PCS Portico dot com

As a resource for the dependents of deployed military PCSPortico.com has become a valued site. The site offers over 40 categories for business listings so that military dependents may find services, opportunities for employment of military spouses, veterans and retirees, and provides invaluable information to service members and dependents. In addition to all of the services, PCSPortico.com donates 10% of the advertisements on their site to military charities.

Tonight the founder of PCSPortico.com, Angie Heslen, is my guest on Political Pistachio Radio. Please join us live at 10pm Eastern, or catch the archive later.

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

Friday, April 18, A Movie Will Be Released That I Encourage You To Go Out And See!

Ben Stein's EXPELLED: NO INTELLIGENCE ALLOWED

The following is the Producer's Synopsis:

“For decades now, Neo-Darwinism has maintained a stranglehold within public education, suppressing all other theories on the origins of life - especially those that hint of a ‘designer.’ Oxford professor Richard Dawkins, an evolutionary biologist and author of The God Delusion states, ‘Certainly I see the scientific view of the world as incompatible with religion.’ Students are being bombarded with such propaganda throughout their education; despite the fact that MOST Americans do NOT believe we're the result of ‘random chance.’ Well, FINALLY help is on the way. ‘EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed,’ is an upcoming feature film in which host Ben Stein (‘Ferris Bueller's Day Off’) goes on a quest to expose the suppression by science's anti-theist elite, and unveil new scientific facts that may suggest evidence of intelligent design in the universe.

WHAT—Ben Stein’s heroic and, at times, shocking journey confronting the world's top scientists, educators and philosophers, regarding the persecution of the many by an elite few. Ben travels the world on his quest, and learns an awe-inspiring truth that bewilders him, then angers him and then spurs him to action!

WHY—Ben realizes that he has been ‘Expelled,’ and that educators and scientists are being ridiculed, denied tenure and even fired for the ‘crime’ of merely believing that there might be evidence of ‘design’ in nature, and that perhaps life is not just the result of accidental, random chance.

Filming locations: Berlin, Brussels, California, Chicago, Dallas, Galapagos Islands, London, Madrid, New York City, Paris, Rome, Washington D.C.”

Read More About The Production Information, Interviews, and Specifics at Christian Answers Dot Net.

And here are a couple trailers (note, they were put out when the release date was thought to be in February of this year). The second video is over seven minutes long.





And since we are on the subject, this little video called The Watchmaker.

The Unseen Hand of Globalism and Islamism

What you see is what you get.

Or is it?

Traditional explanations do not always explain history, the economy, or political agendas. It is difficult for the casual observer to recognize the complexity of the political realm, therefore more often than not the average citizen places their faith on sources of information they have come to trust over the years.

But what does a person do when those sources, it turns out, are not trustworthy?

This is where thought, and I mean Serious Thought, comes into the equation.

As a young man the threat of globalization concerned me. I recognized that society, our world, due to the growth of communications and trade, is becoming a global environment. Globalization does not necessarily mean that a nation cannot continue to be nationalistic. Japan has based her economy on exports for 50 years without ceasing to be one of the most nationalistic and culturally distinctive nations on earth.

The globalization of our world is not internationalism, or globalism. Globalism and Globalization are distinctly different, but the Globalists encourage the confusion. They wish you to believe that there is no stopping Globalism, an ideology based on the liquidation of nations, masquerading as globalization in order to gain sympathy by feigning inevitability. Globalism is a deliberate political agenda, no more inevitable than communism, liberalism, or socialism. Its key components are the United Nations, free-trade extremism, the European Union, and mass immigration. Each of these pieces of the puzzle are political constructs that could be eliminated tomorrow if we had the will to carry through such an endeavor. This is in opposition to the inevitability of Globalization, a process being better enabled by technology and information.

Globalism, contrary to what the proponents of the ideology proclaims, is not a fruitful co-operation between nations. Globalism is a single government that eliminates the nation states, downgrading them to mere territories.

I have repeatedly told people that I am a conservative, and there are many aspects of Republicans like Bush that I disagree with. One of those aspects is the globalistic intentions of the "neo-conservatives." Neo-cons, more often than not, are former liberals who have decided that conservatism can be promoted through big government. They often support open borders, benefiting immigrants at the expense of citizens and nourish big government by importing poverty and other social pathologies. As a result, the identification of national governments decline. Britain has learned this under the European Union. This kind of government promotes the growth of more distant, more autocratic, and less accountable authorities. The erosion of a nation follows, forcing the country to become a territorial part of a bloated centralized government entity not unlike the suffocation of Russia under the dead hand of the Soviet state.

Because of the "neo-conservatism" of George W. Bush, globalism has blossomed, but don't be fooled into believing that neo-conservatism and globalism are identical. Although neoconservatism seems to be more often than not globalist, it is not intrinsically identical with globalism. Neoconservatism is conservatism corrupted by globalism.

Globalist unity made sense when it came to winning the Cold War, and so the method was utilized. But after the Cold War ended, the ideas did not adapt, dragging us into a worldwide military presence in battles beyond those we have chosen to engage in due to National Security interests. Globalism is corporation driven, for big business could care less if there was a dismantling of viable nation-states. Countries are merely markets to them. Nothing more, nothing less.

However, the globalists did not anticipate the Islamic Jihad.

Like Globalism, the Islamists desire world domination, though their methods are more obvious and violent than those of the Globalist Agenda. Like Globalism, the Islamic Jihad is contemptuous of any culture that cannot be bought and sold, or refuses to accept Islamism. Globalism desires a homogeneous commercial pop culture designed to narcotize docile consumers and make the rootless cosmopolitanism that it produces seem sophisticated. Philosophically, globalism views culture as an arbitrary particularity or as mere entertainment. Islam desires a homogeneous religious culture designed to control the people.

Globalism does not value the distinct cultures of the world, nor does Islamism. Globalism is primarily interested in Third-World cultures as a means to subvert the historic cultures of the First World, and though it did not anticipate the Islamic Jihad, it is prepared to use Islamism to its fullest potential.

Globalism is the key successor to Marxism, and the globalists have realized that like Marxism, they need global military domination to impose their vision. However, a strong American military makes such a plan difficult. How can a global military domination through an agency such as the United Nations dominate with the United States Military still intact?

This is where the liberal arm of Globalism enters the picture. In order to fit into the Globalist's plans, the United States must be weakened, made ready to accept our global position in the big picture.

Only Nationalism can combat such an insidious plan.

Bill Russell for Congress on Fox News Happening Now

Three-time guest on Political Pistachio Radio William Russell on FOX News:

China, Tibet, and the Olympic Torch

China is a large, growing, industrialized nation hungry for natural resources and energy. After all, energy and a robust economy goes hand in hand.

Tibet is a spiritually driven microculture. Tibet's religion, Buddhism, is one that is seen to seek peace and harmony with nature.

