By Douglas V. Gibbs
Shirley Sherrod convinced even the White House that she is a racist, or at least once was. The White House jumped to fire her "before" Fox News caught on to the story, and then blamed Fox News for leading them to fire her in error (like they even watch Fox News). Sherrod, since Breitbart released the video in question, has proclaimed that it was a piece of video taken out of context, and that she was telling a story about how she finally saw the light, and decided not to be a racist anymore. Now she spews her hate against anyone who has achieved, instead, engaging in Obama-style class warfare.
Funny thing, however. Since it has been proven Sherrod is not a racist after all, she has been saying things that are. . . racist (and that isn't even counting her husband's racist remarks in regards to black separatism last January).
Let me give you an example. Shirley Sherrod was pretty angry at Andrew Breitbart, and I suppose if she is in fact the innocent little reformed one as she claims, she has a right to be. But in a response to Andrew Breitbart in the below video, what you see is one angry woman. And her anger, it seems, is pointed Breitbart's whiteness (that would be racist, right?)
Pay close attention to the video after Breitbart is mentioned by Anderson Cooper:
She says that Breitbart wants us to return back to slavery? Does she really think that Breitbart and other whites want us to return to slavery?
She claims that Breitbart is so vicious to our black president? "Our Black President." I thought color means nothing to you, Shirley?
And then she claims that Breitbarts accusation that the NAACP is racist (of which they are) means that in reality Breitbart is racist?
And if you watch the full video of her comments from last March (the video Breitbart released), Shirley Sherrod notes in the extended video that she believes blacks, in regards to receiving benefits, should be elevated above whites. And when she said it, the crowd in attendance at the NAACP event burst into applause and agreement.
And we are being told that the full context exonerates Sherrod from the accusation of racism.
But, for sake of argument, let's say that everything the Left is proclaiming is true. She has been shown the light, and is no longer racist, and the video is proof. Then how did the video appear as it did?
I have met Andrew Breitbart, and I know a number of folks who work with him. His due diligence is normally impeccable, so if this video was out of context as stated and is not an example of racism by Sherrod, then either Breitbart viciously edited it and put it out to make Sherrod look racist (which is hard to believe not only because of Breitbart's known journalistic integrity, but because it would be obvious that the full context would be made available quickly and he would be exposed for doing so anyway), it was an honest mistake, or the video was given to him as it was and he trusted the source and did not consider that there may be more to it.
If the video was fed to Breitbart, then one must ask, "Why?"
Is it possible that, in conjunction with the false accusations of racism against the Tea Party, that the video of Sherrod was fed to Breitbart with the hopes he'd play it so that the whole stink that happened would? In other words, is the Left trying to race-bait the Right?
Wait, wait, wait. I know, only the Republicans and Rightwing Extremists can be racist, and the Leftist Democrats are incapable of such horror. Liberals tell me so everyday!
That must be why the Democrats filibustered the Civil Rights Act, Democrat Senator Byrd was a member of the Ku Klux Klan, Reid referred to Obama's "negro-dialect", Clinton indicated that ten years ago Obama would be fetching him coffee, Franklin Delano Roosevelt appointed segregationist and Ku Klux Klan Democrat Senator Hugo Black of Alabama to the court, on March 17, 1960 Liberal Democrat South Carolina Governor Ernest Hollings (later a Senator) warned that South Carolina would not permit 'explosive' manifestations in connection with Negro demands for lunch-counter services, Jesse Jackson has a history of anti-Semitic slurs, and notoriously liberal newsman Dan Rather used an analogy of Obama selling watermelon on the side of the road. . . just to name a few.
But the real fun is in the papers right now. Maureen Dowd, New York Times columnist, has written a piece. . . now get this. . . titled: You’ll Never Believe What This White House Is Missing.
The first sentence of the piece answers the question posed by the title. It reads, "The Obama White House is too white."
Dowd actually indicates that Obama doesn't have enough blacks that understand the struggle. You know, she is recommending that he go find some slave blood for his administration.
Are you kidding me?
Whatever happened to "judged by strength of character?"
Dowd goes on to say that the first black president has a "smug cordon of overprotective white guys surrounding him."
But what is even more amazing is Dowd's ability to lie in this piece.
Let's run over the lie real quick, because this is truly juicy.
In the article Dowd writes: "The West Wing white guys who pushed to ditch Shirley Sherrod before Glenn Beck could pounce not only didn’t bother to Google, they weren’t familiar enough with civil rights history to recognize the name Sherrod."
First, she's blaming the "white guys" for the White House being quick to fire Sherrod. Second, and this is the doozy, she points out Glenn Beck, of all the conservative commentators out there, as the guy that was going to pounce on the Sherrod story. Funny thing is, of all of the rightwing hosts out there, Beck was the one that didn't jump to conclusions.
I don't watch Glenn Beck's television show, and I don't listen to his radio program. I catch a You Tube every once in a while, and he strikes me as a person that gets it. But as this Sherrod thing was unraveling, many of my friends and family that watch Glenn Beck kept telling me how strange it was that Beck was saying nothing about the Sherrod situation, and in fact when he did he said, "There is more to it than we are being told."
In other words, Glenn Beck realized the video may be out of context!
And Dowd pinpoints Beck as being one of the conservatives that would have been on the attack?
She must pay less attention to Glenn Beck than I do.
Either that, or like most liberals, she is a liar.
Well, after all of this, I only have one thing to say. Dowd is wrong. Obama doesn't need more black people in his administration. He needs less communists.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
You’ll Never Believe What This White House Is Missing - New York Times
New Sherrod Video: Husband of Shirley Sherrod Gave Black Separatist Speech in January 2010 - Free Republic
The New Racism – Why Shirley Sherrod could be Called a Racist - Macs Mind Living the Life
Watermelons, Washington, and What We Call News Today - Huffington Post
The Democrat Party's Long and Shameful History of Bigotry and Racism - GOP Capitalist
Monday, July 26, 2010
Obama White House: Budget Deficit $1.47 Trillion
By Douglas V. Gibbs
I remember recently something about Obama saying in a speech how all of this spending is bad, and it is unsustainable, and we were scratching our heads because as he was saying that the Obama Administration was spending us more into a deficit than all presidents combined. . . ever!
Then, as if on cue, new estimates have been released by the White House, and they say that the budget deficit this year will reach a record $1.47 trillion.
The new estimates also paint a grim unemployment picture as the so-called recovery is fast being realized to be nothing of the sort.
And there are still folks saying this knucklehead will run for re-election in 2012?
He's such a narcissist, of course he'll run, and that would be best, because it would be easiest to beat his sorry . . .
Of course November is expected to be a big win for Republicans as well, and a large part of that reason is because of the deficit spending which has Americans sick to their stomach, and sorry they ever let the "idiot Left" gain control of any portion of the U.S. Government.
Interestingly enough, the Democrats are not planning on taking any actions regarding deficit reduction. . .
Either they are not worried about the coming elections, or they don't care.
A large part of the deficit has been the idiotic stimulus measures, and the massive bailout of the financial system. Two massively failed actions, and economy killers.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
White House predicts record $1.47 trillion deficit - Yahoo News, Associated Press
Kagan's Shariah Compliant America
By Douglas V. Gibbs
We all know that Elena Kagan is a raging liberal, one who believes in judicial activism, and circumventing the U.S. Constitution by way of implied law. But, are you familiar with her active support for Shariah Law?
During Kagan's years as Dean of Harvard Law School (2003-2009), she ran and greatly expanded the Islamic Legal Studies Program. Kagan's program made use of publications and conferences to promote the introduction of Shariah law into national Constitutions.
To help her with the project, Kagan hired Noah Feldman in 2007. In 2008 Feldman published: “The Fall and Rise of the Islamic State,” which argues for democratically elected “Islamist” (aka Muslim Brotherhood) parties to take control of Muslim states in order to govern under Shariah law. Kagan's response was to reward him by giving him the endowed Bemis Chair in International Law on September 16, 2008. His speech accepting the Bemis chair advocated an “experimental Constitution” that “embraces international institutions.”
Two months after giving Feldman his Bemis chair, from November 12-14, 2008, Kagan spoke at and presided over a conference titled "The Constitutional Judiciary in the Muslim World: Its Influence on the Interpretation of Constitutional and Legislative Texts 1970 to 2008." This conference suggested that Shariah is being written into national constitutions in Muslim countries as a guiding principle.
Kagan's conference seemed upbeat about the spread of Shariah, as if appreciating the prospect of introducing Shariah law into Constitutions. In fact, it was suggested that Noah Feldman was the advisor in Iraq who insisted on putting a clause in the Iraqi constitution requiring legislation comply with Shariah law. The conference treated the introduction of Shariah law into national constitutions as a thing of progress, a positive direction toward the rise of an Islamic State.
This leads one to ask if Kagan also believes that Shariah law being added to America's Constitution is a good thing?
Note that, as expected, Kagan pays no attention to the part of Shariah law that disallows any rights for women, non-Muslims, apostates and gays. Nor does she seem to acknowledge the Islamic teachings that demand violent jihad.
Her concerns are not what Shariah law says, just that Constitutions comply with Shariah law.
Interestingly, whatever Kagan said at the conference has not been recorded. There is no record regarding what she said. She is listed on the program, and a photo of her at the conference was published in the June 2009 Islamic Legal Studies Program newsletter, but any words she uttered are non-existent.
That same newsletter, on the last page (”Objectives and Principles”) states that Kagan’s Islamic Legal Studies Program seeks “to promote a deep appreciation of Islamic law as one of the world’s major legal systems.”
One of the world's major legal systems?
That goes back to my question - Does Elena Kagan believe that Shariah law should be implemented into the U.S. Constitution by amendment?
Gosh, if she has a “deep appreciation” of Islamic law and international law, how can we trust her to defend, protect, and abide by the U.S. Constitution while she sits on the U.S. Supreme Court?
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Elena Kagan’s Work to Make Constitutions More Shariah-Compliant - Patriot Update, Andrew Breitbart's Big Peace
We all know that Elena Kagan is a raging liberal, one who believes in judicial activism, and circumventing the U.S. Constitution by way of implied law. But, are you familiar with her active support for Shariah Law?
During Kagan's years as Dean of Harvard Law School (2003-2009), she ran and greatly expanded the Islamic Legal Studies Program. Kagan's program made use of publications and conferences to promote the introduction of Shariah law into national Constitutions.
