By Douglas V. Gibbs
From what I understand, President Obama is working with Russian President Dmitri A. Medvedev to try to live up to his campaign pledge of ridding the world of nuclear weapons. Arms control negotiations are said to be moving along, and a treaty in Prague is expected next month that would greatly diminish American and Russian nuclear arsenals.
The new pact is designed to replace the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty of 1991, which expired in December. This new agreement requires both sides to reduce their warheads and launchers by more than one-quarter.
Once the treaty is signed, the treaty will go to the U.S. Congress for ratification, requiring passage in the United States Senate.
The treaty, however, does not reverse the fact that nuclear weapons exist, and does nothing to control the armaments of radical nations like Iran and North Korea. Obama is using the idiotic mentality of gun-control freaks, figuring that if Russia and the U.S. decreases their arsenal, the other nuclear powers will follow.
Unlikely.
Madmen will still build the bomb, and they will use it. To eliminate our defensive stash of weapons follows in the same mistaken footsteps of Europe during the 1930s. As Britain and France were disarming, Germany was building.
Had Britain and France not disarmed, Hitler's Germany would not have lasted a day against them.
Now we have rising threats from Islam, and North Korea (not to mention China). Yet Obama wishes to decrease our amount of weapons.
Might as well take guns away from store clerks while allowing the criminals full ability to have weapons.
The outcome can only be deadly.
Obama's arms pact is a bad idea. It lessens our ability to defend ourselves, and portrays us in a weak light.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Russia and U.S. Report Breakthrough on Arms Pact - New York Times
Thursday, March 25, 2010
The Death Liberalism Brings
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Liberty Dies when the Government expands, and forces unreasonable mandates on the people. With cradle-to-grave welfare entitlements in our system, we are becoming much more like Greece with every passing moment. Greece, by the way, is rioting because their dying economy is taking away the Greek citizen's precious "entitlements." Nobody really cares that their government is out of money, and that their economy is collapsing, just as long as they continue to get their free stuff from the socialists in power.
What is happening in Greece is quite literally the opposite of the revolution that forged America. The people are rioting in the streets not because they wish to get the state off their back, but to keep the state firmly on top of their lives.
Greece has spent and borrowed its way into a financial crisis that is rapidly leading to the collapse of their entire system. The welfare trained Greeks can't even keep up a decent work force, having dropped their fertility rate to around 1.3. Think about it. They have created a full-blown welfare state, and have simultaineously underbreeded themselves into a situation where there are not enough workers to support the entitlement nanny state. Europe won't bail them out, and their government has no money, so they. . . riot, crying for the return of their government-run everything.
Meanwhile, here in America, we are destroying the last vestige of the American system that has made us different, exceptional, and prosperous.
The passage of Obama's Health Care idiocy is evidence that the horrifying specter of a socialized, government-operated health care system looms on the horizon. The other aspects of socialism are sure to follow, and a European-style nanny state is nearly a fact on the shores of America.
The Democrats won't stop with just socialized medicine. Amnesty, Cap and Trade, hate crime legislation to eliminate freedom of speech, as well as a continuing push to finish the fascist takeover of the financial and automobile industries is on the docket, and the Democrats won't stop until The State is in complete control of our lives, and liberty is dead.
And that is the death that liberalism brings. Liberty is dying under their continuous assault.
And someday, if this continues, we will be the Greeks. The brainwashed Americans dependent upon the government for their every move will rush to the streets in a rage when the economic system finally collapses, and the unsustainable policies of big government destroys America.
But we can stop the madness. We can save the death that awaits America, if we return to the limiting principles of the U.S. Constitution. The battles must rage at the local level, as we continue to battle on at the federal level. Constitutionalists must replace the politicians. America must return to the form of government given to us by the Founding Fathers.
If we don't, our posterity will be rioting in the streets, and the United States of America will become just another failed civilization mentioned in the margins of some future history book.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Liberty Dies when the Government expands, and forces unreasonable mandates on the people. With cradle-to-grave welfare entitlements in our system, we are becoming much more like Greece with every passing moment. Greece, by the way, is rioting because their dying economy is taking away the Greek citizen's precious "entitlements." Nobody really cares that their government is out of money, and that their economy is collapsing, just as long as they continue to get their free stuff from the socialists in power.
What is happening in Greece is quite literally the opposite of the revolution that forged America. The people are rioting in the streets not because they wish to get the state off their back, but to keep the state firmly on top of their lives.
Greece has spent and borrowed its way into a financial crisis that is rapidly leading to the collapse of their entire system. The welfare trained Greeks can't even keep up a decent work force, having dropped their fertility rate to around 1.3. Think about it. They have created a full-blown welfare state, and have simultaineously underbreeded themselves into a situation where there are not enough workers to support the entitlement nanny state. Europe won't bail them out, and their government has no money, so they. . . riot, crying for the return of their government-run everything.
Meanwhile, here in America, we are destroying the last vestige of the American system that has made us different, exceptional, and prosperous.
The passage of Obama's Health Care idiocy is evidence that the horrifying specter of a socialized, government-operated health care system looms on the horizon. The other aspects of socialism are sure to follow, and a European-style nanny state is nearly a fact on the shores of America.
The Democrats won't stop with just socialized medicine. Amnesty, Cap and Trade, hate crime legislation to eliminate freedom of speech, as well as a continuing push to finish the fascist takeover of the financial and automobile industries is on the docket, and the Democrats won't stop until The State is in complete control of our lives, and liberty is dead.
And that is the death that liberalism brings. Liberty is dying under their continuous assault.
And someday, if this continues, we will be the Greeks. The brainwashed Americans dependent upon the government for their every move will rush to the streets in a rage when the economic system finally collapses, and the unsustainable policies of big government destroys America.
But we can stop the madness. We can save the death that awaits America, if we return to the limiting principles of the U.S. Constitution. The battles must rage at the local level, as we continue to battle on at the federal level. Constitutionalists must replace the politicians. America must return to the form of government given to us by the Founding Fathers.
If we don't, our posterity will be rioting in the streets, and the United States of America will become just another failed civilization mentioned in the margins of some future history book.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Health Care Legislation is Not Deficit Neutral
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Let me see. The Health Care bill, err, Law. . . demands all Americans purchase insurance and thousands of IRS agents are to be hired to enforce this mandate. A new bureaucracy with mandates and government intervention into the health insurance industry, and somehow it is supposed to be deficit neutral.
What are these idiots smoking?
According to Marc Schenker, a former CBO Head says Deficits will actually rise by $562 billion.
Are the Democrats lying to us? Say it isn't so!
But as I have said all along, this legislation has nothing to do with health care, and everything to do with control over the American People. . .
And Democrat Representative John Dingell agrees with me:
VIDEO
And in the meantime, the Democrats are systematically destroying the best health care system in the world - - - What? Liberals say it isn't? Then why did Newfoundland Premier Danny Williams come to the United States for his heart surgery?
Answer: Canada's government controlled medical care system could not offer the care he needed.
Instead of listening to idiot Democrats like Dingell, how about Congressman Ryan:
Gives you hope, doesn't it?
The Republicans plan to jam the Reconciliation Bill with amendments in the hopes of bogging down the vote. We'll see how that works. One thing is for sure, after November's election, should the GOP regain the majority, the Republicans should work on defunding the Health Care monstrosity - after all, the Congress holds the purse strings.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Obama Lies: Former CBO Head Says Deficits to Rise by $562 Billion as Obamacare Not Deficit Neutral - Associated Content
Here come the Republican amendments - Washington Post
Newfoundland Premier Danny Williams Heading to United States for Heart Surgery - Hot Air
Health care mandate to be enforced by IRS 'bounty hunters' - The Examiner
Let me see. The Health Care bill, err, Law. . . demands all Americans purchase insurance and thousands of IRS agents are to be hired to enforce this mandate. A new bureaucracy with mandates and government intervention into the health insurance industry, and somehow it is supposed to be deficit neutral.
