Sunday, June 26, 2011
Without Morality, America is in Danger
"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." --John Adams, Address to the Military , 1798
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Good Government Without Kings, Good Religion Without Government Intrusion
"We are teaching the world the great truth that governments do better without kings and nobles than with them. The merit will be doubled by the other lesson that religion flourishes in greater purity, without than with the aid of government." --James Madison, letter to Edward Livingston, 1822
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
What John Jay Would Have Thought of Obama's War in Libya
"But the safety of the people of America against dangers from foreign force depends not only on their forbearing to give just causes of war to other nations, but also on their placing and continuing themselves in such a situation as not to invite hostility or insult; for it need not be observed that there are pretended as well as just causes of war." --John Jay, Federalist No. 4
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Saturday, June 25, 2011
Email of the Week: The Tardy WalMart Greeter
WAL-MART SENIOR GREETER
Charley, a new retiree-greeter at Wal-Mart, just couldn't seem to get to work on time. Every day he was 5, 10, 15 minutes late. But he was a good worker, really tidy, clean-shaven, sharp-minded and a real credit to the company and obviously demonstrating their "Older Person Friendly" policies.
One day the boss called him into the office for a talk.
"Charley, I have to tell you, I like your work ethic, you do a bang-up job when you finally get here; but your being late so often is quite bothersome."
"Yes, I know boss, and I am working on it."
"Well good, you are a team player. That's what I like to hear.
Yes sir, I understand your concern and I will try harder.
Seeming puzzled, the manager went on to comment, I know you're retired from the Armed Forces. What did they say to you there if you showed up in the morning late so often?"
The old man looked down at the floor, then smiled. He chuckled quietly, then said with a grin,
"They usually saluted and said, Good morning, Admiral, can I get your coffee, sir?
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Charley, a new retiree-greeter at Wal-Mart, just couldn't seem to get to work on time. Every day he was 5, 10, 15 minutes late. But he was a good worker, really tidy, clean-shaven, sharp-minded and a real credit to the company and obviously demonstrating their "Older Person Friendly" policies.
One day the boss called him into the office for a talk.
"Charley, I have to tell you, I like your work ethic, you do a bang-up job when you finally get here; but your being late so often is quite bothersome."
"Yes, I know boss, and I am working on it."
"Well good, you are a team player. That's what I like to hear.
Yes sir, I understand your concern and I will try harder.
Seeming puzzled, the manager went on to comment, I know you're retired from the Armed Forces. What did they say to you there if you showed up in the morning late so often?"
The old man looked down at the floor, then smiled. He chuckled quietly, then said with a grin,
"They usually saluted and said, Good morning, Admiral, can I get your coffee, sir?
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Islam: Beating Preschool Students (so much for that religion of peace thing)
Especially pay attention to the caning (with hair pulling) after 2 minute mark, and 2:50 mark...
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Israel Blessed With Oil Deep Beneath
By Douglas V. Gibbs
On September 22, 2008 I received from a Christian site I am a member of (CrossDaily) an email with a subject line reading: "Is Israel sitting on top of an oil reserve?" The email suggested that Israel sits atop a massive oil reserve, and that a company known as Zion Oil & Gas was searching for the oil, guided by the biblical passage in Genesis 49:25 that reads, "By the God of your father who will help you, And by the Almighty who will bless you With blessings of heaven above, Blessings of the deep that lies beneath, Blessings of the breasts and of the womb."
Many believe that the verse from Genesis, as well as a number of other passages in the Bible, points towards the existence of oil deep beneath the Land of Israel. This belief has been supported by American and Israeli experts in oil exploration. One of those Americans visited Israel in 1985, and was inspired. After that visit by John Brown, a fourteen year process began, that culminated in the creation of Zion Oil & Gas, Inc., and for the company to begin exploring for oil in April 2000. Drilling began in northern Israel in 2005. The combined results have only strengthened the commitment of on-going oil exploration in Israel.
Prior to receiving that email, I had heard stories about Israel having oil, and that there was an ongoing effort to locate that oil. I had also heard that the search was inspired by the Bible.
Imagine. Oil under Israel. The joke has always been, "of all the lands granted to Israel, it had to be the one spot in all of the Middle East without oil."
It turns out that not only is the joke wrong, but that Israel may very well have a larger reserve of oil than all of Saudi Arabia.
Today, during my Political Pistachio Radio Revolution program, during which Israel was one of the main topics in connection to a possible correlation between natural disasters and the treatment of Israel by the United States and other nations, a listener put a link in the chatroom for an article titled, "Look Out, Saudis? Israel Is Sitting On Huge Oil Shale Deposits." The article claims that "The World Energy Council has determined that about 30 miles southwest of Jerusalem, in the Shfela Basin, there are oil shale deposits with the potential to yield 250 billion barrels of oil. This represents the world’s third-largest quantity of oil shale behind the US and China. Oilprice.com notes that both those countries would consume almost all their own production, so Israel could conceivably become the world’s largest exporter of shale oil."
The article goes on to say, "Saudi Arabia’s proven oil reserves are 260 billion barrels, so we would appear to be in the running as an energy giant — particularly in view of the enormous natural gas finds at the Tamar and Leviathan fields. But there’s quite a distance yet to travel. For one thing, extracting oil from shale isn’t the same as drilling it out of the ground. It’s more difficult and more expensive."
With technology the ease and price of extracting oil from shale as improved greatly.
It may take a while, but Israel is on the verge of becoming a major oil supplier.
Making the land even more valuable...and possibly creating greater conditions for a showdown in the Middle East.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Krugman’s Awakening?
By Bill Wilson
It’s the second time within a month, but I agree
with the New York Times’ Paul Krugman.