To help her with the project, Kagan hired Noah Feldman in 2007. In 2008 Feldman published: “The Fall and Rise of the Islamic State,” which argues for democratically elected “Islamist” (aka Muslim Brotherhood) parties to take control of Muslim states in order to govern under Shariah law. Kagan's response was to reward him by giving him the endowed Bemis Chair in International Law on September 16, 2008. His speech accepting the Bemis chair advocated an “experimental Constitution” that “embraces international institutions.”
Two months after giving Feldman his Bemis chair, from November 12-14, 2008, Kagan spoke at and presided over a conference titled "The Constitutional Judiciary in the Muslim World: Its Influence on the Interpretation of Constitutional and Legislative Texts 1970 to 2008." This conference suggested that Shariah is being written into national constitutions in Muslim countries as a guiding principle.
Kagan's conference seemed upbeat about the spread of Shariah, as if appreciating the prospect of introducing Shariah law into Constitutions. In fact, it was suggested that Noah Feldman was the advisor in Iraq who insisted on putting a clause in the Iraqi constitution requiring legislation comply with Shariah law. The conference treated the introduction of Shariah law into national constitutions as a thing of progress, a positive direction toward the rise of an Islamic State.
This leads one to ask if Kagan also believes that Shariah law being added to America's Constitution is a good thing?
Note that, as expected, Kagan pays no attention to the part of Shariah law that disallows any rights for women, non-Muslims, apostates and gays. Nor does she seem to acknowledge the Islamic teachings that demand violent jihad.
Her concerns are not what Shariah law says, just that Constitutions comply with Shariah law.
Interestingly, whatever Kagan said at the conference has not been recorded. There is no record regarding what she said. She is listed on the program, and a photo of her at the conference was published in the June 2009 Islamic Legal Studies Program newsletter, but any words she uttered are non-existent.
That same newsletter, on the last page (”Objectives and Principles”) states that Kagan’s Islamic Legal Studies Program seeks “to promote a deep appreciation of Islamic law as one of the world’s major legal systems.”
One of the world's major legal systems?
That goes back to my question - Does Elena Kagan believe that Shariah law should be implemented into the U.S. Constitution by amendment?
Gosh, if she has a “deep appreciation” of Islamic law and international law, how can we trust her to defend, protect, and abide by the U.S. Constitution while she sits on the U.S. Supreme Court?
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Elena Kagan’s Work to Make Constitutions More Shariah-Compliant - Patriot Update, Andrew Breitbart's Big Peace
Britain: Oops, We Screwed Up, Let's Decentralize Health Care
By Douglas V. Gibbs
As the Democrats in America are pushing to centralize health care, and the liberals are crying far and wide for a "public option," it turns out that doing such in Britain has turned out to be a big fat mistake.
Who'd of thunk it?
That's right, the British Government politicians, acting in a much less insane manner, are launching what may be considered by some to be the most radical reorganization of the National Health Service, as the system is called, since its inception in 1948.
The goal is to shift control of the centralized system to doctors at the local level (you know, that Free Market thing, and all). Under the plan the bloated health care bureaucracy would be slowly dismantled, and will relinquish control as the private system gains more control over health care. The hope is that it will save $30 billion, and by 2014 reduce the government's costs by 45 percent.
A lot of government jobs, says the press, will be lost - but imagine how many private sector jobs will be created!
Remember the old saying that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result? In the case of the Democrats, what kind of malady is defined by watching something fail over and over and over again around the world, and then pursuing it while expecting a different result?
Mental instability?
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Britain Plans to Decentralize Health Care - New York Times
As the Democrats in America are pushing to centralize health care, and the liberals are crying far and wide for a "public option," it turns out that doing such in Britain has turned out to be a big fat mistake.
Who'd of thunk it?
That's right, the British Government politicians, acting in a much less insane manner, are launching what may be considered by some to be the most radical reorganization of the National Health Service, as the system is called, since its inception in 1948.
The goal is to shift control of the centralized system to doctors at the local level (you know, that Free Market thing, and all). Under the plan the bloated health care bureaucracy would be slowly dismantled, and will relinquish control as the private system gains more control over health care. The hope is that it will save $30 billion, and by 2014 reduce the government's costs by 45 percent.
A lot of government jobs, says the press, will be lost - but imagine how many private sector jobs will be created!
Remember the old saying that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result? In the case of the Democrats, what kind of malady is defined by watching something fail over and over and over again around the world, and then pursuing it while expecting a different result?
Mental instability?
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Britain Plans to Decentralize Health Care - New York Times
Reid to Netroots: "We're Going To Have a Public Option" - The American Spectator
Bush Tax Cuts: Democrats Battle Over Decision To Allow Them To Expire
By Douglas V. Gibbs
The Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 are going to expire at the end of the year. After their passage nearly a decade ago tax revenue increased. From 2004 to 2007, federal tax revenues increased by $785 billion, the largest four-year increase in American history. Unfortunately, Bush only believed in half of the equation, and spending increased. As a result, eventually the economy stagnated.
Tax cuts have ushered in a prosperous period before, as well. Under Ronald Reagan, tax cuts also kick-started the economy. From 1983 to 1989 the poorest 20 percent of the population saw their income rise 12 percent, as did the richest fifth of the population, which resulted in higher revenues because more money was being earned. On a percentage basis that means that as the rich got richer, so did the poor. In fact, family income levels rose across the board during the Reagan years.
Mr. Jack Kemp best articulated it when he said, "A rising tide lifts all boats."
The indisputable truth is that real economic growth without inflation occurs with tax cuts, and providing more opportunity by backing off with governmental regulatory control. A strong economy, spurred by those kinds of tax policies becomes vibrant, and prosperous for all.
The revenue comes from the tax producers, who are the folks that achieve. So, it would make sense to encourage achievement. Achievers are the working people (made up partially by small business owners) who are striving to make it in this country. If their activity is made easier by lower taxes and lower regulations, then economic activity increases. However, taxing an activity more heavily ultimately decreases the amount of that activity.
The activity of economic growth is directly tied to the private sector. And amazingly, this is an activity engaged in by the rich, too. And as that business activity increases, by the small business owner and the rich, it ends up employing more people. Everyone benefits from tax cuts across the board. And, everyone suffers when taxes are increased across the board. . . but especially when the tax increase against the wealthy is punitive, and unreasonable.
Hammer the rich, and they stop producing. A drop in production results in a drop of supply, and of jobs. Therefore, the best way to stabilize an economy is through supply-side economics, or doing things that encourage the growth of manufacturing and production.
This line of thinking is consistent with the principles of conservatism. Liberalism subscribes to a demand-side view of economics, and the offering of entitlements to those the liberals believe are unable to achieve. This means that conservatism believes that nobody needs to be excluded from prosperity. Liberalism establishes the classes of the haves and the have-nots, thereby excluding poorer Americans from opportunity, and keeping them down by making them dependents upon the government.
As Jack Kemp once said, "Conservatives define compassion not by the number of people who receive some kind of government aid, but rather by the number of people who no longer need it."
Even with the socialist entitlement systems in place, thanks to the achievers of America, our poor are still the wealthiest poor in the world. Our poor own multiple television sets, cars, computers, video game systems, cell phones, and homes. Nonetheless, if those folks wish to do better, they can in America if only the government would get out of the way and let them. Instead, Democrats encourage poverty by subsidizing the increasing numbers of the poor. The thing is, they pay nothing back. The entire system is dependent upon those that produce.
What if more people refused to be self-reliant? What if more people, as fostered by the Democrats, decided to obtain a dependency mentality on the government? Are we supposed to be sympathetic to those folks too?
Sympathy never brought prosperity, and I have never been hired by anyone other than someone who is wealthy, or at least is an achiever.
God help us if the takers someday begin to outnumber the achievers.
As Margaret Thatcher once said, "The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money."
Those that choose to be responsible achievers are tired of being told that they should give more through taxes for those that refuse to shoulder any responsibilities. The achievers are being asked to give and give until they have no more to give. Coupled with out of control spending, the economics of it all is destroying our financial system.
And now, in addition to all of the spending and taxation, the Financial Reform bill has been passed into law to hammer more regulations into the private sector, making it even more difficult to achieve.
But not all of the Democrats are completely insane.
As the expiration of the Bush Tax Cuts approaches, some of the Democrats are beginning to argue that maybe, just maybe, letting taxes creep upward may not be the best thing to do right now.
Are they admitting that tax hikes hurt revenue, and cripple economies?
Obama, and his minions, have proclaimed that they plan to continue the lower tax rates for individuals earning less than $200,000 and families earning less than $250,000 — what Democrats call the middle class. It's only them greedy achievers at the top that are going to be slammed.
How dare they be so prosperous in the United States of America! What do they think this is? The Land of Opportunity or something?
The Republicans, and some Democrats, are saying that the tax cuts should remain in play for all Americans. If the cuts are allowed to expire, however, taxes on income, dividends, capital gains and estates would all rise.
Tax hikes in the seventies by Jimmy Carter were catastrophic, and those few Democrats know it.
So the question is, will we dig our nation deeper into turmoil by following Obama, and the leftist Congressional Democrats, like a bunch of blind sheep being led to the slaughter, or will the Republicans and a few Democrats stand tough and ensure the tax cuts do not expire.
The Left believes that only the wealthy will suffer, and hey, they have so much money it won't hurt them a bit. . . but if we allow taxes to rise, coupled with the regulatory control the Democrats are now putting into place, our rip-roaring ride towards the destructive falls of economic collapse will increase its pace. Obama says the roar in the distance is recovery, but we all know it is devastation should we allow our raft to reach the point of no return.
Grab an oar, let's turn this baby around!
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Battle Looms in Washington Over Expiring Tax Cuts - New York Times
DWYER: Bush tax cuts boosted federal revenue - Washington Times
Margaret Thatcher on Socialism - Snopes
In Defense of the Eighties by Rush Limbaugh - Ronald Reagan Peers
The Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 are going to expire at the end of the year. After their passage nearly a decade ago tax revenue increased. From 2004 to 2007, federal tax revenues increased by $785 billion, the largest four-year increase in American history. Unfortunately, Bush only believed in half of the equation, and spending increased. As a result, eventually the economy stagnated.