What are these idiots smoking?
According to Marc Schenker, a former CBO Head says Deficits will actually rise by $562 billion.
Are the Democrats lying to us? Say it isn't so!
But as I have said all along, this legislation has nothing to do with health care, and everything to do with control over the American People. . .
And Democrat Representative John Dingell agrees with me:
VIDEO
And in the meantime, the Democrats are systematically destroying the best health care system in the world - - - What? Liberals say it isn't? Then why did Newfoundland Premier Danny Williams come to the United States for his heart surgery?
Answer: Canada's government controlled medical care system could not offer the care he needed.
Instead of listening to idiot Democrats like Dingell, how about Congressman Ryan:
Gives you hope, doesn't it?
The Republicans plan to jam the Reconciliation Bill with amendments in the hopes of bogging down the vote. We'll see how that works. One thing is for sure, after November's election, should the GOP regain the majority, the Republicans should work on defunding the Health Care monstrosity - after all, the Congress holds the purse strings.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Obama Lies: Former CBO Head Says Deficits to Rise by $562 Billion as Obamacare Not Deficit Neutral - Associated Content
Here come the Republican amendments - Washington Post
Newfoundland Premier Danny Williams Heading to United States for Heart Surgery - Hot Air
Health care mandate to be enforced by IRS 'bounty hunters' - The Examiner
Soldier and Lingerie Model Has Problem With Swimsuit Competition in Beauty Pageants
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Yes, you read the title correctly. Katrina Hodge is a soldier in the British Army, and a lingerie model for La Senza, as well as a contestant in last year's Miss England beauty contest. After her experience in the pageant, she has decided she has a problem with the swimsuit portion of the competition.
I am not a beauty pageant fan, so to speak, and I can't remember the last time I watched such an event on television. I believe, however, that these young women make the decision to participate, and the opportunities the competitions create for these young women, in addition to the scholarships offered, make it a worthwhile pursuit for many young women. They are not forced to participate, and they don't kick and scream as the officials indicate a swimsuit is a part of it. Don't like it? Don't participate.
What caught my attention in this story, however, is the ridiculous fact that the woman not fond of the swimsuit portion is a lingerie model.
Doesn't that seem a little, I don't know, stupid?
That's like a politician complaining about the politics being a part of elections, isn't it?
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Soldier and pageant contestant Katrina Hodge fights for ban on swimsuit competitions - Yahoo
Yes, you read the title correctly. Katrina Hodge is a soldier in the British Army, and a lingerie model for La Senza, as well as a contestant in last year's Miss England beauty contest. After her experience in the pageant, she has decided she has a problem with the swimsuit portion of the competition.
I am not a beauty pageant fan, so to speak, and I can't remember the last time I watched such an event on television. I believe, however, that these young women make the decision to participate, and the opportunities the competitions create for these young women, in addition to the scholarships offered, make it a worthwhile pursuit for many young women. They are not forced to participate, and they don't kick and scream as the officials indicate a swimsuit is a part of it. Don't like it? Don't participate.
What caught my attention in this story, however, is the ridiculous fact that the woman not fond of the swimsuit portion is a lingerie model.
Doesn't that seem a little, I don't know, stupid?
That's like a politician complaining about the politics being a part of elections, isn't it?
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Soldier and pageant contestant Katrina Hodge fights for ban on swimsuit competitions - Yahoo
Mark Levin and Paul Ryan (R-WI) on Health Care Legislation
Mark Levin
Go to the above link to listen to an eye opening, extraordinary - and shocking -interview of Congressman Paul Ryan by Mark Levin regarding the Health Care legislation.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Go to the above link to listen to an eye opening, extraordinary - and shocking -interview of Congressman Paul Ryan by Mark Levin regarding the Health Care legislation.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
A Call To Christians in the Battle Against Socialism in America
The audio piece above is brought to you by my good friend, Joshua P. Allem.
Christians of America, it is time we take a leadership role, and inspire revival.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Happy Birthday Mighty Warrior
By Debbie Lee
As I crawl back into bed this morning, hot coffee next to me on my night stand, bible on my lap, I begin to reflect back 32 years ago.
As a recently divorced young, Mom with a 3 1/2 year old son and a 2 year old daughter expecting my 3rd child any day, I headed off to work at 4:00 am as I did everyday. About 10:00 in the morning I started getting some pretty intense cramps. I dismissed them to just more false labor pains, as with my other 2 children labor pains started very intense and just moments apart. Not a by the book 15-20 minutes apart, cramping feeling with increasing intensity.
I continued to work as this was my only means of support for my children. I casually kept an eye on the clock as every 15 minutes or so I would have another round of the strong cramps. My friends nearby were encouraging me to go to the hospital as they thought I was in labor. I kept reassuring them that this wasn't how my labor proceeded. I finished my shift at noon, stopped and picked up my two little darlings and headed home. Now I'm beginning to think that possibly I am in the beginning stages of labor. My first labor was 5 hours and my second was 3 hours and typically each delivery is shorter. I had an hour drive to the hospital so I wasn't even sure that I would make it to the hospital with this one?
I lived in a very rural part of Oregon. I've never been one to panic or cry wolf, so I would just wait until I was sure I was in labor. As a single Mom this delivery would be very different from the previous two. I would be alone, no one there to hold my hand or coach me in this natural delivery, no one to share in the gift of this precious life. Their father was an alcoholic and very abusive and had tried to kill me and when I realized that his abuse probably would pass on to my children, I fled and filed for divorce. Two weeks later I found out I was pregnant and the Dr thought he heard two heart beats. Yes I was going to have twins and double the size of my family. How would I ever survive??
Two weeks before the delivery they did an ultrasound to make sure both babies heads were down and found there was only one child. I had mentally prepared myself for twins and now there was just one. I was sure I was having twin girls and had girl names picked out but not a single boys name.
By now the pains have increased and are getting closer together. I decide to call my girlfriend who was going to take the children while I had the baby. I pick up the phone to dial and the phone is dead, no dial tone. Not to worry I will just use one of my neighbors phones. I run (okay so at 9 months pregnant I didn't run, I waddled) next door but nobody is home. Then I head to the next house, no one there either. Okay, no worry, I still have 2 more across the street, no one there at either one of those homes?? Okay no phone to call for help, no neighbors in this rural community here, HHhhmmmh, Plan C. I'll just grab my keys, put the kids in my car and drive to the hospital. As a single Mom you have to be creative.
Okay where are my keys??? I know I left them on the table. I scan the entire house looking for them but nowhere to be found? I ask my 3 year old and he replied "Cheryl had them." Great my 2 year old has the keys hard telling where they are? I begin calling "Cheryl, Cheryl." Where is she? In the midst of all the craziness she had snuck out the front door and was playing in the front yard. We had just moved into this new home and it hadn't been landscaped yet so it was just mounds of dirt and there is my darling little daughter who taken off all of her clothes but her shoes and was playing in the dirt. I shake my head and wonder to myself what else could possibly happen today.
I call my 3 year old son Kris to come help Mommy find the keys in all of this dirt. Okay, okay so now I'm starting to panic a little. This isn't funny. No keys, no phone, no neighbors. The pains are getting much closer and I know my little of bundle of joy will be hear soon.