This time, he writes that“bankers and wealthy
individuals with lots of bonds in their portfolios”
can count on the government to “protect the
interests of creditors, no matter the cost”.
Now, we would certainly disagree on which policies are intent on preserving creditor interests and therefore do not deserve to be enacted. Krugman is primarily concerned with opposition to deficit-spending, which he says is because officials believe such spending unbridled “might hurt the interests of existing bondholders.”
Only if it leads to a catastrophic default, I would note, because the national debt became so large that it could not be refinanced, let alone be repaid. But then, the reason to avoid a complete default is because it would presumably be harmful to everyone, not just creditors.
Leaving that aside, it must be noted that Krugman doesn’t completely hold the high ground when it comes to propping up creditors. He was a supporter of the 2008 bank bailouts, which on their face protected bankers who bet poorly on housing, because, he wrote, “the danger of financial panic if it doesn’t go through, makes it worth passing”.
When the first draft of the plan was released, he warned that “it seems all too likely that a ‘fair price’ for mortgage-related assets will still leave much of the financial sector in trouble”. Instead, Krugman advocated that if the plan was for government to buy mortgage-backed securities, that it “will only work if the prices Treasury pays are much higher than current market prices”.
His major gripe with the initial plan was that it was not clear if the government would take equity in troubled firms. In the end, equity was a part of the deal, and so Krugman agreed to the bailout. With a government stake in the firms that took TARP money, he had no problem with propping up investors who bet poorly on an asset, in that case, mortgage-backed securities.
And ultimately, it was not the Treasury, but the Federal Reserve that wound up giving investors 100 cents on the dollar for the securities, with a $1.25 trillion bailout that propped up financial institutions all over the world. And certainly, the bailout’s aim was to “protect the interests of creditors, no matter the cost.”
Because, the very institutions that the U.S. depends on to lend us trillions of dollars for all the deficit-spending Krugman insists is necessary to “create jobs” would have been rendered insolvent.
But leaving that aside, since 2008, Krugman has taken a slightly harder line against the bankers, as evidenced by his most recent piece. He’s not out of the woods yet, but I’m holding out hope. The best example of Krugman’s awakening was a piece on he wrote last year on Iceland, a nation that let its banks fail in 2008 because they were too big to save.
As noted by Bloomberg News, at the time the crisis hit in 2008, “the banks had debts equal to 10 times Iceland’s $12 billion GDP.” Krugman noted that with its policy — which let bankers take big losses — both unemployment and growth were recovering in Iceland.
Krugman wrote, “The moral of the story seems to be that if you’re going to have a crisis, it’s better to have a really, really bad one. Otherwise, you’ll end up taking the advice of people who assure you that even more suffering will cure what ails you.”
Most recently, he remarked on how Iceland is now in a better position than Ireland, which did bail out its banks. He links to a couple of stories on how credit default swaps on Icelandic debt have dropped to 200 points, while Ireland’s are at 683 points.
He writes, “Why, it’s almost as if defaulting on debts run up by runaway bankers and letting your currency depreciate works better — even from the point of view of investors — than socializing private-sector losses and grimly sticking with a fixed exchange rate.”
A quick point: Iceland did not default, it told banks that failed they weren’t being saved. But, leaving this semantic point aside, again, I agree with Krugman: making creditors pay when they bet poorly on housing has been a big benefit to the Icelandic economy.
The reason, which Krugman fails to note, is because Iceland has not been saddled with the tremendous costs and run-up in national debt that Ireland has been paying for with its bailouts. That’s the only real difference between the two.
Government spending on bailouts therefore diverts resources away from private sector economic recovery, and instead goes to propping up creditors and investors. Meanwhile, the national debt becomes ever-larger, which then becomes a major drag on the national economy.
This is where Krugman and I part ways. He does not perceive any risk of a national default in the U.S., where the national debt will run up to over $26 trillion by 2021, and is committed to a deficit-spending formula to prop up the economy. So, he has no problem with further trillions of dollars of “stimulus,” which he maintains have been insufficient. He wants more spending.
But, as Europe is learning, the risk of default from too much spending is very much real. The question now is, in the sovereign debt crisis, if creditors bet poorly on government bonds, should they take losses on the bad investments?
That’s what Germany is now advocating for on Greek debt, where bondholders would be given bonds with longer maturities, stretching them out by seven years.
This contrasts with France and the European Central Bank’s (ECB) approach of forcing bondholders to keep on purchasing Greek debt, no matter how risky. The European Central Bank too is on the hook directly for €45 billion in Greek debt, not to mention tens of billions of Greek debt it accepted as collateral when making loans. France too owns about €10.28 billion of Greece’s €340 billion debt.
Of course these banks want another bailout. They cannot afford to take losses of that magnitude. The ECB believes the German proposal will trigger a “credit event,” increasing the risk of default in other eurozone nations.
They may be right. It’s a default by any definition, since Greece will not be paying on time and in full, and that will certainly result in losses by the bondholders. Those institutional investors, in turn, will then have less money to lend to other nations like Portugal, Ireland, Italy, and Spain, leading to more defaults.
But, just because banks that bet poorly on sovereign debt will lose out does not mean the defaults shouldn’t happen. So far, Germany appears to have the upper hand, and have won the support of the Dutch. In Finland, the idea of bondholders taking losses on sovereign debt has become increasingly popular.
It’s hard to predict where Krugman will come out on the side of. As a career-committed Keynesian who believes in deficit-spending to “create jobs” as a matter of faith, he needs the bankers.
On the other hand, if he can see the perversity of government “protect[ing] the interests of creditors, no matter the cost”, then perhaps we are witnessing an awakening by Krugman? One can only hope. The creditors should pay, just like any other investor, when they bet poorly.
Bill Wilson is the President of Americans for Limited Government. You can follow Bill on Twitter at @BillWilsonALG.
