Watching the Sotomayor hearings, it cracks me up how when a liberal wishes to win an election, or be confirmed, they start sounding like a Conservative. They know that in the big picture, Conservatism wins out over Liberalism. Suddenly, Sonia's Godson is a member of the NRA, and she values the American right to keep and bear arms, she suddenly believes judges don't make law (as opposed to her previous statements that the courts make policy), and her racism is forgotten as she becomes this magically impartial justice.
Sounds like Obama during the campaign, doesn't it? Suddenly, he became a tax cutting, increase the war in Afghanistan, religious guy - then he got elected, and he stepped out of the sheep's clothing, and the raging freakish liberal that he is became apparent.
One more thing, it is amazing how much Sotomayor leans on precedent - as if it is impossible that prior rulings could be wrong. It is amazing, however, that when "precedent" doesn't agree with the liberal agenda, suddenly it is not precedent, it is just a wrong ruling.
Sotomayor's dodging and changing her positions when being asked questions by U.S Senator Jeff Sessions (Republican - Alabama) was comical. She contradicted herself continually, and then proclaimed that she wasn't. She backtracked, changed her opinions, and agreed with him when she could. He hammered away on her inability to be impartial, and she grinned and fed him a bunch of bull. Empathy has no business on the bench, and she agreed, as she disagreed.
Sessions also hammered away on the Ricci v. Destefano Case, also known as the Connecticut Firefighters Case, of which the Supreme Court overturned Sotomayor's decision on - a common occurrence for her. The firefighters had been subject to discrimination, and according to Sessions, she willfully did not recognize the discrimination (because they were white?).
Sotomayor, like any good liberal, searched for precedent once again, as well as using language that said a lot without saying anything at all.
It was funny to notice that Sotomayor's smile vanished as her volley with Sessions proceeded, and he didn't let up.
In short, Sotomayor is a racist, freakishly liberal, judge that is on record of having opinion opposite of that of the U.S. Supreme Court.
Believe you me, like with Obama, if Sotomayor winds up on the Supreme Court, she will suddenly stop having her few Conservative thoughts, and will become an activist justice on a rampage determined to change the American form of government, and lash out against anyone she feels inferior (after all, a wise Latina is superior, right?)
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Chariot, and her 89 Year Old Owner
A story of independence, personal responsibility, and it should be an inspiration to us all. Oh, and by the way, pay close attention to why she is not fearful, and her comment about driver's tests . . .
Monday, July 13, 2009
Stephen Crowder Shows Us The Joys of Single Payer Health Care
Obamacare? Let's see how it works in Canada:
Can Morality Be Legislated?
One of my colleagues at Blog Talk Radio, CFGA, will be tackling this question, and has asked me to join the conversation. Join us tonight at 7:00 pm Pacific, HERE.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
6,000 Years And Ain't Dead Yet
A few leftward nutcases have been throwing around that some Republican in Arizona, while commenting about whether or not to do something that could have an environmental impact, proclaimed the Earth is only 6,000 years old, and since global warming and other environmental issues haven't destroyed the planet yet, it is okay to go ahead with some mining venture that environmentalists claim could further contribute to destroying our delicate planet that humanity seems to be so good at placing at risk.
Finally, one of the liberals sent me a link to the video.
Watching the video, what they, the Leftists, are saying she says is not necessarily what she said. I mean, yes, she says the Earth is 6,000 years old, and it hasn't been destroyed yet, but not in the way the Left is making it out to be.
Liberals are coming at this with the attitude that anyone that doesn't agree with them on a scientific plane is automatically stupid - therefore, anything else the woman says will be stupid as well. Since they are in firm belief that the Earth was conjured up by accident out of nothing millions of years ago, it is impossible that anything else could be true.
I understand that kind of faith, and honestly, it is commendable that these folks can hold on to such a belief with such a small amount of evidence that isn't even verifiable, and in most cases, turns out to be either a hoax, erroneous, or supports the existence of a Creator after all. It isn't called a "theory" for nothing.
If their system of belief was a religion, the way the lefties fanatically hang on to it, it would make them greater religious zealots than the people they claim are radical religious nuts.
Don't worry, leftards, I don't support government taking away your right to practice you religion of Godlessness. I just have a problem with government promoting it as the state religion.
Is the Arizona Senator correct that the Earth is only 6,000 years old? Perhaps. When it comes to Biblical Text, if you add up the years from Adam to Abraham, from Abraham to Jesus, and from Christ to the present, it equals about 6,000 years. If you consider God, according to the Book of Genesis, created the heavens and the Earth in seven days, then 6,000 years for the entire sha-bang seems reasonable.
I love science, and I believe that science should be about pursuing the possibilities, no matter where they may lead you. Today's scientists, however, if they see their studies leading toward the possibility of a Creator, hit the breaks, and turn the corner. However, even with the ideological subjectiveness of being anti-God, in the case of some, often they make reasonable assumptions.
That being said, it is entirely possible that the Earth is 6,000 years old, or millions of years old. If you think logically, considering that a Christian believes God created everything, then that would mean He created time as well. If He created time, and He formed the universe and the Earth before the 24 hour day was established, who's to say those seven days were really seven days? What is a day to God? Besides, if God is omnipotent, then He could have created it all in an instant, or He could have very well decided to set things in motion and allow millions of years to pass as everything became sufficient for life on Earth.
Personally, I wasn't there, so I don't know for sure. But, I'll tell you what, I will be sure to ask the Maker when I get the chance to meet Him.
When the Arizona Senator referred to the Earth still being around after 6,000 years, I think what she was trying to say is since Global Warming is a natural phenomenon, and not a man-made one as the hysterical fear-monger, Al Gore, makes it out to be, then that means the Earth has endured much worse than what we are seeing now. After all, Greenland was once Green, meaning that the global temperatures were much higher at one point than they are now - and guess what? We lived!
Who is to say that warming is a bad thing, anyway? Maybe we have been too cold for centuries, and the planet was adjusting back up a little? Besides, it has been proven we are in a cooling trend, now, so be on the look out for the next big craze (it will be a repeat of 1972): The Next Ice Age Is Coming!
If Global Cooling takes place, will the crazy environmental whackos start suggesting we pump more carbon into the air? Will suddenly government propose that GM start making monster trucks with diesel engines?
Fact is, Volcanoes and the Oceans spew more green house gases than any other contributor (our contribution to green house gases is less than 1%), and with the ups and downs of warming in the last 6,000 years, the Earth has resiliently made it through with simply a few scratches. Mining operations in the middle of the State of Arizona will be nothing in the grand scheme of things.
This is not to say that someone like myself doesn't take keeping the environment clean seriously. If there is gunk in the air, and gunk in the water, we should be good stewards of the planet and clean it up - but this does not mean we should jump off the deep end, and start worshiping the planet, or start freaking out every time somebody slaps a mosquito on their neck, or eats a nice, big, fat juicy steak.
My thought about Arizona? Go ahead and mine, but be reasonable about it.
Oh, and in case you wish to see that video I was talking about? Here it is:
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Finally, one of the liberals sent me a link to the video.
Watching the video, what they, the Leftists, are saying she says is not necessarily what she said. I mean, yes, she says the Earth is 6,000 years old, and it hasn't been destroyed yet, but not in the way the Left is making it out to be.