Tax cuts have ushered in a prosperous period before, as well. Under Ronald Reagan, tax cuts also kick-started the economy. From 1983 to 1989 the poorest 20 percent of the population saw their income rise 12 percent, as did the richest fifth of the population, which resulted in higher revenues because more money was being earned. On a percentage basis that means that as the rich got richer, so did the poor. In fact, family income levels rose across the board during the Reagan years.
Mr. Jack Kemp best articulated it when he said, "A rising tide lifts all boats."
The indisputable truth is that real economic growth without inflation occurs with tax cuts, and providing more opportunity by backing off with governmental regulatory control. A strong economy, spurred by those kinds of tax policies becomes vibrant, and prosperous for all.
The revenue comes from the tax producers, who are the folks that achieve. So, it would make sense to encourage achievement. Achievers are the working people (made up partially by small business owners) who are striving to make it in this country. If their activity is made easier by lower taxes and lower regulations, then economic activity increases. However, taxing an activity more heavily ultimately decreases the amount of that activity.
The activity of economic growth is directly tied to the private sector. And amazingly, this is an activity engaged in by the rich, too. And as that business activity increases, by the small business owner and the rich, it ends up employing more people. Everyone benefits from tax cuts across the board. And, everyone suffers when taxes are increased across the board. . . but especially when the tax increase against the wealthy is punitive, and unreasonable.
Hammer the rich, and they stop producing. A drop in production results in a drop of supply, and of jobs. Therefore, the best way to stabilize an economy is through supply-side economics, or doing things that encourage the growth of manufacturing and production.
This line of thinking is consistent with the principles of conservatism. Liberalism subscribes to a demand-side view of economics, and the offering of entitlements to those the liberals believe are unable to achieve. This means that conservatism believes that nobody needs to be excluded from prosperity. Liberalism establishes the classes of the haves and the have-nots, thereby excluding poorer Americans from opportunity, and keeping them down by making them dependents upon the government.
As Jack Kemp once said, "Conservatives define compassion not by the number of people who receive some kind of government aid, but rather by the number of people who no longer need it."
Even with the socialist entitlement systems in place, thanks to the achievers of America, our poor are still the wealthiest poor in the world. Our poor own multiple television sets, cars, computers, video game systems, cell phones, and homes. Nonetheless, if those folks wish to do better, they can in America if only the government would get out of the way and let them. Instead, Democrats encourage poverty by subsidizing the increasing numbers of the poor. The thing is, they pay nothing back. The entire system is dependent upon those that produce.
What if more people refused to be self-reliant? What if more people, as fostered by the Democrats, decided to obtain a dependency mentality on the government? Are we supposed to be sympathetic to those folks too?
Sympathy never brought prosperity, and I have never been hired by anyone other than someone who is wealthy, or at least is an achiever.
God help us if the takers someday begin to outnumber the achievers.
As Margaret Thatcher once said, "The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money."
Those that choose to be responsible achievers are tired of being told that they should give more through taxes for those that refuse to shoulder any responsibilities. The achievers are being asked to give and give until they have no more to give. Coupled with out of control spending, the economics of it all is destroying our financial system.
And now, in addition to all of the spending and taxation, the Financial Reform bill has been passed into law to hammer more regulations into the private sector, making it even more difficult to achieve.
But not all of the Democrats are completely insane.
As the expiration of the Bush Tax Cuts approaches, some of the Democrats are beginning to argue that maybe, just maybe, letting taxes creep upward may not be the best thing to do right now.
Are they admitting that tax hikes hurt revenue, and cripple economies?
Obama, and his minions, have proclaimed that they plan to continue the lower tax rates for individuals earning less than $200,000 and families earning less than $250,000 — what Democrats call the middle class. It's only them greedy achievers at the top that are going to be slammed.
How dare they be so prosperous in the United States of America! What do they think this is? The Land of Opportunity or something?
The Republicans, and some Democrats, are saying that the tax cuts should remain in play for all Americans. If the cuts are allowed to expire, however, taxes on income, dividends, capital gains and estates would all rise.
Tax hikes in the seventies by Jimmy Carter were catastrophic, and those few Democrats know it.
So the question is, will we dig our nation deeper into turmoil by following Obama, and the leftist Congressional Democrats, like a bunch of blind sheep being led to the slaughter, or will the Republicans and a few Democrats stand tough and ensure the tax cuts do not expire.
The Left believes that only the wealthy will suffer, and hey, they have so much money it won't hurt them a bit. . . but if we allow taxes to rise, coupled with the regulatory control the Democrats are now putting into place, our rip-roaring ride towards the destructive falls of economic collapse will increase its pace. Obama says the roar in the distance is recovery, but we all know it is devastation should we allow our raft to reach the point of no return.
Grab an oar, let's turn this baby around!
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Battle Looms in Washington Over Expiring Tax Cuts - New York Times
DWYER: Bush tax cuts boosted federal revenue - Washington Times
Margaret Thatcher on Socialism - Snopes
In Defense of the Eighties by Rush Limbaugh - Ronald Reagan Peers
Sunday, July 25, 2010
Obama Says He's Suffering Economically Too!
By Douglas V. Gibbs
President Obama, widely characterized as a snob who thinks he is some kind of elitist, has realized it is time to try to look like he can relate to the people. The economy is struggling, and getting worse under his ignorant watch, and to make it look like he cares he has decided to let the people know that he has felt the affects of the recession as well.
The kid's college funds have been rocked by a difficult stock market, and "it was just a few years ago that we had high credit card balances, we had two kids, thinking about college. We had our own retirement accounts, wondering if we were going to be able to get enough assets in there."
Wow, Michelle might have two wear a dress twice in the same year, and Barry might have to cancel those concerts and golf games. . . oh, wait, the taxpayers pay for all of that. . . never mind.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
This is Rich - ThirdWaveDave
Obama: Our finances have suffered too - Sun Times
President Obama, widely characterized as a snob who thinks he is some kind of elitist, has realized it is time to try to look like he can relate to the people. The economy is struggling, and getting worse under his ignorant watch, and to make it look like he cares he has decided to let the people know that he has felt the affects of the recession as well.
The kid's college funds have been rocked by a difficult stock market, and "it was just a few years ago that we had high credit card balances, we had two kids, thinking about college. We had our own retirement accounts, wondering if we were going to be able to get enough assets in there."
Wow, Michelle might have two wear a dress twice in the same year, and Barry might have to cancel those concerts and golf games. . . oh, wait, the taxpayers pay for all of that. . . never mind.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
This is Rich - ThirdWaveDave
Obama: Our finances have suffered too - Sun Times
GradeGov.com creator and founder Elizabeth Letchworth tonight on the Political Pistachio Radio Revolution
How many times have you wanted to criticize or congratulate a member of Congress? Now you can grade any member of Congress. Remember, "they work for you"….remind them!
Thanks to Elizabeth B. Letchworth and her creation of gradegov.com, you can make your voice heard!
GRADEGOV.com… a free, quick and easy web site designed to afford the public an opportunity to GRADE (Members of Congress) as to their performance on Capitol Hill & to follow their Grades up with a letter of explanation. GradeGov has had over 3.3M pages viewed since its launch April of last year. Each MOC has a page on GradeGov where the visitor can see the MOC’s current mathematically averaged GRADE and read constituent letters, see important votes cast by the Member of Congress and also see a poll indicating whether the Congressperson would earn reelection this coming November.
Elizabeth Will share on the Political Pistachio Radio Revolution tonight how...
* They do see the GRADES and emails explaining the grades that gradegov. sends!
* We know they are listening!
About Elizabeth B Letchworth:
Elizabeth B Letchworth made history when she was elected by the entire United States Senate as the first and only female Secretary for the Majority for the Republicans. She was also elected as the Secretary for the Minority. Her 26 years of experience working exclusively on the Senate floor has earned her a one-of-a-kind talent to analyze and handicap the Congressional legislative process and Congress in general.
She is also writing a book about what lead her to create GradeGov.com. “Grading Congress, why Congress gets a failing Grade” is designed to let the public know how and why Congress is currently broken, how and why it got this way and how to fix it and get them back on track. “Grading Congress” is not a tell-all book, nor a book that assigns blame, but one that will explain how Congress is supposed to operate.
Currently Elizabeth writes several weekly columns and hosts radio & Internet shows designed to explain and bring insights as to the activities of Congress. Her show "Capitol Hill Insight" is designed to help the listeners understand how our Congress is supposed to operate for us in DC.
She current splits her time between Central Florida and Washington, DC doing work for Covington and Burling, as their Senior Legislative Advisor.
Join us live at 7:00 pm Pacific, or catch the archive later, for our interview with Elizabeth at BlogTalkRadio.com/PoliticalPistachio.
Sharia Law Has Arrived In The United States: New Jersey Court Follows Sharia Law in Sexual Abuse Case
By Douglas V. Gibbs
The treatment of women by the Muslim World is appalling. It surprises me that feminist groups and liberals aren't making a stink about the treatment of women by those who embrace Islam. Around the world we are reminded by Muslims what they think of women, and that they wish to spread that belief worldwide.
Sharia Law affords women nearly no rights, and is spreading worldwide. The goal of the Islamic faith is for Sharia Law to be imposed upon all points of the Earth. In other words, Islam exists for the purpose of conquest, and one sign that their conquest is in place is the implementation of Sharia Law in a region.
The New Jersey courts have succumbed to Sharia Law.
A Muslim husband raped his wife, but the New Jersey judge saw no sexual assault because - are you ready for this? - Islam forbids wives to refuse sex to their husbands.
Under American law what the wife suffered was sexual assault, rape, and battery. By trying to be sensitive to the Muslim belief system, the judge brought Sharia Law to the shores of America.
Granted, the judge did not actually say he is following Sharia Law, but to follow the tenets of Sharia while ignoring American law, he has folded under the attack of Islam against our culture, and has allowed Sharia Law to creep into our system with his decision.
According to Atlas Shrugs, the specific findings are as follows:
Trial court finds: [1] man sexually assaulted wife but [2] court will issue no restraining order because man did it thinking he could abuse his wife if she misbehaved and refused his sexually demands per Islamic law.
And one of the witnesses that gave testimony in the court, in fact, was an Imam to clarify for the court the system of beliefs of Islam.
Does the rule of law not mean anything in America?
The courts are supposed to apply the law to cases, and here they disregarded the law, and went with someone's beliefs instead.