It’s the second time within a month, but I agree
with the New York Times’ Paul Krugman.
This time, he writes that“bankers and wealthy
individuals with lots of bonds in their portfolios”
can count on the government to “protect the
interests of creditors, no matter the cost”.
Now, we would certainly disagree on which policies are intent on preserving creditor interests and therefore do not deserve to be enacted. Krugman is primarily concerned with opposition to deficit-spending, which he says is because officials believe such spending unbridled “might hurt the interests of existing bondholders.”
Only if it leads to a catastrophic default, I would note, because the national debt became so large that it could not be refinanced, let alone be repaid. But then, the reason to avoid a complete default is because it would presumably be harmful to everyone, not just creditors.
Leaving that aside, it must be noted that Krugman doesn’t completely hold the high ground when it comes to propping up creditors. He was a supporter of the 2008 bank bailouts, which on their face protected bankers who bet poorly on housing, because, he wrote, “the danger of financial panic if it doesn’t go through, makes it worth passing”.
When the first draft of the plan was released, he warned that “it seems all too likely that a ‘fair price’ for mortgage-related assets will still leave much of the financial sector in trouble”. Instead, Krugman advocated that if the plan was for government to buy mortgage-backed securities, that it “will only work if the prices Treasury pays are much higher than current market prices”.
His major gripe with the initial plan was that it was not clear if the government would take equity in troubled firms. In the end, equity was a part of the deal, and so Krugman agreed to the bailout. With a government stake in the firms that took TARP money, he had no problem with propping up investors who bet poorly on an asset, in that case, mortgage-backed securities.
And ultimately, it was not the Treasury, but the Federal Reserve that wound up giving investors 100 cents on the dollar for the securities, with a $1.25 trillion bailout that propped up financial institutions all over the world. And certainly, the bailout’s aim was to “protect the interests of creditors, no matter the cost.”
Because, the very institutions that the U.S. depends on to lend us trillions of dollars for all the deficit-spending Krugman insists is necessary to “create jobs” would have been rendered insolvent.
But leaving that aside, since 2008, Krugman has taken a slightly harder line against the bankers, as evidenced by his most recent piece. He’s not out of the woods yet, but I’m holding out hope. The best example of Krugman’s awakening was a piece on he wrote last year on Iceland, a nation that let its banks fail in 2008 because they were too big to save.
As noted by Bloomberg News, at the time the crisis hit in 2008, “the banks had debts equal to 10 times Iceland’s $12 billion GDP.” Krugman noted that with its policy — which let bankers take big losses — both unemployment and growth were recovering in Iceland.
Krugman wrote, “The moral of the story seems to be that if you’re going to have a crisis, it’s better to have a really, really bad one. Otherwise, you’ll end up taking the advice of people who assure you that even more suffering will cure what ails you.”
Most recently, he remarked on how Iceland is now in a better position than Ireland, which did bail out its banks. He links to a couple of stories on how credit default swaps on Icelandic debt have dropped to 200 points, while Ireland’s are at 683 points.
He writes, “Why, it’s almost as if defaulting on debts run up by runaway bankers and letting your currency depreciate works better — even from the point of view of investors — than socializing private-sector losses and grimly sticking with a fixed exchange rate.”
A quick point: Iceland did not default, it told banks that failed they weren’t being saved. But, leaving this semantic point aside, again, I agree with Krugman: making creditors pay when they bet poorly on housing has been a big benefit to the Icelandic economy.
The reason, which Krugman fails to note, is because Iceland has not been saddled with the tremendous costs and run-up in national debt that Ireland has been paying for with its bailouts. That’s the only real difference between the two.
Government spending on bailouts therefore diverts resources away from private sector economic recovery, and instead goes to propping up creditors and investors. Meanwhile, the national debt becomes ever-larger, which then becomes a major drag on the national economy.
This is where Krugman and I part ways. He does not perceive any risk of a national default in the U.S., where the national debt will run up to over $26 trillion by 2021, and is committed to a deficit-spending formula to prop up the economy. So, he has no problem with further trillions of dollars of “stimulus,” which he maintains have been insufficient. He wants more spending.
But, as Europe is learning, the risk of default from too much spending is very much real. The question now is, in the sovereign debt crisis, if creditors bet poorly on government bonds, should they take losses on the bad investments?
That’s what Germany is now advocating for on Greek debt, where bondholders would be given bonds with longer maturities, stretching them out by seven years.
This contrasts with France and the European Central Bank’s (ECB) approach of forcing bondholders to keep on purchasing Greek debt, no matter how risky. The European Central Bank too is on the hook directly for €45 billion in Greek debt, not to mention tens of billions of Greek debt it accepted as collateral when making loans. France too owns about €10.28 billion of Greece’s €340 billion debt.
Of course these banks want another bailout. They cannot afford to take losses of that magnitude. The ECB believes the German proposal will trigger a “credit event,” increasing the risk of default in other eurozone nations.
They may be right. It’s a default by any definition, since Greece will not be paying on time and in full, and that will certainly result in losses by the bondholders. Those institutional investors, in turn, will then have less money to lend to other nations like Portugal, Ireland, Italy, and Spain, leading to more defaults.
But, just because banks that bet poorly on sovereign debt will lose out does not mean the defaults shouldn’t happen. So far, Germany appears to have the upper hand, and have won the support of the Dutch. In Finland, the idea of bondholders taking losses on sovereign debt has become increasingly popular.
It’s hard to predict where Krugman will come out on the side of. As a career-committed Keynesian who believes in deficit-spending to “create jobs” as a matter of faith, he needs the bankers.
On the other hand, if he can see the perversity of government “protect[ing] the interests of creditors, no matter the cost”, then perhaps we are witnessing an awakening by Krugman? One can only hope. The creditors should pay, just like any other investor, when they bet poorly.
