The 33rd Annual Ventriloquist Convention, just south of Cincinnati in Fort Mitchell, Kentucky, made the news. It is the largest ventriloquism convention in the world, but that is not the reason for the attention. The fact that folks came from around the world to attend the event also had little to do with the sudden fascination with this convention.
The more than 400 performers brought their dummies along for the trip, and when the reference to the dummies was made, one of the conventioneers said, "They're wooden Americans. They don't call them dummies."
Excuse me? Did he just call a dummy, a lifeless puppet, a wooden American?
Since most stuff like this is made in China, wouldn't it be a "Wooden Made In China American?"
This is ridiculous stuff, right?
Maybe we ought to start calling bloggers Information Transfer Specialists.
Sand And Gravel Truck Drivers would be Sand And Gravel Relocation Specialists.
Jeez.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Dummies 'Speak' Out In Fort Mitchell - WLWT Channel 5
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Honest Scrap Award
Thank you, Call Me Mom (Irate, Tireless Minority) for bestowing the Honest Scrap Award on me on July 21. I couldn't be more honored, especially from a reader like Call Me Mom who visits and comments pretty regularly.
THE RULES
In accepting this award, I need to do the following:
1) Say thanks and give a link to the presenter of the award.
2) Share "ten honest things" about myself.
3) Present this award to 7 others whose blogs I find brilliant in content and/or design, or those who have encouraged me.
4) Tell those 7 people that they've been awarded HONEST SCRAP and inform them of these guidelines in receiving it.
My 10 honest things:
1.) I try to follow God's Will for my life, writing seems to be that direction so far.
2.) I am currently in the midst of many storms in my life - but like the disciples with Christ on the raging Sea of Galilee, I have to remember He never promised the trip would be a smooth one, only that He'd get us to the other side.
3.) My grandchildren are the magic in my life, and they give me joy whenever I am with them.
4.) I am averaging 2-3 hours sleep per night right now due to burning a number of candles at both ends. My wife is worried. Pain medication keeps me going.
5.) My children rebelled greatly, but both have been slowly returning to the foundations I laid for them as young children.
6.) I am excited about the day my wife and I will finally move to our property on the Oregon Coast.
7.) The nice thing about being the primary cook in the family (usually weekends and mid-week) is I usually get to eat my favorite dishes.
8.) The swimming pool has been a God-send during the hot summer months.
9.) The friendships I have made on the blogs and on Blog Talk Radio have become very dear to me - and many of those folks I have met and had lunch with.
10.) I have the greatest wife. I get up at 2:00 am usually and she gets up with me to make a lunch. If I get home later than my usual 6:30 pm, she will have hot food ready for me. When the pain begins to set in, she gives me rub downs and massages. And she does all of this without asking anything in return other than my love. They don't get much better than that. I have been blessed.
My 7 other blogs, in no particular order are:
1.) Radio Patriot - Andrea Shea King
2.) No Sheeples Here
3.) The O Word - Cary Cartter
4.) Gawfer
5.) Third Wave Dave
6.) Right Wing Guy
7.) Texas Darlin'
And I am going to repeat Call Me Mom's verse. . . "A man that hath friends must shew himself friendly: and there is a friend that sticketh closer than a brother." ~Prov. 18-24
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Douglas V. Gibbs
Government to Dictate What You Drive
Gaining control of the U.S. Auto Industry is only step one of the liberal Democrat's plans of controlling what you drive, how you drive, and how much you drive. Now that they have control of the automakers, the U.S. Government will dictate to them what kind of vehicles to produce.
Goodbye SUVs, big trucks, and anything big enough to be comfortable to ride in, or pull a boat with ease.
They are licking their chops with the possibilities of the roads covered with sub-compacts (shoeboxes with wheels would be safer) and tracks and tracks of public transportation.
And just to make sure you are behaving, the government is working on placing black boxes under your dashboards to track your mileage, usage, and whereabouts.
At this rate, you might as well slap the UPC symbol on my forehead right now.
What's next? Is the U.S Government going to outlaw big rigs too?
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Will feds use new power to dictate what you drive? - World Net Daily, Drew Zahn
Mainers invited to become track-your-car guinea pigs - The Portland Press Herald/Maine Sunday Telegram, Beth Quimby
Obama: Health Plan Does Not Add To Deficit
The New York Times reported that Barack Obama has said, "I want to be very clear, I will not sign on to any health plan that adds to our deficits over the next decade."
How does he know? He has already indicated he doesn't know what is in the bill. Besides, we are so deep into deficit spending, Obama couldn't go out and buy a hamburger without it adding to our deficits. Everything he is doing is now adding to our deficit.
Obama is making this claim because he thinks he can make sure the rich pay for the whole thing with an added surtax.