Time for Plan D, I know I can't walk very far in labor with a 2yr old and 3 year old. Let's see the Indians used smoke signals, is that one puff or two for help??? I realize that the only option left is probably that I am going to have to deliver my new little one at home with the help of my 3 year old.
Oh my, let's see they always boil water on TV when a delivery is about to take place, and towels, will need towels. I'm busy gathering what I think we will need when the phone rings. It's my girlfriend Sandy who informed me that I had been heavy in her thoughts. I tell her to come get me NOW. On the way to the hospital I retell the events of the morning and what a blessing it was that she had called. I later learned that because of all of the construction in the area someone had cut part of the cable and no one could call out but calls in were still getting through.
I did make it to the hospital and was blessed with a beautiful tons of dark hair, brown eyed, little boy. "BOY" ??? I was sure it was girl. Now I needed a name for a boy. I've just gone through a traumatic day and the process of having a natural child birth with no drugs, all alone and I need a little time to rest, hold my precious gift and enjoy the blessing. The name can wait until later. No matter what I call him that won't change the gift that I had been given on March 20, 1978.
I had planned on a 3 day stay at the hospital. After all I did have insurance that would cover the birth. My previous deliveries, one of the first questions they asked when they were considering discharge was "Do you have other young children at home?" I was a single Mom with a 3yr old and 2 yr old. The next questions was do you have help. I had no help, when I got home it was me and the kids. Check, check, and check! That should do it and by me some time. I also had surgery after Marc was born, so I was looking forward to being taken care of several days in the hospital before I went home to my new life as the single Mother of 3 children, 3 and under.
The next morning the nurse came in and informed me I needed to pick a name for baby boy as I was being discharged today as they needed my hospital bed. WHAT???? Okay how do a come up with a name for my precious boy, just like that?
My menu for the day was lying on my tray table and there were other papers near it, with one overlapping on the date of the Menu, March 21st. The paper covered up the h and 21st. What stood out at me was Marc. Marc I like that I thought. That's it his name will be Marc. Marc used to say "Great Mom you got my name off of a menu?" It wasn't until years later when I learned that Marc means Mighty Warrior. God had sent a post it note to me that day to give me the name for this young man who would grow up to be a hero that would change the world and sacrifice his life so that other's could live. Mighty Warrior he was!
This morning as I sat in my bed sipping my coffee, remembering Marc on his birthday, tears flow down my cheeks, knowing how much I miss him. Oh how I wish he were hear today celebrating his special day with family and friends.
As Parents we assume that we will have our children for the rest of our lives. That we will watch them marry, have children, impact the world with their careers, celebrate holidays and take care of us when we get old. That was always going to be my payback for my children One day they would have to feed me, wipe the droll from my mouth and change my diapers.
That wasn't God's plan for Marc, or for me. I would have him for 28 years in my life and then would share him with the rest of the world. We need to cherish each and everyday we have with them.
So many people have so many memories of Marc, how he impacted their life and changed their world. I love hearing those stories. Marc not only changed this world by how he lived everyday but how he left this world. He willingly gave all of his tomorrows, his future, so that his buddies could have their today and their tomorrows. He did that so YOU could have your today and your tomorrow. He left a legacy in his sacrifice and his last letter home, his "Glory letter" that continues to change peoples lives today.
John 15:13 says "Greater love has no man than this that he lay down his life for his friends." that's what Marc did. He set an amazing example of love and then in his "glory letter" challenges us to pass on that love. In that letter he says" I'm not saying look at me" because he admits his failure before he deployed. Yet as we look back at Marc's final actions that day he did pass on "the love, the kindness, the precious gift of human life."
Marc had an example to follow too, his Father, not his earthly Father who wasn't part of Marc's life, but His Heavenly Father. That's who that verse John 15:13 was originally written about. Christ showed amazing love for each one of us and gave his life so that we could live for an eternity. He calls us friends. Wow! Now that's even greater love. Marc's friends tell stories over and over how Marc deeply impacted their lives. You see a friend knows and remembers these things. Can you do the same for Christ? Is he your friend? Can you tell other's what he has done for you?
I have struggled through numerous tragedies and grief in my life and I have often shared about the strength Christ gives me and that He is my friend. He is the reason that I can get through the deepest pain a parent can go through and survive. He is the reason I have hope. Today as I remember Marc and celebrate his birthday without the honored guest I cling to that hope. I know Marc would want you to cling to that hope also. One day when my time on earth is done and Christ calls me home I know that Marc will be there to escort me into the presence of my King, my Lord, my Savior. I hope you have your reservation in and I will see you there.
In Marc's honor today and to celebrate his birth please read his "Glory Letter" and pass on "the love, the kindness, the precious gift of human life" by doing a random act of kindness.
Remembering my Mighty Warrior!
Debbie Lee
Founder & Gold Star Mom
http://www.americasmightywarriors.org/
Before They Go and Forgotten Heroes - Two Opportunities to Pay Tribute to our Vietnam Veterans
Before They Go - Before they fade into the fabric of history... We will give them the tribute they deserve. Visit www.beforetheygo.us
Also, Director Jack Marino's film, Forgotten Heroes, is a Hollywood Tribute to the Vietnam Veteran you will not find from the rest of Hollywood. Buy it today at ForgottenHeroesTheMovie.com. And remember, for every DVD bought, the producers of Forgotten Heroes are donating 25% of all DVD gross sales to the AMERICAN VETERANS DISABLED FOR LIFE MEMORIAL FUND.
Also, Director Jack Marino's film, Forgotten Heroes, is a Hollywood Tribute to the Vietnam Veteran you will not find from the rest of Hollywood. Buy it today at ForgottenHeroesTheMovie.com. And remember, for every DVD bought, the producers of Forgotten Heroes are donating 25% of all DVD gross sales to the AMERICAN VETERANS DISABLED FOR LIFE MEMORIAL FUND.
Beck: It's ON, Progressives, and WE WILL WIN!
We have only begun to fight. . .
They might win a few battles, but we will win the war, because we will never give in. . . never.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
They might win a few battles, but we will win the war, because we will never give in. . . never.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
When Self-Reliance Dies
By Douglas V. Gibbs
I forgot to take my medicine that controls my acid reflux yesterday morning. I forgot to take the pill the night before, as well. When I got home I was so tired I walked right by my wife and plopped down on the bed, clothing and all, finally waking up at midnight.
The twelve o'clock hour chimed as I sat at my desk to write, and the last thing on my mind was food, or pills. I laid back down at 1:30 am, only for my alarm to wake me up at 3:00 am. In the morning rush to get out the door, maybe because my pills were covered by the mail (placing them out of sight), I forgot my pills.
All day, yesterday, I suffered from a burning chest, which reminded me of my foolish blunder. "If only my wife had reminded me," I thought. Usually she does.
What if a government official, given the task of ensuring that my necessity of the acid controlling drug, reminded me? What if, after I was on the road, he pulled me over to give me a pill so that I wouldn't suffer from my forgetfulness?
Eventually, I think, I wouldn't even worry about remembering to take my pills. After all, anytime I forgot, a government worker would show up to give me a pill. Eventually, I would come to expect it, even demand it if for some reason one day the government employee didn't appear to administer the drug.
That is how entitlement programs work. People aren't lazy, per se. But they become dependent on programs that give them things, and even get to the point of demanding the entitlement. Why work for your money when the government will give you money and food for free?
This is how the liberals have taken control of 40% of the population, and have created a permanent class of voters. The leftists have made the people dependent upon government with their entitlement programs, and the people have lost their will to do anything other than receive their goodies from the government.
As a result, the poor stay poor.
That is not compassion. That is slavery.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
I forgot to take my medicine that controls my acid reflux yesterday morning. I forgot to take the pill the night before, as well. When I got home I was so tired I walked right by my wife and plopped down on the bed, clothing and all, finally waking up at midnight.