Liberals are coming at this with the attitude that anyone that doesn't agree with them on a scientific plane is automatically stupid - therefore, anything else the woman says will be stupid as well. Since they are in firm belief that the Earth was conjured up by accident out of nothing millions of years ago, it is impossible that anything else could be true.
I understand that kind of faith, and honestly, it is commendable that these folks can hold on to such a belief with such a small amount of evidence that isn't even verifiable, and in most cases, turns out to be either a hoax, erroneous, or supports the existence of a Creator after all. It isn't called a "theory" for nothing.
If their system of belief was a religion, the way the lefties fanatically hang on to it, it would make them greater religious zealots than the people they claim are radical religious nuts.
Don't worry, leftards, I don't support government taking away your right to practice you religion of Godlessness. I just have a problem with government promoting it as the state religion.
Is the Arizona Senator correct that the Earth is only 6,000 years old? Perhaps. When it comes to Biblical Text, if you add up the years from Adam to Abraham, from Abraham to Jesus, and from Christ to the present, it equals about 6,000 years. If you consider God, according to the Book of Genesis, created the heavens and the Earth in seven days, then 6,000 years for the entire sha-bang seems reasonable.
I love science, and I believe that science should be about pursuing the possibilities, no matter where they may lead you. Today's scientists, however, if they see their studies leading toward the possibility of a Creator, hit the breaks, and turn the corner. However, even with the ideological subjectiveness of being anti-God, in the case of some, often they make reasonable assumptions.
That being said, it is entirely possible that the Earth is 6,000 years old, or millions of years old. If you think logically, considering that a Christian believes God created everything, then that would mean He created time as well. If He created time, and He formed the universe and the Earth before the 24 hour day was established, who's to say those seven days were really seven days? What is a day to God? Besides, if God is omnipotent, then He could have created it all in an instant, or He could have very well decided to set things in motion and allow millions of years to pass as everything became sufficient for life on Earth.
Personally, I wasn't there, so I don't know for sure. But, I'll tell you what, I will be sure to ask the Maker when I get the chance to meet Him.
When the Arizona Senator referred to the Earth still being around after 6,000 years, I think what she was trying to say is since Global Warming is a natural phenomenon, and not a man-made one as the hysterical fear-monger, Al Gore, makes it out to be, then that means the Earth has endured much worse than what we are seeing now. After all, Greenland was once Green, meaning that the global temperatures were much higher at one point than they are now - and guess what? We lived!
Who is to say that warming is a bad thing, anyway? Maybe we have been too cold for centuries, and the planet was adjusting back up a little? Besides, it has been proven we are in a cooling trend, now, so be on the look out for the next big craze (it will be a repeat of 1972): The Next Ice Age Is Coming!
If Global Cooling takes place, will the crazy environmental whackos start suggesting we pump more carbon into the air? Will suddenly government propose that GM start making monster trucks with diesel engines?
Fact is, Volcanoes and the Oceans spew more green house gases than any other contributor (our contribution to green house gases is less than 1%), and with the ups and downs of warming in the last 6,000 years, the Earth has resiliently made it through with simply a few scratches. Mining operations in the middle of the State of Arizona will be nothing in the grand scheme of things.
This is not to say that someone like myself doesn't take keeping the environment clean seriously. If there is gunk in the air, and gunk in the water, we should be good stewards of the planet and clean it up - but this does not mean we should jump off the deep end, and start worshiping the planet, or start freaking out every time somebody slaps a mosquito on their neck, or eats a nice, big, fat juicy steak.
My thought about Arizona? Go ahead and mine, but be reasonable about it.
Oh, and in case you wish to see that video I was talking about? Here it is:
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Obama Is Not The Messiah Of The World After All
The media is constantly trying to show how everyone just loves Barack Obama. The adoration by the people of Barry is just so amazing. Even around the world the response is unprecedented. . . or maybe it's not.
DON LEMON, ANCHOR CNN NEWSROOM: Nkepile, I was watching you yesterday on the "Situation Room" with Wolf Blitzer when President Obama was arriving, and they were doing the dancing, and all of the people who were running up to him. For a western leader, I know when presidents come over there, they are usually warmly received. But for a western leader, have you ever seen anything like this? Is this unprecedented?
NKEPILE MABUSE, CORRESPONDENT: It's not unprecedented. When President Bush was here, you will remember, in February, there were people who were drumming, there were dances, and President Bush joined some of them. So, it's not unprecedented. This is a truly African welcome that is given to anybody whether they are from Africa or anywhere else in the world, Don.
LEMON: So, they welcome everyone. It doesn't matter. That's just part of how the people do it, right?
MABUSE: Indeed, Don.
I wonder if by using President Bush as an example, as Ms. Mabuse did, if it was dumbfounding to the Liberals who couldn't imagine anyone liking "the hated" Bush - and were secretly thinking, as was Mr. Lemon, that the whole hooplah in Africa was because Obama was so loved by everyone.
Bush? Leftists had to have felt as if a knife was being twisted in their chest.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Douglas V. Gibbs
DON LEMON, ANCHOR CNN NEWSROOM: Nkepile, I was watching you yesterday on the "Situation Room" with Wolf Blitzer when President Obama was arriving, and they were doing the dancing, and all of the people who were running up to him. For a western leader, I know when presidents come over there, they are usually warmly received. But for a western leader, have you ever seen anything like this? Is this unprecedented?
NKEPILE MABUSE, CORRESPONDENT: It's not unprecedented. When President Bush was here, you will remember, in February, there were people who were drumming, there were dances, and President Bush joined some of them. So, it's not unprecedented. This is a truly African welcome that is given to anybody whether they are from Africa or anywhere else in the world, Don.
LEMON: So, they welcome everyone. It doesn't matter. That's just part of how the people do it, right?
MABUSE: Indeed, Don.
I wonder if by using President Bush as an example, as Ms. Mabuse did, if it was dumbfounding to the Liberals who couldn't imagine anyone liking "the hated" Bush - and were secretly thinking, as was Mr. Lemon, that the whole hooplah in Africa was because Obama was so loved by everyone.
Bush? Leftists had to have felt as if a knife was being twisted in their chest.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Douglas V. Gibbs
Sunday, July 12, 2009
Was America Founded on Christian Principles?
A listener of Founding Truth, which is a radio program I co-host that studies the U.S. Constitution, and the founding of the United States, sent me a link to a video that was quite fascinating. Knowing, by listening to me on Founding Truth, and Political Pistachio Radio, that I am a firm believer that America has Christian roots, she sent Loki (my co-host on Founding Truth) and I the link to this exceptional video with the following Email (key points):
Doug, I promise the video at this link will excite you. It's of historian, David Barton (Wall Builders), speaking to an audience at Dr. Charles Stanley's "In Touch Ministries." In a presentation entitled "Is America a Christian Nation?" Barton makes the case that the majority of our forefathers were Christians and relied heavily on their faith to form the U.S. governmental structure. He quotes many of the founders as giving credit to God for our successful defeat of the British military, and several of them counsel Patriots to a relationship with Jesus Christ.