What if, like with every other government program, the health care legislation winds up costing more than the Democrats expect?
I believe the President of the United States is lying. He is lying because he knows that if people really understood what this piece of crap legislation was going to cost the American People, there would be riots.
He also claims the plan will cut hundreds of billions of dollars in unnecessary spending, which is another lie, or a severe miscalculation.
If Cap and Trade, and this Health Care Bill, passes, our economy will be so destroyed, Obama won't be able to replace any of his suicidal teleprompters without adding to the deficit.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Obama Says Health Plan Won’t Add to Deficit - The New York Times, Sheryl Gay Stolberg
Morning Bell: Obama Admits He’s “Not Familiar” With House Bill - The Heritage Foundation
How does he know? He has already indicated he doesn't know what is in the bill. Besides, we are so deep into deficit spending, Obama couldn't go out and buy a hamburger without it adding to our deficits. Everything he is doing is now adding to our deficit.
Obama is making this claim because he thinks he can make sure the rich pay for the whole thing with an added surtax.
What if, like with every other government program, the health care legislation winds up costing more than the Democrats expect?
I believe the President of the United States is lying. He is lying because he knows that if people really understood what this piece of crap legislation was going to cost the American People, there would be riots.
He also claims the plan will cut hundreds of billions of dollars in unnecessary spending, which is another lie, or a severe miscalculation.
If Cap and Trade, and this Health Care Bill, passes, our economy will be so destroyed, Obama won't be able to replace any of his suicidal teleprompters without adding to the deficit.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Obama Says Health Plan Won’t Add to Deficit - The New York Times, Sheryl Gay Stolberg
Morning Bell: Obama Admits He’s “Not Familiar” With House Bill - The Heritage Foundation
CEI encourages including suppressed EPA Report
The Competitive Enterprise Institute, while the U.S. Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) reevaluates its recommendations for taxpayer funded ocean research, is submitting to the agency a request for them to consider the EPA's recent report (which was suppressed by the EPA itself) which provides evidence that man-made global warming may not be a valid issue.
Although I applaud CEI's efforts, I believe the agency will reject CEI's request because all of the climate change funding and legislation has nothing to do with climate. The truth is not important to these people. This is all another way to tax, and control.
Environmental agencies are more interesting in getting their funding, in any manner they can, and environmental groups are interested in getting their monies, any way they can - and the truth is simply an obstacle that needs not be addressed if addressing it could result in less funding.
If Obama was really a president about "Change" he would look into the accusations that man-made global warming is false, and has no evidence supporting it. However, he will not do so because he, like the rest of the mindless leftward zombies out there, truly believes that our less than 1% contribution of greenhouse gases is enough to alter the entire global temperature.
Never mind the fact that the globe has warmed and cooled many times long before the first industrial smokestack burped out its first carbon, or that the worldwide temperatures have been decreasing over the last half dozen years.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
CEI Injects Suppressed EPA Global Warming Report into White House Science Proceeding - Competitive Enterprise Institute, Christine Hall
Obama Not Familiar with Health Care Bill
The American Public has been outraged about Obama's attempt to force nationalized healthcare them, or for that matter, his poor handling of the economy. In order to try to win a little support, Obama has been sending his people out to conduct townhall meetings, and he has been hosting conference calls. In one such conference call with liberal bloggers, a blogger from Maine said that he kept coming across articles from Investor's Business Daily that claimed Section 102 of the House health legislation would outlaw private insurance. If this was true, it contradicts what Obama has been saying all along about people being able to keep their own insurance if they so desire. What was Obama's response?
Obama said, "You know, I have to say that I am not familiar with the provision you are talking about."
Barack Obama has been quoted as saying a number of times, "If you have health insurance, and you like it, and you have a doctor that you like, then you can keep it. Period."
Yet suddenly he is not sure if there is a provision in his own Health Care Bill that would outlaw private insurance?
The truth is that H.R. 3200 does not outlaw the private health insurance industry. However, the federal government getting into the health insurance game will, in the long run, effectively regulate private individual health insurance out of existence. The cost of private insurance will sky-rocket, and the ability for the private system to compete against a government that does not have to worry about profit-margins will destroy the private industry, and eventually lead to all Americans not having a choice but to participate in the government system. The government system, then overrun with participants, will slowly deteriorate to the point that healthcare will be rationed, quality will lessen, waiting times will increase, and the hope of eliminating such a failed system will be nearly impossible.
The concern here, once again, is not whether or not Obamacare will outlaw private insurance, but if after promising that his system won't outlaw private care, Obama admitting he wasn't sure - meaning he is not fully familiar with a healthcare plan he is pushing.