The twelve o'clock hour chimed as I sat at my desk to write, and the last thing on my mind was food, or pills. I laid back down at 1:30 am, only for my alarm to wake me up at 3:00 am. In the morning rush to get out the door, maybe because my pills were covered by the mail (placing them out of sight), I forgot my pills.
All day, yesterday, I suffered from a burning chest, which reminded me of my foolish blunder. "If only my wife had reminded me," I thought. Usually she does.
What if a government official, given the task of ensuring that my necessity of the acid controlling drug, reminded me? What if, after I was on the road, he pulled me over to give me a pill so that I wouldn't suffer from my forgetfulness?
Eventually, I think, I wouldn't even worry about remembering to take my pills. After all, anytime I forgot, a government worker would show up to give me a pill. Eventually, I would come to expect it, even demand it if for some reason one day the government employee didn't appear to administer the drug.
That is how entitlement programs work. People aren't lazy, per se. But they become dependent on programs that give them things, and even get to the point of demanding the entitlement. Why work for your money when the government will give you money and food for free?
This is how the liberals have taken control of 40% of the population, and have created a permanent class of voters. The leftists have made the people dependent upon government with their entitlement programs, and the people have lost their will to do anything other than receive their goodies from the government.
As a result, the poor stay poor.
That is not compassion. That is slavery.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
California Poised to Outlaw Smoking on All Beaches and In All Parks
By Douglas V. Gibbs
California has been under the thumb of liberal idiots for decades. Even Arnold Schwarzenegger, despite the "R" after his name, is a raging liberal (though he claimed to be a fiscal conservative - Hey, don't blame me, I voted for McClintock!!). The legislature has been dominated by liberal Democrats as long as I can remember, and thanks to the leftists of our history, the state is bankrupt, and our freedoms are few.
But the leftists aren't done yet.
Nope, now they want to start dictating to people what they can do outside - specifically, when it comes to cigarettes.
The state Assembly has been trying to pass a ban on smoking at state beaches and state parks, and so far has been unsuccessful. The ban would be enforced with a penalty of a fine that could be as high as $100.
I guess if some guy is having a cigarette on a campsite up the road they figure you will die of lung disease.
Come on, in California most of the air around the cities are already a risk to your lungs. When I was a smoker I used to say about the smog that I enjoyed having a cigarette so that I could clear my lungs out a little. About the only excuse I can see as maybe being legitimate is that such a ban would reduce the threat of wildfires.
Next, when they realize people are still flicking cigarettes out of their cars, they will zero in on you smoking in your vehicle.
Hell, Pasadena is trying to ban cigarette smoking city-wide, for God's Sake!
Don't get me wrong with all of my sarcasm. I used to smoke, and after 21 years I decided to quite. Note the "choice" part that is attached to deciding to quit.
I agree that people should be more responsible and careful, and that smokers ought to be considerate about smoking around non-smokers.
But it is not the government's place to force a law down our throats telling us we can't even smoke outside anymore!
How asinine is that?
What's next? Will bananas be banned outside because someone might slip if the peel is dropped? Will gum chewing be banned because of the gum that winds up on the bottoms of shoes? - Yeah, sounds ridiculous, doesn't it? To me, so does these bans on cigarettes.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Will California ban smoking in parks, on beaches? - Orange County Register
California has been under the thumb of liberal idiots for decades. Even Arnold Schwarzenegger, despite the "R" after his name, is a raging liberal (though he claimed to be a fiscal conservative - Hey, don't blame me, I voted for McClintock!!). The legislature has been dominated by liberal Democrats as long as I can remember, and thanks to the leftists of our history, the state is bankrupt, and our freedoms are few.
But the leftists aren't done yet.
Nope, now they want to start dictating to people what they can do outside - specifically, when it comes to cigarettes.
The state Assembly has been trying to pass a ban on smoking at state beaches and state parks, and so far has been unsuccessful. The ban would be enforced with a penalty of a fine that could be as high as $100.
I guess if some guy is having a cigarette on a campsite up the road they figure you will die of lung disease.
Come on, in California most of the air around the cities are already a risk to your lungs. When I was a smoker I used to say about the smog that I enjoyed having a cigarette so that I could clear my lungs out a little. About the only excuse I can see as maybe being legitimate is that such a ban would reduce the threat of wildfires.
Next, when they realize people are still flicking cigarettes out of their cars, they will zero in on you smoking in your vehicle.
Hell, Pasadena is trying to ban cigarette smoking city-wide, for God's Sake!
Don't get me wrong with all of my sarcasm. I used to smoke, and after 21 years I decided to quite. Note the "choice" part that is attached to deciding to quit.
I agree that people should be more responsible and careful, and that smokers ought to be considerate about smoking around non-smokers.
But it is not the government's place to force a law down our throats telling us we can't even smoke outside anymore!
How asinine is that?
What's next? Will bananas be banned outside because someone might slip if the peel is dropped? Will gum chewing be banned because of the gum that winds up on the bottoms of shoes? - Yeah, sounds ridiculous, doesn't it? To me, so does these bans on cigarettes.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Will California ban smoking in parks, on beaches? - Orange County Register
Obama Official Portrait Unveiled
“What Change Looks Like”
Image Of The Century
Obamacare
THIS IS the image of the century to go along with the socialism ‘change’ that everyone supposedly voted for. I am assuming that this image sums up how most Americans feel right about now when it comes to the disrespect the dictator-in-chief and his motley crew in Congress have shown us and our Constitution.
I do believe this particular image should go viral as it will be THE REMINDER come the mid-term elections and beyond.
It should shine from sea to sea.
Whatcha think?
Thanks Andrea Shea King
Searchlight Tea Party Express Rally in local Nevada news
And yes, I will be there, along with Andrea Shea King, Ken Pettigrew, Michael Holler, and many others.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
ObamaCare Goes To Court
By Douglas V. Gibbs
In a recent article I wrote that the Health Care legislation that Obama signed today was headed to the courts. In response, more than a dozen leftwing crazies screamed at me, "But you said about the courts. . . !"
The sentence I am figuring got the liberals bent all out of shape was: "In the meantime, many expect the courts to be called upon to determine if this legislation is Constitutional."
Apparently that is where they stopped reading, because in the very next paragraph I wrote: "Even if the Supreme Court determines the unconstitutionality of this legislation, it will stay on the books until it can be repealed legislatively."
In other words, the courts cannot make law, or repeal law. But, if the Health Care legislation, in the opinion of the United States Supreme Court, is found to be unconstitutional, will the Democrat Party-led Congress be willing to repeal the law?
The answer is a resounding "No."
The leftists are under the impression that once this monstrosity is around for a while, and the "benefits" kick into play (shhh, don't tell the Obama-lovers that the so-called benefits don't start for four years), the people are going to like it, drop all of the court cases against it, and march to the government doctors with grins on their faces singing Kumbaya. Never mind the fact that thousands of additional IRS agents are to be hired to enforce the mandates of the new law, or that 40% tax hikes on medications will occur, while the tax on “Cadillac” plans for union members was delayed in the reconciliation bill until 2018 (unions rule the minds of politicians most of the time).
Well, the people don't even need the tax hikes to kick in to tell them they don't like what the leftist radicals have passed. The citizens of America already hate the socialism that passed the House on Sunday, and was signed into law by Obama today.