What is worse, the judge probably doesn't even realize he is furthering the advancement of Sharia in this nation. He was just trying to be sensitive, and fair.
The Constitution, and our laws, protect our rights, but let's not let it be a suicide pact, huh?
In Shariah Law a women is obligated to satisfy her husband’s sexual demands: “It is obligatory for a wife to obey her husband as is customary in allowing him full lawful sexual enjoyment of her person.” (Reliance of the Traveller, Marriage, m10.12 and commentary from Jordanian Mufti, Sheikh Nuh ali Salman, at N(3).)
Had a person claiming to be a Christian, for the sake of argument, sexually assaulted his wife, and then claimed the Bible gave him that right (even though, as opposed to the Koran, there is no such Scripture), the law would have been applied, and the dude would have been convicted as necessary, regardless of his religious claims.
Granting Muslims this kind of concession is dangerous. It compromises our laws, and it compromises our security. Have we not learned by watching Europe's downward spiral under the assault of Islam?
There should be no question on whether a husband is allowed to force himself on his wife. As the adage goes, "No means no." Therefore, there must be a penalty for sexual assault. Of course we have to be on the look-out for the abuse of this law. It is not unheard of for a woman to make false claims. I am not painting men or women as saints here, I am simply saying that for the court to make the decision it wasn't sexual assault because of what Muslims believe is dangerous to our culture, our nation, and our security as a nation.
Appeals are in place, and I believe in the end the case will resolve properly. But just the thought that there are judges out there willing to bend because of Sharia is scary. Sharia creeps in incrementally. We have to recognize it when it does, and stop it. Otherwise, ultimately, we will all someday become slaves to its dictates.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Sharia (Islamic) Law in New Jersey Court: Muslim husband rapes, beats, sexually abuses wife, judge sees no sexual assault because Islam forbids wives to refuse sex - Atlas Shrugs
The treatment of women by the Muslim World is appalling. It surprises me that feminist groups and liberals aren't making a stink about the treatment of women by those who embrace Islam. Around the world we are reminded by Muslims what they think of women, and that they wish to spread that belief worldwide.
Sharia Law affords women nearly no rights, and is spreading worldwide. The goal of the Islamic faith is for Sharia Law to be imposed upon all points of the Earth. In other words, Islam exists for the purpose of conquest, and one sign that their conquest is in place is the implementation of Sharia Law in a region.
The New Jersey courts have succumbed to Sharia Law.
A Muslim husband raped his wife, but the New Jersey judge saw no sexual assault because - are you ready for this? - Islam forbids wives to refuse sex to their husbands.
Under American law what the wife suffered was sexual assault, rape, and battery. By trying to be sensitive to the Muslim belief system, the judge brought Sharia Law to the shores of America.
Granted, the judge did not actually say he is following Sharia Law, but to follow the tenets of Sharia while ignoring American law, he has folded under the attack of Islam against our culture, and has allowed Sharia Law to creep into our system with his decision.
According to Atlas Shrugs, the specific findings are as follows:
Trial court finds: [1] man sexually assaulted wife but [2] court will issue no restraining order because man did it thinking he could abuse his wife if she misbehaved and refused his sexually demands per Islamic law.
And one of the witnesses that gave testimony in the court, in fact, was an Imam to clarify for the court the system of beliefs of Islam.
Does the rule of law not mean anything in America?
The courts are supposed to apply the law to cases, and here they disregarded the law, and went with someone's beliefs instead.
What is worse, the judge probably doesn't even realize he is furthering the advancement of Sharia in this nation. He was just trying to be sensitive, and fair.
The Constitution, and our laws, protect our rights, but let's not let it be a suicide pact, huh?
In Shariah Law a women is obligated to satisfy her husband’s sexual demands: “It is obligatory for a wife to obey her husband as is customary in allowing him full lawful sexual enjoyment of her person.” (Reliance of the Traveller, Marriage, m10.12 and commentary from Jordanian Mufti, Sheikh Nuh ali Salman, at N(3).)
Had a person claiming to be a Christian, for the sake of argument, sexually assaulted his wife, and then claimed the Bible gave him that right (even though, as opposed to the Koran, there is no such Scripture), the law would have been applied, and the dude would have been convicted as necessary, regardless of his religious claims.
Granting Muslims this kind of concession is dangerous. It compromises our laws, and it compromises our security. Have we not learned by watching Europe's downward spiral under the assault of Islam?
There should be no question on whether a husband is allowed to force himself on his wife. As the adage goes, "No means no." Therefore, there must be a penalty for sexual assault. Of course we have to be on the look-out for the abuse of this law. It is not unheard of for a woman to make false claims. I am not painting men or women as saints here, I am simply saying that for the court to make the decision it wasn't sexual assault because of what Muslims believe is dangerous to our culture, our nation, and our security as a nation.
Appeals are in place, and I believe in the end the case will resolve properly. But just the thought that there are judges out there willing to bend because of Sharia is scary. Sharia creeps in incrementally. We have to recognize it when it does, and stop it. Otherwise, ultimately, we will all someday become slaves to its dictates.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Sharia (Islamic) Law in New Jersey Court: Muslim husband rapes, beats, sexually abuses wife, judge sees no sexual assault because Islam forbids wives to refuse sex - Atlas Shrugs
The Stoning of Iran, The Violence of Islam Against Women - Political Pistachio
California, Arizona, and a Coyote
Sometimes a joke, even one anonymously written, can say so much:
California vs Arizona
California: The Governor of California is jogging with his dog along a nature trail. A coyote jumps out, bites the Governor and attacks his dog.
1. The Governor starts to intervene, but reflects upon the movie "Bambi" and then realizes he should stop; the coyote is only doing what is natural.
2. He calls animal control. Animal Control captures the coyote and bills the State $200 for testing it for diseases and $500 for relocating it.
3. He calls a veterinarian. The vet collects the dead dog and bills the State $200 testing it for diseases.
4. The Governor goes to the hospital and spends $3,500 getting checked for diseases from the coyote and on getting his bite wound bandaged.
5. The running trail gets shut down for 6 months while Fish & Game conducts a $100,000 survey to make sure the area is free of dangerous animals.
6. The Governor spends $50,000 in state funds implementing a "coyote awareness" program for residents of the area.
7. The State Legislature spends $2 million to study how to better treat rabies and how to permanently eradicate the disease throughout the world.
8. The Governor's security agent is fired for not stopping the attack somehow and for letting the Governor attempt to intervene.
9. Additional cost to State of California: $75,000 to hire and train a new security agent with additional special training regarding the nature of coyotes.
10. PETA protests the coyote's relocation and files suit against the State.
Arizona: The Governor of Arizona is jogging with her dog along a nature trail. A Coyote jumps out and attacks her dog.
1. The Governor shoots the coyote with her State-issued pistol and keeps jogging. The Governor has spent $0.50 on a .45 ACP hollow point cartridge.
2. The Buzzards eat the dead coyote.
And that's why California is broke.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Spending The Taxpayer's Money
By Douglas V. Gibbs
At all levels of government, from the federal government, the States, and on down to the cities, out of control spending is a problem. When cities try to fix the problem they eliminate employees, or services. This is not the best way to reduce spending. It is the lazy way to do it.
Spending is a concern, and it is an issue we must ask of our candidates that will be running for office in November. I, myself, am running for City Council in Murrieta, California, and I have indeed beenasked, "How does Douglas V. Gibbs plan to reduce spending in the City of Murrieta."
The key to reducing spending is not about what you do, but how you do it. For example, when a small business needs to cut down their expenses, the best answer is not to get rid of employees, or stop producing a particular product. More often than not the answer is to streamline operations, to make the business more efficient, to do things in a more effective manner.
Cities are not much different in this respect. For example, the City of Murrieta currently sends out all plan-checking to a contractor in another city (another county, for that matter). The cost, and time lost, is not necessary. To reduce the cost, and time lost, regarding plan-check, Murrieta needs to hire an in-house plan-checker. The cost would be that of the wages of one employee (the Building Official should also be able to check plans), and cost and time would be reduced because there would be no transportation regarding plans. The plans would never leave the city of Murrieta.
In addition to reducing cost and time, the in-house plan-checker would also be available for the customer. It is advantagious for the city of Murrieta to have a plan-checker at the city level, rather than having the customer call a phone that may connect him to someone that may know what is going on with the plans at a corporation on the other side of the hills from Murrieta.
An outside contractor is not exactly what I consider to be personal interation between the city, and those wishing to do business with the city. A staff plan-checker will reduce the cost of plan-check, reduce the time it takes to get plans through the process, and bring the city in more direct contact with the builder.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
At all levels of government, from the federal government, the States, and on down to the cities, out of control spending is a problem. When cities try to fix the problem they eliminate employees, or services. This is not the best way to reduce spending. It is the lazy way to do it.
Spending is a concern, and it is an issue we must ask of our candidates that will be running for office in November. I, myself, am running for City Council in Murrieta, California, and I have indeed beenasked, "How does Douglas V. Gibbs plan to reduce spending in the City of Murrieta."
The key to reducing spending is not about what you do, but how you do it. For example, when a small business needs to cut down their expenses, the best answer is not to get rid of employees, or stop producing a particular product. More often than not the answer is to streamline operations, to make the business more efficient, to do things in a more effective manner.
Cities are not much different in this respect. For example, the City of Murrieta currently sends out all plan-checking to a contractor in another city (another county, for that matter). The cost, and time lost, is not necessary. To reduce the cost, and time lost, regarding plan-check, Murrieta needs to hire an in-house plan-checker. The cost would be that of the wages of one employee (the Building Official should also be able to check plans), and cost and time would be reduced because there would be no transportation regarding plans. The plans would never leave the city of Murrieta.
In addition to reducing cost and time, the in-house plan-checker would also be available for the customer. It is advantagious for the city of Murrieta to have a plan-checker at the city level, rather than having the customer call a phone that may connect him to someone that may know what is going on with the plans at a corporation on the other side of the hills from Murrieta.