Put the two of them, China and Tibet, together and you have a severe conflict.

Tibet was Chinese territory against the will of the Tibetan people until the early 1900's. The Thirteenth Dalai Lama, having returned from India in January 1913, issued a formal declaration of the complete independence of Tibet. After the communists gained full control of neighboring China in 1949, the Red Army set its sights on Tibet, invading Tibet in September of 1949. On November 11, 1950, the Tibetan Government protested to the United Nations against the Chinese aggression, but the General Assembly moved to postpone the issue. The Chinese then carried out plans to turn Tibet into a colony of China disregarding the strong resistance by the Tibetan people. On September 9, 1951 thousands of Chinese troops marched into Lhasa. The forcible occupation of Tibet was marked by systematic destruction of monasteries, suppression of religion, denial of political freedom, widespread arrests and imprisonment and massacre of innocent men, women and children. In 1959, a failed uprising by the Tibetans forced the Dalai Lama to flee and take refuge in nearby India, now the seat of Tibet's government-in-exile.

Remember how earlier I mentioned that China is a large, growing, industrialized nation hungry for natural resources and energy? In recent years, to help quench their growing appetite for energy and resources, the Chinese government has built huge dams for harnessing the hydroelectric energy potential of Tibet, and has built a railroad into the region for transporting large mineral deposits from under the Tibetan Plateau. Last year Beijing announced that the zinc, copper and lead found in Tibet to be worth about $128 billion.

According to Tibetans, China is fencing nomads off traditional grazing lands, destabilizing slopes, degrading the land, and ruining their environment. Even though the Dalai Lama is not demanding independence for Tibet, he is being characterized by China as a wolf in a monk's robe. Owning his likeness in Tibet, or unfurling the Tibetan flag, is illegal under Chinese law. Human Rights Watch counts over 600 prisoners, mostly clergy, in jail for criticizing Chinese-government policies.

Now, the Tibetan protesters are using the 2008 Beijing Olympics to air their grievances to the world, and the world community has responded. In the media I have seen the images of protesters in France and San Francisco. The press is stating that now is the time to confront China on their human-rights abuses.

My question is this: Why now? Why not before? Where were these protesters when China was murdering millions for the last sixty years? Suddenly it's fashionable to protest Communist China? Are they suddenly not the good Communists anymore? Of all the times in history for the world to unite in protest against China, why during the Olympics? Isn't the Olympics about sport? Isn't the Olympics about setting aside politics and competing on the field?

Don't get me wrong, I am just as angry with China and her treatment of Tibet as the rest of the world. Their human rights history against Christians is horrendous as well. The Communist Revolution, and the following years, took millions of lives. And deep down I feel it is comforting to see a brutal dictatorship that is seeking to use the Olympics for its own cynical ends to get a black eye like this. Anytime a tyrannical government receives crummy publicity, and the voices of freedom begin to ring out, it is a good thing. But where were the voices before this current crisis? Rather than ruining the spectacle of the torch run, why weren't people demanding China to straighten out their human rights positions before?

Amid calls for President Bush to boycott the Opening Ceremonies, the president has responded by not committing to attend the Opening Ceremonies by saying that, "The exact dates haven't been determined." This, I believe, is a wise move, for he is not offending the Chinese government prematurely, but he is also not condoning the Chinese government's policies. However, in the end, I believe the U.S. should attend the opening ceremonies. First of all, a symbolic action like the boycott is only effective if followed up with other actions, hammered one upon the other until the legitimacy of the authoritarian government is undermined in the eyes of the people, and is forced to reassess its policies. I don't believe this administration, or the American people, are capable to such a long term commitment against China. The American people have proven their unwillingness to hang in there for the long haul by their response to the War on Terror. Besides, after all, the Olympics are supposed to be above politics. Not about politics.

Though, I have to admit, this international outcry may be what is needed to help push the criticisms of China to a crescendo, and serve as a catalyst towards change in China - perhaps on the same line with the demise of the old U.S.S.R. - but don't hold your breath.

Learn More At:

Human Rights Watch

Friends of Tibet: History of Tibet

Tibet: High Ground

Dalai Lama does not support Olympics boycott

Where Were These Guys When I Played Baseball?

Improv Everywhere causes scenes of chaos and joy in public places. The pranks range from a line of human dominoes to a cell phone symphany. The group has executed over 70 missions involving thousands of undercover agents.

Their latest mission was just too good not to discuss. The joy of the day, and the lifelong memories caused by the event makes this group a favorite of Political Pistachio's.

Imagine the scene. It is a typical day for Little League Baseball. The kids are on the field, the parents are sitting in their fold-out chairs on the grass to watch the game, and then suddenly the stands begin to fill with fans, NBC coverage erupts, vendors handing out free peanuts appear . . . Well, needless to say, it was The Best Game Ever, but instead of me ruining the tale, let me hand it over to the guys over at Improv Everywhere (with video to boot).

Read about this amazing prank of joyful magnitude HERE.

The Mindset of the Islamic Jihad, and How To Defeat It

Walid Shoebat was born in Bethlehem of Judea, Israel. As a young man, he became a member of the PLO (Palestinian Liberation Organization), and participated in acts of terror and violence against Israel. He was later imprisoned in the Russian Compound, Jerusalem's central prison for incitement and violence against Israel.

After his release from the Russian Compound, Walid Shoebat continued his life of terrorism, violence, and rioting in Bethlehem and on the Temple Mount. After entering the United States, he worked as a counselor for the Arab Student Organization at Loop College in Chicago while continuing his anti-Israel activities. During that time he became disenchanted with the PLO as being to moderate, and joined the Muslim Brotherhood (forerunner of the terrorist organization Hamas) and was trained for the expected coming Islamic Jihad in America.

In 1993 Walid experienced a spiritual journey after a challenge from his Christian wife. While studying both the Holy Bible and secular history he came to the realization that all he had been taught about Jews and Christians was a lie. Convinced he had been on the side of evil, he became an advocate for his former enemy, and against terrorism.

After speaking around the world and in the media about his life and experiences, as well as his unique position and insight as someone who was part of the Jihadist movements, there are forces challenging his credibility in an attempt to silence him. Tonight Walid Shoebat joins Political Pistachio to discuss these recent attacks against his credibility. Join us at 10pm Eastern, 7pm Pacific on Political Pistachio Radio.

Cyber Attacks, Virtual War

How vulnerable is the United States to a cyber attack like the attack on Estonia's government websites, which many believe emanated from Russia, that cripped their sites for nearly two months in 2007? Such an attack would be considered an act of war by most.

Our society has become so dependent upon computer technology that an attack against America's computer networks could cripple the U.S. in ways probably not much different than the "Fire-Sale" portrayed in Live Free Or Die Hard. Even considering the possibility of such an attack against America encourages one to ask, how prepared are we for a major cyber attack if it should come?

