Tuesday, September 22, 2009

It's Good To Be An Angels Fan Against The Yankees

By Douglas V. Gibbs

The Anaheim Angels (I refuse to use the Los Angeles addition to the name) has been my team since the mid-seventies. I hung with the Halos through the good times and the bad times (mostly rough times, back then). When the new millenium arrived, the Angels picked up Mike Scioscia as their manager, and from that time forward became a consistent winner (my Los Angeles friends constantly remind me it took a Dodgers catcher to make the Angels a winning team). The most gratifying part of the new Angels, I have to admit, is how the Angels have the Yankees number.

Last night, before a rowdy sell-out crowd in Anaheim, the Yankees lost their 18th game of their last 23 games at Angel Stadium. Andy Petitte, admittedly one of those pitchers I respect greatly both on and off the field, threw a great game, but was not enough to break Anaheim's strangle-hold on New York's beloved Yankees.

If only the Angels could have the same kind of success against the Red Sox.

With a dozen games remaining in the regular season, half a dozen is the magic number for the Angels. The boys from Anaheim have suffered a number of injuries in the pitching corps, but the youngsters have stepped in and taken care of business. Hitting has hovered around .300 for most of the starters all season long, and defense has been a crown jewel atop a season that may promise to finish as did 2002, with a World Series win.

It is very likely the Angels will meet up with the Red Sox, and the Yankees, in the playoffs. Even more interesting, is it is very possible the Angels could go up against the Los Angeles Dodgers in the World Series.

A freeway series would be interesting. I wonder if the east would care enough to watch?

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Pettitte Returns, but Doesn’t Bring Any Luck Along - New York Times, Tyler Kepner

Not Safe From Terrorism

By Douglas V. Gibbs

For the first time since 9/11 I do not feel like the United States Government is doing all it can to protect America from terrorism.

The national security component of the Obama Administration has been undeniably weak since Barack took office on January 20. American voters chose change partly because they felt that McCain was too old, and they didn't trust Sarah Palin to receive that call at 3:00 AM. Real America, we were told by the feigning press, was tired of Bush's War, and John McCain promised to be more of the same. Barack Obama campaigned that he would shut down Guantanamo Bay, weaken our defenses, and head to the negotiation table with no pre-existing conditions with the Islamic tyrants of the world. In the end, we were made to believe, America would be safe, and peace would somehow weave its way onto the world stage filled with global understanding, and fields of poppies.

A lone, piercing cry of "You lie!" shook everyone out of the daydream. The Anger against the White House exhibited by Americans at Tea Parties and Town Hall Meetings has permeated the U.S. Congress. The response? "All who oppose Barack Obama are racist." Joe Wilson's momentary lack of discipline in his public behavior may not have been most becoming of a United States Congressman, but it sure did open the flood gates of understanding in regards to the tactics the Democrats are willing to commit in order to complete their power-grab.

Jimmy Carter, a man who has been willing to cavort with the enemy, promptly gave a little talk about how the anger against Democrat Party policies is because the current President is a black man. The supporters of Obama then shifted into "the opposition are a bunch of racists" mode, while Conservatives have rallied around Joe Wilson with support that has not only resulted in popularity, but an increase in contributions to his future campaign.

Barack Obama has become the most divisive American President in history. He talked down about a law enforcement agency for arresting a black Yale professor through proper protocols, and then decided to try to solve his blunder with a "beer summit." He called Kanye West a "jackass" for his shameful antics at an awards ceremony, and then scolded the press for reporting what he said because it was supposed to be off-the-record. He is on television more than any president since the boob-tube has been invented, and then wonders why the people are sick of his desire to continually place his face on a television screen. A growing majority of Americans feel disenfranchised by Washington, and Obama wants to solve the problem by holding another press conference.

Meanwhile, as the debate over health care, energy, and those crazy racists, goes south for the President, the threat of enemies against America remains. As Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad continues to threaten Israel and the United States, Obama plans to sit down to have a little chat with the Iranian politician under the pretense that all of the hard feelings must be some kind of insane misunderstanding. While Barack Obama hangs out with David Letterman on the Late Show fanning the flames of racism with comments about "being black," the European nations feel slighted because the Obama Administration is abandoning the missile defense shield in a blatant move of betrayal against our allies. While Michelle Obama ties up traffic in downtown in search of organic Tuscan kale, an Afghanistan-born Colorado man who allegedly received Al Qaeda training and had bomb-making instructions on his computer was arrested for a plot to bomb the New York City mass transportation system.

The threat of terrorism against the lives of Americans remains, and Obama is in happy-go-lucky campaign mode.

A broken clock is right twice a day, but that doesn't mean you should depend on it for the other twenty-three hours, fifty-nine minutes, and fifty-eight seconds of the day. George W. Bush realized this on 9/11, and he spent every waking moment doing everything he could to make sure a terrorist attack never happened on American soil again. Obama, harboring a 9/10 mentality, would rather do half a dozen Sunday television shows, and call most of America's voters a bunch of racists on the David Letterman Show.

One wonders what he will say when terrorism is once again committed against America, and the clock strikes 3:00 AM with a phone call.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Terror arrest sparks gov't warning on mass transit - The Associated Press, Ivan Moreno and P. Solomon Banda

NYC Terror Suspect Held Without Bail in Connection to Alleged Transit Bomb Plot - Fox News

Obama on Letterman: I Was Black Before the Election - Fox News

Michelle needed organic Tuscan kale so she shut down several blocks - iReport,

Hi-Ho, the Derry-O [organic Tuscan kale] - Washington Post, Dana Milbank

Ahmadinejad warns Iran will confront any attack - AFP, Hiedeh Farmani

Surrender and Betrayal Do Not Make Us Safer - The Heritage Foundation

Why The Left Calls The Right Racist

By Douglas V. Gibbs

The Left is all about motives. Their good intentions. You know, they have the good intentions to make everything fair and equitable.

The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

As the debate over Leftist programs like Universal Health Care, Cap and Trade, and the systematic takeover of the private sector by government regulation and federal control, heightens during the presidential term of Barack Obama, the fact of the matter is that Democrats are losing the debate. They are unable to supply specifics, and their policies have no legs when the U.S. Constitution is applied.

No where in the United States Constitution does it provide for the federal government to provide health insurance to citizens through socialized medicine. No where in the United States Constitution does it allow the federal government to own part of a private business, as the Democrats have done in regards to General Motors. No where does the United States Constitution enable the federal government to do the majority of the things the Democrats have it doing - and they know it.

The liberal left has done everything it can to deny the charges that what they are putting into place is straight out socialism, a political ideology that is in direct opposition to the political concept of being a republic like our founding fathers set this nation up to be. They tell you their motives are pure, and they are worried about the little man, but in reality, the ultimate purpose of this altering of the American form of government is power, and they are willing to do whatever it takes to achieve it.

Those who seek power for the sake of power, and not to represent the people as intended by the founders, will be corrupted by it. They will be willing to intentionally destroy the American economy to further their desire for more power. The destruction of the U.S. economy through out of control spending, the introduction of more money into the system, and ultimately the rise of inflation, is designed. These people in control of the American Government are willing to destroy us, so that they can remake America into what they desire it to be.

