious questions being asked by many members of the male gender in our current society.
According to the commercial by the Ad Counsel, Real Men Wear Gowns. In other words, real men are willing to step down from being macho for just a second, and do what he's gotta do.
I agree, actually. It takes a real man to sometimes humble himself, or do things that he would not normally do, to make sure necessities in life are met. After all, what makes a man a man is not necessarily how macho he is. What makes a man a man is his reaction to the events exploding around him. His response to the situations that arise in his life is a telling part of who he is as a man.
As I have told my son, a man is also judged by his actions, not just his words.
Does the man meet the challenges of life head on? Does he resolve his conflicts as they need to be resolved? Does he make big things out of little things and little things out of big things - Or does he choose his battles wisely? Is he willing to stand up and protect himself, yet lend a hand to those who cannot?
In the end there is even a larger answer to the question of how to be a real man.
A real man is a spiritual leader in his family, by both his words, and his example. By both his teaching, and his actions. His children look up to him, and emulate him (of course there are exceptions to this, considering the onslaught of opposing views bombarding children from society). His wife feels safe with him, protected, assured that he will always be her protector both physically and emotionally, and looks forward to being with him because she knows he will make sure he does the right thing, and what is beneficial to his family.
He also serves as a Godly example in all of those things mentioned above, and more. He is "In The Word," learning from Scripture and applying what he learns to his life. Members of his family, or members of his circle of friends and acquaintances, watch him, they need not ask questions of his spirituality because his fruit reveal it. He is a tree with a solid foundational root system dug deep into the earth - with a trunk that is solid and strong, straight and tall - and a tree with fruit that reflects what kind of man he truly is.
After all, you do know a tree by its fruit, don't you?
Now those who are not of faith, or find Christians to be an enemy to their lifestyle or way of thinking, are probably chuckling as they read this. Their definition of a man, more often than not, is one of what society is trying to create, or one of relativistic or pluralistic morals.
Women throughout society, and recent history, have been trying to make men more sensitive, more caring, more understanding. In themselves, these traits are not necessarily bad things. A man should have these traits as well.
But the modern woman is to alter men to a point that they are really trying to make men more like them. Then, later, they complain that there are no real men out there. That's because, ladies, you've been spending all your time trying to make them more like you.
There is another definition that covers what a real man is all about. This world offers many enticements that are destructive in nature. Lifestyles, addictions, and behavioral fetishes that can destroy the all important concept of the family unit, and the importance of the role of a man in that family structure. Some folks try to justify these behavioral aberrations. But there is no validation out there, especially as long as the standards and principles of morality exist. A real man recognizes this. A real man recognizes when the poison darts of these afflictions are upon them. The man puts on the armor of God - Girdle of Truth, Breastplate of Righteousness, Shoes of Peace, Shield of Faith, Helmet of Salvation, Sword of the Spirit. They protect themselves in order to protect their family, because if they fall victim, so will their loved ones around them.
A real man does not justify bad behavior. He recognizes it for what it is, and lives a life contrary to it.
Nobody is perfect. No man is truly and completely the ultimate man. But, as we move forward in life, and our journey ensues, our progress toward becoming a more Godly man becomes easier because we have progressed and have become more like what The Creator intended us to be.
Perfection is by no means obtainable. The pursuit of being a Godly man and a righteous man is a journey well worth pursuing, however, and bears the fruit of the life of a real man.
I thought to myself, "Is there a question to what a real man is? Are there hordes of men out there not sure what a real man is? Now that the Ad Counsel has proclaimed that real men wear gowns, thus clarifying this for men questioning their manhood, are these men going to rush out to the medical offices so that they can finally feel like real men?"
Offering the suggestion that real men wear gowns, obviously, is a play on words. Of course men don't need such an ad to affirm they are men. However, using such a suggestion as a selling tool says heaps about the symptoms our society is currently enduring when it comes to gender identity.
As a result of a push for gender neutrality by the secular liberals, and those who desire a justification for their questionable activities, a question has seriously arisen in our society regarding what it takes to be a real man.
Women often say they desire a man with sensitivities, one that isn't some "Me Tarzan, You Jane, Neanderthal." However, the modern woman complains there are no real men left out there with masculinity bursting from their veins.
Which is it? Which do you want? And why are women constantly trying to turn men into something more like them?
I am not bashing on women, but the feminization of the masculine gender, I believe, plays a serious role in the societal symptoms that led the Ad Counsel to essentially offer a definition of what a real man is.
Why would the question even arise in the first place? What is the root of any doubts that may arise regarding the definition of a real man?
Growing up I had no question of what a real man is, or whether or not I would navigate the waters to the wonderful world of manhood. I learned early on that being a real man wasn't some false image, or walking around acting macho while wearing the most stylish clothing.
Being a man, I realized, is very simple. I live up to my responsibilities. I perform my role as a husband, a father, and as an "individual" with the utmost care and careful attention to doing what is right. I do not ignore my spiritual side, and carefully fulfill my role as the spiritual leader of my household. I am involved in the environment around me. I am knowledgeable about the things that I believe matter to me and my family, like politics, faith, and news. I do the things that are necessary to survive in a world where it seems like obstacles crop up from all directions.