The attack against Estonia in 2007 crippled Web sites operated by Estonian government ministries, banks, media outlets and other companies. The "denial of service" attacks swamped Web sites with so many hits they were forced to shut down.

Coincidentally, the attacks came when the U.S. and other governments are in the process of mulling how to respond to cyber attacks.

At the time of the attack against Estonia, the country's officials stated that it traced much of the traffic that inundated its Web sites to Russian computers. The government also said it found on the Internet instructions in Russian on how to carry out the action. After initially accusing the Kremlin of orchestrating the attack, the Estonian government later softened that position, alleging the attacks came from Russia, but that it had no evidence implicating the Kremlin.

Such attacks, then, are a serious threat to the security of our country, and with Russia, China, North Korea, and the Islamic Jihad showing animosity toward the United States, it would be irresponsible to deny the possibility of such an attack from one of those sources anytime soon.

NATO views the threat as a serious possibility, and has boosted its cyber-attack response force. Apparently, the attack on Estonia's systems last year was enough to convince NATO that cyber attacks are a very clear threat, and the organization has responded accordingly with an efficient and expedient way of hardening its own systems.

The United States has taken the threat seriously as well, creating a cyberspace command through the United States Air Force that is prepared to wage war on the cyber-battlefield. Our nation recognizes that there are new threats out there, and that as a nation we need to be prepared to defend ourselves on a virtual battlefield. The Air Force Cyber Command is the only military force of its kind, which defends our nation from over 3 million cyber threats per day. Our national security extends beyond the leaking border and the war abroad. Knowing that we have this internet vulnerablility, the United States seems to have taken precautions so that they may deal with cyberspace attacks.

So it cycles back around to the question: Are we truly ready to answer the call against a major cyber attack should it come?

It seems like we are prepared, but only time will tell if we have prepared enough.

Smear Tactics by Political Pistachio?

Mike Pollard set the record straight in the comments section regarding my "ALL CAPS" post from yesterday that was simply a copied e-mail.

I am man enough to admit you are correct, and my excuse is lame - I had no time to write a post and threw that baby up there without considering the factual (or lack thereof) content. However, smear tactics was not my intention, and I regret that it came across as such.

I often do not have the opportunity to proof-read much either, though of late I have had a little more time (until a couple days ago anyway) so poor writing and silly posts like e-mail re-treads pop up from time to time due to my busy schedule (once again, a lame excuse, but true) - - - I also regret the failure to accurately relay factual information on the "Closet" post in which Tom the Liberal Blogger set the record straight by locating the post that caused Chuck to be shut down - it turned out to be because he identified himself, which I guess as an active military servicemember doing so and spouting political opinion like he was doing is a no-no.

Thank you for your attention to detail where mine fell short.

A large part of my busy schedule and lack of time for writing has to do with my being (of late) in and out of doctor's offices. . . I will explain, hopefully, someday in the future. I'm not one to normally discuss my health, so I will leave it at that for now. My health is not an excuse for my failure to bring Political Pistachio readers the best I can provide, just a quick explanation. However, as my time available for blogging increases, so will the quality, and due to unforseen circumstances my time available is increasing ten-fold real soon.

Stay safe.

God Bless,

Doug

Where Did Obama Get All His Money?

This popped up in an e-mail group I am a member of.

The e-mail poster wrote: I have no idea who wrote this but it does leave room for thought?? I wonder where got all his money ?

***********************************

Subject: OBAMA

LET ME SEE IF I HAVE THIS STRAIGHT:

HIS FATHER WAS A KENYAN, MUSLIM, BLACK. WE HAVE SEEN PICTURES OF HIS "AFRICAN FAMILY".

HIS MOTHER IS A KANSAN, ATHIEST, WHITE.

WHERE ARE THE PICTURES OF HIS KANSAN WHITE MOTHER AND THE WHITE GRANDPARENTS WHO RAISED HIM?

HIS FATHER DESERTED HIS MOTHER AND HIM WHEN HE WAS VERY YOUNG AND THE FATHER WENT BACK TO HIS OTHER FAMILY IN KENYA.

HIS MOTHER MARRIED AN INDONESIAN MUSLIM AND TOOK HIM TO JAKARTA WHERE HE WAS SCHOOLED IN A MUSLIM SCHOOL.

HIS MOTHER RETURNED TO HAWAII AND HE WAS RAISED BY HIS WHITE KANSAN GRANDPARENTS.

HE LATER WENT TO THE BEST HIGH DOLLAR SCHOOLS! HOW?

HE LIVES IN A $1.4 MILLION DOLLAR HOUSE THAT HE ACQUIRED THROUGH A DEAL WITH A WEALTHY FUND RAISER! HOW?

HE "WORKED" AS A CIVIL RIGHTS ACTIVIST IN CHICAGO- HAS NEVER HELD A PRODUCTIVE JOB.

THE PRESIDENCY IS NOT A CIVIL RIGHTS POST NOR IS IT SUBJECT TO AFFIRMATIVE ACTION SET ASIDES!

HE ENTERED POLITICS AT THE STATE LEVEL AND THEN THE NATIONAL LEVEL WHERE HE HAS MINIMAL EXPERIENCE!

HE IS PROUD OF HIS "AFRICAN HERITAGE" BUT IT SEEMS THAT HIS ONLY AFRICAN CONNECTION WAS THAT

HIS AFRICAN FATHER GOT A WHITE GIRL PREGNANT AND DESERTED HER.

I DIDN'T KNOW THAT SPERM CARRIED A "CULTURAL" GENE. WHERE IS THE PRIDE IN HIS WHITE CULTURE?

HE GOES TO AN "AFROCENTRIC" CHURCH THAT HATES WHITES, HATES JEWS, AND BLAMES AMERICA FOR ALL THE

WORLDS PERCEIVED FAULTS AND THEN REPEATEDLY COVERS UP FOR THE PASTOR AND THE CHURCH.

HE CLAIMS THAT HE COULD NOT CONFRONT HIS PASTOR BUT HE WANTS US TO BELIEVE THAT HE CAN

CONFRONT NORTH KOREA AND IRAN, RIGHT!!!

YEAH, I THINK I SEE HOW HE COULD BE A UNITER AND BRING US TOGETHER, I THINK THE HOPE IS THAT HE

HOPES NO ONE WILL PUT THE PIECES TOGETHER.

ONE ALSO WONDERS WHERE ALL HIS MONEY HAS COME FROM. AFTER ONLY A SHORT TIME IN ILLINOIS POLITICS

AND ONE TERM AS A US SENATOR, HOW CAN HE AFFORD HIS EXPENSIVE LIFE-STYLE?

MAYBE HE GOT ONE OF THOSE SUB-PRIME MORTGAGE LOANS.

-------------------

Things that make you go hmmmmmmmmmm.