[Loki], All of that will be interesting to you, too, and what will **really** float your boat (you, too, Doug) is that Barton brings "visual aids" to the presentation -- artifacts of the founders (Bibles, letters to/from John and Abigail Adams, etc.) Apparently, Barton either owns some of these in his private collection or, perhaps, the documents belong to Wall Builders (Barton's org). He speaks, too, of historical docs, books, and visuals housed in the National Archives. There's a really cool painting of the first naval vessel belonging to a group of colonists.
I learned from the video. You guys probably will be less surprised than I was by some of the facts, but there may be a few nuggets of new knowledge to you, too! For instance, Barton highlights the role several blacks played in the foundation of the nation and even identifies some of them in the iconic paintings/photography of the day.
Video is a smidge over 50 minutes. . . Watch Video Here
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Doug, I promise the video at this link will excite you. It's of historian, David Barton (Wall Builders), speaking to an audience at Dr. Charles Stanley's "In Touch Ministries." In a presentation entitled "Is America a Christian Nation?" Barton makes the case that the majority of our forefathers were Christians and relied heavily on their faith to form the U.S. governmental structure. He quotes many of the founders as giving credit to God for our successful defeat of the British military, and several of them counsel Patriots to a relationship with Jesus Christ.
[Loki], All of that will be interesting to you, too, and what will **really** float your boat (you, too, Doug) is that Barton brings "visual aids" to the presentation -- artifacts of the founders (Bibles, letters to/from John and Abigail Adams, etc.) Apparently, Barton either owns some of these in his private collection or, perhaps, the documents belong to Wall Builders (Barton's org). He speaks, too, of historical docs, books, and visuals housed in the National Archives. There's a really cool painting of the first naval vessel belonging to a group of colonists.
I learned from the video. You guys probably will be less surprised than I was by some of the facts, but there may be a few nuggets of new knowledge to you, too! For instance, Barton highlights the role several blacks played in the foundation of the nation and even identifies some of them in the iconic paintings/photography of the day.
Video is a smidge over 50 minutes. . . Watch Video Here
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Mysteries In This World
Despite what your mama told you, everyone wants to talk about religion and politics.
Last night's Political Pistachio Radio Revolution broadcast was advertised as one that would explore science, government, and history. In relation to science, I wished to establish that not only is science and religion compatible, but that in the case of creationism, the relationship between religion and science is one that studies, and supports, creation, through more evidence than only the Holy Bible.
The two hour conversation erupted into, thanks to a numerous group of listeners calling in, a philosophical discussion on religion and science, and ultimately, about the existence of God, and His influence on America.
Callers ranging from fellow Christians, to those not sure whether or not the universe is home to a divine being, called in to contribute. One caller, calling himself a pastor, used a confrontational style of forcing faith that had me doubting the sincerity of his claims, and recognizing him as being of the kind that gives ammunition to those that oppose Christianity. Others were simply curious of how I came to my conclusions, while others provided information to support my argument.
My original intent was to explore the mysteries of science and religion, and then draw it all together using various examples of scientific and historical evidence that ultimately drew a parallel to government, and the current state of politics.
Little did I expect, when I mentioned God and science in the same sentence, the fire storm that would erupt.
Political Pistachio Radio is known for its informed guests, and intriguing political discussions. The various guests often bring to the table fantastic points of view, and unexpected revelations. My audience, more often than not, becomes highly involved in the discussion.
Lee Strobel, the atheist journalist that set out to prove the ridiculousnous of Christianity, and then became a Christian as a result of his research, has written a number of books regarding his skepticism, and the evidence that supports the Christian Faith. His book, "The Case For Christ," chronicles his journey to faith. His book, "The Case For A Creator," challenges evolution with scientific evidence received through numerous interviews with some of the greatest minds in science. It is from this book that I drew the inspiration for my show last night.
Amazingly, when one places the words science, religion, and politics in the same description, it attracts more than the normal array of listeners. One of the listeners was a little hostile in the chatroom, challenging faith, and asking questions few could muster an answer to. He later called into the program.
He first asked, "If everything is predestined, then what good is prayer?"
I initially responded, "Who said anything about predestination."
I later explained that it is an answer that has a complex nature. In the sense of the big picture, which includes prophecy, we are essentially predestined to follow a certain path which will climax at Armegedden. In the sense that God uses the Holy Spirit to minister to those that would follow Him, there is a certain feeling that there is a predestination regarding who will become believers. However, Biblical text also teaches free will. We have the freedom to accept Christ, or reject Him. Ultimately, it is our choice. I am choosing to write this, and could very well have decided not to. So, in the sense of predestination, there is a certain sense that both answers are correct. We are predestined, yet, we are not. As for prayer, prayer is an important tool, but prayer is not necessarily answered when our requests are for our own will, rather than His. Considering that a Christian believes the most powerful being in the universe is in their corner, regardless of the reason, wouldn't it make sense to at least talk to Him every once in a while? Besides, prayer is often misunderstood. People act like God is some Genie waiting to grant wishes. Prayer is not really just to relay one's hopes, but to fellowship and thank God for His mercy and love.
The second question posed asked, when it comes to healers, why don't amputees get healed? If healers wished to show the ultimate power of God, who could argue with such a miracle?
I qualified my answer by assuring the listener that I am not real comfortable with the "healing" industry, and that I don't believe God is one of chaos, or that He wishes us to portray Him as a circus act. I also believe healers draw attention to themselves, rather than God, and that makes them hardly appropriate in the message of salvation. That said, I also believe that healing occurs, and miracles are still something we see, even today - but I don't think we are willing to see them for what they are. As for healing amputees, a healer, even if legitimate, could not perform such a feat. Healing an amputee would require the creation of limbs, and only God Himself can create. This is why the Jewish church leaders in Jesus' day were angered when Christ healed a man blind from birth. He didn't merely repair damaged eyes, but created vision from eyes that never had the ability to see. Such an act of Creation was evidence of His divinity.
Miracles do happen today, in our modern world, and on tonight's show I will give testimony of such a miracle - one that contains many miracles, and defies the odds in ways that only God could.
Join us live at 7:00 pm Pacific tonight, or catch the archive later, HERE.
Last night's Political Pistachio Radio Revolution broadcast was advertised as one that would explore science, government, and history. In relation to science, I wished to establish that not only is science and religion compatible, but that in the case of creationism, the relationship between religion and science is one that studies, and supports, creation, through more evidence than only the Holy Bible.
The two hour conversation erupted into, thanks to a numerous group of listeners calling in, a philosophical discussion on religion and science, and ultimately, about the existence of God, and His influence on America.
Callers ranging from fellow Christians, to those not sure whether or not the universe is home to a divine being, called in to contribute. One caller, calling himself a pastor, used a confrontational style of forcing faith that had me doubting the sincerity of his claims, and recognizing him as being of the kind that gives ammunition to those that oppose Christianity. Others were simply curious of how I came to my conclusions, while others provided information to support my argument.
My original intent was to explore the mysteries of science and religion, and then draw it all together using various examples of scientific and historical evidence that ultimately drew a parallel to government, and the current state of politics.
Little did I expect, when I mentioned God and science in the same sentence, the fire storm that would erupt.
Political Pistachio Radio is known for its informed guests, and intriguing political discussions. The various guests often bring to the table fantastic points of view, and unexpected revelations. My audience, more often than not, becomes highly involved in the discussion.