As another power seeker, Russian anarchist Bakunin, once wrote, "the possession of power transformed into a tyrant even the most devoted friend of liberty."

The Democrats are not just concerned with perpetuating themselves, but desire to institutionalize a system of government that provides a hierarchical structure that remains unchanging, and in power. They desire a governmental force that holds the maximum power over the economy and the individual. They wish to redistribute wealth because doing so will enable them to concentrate and control wealth, which will ultimately allow them to concentrate and control the people. Then, as being members of that structure, ultimately they will hold power more valuable to them than any amount of monetary wealth.

Through Tea Parties, attending the town hall meetings, and huge rallies like the couple of a million people that attended the 9/12 event in Washington DC, the American People has conveyed the message that they do not agree with what the Democrats are doing. Liberty is defined as rights with responsibilities, and the government is taking that away. The Democrats wish to turn society into a prison yard, where the citizens of this nation become nothing more than prisoners who receive services, and the government becomes the warden, populated by people that think they are the great giver. They wish to provide to the people their food, their housing, their education, their clothing, their medical care, their livelihood, and their recreation. The persons providing the services will be free to come and go as they choose, while the citizens will become limited. They wish to segregate America into two groups: The haves, and the have nots.

A government of this nature, that wishes to exist to protect man from himself, to re-distribute wealth from one group of individuals to another, to grant privileges to one group over another, does not exist to protect individual rights. Its sole function is to protect itself, and to expand when able.

Americans would never accept this kind of tyranny willingly, so the strategy has been to introduce such a system through creeping incrementalism. They must never allow the citizenry to recognize them as socialists, even thought the platforms they support are socialist in nature. They have always been careful not to deliver too much socialism in one shot because the American People would discover the exact nature of their aims, and remove them from office.

This is what has happened. The Democrats overshot, and the American People recognized the liberalism/socialism for what it is. As Communist dictator of the now historical footnote nation of Yugoslavia once said, "Communism is simply state capitalism in which the state has absolute ownership of everything including the efforts of the people."

Isn't that what the Democrats are doing? They have demonized, and demoralized, capitalism so that they have free rein to replace it with a socialistic system.

They sound like a bunch of Soviets, proclaiming the capitalism is the enemy!

All Barack Obama is doing is carrying on the efforts of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Lyndon B. Johnson, and Jimmy Carter. Johnson, in fact, once wrote: "We are going to try to take all of the money that we think is unnecessarily being spent and take it from the haves and give it to the have nots that need it so much."

Sounds like something a Marxist would say, doesn't it?

But people are careful to compare the president's government philosophies to the writings and teachings of Karl Marx. The Left has convinced you that it is unfashionable to do such things.

As the Obama policies have exposed themselves for what they are, however, the American People has risen up to call them what they are: Marxism.

Like children in the recess yard, when unable to win the argument with the facts, the Democrats have resorted to baseless name-calling. First, they called the opposition right-wing radicals, fringe nuts, extremists, and anything else they could muster in the hopes of calling into question the credibility of the opposition. Problem is, many of those opposed to Obama's policies are registered Democrats, too. The folks opposed to the liberal platform of the Democratic Party is a growing group, and does not only include "conservatives."

Interestingly enough, Obama calls himself the bi-partisan president, but the only thing bi-partisan about his presidency is the opposition!

In addition to the name calling being inaccurate because of the diverse nature of the group of people standing up against the Democrat's endeavors, the people actually began to embrace the names they were being called, greeting each other as fellow extremists and domestic terrorists - in other words, using absurdity to expose the absurdity being perpetuated by the Left.

If at first you don't succeed, try, try again.

Since the original barrage of name calling didn't work, the Left would have to come up with something more horrible, so terrible that the recipients would cringe at the very thought of being accused as such.

The Democrats looked around, and noticed that one particular accusation was making headway in other movements as well. Illegals were gaining sympathy for amnesty by calling those that oppose it a bunch of racists. The gays call those that disagree with their behavior bigots. It doesn't matter if the accusation doesn't apply to a disagreement in someone's behavior. The very thought of being a "bigot" causes people to recoil.

Racism is a tool the Left could not use before. Opposition to President Johnson's policies, or Carter's idiocy, could never be seen as racist. They were white guys. Opposition to Obama's policies, however, could be seen as racist. After all, Obama's father is a black African.

The fact that Obama's policies are nothing new, and the opposition to such policies could never be thought of as racist in the past, is not the point. The fact that Obama's platform is in goose-step with white, totalitarian beliefs by historical lunatics plays no role in the decision to call the opposition a bunch of racists. All the Democrats care about is defusing the opposition now, today, with a sucker punch that will put the opposition to rest.

Racism is perfect.

How can anyone argue against racism? The moment they say they are not racist, they can be simply called a liar. After all, who would willingly admit to such a thing?

Then, if through careful searches, the past reveals actions by people that could be considered racist by a warped mind, regardless of whether or not the motive was racism, anyone and everyone associated with that person is automatically a racist too.

Hence, since Joe Wilson showed his disapproval of Obama's plans by saying "You Lie!" during Obama's speech to Congress, he must automatically be a racist. Since he supported keeping the Confederate Battle Flag flying over the State Capitol in South Carolina (the fact he was joined by 80% of Republicans, Democrats, and citizens of the state is not an important enough fact to repeat, in this case, I suppose), that makes him a racist. Since he is a member of the GOP, and the GOP also disagrees with Obama's policies, that in turn makes anyone who disagrees with Obama, and defends Wilson, a racist.

See how easy that is?

Racism is used often, too.

Are you against a strong border between the U.S. and Mexico? Ahh, that makes you a racist against Mexicans. Got a problem with ACORN? Well, since most of the employees are black, then you must be racist against blacks. Don't like Sotomayor being placed on the United States Supreme Court? Racist! You think Van Jones is a communist? Racist! Against government changing the definition of marriage, whether you like it or not? Bigot! Disagree with Obama's policies? Oh, yes, that must be racially motivated too!

And of course if you are a racist, you are a hater.

How are you going to prove otherwise?

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Monday, September 21, 2009

Understanding "Constitutional Convention" (aka Con-Con, Article V. Convention)

By Douglas V. Gibbs

The panic about Congress calling an Article V. Convention is unfounded. The Democrats aren't trying to change the Constitution with a Constitutional Convention. They are trying to avoid an Article V. Convention because such an event is a tool of the people - and they fear losing that kind of power to their constituents.

Once again there are concerns over a Constitutional Convention being called by Congress. The "Con-Con" is said, by those afraid of one being called, to be an attempt by the liberal Democrats to try and rewrite the entire U.S. Constitution. These folks erroneously believe such a convention would result in repealing the Bill of Rights, and changing forever the foundational form of government by which America operates.