According to two new polls, the American people are even more strongly against the health care plan than they were before. A CNN poll found that 59% of Americans oppose President Obama’s plan. A CBS News poll indicates that 48% of Americans oppose the plan (with 33% in strong opposition) compared to only 37% who support it (with only 13% in strong support). The CBS poll also says that 76% of Americans disapprove of how Congress is handling its job on health care, 46% think Congress has spent too much time on health care, and 49% believe the rules and procedures used in Congress to get the current health care bill passed have been mostly unfair.
Even not-so-conservative writers are questioning the legislation, finding the health care legislation "historically irresponsible." The American Thinker even goes so far as to say that the Health Care legislation is full of racial preferences, in addition to all of its other unconstitutional provisions.
The people do not like what has happened, and the states are taking action. Fourteen Attorneys General have filed suits against ObamaCare, and two states (out of 38 that have proposed similar legislation) have passed bills that reject the government mandates.
When it comes to the courts, however, understand that though they should find it unconstitutional (well, that is if Kennedy - the usual swing vote - proves to be a Constitutionalist, rather than a socialist), the battle is far from over, and a United States Supreme Court decision in our favor does not negate the horrendous Health Care Law signed by President Barack Obama today.
In the end, if this piece of legislation is to be stopped, it needs to be done through the states, and the proposals of bills in the states to reject the Health Care legislation's mandates is definitely a start.
Even if the states unite in their rejection of this unconstitutional law, or at least most of them do, the battle will have just begun because the federal government will do everything in its power to stop the state's attempt to assert their individual rights, and the feds will try to do so, probably, through the courts.
The Founding Fathers intended the judiciary to be the weakest branch of government, and Alexander Hamilton (who later betrayed what he wrote through his actions both during the Constitutional Convention, and afterward) assured Americans in the Federalist Papers that the judiciary "will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution," and that a state's sovereignty would always be protected.
John Marshall, the fourth Chief Justice of the United States (serving from January 31, 1801 until his death on July 6, 1835), was not happy with justices not being supreme over the legislators, and in a series of cases asserted the Court's "supremacy" over the U.S. Congress, state legislatures, and state courts. Ultimately, Marshall's chief goals were to neuter the state's rights in the federal system, and to put the U.S. Congress on a judicial leash.
The notion that the federal government should have veto power over the states was rejected in the Constitutional Convention, as was the court's ability to negate laws on the grounds of their "interpretation" of the Constitution. In fact, during the convention for Virginia's ratification of the Constitution the State of Virginia had people labor over every detail of the document for weeks to make sure there were no infringements of state's rights.
John Taylor's New Views of the Constitution of the United States (1823) based on notes by Robert Yates of the Constitutional Convention states: "The proposals for a national government and its negative power over the state acts, were really made. . . they were opposed by the state deputies. . . they were rejected."
In the hopes of reversing this understanding of the Constitution, Marshall wrote in reference to an 1810 case, Fletcher v. Peck, that a contract, despite fraud, was valid. The idiocy of his position was not what mattered to Marshall, what mattered was establishing legal precedent. Nowhere in the Constitution is it mentioned that federal courts can review and veto state, as well as, federal legislation. But John Marshall was interested in creating a federal judicial dictatorship that would rule through the pronouncements of supreme judicial rulers.
When state courts began to challenge Marshall's political objective of the central government ruling over the states through a small number of men, Marshall attempted to stomp out the challenge to federal supremacy in an 1816 case known as Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, where Virginia had seized land owned by British loyalists during the Revolution. The act by Virginia occurred before the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment had been added to the Constitution, and the state courts ruled the land seizure to be legitimate. Marshall, and his allies in the Supreme Court believed otherwise, citing the Jay Treaty that ended the war and allowed British Citizens to own land in the new country. Joseph Story, a friend and ally of Marshall's, wrote the opinion, citing the Supremacy Clause in the Constitution, ignoring the fact that the federal government's authority is limited to the enumerated powers in Article I, Section 8.
Nothing in the Constitution gives the federal government the power to review state court decisions, nor for the judiciary to overturn law. Nonetheless, during Marshall's reign as Chief Justice, the Supreme Court seized the power to supervise state courts, review legislation, and overturn law - an entirely unconstitutional usurpation of power.
Therefore, even if the Supreme Court finds the Health Care legislation to be unconstitutional, the law stands until it is repealed legislatively. However, the states have the power to reject the Health Care law as they are doing with their own bills, which are intended to reject the unconstitutional mandates of the law. Where the real battles will begin is if the Supreme Court tries to negate the state's legislation, and state court decisions, that rejects the Health Care legislation passed by the House of Representatives on Sunday, and signed into law by Obama today.
In the end, it is up to the states, which is The People, to stop this madness, and send the socialistic Health Care Law to an early grave.
An overpowering win by the Republicans in November should serve as fuel for the fight, as well as give those that believe in the Constitution, more voices in Washington.
The Revolution continues. . .
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Historic health reform signed - Yahoo News
Is ObamaCare Headed for a Supreme Court Smackdown? - American Thinker
Health Care Passage Plunges America Into Dark Ages - Political Pistachio
IRS looking to hire thousands of tax agents to enforce health care laws - The Daily Caller
14 Attorneys General Are Filing Suit on ObamaCare - Net Right Nation Blog
Health care reform bill 101: what the bill means to you - Christian Science Monitor
Health Care- Fix middle-class “medicine cabinet tax” in reconciliation - Open Market dot Org
Congress vs. The American People - The Heritage Foundation
Obama shows a president can be both strong and wrong - Washington Post, Michael Gerson
Racial Preferences in the Democrats' Health Care Bill - American Thinker
The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution, Kevin R.C. Gutzman, p. 83, and p. 86
New Views of the Constitution of the United States, John Taylor, pages 35, 36
John Marshall and the Constitution, Edward S. Corwin, pages 151-154 and pages 177-182
In a recent article I wrote that the Health Care legislation that Obama signed today was headed to the courts. In response, more than a dozen leftwing crazies screamed at me, "But you said about the courts. . . !"
The sentence I am figuring got the liberals bent all out of shape was: "In the meantime, many expect the courts to be called upon to determine if this legislation is Constitutional."
Apparently that is where they stopped reading, because in the very next paragraph I wrote: "Even if the Supreme Court determines the unconstitutionality of this legislation, it will stay on the books until it can be repealed legislatively."
In other words, the courts cannot make law, or repeal law. But, if the Health Care legislation, in the opinion of the United States Supreme Court, is found to be unconstitutional, will the Democrat Party-led Congress be willing to repeal the law?
The answer is a resounding "No."
The leftists are under the impression that once this monstrosity is around for a while, and the "benefits" kick into play (shhh, don't tell the Obama-lovers that the so-called benefits don't start for four years), the people are going to like it, drop all of the court cases against it, and march to the government doctors with grins on their faces singing Kumbaya. Never mind the fact that thousands of additional IRS agents are to be hired to enforce the mandates of the new law, or that 40% tax hikes on medications will occur, while the tax on “Cadillac” plans for union members was delayed in the reconciliation bill until 2018 (unions rule the minds of politicians most of the time).
Well, the people don't even need the tax hikes to kick in to tell them they don't like what the leftist radicals have passed. The citizens of America already hate the socialism that passed the House on Sunday, and was signed into law by Obama today.
According to two new polls, the American people are even more strongly against the health care plan than they were before. A CNN poll found that 59% of Americans oppose President Obama’s plan. A CBS News poll indicates that 48% of Americans oppose the plan (with 33% in strong opposition) compared to only 37% who support it (with only 13% in strong support). The CBS poll also says that 76% of Americans disapprove of how Congress is handling its job on health care, 46% think Congress has spent too much time on health care, and 49% believe the rules and procedures used in Congress to get the current health care bill passed have been mostly unfair.