Al Garza, National Executive Director of the Minuteman Project

As the tougher Arizona laws in regards to illegal immigration enforcement begins to work wonders in that state, resulting in smaller class sizes, shorter emergency room waits, and lower crime rates; and as President Bush waives environmental laws to help put up the border fence promised by Duncan Hunter's legislation, the liberal left is fighting harder than ever to disband our sovereignty as a nation, and dissolve our borders.

Absolut Vodka has an ad that shows the southwestern United States belonging to Mexico.

And the American Government has transferred $23 million worth of aid to the Egyptians to help them secure their border with Gaza!

Will we finish the fence here in America? Is our government going to finally realize that border security is a National Security matter?

Today's guest on Political Pistachio Radio is Al Garza, the National Executive Director of the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps. Join us right after Founding Truth at 10pm Eastern/7pm Pacific on Political Pistachio Radio for this important interview!

The Images You Don't See In The Media Regarding Islam

Have you been missing the news the mainstream media doesn't always report? Hurry now to Political Pistachio News!

40th Anniversary of the Assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr.

It seems appropriate that tonight's guest on my radio show is a black reverend that preaches in the inner-city neighborhoods of Seattle. I didn't realize the connection until after the interview date had been established.

Martin Luther King, Jr. was assassinated 40 years ago today in 1968 in Memphis, Tennessee. He lead a campaign for civil rights, known for his non-violent marches and demonstrations.

The evening prior to his death, in a sermon that seemed to forsee his fate, Martin Luther King, Jr. said, "Llike anybody I would like to live a long life. Longetivity has its place. But I am not concerned about that now. I just want to do God's will. And He has allowed me to go up to the mountain, and I have looked over, and I have seen the promised land."

King was shot in the neck the following day while standing on the balcony of the Lorraine Motel. He died later that day in the hospital.

Riots broke out, sweeping through several major U.S. cities. On April 9, 1968 more than 50,000 people attended King's funeral in Atlanta, Georgia. His legacy, even 40 years after his death, continues. His message remains strong, and in our memories.

Political Pistachio Radio discusses Obama, homosexuality, Islam, Illegal Aliens, Racial Issues, and Military Separation

On Monday I had a powerful program that dealt with how Islam and the Homosexual Agenda are both using Political Correctness to silence Christianity. Are Christians equipped to handle the onslaught? Listen to the show HERE.

Tonight my guest is Mary Beth Brown, bestselling author and speaker. She is the author of the New York Times and USA Today bestselling book, Hand of Providence: The Strong and Quiet Faith of Ronald Reagan. In 1988, with her husband, she founded Citizens United, one of America's most effective and recognized citizen advocacy organizations. She has been a guest on numerous TV and radio shows including CNN, FOX News, The O'Reilly Factor, Brit Hume, MSNBC, and others. Now she is stepping up to Political Pistachio Radio. Listen tonight as we discuss the campaign of Barack Obama at 10:00pm Eastern/7:00pm Pacific (or you can check the archive as well later) HERE.

Thursday Night at 10pm Eastern, 7pm Pacific, Marc Maxwell joins us. He is the author of Surviving Military Separation. Marc Maxwell will be calling us from Germany where he is a Department of Defense Guidance Counselor who works daily with deployed personnel and their families. The former Army Airborne Ranger is the recipient of several awards, including the Global War on Terrorism Service Medal. Listen to tomorrow night's show live (or catch the archive later) HERE.

Have you seen the article moving around the internet called The Racist History of the Democratic Party? The author of that piece is also the author of the articles, "Freedom of Speech For Everyone Except The Clergy," and "I don't support Obama Because of my Faith & Not Because of His Race." His book Unfounded Loyalty answers the question: Why are most blacks in America Democrats? despite the fact that for over 150 years, blacks were victims of terrorist attacks by the Democrats and their Klan supporters, including lynchings, beatings, rapes and mutilations; on the issue of slavery, the Democrats literally gave their lives to expand it - the Republicans gave their lives to ban it; and how many believed the Democrats had a change of heart and fell in love with blacks. To the contrary, history reveals the democrats didn't fall in love with black folks, they fell in love with the black vote knowing this would be their ticket into the white house. His latest book, Unveiling the whole Truth discusses what the media failed to tell American voters. Listen to my interview of Reverend Perryman HERE.

Next week watch for Al Garza, the Executive Director of the Minute Man Project to join us, as well as former Palestinian Terrorist turned Christian, Walid Shoebat.

The Games Liberals Play. . . or "Don't Feed The Trolls"

On Political Pistachio and my other political blogs this crops up from time to time, and I promise myself that I won't let these freaks get under my skin, but there are about five of them on the internet that really get my hair to rise and somehow find a way to get under my skin. I also have about a dozen minor irritations that call themselves "liberal" e-mailing me as well (the now legendary Mudkitty being one of them).

If only all liberals were as easy to get along with as my good friend Sam, which is pictured behind me in the photograph on the right. When the discussion of Socialized Medicine (Government paid health insurance) came up, he says to me, "Doug, I can't believe you have a problem with free health care."

Okay, stop laughing.

I respond, "It is hardly free. It comes out of your tax dollars, and in Canada the citizens still need to buy health insurance to supplement their socialized care because the government only covers so much. Besides, don't you want to have a choice, rather than be controlled into only accepting whatever the government desires you to have?"

"Nah," he says, "I don't want to have to think about it. One less thing to worry about."

Then he says, "Besides, it'll give them something to spend money on other than this illegal war."

"How is our military operations illegal?" I asked.

"I don't know," says Sam. "That's what the news says."

I love ya, Sam, and we will always be friends, but sometimes you amaze me with your politically simple mind.

Well, Lance, Ollie, Caday5, Tom, Fred, and BallBuster are not nearly as simple minded. In fact, two of them, Caday5 and Tom, are on the constant attack and can be quite relentless (and ruthless). Lance and Fred are classic elitists, with Lance beginning his attacks by telling me it was my turn to be picked on. He blogged about me, commented on my WordPress Site and old FreeWebs site, and then fizzled into obscurity. I didn't even have to get rid of him. And Ollie and BallBuster have finally quit trying to jump my blocks and bans, though Ollie, from what I hear, continues to be a royal pain in the butt around the MySpace Conservative Sites.

Wait a second, Doug, did you say blocks and bans? Doesn't that make you a. . . (play dramatic music) - - - (pause for effect) - - - Coward?

Not really. In fact, I have never banned or blocked Caday5, because at least he debates me with his feet on the ground, and his brain out of his hindquarters (he comments on my Townhall Blog, if you were curious).

Every once in a while I will get a lewd comment on Carried By Christ, or a spam on my other Christian Blog. So far Political Pistachio News has remained free of attacks from the liberal leftinistas.

But why is it that I really don't allow the nastiest of the trolls to comment here (or on my other sites), and don't really find the desire to engage them?