Bill Wilson is the President of Americans for Limited Government. You can follow Bill on Twitter at @BillWilsonALG.
Read more at NetRightDaily.com: http://netrightdaily.com/2011/06/krugmans-awakening/#ixzz1QIpCVq7a
God's Judgment? - Political Pistachio Radio Revolution: Natural Disasters, Israel, and Obama!
Political Pistachio: Natural Disasters, Israel and Obama
- by HOV Radio
- host Douglas V. Gibbs in Politics Conservative
- on Sat, Jun 25, 2011 01:00PM Pacific
..............
..............
..............
..............
.............
John T. McTernan, author of "As America Has Done To Israel,"
joins Political Pistachio to discuss the increase in natural disasters, and how these events relate to the treatment of Israel. Gods Wrath? Or Coincidence?
seen, US experts say 06/15/11 "For government scientists
usually cautious about going out on a limb, a
"special report" issued Wednesday minced few words:
Last April saw an unprecedented onslaught of extreme
tornadoes, flooding, drought and wildfire, they
concluded.
"While similar extremes have occurred throughout modern
American history," the
report by experts at the National Climatic Data Center stated,
"never before have they occurred in a single month."
Jasmius and Douglas V. Gibbs Discuss News of the Week - and Doug's Co-hosting on KTIE AM 590
ADR Week In Review
- by ADR Radio
- in Politics Conservative
- on Sat, Jun 25, 2011 12:00PM Pacific
Oil: Release of Strategic Reserve Foolish Move
By Douglas V. Gibbs
The liberal left has repeatedly fought against the Right's "Drill Baby Drill" mantra regarding domestic drilling - saying that drilling domestically won't help with the price of fuel. Conservatives argued that an increase in supply would do exactly that. Drilling domestically would increase supply, reduce prices, and move the United States away from foreign dependency on crude.
Now, the Democrats have decided to release and sell 60 million barrels of crude oil from our emergency stocks (maybe a day's worth of worldwide use) to help ease the strain on the world because of high oil prices.
But I thought when it came to drilling domestically additional supply wouldn't help? Is this the Democrat's way of admitting that an increase in supply reduces prices?
They would rather take from our emergency strategic reserve, to offer a thimble full of oil for a temporary fix that may last a day, than to access our massive reserves under Alaska, the Dakotas, and along our shorelines?
Liberal stupidity is mind-boggling, isn't it?
Other progressive nations around the world have followed suit.
The mass-stupidity of the left seems to be a worldwide phenomena.
Officials and analysts hint that the move is more symbolic, than anything, and is meant to be a rebuke to OPEC.
So rebuke them with domestic drilling. I guarantee that with even the threat of drilling, prices would come way down.
Barry Obama and his idiot leftist Democrat Party cronies are too authoritarian for that. They could care less about the oil supply because their plan is to enslave us with crony capitalism that includes a new source, with them in control - i.e. green technologies and renewable fuels.
If all this green stuff was worth it, the free market would have taken that road.
This is not the first time this foolish move was done. The last time was in 2005 after Hurricane Katrina.
Wow, once again Obama is acting like his hero, George W. Bush.
The IEA claims they are doing this because the high oil demand and shortfalls of oil production caused by unrest in the Middle East and North Africa threatens to "undermine the fragile global economic recovery."
Recovery? There is no recovery. There never was. Things have been getting worse, and the left's worship of failed Keynesian economic theories are largely why.
Despite the liberal left's assault on prosperity, and on America's economy, there will be improvements here and there, though slight. America's resolve to improve is stronger than Obama's resolve to destroy.
We may see temporary drops in gasoline prices, as we have been seeing a little of lately, but unless we take a permanent action, like domestic drilling, it won't be long before the temporary rubber band breaks, and energy prices soar into the sky again.
By the way, why in the hell is the Democrats pulling this oil from the nation's oil reserves? That is not what that stash of oil is for. Like with different pockets of revenue (like how they grab money from programs like Social Security), they are pulling oil from a pocket of oil that was never intended to be used this way.
President Barack Obama, like usual, is playing politics. However, his game has gotten even more dangerous, as he plays with the country's oil reserves, which are intended to address emergencies.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
US and others plan biggest release of reserve oil - One News Now
US, Other Nations Releasing Oil from Strategic Reserves - MSNBC
Why Drilling Can Lower Oil Prices Today - American Pundit
ALG Study on Price Impact of Releasing Strategic Oil Reserves - Get Liberty
The liberal left has repeatedly fought against the Right's "Drill Baby Drill" mantra regarding domestic drilling - saying that drilling domestically won't help with the price of fuel. Conservatives argued that an increase in supply would do exactly that. Drilling domestically would increase supply, reduce prices, and move the United States away from foreign dependency on crude.
Now, the Democrats have decided to release and sell 60 million barrels of crude oil from our emergency stocks (maybe a day's worth of worldwide use) to help ease the strain on the world because of high oil prices.
But I thought when it came to drilling domestically additional supply wouldn't help? Is this the Democrat's way of admitting that an increase in supply reduces prices?
They would rather take from our emergency strategic reserve, to offer a thimble full of oil for a temporary fix that may last a day, than to access our massive reserves under Alaska, the Dakotas, and along our shorelines?
Liberal stupidity is mind-boggling, isn't it?
Other progressive nations around the world have followed suit.
The mass-stupidity of the left seems to be a worldwide phenomena.
Officials and analysts hint that the move is more symbolic, than anything, and is meant to be a rebuke to OPEC.
So rebuke them with domestic drilling. I guarantee that with even the threat of drilling, prices would come way down.
Barry Obama and his idiot leftist Democrat Party cronies are too authoritarian for that. They could care less about the oil supply because their plan is to enslave us with crony capitalism that includes a new source, with them in control - i.e. green technologies and renewable fuels.