In this world of wavering morality, feminism, the feminization of men (you gotta be sensitive, boys!), and societal messages of gender neutrality, I suppose it would make sense that the question of real manhood would pop up. What is a real man? and am I a real man? are becoming serious questions being asked by many members of the male gender in our current society.
According to the commercial by the Ad Counsel, Real Men Wear Gowns. In other words, real men are willing to step down from being macho for just a second, and do what he's gotta do.
I agree, actually. It takes a real man to sometimes humble himself, or do things that he would not normally do, to make sure necessities in life are met. After all, what makes a man a man is not necessarily how macho he is. What makes a man a man is his reaction to the events exploding around him. His response to the situations that arise in his life is a telling part of who he is as a man.
As I have told my son, a man is also judged by his actions, not just his words.
Does the man meet the challenges of life head on? Does he resolve his conflicts as they need to be resolved? Does he make big things out of little things and little things out of big things - Or does he choose his battles wisely? Is he willing to stand up and protect himself, yet lend a hand to those who cannot?
In the end there is even a larger answer to the question of how to be a real man.
A real man is a spiritual leader in his family, by both his words, and his example. By both his teaching, and his actions. His children look up to him, and emulate him (of course there are exceptions to this, considering the onslaught of opposing views bombarding children from society). His wife feels safe with him, protected, assured that he will always be her protector both physically and emotionally, and looks forward to being with him because she knows he will make sure he does the right thing, and what is beneficial to his family.
He also serves as a Godly example in all of those things mentioned above, and more. He is "In The Word," learning from Scripture and applying what he learns to his life. Members of his family, or members of his circle of friends and acquaintances, watch him, they need not ask questions of his spirituality because his fruit reveal it. He is a tree with a solid foundational root system dug deep into the earth - with a trunk that is solid and strong, straight and tall - and a tree with fruit that reflects what kind of man he truly is.
After all, you do know a tree by its fruit, don't you?
Now those who are not of faith, or find Christians to be an enemy to their lifestyle or way of thinking, are probably chuckling as they read this. Their definition of a man, more often than not, is one of what society is trying to create, or one of relativistic or pluralistic morals.
Women throughout society, and recent history, have been trying to make men more sensitive, more caring, more understanding. In themselves, these traits are not necessarily bad things. A man should have these traits as well.
But the modern woman is to alter men to a point that they are really trying to make men more like them. Then, later, they complain that there are no real men out there. That's because, ladies, you've been spending all your time trying to make them more like you.
There is another definition that covers what a real man is all about. This world offers many enticements that are destructive in nature. Lifestyles, addictions, and behavioral fetishes that can destroy the all important concept of the family unit, and the importance of the role of a man in that family structure. Some folks try to justify these behavioral aberrations. But there is no validation out there, especially as long as the standards and principles of morality exist. A real man recognizes this. A real man recognizes when the poison darts of these afflictions are upon them. The man puts on the armor of God - Girdle of Truth, Breastplate of Righteousness, Shoes of Peace, Shield of Faith, Helmet of Salvation, Sword of the Spirit. They protect themselves in order to protect their family, because if they fall victim, so will their loved ones around them.
A real man does not justify bad behavior. He recognizes it for what it is, and lives a life contrary to it.
Nobody is perfect. No man is truly and completely the ultimate man. But, as we move forward in life, and our journey ensues, our progress toward becoming a more Godly man becomes easier because we have progressed and have become more like what The Creator intended us to be.
Perfection is by no means obtainable. The pursuit of being a Godly man and a righteous man is a journey well worth pursuing, however, and bears the fruit of the life of a real man.
Sunday, March 01, 2009
Once A Marine, Nick "Gunny Pop" Popaditch
The Iraq War Tank Commander looked through the sight, focusing on the last human being he would see with perfect clarity - an insurgent in the Jolan District, Fallujah, Iraq.
A rocket-propelled grenade (RPG), the enemy's weapon of choice in Fallujah, has been launched from another location from another member of the local terrorists. The blast is the last sound the Tank Commander hears with two ears. Then, the blast is followed by a flash much like a camera flash. Then total darkness, and an electric-sounding hum in the Tank Commander's ears.
The RPG hit and blew up the Tank Commander's helmet, and to this day shrapnel from that attack remains in his head. But dying was not authorized. The United States Marine would not even consider it. His duty was to ensure that the crew of Bonecrusher returned safely home.
The Tank Commander is Gunny Pop, Nick Popaditch. The scene described above occurred Wednesday, April 7, 2004. Nick Popaditch's incredible memoir ("Once A Marine") is a story of Combat, Courage, and Recovery. The book chronicles the event, and all of the inspirational battles of recovery after it.
A return guest, tonight Gunny Pop, also known as the Cigar Marine, is our guest on Political Pistachio Radio. Catch the show live at 7:00 pm Pacific Time (or on archive) HERE, tonight.
Focus Without Dobson
James Dobson first joined my family as an author. His books about family, and child rearing, became important resources for my wife and I as our children grew.