I recognize that like all human beings, I am damaged, fallible, and absolutely capable of being mistaken. The internet is basically full of people (showing up as electronic pixels) that have their faults and their strengths, their convictions, their beliefs, and their failings. On blogs, a relatively new phenomenon for the most part, those that share common interests or common beliefs pour their diverse mass of thoughts into discussions much in a way friends gather to discuss their lives or opinions at a party.

If you have ever been to a party, then you know that parties often come with "party crashers." If the crashers behave themselves, and don't upset the locals, then more often than not they are tolerated and given the okay to remain at the gathering as long as they behave. If, however, the party crasher is disruptive, makes demands that they shouldn't, or simply upsets the person that is giving the party, it is completely within the realm of decency for the host to ask the "crashers" to leave. If the disruptive person (or persons) refuse to depart from the premises, it is completely within the rights of the host to either ask his or her friends to physically eject the disruptors, or for the local authorities to be contacted if things get out of hand. Now, imagine those party crashers that were ejected suddenly crying out, "You are infringing on my right to party! How dare you take my right to party away from me! By kicking me out of your party that makes you a coward!"

Asking a disruptive individual to leave is not the host being a coward. The host is keeping the party pleasant, and enabling the other party-goers the opportunity to continue to enjoy the gathering without the unnecessary disruptions of the offending party(ies). If the party crashers want to party the way they like to party, then they can go host their own party, or go be an ass at a party hosted by one of their friends. The party crashers ought not to create havoc someplace where such disruptive behavior should not have to be tolerated.

Now, imagine if the host said to the party crashers, "I don't like you here, you are disruptive, but have a sandwich and a beer."

Well, that would make no sense at all, would it? After all, if you felt the disruptive person was a problem and needed to leave, why would you feed him and offer him a drink?

Trolls are much like those party crashers, but sometimes can be worse. Not only do they crash the party, but they begin to make demands. Fred, a blogtalkradio troll, actually demanded once that I name contemporary artist on the spot (which, of course, was completely off-topic). He wasn't specific so I named a writer (writers to me are artists). He responded, "See, you can't," and then went on to snivel about him being educated and intelligent and how people like me can't even name contemporary artists. The question was not a question as much as it was a statement. Fred was making the statement that because he can name a contemporary artist and I couldn't, that somehow placed him on a higher level. It made him an elitist that I could never aspire to, in his opinion.

Many of these liberal trolls define their world by "I'm right" and you're either 100% with me or 100% against me. Problem is, when they start pulling this junk, since I am very strong on my convictions, I become sucked in by my own curiosity and confused fascination. Then the rules are tossed out the window, and they, like the party crashers, begin to ignore the wishes of the blogging community around them. They attack mercilessly, using tactics that I would never dream of using, and then when I disagree with them or make a statement in my defense, they choose to either take the disagreement as attack, or as some kind of level of stupidity. They respond to all opposing opinion with condemnation and quite often, profanity-laced anger.

Then, because of our fallible human nature, we take the bait, and the fireworks ensue. The civil disagreement becomes frustration and anger, and then it becomes attack and condemnation. The recipient of the troll attacks, or at least in my case last year, becomes a casualty (meaning I got kicked off quite a few blogrolls because of my "disgraceful troll problem" that was making the publisher of those blogrolls "sick."

It was then that I realized I had a duty to provide a safe and enjoyable environment for my readers and commenters. Problem is, the trolls at that time (Mudkitty and Tom) would not honor my request to cease and desist, so I began to moderate my comment section. That proved to be tiresome and time consuming. Then I decided to change over to Haloscan so that I could effectively "ban" the commenters. Mudkitty has remained banned and off Political Pistachio ever since, but Tom, being the computer genius that he proclaims he is, eventually figured out how to circumvent the ban and has returned to commenting on Political Pistachio (this, after telling me he would be honorable and abide by my "silly" ban). Now, I am back to moderating.

Honestly, this stupidity of attacking sites that disagree with you is a confusing thing to me. I visit liberal sites on rare instances, more often than not I do not comment. It's just bad form. I visit to see what the other side is saying. The blogger is entitled to his or her opinion on his or her blog, and if I don't like their opinion, then I am free to blog on the subject on my own site. This is honorable, in my opinion, and the way it should be. This way the community of my blog, and other blogs, does not wind up in confusion and shock because of the sudden war of words that erupts.

I will have to admit that when I see such interchanges in comment sections, or even find myself participating in such an interchange, it's an amazing thing to watch. People, knowing that they are nothing more than an electronic bundle of pixels, let out their dark side. You begin to see sides of people that you never suspected lurked beneath all the letters they've strung together on the internet. And when a momentary ceasefire emerges, the victim of the troll attack is left with asking themselves, "How do I both protect myself, my ideas and convictions while balancing my emotional reaction, and somehow walk away from the trolls who only want a fight and to get everyone riled up in the first place?"

Problem is, the trolls tend to use tactics that often creates problems within the community. Fred, for example, has only one goal in his attacks. His tactics are all designed to disrupt, and he admittedly thinks that his disruptions are nothing less than hilarious. I pointed this out to many, and battled him often before finally banning him from the chat room of my Political Pistachio Radio Show, and blocking him indefinitely in other chat rooms so that even if he is present, I cannot see what he is typing. One of my listeners told me on my instant messenger after one such battle between Fred and I that she didn't understand why I was such an ass to him. After all, he was only asking legitimate questions, and all I had to do was answer them honestly. Well, remember that Fred's questions, like most troll's questions, are not really questions, but are actually statements designed to create havoc. Anyway, weeks later that same person contacted me and told me that I had been correct from the start about Fred. Fred is a sick individual that will stop at nothing (and I mean nothing) to get a laugh at other's expense.

One tactic that trolls use, which Tom and Fred are both quite inept at, is to try to use bloggers against each other. Tom's latest attempt at this is having convinced Jennifer over at Conservative Chic with his one-sided (he posts what I say, but adds commentary that is in a very different direction of the context) and malicious posts that I am somehow cowardly because I don't put up with his garbage and have finally gone back to moderation just to keep him off my blog. Divide and conquer, right Tom? Pretty childish of you, to be honest. I thought you'd have a little more maturity than that.

That is how trolls play the game, and they are especially dangerous around newer bloggers or commenters (or commenters that are inherently passive and trusting). Newer commenters and bloggers tend to side with the troll, willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, especially when the old hands attempt to slap down the troll out of frustration. The more experienced, or less trusting, bloggers often know the history of the troll, and have often decided to take a stand to defend their community and hunt the troll until they've left the community or blog, or they simply ignore the troll altogether. Newer people, not knowing that the troll may be currently presenting the mask of the maligned victim in order to garner support and thus keep the battle going on longer, may openly side with the troll in an effort to defend their new community or blog from bullies. In the end, however, like my friend's dealings with Fred, the trusting blogger or commenter gets burned, or finally realizes that he or she has been had. By then, the damage is done, and the situation has gone way beyond the level of debate.