If all this green stuff was worth it, the free market would have taken that road.
This is not the first time this foolish move was done. The last time was in 2005 after Hurricane Katrina.
Wow, once again Obama is acting like his hero, George W. Bush.
The IEA claims they are doing this because the high oil demand and shortfalls of oil production caused by unrest in the Middle East and North Africa threatens to "undermine the fragile global economic recovery."
Recovery? There is no recovery. There never was. Things have been getting worse, and the left's worship of failed Keynesian economic theories are largely why.
Despite the liberal left's assault on prosperity, and on America's economy, there will be improvements here and there, though slight. America's resolve to improve is stronger than Obama's resolve to destroy.
We may see temporary drops in gasoline prices, as we have been seeing a little of lately, but unless we take a permanent action, like domestic drilling, it won't be long before the temporary rubber band breaks, and energy prices soar into the sky again.
By the way, why in the hell is the Democrats pulling this oil from the nation's oil reserves? That is not what that stash of oil is for. Like with different pockets of revenue (like how they grab money from programs like Social Security), they are pulling oil from a pocket of oil that was never intended to be used this way.
President Barack Obama, like usual, is playing politics. However, his game has gotten even more dangerous, as he plays with the country's oil reserves, which are intended to address emergencies.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
US and others plan biggest release of reserve oil - One News Now
US, Other Nations Releasing Oil from Strategic Reserves - MSNBC
Why Drilling Can Lower Oil Prices Today - American Pundit
ALG Study on Price Impact of Releasing Strategic Oil Reserves - Get Liberty
Columbo's Passing
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Peter Falk, best known for his character as the eccentric, and perhaps a little bumbling with style, old raincoat wearing Columbo, has passed away. Falk died at the age of 83 in Beverly Hills, California.
Peter Falk was a favorite of mine because, like myself, his detective character was not one to overly concern himself with having the best things, making sure everything was spotless, nor did he care about being among those that have somehow personally elevated themselves above the rest of the people of the world. He was practical, never in a rush, and enjoyed life as a simple man.
I always wondered if the real Peter Falk was similar. A little research revealed the character and the man had quite a bit in common.
Columbo was a police detective that seemed to always have all of the puzzle pieces, but could never put them all together until the final moment, and the audience enjoyed every minute of the disjointed journey on each episode. He often would be headed out the door, stop in the doorway, and turn around to ask one more question that seemed to be an afterthought. . . and the suspect would be taken aback.
Often, that is where the key of the mystery began to unravel.
His style was without flare, which enabled him to creep up unexpectedly to pull the rabbit out of the hat when nobody else could.
Ahhh, and there's just one more thing...
Despite Columbo's ability to seem confused in the midst of a deep thought, his skill was unmatched. The answer was always there, but he didn't let the cat out of the bag until the right moment. Good always prevailed, and Columbo was the "good guy."
Peter Falk inspired a generation to think deeply without bursting a blood vessel, and to not spend too much time worried about what other people think. Columbo, and Peter Falk, was happy with life as it was. Image only goes so far. The simple things in life; a cigar, a loyal dog, a glass of juice, a car that gets one from point A to point B without a lot of flash, and finding the truth through the clues of life; seemed to be what was important to both Falk's character, and himself.
His was a philosophy that made him relate-able to the average viewer, and a pleasure to watch on the little screen.
Columbo didn't even need the flash of too many names. "Columbo" was enough. Humor, intelligence, simplicity, hardly perfect, and no flash. Peter Falk was that man. Fun to watch as an actor, and I am sure a pleasure to have as a friend and family member.
Falk will be missed.
He will be remembered as a good and simple man, unconventional, walking down the dark streets in search of the truth, wearing an old raincoat, prevailing in the end after getting the answers because he dared to ask "one more thing."
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Peter Falk, TV's rumpled Columbo, has died - Yahoo TV
Reggie Bush's Kim Kardashian Look-Alike Girlfriend
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Normally I really don't care what the "beautiful people" do, because the majority of them are more like the in-crowd at a junior high school than they are like the pillars of society that they think they are. However, sometimes what they do is so amazingly idiotic, you can't help but comment on it. Reggie Bush's latest choice for girlfriend has achieved that level of "things that make you go hmmmmm."
Kim Kardashian used to be the girlfriend of New Orleans Saints running back Reggie Bush. Reggie is a talented halfback, and a collegiate cheater. . . which equates to stealing the Heisman. He couldn't have the real thing when it comes to Kim Kardashian as a girlfriend, so he did what Reggie does. . . and began to date a woman that looks a whole lot like her.
Melissa Molinaro is a Canadian singer and actress that caught folk's attention with her Old Navy “Super Cute” commercial, in which she plays a fake Kim Kardashian. Fake Heisman, fake girlfriend, it all adds up to Reggie Bush. But, you can't blame the famed football star too much. After all, the real Kim Kardashian is full of tons of baggage, and her look-alike, I am guessing, is a lot less stressful.
According to the newswire, Bush and Molinaro have been dating for a few months. They met a couple years ago, and I am willing to bet that Reggie, at that moment, said to himself, "Hey, a Kim Kardashian without all the B.S. strapped on, gotta look into this one."
Melissa is flattered by the attention, commenting about all the hub-bub, "To me, it's extremely flattering, [about the Kardashian comparisons]. She is a beautiful woman in her own right. You know, I'm flattered. That's an amazing compliment."
I wonder what Kim thinks about all this. Then again, one wonders if her Sketchers commercial was a hidden message to Reggie:
Beyond that, I have a feeling Kim doesn't really care what Reggie does. It's not like she'll have trouble finding her next flame.