Lee Strobel, the atheist journalist that set out to prove the ridiculousnous of Christianity, and then became a Christian as a result of his research, has written a number of books regarding his skepticism, and the evidence that supports the Christian Faith. His book, "The Case For Christ," chronicles his journey to faith. His book, "The Case For A Creator," challenges evolution with scientific evidence received through numerous interviews with some of the greatest minds in science. It is from this book that I drew the inspiration for my show last night.
Amazingly, when one places the words science, religion, and politics in the same description, it attracts more than the normal array of listeners. One of the listeners was a little hostile in the chatroom, challenging faith, and asking questions few could muster an answer to. He later called into the program.
He first asked, "If everything is predestined, then what good is prayer?"
I initially responded, "Who said anything about predestination."
I later explained that it is an answer that has a complex nature. In the sense of the big picture, which includes prophecy, we are essentially predestined to follow a certain path which will climax at Armegedden. In the sense that God uses the Holy Spirit to minister to those that would follow Him, there is a certain feeling that there is a predestination regarding who will become believers. However, Biblical text also teaches free will. We have the freedom to accept Christ, or reject Him. Ultimately, it is our choice. I am choosing to write this, and could very well have decided not to. So, in the sense of predestination, there is a certain sense that both answers are correct. We are predestined, yet, we are not. As for prayer, prayer is an important tool, but prayer is not necessarily answered when our requests are for our own will, rather than His. Considering that a Christian believes the most powerful being in the universe is in their corner, regardless of the reason, wouldn't it make sense to at least talk to Him every once in a while? Besides, prayer is often misunderstood. People act like God is some Genie waiting to grant wishes. Prayer is not really just to relay one's hopes, but to fellowship and thank God for His mercy and love.
The second question posed asked, when it comes to healers, why don't amputees get healed? If healers wished to show the ultimate power of God, who could argue with such a miracle?
I qualified my answer by assuring the listener that I am not real comfortable with the "healing" industry, and that I don't believe God is one of chaos, or that He wishes us to portray Him as a circus act. I also believe healers draw attention to themselves, rather than God, and that makes them hardly appropriate in the message of salvation. That said, I also believe that healing occurs, and miracles are still something we see, even today - but I don't think we are willing to see them for what they are. As for healing amputees, a healer, even if legitimate, could not perform such a feat. Healing an amputee would require the creation of limbs, and only God Himself can create. This is why the Jewish church leaders in Jesus' day were angered when Christ healed a man blind from birth. He didn't merely repair damaged eyes, but created vision from eyes that never had the ability to see. Such an act of Creation was evidence of His divinity.
Miracles do happen today, in our modern world, and on tonight's show I will give testimony of such a miracle - one that contains many miracles, and defies the odds in ways that only God could.
Join us live at 7:00 pm Pacific tonight, or catch the archive later, HERE.
Hate Crimes Hypocrisy
In Akron, Ohio, a family was attacked by dozens of teenage boys after attending a fireworks show. The attackers, all black youths, shouted during the attack, "This is our world . . . This is a black world."
Akron police do not call it a hate crime.
The Marshall family is white, and say that the attack was racially motivated. The attack's affect on the family, which will include the psychological impact, and the thousands of dollars in medical bills, is devastating.
According to the Akron Beacon Journal, Akron police are investigating, and the case is not being classified as a racial hate crime. There were no other reports of victims assaulted by the group that night.
Even though the family fears retaliation at home or when they go outside, all they can do is hope that the assault charges can stick - that is if suspects can be gathered.
This story has not made it to the mainstream media, and it will not be considered a hate crime.
If the family, however, had been a racial minority, and the attackers were white, then it would have been all over the news, and "hate crime" would have been the phrase used to describe the attack.
Once again, selective law making, selective preferential treatment, and an application of liberal views on our laws that is neither "fair" or anything near "equal protection."
I don't like hate crimes legislation. I believe such laws border on "thought crimes" laws because the legislation assumes the court would know the motivations of an attacker - but if the liberal left is going to pass such insane laws, should they be applied equally to all people?
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Akron police investigate teen mob attack on family - Akron Beacon Journal, Phil Trexler
Akron police do not call it a hate crime.
The Marshall family is white, and say that the attack was racially motivated. The attack's affect on the family, which will include the psychological impact, and the thousands of dollars in medical bills, is devastating.
According to the Akron Beacon Journal, Akron police are investigating, and the case is not being classified as a racial hate crime. There were no other reports of victims assaulted by the group that night.
Even though the family fears retaliation at home or when they go outside, all they can do is hope that the assault charges can stick - that is if suspects can be gathered.
This story has not made it to the mainstream media, and it will not be considered a hate crime.
If the family, however, had been a racial minority, and the attackers were white, then it would have been all over the news, and "hate crime" would have been the phrase used to describe the attack.
Once again, selective law making, selective preferential treatment, and an application of liberal views on our laws that is neither "fair" or anything near "equal protection."
I don't like hate crimes legislation. I believe such laws border on "thought crimes" laws because the legislation assumes the court would know the motivations of an attacker - but if the liberal left is going to pass such insane laws, should they be applied equally to all people?
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Akron police investigate teen mob attack on family - Akron Beacon Journal, Phil Trexler
Video on the 1Lt Behenna Case
Thank you Do The Right Thing:
Mother of soldier convicted of executing an Iraqi prisoner is pleading for a retrial after discovering that exculpatory evidence was never presented at the trial.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Mother of soldier convicted of executing an Iraqi prisoner is pleading for a retrial after discovering that exculpatory evidence was never presented at the trial.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Saturday, July 11, 2009
Ginsberg, Abortion, and the Master Race
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg made a very interesting statement recently. The statement was in relation to abortion, and more specifically, the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973.
As a Constitutional Originalist, I recognize that Roe v. Wade is unconstitutional in a number of ways. It overturned a Texas state law, of which it is unconstitutional for the federal government to overturn state law unless the issue falls under federal allowances (see Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, and the Tenth Amendment). Also, with the Roe v. Wade decisions, law was made by the courts, of which is also unconstitutional. It is for Congress to make law. The Supreme Court is supposed to give opinion regarding the application of the U.S. Constitution, and then it is up to Congress whether or not to determine to follow the Supreme Court's decision, or not. This is why, to this day, the Supreme Court dockets begin with the words, "It is in the opinion of the court."
Ginsberg, however, has another angle regarding Roe v. Wade. According to Ginsburg the legalization of abortion was also for the reason of eliminating undesirable members of the populace, or limiting the "populations that we don't want to have too many of."
Sounds Hitleric, doesn't it?
Could the drive for the legalization of abortion be that insidious? Is there more at play than the mere "choice" aspect of the issue?
Abortion is in fact the killing of babies, and the use of abortion to stop the birth of undesirable babies is not some piece of fiction conjured up by pro-lifers. A great example is the fact that 9 in 10 babies who, by pre-natal testing, are determined to have Down Syndrome, are aborted. Isn't that the abortion of what would be considered by some heartless individuals as "undesirable members" of the populace? Isn't that an example of Eugenics?
Ginsburg observed that ". . . at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don't want to have too many of."