An outside contractor is not exactly what I consider to be personal interation between the city, and those wishing to do business with the city. A staff plan-checker will reduce the cost of plan-check, reduce the time it takes to get plans through the process, and bring the city in more direct contact with the builder.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Saturday, July 24, 2010
Tom Tancredo with Fox News' Megyn Kelly: Impeach Obama, a Greater Threat to U.S. than al Qaeda
Tom Tancredo, it this video, is essentially right in everything he is saying. But, does taking that angle help or hurt the Republican Party and The Right? Should someone like Congressman Tancredo be making these kinds of statements as the Republicans build steam to take control of the Congress in November? How is this kind of rhetoric being received by voters that are not sure what to think? Is Megyn Kelly not willing to be realistic, or does she realize that making such accusations, no matter how true they may be in the long run, comes across as radical to those who are on the fence?
Yesterday's conspiracy theories are today's headlines. We thought the conspiracy theorists of the decades past were kooks, and now we wonder why we didn't listen to them. Will we feel the same way about Tancredo?
Finally, if Obama was to be impeached, you must ask yourself: Do you really want Joe Biden to be President?
Regardless, this is all our own fault for letting it happen. No matter how it is done, be it impeachment, or the ballot box, we must replace the idiots in Washington with folks more responsive to The People and the Constitution - and then, be active, hold their feet to the fire, because no matter what party the politicians are a member of, they are all capable of corruption, and actions contrary to the will of The People, and The Constitution.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Tancredo Calls for Obama's Impeachment - Fox News
Negrophilia: From Slave Block to Pedestal - America's Racial Obsession by Erik Rush - Bestselling book author comes to Political Pistachio Radio
Amid stunning testimony by a former Justice Department official alleging the National Association for the Advancement of Colored Peoples behind-the-scenes lobbying on behalf of New Black Panther Party members charged with voter intimidation, the civil rights organization is formerly repudiating racism in the Tea Parties.
The hypocrisy of such conceit is galling, says Erik Rush, the author of a new top-selling book on racial politics titled, Negrophilia: From Slave Block to Pedestal Americas Racial Obsession.
There is no racism in the tea party movement, says Rush, and any condemnation or intimation that there is by the NAACP or any other organization is simply part and parcel of their political imperative regarding the social balkanization of America. These assertions (pertaining to the Tea Party) are lies, and those proffering them know it.
At the recent 101st NAACP Convention in Kansas City Michelle Obama appeared in lieu of the president.
The NAACP scheduled a vote by attending delegates, the resolution, reports the Kansas City Star calls all people of good will to repudiate the racism of the Tea Parties, and to stand in opposition to its drive to push our country back to the pre-civil rights era.
It is also monumentally hypocritical for anyone whether it is the president, the NAACP, or the first lady to speak to race at all at this juncture, given this administration's role in deepening racial tensions in America and its lack of evenhandedness in addressing issues concerning race, adds Rush.
The Philadelphia Inquirers editorial staff recently labeled Rush a persistent hater for calling Obamas and Attorney General Eric Holders racists in light of recent testimony revealing the Justice Department hostility to cases with black defendants and white victims.
Persistent haters like Erik Rush, author of Negrophilia: From Slave Block to Pedestal, America's Racial Obsession, are actually accusing Obama of racism, the Inquirer editorial states. As evidence they cite the Justice Department's decision not to pursue a Philadelphia voter-intimidation case involving a group called the New Black Panther Party. (T)he scale of justice must be applied appropriately, and here it appears that it was. Attempts to inflate the incident to bash Obama must be seen for what they are. And the NAACP meeting would be a good setting for Obama to address that.
Rush made the charge after former Justice official J. Christian Adams recent testimony to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
Adams cited the Election Day, 2008, case involving members of the New Black Panther Party who were videotaped guarding the entrance of a Philadelphia polling place clad in black fatigues and wielding a club. The Obama administration at first followed up on the Bush administrations initial prosecution of the case but dismissed it in May 2009 a month after three members of the party failed to appear in court.
Adams alleged the NAACP as lobbying in March 2009 to have the case dismissed.
Rush sparked a national fervor when he exposed the anti-American ravings of President Obamas longtime minister and then spiritual adviser, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. With Negrophilia, published by WND Books, charting in the top 5 of Amazon categories on African Americans and Discrimination & Racism, Rush has adopted a Glenn-Beck-style blackboard approach toward revealing the intents and tactics of the "professional race-baiters who seek to manipulate, intimidate and subjugate Americans of every color even and especially from the highest offices in the land.
Race-baiters unseen tool is negrophilia, says Rush, "an undue and inordinate affinity for blacks," combined with the "reflexive demonization of whites as inherently wicked." Its rooted in leftist tactics of division and aimed at advancing policies that keep blacks "obedient," whites "silent" and "political control secure.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Born in New York City in 1961, from 1975 to 1985 columnist and author Erik Rush was a club, stage and studio musician. He's also been involved in biomedical research, sales, marketing and media production.
Rush was the first to break the story of President (then Senator) Barack Obama's ties to militant Chicago preacher Rev. Jeremiah Wright on a national level in February of 2007.
He writes columns of sociopolitical fare for WorldNetDaily as well as dozens of nationally-distributed print and online news sources. He's appeared on Fox News, CNN, and is a veteran of a copious number of radio appearances and speaking engagements.
Rush's other titles include:
* The Angels Fell
* It's the Devil, Stupid! Our Real Enemy and Why We Don't Talk About Him
* Annexing Mexico: Solving the Border Problem Through Annexation and Assimilation which won the 2007 New York Book Festival "Best Nonfiction" category.
Erik Rush is our guest tonight. Join us live, or catch the archive later, on BlogTalkRadio.com/PoliticalPistachio.
The Distraction of Racism
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Shirley Sherrod served her purpose. Her racism has been explained away, and all we have left is a bunch of folks on the Right that got all upset (including myself) over what Sherrod said, and the weak exit, stage left, that (as usual) cleared her of any wrong doing.
The strategy is simple. Accuse the Tea Party, the Republicans, and anyone else that opposes the leftist agenda of racism, the country gets all wound up in it, and then go back to what you were doing as a Democrat as the Right tries to figure out what just happened, and is left holding the bag of racism.
A tactic as old as government, and a trick used everyday by magicians.
Misdirection.
While America was throwing racial accusations around, the federal government took over the financial system in a fascist manner with the financial reform bill.
I have a problem with racism, whatever form it may take. On the same token, I recognize we have differences as people from the point of view of culture, environment, and upbringing. This, however, does not change us from what we are at the base level: Human Beings. . . and Americans.
What angered me about the Shirley Sherrod episode is not the fact that she is, with no doubt in my mind, a raging racist spewing very racist comments. What angered me is that her racism was seen as fine, was dismissed, and even explained away with the excuse that she was simply telling how she was once a racist, but is not nearly as racially motivated as before (she then later indicated she doesn't think Obama understands the struggle, but that is for a different article). Had the shoe been on the other foot, meaning had she been a white with a conservative streak running through her, there would have been no tolerance as was afforded Shirley Sherrod. Shirley Sherrod is given a pass, Senator Byrd's white KKK hood was given a pass, Bill Clinton's comments that ten years ago Obama would have been serving him coffee was given a pass.
And then if a black decides to be a conservative, they are called an "Uncle Tom," as if they are traitors, as if they have traded in their affiliation with their own racial group to be a different race, or something.
How preposterous is that?
We are being split into groups by the Left. According to the liberals we are supposed to think like our group, and have a couple people speak for our groups, otherwise we are not following protocol, or something. Then, once we are in our groups, the Left pits us against each other, lets us fight it out, and then claim they are there to bring peace to the quarreling.
Ahhh, aren't we grateful?
But we are a bunch of Americans, not a bunch of [insert race here]-Americans.
Democrats have kept a majority of blacks in poverty. "The Man", so to speak, has kept the blacks down, or at least that is what many believe. But when the richest and most powerful television talk show host is a black woman (Oprah), and the President of the United States is a black man, who is "The Man?"
Liberals don't think people are capable of thinking or doing for themselves, and if you begin to, they create division by pulling out the race card. Black conservatives know what is going on. They realize that life is not about groups, or the liberal's version of diversity, but about acting as an individual, doing whatever it takes to fulfill your potential. . . because you have the freedom to do so.
Conservatism is about providing opportunity for everyone to achieve prosperity. No people should be excluded from prosperity by being convinced they are failures by the government (poverty level). They have some people convinced that they are unable to succeed, and must instead receive the consolation prize of a lifetime of entitlements from the government - paid for, by the way, by the taxpayers - which are those that are succeeding, that are going for it, that refuse to allow the government to become their slave master.
True freedom is having opportunity to go for it. And if you fail, you pull yourself up and go for it again.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Shirley Sherrod served her purpose. Her racism has been explained away, and all we have left is a bunch of folks on the Right that got all upset (including myself) over what Sherrod said, and the weak exit, stage left, that (as usual) cleared her of any wrong doing.
The strategy is simple. Accuse the Tea Party, the Republicans, and anyone else that opposes the leftist agenda of racism, the country gets all wound up in it, and then go back to what you were doing as a Democrat as the Right tries to figure out what just happened, and is left holding the bag of racism.
A tactic as old as government, and a trick used everyday by magicians.
Misdirection.
While America was throwing racial accusations around, the federal government took over the financial system in a fascist manner with the financial reform bill.
I have a problem with racism, whatever form it may take. On the same token, I recognize we have differences as people from the point of view of culture, environment, and upbringing. This, however, does not change us from what we are at the base level: Human Beings. . . and Americans.
What angered me about the Shirley Sherrod episode is not the fact that she is, with no doubt in my mind, a raging racist spewing very racist comments. What angered me is that her racism was seen as fine, was dismissed, and even explained away with the excuse that she was simply telling how she was once a racist, but is not nearly as racially motivated as before (she then later indicated she doesn't think Obama understands the struggle, but that is for a different article). Had the shoe been on the other foot, meaning had she been a white with a conservative streak running through her, there would have been no tolerance as was afforded Shirley Sherrod. Shirley Sherrod is given a pass, Senator Byrd's white KKK hood was given a pass, Bill Clinton's comments that ten years ago Obama would have been serving him coffee was given a pass.
And then if a black decides to be a conservative, they are called an "Uncle Tom," as if they are traitors, as if they have traded in their affiliation with their own racial group to be a different race, or something.
How preposterous is that?
We are being split into groups by the Left. According to the liberals we are supposed to think like our group, and have a couple people speak for our groups, otherwise we are not following protocol, or something. Then, once we are in our groups, the Left pits us against each other, lets us fight it out, and then claim they are there to bring peace to the quarreling.