I agree that the United States Congress is currently under the control of the most radical liberal Democrats in American history. They want nothing more than to change the American Form of Government, and are attempting to do it not by changing the U.S. Constitution, but by ignoring it.
Obama's call for hope and change was exactly that, a cry to change America's government from a Constitutional Republic, so something else that more closely resembles the socialist nations of the world.

There has only been one Constitutional Convention, and it will be the only one we ever have. The U.S. Constitution does not allow for a re-writing of the document. The only way the Constitution can be changed is through the amendment process, and amendments must be ratified by three-quarters of the states. Read Article V. of the U.S. Constitution carfully. The fears being presented by wayward Emails and bloggers are unfounded, and are not true.

The latest set of Emails and blog posts circling the Internet claim that it only takes a request from two-thirds of the states (34 states) to get Congress to call for a Constitutional Convention (which actually should be referred to as an Article V. Convention). The claim that only 34 states are needed to call for such a convention is correct. Only two-thirds of the states must request for one for Congress to call for the convention. However, when the folks who oppose a Con-Con says that there are only two states left for an Article V. Convention to be called, that is false. All 50 states have already requested an Article V. Convention, with over 750 applications.

So if enough states have requested an Article V. Convention, then why hasn't Congress called for one?

Congress has not called for it, and they will do anything they can to keep from calling for one, because they are afraid of it.

Article V. Conventions are the people's way of circumventing the power of Congress.

Originally, during the five month long debate over the U.S. Constitution back in 1787, the intention was to only allow the people, through the states, to be able to amend the Constitution. Enabling Congress to propose amendments was added as an after-thought. Interestingly enough, all of the amendments to the Constitution have been proposed by the Congress. Despite the many requests for an Article V. Convention, none has ever been called.

The politicians can do nothing beyond calling for an Article V. Convention once it is requested. This means that the Congress chooses the place, time, and date. The delegates are chosen by the states, in whatever way the state decides to choose these delegates. Then, the delegates of all of the states will get together for the convention to propose amendments, and amendments only. There can be no "rewriting" of the U.S. Constitution. Then, the proposed amendments still have to be ratified by the states through a vote by the people. Beyond choosing the location and time, Congress would have nothing to do with the convention whatsoever. This means the people can propose amendments, and pass them, without any intrusion by the politicians. The Convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda, without Congressional interference.

Understand why Congress won't call for the convention? They are scared to death of the people having that kind of power!

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Friends of the Article V. Convention

Debating Darwinism and Science with the Secular Left

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Debate can be a healthy thing. The exchange of information is important. Psalm 36 reminds us that "In their blind conceit they cannot see how wicked they really are." This is why it is important to inform and educate, and spread the message of truth.

More often than not truth serves as a light, and it causes the cockroaches of the secular humanistic left to scatter. Occasionally, it is important to have dialogue with the opposition. Usually, it is best not to give them a pedestal to stand on, or a megaphone to spread their deceit, so normally I do not engage in such discussions.

I am always, however, when I have the time to engage, up for a spirited debate. One of the people that likes to attack me most often is Harry, but none of his comments ever make it on my site, mainly because of the profanity, and his tendency to use ALL CAPS while speaking in the third person. Besides, he is like a little kid fighting over a toy, and spends more time using baseless attacks that have no merit, than actually debating the topic at hand.

The next most obsessed liberal reader/commenter is Tom. He is a gay, secular, anti-religion follower of such crazy voices as Richard Dawkins and Bill Maher. I usually don't give his comments the opportunity to see the light of day, either, more often than not because of the ad hominem attacks included in the comment, sometimes the profanity, or the pure insanity of what was written. He also tends to write comments longer than my posts, which I normally frown upon. But, sometimes the noose he is placing around his neck based on what he wrote is comical enough to reveal to the rest of you.

Science is one of my loves, and the fact that Tom is an ardent Darwinist has made me decide to do a little sparring with Tom over the topic. These posts will not dominate this site. I don't have time to spend hours upon hours on this debate. The volley between he and I will serve as occasional bits of entertaining debate - more often than not waged in the comment section. If you, the reader, enjoys this kind of thing, feel free to follow the rollercoaster. But as I stated before, it will not dominate this site, or my time, and sometimes responses may be spread out considering my very intense non-blogging schedule.

So, the following is one of my latest responses, specifically to Tom's opinions about the credentials of the people interviewed for Lee Strobel's book, A Case For A Creator (find the original comments on Haloscan HERE).

-----------

I wrote the post about their credentials because that is what you were attacking. A response to an attack on a list of obviously deep thinkers. You act as if because of other interests, suddenly the science in them is negated. That is ludicrous. Must they have only your expectation of credentials to be reliable sources?

The error made by you was to call them a bunch of philosophers and theologians, thus ignoring their education in science, and discounting any scientific opinion they may have -- despite their heavy scientific background. Then, you even brought into the argument the faith of one, of which also was not a part of the discussion. Its like you were trying to throw as many darts as you could at the wall, hoping one might stick into a bulls eye.

It is more than just "God did it." There is a plethora of evidence supporting Intelligent Design, and even more evidence discounting Darwinism. There are overlaps, because species do make minor adjustments, but not to the point of changing species. In other words, there was not a single common ancestor. The idea of that even goes against science - after all, doesn't like beget like?

A great piece of evidence is DNA. The language is very similar to computer code. If you were to find information scrawled on a wall in a cave, would you immediately assume it appeared by random? Of course not, you would recognize it as the writings of an intelligent being. Yet, when DNA was mapped, the response is that the complex writings of genetic coding is random chance, or the result of evolution - when it is obvious that DNA is the writings of an intelligent designer. Writings would be given that consideration on a cave wall, but not on the DNA strands of our bodies.

The belief that mankind has been on the planet for about 6,000 years is also something supported by evidence. In "The Collapse of Evolution" author Scott Huse, PhD sums up proof that the Earth cannot be billions of years old because it would exhibit:

-A much higher concentration of salt in the oceans than what exists today,
-much more atmospheric helium, the product of the radioactive decay of uranium and thorium; current levels would indicate ten thousand years of decay, assuming a starting point of zero,
-no mountains, because even the Himalaya and Rocky Mountains would erode to sea level in just ten million years,
-a lot more sediment deposited in the Gulf of Mexico by the Mississippi River, since what's in the delta now has been calculated to have taken about four thousand years to deposit,
-no more petroleum or natural gas beneath the earth's cap rock because the extremely high pressures containing both would have blown through the rock in ten thousand years max.

As for mankind being on the Earth for about six thousand years, you have to do the math for that. Calculating Biblical accounts and all of the begets, the Bible comes up with about 6,000 years. Mathematicians, basing a growth of about 2.12 to 2.25 children per family, taking into consideration downturns in population growth such as famine and plague, place the beginning of growth of a population of about six and a half billion people to about 4,500 years ago. Biblically, Noah is about 5,000 years ago.

Okay, let's use some other math. Without anything interfering (plague, war, famine, etc.) calculating the number of people on Earth now by growing numbers from Noah’s family using the current growth rate in number of people (1.7% per year) stretched back to Noah’s time, we would now have over sixty thousand billion billion billion (6 with 31 zeroes after it).