Then, when considering the government funding of abortion, and taking into account Harris v. McRae in 1980 in which the court upheld the Hyde Amendment, which forbids the use of Medicaid for abortions, Ginsburg said, "Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion. Which some people felt would risk coercing women into having abortions when they didn't really want them. But when the court decided McRae, the case came out the other way. . . The basic thing is that the government has no business making that choice for a woman."
This is not to say that Ginsburg is becoming a pro-lifer. Her concern is the government's involvement in the decision of whether or not to abort an unborn child. She believes it should be solely a woman's decision without government influence of any kind.
Ginsburg's statements brings to mind the link of Planned Parenthood to Eugenics. Though not ready to give up abortion, and proclaim it as the destruction of innocent lives that it is, Ginsburg's observations about the possible goal of those pushing abortion to be related to population control, and eugenics, has a historical connection.
The founder of Planned Parenthood was Margaret Sanger, who opened the first American birth control clinic in Brooklyn, New York in 1916. Sanger was a racist, and believed that the black population needed to be controlled. Her racism was the motivation behind Planned Parenthood, and her drive for birth control.
Following this line of reasoning, by wishing to limit the population of blacks, this means that Sanger believed that the non-black populations must remain the majority, in control, and ultimately, that the whites were somehow superior human beings. In other words, she believed in birth control because she wished to control the births of blacks so that the "superior" race could remaind the majority.
In other words, eugenics.
Eugenics, defined by Wikipedia, is the "possibility of improving the qualities of the human species or a human population by such means as discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits (negative eugenics) or encouraging reproduction by persons presumed to have inheritable desirable traits (positive eugenics)."
So, using that definition, Sanger wished to limit the black population because she assumed that blacks, by the very nature of their race, were undesirable, and their reproduction needed to be discouraged.
Coupled with Ginsburg's statements, it makes abortion look much more insidious than it is already believed to be by pro-lifers.
Is it possible the initiators of the abortion movement desired its legalization for the reason of eugenics?
Shades of Reverend Wright.
Fascinating to say in the least. In the end, however, regardless of the origins of the movement, or the reasons behind Roe v. Wade, I continue to simply believe that life begins at conception. A baby's time in the womb is simply a human stage of development which only differs from the stages of development outside the womb because of the womb, and that to murder these innocent babies is evil, and wrong.
The eugenics connection only solidifies my belief that abortion was born from evil.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
'Eugenic Abortion’: With Pre-Natal Testing, 9 in 10 Down Syndrome Babies Aborted - CNS News, Penny Starr
Ginsburg: I thought Roe was to rid undesirables - World Net Daily
Eugenics - Wikipedia
Science, Government, and History
Is Science and Religion able to coexist? How does science explain the Cambrian Explosion? Why did they change from the universe being eternal to it having a beginning (big bang), and how does that support the Creationist view? How has Evolutionists used deception to try to get their point across?
Why was Communism the enemy of America? How does socialist style government systems differ from what the Founding Fathers intended? Why would anyone wish to change a system that has succeeded for 233 years? Why does the Left demonize Capitalism, the very system that has made this nation prosper?
What can history tell us about where we are going as a nation, and the consequences of our decisions? Is what is happening in America a new direction, or is it just the rehash of an old failure? How is it that Obama was able to get elected using that magic word, "Change?" Do people really desire change? Why? What will that desire do for us in the future?
We will discuss this, and more, on tonight's Political Pistachio Radio - Join us live at 7:00 pm Pacific, or by archive, HERE
Car Czar Deese Drives An Old Honda
Brian Deese is Obama's Car Czar, and the world is abuzz about the hypocrisy. Here is this young gun, who has less experience than Obama in fixing anything (and that is saying something), and he is the government's guy in charge of making sure the American auto industry emerges through this time of troubles in a shining blaze of wondrous, mechanical glory. And this champion of American automobiles, the messiah's chosen one who will be an integral part of saving the U.S. auto makers and give the American auto industry the respect it deserves, the leader of Obama's amazing auto industry task force that is going to bring pride back into American made automobiles, drives an old silver Honda Civic two-door hatchback.
Hondas, if you don't know, are Japanese.
Personally, I couldn't give a rat's butt what the kid drives. After all, since when is hypocrisy and idiocy anything new in Washington? How many of those bleeding hearts on Capitol Hill drives hybrids? How many of those mansions that these people own have solar power panels? Do they lower their thermostats? Are they making sure their tires are inflated? Is Obama walking around to ensure the tires of his limo are at the right pressure? Are all of the light bulbs in their homes and offices energy saving, mercury laced, fluorescent bulbs?
What are these disciples of Al Gore doing to save the planet?
You have to understand that the rules they are setting, and the demands they are imposing, are not for them. These rules are for you. Al Gore, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Barry Obama have no intention of living a life less luxurious. They have no intention of living like us peasants. Their only goal is to make sure you stupid people do what their brilliant minds tell you to do.
So much for liberty.
The Czars, even, are a side step around Congress, and the U.S. Constitution. How does the American People (you know, the "We" in We The People?) vote out a czar if they don't like him? How does Congress, if the people asks them to, ensure the czars are removed, or are subject to accountability? Why is it that the President can appoint whoever he wants to these powerful positions without even a peep from the American People or the U.S. Congress?
Government is expanding, and using a rough and tumble economy as an excuse for a massive power grab. They are preaching what you should and shouldn't do, and are demanding to the U.S. automakers what they can and can't do. If business is failing, no problem, government will take it over with a bailout, and then dictate to the industry what they can and can't do, how much they can earn, and the government will make sure the CEOs resign if they don't fully agree with the government's tactics. Then, once in control, the autos produced will only be those that fit into the government's tight regulations. It doesn't matter what you, the consumer, wishes to buy, or drive - all that matters to the all powerful bureaucrats in Washington is that they make sure you spend your money on things they think you should be spending it on.
You, apparently, are too stupid to make your own decisions, so government must make your choices for you.
Foreign automobiles sell better here in the U.S. because they are not basing their products on the demands of environmentalists, and government officials. They build their vehicles based on what sells, and what the consumer wants. Sure, the foreign automakers make a few hybrids for the environmentally brainwashed, but those are the poorest selling models. Trucks, SUVs, luxury editions, and high powered speed-burner sedans are the best sellers. People want size, comfort, and a little harrumph. They want a vehicle that can pull their boats, outrun the neighbor's sports car, and feel luxurious.
And some people, believe it or not, are happy with an old, comfortable little four-banger.
I can relate to Deese. I have a nice truck, and I have owned some nice cars in the past, but the car I drive the most is an old, fading four-banger standard transmission Toyota Corolla. It's ugly and small, but comfy and dependable.
"Old Reliable," is the nickname I have given it.
The wife usually drives the V8, full size truck. Safer to drive when grandkids are strapped in, should the unfortunate event of an accident occur.
So, you might think Deese is a hypocrite for driving a Honda, but my opinion is, it's America, he can drive what he wants. If the American companies had been building kick-butt cars all along, maybe he'd own a car from the big three instead.
As for the czars? The positions created are unconstitutional - but since when has the Democrats ever cared about the law of the land?