The reason for his inability to recall anything regarding the bill, even though what he can't recall is in direct conflict with his past promises, is because he really doesn't care. The reason for his Healthcare Plan, Cap and Trade, stimulus packages, or anything else he does, has nothing to do with hoping to fix the economy, or helping he American People. All Obama cares about is ultimately destroying the private system with such policies, and replacing it with his own nationalized system.
Obama is bringing "change" all right. He means to change the American Form of Government to something the Founding Fathers never intended it to be.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
It's Not An Option - Investors Business Daily
Does the House Plan Outlaw Private Insurance? - The Heritage Foundation
Obama Calls On Bloggers To Keep Health Care Pressure On Congress (AUDIO) - The Huffington Post
President Is Set to 'Take the Baton', As Skepticism on Health Reform Mounts, He Will Intensify His Efforts - Washington Post
Poll: Less faith in Obama's economic abilities - USA Today
Morning Bell: Obama Admits He’s “Not Familiar” With House Bill - The Heritage Foundation
Obama said, "You know, I have to say that I am not familiar with the provision you are talking about."
Barack Obama has been quoted as saying a number of times, "If you have health insurance, and you like it, and you have a doctor that you like, then you can keep it. Period."
Yet suddenly he is not sure if there is a provision in his own Health Care Bill that would outlaw private insurance?
The truth is that H.R. 3200 does not outlaw the private health insurance industry. However, the federal government getting into the health insurance game will, in the long run, effectively regulate private individual health insurance out of existence. The cost of private insurance will sky-rocket, and the ability for the private system to compete against a government that does not have to worry about profit-margins will destroy the private industry, and eventually lead to all Americans not having a choice but to participate in the government system. The government system, then overrun with participants, will slowly deteriorate to the point that healthcare will be rationed, quality will lessen, waiting times will increase, and the hope of eliminating such a failed system will be nearly impossible.
The concern here, once again, is not whether or not Obamacare will outlaw private insurance, but if after promising that his system won't outlaw private care, Obama admitting he wasn't sure - meaning he is not fully familiar with a healthcare plan he is pushing.
The reason for his inability to recall anything regarding the bill, even though what he can't recall is in direct conflict with his past promises, is because he really doesn't care. The reason for his Healthcare Plan, Cap and Trade, stimulus packages, or anything else he does, has nothing to do with hoping to fix the economy, or helping he American People. All Obama cares about is ultimately destroying the private system with such policies, and replacing it with his own nationalized system.
Obama is bringing "change" all right. He means to change the American Form of Government to something the Founding Fathers never intended it to be.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
It's Not An Option - Investors Business Daily
Does the House Plan Outlaw Private Insurance? - The Heritage Foundation
Obama Calls On Bloggers To Keep Health Care Pressure On Congress (AUDIO) - The Huffington Post
President Is Set to 'Take the Baton', As Skepticism on Health Reform Mounts, He Will Intensify His Efforts - Washington Post
Poll: Less faith in Obama's economic abilities - USA Today
Morning Bell: Obama Admits He’s “Not Familiar” With House Bill - The Heritage Foundation
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
California to Release 27,000 Inmates from Prisons
The state budget in California has been agreed upon, and in that budget is a plan to reduce the number of inmates in California prisons by nearly 27,000. Some of those prisoners will not be released straight out, but finish their sentences in home detention, and rehabilitation programs. In the case of home detention, the use of electronic monitoring would be in play. Estimates are that about 6,300 could do time this way. The plan will also scale back on parole supervision for less serious offenders.
The proposal is supposed to save a total of $1.2 billion in the coming year, but how much of that will wind up being spent in the long run because the prisoners released become repeat offenders, and word of a more relaxed prison system reaches the streets and encourages more crime?
The plan also includes a proposal to change some felonies to misdemeanors so inmates could go to county jails instead of prisons. In other words, transfer the problem to the local jails, ensuring that local venues that are also already overcrowded will house more serious offenders with those that commit lesser crimes.
Less severe sentences, and less serious classifications for crimes, removes a deterrent that keeps many potential criminals from committing crimes in the first place. One result of these more relaxed sentencing standards will be an increase in the crime rate, and a more severe prison population problem, which ultimately will cost the state more.
Counties are expected to receive a total of $45 million in the coming year, from federal stimulus funds, to keep inmates on probation instead of sending them to prison, as well. Again, creating an environment more apt to increase crime rates, rather than reduce them.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
State budget deal reduces prison inmates by 27,000 - Los Angeles Times, Michael Rothfeld
Presidential Eligibility of Barack Obama
Tonight on the Andrea Shea King show the guest was U.S. Army reservist Maj. Stefan Cook, accompanied by his lawyer, Dr. Orly Taitz. Major Cook is the military man that balked at deployment with the reason that he shouldn't have to go overseas under the orders of an ineligible Commander in Chief. "Barack Obama was never eligible to be president because he wasn’t born in the United States."