Ahhh, aren't we grateful?
But we are a bunch of Americans, not a bunch of [insert race here]-Americans.
Democrats have kept a majority of blacks in poverty. "The Man", so to speak, has kept the blacks down, or at least that is what many believe. But when the richest and most powerful television talk show host is a black woman (Oprah), and the President of the United States is a black man, who is "The Man?"
Liberals don't think people are capable of thinking or doing for themselves, and if you begin to, they create division by pulling out the race card. Black conservatives know what is going on. They realize that life is not about groups, or the liberal's version of diversity, but about acting as an individual, doing whatever it takes to fulfill your potential. . . because you have the freedom to do so.
Conservatism is about providing opportunity for everyone to achieve prosperity. No people should be excluded from prosperity by being convinced they are failures by the government (poverty level). They have some people convinced that they are unable to succeed, and must instead receive the consolation prize of a lifetime of entitlements from the government - paid for, by the way, by the taxpayers - which are those that are succeeding, that are going for it, that refuse to allow the government to become their slave master.
True freedom is having opportunity to go for it. And if you fail, you pull yourself up and go for it again.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Friday, July 23, 2010
Financial Reform Bill; Is This The End? Political Pistachio Radio Revolution
The point of no return. . . Have we reached it when it comes to the leftist policies of the Democrats?
Join us live tonight on the radio (7/23/2010 7:00 PM Pacific Time - 2 hrs)
Glenn Beck says that now the Financial Reform Bill has become law, the prosperity of America through a Free Market System is lost. . . I say otherwise. As long as the States are sovereign, all is not lost. Before my commentary on the topic, however, Bob Chapman of the International Forecaster joins us to discuss the Financial Reform Bill, and all of its implications.
Join us live, or catch the archive later, at BlogTalkRadio.com/PoliticalPistachio.
Attack of Bursitis, and the Emergency Room Club
By Douglas V. Gibbs
I had never heard of Bursitis before, but when the pain hit my elbow, it was unmistakably attention grabbing. The slightest wrong move, or any contact with the area afflicted, resulted in a very sharp pain.
I didn't know what it was, but it hurt enough to send me to the hospital.
My current insurance coverage, in the hopes of keeping the monthly as low as possible, has a rather sizable deductible attached. The idea is that for regular visits we can pay ourselves. We reserve the insurance for the big expenses.
Therefore, the emergency room visit was on me.
Bursitis is when a sac in your elbow, which is there to provide fluid as a lubricant for the joint, fills with liquid from irritation, or overuse. Sometimes called "Popeye's Elbow," due to the lump that forms, the best way to bring down the size of it is with a steroid. The pain, however, is quite severe when the sac is enlarged, and the pain killers had to be some heavy duty stuff. In addition to the medicines, they also wrapped it up.
Anyway, it was a new experience that I would rather not go through again. The fact that I lift a heavy draw bar many times a day at work can't be helped, but my tendency to lean on that elbow when typing is a habit I will need to break if I don't wish to go through another attack of Bursitis again.
Most of the people in the waiting room, as I gathered from conversations in English and Spanish, were there on government paid health programs. And when it comes to these kinds of programs, I have no problem with it if they are used sparingly, and on a temporary basis. Technically, Medi-Cal, or whatever other public health system there is, is fine as long as the funds are exclusively from the State. However, federal funding into such plans are unconstitutional. There is no authority in the Constitution that allows for federal funding of health programs.
Anyway, the folks in the waiting room epitomized the kind of people that abuse the system. They were there for sniffles, headaches, and a small cut - You know, the kind of stuff that could be taken to the urgent care, or held off until the next day and then taken to the family doctor. Instead, they were taking up room at the emergency room, making people with more serious injuries wait.
The only worthy injury that I saw was a broken hand.
Anyhow, the conversations revolved around how the system needs to do this, and the system needs to do that. These people were treating the system as if it owed them something.
I got to thinking about it. Obamacare would have even more people in the waiting room. Instead of five hours, I may have to wait days for a more serious injury than sniffles and headaches. The people were treating the visit to the emergency room like its a trip to the market.
And they expected it to be available forever.
I finally closed my eyes and went to sleep, allowing the voices to fade away, until my name was called, and my elbow was wrapped.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
I had never heard of Bursitis before, but when the pain hit my elbow, it was unmistakably attention grabbing. The slightest wrong move, or any contact with the area afflicted, resulted in a very sharp pain.
I didn't know what it was, but it hurt enough to send me to the hospital.
My current insurance coverage, in the hopes of keeping the monthly as low as possible, has a rather sizable deductible attached. The idea is that for regular visits we can pay ourselves. We reserve the insurance for the big expenses.
Therefore, the emergency room visit was on me.
Bursitis is when a sac in your elbow, which is there to provide fluid as a lubricant for the joint, fills with liquid from irritation, or overuse. Sometimes called "Popeye's Elbow," due to the lump that forms, the best way to bring down the size of it is with a steroid. The pain, however, is quite severe when the sac is enlarged, and the pain killers had to be some heavy duty stuff. In addition to the medicines, they also wrapped it up.
Anyway, it was a new experience that I would rather not go through again. The fact that I lift a heavy draw bar many times a day at work can't be helped, but my tendency to lean on that elbow when typing is a habit I will need to break if I don't wish to go through another attack of Bursitis again.
Most of the people in the waiting room, as I gathered from conversations in English and Spanish, were there on government paid health programs. And when it comes to these kinds of programs, I have no problem with it if they are used sparingly, and on a temporary basis. Technically, Medi-Cal, or whatever other public health system there is, is fine as long as the funds are exclusively from the State. However, federal funding into such plans are unconstitutional. There is no authority in the Constitution that allows for federal funding of health programs.
Anyway, the folks in the waiting room epitomized the kind of people that abuse the system. They were there for sniffles, headaches, and a small cut - You know, the kind of stuff that could be taken to the urgent care, or held off until the next day and then taken to the family doctor. Instead, they were taking up room at the emergency room, making people with more serious injuries wait.
The only worthy injury that I saw was a broken hand.
Anyhow, the conversations revolved around how the system needs to do this, and the system needs to do that. These people were treating the system as if it owed them something.
I got to thinking about it. Obamacare would have even more people in the waiting room. Instead of five hours, I may have to wait days for a more serious injury than sniffles and headaches. The people were treating the visit to the emergency room like its a trip to the market.
And they expected it to be available forever.
I finally closed my eyes and went to sleep, allowing the voices to fade away, until my name was called, and my elbow was wrapped.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Thursday, July 22, 2010
Temecula Constitution Study: Article I of the U.S. Constitution; Free Market of State Sovereignty
Tonight joins us at Faith Armory, 27498 Enterprise Cir. W. #2, Temecula, California for a free Constitution Study from 6:00 pm to 7:00 pm.
Tonight we will be discussing:
Article I, Sections 1 and 2.
Section 1 - U.S. Congress, grants powers to legislative branch, sets up State Sovereignty.
Section 2 (House of Representatives) - Key points:
- Representatives shall be chosen every second year; reasoning behind this decision.
- House of Representatives belongs to the people, giving the people representation through the largest branch of the U.S. Legislature.
- Electors (voters) must be qualified to vote; would Founding Fathers approve of requiring ID at polling place?
- Representative must be at least 25 years of age.
- Representative must be minimum 7 year citizen.
- Representative must inhabit State representing when elected.
- 3/5s did not mean the Founding Fathers believed blacks are less than a whole person. . . so why did they use that fraction?
- Enumeration (census) every 10 years, rules by Congress.
- Shall not exceed 1 Representative per every 30,000. . . what does that mean?
- No less than 1 Representative per State.
- Vacancies will be filled with special elections authorized by State governor.
- House chooses Speaker.
- The House of Representatives holding the purse strings is not listed in this section, the authority is listed in Section 7, which will be discussed at a later date.
--------
We will also have a discussion regarding State Sovereignty, and how the idea uses Free Market principles to allow the States to compete against one another.
--------
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Tonight we will be discussing:
Article I, Sections 1 and 2.
Section 1 - U.S. Congress, grants powers to legislative branch, sets up State Sovereignty.
Section 2 (House of Representatives) - Key points:
- Representatives shall be chosen every second year; reasoning behind this decision.
- House of Representatives belongs to the people, giving the people representation through the largest branch of the U.S. Legislature.
- Electors (voters) must be qualified to vote; would Founding Fathers approve of requiring ID at polling place?
- Representative must be at least 25 years of age.
- Representative must be minimum 7 year citizen.
- Representative must inhabit State representing when elected.
- 3/5s did not mean the Founding Fathers believed blacks are less than a whole person. . . so why did they use that fraction?
- Enumeration (census) every 10 years, rules by Congress.
- Shall not exceed 1 Representative per every 30,000. . . what does that mean?
- No less than 1 Representative per State.
- Vacancies will be filled with special elections authorized by State governor.
- House chooses Speaker.
- The House of Representatives holding the purse strings is not listed in this section, the authority is listed in Section 7, which will be discussed at a later date.
--------
We will also have a discussion regarding State Sovereignty, and how the idea uses Free Market principles to allow the States to compete against one another.
--------
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
City of Bell proves my point regarding Murrieta Initiatives
By Douglas V. Gibbs
As candidate for City Council in Murrieta, California, I support three initiatives authored by the Limited Government Political Action Committee that will be on the ballot in November. One of those initiatives is regarding Term Limits, and the other two are regarding the salaries for city administrators and city council members. As a Constitutionalist, I believe that though there should be compensation for service to the city, the monetary amount should not be so great that the money becomes the motivation for taking office.
The City of Bell has proven my point on how dangerous it can be when money becomes the motivating factor.
Bell is largely Hispanic, has a high population of illegal aliens that don't vote or get involved in the political process, and the city has a low revenue base. The city officials, however, have the highest salaries for any city of about 40,000 people. And, as expected, once the cat was let out of the bag, the citizens called for the City Manager, and the City Council, to step down.
The city officials in Bell awarded themselves salaries that leave jaws dropped to the ground. The City Manager's salary has been $800,000, his assistant's salary is $376,288, the police chief's salary is $457,000, and the city council members (which is a part-time duty) have been collecting $100,000 each (all per year).