Even not-so-conservative writers are questioning the legislation, finding the health care legislation "historically irresponsible." The American Thinker even goes so far as to say that the Health Care legislation is full of racial preferences, in addition to all of its other unconstitutional provisions.
The people do not like what has happened, and the states are taking action. Fourteen Attorneys General have filed suits against ObamaCare, and two states (out of 38 that have proposed similar legislation) have passed bills that reject the government mandates.
When it comes to the courts, however, understand that though they should find it unconstitutional (well, that is if Kennedy - the usual swing vote - proves to be a Constitutionalist, rather than a socialist), the battle is far from over, and a United States Supreme Court decision in our favor does not negate the horrendous Health Care Law signed by President Barack Obama today.
In the end, if this piece of legislation is to be stopped, it needs to be done through the states, and the proposals of bills in the states to reject the Health Care legislation's mandates is definitely a start.
Even if the states unite in their rejection of this unconstitutional law, or at least most of them do, the battle will have just begun because the federal government will do everything in its power to stop the state's attempt to assert their individual rights, and the feds will try to do so, probably, through the courts.
The Founding Fathers intended the judiciary to be the weakest branch of government, and Alexander Hamilton (who later betrayed what he wrote through his actions both during the Constitutional Convention, and afterward) assured Americans in the Federalist Papers that the judiciary "will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution," and that a state's sovereignty would always be protected.
John Marshall, the fourth Chief Justice of the United States (serving from January 31, 1801 until his death on July 6, 1835), was not happy with justices not being supreme over the legislators, and in a series of cases asserted the Court's "supremacy" over the U.S. Congress, state legislatures, and state courts. Ultimately, Marshall's chief goals were to neuter the state's rights in the federal system, and to put the U.S. Congress on a judicial leash.
The notion that the federal government should have veto power over the states was rejected in the Constitutional Convention, as was the court's ability to negate laws on the grounds of their "interpretation" of the Constitution. In fact, during the convention for Virginia's ratification of the Constitution the State of Virginia had people labor over every detail of the document for weeks to make sure there were no infringements of state's rights.
John Taylor's New Views of the Constitution of the United States (1823) based on notes by Robert Yates of the Constitutional Convention states: "The proposals for a national government and its negative power over the state acts, were really made. . . they were opposed by the state deputies. . . they were rejected."
In the hopes of reversing this understanding of the Constitution, Marshall wrote in reference to an 1810 case, Fletcher v. Peck, that a contract, despite fraud, was valid. The idiocy of his position was not what mattered to Marshall, what mattered was establishing legal precedent. Nowhere in the Constitution is it mentioned that federal courts can review and veto state, as well as, federal legislation. But John Marshall was interested in creating a federal judicial dictatorship that would rule through the pronouncements of supreme judicial rulers.
When state courts began to challenge Marshall's political objective of the central government ruling over the states through a small number of men, Marshall attempted to stomp out the challenge to federal supremacy in an 1816 case known as Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, where Virginia had seized land owned by British loyalists during the Revolution. The act by Virginia occurred before the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment had been added to the Constitution, and the state courts ruled the land seizure to be legitimate. Marshall, and his allies in the Supreme Court believed otherwise, citing the Jay Treaty that ended the war and allowed British Citizens to own land in the new country. Joseph Story, a friend and ally of Marshall's, wrote the opinion, citing the Supremacy Clause in the Constitution, ignoring the fact that the federal government's authority is limited to the enumerated powers in Article I, Section 8.
Nothing in the Constitution gives the federal government the power to review state court decisions, nor for the judiciary to overturn law. Nonetheless, during Marshall's reign as Chief Justice, the Supreme Court seized the power to supervise state courts, review legislation, and overturn law - an entirely unconstitutional usurpation of power.
Therefore, even if the Supreme Court finds the Health Care legislation to be unconstitutional, the law stands until it is repealed legislatively. However, the states have the power to reject the Health Care law as they are doing with their own bills, which are intended to reject the unconstitutional mandates of the law. Where the real battles will begin is if the Supreme Court tries to negate the state's legislation, and state court decisions, that rejects the Health Care legislation passed by the House of Representatives on Sunday, and signed into law by Obama today.
In the end, it is up to the states, which is The People, to stop this madness, and send the socialistic Health Care Law to an early grave.
An overpowering win by the Republicans in November should serve as fuel for the fight, as well as give those that believe in the Constitution, more voices in Washington.
The Revolution continues. . .
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Historic health reform signed - Yahoo News
Is ObamaCare Headed for a Supreme Court Smackdown? - American Thinker
Health Care Passage Plunges America Into Dark Ages - Political Pistachio
IRS looking to hire thousands of tax agents to enforce health care laws - The Daily Caller
14 Attorneys General Are Filing Suit on ObamaCare - Net Right Nation Blog
Health care reform bill 101: what the bill means to you - Christian Science Monitor
Health Care- Fix middle-class “medicine cabinet tax” in reconciliation - Open Market dot Org
Congress vs. The American People - The Heritage Foundation
Obama shows a president can be both strong and wrong - Washington Post, Michael Gerson
Racial Preferences in the Democrats' Health Care Bill - American Thinker
The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution, Kevin R.C. Gutzman, p. 83, and p. 86
New Views of the Constitution of the United States, John Taylor, pages 35, 36
John Marshall and the Constitution, Edward S. Corwin, pages 151-154 and pages 177-182
Protecting The Constitution, Quote by E. Sutton
Our constitution does not protect us, we protect it.
Our liberties are not born in the Constitution, they are merely enshrined there.
E. Sutton
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Our liberties are not born in the Constitution, they are merely enshrined there.
E. Sutton
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Obama is in my Prayers
Psalm 109:8
Let his years be few; let his position be given to someone else.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Let his years be few; let his position be given to someone else.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Republican Front Runner for 2012
Republicans are scrambling to determine who they think should be the next great Republican President. With the devastation being spread across this nation by the moronic policies of President Obama, and his radically leftist Democrat controlled Congress, I can see why people are clamoring for a 2012 hopeful.
One of the names that gets brought up often is Sarah Palin. Palin, however, even among some Conservatives, is not seen in the best light after the onslaught of negative attacks by the main-extreme media. If you believe Palin is ignorant as the main-extreme media indicated, however, you are simply doing exactly as the leftists in the media have intended.
I don't believe she is ignorant as you may think, and in fact I was discussing her as a potential vice presidential pick on my site a year before McCain chose her. This is not to say that she is perfect in every way, no politician ever is. She has her charm, and her shortfalls. And recently, one of the bones of contention regarding her for many on the right is their perception of her position on illegal immigration.
With the U.S. Constitution becoming a regular topic of conversation, Ron Paul is also being brought up quite a bit in discussions regarding the presidential election of 2012. As much as I like Ron Paul's Constitutional prowess, his national security policies make me want to kick and scream (figuratively, or course).
To be honest, however, I don't think any candidate has been impressive, and I currently hold nobody as a favorite for 2012 at this point. One thing can be for sure, however: whoever it is will be heads and tails better than the idiot in the White House right now.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
One of the names that gets brought up often is Sarah Palin. Palin, however, even among some Conservatives, is not seen in the best light after the onslaught of negative attacks by the main-extreme media. If you believe Palin is ignorant as the main-extreme media indicated, however, you are simply doing exactly as the leftists in the media have intended.
I don't believe she is ignorant as you may think, and in fact I was discussing her as a potential vice presidential pick on my site a year before McCain chose her. This is not to say that she is perfect in every way, no politician ever is. She has her charm, and her shortfalls. And recently, one of the bones of contention regarding her for many on the right is their perception of her position on illegal immigration.