As for Reggie? He's more like a cartoon character - an extreme example of society that is searching for the possessions, while caring little about substance. It's a real shame.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Kim Kardashian's Ex-Boyfriend Now Dating A Kim Kardashian Look-Alike - OMG from Yahoo
Reggie Bush: Cheater. - Willisms
Really? Reggie Bush now dating a Kim Kardashian lookalike - NBC Sports: Off The Bench
Sketchers Ad: Kim Kardashian - Bing Videos
Normally I really don't care what the "beautiful people" do, because the majority of them are more like the in-crowd at a junior high school than they are like the pillars of society that they think they are. However, sometimes what they do is so amazingly idiotic, you can't help but comment on it. Reggie Bush's latest choice for girlfriend has achieved that level of "things that make you go hmmmmm."
Kim Kardashian used to be the girlfriend of New Orleans Saints running back Reggie Bush. Reggie is a talented halfback, and a collegiate cheater. . . which equates to stealing the Heisman. He couldn't have the real thing when it comes to Kim Kardashian as a girlfriend, so he did what Reggie does. . . and began to date a woman that looks a whole lot like her.
Melissa Molinaro is a Canadian singer and actress that caught folk's attention with her Old Navy “Super Cute” commercial, in which she plays a fake Kim Kardashian. Fake Heisman, fake girlfriend, it all adds up to Reggie Bush. But, you can't blame the famed football star too much. After all, the real Kim Kardashian is full of tons of baggage, and her look-alike, I am guessing, is a lot less stressful.
According to the newswire, Bush and Molinaro have been dating for a few months. They met a couple years ago, and I am willing to bet that Reggie, at that moment, said to himself, "Hey, a Kim Kardashian without all the B.S. strapped on, gotta look into this one."
Melissa is flattered by the attention, commenting about all the hub-bub, "To me, it's extremely flattering, [about the Kardashian comparisons]. She is a beautiful woman in her own right. You know, I'm flattered. That's an amazing compliment."
I wonder what Kim thinks about all this. Then again, one wonders if her Sketchers commercial was a hidden message to Reggie:
Beyond that, I have a feeling Kim doesn't really care what Reggie does. It's not like she'll have trouble finding her next flame.
As for Reggie? He's more like a cartoon character - an extreme example of society that is searching for the possessions, while caring little about substance. It's a real shame.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Kim Kardashian's Ex-Boyfriend Now Dating A Kim Kardashian Look-Alike - OMG from Yahoo
Reggie Bush: Cheater. - Willisms
Really? Reggie Bush now dating a Kim Kardashian lookalike - NBC Sports: Off The Bench
Sketchers Ad: Kim Kardashian - Bing Videos
Friday, June 24, 2011
Understanding Habeas Corpus
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Habeas Corpus
Article I, Section 9, Clause 2 states that “The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.”
Habeas corpus is a legal term that means quite literally in Latin: "you may have the body." In legal terms, Habeas corpus is a writ that releases a prisoner from unlawful detention. Habeas corpus comes from British common law, and has historically served as an important legal instrument safeguarding individual freedom against arbitrary state action that includes detention without the due process of law.
A writ of habeas corpus is a summons with the force of a court order that demands a prisoner be taken before the court, and that the custodian present proof of authority, allowing the court to determine if the custodian has lawful authority to detain the person. If the custodian does not have authority to detain the prisoner, then the prisoner must be released from custody.
Habeas corpus is designed to protect citizens against any detention that is forbidden by law. The U.S. Constitution specifically includes the habeas procedure, and instructs the Congress not to suspend such unless the detainment is the result of a “Rebellion or Invasion,” adding that “the public Safety may require it.”
Normally, habeas corpus proceedings accompany questions of jurisdiction and authorities of the court that sentenced a defendant. The suspension of habeas corpus has recently become an issue regarding the detainment of terrorists, but one must ask if the public safety requires the suspension of habeas corpus in the case of terrorists, as prescribed in the Constitution. Secondly, one must consider that the Constitution applies to American citizens, so the question on whether or not Article I, Section 9, Clause 2 applies to captured combatants seems to be a moot point since it is obvious that the detained are not American Citizens, and therefore are not protected by Constitutional protections. Also, remember that Congress has the sole authority to make rules regarding captures on land and water as per Article I, Section 8, Clause 11.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Habeas Corpus
Article I, Section 9, Clause 2 states that “The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.”
Habeas corpus is a legal term that means quite literally in Latin: "you may have the body." In legal terms, Habeas corpus is a writ that releases a prisoner from unlawful detention. Habeas corpus comes from British common law, and has historically served as an important legal instrument safeguarding individual freedom against arbitrary state action that includes detention without the due process of law.
A writ of habeas corpus is a summons with the force of a court order that demands a prisoner be taken before the court, and that the custodian present proof of authority, allowing the court to determine if the custodian has lawful authority to detain the person. If the custodian does not have authority to detain the prisoner, then the prisoner must be released from custody.
Habeas corpus is designed to protect citizens against any detention that is forbidden by law. The U.S. Constitution specifically includes the habeas procedure, and instructs the Congress not to suspend such unless the detainment is the result of a “Rebellion or Invasion,” adding that “the public Safety may require it.”