I have been told that people don't serve their city for the money - but I believe the person that told me that may be sadly mistaken.
But how is it that the people were unaware of this?
California, as a state, is broke, and largely because of corruption. The cities, for the most part, have the same political machine running them, and politics has become more about money, than public service. Meanwhile, the people don't pay attention, blindly trust their officials, and in the case of Bell don't care because the population carries a significant amount of illegal aliens trying to hide under the wire.
The poorer cities seem to be the ones at the most risk. The accountability is low, the voter turnout is poor, and the transparency is practically absent.
The Los Angeles Times has reported that this is a scam that is perpetrated by "vultures" who "deliberately move into cities where they think it'll be easy pickings. Rizzo moved to Bell from Hesperia in 1993 at a salary of $72,000. By 2005, as Vives and Gottlieb reported, he was up to $442,000, and his contract was amended to give him 12% increases annually. The boobs on the City Council, meanwhile, altered the City Charter so they wouldn't have to comply with state guidelines on council salaries."
This is unbelievable, and is a great example of what can happen when local government is unchecked by active citizens.
Bell's example of what can happen in city politics is one of many reasons I support the Murrieta Initiatives that will limit the salaries and stipends of the city administrators and city council.
To do anything less would be. . . irresponsible.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
The Bleeding Bell Blues - Los Angeles Times
As candidate for City Council in Murrieta, California, I support three initiatives authored by the Limited Government Political Action Committee that will be on the ballot in November. One of those initiatives is regarding Term Limits, and the other two are regarding the salaries for city administrators and city council members. As a Constitutionalist, I believe that though there should be compensation for service to the city, the monetary amount should not be so great that the money becomes the motivation for taking office.
The City of Bell has proven my point on how dangerous it can be when money becomes the motivating factor.
Bell is largely Hispanic, has a high population of illegal aliens that don't vote or get involved in the political process, and the city has a low revenue base. The city officials, however, have the highest salaries for any city of about 40,000 people. And, as expected, once the cat was let out of the bag, the citizens called for the City Manager, and the City Council, to step down.
The city officials in Bell awarded themselves salaries that leave jaws dropped to the ground. The City Manager's salary has been $800,000, his assistant's salary is $376,288, the police chief's salary is $457,000, and the city council members (which is a part-time duty) have been collecting $100,000 each (all per year).
I have been told that people don't serve their city for the money - but I believe the person that told me that may be sadly mistaken.
But how is it that the people were unaware of this?
California, as a state, is broke, and largely because of corruption. The cities, for the most part, have the same political machine running them, and politics has become more about money, than public service. Meanwhile, the people don't pay attention, blindly trust their officials, and in the case of Bell don't care because the population carries a significant amount of illegal aliens trying to hide under the wire.
The poorer cities seem to be the ones at the most risk. The accountability is low, the voter turnout is poor, and the transparency is practically absent.
The Los Angeles Times has reported that this is a scam that is perpetrated by "vultures" who "deliberately move into cities where they think it'll be easy pickings. Rizzo moved to Bell from Hesperia in 1993 at a salary of $72,000. By 2005, as Vives and Gottlieb reported, he was up to $442,000, and his contract was amended to give him 12% increases annually. The boobs on the City Council, meanwhile, altered the City Charter so they wouldn't have to comply with state guidelines on council salaries."
This is unbelievable, and is a great example of what can happen when local government is unchecked by active citizens.
Bell's example of what can happen in city politics is one of many reasons I support the Murrieta Initiatives that will limit the salaries and stipends of the city administrators and city council.
To do anything less would be. . . irresponsible.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
The Bleeding Bell Blues - Los Angeles Times
Unemployment Insurance and Economic Justice
By Douglas V. Gibbs
During the summer of recovery the Democrats feel they need to extend unemployment benefits.
And as Obama claims the stimulus recovery act of idiocy is doing a great job, we are sinking deeper and deeper into economic ruin.
They couldn't be lying, could they? Nah, not Democrats. They never lie or carry double-standards!
That was sarcasm for those of you in the Marxist corner.
Okay, Obama feels bad that the out-of-work can't find work, so he takes money from the taxpayer, who has no money left (and are the ones doing all of the work) to give that money to those that are not working. Does that seem a little warped?
That's like taking credits away from an "A" student and giving them to a kid that never made it to class - and then taking so many credits that the student working hard for those "A" grades winds up in the hole on credits.
Yeah, that sure is compassionate.
And what is Obama and the Democrats doing to create jobs? Destroying the private sector, of course. . .
Oh, yeah, sure, that makes a lot of sense, considering that only the private sector "creates" jobs.
Fact is, these people (liberal left) aren't interested in creating jobs, or getting the economy moving. They are looking for what they consider to be economic justice. Liberals are, because of this misguided intention of misplaced compassion, unmistakingly anticapitalist, secular humanistic, and believers in socialism. This line of thinking does not allow them to believe that America is the greatest nation on this Earth, or that individuals can reach maximum individual achievement if given the chance, and if not trained to be slaves to government entitlement programs.
Life is tough. It is hard when employment is yanked out from under you. I understand that, and I have been in those shoes. I went from being an office person for twelve years to construction, partly because of a situation very similar. The industry I had been in just wasn't hiring, so I decided to do a job that the Left says Americans don't want to do.
And then when construction fell apart, I changed careers again, moving into a big rig.
I call these instances the storms of life. We go through these moments, and we mow people's lawns, or dig ditches, or change careers, to make it. That is what we do as Americans. And of course it is not what anyone would want to do, but it is either fight and scratch, or become another government supported zombie. The storms of life often bring to our lives things we would rather not do. But we do them, and we earn our sea legs, and we build character, and we take care of our families, and we come out stronger in the end.
Liberals, however, don't believe people are capable of thinking, or doing, for themselves. They think you are too stupid to do the right thing, so you must be spoon-fed with their government programs.
Conservatives believes that compassion is creating opportunity so that less people need to receive any kind of government aid. The left, however, believes that opportunity, and wealth, is finite. If one person has more, then there must be someone somewhere that has less, the liberals will tell you.
Obama, the Democrats, and their liberal sheep that follow the idiots in Washington, cannot comprehend what it means to expand wealth, or create wealth. They see wealth and opportunity as limited, finite, and as something that needs to be dished out in equal portions in a method of redistribution. They don't understand that America's prosperity is available to everyone, should those people go for it by believing in themselves, by being self-sufficient, and by making sure they do not fall into the clutches of government dependency.
Liberals wish to place more people on welfare, and are even willing to extend unemployment benefits to make it more like welfare, rather than give everyone an opportunity for prosperity.
For America to return to navigating its prosperous path, individuals need to be the best they can be, and succeed - not fall into the trap of the government taking care of people.
And what really frightens the liberals is that mainstream America is conservative. The people are crying out for their beliefs in unabashed patriotism and loyalty to American traditions to be defended. The Tea Party has risen for that reason, and because the Left can't allow for such a thing, cannot allow patriotism and a belief in exceptionalism to emerge, they attack the Tea Party in an unrelenting manner.
One more thought. . . They say there is roughly 14 million unemployed. But I heard that there are currently roughly 14 million illegal aliens in the country (yes, yes, I know the number is much larger, but let's use the left's numbers for fun) - If all of the illegal aliens were deported, wouldn't that open up enough jobs to hire the unemployed?
I wonder how may of those unemployed would be willing to take the job before their benefits run out?
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Obama's Economic Fish Stories: On unemployment, the president claims that the stimulus bill was several times more potent than his chief economic adviser estimates. Such statements hurt his credibility. - Wall Street Journal
During the summer of recovery the Democrats feel they need to extend unemployment benefits.
And as Obama claims the stimulus recovery act of idiocy is doing a great job, we are sinking deeper and deeper into economic ruin.
They couldn't be lying, could they? Nah, not Democrats. They never lie or carry double-standards!
That was sarcasm for those of you in the Marxist corner.
Okay, Obama feels bad that the out-of-work can't find work, so he takes money from the taxpayer, who has no money left (and are the ones doing all of the work) to give that money to those that are not working. Does that seem a little warped?
That's like taking credits away from an "A" student and giving them to a kid that never made it to class - and then taking so many credits that the student working hard for those "A" grades winds up in the hole on credits.
Yeah, that sure is compassionate.
And what is Obama and the Democrats doing to create jobs? Destroying the private sector, of course. . .
Oh, yeah, sure, that makes a lot of sense, considering that only the private sector "creates" jobs.
Fact is, these people (liberal left) aren't interested in creating jobs, or getting the economy moving. They are looking for what they consider to be economic justice. Liberals are, because of this misguided intention of misplaced compassion, unmistakingly anticapitalist, secular humanistic, and believers in socialism. This line of thinking does not allow them to believe that America is the greatest nation on this Earth, or that individuals can reach maximum individual achievement if given the chance, and if not trained to be slaves to government entitlement programs.
Life is tough. It is hard when employment is yanked out from under you. I understand that, and I have been in those shoes. I went from being an office person for twelve years to construction, partly because of a situation very similar. The industry I had been in just wasn't hiring, so I decided to do a job that the Left says Americans don't want to do.
And then when construction fell apart, I changed careers again, moving into a big rig.
I call these instances the storms of life. We go through these moments, and we mow people's lawns, or dig ditches, or change careers, to make it. That is what we do as Americans. And of course it is not what anyone would want to do, but it is either fight and scratch, or become another government supported zombie. The storms of life often bring to our lives things we would rather not do. But we do them, and we earn our sea legs, and we build character, and we take care of our families, and we come out stronger in the end.
Liberals, however, don't believe people are capable of thinking, or doing, for themselves. They think you are too stupid to do the right thing, so you must be spoon-fed with their government programs.
Conservatives believes that compassion is creating opportunity so that less people need to receive any kind of government aid. The left, however, believes that opportunity, and wealth, is finite. If one person has more, then there must be someone somewhere that has less, the liberals will tell you.
Obama, the Democrats, and their liberal sheep that follow the idiots in Washington, cannot comprehend what it means to expand wealth, or create wealth. They see wealth and opportunity as limited, finite, and as something that needs to be dished out in equal portions in a method of redistribution. They don't understand that America's prosperity is available to everyone, should those people go for it by believing in themselves, by being self-sufficient, and by making sure they do not fall into the clutches of government dependency.