If anything is rather absurd, it is that humanity has been on the planet for longer than 6,000 years, or that the Earth is billions of years old.

Granted, there are, as you continually state, thousands of credentialed biologists and scientists presenting papers and PhD essays on the science behind evolution. But did it ever cross your mind that even with that many people supporting something, they could be wrong?

As for that old text called the Holy Bible, don't discount it so quickly. It holds more credibility than the Evolution Fairy Tale. It has been proven to be a flawless historical record with accurate, centuries-spanning prophecies, confirmed by the finding of the Dead Sea Scrolls containing nearly the entire Old Testament, matching almost perfectly with the text we have today (showing the unchanged nature of biblical text). There is no credible evidence the Bible has been distorted. The evidence that it was divinely inspired is not difficult to explain when you think about how difficult it would be for a single author to avoid contradiction when dealing with such a lengthy period of detailed history involving so many individuals and nations and covering such a wide variety of subjects. But 40 different prophets writing with one voice over a period of many centuries is truly amazing. There can only be one explanation: divine inspiration.

Interestingly enough, science is also throughout the Bible. The flat-earthers, in fact, were originally the non-Christians, because the Bible numerous times recognizes the Earth as a sphere. There is also the notion that the sun has an orbit of its own, written by Kind David in Psalm 19:6 "The sun's rising is from one end of heaven, and its circuit to the other end, and there is nothing hidden from its heat." The Bible touches on the microscopic world before that tiny world was even discovered. The Bible's understanding of science, regarding parts of science that humanity hadn't even discovered yet, is incredible.

Meanwhile, modern archaeology has been confirming more and more the Bible's historical accuracy. The Bible displays an incredibly amount of accurate historical data.

Mystical? Evidence in favor of biblical accuracy in science and history provides that the Bible is more than just some big dusty book full of rules handed down by a supernatural God.

As for Richard Dawkins, I viewed a film regarding his thoughts before, and was able to discount almost all of it with common sense. But, I have not read any of his works, and am willing to do so. I am constantly reading books that both support, and are opposed to, my belief system. I have no reason to not be reading material by the opposition. Otherwise, how could I say with confidence that I know what they said?

Game on (as a friend of mine likes to say).

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Stephanopoulos to Obama: If it Walks Like a Tax, and Quacks Like a Tax. . .

By Douglas V. Gibbs

President Obama and ABC News' George Stephanopoulos had an unexpected battle on Sunday (is ABC then going to join Fox News on the NoBama list of rejected networks?). Stephanopoulos dared to challenge The One by asking whether or not the president's health care plan includes a tax increase.

Of course, Obama claimed it didn't have a tax increase (Obama has gotten really good at lying. . . have you noticed?)

Stephanopoulos asked when referring to the mandatory coverage clause, "Under this mandate, the government is forcing people to spend money, fining you if you don't. How is that not a tax?"

Obama responded, "No, but -- but, George, you -- you can't just make up that language and decide that that's called a tax increase."

Stephanopoulos pulled out the dictionary and read the definition to Uncle Barry. "I don't think I'm making it up. Merriam-Webster's dictionary [says] 'Tax, a charge, usually of money, imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes.'"

Obama, even faced with facts (such stubborn things, they are - you know. . . facts), he continued to deny that the health care bill had a tax increase, accusing Stephanopoulos of "stretching" a little.

"No. That -- that's not true, George. The -- for us to say that you've got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase," Obama said.

Of course, the health plan the Democrats are pushing goes way beyond just tax increases. Who is Obama and his Leftist horde to tell anybody they are required to have health insurance, or that he will "let" us keep our current coverage despite the existence of a public option?

It is my moral responsibility to ensure my family has health care coverage. It is my right to decide how to do it, or if to do it.

A Right is defined as the freedom to act morally without asking permission.

We don't need Obama's permission, nor should the Left force us to have health insurance - especially if it is a socialistic public option.

And the tax increase Stephanopoulos exposed proves Obama is a liar.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Obama, Stephanopoulos Spar Over Definition of 'Tax' - Fox News, Kimberly Schwandt

Obama Throws Like A Girl

I never did say my peace about Obama throwing out the first pitch in a baseball game:




'nuff said.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Sunday, September 20, 2009

John Stossel Has Had Enough and is Heading To Fox News

By Douglas V. Gibbs


Obama doesn't like Fox News, nor does any of the other leftist sheep. Fox News has never really been "conservative," but as time is passing, it seems to be becoming more so. Alan Colmes has departed, and Glenn Beck has arrived, for example.

Today Obama did five Sunday shows, including Univision (Spanish), but not Fox News. Remember, he doesn't like Fox News (and hasn't been shy about talking trash on the news network, either).

Could you imagine how crazy things would have been if Bush has decided to be on only Fox News, and told MSNBC and CNN to take a hike? The backlash would have been incredible.

Jon Stossel has had enough of ABC, and so now he is deciding to move over to Fox News. What is interesting about that is the crap he is getting for his decision.

Stossel is libertarian more than he is conservative, and libertarians tend to be right about 80% of the time, and a little crazy the other 20% - but a couple things libertarians and conservatives have in common is an appreciation for the original intent of the U.S. Constitution, and a severe distaste for the liberal left's Marxist policies.

Maybe that's why Obama doesn't like Fox News - because they are willing to expose him for the liar, and anti-American socialist, that he is. Hmmm, would that make Obama a coward?

Welcome to Fox, Stossel. Looking forward to your contribution to the network.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

I'm Moving To Fox - Human Events, Jon Stossel

Obama To Pull Off Unprecendented Quintuple Sunday Show Circuit, But No FOX - Mediaite, Steve Krakauer

Post-Partisan Obama Ignores Fox News - Sweetness and Light

Black Conservative Lloyd Marcus Experiences Racism

By Lloyd Marcus

I traveled on the Tea Party Express tour bus as a singer/songwriter, entertainer and spokesperson — 16 states, 34 rallies in two weeks. I experienced vicious racial verbal attacks, not from the Tea Party protesters. The racial hate expressed against me all came from the left, people who support President Obama's radial socialist agenda.

Unfortunately, my deleted email box is littered with numerous messages expressing the following, "You are the dumbest self hating f****** n***** I have ever seen!" These racists are outraged by my opening lines I boldly proclaimed at each rally. "Hello my fellow patriots! I am NOT an African-American! I am Lloyd Marcus, AMERICAN!" At every rally, my proclamation inspired great applause and cheers of joy and approval from the audiences. After each rally many came to me with tears in their eyes. They said, "I thank you from the bottom of my heart for what you said. I am Irish (or Italian, or Asian) American. And yet, I would never hyphenate. I feel hyphening divides us. While it is fine to honor one's origin, let's all be American first."

The Tea Party audience's passionate response to my proclamation was a surprise to me. I did not know so many Americans disapproved of hyphenating pushed on us via political correctness.