Cook's lawyer, Dr. Orly Taitz, has been one of the folks bringing cases against Obama, asking that he provide proof of his eligibility, as well.
Philip J. Berg, and a host of others, have also brought cases asking for Barack Obama to prove his eligibility to be President of the United States.
There is an alleged fake being produced by the Obama Administration at this very moment to quiet all dissent, says a number of bloggers.
Congressman Bill Posey introduced bill HR 1503 that requires all candidates for President in the future to provide documentation (such as a birth certificate) to prove they are natural born citizens of the United States, which, by the way, is a requirement of the U.S. Constitution.
In each of the previous instances, the persons bringing up Obama's eligibility are being lambasted by the media and late night comics. And the assault isn't only coming from the liberal left. Many Republicans and conservative talkers are hammering these people for even bringing up the question of whether or not Barack Hussein Obama is eligible to be President of the United States.
I remember Michael Medved saying on his show once that the issue "makes Conservatives look dumb."
Whether Barack Obama was born in Kenya, Indonesia, or Hawaii, proof of his birthplace, among other things, is a necessary part of becoming president of this nation. I don't know if Obama was born where he says he was, or somewhere else. I don't know if the birth certificate provided on the Daily KOS is legitimate, or not. I don't even know if Obama cares to prove anything at anytime in the future.
Here is what I do know:
- When the question regarding Obama's eligibility first came up, it was pooh-pooh'd away, and brushed under the rug.
- When the demand for a birth certificate reached a critical point, one was produced. However, the item produced was a short form that did not show hospital or delivering physician, and the document was produced by a liberal website, rather than the Obama team itself.
- When the outcry regarding the authenticity of the short-form birth certificate provided by the Daily KOS reached Obama, all of his records were sealed, and a dozen lawyers were hired to combat the coming wave of legal inquiries. It is alleged that the Obama camp has spent nearly one million dollars to fight the questions about his eligibility.
- The media, despite their willingness to dig deep into the lives of Joe the Plumber, Sarah Palin, and anyone else considered a threat against Obama, has refused to even pay the issue the slightest attention.
The actions of Obama, the media, and those around this issue is enough to send up red flags. The answer to the question is no longer a question. By refusing to address this issue head on, when the U.S. Constitution demands that he does, Obama has made it more and more difficult to believe he is eligible to be President of the United States.
I don't believe this is the last we will see of this issue - especially since now we are seeing members of the United States Military question whether or not they should even follow the orders of this presidential fraud.
- - Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
US ARMY MAJ. STEFAN COOK TELLS HIS SIDE OF THE STORY - The Andrea Shea King Show
Soldier balks at deploying; says Obama isn’t president - Ledger Enquirer
Pentagon orders soldier fired for challenging prez, Army warrior terminated from job after questioning Obama eligibility - World Net Daily, Chelsea Schilling and Joe Kovacs
'Get out of war free' card - World Net Daily, Vox Day
What's the difference? Compare 'long-form' Hawaiian birth certificate with Obama's - World Net Daily
Hospital won't back Obama birth claim, Honolulu's Kapi'olani Medical Center refuses to confirm White House letter - World Net Daily, Jerome Corsi
Obama Birth Certificate Forgery - Political Pistachio, Douglas V. Gibbs
H.R. 1503
Bill Posey's H.R. 1503 Explained - TCPalm
Official Blog for Dr. Orly Taitz Esquire
Obama's Christian head of the National Institute of Health
I am reading for the second time a book called "Heaven Without Her," by Kitty Foth-Regner, which is a memoir about a woman's journey from feministic, leftist atheism to the faith of her mother. Now, Kitty is a passionate Christian who understands that the faith of her mother was more than just a mere belief.
In Chapter 14, Kitty comes to grips with science, and the apparent anti-Christian agenda that science claims to represent. This fervor to prove there is no God has pushed some scientists into conjuring up ideas that are not only ludicrous, but defy the principles of science in the first place. Evolution is one such example.
Kitty writes on page 105: "For one thing, evolution theory broke all kinds of natural laws that modern scientists claimed to agree on - laws that I had actually learned somewhere along the way and had conveniently forgotten. For example: Something cannot come from nothing, according to the law of cause and effect. Yet that's what the evolutionary big bang theory requires. Life only comes from life, according to the law of biogenesis - not from non-life. Yet evolution theory says that it was nonlife that jump-started life in some long-ago, faraway chemical soup. Nothing improves with time, according to the second law of thermodynamics. On the contrary: everything clearly deteriorates. Yet evolution theory requires just the opposite."