With the U.S. Constitution becoming a regular topic of conversation, Ron Paul is also being brought up quite a bit in discussions regarding the presidential election of 2012. As much as I like Ron Paul's Constitutional prowess, his national security policies make me want to kick and scream (figuratively, or course).
To be honest, however, I don't think any candidate has been impressive, and I currently hold nobody as a favorite for 2012 at this point. One thing can be for sure, however: whoever it is will be heads and tails better than the idiot in the White House right now.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Monday, March 22, 2010
The Birth of a Constitution, Health Care, Totalitarianism, and Anarchy
With the passage of the very socialistic Health Care legislation that is but the foundation of an ultimately communistic type of system the Democrats would like to put into place, the limiting principles of the U.S. Constitution are being constantly referred to by those that oppose this legislation. No place in that document does the federal government have the authority to pass legislation in regards to health care. One of the reasons our health care system is among the best in the world is because of the private nature of the system. In fact, our health care model did not begin to suffer from fraud, corruption, high costs, and an epidemic of denied claims until the government began to manipulate the industry with heavy regulation and unrealistic expectations.
If government is so dangerous, argues a member of a forum I am a member of, then why not eliminate government completely? Anarchy, claims this person, is the only form of society that eliminates the evils of government, and forces the people to work together.
Anarchy is unsustainable, and fails to take into consideration the aspect of human nature that drives humanity to organize, create a hierarchy within that organization, and ultimately allow some kind of leadership to take the reins of that society.
In the end, Anarchy and Communism/Socialism have the same goals, a Utopian society in which communal participation among the people eliminate the need for government. A noble gesture, one may think, but unrealistic, and ultimately a very dangerous proposition.
Human nature makes society without government impossible, except maybe on very small scales. In fact, the pilgrims experimented with such systems that one could call "socialism" and "anarchism," but the problem was that eventually people worked less, but still pulled from the public coffer no differently, eventually resulting in less going in than coming out. Eventually a few successful farmers were feeding everyone, while having nothing remaining for their own families. In turn, a heavily intrusive governmental system jeopardizes the freedoms of the individuals as well. The Founders realized the individual needed the freedom to be personally responsible for their own subsistence, while somehow also contributing to the overall society. A government was going to be needed to be in place, but rather than the rule of man, the Rule of Law through some kind of agreement needed to be in place.
The Founding Fathers, through their experiences and research, determined that though government is necessary, it must be limited as much as possible. Therefore, they placed within their founding document many limiting principles on the federal government, and called that agreement among The States "The Articles of Confederation." Big Government guys like Alexander Hamilton complained that the Articles limited the federal government too much, and that the individual sovereign states needed a stronger government for the purpose of protecting the union, ensuring that commerce flowed regularly through the states, and so that a larger federal entity was available to settle squabbles among the states. Everyone agreed to amend the Articles in such a way, but their revisions retained the limiting principles against the federal government as much as possible.
Five months passed in 1787 as these patriots hammered out this new document, arguing constantly, ultimately rejecting the idea of a strong, central government (as suggested by Alexander Hamilton), and turning out a new document so different from the Articles of Confederation that they determined the new document should have a new name, and they called it the United States Constitution - a document that limits the federal government, but is neither one of socialism, or anarchism, for both are dangerous forms that ultimately lead to a totalitarianistic form of government.
The Constitution became the Law of the Land, and the new nation would be governed based on The Rule of Law as prescribed by that document. The new America under the U.S. Constitution would be a land where men were self-reliant and personally responsible, the states were independent and sovereign, and the federal government was limited in its powers. The federal government was to provide the things that protects the union, and the states were given the authority to manage their own affairs without federal intervention. Each state was expected to run its own economy, pass its own laws, and even have constitutions of their own. The states paid taxes to the federal government in order to fund the services of the federal government, which were to protect the union militarily, ensure the post moved freely and that post offices were created, and that commerce flowed regularly, and with ease, among the states.
Then, as now, there were those that did not appreciate the limiting principles of the U.S. Constitution, and endeavored to grow the federal government, to expand the authorities given to the federal government, and to make our government unlike the Constitutional Republic it was originally intended to be. These Federalists used the judiciary to manipulate the system, with the claim that they were simply trying to "interpret" the Constitution. The Federalists were behind the formation of a centralized bank (Bank of the United States I and II) and behind the push for a bigger federal government.
The People did not accept the drive for tyranny that was not much unlike what they had just fought against in the Revolutionary War. As a result, the Federalist Party faded away by the 1820s, and until 1860 the majority of the Presidents of the United States were men that believed in the limiting principles of the U.S. Constitution.
A balance had been struck. America prospered and became a shining beacon on the hill. People from around the world endeavored to come to America to experience freedom that was not available in their own countries. No longer would these immigrants be subjects of a centralized government, but self-reliant individuals enjoying liberty, and the fruits of a free society. The United States was neither a nation of totalitarianism, nor of anarchy. The necessary evil of government existed, but with limiting principles that allowed the states to run their own affairs. People were responsible for their own lives, be it putting food on the table, or paying for health care services should any members of the family fall ill. The labors of the people under the free market system were rewarded with low costs, competing services that ensured a high standard of quality, and a prosperous nation that became great because the people were responsible for themselves. Sure, society still had its concerns, but a good, moral nation like the United States was working to eliminate the problems through a common sense approach, and a system driven by state's rights.
Now, the government has grown into a behemoth of regulations and restrictions. Businesses are going overseas because it is not fiscally reasonable to run operations here in the United States with all of the regulations and taxes against them. People are burdened with excessive taxes, and the culture has been taught by big government to depend upon entitlement programs, instead of themselves, for their necessities of life. Over forty percent of the population is considered poor, and on the government dole. The government's system of welfare programs keeps the poor poor, and eliminates any desire to be self-reliant. But the ever-expanding government is not happy with only controlling nearly half of the country with incentive killing entitlement programs. Now the federal government has set its sights on the Middle Class, hoping to rein in those people into the government umbrella of slavery as they have with the ever increasing population of the poor.
President Obama proclaimed that the passage of the Health Care legislation was necessary to take control of a health insurance industry running amok. He somehow does not see the harm in replacing an out of control insurance industry with an out of control federal government running amok. The reason the Democrats don't see the harm is because what they are doing is by design. Like the Federalists of the early years of this nation, they desire a powerful government that controls the people, and limits liberty.
The political left is working to keep the poor poor, keep the Middle Class down, and to penalize the wealthy for their success through a Marxist system of progressive taxation. As far as these liberals are concerned, the only people that know what is best for you is them. In order to create their Utopian society, in which they make decisions for everyone else, they are trying to make the Middle Class dependent upon government for all of its needs, and to add them to the ranks of the poor as a perpetual voting class for the big government Democrats.
Republicans and Conservatives call what is happening very dangerous, and a leap towards socialism.
Our Founding Fathers would call it tyranny.
The twelfth hour is upon us. Are we willing to do as our Founding Fathers were willing to do? As they proclaimed in the final sentence of the Declaration of Independence: "And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor."
The Revolution has begun.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Sarah Palin on Immigration and Amnesty
"Supports a path to citizenship, but no amnesty for illegals. (Oct 2008)
Never supported Pat Buchanan for president. (Sep 2008)
Has not often expressed views on illegal immigration. (Aug 2008)
OpEd: Palin is sick to death of this immigration nonsense. (Mar 2008)
Address jointly with Canada the border security challenges. (Jan 2007)
Immigrants want more vocational training & senior assistance. (Oct 2006)
Took no action on Alaska’s “sanctuary cities”. (Sep 2006)
Tightened restrictions on illegal alien’s drivers licenses. (Sep 2006)"
Many folks are trying to convince me that Sarah Palin, as conspiracy nut Alex Jones' proclaims, is a fake and pro-amnesty for illegals. The above information is from a site that claims to articulate where Sarah Palin stands on the issues. In what is above, where does it say she is pro-amnesty?