I rejected hyphenating years ago. One day I woke up and heard I was no longer black, I was African American. Anyone rejecting the new term was called ignorant, insensitive and an Uncle Tom if you are black. Not intending to be provocative or controversial, I casually stated that I am not a hyphenated American, but simply an American at a Tea Party. The audience's cheers of approval were surprising and heartwarming.

Read the rest on Renew America

Pursuing Power - On a Global Scale


God or Government?

Power can transform even the most devoted friend of liberty into a tyrant. The process of seeking power is underway, and big government is the vessel in America. Power is the end. Power is the goal. Power is the drug.

Absolute power in the hands of the few in a nation is dangerous. Absolute power in the hands of the few on a global level is devastating. Power is the final solution, and the terms of government for the ultimate power is Utopianism (aka socialism, communism). Big Government equals governmental control of the people through a socialistic system that uses the guise of being a humanitarian system that redistributes the wealth, while is ultimately actually a system designed for concentrating and controlling people.

Part of the start of this progression toward the slavery of tyranny began when society decided our rights come from government, rather than God. As William Penn wrote, "If men will not be governed by God, they then must be governed by tyrants."

Those that wrote the U.S. Constitution knew that humanity has a tendency to grant power to government, in the hopes government will protect human rights - when in turn the government, if not limited, can be abused and used as a way of destroying the rights of the people who created the government, while trying to accumulate as much power as possible.

- A Right is a freedom to act morally without asking permission.

- A Privilege is a freedom to act morally, but only after permission has been granted by some governmental entity.

Tonight, on the Political Pistachio Radio Revolution we explore the increase in the size of government we have been seeing for over a century, and how the Democrats are trying to take the power to the limit, while conspiring to join a global system of governance that is tyrannical, and spells the end of American sovereignty as we know it.

Tune in live at 7:00 PM Pacific, 10:00 PM Eastern, or catch the archive later, for the two hour radio program on BlogTalkRadio.com/PoliticalPistachio.

United Nations Government with a One World Currency

By Douglas V. Gibbs

A Thief in the Night was a film I watched as a young man during the seventies. The plot circled around The Rapture, and as a Christian I found the movie very intriguing. A scene that still speaks to me in my memory began with a woman waking up and hearing her husband's electric razor buzzing in the bathroom. She gets up to see the shaver rumbling on the sink, and he is not there.

The other part of the film that stands out in my memory is the United Nations' role in pulling together a global effort to deal with the event of millions of people worldwide suddenly vanishing. United Nations vans cruise the streets as the government officials search for anyone not willing to comply with the new emergency measures they had to take. The government system that arises is called UNITE (United Nations Imperium for Total Emergency), and is primarily set up to find those who do not receive the mark of The Beast, which identifies them with UNITE.

Realizing that the film was only a fictional depiction of one person's view of what the Great Tribulation would be like, I decided to learn more about the possibility of a system of global governance for myself. I found myself researching globalistic movements, and political groups, that desire worldwide governance. Biblical text referencing the global aspect of the end times caught my attention, as well. I began to read books by Hal Lindsey and A. Ralph Epperson to better understand the drive for globalism Planet Earth would be in for in the near future. I retained information I believed to be a viable possiblity, and discarded the data I felt was not possible, usually using a Biblical compass to made the determination.

Science Fiction, of which I have always been a big fan of, is filled with fictional stories telling tales of a unified Earth, or federation of humanity. The idea of globalism, Utopianism, and One World endeavors is nothing new. In politics, however, those that have strove for such a system have been communists and socialists, or crazy sociopaths, bent on world domination. Every example of a drive for global governance has been by the use of war, and forceful domination.

The Bible, however, says that this system will not be reached through war, but in the name of peace. The leaders of the nations will accept slavery under a one world system, and will do so willingly, in the hopes of peace, and safety.

In order to achieve a globalistic system, a number of events must pass first. The necessity for these things to happen are not necessarily biblical, but simply a fact of progression. A one world government cannot arise as long as the United States is prosperous enough to remain independent of the need to join a worldwide union, and a global system cannot take its place as the governing power until economies are all a part of a single, global economic system, and until the sovereignty of nations is compromised, and eliminated - including the armies that protect the sovereignty of these nations. Borders must be erased, and independent nationalism must be quelled.

Interdependence among the nations must be present in order for a one world government to form. A global economy, backed by a global currency, will need to be in place. International Law will be required to supercede all national laws, and a global council or assembly will have to be in place to make decisions regarding the law of the globe, rather than national constitutions.

Right now, with the Democrats in power, and the desire for globalism growing among the world's leaders, world organizations like the United Nations are openly calling for the creation of a one-world currency to replace the dollar. According to Jerome Corsi, the Obama administration's trillion-dollar deficits are serving as a trigger for the currency switch. Recently, a United Nations report recommended that a new one-world currency should be created to replace the dollar as the standard for foreign-exchange holdings in international trade.

Corsi also noted, "That G20 summit meeting took an important step toward creating a new one-world currency through the International Monetary Fund that is designed to replace the dollar as the world's foreign exchange reserve currency of choice."

This is coupled with the liberal left's penchant for International Law, recently exhibited by statements by Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor when she indicated that she favors a broader consideration of foreign and international law in U.S. judicial opinions. In turn, there are even those that would like to take the law out of the hands of the judiciary and place it in the hands of President Barack Obama, who has made it apparent that he favors a more united world from a political and economic perspective.

Cass Sunstein, Obama's regulatory czar, has even gone so far as to say that, "There is no reason to believe that in the face of statutory ambiguity, the meaning of federal law should be settled by the inclinations and predispositions of federal judges. The outcome should instead depend on the commitments and beliefs of the President and those who operate under him."

Of course the moment a U.S. Constitution abiding Conservative was in the White House, they would change their tune real quick.

In following Sunstein's logic, however, if the president is a socialist globalist, and has a complete disregard for the U.S. Constitution, like Obama does, and would like to cast our national sovereignty to the wind, he should be able to do so . . . that is insane!

These politicians, by supporting amnesty for illegal aliens, and compromising our intelligence community, military, and drawing back on missile defense systems, are positioning the United States for a loss of sovereignty by erasing the borders, and nullifying our ability to defend ourselves.

All that remains to drive the final nails into the coffin of America's sovereignty is a national, or worldwide, disaster. A complete economic collapse, a series of national disasters, or a pandemic of global proportions, would do the job, giving the globalists the excuse to join together in worldwide unity, declare the need to unify to face the crisis, and secure a global council using the United Nations, and other organizations, to unite as a single system of global governance.

Then, to gain further control, they will begin to preach that the global population needs to be controlled, and that population growth needs to be slowed down. . . ooops, that is already happening (something I saw coming three years ago).