I realize that the term, troll, can be highly subjective. What some readers may characterize as trolling may be to others a legitimate contribution to the discussion, even if controversial. I understand that a simple opposing position may not necessarily be trolling - hence the reason I have not gotten rid of my argumentative commenter on my townhall blog, Caday5. I realize that I cannot always recognize a writer's motives. But, most controversial posts attract strong responses from those unfamiliar with the robust dialogue found in some online comment sections.

Unfortunately, sometimes I am not very skilled at using the most effective way to discourage a troll, which is to ignore him or her, because responding as I am here more often than not encourages a true troll to continue disruptive posts — hence the often-seen warning "Please do not feed the troll".

Frequently, someone who has been labelled a troll by a group may seek to redeem their reputation by discrediting their opponents, as does Tom. No matter how even-handed ... how just ... we try to be, the fact of the matter is, we are not perfect. We snap. We jump to conclusions. We get tired and cranky. But what separates us from the trolls is that we are able to step back and re-evaluate our behaviour. I try to learn from my mistakes, to learn when to stop reacting, and simply walk away from what I feel is trollish behavior.

Trolls seem to intrinsically need to be understood, which can make it difficult to walk away from that chance at communication, and possibly teaching the troll a bit about the truth. But some battles are won only when they aren't fought at all.

In the end, I prefer conversations with my buddy Sam - but, being the person that I am, I cannot let a few nasty nuggets by Tom the Neurotic Liberal to go unanswered, so watch for (in the near future) my response to posts (I will provide the links when I respond since he cries so much that I don't give him his due credit) called "Inherintly Dishonest," "Say What?" "A Giant Strawman," and the one that begins, "Doug bitched me out for posting a comment on his blog. . ."

The Closet (Staying In? Or Coming Out?)

The attacks from the left come from all angles in the blogosphere, and the casualties are mounting. My fellow MilBloggers seem to take the heaviest casualties, sometimes. A Soldier's Perspective, a blog I read regularly, has been ordered to shut down, as has Chuck of From My Position. The general feeling is that these blogs, the writers of whom are active military, were the victims of liberal-left complaints. Of what I have read of these blogs in the past, like my friend Snooper, I haven't seen anything on there that shouldn't have been. They were excellent blogs with the truth being written on their pages. Trolls accuse me of taking away their freedom of speech by not allowing them to post B.S. on my site in the comments section, but that is simply protecting the integrity of my blog, but it is truly an assault on freedom of expression when any and all outlets for somebody, like these two milbloggers, are taken away.

In the case of Chuck, the offending post was called "Coming out of the closet."

It doesn't take rocket science to figure out where that went, and the type of cowardly scumbags that it took to bring down the site.

So, since we are on the subject, let's speak on the homosexual agenda. After all, the attacks by this growing group of sick people was an integral part of my Political Pistachio Radio show last night. Part of what we talked about is how the Homosexual Activists/movement/agenda is using Political Correctness to trample on the Church's allowance of Freedom of Speech and the freedom to exercise their faith freely. Now there are those being arrested (and jailed) for calling Homosexuality a sin, or even mentioning God/Christianity/Bible around a homosexual. Dr. James Dobson has actually had to edit his radio shows to avoid hate crimes laws! So because my Holy Bible says that homosexuality is a sin my preacher is guilty of hate crimes laws and can be jailed? What is going on here?

The U.S. Constitution states: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. . .

The Homosexual Agenda is very anti-Christianity, and has no qualms about saying so. They say hateful and offensive things about Christians and to Christians constantly, and that seems to be okay in the eyes of the Liberal Secular Left, yet calling homosexuality a sin, and a sick decision, is considered bigotry, and can be silenced by using hate crime legislation. So why is it that the Homosexuals and Secular Liberal Left have been able to impose their religion of "Anti-Christianity" against the wishes of the overwhelming majority of Americans with such things as the Homosexual Agenda by using tactics like the hate crimes legislation? How is it that the courts have been able to impose this so easily with a vote of 5-4 when it takes a two-thirds majority in Congress and three-fourths of the states to change the Constitution with an amendment (with the rise of the oligarchy of the courts, it is hardly the Constitutional checks and balances intended by our Founding Fathers)? Why is it that Secularism/Humanism has been able to prohibit the free exercise of Christianity by silencing Christians when they proclaim Homosexuality is a sin, and use the government to establish and promote the religion of secularism when both of those moves are clearly in opposition of the U.S. Constitution?

As for responding to a particular liberal gay blogger who pulled out all the stops to call me everything in the book and misrepresent my faith, and my political positions? Well, I am not sure if I should respond to his attacks after reading a piece of advice a friend of mine gave me: "Never argue with an idiot; they'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience."

A Message From LiveLeak about the Fitna Video

For those of you that may not have come across this, recently a 17-minute documentary on the Quran and Islam, which used images of Islam's Quran mixed with images and film of terror attacks and bombings by Muslim extremists, was taken down from LiveLeak.com. LiveLeak is a British video-sharing website. The organization took down the video after reporting that there were "serious" threats to its staff members.

The documentary was posted against the wishes of the Netherlands government by Geert Wilders, a Dutch MP and leader of the Freedom Party. The name of the video, Fitna, is an Arabic word meaning "strife."

It appeared on the political party's website first, but soon disappeared because of "technical difficulties," reported the London Times. Then it appeared on LiveLeak.com, only to be replaced with an advisory that read: "Following threats to our staff of a very serious nature, and some ill informed reports from certain corners of the British media that could directly affect the safety of some staff members, LiveLeak has been left with no other choice but to remove Fitna from our servers."

Another message on the site read: "This is a sad day for freedom of speech on the net but we have to place the safety and well being of our staff above all else. We would like to thank the thousands of people, from all backgrounds and religions, who gave us their support. They realized LiveLeak.com is a vehicle for many opinions and not just for the support of one."

Immediately, the blogosphere responded. And surprisingly, so did LiveLeak. The video is back, with this message attached: On the 28th of March LiveLeak.com was left with no other choice but to remove the film "fitna" from our servers following serious threats to our staff and their families. Since that time we have worked constantly on upgrading all security measures thus offering better protection for our staff and families. With these measures in place we have decided to once more make this video live on our site. We will not be pressured into censoring material which is legal and within our rules. We apologise for the removal and the delay in getting it back, but when you run a website you don't consider that some people would be insecure enough to threaten our lives simply because they do not like the content of a video we neither produced nor endorsed but merely hosted.

View "Fitna" HERE on LiveLeak.

Should LiveLeak again lose their nerve, the video is also availabled HERE.

During the Quinceañera

Yesterday I attended my niece's Quinceañera. A Quinceañera is sort of like a Sweet Sixteen Party, but celebrates the fifteenth birthday of a girl in the Mexican Culture. It is essentially a celebration of a girl reaching womanhood, and the party would remind one of a Wedding Reception more than of a Birthday Party. It is a festive event, and the one I attended yesterday was not much unlike any other Quinceañera I have attended. It was loaded with good food, loud Music, hearty conversation, and a lot of the Spanish Language.