Like Palin, I support a path to citizenship for those that wish to immigrate legally to this country. Remember, my wife is an immigrant that came here legally as a child with her parents, and naturalized in 2007. But, as does my wife and Palin, I do not support amnesty for those who are here illegally. If they are willing to break the law to come here, who knows what other laws they are willing to break.
And though Palin did nothing regarding sanctuary cities, as stated above, she tightened restrictions on illegal alien drivers licenses.
This does not convince me that she is pro-amnesty. For those out there making this claim, you will need more solid evidence than an assumption.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Sarah Palin on Immigration
Never supported Pat Buchanan for president. (Sep 2008)
Has not often expressed views on illegal immigration. (Aug 2008)
OpEd: Palin is sick to death of this immigration nonsense. (Mar 2008)
Address jointly with Canada the border security challenges. (Jan 2007)
Immigrants want more vocational training & senior assistance. (Oct 2006)
Took no action on Alaska’s “sanctuary cities”. (Sep 2006)
Tightened restrictions on illegal alien’s drivers licenses. (Sep 2006)"
Many folks are trying to convince me that Sarah Palin, as conspiracy nut Alex Jones' proclaims, is a fake and pro-amnesty for illegals. The above information is from a site that claims to articulate where Sarah Palin stands on the issues. In what is above, where does it say she is pro-amnesty?
Like Palin, I support a path to citizenship for those that wish to immigrate legally to this country. Remember, my wife is an immigrant that came here legally as a child with her parents, and naturalized in 2007. But, as does my wife and Palin, I do not support amnesty for those who are here illegally. If they are willing to break the law to come here, who knows what other laws they are willing to break.
And though Palin did nothing regarding sanctuary cities, as stated above, she tightened restrictions on illegal alien drivers licenses.
This does not convince me that she is pro-amnesty. For those out there making this claim, you will need more solid evidence than an assumption.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Sarah Palin on Immigration
Death By Government Health Care
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Last night the House of Representatives passed the Senate Health Care bill by a vote of 219 to 212. The new piece of legislation will spend money we don't have, raise health care costs, and point our nation in the direction of becoming just another socialist nation on the road to economic failure.
Ultimately, however, understand that the health care legislation is not about health care. If it was, the leftists would be trying to pass a bill that was not full of mandates and government restrictions, but one that would actually do something that would improve the delivery and quality of health care while driving down costs with a truly free market solution.
There is no turning back. The will of the American People has been defied, and the arrogance of the Left has, in a single vote, allowed the government to take over one-sixth of the nation's economy. The Democrats claim that the legislation is deficit neutral, while creating a huge bureaucracy, and offering to hire thousands of IRS agents to enforce its mandates.
What we witnessed last night was a power grab by big government. But understand, the battle is not over yet. There is still a Senate vote for Reconciliation, and court battles ahead.
Like all other entitlement programs, the longer this law is in place, the harder it will be to reverse. This is why it is important we remain diligent, loud, and involved.
God help us.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Last night the House of Representatives passed the Senate Health Care bill by a vote of 219 to 212. The new piece of legislation will spend money we don't have, raise health care costs, and point our nation in the direction of becoming just another socialist nation on the road to economic failure.
Ultimately, however, understand that the health care legislation is not about health care. If it was, the leftists would be trying to pass a bill that was not full of mandates and government restrictions, but one that would actually do something that would improve the delivery and quality of health care while driving down costs with a truly free market solution.
There is no turning back. The will of the American People has been defied, and the arrogance of the Left has, in a single vote, allowed the government to take over one-sixth of the nation's economy. The Democrats claim that the legislation is deficit neutral, while creating a huge bureaucracy, and offering to hire thousands of IRS agents to enforce its mandates.
What we witnessed last night was a power grab by big government. But understand, the battle is not over yet. There is still a Senate vote for Reconciliation, and court battles ahead.
Like all other entitlement programs, the longer this law is in place, the harder it will be to reverse. This is why it is important we remain diligent, loud, and involved.
God help us.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Anderson Cooper Smoked By Cheech Marin on Jeopardy
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Anderson Cooper, the silver haired CNN voice that many claim is an intellectual giant was beat mercilessly on Jeopardy by former pot smoking comedian-actor Cheech Marin. Sure, Anderson has won on Jeopardy before, but his arrogance was caught off guard when Cheech not only beat him, but handed him a devastating hands-down defeat.
Jeopardy is one of my favorite game shows, and I usually do well in the Shakespeare, geopolitical, sports and word games categories. Opera usually kills me, despite the fact that I have been to a few performances thanks to the visits to such productions as a young man.
Nonetheless, in this particular episode of Jeopardy it was a battle of previous winners, pitting Anderson Cooper against Aisha Tyler, and Cheech Marin.
Ivy Leaguer Anderson Cooper, from what I understand, used to brag about his previous Jeopardy win, and saw Cheech as an easy defeat.
Interestingly enough, later the CNN anchor, though he admitted taking the loss hard, was able to keep a little sense of humor about it, and had Cheech Marin on his show to discuss the game, and so that Anderson could toss around excuses regarding his pitiful performance.
Cooper, during the conversation with Cheech, comments that at least he's actually the Jeopardy winner among CNN anchors (which isn't saying much since CNN and MSNBC are so full of morons that even the Cartoon Network gets better ratings than they do - combined).
Okay, Anderson, I can kind of understand your confidence going in, since Cheech was expected to be a little slow after all of his years smoking pot. But the way Anderson played the game, most of us could have beaten him easily.
So much for that Ivy League education.
My family and friends won't play the home version of the game with me, anymore. I win too easily. Maybe I ought to call Anderson up for some competition. . . oops, I mean Cheech. Cooper looks like he'd be way to easy to beat.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Anderson Cooper, the silver haired CNN voice that many claim is an intellectual giant was beat mercilessly on Jeopardy by former pot smoking comedian-actor Cheech Marin. Sure, Anderson has won on Jeopardy before, but his arrogance was caught off guard when Cheech not only beat him, but handed him a devastating hands-down defeat.
Jeopardy is one of my favorite game shows, and I usually do well in the Shakespeare, geopolitical, sports and word games categories. Opera usually kills me, despite the fact that I have been to a few performances thanks to the visits to such productions as a young man.
Nonetheless, in this particular episode of Jeopardy it was a battle of previous winners, pitting Anderson Cooper against Aisha Tyler, and Cheech Marin.
Ivy Leaguer Anderson Cooper, from what I understand, used to brag about his previous Jeopardy win, and saw Cheech as an easy defeat.
Interestingly enough, later the CNN anchor, though he admitted taking the loss hard, was able to keep a little sense of humor about it, and had Cheech Marin on his show to discuss the game, and so that Anderson could toss around excuses regarding his pitiful performance.
Cooper, during the conversation with Cheech, comments that at least he's actually the Jeopardy winner among CNN anchors (which isn't saying much since CNN and MSNBC are so full of morons that even the Cartoon Network gets better ratings than they do - combined).
Okay, Anderson, I can kind of understand your confidence going in, since Cheech was expected to be a little slow after all of his years smoking pot. But the way Anderson played the game, most of us could have beaten him easily.
So much for that Ivy League education.
My family and friends won't play the home version of the game with me, anymore. I win too easily. Maybe I ought to call Anderson up for some competition. . . oops, I mean Cheech. Cooper looks like he'd be way to easy to beat.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)