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

U.N. calls for replacement of U.S. dollar - World Net Daily, Jerome Corsi

Sotomayor and International Law - Wall Street Journal, Collin Levy

Sunstein: Obama, not courts, should interpret law - World Net Daily, Aaron Klein

Obama: Legalize illegals to get them health care - Washington Times, Stephen Dinan

CIA interrogations: Congressman, CIA directors voice opposition to Holder's actions - Law Enforcement Examiner, Jim Kouri

White House Scraps Bush’s Approach to Missile Shield - The New York Times, Peter Baker

Birth control could help combat climate change - Breitbart

Population Control - Political Pistachio, Douglas V. Gibbs

Glenn Beck and the ACORN Prostitute



-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

You Be The Judge Over The Number of People At The 9/12 Rally In Washington DC

Is that tens of thousands like the Left says, or a couple million like the Right says:

Michelle Obama's Hypocrisy regarding Health Care

Thank you, Andrea Shea King, for making me aware of this one. . .

From Michelle Malkin:

Yes, First Lady Michelle Obama is now aggressively crusading for her husband’s health care takeover under the guise of championing woman who have been "crushed" by the system.

One woman Mrs. Obama won't be spotlighting?

hint: about Michelle Obama's role in creating a patient-dumping scheme for the University of Chicago Medical Center. . .

Read the nitty-gritty at Michelle Malkin's site

Saturday, September 19, 2009

Fire Arms Refresher Course

From Michael, via GM Roper:

1. "Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not." ~Thomas Jefferson

2. Those who trade liberty for security have neither. ~ John Adams

3. Free men do not ask permission to bear arms.

4. An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.

5. Only a government that is afraid of its citizens tries to control them.

6. Gun control is not about guns; it’s about control.

7. You only have the rights you are willing to fight for.

8. Know guns, know peace, know safety. No guns, no peace, no safety.

9. You don’t shoot to kill; you shoot to stay alive.

10. Assault is a behavior, not a device.

11. 64,999,987 firearms owners killed no one yesterday.

12. The United States Constitution (c) 1791. All Rights Reserved.

13. The Second Amendment is in place in case the politicians ignore the others.

14. What part of ’shall not be infringed’ do you NOT understand?

15. Guns have only two enemies; rust and politicians.

16. When you remove the people’s right to bear arms, you create slaves.

17. The American Revolution would never have happened with gun control.

Bernard Navarro - When Castro Took Over Cuba



Listen to the parallels to the Leftist agenda in America - The Liberal Movement.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Cash For Clunkers Radio

- Did it help the economy? Why did it fail? Radio Interview with Vern Moter answers those questions, and more!

The national debate on the effectiveness of Cash For Clunkers is still brewing - and the findings are that Cash for Clunkers was ineffective, and unnecessary.

Did the program do anything for Americans, or the U.S. Economy?

Financial expert Vern Moter has answers to whether or not Cash for Clunkers will stimulate the economy, what the dealers had to deal with, what the consumers did not know when they began jumping on the Cash for Clunkers bandwagon, what the program cost the taxpayers, how it affected the national debt, why many members of Congress expressed reservations about the program, and if U.S. taxpayers should have been forced to fund the program aimed at helping the environment - plus much more!

Our guest tonight is a CPA, financial planner, and hosts a weekly syndicated radio show heard on dozens of radio stations across the country. He has appeared on The Gabriel Wisdom Show, The Rob Black Show, Me & Vinnie, Dresser After Dark, Mornings with Keith & Gail, The Florida Show with Rhett Palmer, WFTL Morning News, Doug Kellett on WOAI San Antonio, KFBK Afternoon Sacramento, ABC Radio Australia, and several others - and now he will be on the Political Pistachio Radio Revolution.

Join us live tonight at 7pm Pacific/10pm Eastern on BlogTalkRadio.com/PoliticalPistachio.

Weekend Conservative Radio

During the week there is a plethora of conservative talk radio to choose from. Terrestrial radio, satellite, and Internet Radio all offer a grand assortment of fantastic programs.

But what about the weekend?

On Saturdays and Sundays most talk radio is about food, technology, and gossip. Where can one find great conservative talk radio on a Saturday?

The answer lies within the Blog Talk Radio Network.

I host and co-host three shows on Saturdays.

American Daily Review Radio - Noon Pacific/3pm Eastern

Founding Truth - 5pm Pacific/8pm Eastern

Political Pistachio Radio Revolution - 7pm Pacific/10pm Eastern

Baby Brianna New Mexico Reminds Us Why Death Penalty Should Be Law in Some Cases

The Baby Brianna case caused New Mexico to change its laws, giving the maximum penalty for this kind of child abuse case to be life imprisonment. That's not far enough. Monsters like these people should be put to death.

Before you recoil on my demands for the death of evil, watch the video. By the end, you will agree with me: Life Imprisonment is not punishment enough for these monsters.



-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Friday, September 18, 2009

Jimmy Carter's Meltdown



Get Liberty

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Flying Drunk, and Obama's brainwashing of the masses, tonight on Political Pistachio Radio


The Political Pistachio Radio Revolution has a reputation for having the best guests on Internet Radio. Tonight is no exception.

During the first segment we will speak with Joe Balzer, who also has dates with CNN and FOX, to talk about his new book, "Flying Drunk." The book recounts Joe's story of redemption after he was the part of a three man crew that was flying a Boeing 727 airliner with 91 passengers aboard while intoxicated. All three pilots stood trial for flying a commercial airliner while under the influence of alcohol, and all three were convicted and sent to federal prison.

Joe Balzer lost his dream of flying, of which he had since childhood. His alcoholism caught up with him and cost him everything. Flying Drunk is the story of how he lost everything, and then fought for redemption, and to regain all that he lost.

Join us tonight during the first hour of the Political Pistachio Radio Revolution as we discuss with Joe Balzer his incredible journey of the human spirit, from childhood to hell, and back again.

Then, during the second hour of the program our guest will be David Conn who says that Obama is alarmingly brainwashing the masses.

Three decades after the Jonestown Massacre took the lives of more than 900 clouded adn fearful followers of the infamous Reverend Jim Jones, the one man who got close to, then single-handedly tried to expose Jones, is emerging to tell his story for one compelling reason: he sees history repeating itself on a larger, potentially more tragic scale.

The second segment guest tonight on the Political Pistachio Radio Revolution is David Conn. He struggled for years with the outcome of the judgment day at Guyana, because he saw it coming during his long investigation of Jim Jones' church, and in his attempt to warn the press, several lawyers and others, he faced a world of denial and rationalization.

Now, Conn says we are deep into what he, alone, witnessed and learned inside Jonestown, but this time with President Barack Obama.

From their mutual self-absorption, rhetoric style and troubling cult-of-personality power climb, to their like-minded manipulation of the political system (right down to exercising the tactics of voter fraud) . . . from their common disturbing associations with radical socialists, to the similar sometimes hopeless, naive mindset of their supporters . . . Jim Jones' and Barack Obama's multiple parallels have awakened Conn's urgency to alarm the public.

The only difference, according to Conn, is that Obama is even more dangerous - and tonight, Conn will explain why.

Join us tonight at 7:00 PM Pacific for the interview with Joe Balzer, and then stay for the interview at 8:00 PM Pacific for the interview with David Conn. You may listen to the radio program at BlogTalkRadio.com/PoliticalPistachio.

Remember Obama's Energy Plan?