Later, on the radio, his broadcasts would inspire me during my drives as the world around me sank deeper into a "Diana induced" tailspin. Our lives became more complicated as the outside influences on our children's lives made teaching them principles and values all the much more difficult.
Dobson has been an influential evangelical figure to my family, and many others, as the leader of the Christian ministry Focus on the Family. Last Friday, however, Dr. Dobson announced that he was stepping down as board chairman of the ministry he founded. James Dobson, however, will remain a voice in the organization for years to come.
Dr. James Dobson, age 72, expects that this move simply means he will not be involved with the administrative side of the organization any longer. Though his role is changing, his radio broadcast, and his involvement as an advocate for socially conservative issues, will remain a priority.
He said to staff members: "I've got more to say. I'm not ready to stop fighting for the things I've fought for for the past 32 years."
--Political Pistachio
Saturday, February 28, 2009
NBA: No Band-Aid Association
The Miami Heat has a superstar player named Dwyane Wade. He is the NBA's leading scorer, and a player that had an unusual facial accessory that quickly become his trademark in the league. He wore a Band-Aid on his left cheek, an action that began when he originally needed to seal a cut beneath his left eye. The bandage often brandished his nickname, "Flash," and even the American Flag.
The NBA, however, is not fond of such individual expression, and in order to stop the self-promotion, has banned Wade from wearing the "fashion statement."
The reason for the ban, according to NBA spokesman Tim Frank, is that a player can wear a Band-Aid for healthcare purposes, but it should not have any name or identifications on it.
Conformity is the goal, and I understand their reasoning, because sometimes such allowances can be abused. But really, in a league where players are forced to abide by a strict dress code before and after the game, surely this is something that they can let slide. After all, isn't such uniqueness something that will attract more fans?
Remember, this is the same basketball association that two years ago banned full-length tights under uniforms, which players had used as a fashion statement rather than for their intended medical use.
The NBA, however, is not fond of such individual expression, and in order to stop the self-promotion, has banned Wade from wearing the "fashion statement."
The reason for the ban, according to NBA spokesman Tim Frank, is that a player can wear a Band-Aid for healthcare purposes, but it should not have any name or identifications on it.
Conformity is the goal, and I understand their reasoning, because sometimes such allowances can be abused. But really, in a league where players are forced to abide by a strict dress code before and after the game, surely this is something that they can let slide. After all, isn't such uniqueness something that will attract more fans?
Remember, this is the same basketball association that two years ago banned full-length tights under uniforms, which players had used as a fashion statement rather than for their intended medical use.
Page 2 - Paul Harvey, Rest In Peace
Paul Harvey's News and Comment was a welcome part of my radio morning. Of late, his son has been delivering the news on Paul Harvey's segments.
News that Harvey, age 90, died at his winter home, hit the news circuit today. He was reportedly surrounded by family. No cause of death has been released, but the assumption is that his death was by natural causes.
Paul Harvey reported the news with a special flavor, not afraid to say it as it is. He will be dearly missed by this blogger, and millions of Americans that listened to him on their radio.
Atheists, Darwin, Ray Comfort
No atheist is actually an atheist. Some of them actually recognize this, and call themselves deists, or agnostic. The question in an atheist's conscience is not truly whether or not there is a God, but whether or not that God is the same as the God represented in Biblical Scriptures.
In politics, this issue rises often, because without a relationship with God the atheist (or deist, or agnostic, or. . . ) has a need to feel the void in their spritual character. When government tries to do this, and be the "god" to all citizens, it comes across a major obstacle. Government can't be all things to all people when God is already filling that role. Hence, the reason that socialism is a Godless political ideology. To exist it must eliminate the competition.
Interestingly, when the "God Debate" arises in religious or political debates, the self-proclaimed atheist (or deist, or agnostic) often responds angrily, doing all they can to discount the very Creator that believes in them and loves them. Not all non-believers do this, mind you. Some recognize the principles of Judeo-Christian teachings. For a few it is just a matter of whether or not they are ready and willing to allow their "self" to die, and be reborn as a believer.
Pastor Ray Comfort, in his latest book (as well as others he has written) has taken the time to address the atheist's conscience. Ray Comfort's book, You Can Lead an Atheist to Evidence but You Can't Make Him Think (available at WNDbooks.com), answers actual questions from atheists to Pastor Comfort's blog at Atheist Central.
The book is a "Darwin Day" gift to those people who reject the notion that there is a God out there that loves them.
Ray Comfort is the co-host with Kirk Cameron of the nationally sydicated TV show "The Way of the Master," as well as being a leader in the evangelical Christian Community. His ministry, Living Waters Ministries, is active in the evangelical community and hosts conferences and teaches Christians how to evangelize. Ray has been a guest on news shows like ABC's Nightline debating the existence of God, and now will be on Political Pistachio Radio tonight to do the same.
Come one, come all, atheists, agnostics, deists, and Christians alike. All calls will be accepted, all arguments will be responded to. Join us tonight at 7:00 pm Pacific Time/10:00 pm Eastern on Political Pistachio Radio as we welcome guest Ray Comfort, author of You Can Lead an Atheist to Evidence, But You Can't Make Him Think.
Listen Live, or Catch The Archive Later HERE.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)