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
New Car Czar Deese Doesn't Drive American - The Washington Post, Mary Ann Akers
Israel and Her Arab Neighbors: The More Things Change, The More They Stay The Same
From the Harry Ransom Center, The University of Texas at Austin:
The Mike Wallace Interview
Abba Eban
4/12/58
As Israel celebrates its tenth anniversary, Abba Eban, Israel's ambassador to the United States, talks to Wallace about Arab nations, the Arab refugee problem, Egypt's President Nasser, Jews in America, and the charge that Israel threatens world peace with a policy of territorial expansion.
Watch Video HERE
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
The Mike Wallace Interview
Abba Eban
4/12/58
As Israel celebrates its tenth anniversary, Abba Eban, Israel's ambassador to the United States, talks to Wallace about Arab nations, the Arab refugee problem, Egypt's President Nasser, Jews in America, and the charge that Israel threatens world peace with a policy of territorial expansion.
Watch Video HERE
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Democrats in Power Equals Heavy Taxation
Obama knew that in order to win the election, he needed to sound more conservative, and less liberal, so he promised a tax break for 95% of the people.
Wow, nearly 100%. And nobody realized that it was against a Democrat's nature to cut taxes?
There has been no tax cut, just a little rearranging of tax withholdings to make it look like you got a tax cut. Note, the tax tables were not adjusted, so that whopping $250 bucks will still come back out of you eventually.
Since Obama ran as a tax cutter, he knows he can't raise the income taxes on the Middle Class on down without opening the eyes of a few Democrats regarding his sanctimonious bologna. But, being that he is a raging liberal, Barry knows he's gotta tax you somehow. Enter, stage left, Cap and Tax.
He is capitalizing on the public's paranoia, which was created by a bunch of lying environmentalists, and alarmist liberals, despite the fact that man-made Global Warming has been proven to be a myth. Heck, the planet isn't even warming up anymore.
I wonder how long before Al Gore produces a new movie about the coming ice age, showing icy graphs, and polar bears stuck in blizzards.
Still, beating the dead horse because he knows he can, Obama and the Liberal Left Crazies, are trying to push (Pelosi is selling this thing with all her might) a Climate Bill that, among other things, will be the largest tax increase on everybody in history.
I am not sure if these people are complete idiots for falling for this tremendous lie, or brilliant for convincing everyone else that man-made Global Warming is true, and that somehow our insignificant contributions can "save the planet."
.jpg)
Cartoon from Get Liberty
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Wow, nearly 100%. And nobody realized that it was against a Democrat's nature to cut taxes?
There has been no tax cut, just a little rearranging of tax withholdings to make it look like you got a tax cut. Note, the tax tables were not adjusted, so that whopping $250 bucks will still come back out of you eventually.
Since Obama ran as a tax cutter, he knows he can't raise the income taxes on the Middle Class on down without opening the eyes of a few Democrats regarding his sanctimonious bologna. But, being that he is a raging liberal, Barry knows he's gotta tax you somehow. Enter, stage left, Cap and Tax.
He is capitalizing on the public's paranoia, which was created by a bunch of lying environmentalists, and alarmist liberals, despite the fact that man-made Global Warming has been proven to be a myth. Heck, the planet isn't even warming up anymore.
I wonder how long before Al Gore produces a new movie about the coming ice age, showing icy graphs, and polar bears stuck in blizzards.
Still, beating the dead horse because he knows he can, Obama and the Liberal Left Crazies, are trying to push (Pelosi is selling this thing with all her might) a Climate Bill that, among other things, will be the largest tax increase on everybody in history.
I am not sure if these people are complete idiots for falling for this tremendous lie, or brilliant for convincing everyone else that man-made Global Warming is true, and that somehow our insignificant contributions can "save the planet."
.jpg)
Cartoon from Get Liberty
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Friday, July 10, 2009
Divide and Conquer
By Patriot Greg
A typical military strategy used to effectively fragment the enemy forces into smaller units and/or groups and make them easier to destroy or render useless, it is also used in many other aspects of life. Tyrannical governments have used it successfully to shatter into pieces the resistance or opposition into small, manageable units that are either bribed into submission or simply, eliminated.
The current government in America is using experts to devise new and more effective ways to render the opposition harmless. And to a certain point, the tactic has been very successful. However, the administration has a strong and unexpected ally: the very American people who are opposing it.
Read The Rest At Christian Patriot
A typical military strategy used to effectively fragment the enemy forces into smaller units and/or groups and make them easier to destroy or render useless, it is also used in many other aspects of life. Tyrannical governments have used it successfully to shatter into pieces the resistance or opposition into small, manageable units that are either bribed into submission or simply, eliminated.
The current government in America is using experts to devise new and more effective ways to render the opposition harmless. And to a certain point, the tactic has been very successful. However, the administration has a strong and unexpected ally: the very American people who are opposing it.
Read The Rest At Christian Patriot
Michelle Bachmann: Gangster Government
Obama and the Democrats are trying to nationalize everything, and are bypassing the Congress, and the U.S. Constitution with the establishment of Obama's czars. . .
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Political Pistachio Radio Celebrates its 400th Episode
Take a trip down memory lane with me as we celebrate 400 episodes of the Political Pistachio Radio Revolution. Show begins live tonight at 7:00 pm Pacific Time. Catch it live, or on archive later, HERE.
Obama Is Such A Class Act
A picture is worth a thousand words
At first I was thinking, "Gosh, I wonder what Michelle will say?" But then I remembered, just like Hillary who looked the other way when Bill Clinton was getting it on with interns, Michelle is probably in this more for the prestige and power, than love. After all, she wasn't even proud of this country until her husband got a political promotion. And hey, he got her into the White House, so why fuss about a little mental infidelity?
ABC News Claims there is more to the story than the picture suggests: VIDEO
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Douglas V. Gibbs
At first I was thinking, "Gosh, I wonder what Michelle will say?" But then I remembered, just like Hillary who looked the other way when Bill Clinton was getting it on with interns, Michelle is probably in this more for the prestige and power, than love. After all, she wasn't even proud of this country until her husband got a political promotion. And hey, he got her into the White House, so why fuss about a little mental infidelity?
ABC News Claims there is more to the story than the picture suggests: VIDEO
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Douglas V. Gibbs
Joel Anderson's AB 1506 Passes Assembly Committee
A truly bi-partison bill is trying to make its way through the California legislative houses. The bill, AB 1506, would allow businesses or people who receive IOUs from the State of California to use their IOU to pay anything owed to the state. This would include payroll taxes, DMV fees, corporate taxes, and any other obligation to the state. The bill was proposed by Republican Joel Anderson.
I wonder if the State would accept IOUs from the citizens, and then in turn accept a person's offer for the state to pay the person back with the IOU?
Don't get me wrong. I understand the attempt, here. It makes sense. This bill would make it easier to get money back to the ailing State, especially when the IOU becomes like a gift card at a store - as good as cash, as long as it is used in the store.
The idea is, despite the fact that the State of California is out of money due to decades of poor fiscal management, and outrageous spending, the recipients don't have to be completely punished with the receipt of an IOU. At least the IOU would be worth something now - rather than down the road when, and if, the State has the money to own up to the money owed ("if" is the key word).
And, in the end, it may help alleviate some of the financial hardships facing businesses in California.