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Obama has bought into the Climate Change myth. His Cap and Trade uses that mythical hysteria to grab more power for big government. Remember, he said our energy costs would rise as a result.



He wasn't kidding. A Newsmax headline yesterday read:

Cap-and-Trade's Cost to Americans: $1,761 per Household

So much for a tax break for 95% of Americans. The Democrats are just wonderful, aren't they? They have taken fascist control of the auto industry and banks, wish to ration your health care, spend America into oblivion, and now during an economic hardship increase your energy costs astronomically.

These Leftists are putting us all into the poor house.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Cap-and-Trade's Cost to Americans: $1,761 per Household - Newsmax

Dispute over Number of Protestors at Washington DC Tea Party on 9/12

By Douglas V. Gibbs
Little Green Footballs has decided that the number of folks at the 9/12 rally in Washington DC was greatly exaggerated.

The number given by conservatives has floated between 1.2 million and 2.1 million.

Midget Moldy Footballs, er, uh, Little Green Footballs says the number was under 100,000.

That is a stadium number, and the number of folks in Washington DC was many more than what you could cram into a stadium.

But, hey, don't take my word for it. Let's ask the University of Indiana.

Zac Moilanen of Indiana University did a study to figure out just how many people did attend that event - and guess what? The result was much more than tens of thousands.

Moilanen found, and remember this is an approximation, that the 9/12 event in Washington DC had 1.8 million people. Remember, too, this doesn't consider the other millions across the nation at other 9/12 events. I was told by a Floridian that there were at least 25 events in Florida alone.

Hmmm, maybe that is why their footballs are green, they've been drinking so much Kool Aide that it has made them sick.

Here, have a few pistachios, and turn away from the dark side.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Again With the Grossly Inflated Numbers - Little Green Footballs

The Real Number of Protesters at the 9/12 Washington DC March - Zac Moilanen

Thursday, September 17, 2009

Lee Strobel's Philosophers and Theologists in The Case For A Creator

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Ant Odometers and Evolution was a post I wrote not too long ago challenging Darwinism. The response by Emails, and a post by a Leftist, was fascinating. The Liberal's article, written specifically as a response to my opinion, was one I just so happened across by visiting Tom's Neurosis on a rare excursion. I left a comment, and left it at that.

I would like to note that I do not return to sites like Tom's to see if he posted my comment, or to see what he has to say. I am not that obsessed with people that disagree with me, and besides, I live in Southern California. I am surrounded by enough leftist insanity that there is no need to go looking for it. Tom, on the other hand, is obsessed with Political Pistachio, and in his little world of liberalism (his fringe-type is truly amazing because they actually believe they are the majority, and that God-fearing, Constitution appreciating Americans are the minority - true insanity) he somehow has logic and reason on his side. If you break it down, however, people like him are hardly reasonable, tend to contradict themselves often, are narrow-minded enough that they never would be willing to give Creationism (for example) a chance, and will only attack when they think they have the upper hand - more often than not making themselves look stupid in the process.
I don't hate these folks, mind you. I pray for them. It must be rough living in the dark.
When it comes to their political opinion, that is when I get fighting mad. Their desire to change America is unacceptable. I usually just tell these anti-American traitors to move to Cuba or Europe where the political climate is more in tune with their insane beliefs. America has prospered for a reason, and of those reasons are the fact that we avoided being anything like Europeans, and that our system's foundation is based on Judeo-Christian principles.

It is people like Tom that wish to destroy America, and all that she has stood for during the last 233 years. Tom, and his ilk, are trying to change America into some cross between Europe and the Soviet Union. I swear, these people should be tried for treason.

In defense of my argument supporting Creationism, I suggested to Tom that he read "The Case For A Creator" by Lee Strobel. The book presents the argument in a no-nonsense, scientifically supported manner, using interviews with a number of scientists and professors who are well respected in their respective fields.

Tom's response? Or should I say, one of his ignorant reader's response?

Those experts are simply a bunch of Philosophers and Theologists (as if their opinions, if all of the people listed are as Tom says, are not acceptable to the leftists because they don't fit into the little education bubble Tom demands).

Really? They aren't scientists in any way, shape, or form?

Remember that scientist that mapped DNA? Professor Francis Collins is an award-winning American scientist, and a Christian that supports Creationism. He is noted for his landmark discoveries of disease genes, and leadership of the Human Genome Project to map the entire human DNA. In a speech to an international audience in England, while describing his journey from atheism to Christianity, he said, "There really is no conflict between faith and reason."

That conflict has been created by the anti-Christian and the Darwinists.

Let's talk about those people that support Creationism, and were interviewed in Strobel's book.

Chapter 3, Doubts About Darwinism. Interview #1: Jonathan Wells, Ph.D., Ph.D.
Jonathan Wells studied geology at Princeton. The Darwinian paradigm, according to Wells, turned him into an atheist. He said of the transformation, "The evolutionary story simply replaced the religious imagery I had grown up with." Wells serves as the senior fellow with the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, an organization that neatly blends his dual passions for hard science and the issue of science's influence on the broader society.

After beginning his education at Princeton, Wells' undergraduate degree was received from the University of California at Berkeley in geology and physics, with a minor in biology. He earned his doctorate in religious studies at Yale, and another doctorate, this time in molecular and cell biology, from Berkeley. He later worked for UC Berkeley as a post-doctorate research biologist. He has been published many times regarding Evolution and Biology. His "Icons of Evolution" is, as described by Lee Strobel, a clear-headed, scientific look at the very same visual images that had convinced Lee of the "truth" of evolution, of which it took a lifetime to remedy. The book's subtitle sums it up: Why Much of What We Teach about Evolution is Wrong.

Hmmm, he hardly seems to be a philosopher and theologist. But hey, Tom, we'll give you the benefit of the doubt and keep learning about these scientists Strobel interviews for his book on Creation.

Chapter 4 of The Case For A Creator, Interview #2: Stephen C. Meyer, Ph.D.

Stephen Meyer, after having already earned degrees in physics and geology, received his master's degree in the history and philosophy of science at Cambridge University in England. His focus was on the history of molecular biology, physics, and evolutionary theory. His numerous books have made him a burgeoning voice for Intelligent Design.

Okay, part scientist, part philosopher. You get a quarter of a point for that one.

Chapter 5, Interview #3: William Lane Craig, Ph.D., Th.D.

William Lane Craig originally believed that various arguments for the existence of God were weak, out-dated, and ultimately ineffective. Stuart C. Hackett's 1957 book, The Resurrection of Theism, changed all that.

Dr. Craig is Research Professor of Philosophy at Talbot School of Theology in La Mirada, California. He pursued his undergraduate studies at Wheaton College (B.A. 1971) and graduate studies at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School (M.A. 1974; M.A. 1975), the University of Birmingham (England) (Ph.D. 1977), and the University of Munich (Germany) (D.Theol. 1984).