I don't speak Spanish, and to be honest, I was the only White person at the event. It was pretty cool though that they asked me to make the salsa (my salsa is legendary). More often than not, when I begin to feel left out of conversation, I gather some of the cousins and we go outside to throw around a football, or kick around a soccer ball.

My wife is Mexican. She was born in Mexico, but grew up here after her parents immigrated to America when she was a young child. She grew up around the La Raza rhetoric, and rejected becoming an American Citizen because those around her had convinced her that if she were to naturalize she would "Lose her Heritage." Of course that is hardly the truth, and finally a few years ago (2005) she decided to begin the process of naturalization and took the oath of citizenship in 2006.

With her new citizenship came a new appreciation for the United States. This new-found "Americanism" is special to her, and she proudly calls herself an American (not a Mexican-American). She recognizes the importance of being an American first, but at the same time still (as she should) embraces her Mexican culture as well. Calling herself and American-first does not sit well with many members of her family, and sometimes I am blamed for this "Americanization" of her. It seems silly to me, but I try not to get into that part of the argument.
More often than not, since everyone knows that I am big on politics, political discussions crop up at these gatherings - or at least in the past they did. This time, however, something strange happened. Rather than arguing politics with me at the Quinceañera, the opposite happened.

One of my wife's sisters says, "For the first time I think I am going to vote Republican."

Really?

This is the same woman that argued with me a few months ago about the problems of Republican Politics, and how they (The Republicans) are against "her people" (meaning the illegals).

Another of her sisters echoed the thought about voting Republican because she was tired of the entitlement programs being pushed by the Democrats. This other sister is the one that at one time was actually a registered member of the Communist Party USA.

After a lengthy discussion, what I discovered was that rather than just voting "party" like most Democrats do, these young women have decided to look at the candidates, and after looking at Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, they decided the "Old White Guy" was the better person for the job.

Muy Bien. I like the way they think. Don't get me wrong, I am not a big fan of John McCain, but he is definitely better than the alternative.

And of course during these unexpected conversations I munched on chips and salsa as I listened, with an unused football sitting between my feet.

Barack Obama and Reverend Wright - Obama, Where is your Outrage?

Exhibit B for the Liberal Liars Club:

From the Creators of Facing the Giants comes FIREPROOF

A UNION OF MARRIAGE ADVOCATES
I Now Pronounce the "Fireproof" Movie a Movement

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
ALBANY, Ga., March 27, 2008 - "Fireproof," www.FireprooftheMovie.com, the new action/relationship film from the creators of "Facing the Giants" and "Flywheel," releases this September from Sherwood Pictures and Provident Films. Already the movie is uniting marriage advocates from across the U.S.

National groups such as Focus on the Family, Outreach, FamilyLife, The Marriage CoMission, America's Family Coaches, AMFM, Marriage Alive Communications, and MarriageToday endorse the movie and are urging their constituencies to see it. Influencers such as marriage expert Gary Smalley and Bubba Cathy of Chick-fil-A are also working to spread the word.

It's no secret that U.S. marriages are in crisis. The U.S. Census Bureau and marriage organizations vary on the stats but agree that nearly half of all weddings lead to divorce—with rates highest in the Bible belt. Some 25 percent of U.S. adults divorce at least once; and given the abundance of poor marriages, many couples skip it outright.

"Fireproof" mirrors the problems of many marriages, in this case through a firefighter whose high-stress job spills into his home life. Hitting on pain points common to married life—from indifference to insults to emotional affairs and internet porn—the story opens with a couple's disintegration.

"Most movies are about relationships that lead to marriage," Michael Catt, of Sherwood Pictures said. "'Fireproof' picks up seven years into a marriage headed for divorce. And the question is: Can a cold marriage revive? Why stay together?"

Given that firefighters have one of the nation's highest divorce rates, "Fireproof" also has the support of many firefighters and related organizations. John White, former head of the Los Angeles Fire Department's Search & Rescue Team, is urging firefighters across the country to see it.

For more information about "Fireproof," how individuals and organizations can get involved, and in what theaters the movie will open, stay current with www.FireprooftheMovie.com

The Liberal Liars Club

Last December, while being accused by Barack Obama that Hillary Clinton's eight years as first lady was a glorified tea party, not a part of her so-called mass of experience that she claims to be so full of, her Royal Pantsuit fired back with a harrowing tale of a trip to Bosnia. She said that she risked her life on various White House missions, one of which was a vexing flight into Bosnia that ended in a "corkscrew" landing and a high speed, head ducking sprint off the tarmac to dodge snipers. She commented after telling the tale, "I don't remember anyone offering me tea." Problem is, the whole thing was a great big lie. Of course the left-wing media says that she simply "misspoke." Hillary Clinton is a liar.

That was hardly a case of simply misspeaking. Sorry.

Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright, an official member of Obama's campaign, and a member of Obama's African American Religious Leadership Committee, is a racist. He has made a number of racist comments in the past during his sermons at the church of which Barack Obama has been attending for twenty years. The Obama Campaign has realized that Rev. Wright, and his comments, may pose as a problem for the Obama Campaign. So how did Obama deal with it? Obama says he's never witnessed or heard these statement before. Obama knew what his pastor was saying. That makes Barack Obama a liar. In fact, like Hillary, Obama lies quite a bit. Of course, let us not forget this is the man that says, "My friends, we live in the greatest nation in the history of the world. I hope you'll join me as we try to change it."

Al Gore, the leader of the Worldwide Church of Global Warming, told us that global sea levels would be rising by more than 20 feet with the loss of shelf ice in Greenland and Antarctica, devastating coastal areas worldwide. He told us that heat waves will be more frequent and more intense. He claimed that droughts and wildfires would occur more often. He declared the Arctic Ocean could be ice free in summer by 2050. He proclaimed more than a million species worldwide could be driven to extinction by 2050. And he said it was our fault because of all of that carbon (you know, less than one percent of the total that winds up in the atmosphere) we spew into the sky. All along I have been saying that any warming tendency of this planet is a natural phenomenon caused by solar activity, specifically in relation to sunspots. I have had a couple of experts, Holly Fretwell, a natural resources policy expert, adjunct professor of economics at Montana State University and research fellow at PERC--The Property and Environment Research Center, and Analyst John Berlau of the Competitive Enterprise Institute on my radio show to discuss this, the second of which indicated that not only is there not a consensus of scientists claiming man-made global warming is true, but that recently 19,000 analysts and scientists proclaimed that all of this global warming hysteria is false. So what's the truth? Well, it turns out that Al Gore, with his tampered models and thirst for whatever he is getting out of this, is a big fat liar. In fact, pretty soon I am expecting him to jump on the man-made global cooling hysteria trend. Maybe they will begin encouraging us to put more carbon into the air to combat this sudden cooling trend! Fact is, temperature monitors are reporting widescale global cooling. And why is the warming trend over? What could have possibly caused this turn around? Wait for it. . . wait for it. . . because according to the article linked in this sentence, sunspots have all but vanished, and activity is suspiciously quiet. Notice the harrowing tone of the article. Al, give back the awards (that would be Nobel Peace Prize, Oscar, and I am sure there are more of your ill-gotten awards on your mantle), sit down, and shut up. You are a liar.