Personally, I believe it wouldn't be a problem if the politicians had managed the State's budget responsibly - but that's just me.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
$40 Miracle
God sees the big picture, and He never gives us more than we can handle. He allows the storms of our lives to rock the ship we inhabit, and sometimes those storms are so fierce that we wonder if He is even at the helm. He provides when He feels it is necessary, and sometimes He doesn't. I suppose one's faith plays a big part in whether or not He answers a prayer in a way we hoped he would, but sometimes His answers have more to do with the big picture, than they have to do with our selfish desires.
As I look back upon my life it is riddled with trials and suffering, as well as blessings and miracles. In some ways, on paper, there were many times my wife and I should not have survived financially. In 1985, I should not have survived medical circumstances that normally would kill a man.
In this way, I understand that miracles still happen.
Sometimes, miracles are small, but effective.
The year was 1997. My wife and I had fallen on some difficult times. Financially, we were on the edge of losing our home. I was not one to ask family for favors, so instead of holding my hand out I changed careers from a banker/financial advisor to a city worker, and then to construction, in order to make ends meet. I was new in the construction industry, and my paychecks, at that time, were usually barely enough to cover expenses and buy a small amount of groceries.
During this particular month, we were short $40.00. Whether I liked it or not, unless $40 suddenly appeared for me, I would have to start juggling bills.
The end of another day of hard labor was upon me. The work truck we all rode in was normally parked in a parking lot a good fifteen minute drive from my house, and while we were at work, our personal vehicles remained in that lot until we returned at the end of the day. At the time, I was driving a blue four-speed Toyota pick-up. My co-worker drove an old Chevy truck, with a lot of car parts, and jugs of oil in the bed. As we parked the work truck and disembarked, a man walked up to us, coming from a group of people standing outside of a minivan.
The approaching man asked my co-worker about the jugs of oil in the back of his truck, thinking they may be gasoline. My friend advised the man that they were oil.
Gasoline was what the man needed, for the minivan had run out of gas, and there was no gas stations along the nearby exit from the freeway, so they coasted into the parking lot we stood in.
My co-worker told the man he was sorry, but he could not help him, and then got into his truck, fired up the engine, and drove away.
I turned to the man and said, "I have no gasoline, but there is a gas station one off-ramp up the road. If you wish to ride with me in my truck, I can take you there and bring you back. Surely, they sell gas cans at that station."
The man agreed, ran over to his group to explain to them the plan, and then joined me in my junky old pick-up truck.
As I shifted the gears and rolled out of the parking lot, the man told me that he was the Best Man in his friends wedding. The group of folks in the parking lot, standing next to the minivan, was the Bride, Groom, the Bride's parents, and a few other members of the wedding party. The wedding was to be the next day, and they had decided to take a trip out to the nearby wineries in Temecula for entertainment. When they realized they were getting ready to run out of gas, they had exited the freeway only to discover that there was no gas station at the off-ramp they had chosen. At that time, the minivan spitted, sputtered, and ran out of gas - leaving them to literally coast down the hill into the parking lot he had greeted me and my friend in.
Then the man in my truck asked me, "I noticed your bumper sticker on your window. 'Abortion - One Dead, One Wounded.' Are you a Christian?"
I responded, "Yes. I attend Harvest Christian Fellowship in Riverside."
The Best Man said, "I used to go to church. I don't know. Never really bought into all that. Going to church never did anything for me."
I said, "I don't go to church hoping it will do something for me. I go to church to worship God, and enjoy the fellowship with fellow Christians."
"Has God been doing things for you?"
"Not at all," I replied. "The Christian life is a hard one. We are imperfect beings, and following Christ is about being more like Him - a perfect being. I am a sinner, as is every other person on this Earth. I am no more righteous than you, or anyone else. I do not deserve His grace, and I could never earn salvation by my works, no matter how many charities or good deeds I do. In reality, being a Christian is an impossible life. The goal is to be more like Christ, and it is an impossible task to be like Him, because He is perfect, and we are not. But, we pursue it anyway. I don't try to be more like Him in my walk, however, because the Ten Commandments tells me to, or because I have to follow some set of rules. I do so because I love the Lord so much that I want to do what is pleasing to Him. He was willing to die a gruesome death so that I may have eternal life. The least I can do is try to fashion my life after His, and share the good news with as many people as I can. Some will accept Him, some won't. But one thing is for sure: Despite the argument that Christianity is some kind of inclusive religion, it turns out that it is available to all people. Anyone of any walk, background, or of any history of sins can call upon the Name of the Lord and be saved. It is available to everyone. His sacrifice was sufficient for all sin."
The Best Man in my truck was in deep thought as I pulled into the parking lot of the gas station. I went inside with him, and he bought a gas can, of which we filled once outside. After he placed the can in the back of my truck, we set out to return to the minivan in the parking lot one off-ramp away.
"Tell me about your church," he asked.
"It is pretty casual. You don't have to dress up if you don't want to, but most folks do. I go in jeans and a colored T-shirt, myself. The music is a mixture of old hymns and modern Christian pop and rock. The pastor, Greg Laurie, is a man of God, and a fantastic teacher. I leave each sermon feeling as if he was speaking directly to me. The teachings are biblical. Fundamental and evangelical, I suppose you could say, but the church is independent, so it doesn't belong to any religious conference or specific relgious affiliation. We are simply a bunch of Christians who gather each Sunday to pray, worship, sing, and learn. I have been going there since the early eighties, and for my spiritual being, it is home."
It turned out he lived in Riverside, and was considering returning to church. He appreciated all that I had told him, and I simply thanked him for listening.
Once we returned to the parking lot he poured the gallon or two of gasoline in the minivan, and the vehicle started right up. Everyone thanked me with a handshake, and a couple hugs, and as I began to walk back to my truck, the man that had ridden with me ran up and offered me some money.
"That is okay," I said. "I simply helped you out because I wanted to."
"You have to take something for the time and gas. Please don't reject my generosity."
I took the two bills, shook hands with him, shoved the money in my pocket, and drove home.
On the way home I was excited by the opportunity to share the love of Christ with someone. I thanked the Lord for the opporuntity, and sang along with the Christian music playing on my speakers. About half way home, curious if the two bills in my pocket was a pair of ones as I expected, I pulled them out and unwrinkled them.
The Best Man had given me two twenty dollar bills - exactly $40 - the amount I needed to finish paying my bills for the month.
A small miracle on an otherwise eventless day.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Thursday, July 09, 2009
Cap and Trade Favors Mega Corporations
The Republican Party, for a century, has been accused of being the party that wants to make the rich richer, and the poor poorer. Big Corporations, according to the demonizers (without actually producing any figures or proof), have always had the GOP in their back pockets.
This myth began because the Republican Party has always supported free enterprise, and in a free market economy, getting government out of the operations of businesses applies all the way across the board, from small business to large corporations. As for the rich becoming richer part, a part of that ridiculous mantra comes from the fact that the GOP has always had a problem with progressive taxation, which is a Marxist policy. With a flat tax, for example, by the very fact that the richer makes more money, they would still pay a larger amount of tax than everyone else below them.