She later also explains her discovery about how the major evolutionary evidences associated with the Scopes trial had been bogus, and her realization that no transitional fossils have been discovered.
Evolutionists are so adamant about proving their "theory" that they are willing to lie and cheat to accomplish the feat.
The problem is, some aspects of science ceased to be about science long ago, and the direction they took was simply to disprove God. In the scientific community, religion is the enemy, and religious bigotry is rampant.
Prejudice against anything religious reared its ugly head in the scientific community when President Barack Obama dared to appoint Dr. Francis Collins as the head of the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Collins is the man that led the team of scientists that successfully mapped the human genome. His other professional qualifications and accomplishments, in addition to his part in the mapping of the human genome, makes him a more than qualified candidate for head of the National Institute of Health. Despite his qualifications, however, Dr. Collins has received less than enthusiasm from the scientific community over President Obama's appointment of him. Why all of the skepticism?
Dr. Francis Collins is a Christian, and not just any Christian, but an Evangelical Christian to boot.
oh, the horror of it all . . .
Science has this idiotic belief that science removes the need for a God, and that Christians believe the Bible somehow requires us to reject much of modern science.
In reality, the Bible came up with what scientists are discovering long before science even exhaled its first breath. Verses throughout the Holy Scripture addresses the laws of science regarding biogenesis, the 1st and 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, the Law of Cause and Effect, astronomy, geophysics, geology, Principle of Isostasy, hydrology, hydrolic balance, meteorology, biology, circulatory systems, painless surgery by placing the patient into a deep sleep, the microscopic world, nutrition, and physics to name a few.
The tension between science and "theism" is a relatively new concept, actually, because science first emerged because humanity wished to learn more about the world God had given us. Even the minds of Plato and Aristotle, long taught to be champions of secularism, operated with the attitude that our existence came from the creative workings of a divine being. Theology has long been the engine behind science, and the scientific search for truth has been motivated by the belief that humanity's ability to reason was a gift from God so that we could gain knowledge about him, and the world around us. Some Christian scientists would even tell you that the extraordinary "coincidences" that make intelligent life possible including the fine tuning of physics is one thing; but our location in the universe, in our galaxy, and in our solar system, as well as size and rotation of the Earth, mass of the moon and sun and so forth not only make this a habitable planet, but these conditions also give humanity a well-suited position for viewing and analyzing the universe. In other words, the universe has been literally designed for our discovery.
In this way, it is not only foolish for the scientific community to proclaim that religion and science have no common ground in the quest for knowledge, but their unwillingness to consider biblical belief systems as a possible hypothesis is holding science back.
So, I am going to give credit where credit is due. President Obama not only chose a fantastic head for the National Institutes of Health because of his credentials, but it is to Barry's credit that he was not put off by Dr. Collins' faith while the rest of the scientific community fumes over the audacity of the choice of a Christian scientist.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Francis Collins, Geneticist - Wikipedia
Contrary to beliefs, not all scientists are godless materialists - The Olympian
Why the Fuss About Dr. Francis Collins’ Faith? - Sojourners
Is The Bible Reliable Scientifically?
Muslim Takeover of America
Whenever the accusation is made that Islam is moving to dominate Europe, and eventually takeover America as well, all kinds of skepticism and argument comes out of the woodwork. In fact, on NewsMax, there was an article making such a proclamation, and the response labeled the writers as scaremongers, and that their assumption about Islam is all wrong.
If that is the case, then why is it Muslims proving the "scaremongers" correct?
Islamic speakers continually make statements like "Shariah Takes Precedence over U.S. Constitution," and that Muslims will fight "Until Islam Becomes Victorious or We Die in the Attempt."
I am taking what they say at face value. I would be a fool not to.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
If that is the case, then why is it Muslims proving the "scaremongers" correct?
Islamic speakers continually make statements like "Shariah Takes Precedence over U.S. Constitution," and that Muslims will fight "Until Islam Becomes Victorious or We Die in the Attempt."
I am taking what they say at face value. I would be a fool not to.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Monday, July 20, 2009
Fiscal Responsibility of the Democrats
Recovery dot gov exists to show where the money the government is spending is going. Obama has promised us he will cut wasteful spending, and bring fiscal responsibility back to Washington.
On Obama's own website, the truth is clear - the government is spending money irresponsibly.
Note in the website linked below the cost of repairing a door . . . Yes, that is right, nearly $1.5 million.
Recovery.gov
Now, hey, maybe it is a high tech door. . . but is that cost reasonable?