Normally, habeas corpus proceedings accompany questions of jurisdiction and authorities of the court that sentenced a defendant. The suspension of habeas corpus has recently become an issue regarding the detainment of terrorists, but one must ask if the public safety requires the suspension of habeas corpus in the case of terrorists, as prescribed in the Constitution. Secondly, one must consider that the Constitution applies to American citizens, so the question on whether or not Article I, Section 9, Clause 2 applies to captured combatants seems to be a moot point since it is obvious that the detained are not American Citizens, and therefore are not protected by Constitutional protections. Also, remember that Congress has the sole authority to make rules regarding captures on land and water as per Article I, Section 8, Clause 11.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Creation of the Federal Inferior Courts - Progressive Abuse
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Federal Inferior Courts
Article I, Section 8, Clause 9 authorizes Congress to constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court. This means that the legislative branch was tasked with the duty to establish the lower federal courts. However, by enabling Congress to establish new courts whenever necessary, this has given some administrations an opportunity to abuse this power in order in the hopes of stacking the courts. John Adams was the first example of this abuse, when he appointed many midnight judges in order to help retain federalist power in the courts as Jefferson’s Republicans gained the White House, and the majority in Congress. Some may argue that Adams’ decision to expand the court was not as sinister as Thomas Jefferson made it out to be, for John Adams had been requesting an expansion of the judiciary for years.
President Franklin D. Roosevelt also sought to "pack" the court with justices favorable to his social policies. His animosity toward the Supreme Court emerged when his New Deal of social and economic reform via government intrusion was struck down as unconstitutional by justices that had been largely appointed by his rival Republicans.
The high court invalidated the Railroad Retirement Act of 1934, a law that had established pensions for railway workers, and the National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933. Roosevelt’s anger against the justices for their rulings led him to hold contempt for the conservative-minded court of "Nine Old Men." In January 1936, the court ruled the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933 unconstitutional, as well.
In 1937, Roosevelt disclosed to his aides a bill he was going to propose that was designed to reorganize the federal judiciary. The measure called for all federal judges to retire by age 70. If they failed to do so, the president could appoint another judge to serve in tandem with each one older than 70. If the bill passed, it would enable Roosevelt to appoint six more Supreme Court justices immediately, increasing the size of the court to 15 members. The Democrat dominated Congress, he believed, would undoubtedly appoint judges friendly to Roosevelt and his New Deal agenda.
The proposal never got off the ground, as Roosevelt’s explanation regarding why the proposal was necessary fell flat.
Both the federal government, and the States, have court systems. The shared power by both the federal government and the State governments to establish a judiciary is a concurrent power.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Federal Inferior Courts
Article I, Section 8, Clause 9 authorizes Congress to constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court. This means that the legislative branch was tasked with the duty to establish the lower federal courts. However, by enabling Congress to establish new courts whenever necessary, this has given some administrations an opportunity to abuse this power in order in the hopes of stacking the courts. John Adams was the first example of this abuse, when he appointed many midnight judges in order to help retain federalist power in the courts as Jefferson’s Republicans gained the White House, and the majority in Congress. Some may argue that Adams’ decision to expand the court was not as sinister as Thomas Jefferson made it out to be, for John Adams had been requesting an expansion of the judiciary for years.
President Franklin D. Roosevelt also sought to "pack" the court with justices favorable to his social policies. His animosity toward the Supreme Court emerged when his New Deal of social and economic reform via government intrusion was struck down as unconstitutional by justices that had been largely appointed by his rival Republicans.
The high court invalidated the Railroad Retirement Act of 1934, a law that had established pensions for railway workers, and the National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933. Roosevelt’s anger against the justices for their rulings led him to hold contempt for the conservative-minded court of "Nine Old Men." In January 1936, the court ruled the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933 unconstitutional, as well.
In 1937, Roosevelt disclosed to his aides a bill he was going to propose that was designed to reorganize the federal judiciary. The measure called for all federal judges to retire by age 70. If they failed to do so, the president could appoint another judge to serve in tandem with each one older than 70. If the bill passed, it would enable Roosevelt to appoint six more Supreme Court justices immediately, increasing the size of the court to 15 members. The Democrat dominated Congress, he believed, would undoubtedly appoint judges friendly to Roosevelt and his New Deal agenda.
The proposal never got off the ground, as Roosevelt’s explanation regarding why the proposal was necessary fell flat.
Both the federal government, and the States, have court systems. The shared power by both the federal government and the State governments to establish a judiciary is a concurrent power.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Commerce Clause Meant to Open Flow of Commerce, Federal Government Expected to Act As Mediator
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Commerce Clause
Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 grants to the Congress the authority to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.
Remember, the States did not get along too well. Like siblings, they argued over just about everything. The individual States bickered over the borders between the states, turf, and interstate trade. As sovereign entities, the States continually tried to gain the upper hand on the other States in regard to commerce across State lines. Recognizing that the squabbles between the States were actually hindering commerce across State lines, the federal government in this clause was given the authority to do what was necessary to enable the flow of commerce to be more regular.
When you turn on a faucet full blast you are regulating the flow, just as you are regulating the flow when you restrict it by turning the faucet off. Likewise, the federal government was expected to act as a mechanism that ensured that the flow of commerce between the States was more regular.
The 1828 Webster Dictionary defines regulate in its second definition: “To put in good order.” Some historians state that regulate in the 18th Century meant “To make regular.” The word “restrict” was not used in the 1828 definition until the third and final definition of the word. In today’s dictionary “restrict” appears in the first definition of regulate.
Today, the Commerce Clause has been interpreted to mean the opposite of its original intent. The Commerce Clause in today’s political atmosphere is used as a means to restrict and heavily control commerce between the States. If one was to adopt the progressive definition of the Commerce Clause, one could then surmise that the Founders wrote this clause because commerce was flowing too easily, and needed to be controlled by the federal government. Such a notion is not only untrue, but outside the normal tendencies of the Founding Fathers. The Founders believed in limiting the powers of the Federal Government, so why would they allow the Federal Government the kind of unlimited powers over interstate commerce as suggested by today’s progressive?
The federal government’s role according to the Commerce Clause was to act as a referee, or mediator, whenever the flow of commerce was hindered by disagreements between the States, while with foreign nations and the Indian Tribes the federal government was expected to take a more active role.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Commerce Clause
Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 grants to the Congress the authority to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.