The idea espoused by the Left that the rich doesn't pay their fair share in the current progressive system of taxation is especially laughable. In 2006, the top 20 percent of all income earners paid 86.3 percent of all national income taxes (and this doesn't take into account the other taxes paid in the form of fees and specialty taxes), and this is with the number of high-income taxpayers decreasing. In other words, less rich people are paying a larger percentage of the total revenue collected by the federal government.
Even more amazing is that fact that the top 5 percent of wage earners pay over 50 percent of the taxes. Did you get that? 5% pays over half of all the taxes! And the Left says they don't pay their fair share?
All of this hammering of the wealthiest Americas has become a Democratic Party pastime, as the bottom 40 percent of wage earners (and non-earning adults) pays virtually no taxes at all, and the bottom 50 percent pay less than 5 percent of the total taxes.
Let's get this straight. Top 5% pays over 50%, and the lower 50% pays less than 5%. Yet, the Democrats have the audacity to say the rich doesn't pay their fair share, and that by making it a little more reasonable in the tax code the Republicans are somehow trying to make the rich richer.
Also, consider that the rich more often than not tend to be business owners, who, when they have more profit after paying less in taxes, expand their businesses, and hire more employees - so it would seem reasonable to ease the burden a little in this time of economic upheaval.
Then here comes along Cap and Trade, also known as the Climate Bill, the Waxman-Markey Bill, and The American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (ACES) - HR 2454.
One of the provisions in the Cap and Trade Climate Bill is the issuance of carbon credits.
You know, that stuff you exhale, and trees use to make oxygen?
In an attempt to limit the size of corporate carbon footprints, a business is given a maximum of carbon credits that will be available for doing business. If the current structure exceeds that cap on carbon emissions, then the business must spend whatever money it takes to ensure the business comes into compliance. This, alone, will kill a whole slew of smaller companies who will not be able to bring their business into compliance without bankrupting themselves.
If a company wishes to expand operations, and with such an expansion will wind up releasing more carbons than the government imposed limit, the only way to expand legally would be to buy carbon credits from other companies willing to sell theirs because they have either too many credits for their needs, or are downsizing anyway. In a growing economy, the potential for growth will cause businesses to hang on to those credits, and if they were willing to sell them at all, the carbon credits would go to the highest bidder. The highest bidders will always be the mega corporations - meaning that smaller businesses, which are the life blood of this economy, will be unable to expand.
Killing the growth of small business will then doom the economy into a depression that, as the Democrats tried to proclaim this hiccup to be, will be much worse than anything we've seen in a century.
And if you look closely at the consequences of this Climate Bill, it is not difficult to realize that HR 2454 favors mega corporations.
First the Democrats jump up and down with excitement as the federal government bails out large corporations because they are "too big to fail." Now, the Democrat controlled White House and Congress is introducing a bill that will allow the richer corporations to get richer, and kill the growth of any smaller corporations.
And the Democrats say the Republicans have the big corporations in their back pockets?
Actions speak louder than words.
Fortunately, the Global Warming, Climate, Cap and Trade, economy killing, growth slaughtering bill has been delayed in the U.S. Senate - for now.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Income Tax Will Become More Progressive Under Obama Tax Plan - The Heritage Foundation, Curtis S. Dubay
Republicans, Pass The Working Poor Tax Relief Act! - GOP USA, Don Crawford
No Surprise: Global Warming Bill Delayed in Senate - The Heritage Foundation
Miracle Baby Ava
Little Ava Isabella Stinson was born three months early, and her birth weight was 2 pounds. Her parents, Natalie Paquette and Richard Stinson, after finding that there was no room in the Ontario, Canada hospital due to a lack of beds (so much for that government-run healthcare system being so wonderful) after little Ava was born, transferred the infant by ambulance to a hospital in Buffalo, New York (helicopter service was down due to a storm).
Stinson, a self-pronounced atheist, had his belief system shaken by the miracle of survival by little Ava, and now prays to God for Ava. He said in a phone interview, "I was an atheist. Now I’m considering going to church and being a believer. There's got to be someone up there who's saving our little daughter."
Tuesday morning, after a prayer for Ava, he later learned their baby was taken off the ventilator the day before - it was enough to make him a believer.
She still has a long way to go, but the little baby is slowly showing progress, and is a miracle baby that shook the atheism right out of Richard Stinson.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
by Douglas V. Gibbs
Women & Children’s cares for Ontario ‘miracle baby’ - Buffalo News, Gene Warner
Stinson, a self-pronounced atheist, had his belief system shaken by the miracle of survival by little Ava, and now prays to God for Ava. He said in a phone interview, "I was an atheist. Now I’m considering going to church and being a believer. There's got to be someone up there who's saving our little daughter."
Tuesday morning, after a prayer for Ava, he later learned their baby was taken off the ventilator the day before - it was enough to make him a believer.
She still has a long way to go, but the little baby is slowly showing progress, and is a miracle baby that shook the atheism right out of Richard Stinson.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
by Douglas V. Gibbs
Women & Children’s cares for Ontario ‘miracle baby’ - Buffalo News, Gene Warner
Obama The Elected Moron
By Alan Caruba
It’s not that long ago that former President George W. Bush was being characterized as a dimwit. In truth, because he was not a smooth talker, he often came across as less than a deep thinker. I am not sure the job requires a deep thinker because those who fit that description often turned out to be a disaster. The job’s best description is “leader.”
It is important to remember that the decade in which Bush served was one of consumer confidence, a healthy economy, marred initially by 9/11 and later by the decision to invade Iraq and depose a vicious despot who had warred with Iran and invaded Kuwait. Many Americans grew tired of the war and the subsequent occupation.
Only at the very end of Bush’s term, September 2008, did the nation suddenly encounter the financial turmoil that the mortgage “bubble” generated. It was long in coming and fearful in its immediate consequences. Congress voted a $700 billion bailout program for banks and insurance companies.
Candidate Obama had almost nothing to say about the crisis, but all during the campaign the mainstream media kept telling us that he had a giant IQ. He had already written two books, after all, even if both were about himself.
And, yes, he taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago, but few on the faculty have any recall of him. Indeed, his college transcripts, as well as his birth certificate, are all still carefully hidden from public view.
Read the Rest on American Daily Review
It’s not that long ago that former President George W. Bush was being characterized as a dimwit. In truth, because he was not a smooth talker, he often came across as less than a deep thinker. I am not sure the job requires a deep thinker because those who fit that description often turned out to be a disaster. The job’s best description is “leader.”
It is important to remember that the decade in which Bush served was one of consumer confidence, a healthy economy, marred initially by 9/11 and later by the decision to invade Iraq and depose a vicious despot who had warred with Iran and invaded Kuwait. Many Americans grew tired of the war and the subsequent occupation.
Only at the very end of Bush’s term, September 2008, did the nation suddenly encounter the financial turmoil that the mortgage “bubble” generated. It was long in coming and fearful in its immediate consequences. Congress voted a $700 billion bailout program for banks and insurance companies.
Candidate Obama had almost nothing to say about the crisis, but all during the campaign the mainstream media kept telling us that he had a giant IQ. He had already written two books, after all, even if both were about himself.
And, yes, he taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago, but few on the faculty have any recall of him. Indeed, his college transcripts, as well as his birth certificate, are all still carefully hidden from public view.
Read the Rest on American Daily Review
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)