Shall we move on to Pelosi? Teddy Kennedy and his lies about his murderous ways? Or what about Kennedy's Soviet connections in order to undermine Ronald Reagan? Well, in the People's Socialist Party (Democrats), there are many lies, and these lies are by elitists whose hubris is so extreme that they believe they are above all of us, the law, and the truth. But to be honest, in my humble opinion, the Democratic Party needs to change its name to The Liberal Liars Club.

Pursuit of Happiness, Free Exercise of my Faith

While playing a game of cards with my wife last night I got to thinking about my competitive nature. Humans are naturally competitive. We desire to win. And when there are winners, naturally, there are losers as well. In that sense, one can say that the natural by-product of winning is losing.

In a competitive world, success is naturally defined in the terms of money, power, and influence. These are fine things, and each individual has every right to attain such, but more important is one's relationship with God, and in the development of a mature and constructive personality.

The American pursuit of happiness, then, naturally includes the pursuit of wealth. In the movie, The Pursuit of Happyness, Will Smith's character seeks wealth so that he can take better care of his son, and not have to remain in a position of poverty. Reaching financial success, for him, was happiness, not because of the money, but because of the security for his family.

As a Christian, I understand that wealth is not, and cannot be, my ultimate goal in life. After all, the greatest commandments are found in Matthew 22:34-36 which states in a nutshell that we should first love the Lord with all of our heart, soul, and mind, and then second that we should love our neighbor as we love ourselves. This is where some on the liberal left decide to mischaracterize me as a Christian and misunderstand my meanings.

My duty, as a Christian, is first to share the Word of God. Notice, there is nothing there about forcing anyone to become Christians. This is why I find it fascinating that the liberal left tries to compare Christianity to Islam, and then immediately uses examples of the Crusades or Spanish Inquisitions to prove their point. I agree, those were horrid periods of history filled with atrocities by people claiming to be doing so in the name of the Christian God. But, understand that none of the atrocities were biblical. Those periods of Christian history were being dominated by radicals, and anytime anything is radicalized to the point that even the actions of those involved fail to recognize that they are outside the teachings of scripture, it is a bad thing. However, the Islamic Jihad is following closely the teachings of the Quran.

It is a Christian's duty to share the Gospel, and love they neighbor, but it was never commanded that the Christian force people to accept Christianity by way of force or physical threats, nor is it Biblical to force anyone to perform Scriptural work.

For example, Church organizations and charities are wonderful ways to assist the poor and show our Christian love for our neighbors, but it is not Biblical for people to be forced to provide for the poor through taxation, nor to provide so many government sponsored entitlements that the poor ceases to work towards earning their way out of poverty, instead becoming dependent upon governmental assistance.

As for the idea of eliminating poverty, it is not possible. Like the win/loss of games, in life naturally there are winners and losers as well. The poor will always be with is, for in Matthew 26:11, it says, "For ye have the poor always with you; but me ye have not always."

A liberal recently attacked my defense of the wealthy in America. I do not believe it is the government's position to punish someone for reaching wealth by over-taxing such people. After all, isn't attaining financial freedom part of the pursuit of happiness? Besides, the wealthy tend to be the business owners, so why would one wish to punish financially those that provide the jobs?

When the liberal left attacks, they usually try to attack conservatives from a personal vantage point. In a recent attack against me, bible verses were used. Specifically, In Matthew 6:24 Jesus said, “You cannot serve both God and Money.”
Hebrews 13:5 – “Keep your lives free from the love of money and be content with what you have.”
1 Timothy 6:10 – “For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil.”
Proverbs 11:28 – “Those who trust in their riches will fall, but the righteous will thrive like a green leaf.”

Based on this liberal's thinking, all Christians must remain in deep poverty, or else they are hypocrites.

However, all this does is prove that people like this individual does not understand Christianity at all. All of those verses above are about keeping the right perspective. God comes first. God, to the Christian, must be more important than any wealth, possession, or whatever. If someone places the importance of wealth, power, et cetera above God, or at the same level as God, the person is attempting to serve both God and money, and that is a recipe for disaster, and is against God.

Galatians 6:14-16 Tell those who are rich in this world not to be proud and not to trust in their money, which will soon be gone. But their trust should be in the living God, who richly gives us all we need for our enjoyment.

But, the reason the Bible spends a lot of time speaking of the rich, saying "Woe unto you that are rich. . ." is because riches and power is a difficult thing to properly manage while keeping God in the position of highest importance. We, as flawed humans, are unable to keep that balance on our own, which is why we must keep our eyes on the Lord, especially if we are in a position of wealth.

Of course, people like the liberal I am referring to would just assume that we all remain in poverty, not defend ourselves, and allow the elitists that are the liberal left to take control of us and take away our freedom of religion (not freedom from religion as they love to argue). Constitutionally, when it comes to my Christianity, they cannot "prohibit the free exercise thereof." Ooops, did the liberals miss that part in the first amendment?

Is the U.S. Funding Terrorism?

Dr. James Hutchens, a former U.S. Military Chaplain and President/Chairman of the Board of The JerUSAlem Connection, joins us tonight to discuss how the U.S. is funding the Palestinians with weapons, money, and training - we are funding groups that are actually glorifying terrorists!

Join us tonight on Political Pistachio Radio!

Freedom Never Cries

A War on a Global Scale

The Fifth Anniversary of the Invasion of Iraq has passed, and the news media has proclaimed that 4,000 have been killed since the beginning of the war. Too often those looking back fail to see that Saddam Hussein is no longer a threat, and people on the Left seem to ignore the fact that the battlefield in Iraq is but small part of a much wider global war against Islamic Jihadism.

Iraq is but a small battlefield in the global war against Islamic Radicals that includes both Sunni and Shia. The Invasion of Iraq was simply one battle in a long war. The Surge last year was another battle. Our campaign to keep the Taliban from regaining control in Afghanistan is yet another front in this global war.

All of the fronts are connected and all dependent upon the others for overall success. One thing remains clear, there has been no attack on America's soil since 9/11, and many contribute this to the effort overseas against the resilient Islamic Jihadist enemy. The contribution and sacrifice of our troops in Iraq is definitely a large part of keeping us safe from further attacks, and it is those troops that deserve our respect and appreciation.

God Bless our troops, and God Bless America.