Remember, the States did not get along too well. Like siblings, they argued over just about everything. The individual States bickered over the borders between the states, turf, and interstate trade. As sovereign entities, the States continually tried to gain the upper hand on the other States in regard to commerce across State lines. Recognizing that the squabbles between the States were actually hindering commerce across State lines, the federal government in this clause was given the authority to do what was necessary to enable the flow of commerce to be more regular.
When you turn on a faucet full blast you are regulating the flow, just as you are regulating the flow when you restrict it by turning the faucet off. Likewise, the federal government was expected to act as a mechanism that ensured that the flow of commerce between the States was more regular.
The 1828 Webster Dictionary defines regulate in its second definition: “To put in good order.” Some historians state that regulate in the 18th Century meant “To make regular.” The word “restrict” was not used in the 1828 definition until the third and final definition of the word. In today’s dictionary “restrict” appears in the first definition of regulate.
Today, the Commerce Clause has been interpreted to mean the opposite of its original intent. The Commerce Clause in today’s political atmosphere is used as a means to restrict and heavily control commerce between the States. If one was to adopt the progressive definition of the Commerce Clause, one could then surmise that the Founders wrote this clause because commerce was flowing too easily, and needed to be controlled by the federal government. Such a notion is not only untrue, but outside the normal tendencies of the Founding Fathers. The Founders believed in limiting the powers of the Federal Government, so why would they allow the Federal Government the kind of unlimited powers over interstate commerce as suggested by today’s progressive?
The federal government’s role according to the Commerce Clause was to act as a referee, or mediator, whenever the flow of commerce was hindered by disagreements between the States, while with foreign nations and the Indian Tribes the federal government was expected to take a more active role.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Necessary and Proper Only Under Authority Granted by Constitution
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Necessary and Proper Clause
Article I, Section 8, Clause 18 is also known as the “necessary and proper” clause. It reads:
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Today’s government officials misuse this clause greatly. Notice the emphasis on carrying into execution the “foregoing powers” (authorities herein granted). What that means is that the Congress may make laws that fall within the authorities granted by the U.S. Constitution that the Congress recognizes to be “necessary and proper.” Today’s federal government has taken this clause to mean they can make “any” law they feel to be necessary and proper.
This clause is also sometimes referred to as the “Elastic Clause.”
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Necessary and Proper Clause
Article I, Section 8, Clause 18 is also known as the “necessary and proper” clause. It reads:
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Today’s government officials misuse this clause greatly. Notice the emphasis on carrying into execution the “foregoing powers” (authorities herein granted). What that means is that the Congress may make laws that fall within the authorities granted by the U.S. Constitution that the Congress recognizes to be “necessary and proper.” Today’s federal government has taken this clause to mean they can make “any” law they feel to be necessary and proper.
This clause is also sometimes referred to as the “Elastic Clause.”
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
GOP Walks Out of Debt Reduction Talks
The GOP has been deep into negotiations with the liberal Democrats, and with the Democrats refusing to back off on tax increases, Eric Cantor led the Republicans in walking out of the negotiations.
"Let me be clear: Tax hikes are off the table," said House Speaker John Boehner.
Majority Leader Eric Cantor, announced he would not attend a planned negotiating session and said it is "time for President Obama to speak clearly and resolve the tax issue."
The Republicans, sometimes, show a backbone. We'll see if this bravery lasts.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Breaking Story: Cantor Walks out of Biden Budget. Statement from Cantor - Patriot Action Network
"Let me be clear: Tax hikes are off the table," said House Speaker John Boehner.
Majority Leader Eric Cantor, announced he would not attend a planned negotiating session and said it is "time for President Obama to speak clearly and resolve the tax issue."
The Republicans, sometimes, show a backbone. We'll see if this bravery lasts.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Breaking Story: Cantor Walks out of Biden Budget. Statement from Cantor - Patriot Action Network
Pandering to Groups
While driving through Moreno Valley, yesterday, I saw a curious billboard. It read:
"Someone you know just lost her health insurance."
Below those words was the image of a Hispanic woman.
Then below that it revealed itself as a message from Planned Parenthood.
.......
Health Insurance for abortions? Or the pill?
I found it curious that it was a Hispanic woman. Normally, I could care less whose depicted on billboards. However, considering the source, I am figuring it was on purpose to pander to that minority group.
It fascinates me that the Democrats see America as a collection of groups.
I see America as being a collection of Americans.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
"Someone you know just lost her health insurance."
Below those words was the image of a Hispanic woman.
Then below that it revealed itself as a message from Planned Parenthood.
.......
Health Insurance for abortions? Or the pill?
I found it curious that it was a Hispanic woman. Normally, I could care less whose depicted on billboards. However, considering the source, I am figuring it was on purpose to pander to that minority group.
It fascinates me that the Democrats see America as a collection of groups.
I see America as being a collection of Americans.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Six Days War Quote
In reference to the war of 1967:
"Israel did not win that war. God did." -- Anonymous
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
"Israel did not win that war. God did." -- Anonymous
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Thursday, June 23, 2011
Daily KOS fights for Olbermann's Career... on Current TV
Daily Kooks Thrilled Olbermann on a nothing channel - wants to get their liberal brethren to support Current TV - Here's The Daily KOS's mailer:
*************************************
************************************
Uh, Olbermann is an idiot, he is on his way to the cellar for a reason, and no matter how much the Daily Kooks try to revive the man's career, Olbermann is lost . . . thank God.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
*************************************
************************************
Last night, Countdown with Keith Olbermann returned
to the airwaves on Current TV.
|
Uh, Olbermann is an idiot, he is on his way to the cellar for a reason, and no matter how much the Daily Kooks try to revive the man's career, Olbermann is lost . . . thank God.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)