Like I keep saying, the economy and government spending is of no concern to these people - everything they do is simply for the expansion of government in an attempt to "change" the American Form of Government into a system that compromises individual liberty, and ensures that the populace becomes completely dependant upon the federal government.
Worse than Marxism.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
On Obama's own website, the truth is clear - the government is spending money irresponsibly.
Note in the website linked below the cost of repairing a door . . . Yes, that is right, nearly $1.5 million.
Recovery.gov
Now, hey, maybe it is a high tech door. . . but is that cost reasonable?
Like I keep saying, the economy and government spending is of no concern to these people - everything they do is simply for the expansion of government in an attempt to "change" the American Form of Government into a system that compromises individual liberty, and ensures that the populace becomes completely dependant upon the federal government.
Worse than Marxism.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Religion of Peace in Dearborn, Michigan
Arab Festival 2009, Sharia in the United States
VIDEO
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Douglas V. Gibbs
VIDEO
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Douglas V. Gibbs
Flat Earth Christians
I was in a heated debate with a far-left liberal acquaintance of mine and he says to me, "That's the problem with you flat-Earth, Bible thumping Christians - you are narrow minded and unwilling to recognize that not only is the Earth not the center of the universe, but that there is nothing special about Earth. Hell, you people even persecuted Galileo for daring to come to scientific conclusions that didn't agree with the Church."
The statement was so laden with untruths, I didn't even know where to start.
People like my liberal friend loves to call Christian Conservatives Narrow-minded, yet these are the people with such a narrow mind that they are unwilling to give God a chance in their lives. Their agenda is about the destruction of Christianity, and the removal of "organized" religion from the face of the Earth. Could you imagine if I went around declaring I wished to force atheism out of the schools, and out of the public square?
These people operate on a double standard.
In order to achieve their goals, facts and the truth get in the way, so they must create lies, and then convince you they are the truth, in order to win their way. Then, what happens is they repeat the lies so many times that even they begin to believe the lies are the truth. My friend's statement at the opening of this piece is laden with those untruths.
For example, he called me a flat-Earth Christian.
The lie that is taught to each and every one of us as children is that the people of Europe believed the Earth was flat before Columbus dared to challenge that line of thinking - and that the flat-Earth theory came from the Christian Church leadership based on some Bible verse that nobody has yet to provide me with.
The truth is, scholars at the time of Columbus knew the Earth was a sphere. The ancient Greeks knew it was a sphere. Christians had determined the Earth was a sphere thousands of years before through biblical text.
Isaiah of the Old Testament, which dates back to a little over seven hundred years before Christ, tells us the Earth is a sphere in plain language. "It is he that sitteth upon the CIRCLE of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in." --Isaiah 40:22
In the original text the word used for Circle in this passage is a Hebrew word: "chuwg", which specifically means "sphere".
Likewise, in the New Testament, Luke 17:34-36 the verses telling of the coming rapture read: 34 I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left. 35 Two women shall be grinding together; the one shall be taken, and the other left. 36 Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
Notice in the first verse it is night, and in the other two verses it is daytime. Only on a spherical Earth could it be night and day simultaneously on different locations of the Earth. If there was any flat-Earth Christians during the years shortly before Columbus made his trip, they didn't know their Bible real well.
Believing the Earth is the center of the universe would also not be a typical Christian opinion. In fact, that would be a belief you would expect from the "enlightened ones" since they were the ones always exalting humanity. Unlike other religions, Christianity does not rely on "self-righteousness." Righteous deeds do not get a Christian to Heaven, according to Christian doctrine. Muslims believe they must pray five times a day, fast, and be a martyr if they desire a fast track to Heaven. Hindus believe you must do things to escape the continuous spiral of reincarnation. Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses also declare that it is only possible to reach the highest level of whatever part of Heaven they deem to exist by your works. Christian's believe that God's standard is impossible for humans to reach because His standard is perfection. We try to do the right thing, but to use our actions as a means to Heaven is like bribing God, and bribery doesn't work with Him. Our imperfection, according to the Christian Faith, makes us unworthy, and it is only because the price for our sin was paid through Christ's death that we even have the opportunity to be in God's presence. Ephesians 2:8-9 (King James Version) 8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9 Not of works, lest any man should boast. Doesn't sound like a bunch of folks that would raise humanity up on a pedestal as the center of the universe, does it?
The age of Enlightenment made man the measure of all things, putting humans at the center of everything. Christian theology never placed man in the center of anything. When it was discovered that the Earth was not the center of the universe as The Enlightenment taught, the story by science was later retold saying the Church, despite evidence to the contrary, put humans in the center. And to this day that little white lie is still taught to our children in schools.