He has authored or edited over thirty books, including The Kalam Cosmological Argument; Assessing the New Testament Evidence for the Historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus; Divine Foreknowledge and Human Freedom; Theism, Atheism and Big Bang Cosmology; and God, Time and Eternity, as well as over a hundred articles in professional journals of philosophy and theology, including The Journal of Philosophy, New Testament Studies, Journal for the Study of the New Testament, American Philosophical Quarterly, Philosophical Studies, Philosophy, and British Journal for Philosophy of Science.

Ah-ha! A full point for Tom and his knuckle-dragging descendants of monkeys. Dr. Craig is both a philosopher, and a theologian. Surely, with all that education and experience, Dr. Craig couldn't possibly know anything about science, right Tom?

Chapter 6, Interview #4: Robin Collins, Ph.D.

Robin Collins has earned degrees in Physics and mathematics from Washington State University, and a doctorate in physics from the University of Texas in Austin. His third major was philosophy, of which he pursued a doctorate in at the University of Notre Dame.

A bonafide scientist, with a touch of philosophy.

Chapter 7, Interview #5: Guillermo Gonzalez, Ph.D., and Jay Wesley Richards, Ph.D.

Dr. Guillermo Gonzalez, after graduating summa cum laude with degrees in astronomy and physics from the University of Arizona, earned his master's degree and doctorate in astronomy from the University of Washington at Seattle. He is now an assistant professor at Iowa State University, where his research centers on low and intermediate mass stars and theories about stellar and planetary evolution.

Dr. Jay Wesley Richards holds three advanced degrees in philosophy and theology, including a doctorate from Princeton Theological Seminary.

Okay, one scientist and one philosopher/theologian, working together to explain the evidence of astronomy in regards to creationism versus Darwinism. Though Tom gets half a point for this one, I still don't see the problem with philosophy and theology working together with science. Remember, it is the Darwinists that say religion and science doesn't mix, not those that support Creationism.

Chapter 8, Interview #6: Michael J. Behe, Ph.D.

Behe has a degree in chemistry with honors from Drexel University, and a doctorate in biochemistry at the University of Pennsylvania. After post-doctorate research at the University of Pennsylvania and the National Institutes of Health, he joined Lehigh's faculty in 1985. Dr. Behe also served on the Molecular Biochemistry Review Panel of the Division of Molecular and Cellular Biosciences at the National Science Foundation.

He has authored forty articles in scientific journals, has lectured at the Mayo Clinic and dozens of prestigious schools including Yale, Carnegie-Mellon, Princeton, Colgate, University of Alberdeen, Temple, Notre Dame, and Princeton. Dr. Behe is a member of the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, the Society for Molecular Biology and Evolution, and other professional organizations.

Scientist enough for you, Tom?

Chapter 9, Interview #7 was Dr. Stephen C. Meyer again, to explore evidence of Biological Information.

Chapter 10, Interview #8: J.P. Moreland, Ph.D.

Dr. Moreland is the combination of scientist, philosopher, and theologian. A scientist first, he received a degree in chemistry from the University of Missouri. He was awarded top fellowship for a doctorate in nuclear chemistry at the University of Colorado, but declined the honor to pursue theology and philosophy.

Another scientist with an interest in theology and philosophy. Tom, does his interest in theology and philosophy suddenly make the scientist part of him turn off, or something?

So there you go. Though theology and philosophy plays a role in some of these scientist's lives, they are scientists. You see, Darwinists believe that either you agree with their "theory," or you are some uneducated yokel. Then when folks that have the education and brains it takes, in the Darwinist's opinion, to be all they can be as scientists decide instead to embrace Intelligent Design, there must be some kind of defect, or something. In the case of Tom, and his wonderfully faithful thirteen or so readers, the defect is philosophy and theology, as if such interests suddenly kills every scientific bone in their bodies.

I have an idea. For those of you that have a serious problem with Creationism, do what I did, and read the opposition. I have read a number of works by pro-evolution scientists and philosophers, so why not give Lee Strobel's The Case for a Creator a shot? Heck, read the books by those scientists I named, as well. I've read a few of them, and if anything, they will help prepare you for your next argument against Creationism - if you are still a Darwinist after finally abandoning your narrow-mindedness and being confronted by the evidence you have been denying exists.

Go ahead. I dare you. Read Strobel's book.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

'Mere Christianity' makes sense, scientist tells CS Lewis Foundation - Christian Today

Investigating Faith - Lee Strobel

Constitution Day 2009

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Happy Constitution Day. Today marks the anniversary of the signing of the U.S. Constitution on September 17, 1787. Officially created in 2004, the unofficial holiday has roots that reach back over 70 years, intertwined with Citizenship Day.

Written in what is now called Independence Hall in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, the United States Constitution shares its place of creation with the Declaration of Independence. Though written in 1787, the Constitution was not ratified until the following year.

The writing of the U.S. Constitution was originally supposed to be a simple upgrade to the Articles of Confederation. It became rapidly apparent to the Founding Fathers, however, that the Articles of Confederation was not salvageable, and a new Constitution would need to be created. The founders locked the doors and closed the windows for five months, debating heavily, and arguing loudly. The framework presented by James Madison was good, but not perfect as far as the delegates were concerned, and not agreeable to all of them.

Once the Constitution came into being, a number of the framers were concerned that the document failed to address individual rights. In 1791 list of rights were added to the Constitution. These first ten amendments became known as The Bill of Rights, and of the original 55 delegates attending the Constitutional Convention, 39 signed the Bill of Rights, with only 3 delegates dissenting.

Contrary to popular opinion, Thomas Jefferson was not present for the signing of the U.S. Constitution. Jefferson was in France during the Constitutional Convention. John Adams was also absent during the writing and signing of the U.S. Constitution, representing the new nation in Great Britain at the time.

Concise, and written plainly, the U.S. Constitution is the oldest of all written national constitutions. The Founding Fathers wrote it to withstand the tests of time, and man's lust for power. Designed to be by the people, of the people, and for the people, the United States Constitution divides power in ways that no single person or entity can return America to the rule of a King, or totalitarian establishment, if the Constitution is followed as is written, and with the original intentions of the Founding Fathers in mind.

The U.S. Constitution, contrary to popular belief, is not a living and breathing document that changes at the whims of the interpreters. It is, however, capable of being changed, by use of amendments. More than 11,000 amendments have been introduced in Congress. Thirty three have gone to the states to be ratified and twenty seven have received the necessary approval from the states to actually become amendments to the Constitution.

Constitution Day mandates that publicly funded schools provide lessons on the history of the Constitution - an option that is otherwise rarely utilized, some historians would admit.

A recent Constitution Day forum, in 2007, was marked by a Florida student being tasered for asking a question of Senator John Kerry that was not well received by the Democrats, resulting in the removal of the student from the forum. The episode is best remembered by the student yelling "Don't tase me, bro," as he was led out of the auditorium.

Take advantage of today, and read the U.S. Constitution. Read it, understand it, learn about the history surrounding the document. You do this, and you will be miles ahead of any of the politicians currently serving this nation.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Text of the U.S. Constitution - Constitution Day

10 Fast Facts on the Constitution - Constitution Center