Liberals wish to place more people on welfare, and are even willing to extend unemployment benefits to make it more like welfare, rather than give everyone an opportunity for prosperity.
For America to return to navigating its prosperous path, individuals need to be the best they can be, and succeed - not fall into the trap of the government taking care of people.
And what really frightens the liberals is that mainstream America is conservative. The people are crying out for their beliefs in unabashed patriotism and loyalty to American traditions to be defended. The Tea Party has risen for that reason, and because the Left can't allow for such a thing, cannot allow patriotism and a belief in exceptionalism to emerge, they attack the Tea Party in an unrelenting manner.
One more thought. . . They say there is roughly 14 million unemployed. But I heard that there are currently roughly 14 million illegal aliens in the country (yes, yes, I know the number is much larger, but let's use the left's numbers for fun) - If all of the illegal aliens were deported, wouldn't that open up enough jobs to hire the unemployed?
I wonder how may of those unemployed would be willing to take the job before their benefits run out?
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Obama's Economic Fish Stories: On unemployment, the president claims that the stimulus bill was several times more potent than his chief economic adviser estimates. Such statements hurt his credibility. - Wall Street Journal
.jpg)
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
Shirley Sherrod's Charade
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Okay, so the story is there was a video of Shirley Sherrod saying she refused to help a white farmer because he's white. But it turns out she did help him, so that means she was lying when she said she didn't help him, or perhaps she wasn't going to help him, but wound up doing it anyway. She told the tale that has her up against the wall for being a racist to illustrate how she changed from being a racist to not a racist, we are being told. But, she told the story to a relatively racist group, the NAACP, whose audience was clapping when she told the part about refusing to give the white farmer help, and telling him to get help from his own kind. They didn't know her context, yet, but they were clapping. They appreciated her racism.
Also, with the new explaination, Sherrod is saying she was racist at one time, but became "not racist," and that is just fine by the liberals. But, if a Republican said one racist thing, and apologized later saying it was stupid or out of context, he would still be destroyed by the liberals.
I remember when Rush Limbaugh was trying to be part owner of the NFL Rams, and all kinds of accusations of his alleged racist remarks began circulating, and his deal fell apart because of it. . . and every last quote was false. None of the alleged racist remarks had been made by Rush. Many of the media types even acknowledged such after the whole thing blew over. Was there an apology? Of course not, and people are still convinced he said those things he never said.
Yet, Sherrod can be straight out racist, and the NAACP can clap as she is explaining how racist she was, but once she proclaims it was taken out of context, everyone is supposed to forget, the clapping of the NAACP is forgotten, and the Right was just fishing for racist accusations (according to the Left).
And here is what is really amazing. This came up as a response to the false accusations by leftists that the Tea Party is racist. There is no evidence, save for a few idiots with questionable signs, and a lot of accusations by the Left, that there is any racist element to the Tea Party movement. But everyone is convinced the Tea Party is racist, even though all accusations are patently false. But Sherrod, even after making her remarks, and the NAACP cheering for her being racist, is given a pass - no more questions asked.
Do I sense (as always) a double standard?
One more thought. If Sherrod's story was to tell how she was once racist, but then decided not to be racist, one must ask: Why was she racist in the first place? Is that a pre-requisite for becoming a liberal? Must you start as a racist, and then when you change to promoting class warfare like Obama is, you are supposed to drop your racism?
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
White House apologizes over race debacle amid criticism from CBC - The Hill
Okay, so the story is there was a video of Shirley Sherrod saying she refused to help a white farmer because he's white. But it turns out she did help him, so that means she was lying when she said she didn't help him, or perhaps she wasn't going to help him, but wound up doing it anyway. She told the tale that has her up against the wall for being a racist to illustrate how she changed from being a racist to not a racist, we are being told. But, she told the story to a relatively racist group, the NAACP, whose audience was clapping when she told the part about refusing to give the white farmer help, and telling him to get help from his own kind. They didn't know her context, yet, but they were clapping. They appreciated her racism.
Also, with the new explaination, Sherrod is saying she was racist at one time, but became "not racist," and that is just fine by the liberals. But, if a Republican said one racist thing, and apologized later saying it was stupid or out of context, he would still be destroyed by the liberals.
I remember when Rush Limbaugh was trying to be part owner of the NFL Rams, and all kinds of accusations of his alleged racist remarks began circulating, and his deal fell apart because of it. . . and every last quote was false. None of the alleged racist remarks had been made by Rush. Many of the media types even acknowledged such after the whole thing blew over. Was there an apology? Of course not, and people are still convinced he said those things he never said.
Yet, Sherrod can be straight out racist, and the NAACP can clap as she is explaining how racist she was, but once she proclaims it was taken out of context, everyone is supposed to forget, the clapping of the NAACP is forgotten, and the Right was just fishing for racist accusations (according to the Left).
And here is what is really amazing. This came up as a response to the false accusations by leftists that the Tea Party is racist. There is no evidence, save for a few idiots with questionable signs, and a lot of accusations by the Left, that there is any racist element to the Tea Party movement. But everyone is convinced the Tea Party is racist, even though all accusations are patently false. But Sherrod, even after making her remarks, and the NAACP cheering for her being racist, is given a pass - no more questions asked.
Do I sense (as always) a double standard?
One more thought. If Sherrod's story was to tell how she was once racist, but then decided not to be racist, one must ask: Why was she racist in the first place? Is that a pre-requisite for becoming a liberal? Must you start as a racist, and then when you change to promoting class warfare like Obama is, you are supposed to drop your racism?
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
White House apologizes over race debacle amid criticism from CBC - The Hill
Racism Reconsidered
By Douglas V. Gibbs
If the roles had been reversed, Ms. Sherrod would never work in anything again. But a black woman being racist against whites, apparently, deserves reconsideration.
Hmmm, I wonder if she joined the New Black Panthers and walked around with a club in her hand shouting racial slurs if it would get her off the hook completely?
Shirley Sherrod's comments that she didn't give a white farmer help because he's, uh, white, is being labled as racially tinged remarks.
Racism is racism is racism.
Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack says before kicking her out of her position, he wants to learn more about what she said.
What is there to learn? It's on video, for God's sake!
I suppose Mr. Vilsack doesn't want to jump to any conclusions, since the offender is black, liberal, and a woman.
Now, if Sherrod had been a white, Republican male, Shirley would be dust.
Sherrod's remarks were delivered in March at a local NAACP banquet in Georgia. And she was applauded for her racism by the crowd.
But Mr. Vilsack wants to make sure nothing is being misunderstood.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
USDA Reconsidering Official Ousted for Race Comments - Fox News
If the roles had been reversed, Ms. Sherrod would never work in anything again. But a black woman being racist against whites, apparently, deserves reconsideration.
Hmmm, I wonder if she joined the New Black Panthers and walked around with a club in her hand shouting racial slurs if it would get her off the hook completely?
Shirley Sherrod's comments that she didn't give a white farmer help because he's, uh, white, is being labled as racially tinged remarks.
Racism is racism is racism.
Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack says before kicking her out of her position, he wants to learn more about what she said.
What is there to learn? It's on video, for God's sake!
I suppose Mr. Vilsack doesn't want to jump to any conclusions, since the offender is black, liberal, and a woman.
Now, if Sherrod had been a white, Republican male, Shirley would be dust.
Sherrod's remarks were delivered in March at a local NAACP banquet in Georgia. And she was applauded for her racism by the crowd.
But Mr. Vilsack wants to make sure nothing is being misunderstood.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
USDA Reconsidering Official Ousted for Race Comments - Fox News
Unemployment Compensation Extended
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Two and a half years for unemployment?
With the bare minimum of votes required to avoid a filibuster, the Democrats pulled off extending unemployment benefits - or at least with the Senate vote. The House is expected to pass it on Wednesday.
How, pray tell, do you people in Washington expect to pay for it? Do you realize you are giving people more reason not to look extensively for a job? At what point does unemployment insurance become a welfare program?
Here is what is really interesting. We keep being told by the Democrats that we are in the middle of a recovery. If we are recovering, then why do they need to extend unemployment benefits? If things were getting better, then wouldn't they be telling us that people are finding jobs? Extending unemployment benefits is the Democrats way of telling you they are lying about the recovery, they have done nothing to create jobs, and that their policies are a big fat failure.
Sickening.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Jobless Benefit Extension Clears Senate Hurdle - New York Times
Two and a half years for unemployment?
With the bare minimum of votes required to avoid a filibuster, the Democrats pulled off extending unemployment benefits - or at least with the Senate vote. The House is expected to pass it on Wednesday.
How, pray tell, do you people in Washington expect to pay for it? Do you realize you are giving people more reason not to look extensively for a job? At what point does unemployment insurance become a welfare program?
Here is what is really interesting. We keep being told by the Democrats that we are in the middle of a recovery. If we are recovering, then why do they need to extend unemployment benefits? If things were getting better, then wouldn't they be telling us that people are finding jobs? Extending unemployment benefits is the Democrats way of telling you they are lying about the recovery, they have done nothing to create jobs, and that their policies are a big fat failure.
Sickening.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Jobless Benefit Extension Clears Senate Hurdle - New York Times
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Federal Government Lost Our Jobs!
By Douglas V. Gibbs
The headline in the New York Times reads:
Mystery for White House: Where Did the Jobs Go?
Uh, did they lose them? Did they look in the Lincoln Bedroom?
Oh, wait, I get it. They figured their idiotic policies would create jobs, and they can't figure out why none have materialized. Could it be because they are destroying the private sector, and jobs are only created in the private sector?
Perhaps a lesson from Canada is in order.
That's right, the Canadians, when it comes to job creation, has taken a turn for the conservative. . .
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Mystery for White House: Where Did the Jobs Go? - New York Times
Canada churns out 93,000 new jobs - CBC News
The headline in the New York Times reads:
Mystery for White House: Where Did the Jobs Go?
Uh, did they lose them? Did they look in the Lincoln Bedroom?
Oh, wait, I get it. They figured their idiotic policies would create jobs, and they can't figure out why none have materialized. Could it be because they are destroying the private sector, and jobs are only created in the private sector?
Perhaps a lesson from Canada is in order.
That's right, the Canadians, when it comes to job creation, has taken a turn for the conservative. . .
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Mystery for White House: Where Did the Jobs Go? - New York Times
Canada churns out 93,000 new jobs - CBC News
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)