As for Galileo, his condemnation had nothing to do with the Church rejecting Galileo's belief the Earth revolved around the Sun. As you can see from what we have already discussed, the Church was willing to accept such a finding, for the Christian Faith did not place man in the center, and the spherical nature of the Earth and the planets was already understood based on Biblical text. Galileo's problems with the church resulted in a much more complex interplay that involved political circumstances, political ambitions, and huge egos. Galileo insisted the church accept all of his findings without question, of which the church did not. Galileo himself later proclaimed the major cause of his troubles, according to the writings of Historical Researcher Philip J. Sampson, was that he made fun of Pope Urban VIII, partially for not being willing to accept Galileo's demands. As a result, "Galileo suffered an honorable detention and a mild reproof, before dying peacefully in his bed."
Hardly the persecution we are taught.
As for the statement by my acquaintance that there is nothing special about the Earth, many physicists, astronomers, and cosmologists would beg to differ. Science wishes to convince us that the Earth is not special, and that there could be many such planets teeming with life in the universe, in order to discredit the notion of a Creator. Based on science, however, it turns out that Earth is very exceptional, indeed. In Chapter seven of the book, The Case for a Creator, Lee Strobel states that "Earth's location, its size, its composition, its structure, its atmosphere, its temperature, its internal dynamics, and its many intricate cycles are essential to life - the carbon cycle, the oxygen cycle, the nitrogen cycle, the phosphorous cycle, the sulfur cycle, the calcium cycle, the sodium cycle, and so on - testify to the degree to which our planet is exquisitely and precariously balanced."
The Earth is hardly ordinary.
So, to my debate mate, before you say something as ignorant as is quoted in the first paragraph of this post in response, I suggest you learn the truth first, instead of jumping to conclusions based on the subjective lies you have been taught by the indoctrination centers also known as the public school system.
I'm just trying to look out for you.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Landing on the Moon 40th Anniversary
I was much too young to realize the gravity of the event, but I certainly learned much about the lunar landing on July 20, 1969 as my life progressed.
Minds like those of H.G. Wells and C.S. Lewis wrote books about the possibility of visiting the moon, and some of the earliest movies entertained the awe inspiring thought. The only problem was how we would be able to defy gravity to get there in the first place, be it through some anti-gravity chemical painted on the panels of a giant sphere, or by using an oversize gun to shoot the capsule into space.
Then, along came the rocket.
The race for space became a political one. John F. Kennedy made it his goal to put an American Astronaut into space, and ultimately on the moon.
During Lyndon B. Johnson's presidency, the lunar landing became a reality.
Neil Armstrong was the first to take a step onto the lunar landscape.
I don't remember that moment, but my parents do. I was too busy playing with my link-n-logs, or stacking blocks, probably, to care that history was being made. I wasn't watching the small black and white television screen in our little living room when Neil Armstrong stepped off the Apollo 11 lunar module and onto the moon's surface and said his now famous line: "That's one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind."
But I was alive, and that event fascinated me for the next forty years as I grew to understand the importance of that day.
Today is the 40th anniversary of the moonwalk, and the memories of that historic voyage has ignited the memories, and the imagination, of a generation that dreamed with the astronauts. It was a day of pride. It was exciting to be an American, as that American Flag (with wire in it to make the stars and stripes visible on the windless moon surface) was planted into the moon's soil.
Within a year or two, I was fully aware of the event, and hoped that one day I may be able to do the same.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Nation of Winners
America is a nation of winners, despite the federal government, not because of it. - Douglas V. Gibbs
"Why Winners Win," an article by Rich Tucker, got my mind thinking simply by its title. I am an advocate for personal responsibility. I believe that America is great because the Founding Father's had the wisdom to create a system that allows its citizens to keep most of what they earn, and while they were at it, the Founding Fathers were adamant about protecting private property.
Nobody can run my life better than I. My successes, as well as my failures, should belong to me.
There is a belief that success is not the result of personal decisions, hard work, and a little luck along the way. Statists would have you believe that without the community, and the government, you would be destined to land straight in the gutter. As for the truly fortunate, the people who reach the highest echelon of success, as far as the statist is concerned, those people could only have acheived their lofty position in life through ruthless greed and predatory activities.
Except those that support the Liberal Agenda - those folks are all right by the Democratic Leadership.
Winners win not because of the helping hands along the way, although those associations are important. If the individual did not strive for success - if the individual was not willing to rise above the rest - they would not become an acheiver.
Human nature dictates that the status quo is not good enough. Some people desire more, and they should have the freedom to pursue such an opportunity. Should these risk takers achieve, then it should be theirs to keep. Success should not be something punished because others along the way failed.
There are successes and there are failures. Those that fail have the opportunity to try again. All of the achievers are former failures. Success is reached after numerous failures, and a driving desire to keep trying until success is achieved.
Today's federal government wishes to stifle this. Personal responsibility must be punished for not being willing to feel guilty for the losers left behind. Poverty must be nursed, and those not in poverty must pay for it.
Liberals would say that conservatives do not care about the poor because we do not support entitlement programs. Conservatives, however, do care. We practice tough love. Rather than give the downtrodden an excuse for remaining at the bottom, we wish to give them the incentive, and the opportunity, to stick their neck out and succeed. Providing for their every need through entitlement programs does not accomplish that. All it does is teach them to remain dependent upon the state.
Winners win because they do not desire to lose. Losers lose because they have been given an opportunity to depend on the government, rather than try again.
The federal government encourages failure, and then blames the Right on failing to feel sorry for the failed. What a vicious deception.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
"Why Winners Win," an article by Rich Tucker, got my mind thinking simply by its title. I am an advocate for personal responsibility. I believe that America is great because the Founding Father's had the wisdom to create a system that allows its citizens to keep most of what they earn, and while they were at it, the Founding Fathers were adamant about protecting private property.
Nobody can run my life better than I. My successes, as well as my failures, should belong to me.
There is a belief that success is not the result of personal decisions, hard work, and a little luck along the way. Statists would have you believe that without the community, and the government, you would be destined to land straight in the gutter. As for the truly fortunate, the people who reach the highest echelon of success, as far as the statist is concerned, those people could only have acheived their lofty position in life through ruthless greed and predatory activities.
Except those that support the Liberal Agenda - those folks are all right by the Democratic Leadership.
Winners win not because of the helping hands along the way, although those associations are important. If the individual did not strive for success - if the individual was not willing to rise above the rest - they would not become an acheiver.
Human nature dictates that the status quo is not good enough. Some people desire more, and they should have the freedom to pursue such an opportunity. Should these risk takers achieve, then it should be theirs to keep. Success should not be something punished because others along the way failed.
There are successes and there are failures. Those that fail have the opportunity to try again. All of the achievers are former failures. Success is reached after numerous failures, and a driving desire to keep trying until success is achieved.
Today's federal government wishes to stifle this. Personal responsibility must be punished for not being willing to feel guilty for the losers left behind. Poverty must be nursed, and those not in poverty must pay for it.
Liberals would say that conservatives do not care about the poor because we do not support entitlement programs. Conservatives, however, do care. We practice tough love. Rather than give the downtrodden an excuse for remaining at the bottom, we wish to give them the incentive, and the opportunity, to stick their neck out and succeed. Providing for their every need through entitlement programs does not accomplish that. All it does is teach them to remain dependent upon the state.
Winners win because they do not desire to lose. Losers lose because they have been given an opportunity to depend on the government, rather than try again.
The federal government encourages failure, and then blames the Right on failing to feel sorry for the failed. What a vicious deception.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Love and War
By PatriotGreg
The position of Jesus Christ regarding war, it is not clearly specified in the New Testament of the Bible. Jesus Christ always taught love and peace, to the point of telling us that we should even love our enemies. But the times Jesus Christ lived on earth, Israel was an occupied territory by the Roman Empire, and even as He makes some comments and references about it, His position was never a political or military one. To properly appreciate and understand the biblical position regarding war, we must look at the whole Bible and the teachings of God through many prophets, kings and military leaders. The Bible consists of the Old Testament and the New Testament. The Old Testament is full of instances where God Himself has instructed His people, Israel to go to war against its enemies. Furthermore, the manner in which those wars were to be conducted would be considered by today's men's standards, barbaric and criminal, since often God instructed Israel not only to kill the enemies (soldiers) but also their women, children and livestock, and burn down and destroy their homes and settlements, their crops and their lands. Things are different in the New Testament, where the emphasis is made on love, peace, in helping others and even sacrifice for them. And yet, we believe in one God who is the same, yesterday, today and forever, and who changes not.
Read the Rest on The Christian Patriot
The position of Jesus Christ regarding war, it is not clearly specified in the New Testament of the Bible. Jesus Christ always taught love and peace, to the point of telling us that we should even love our enemies. But the times Jesus Christ lived on earth, Israel was an occupied territory by the Roman Empire, and even as He makes some comments and references about it, His position was never a political or military one. To properly appreciate and understand the biblical position regarding war, we must look at the whole Bible and the teachings of God through many prophets, kings and military leaders. The Bible consists of the Old Testament and the New Testament. The Old Testament is full of instances where God Himself has instructed His people, Israel to go to war against its enemies. Furthermore, the manner in which those wars were to be conducted would be considered by today's men's standards, barbaric and criminal, since often God instructed Israel not only to kill the enemies (soldiers) but also their women, children and livestock, and burn down and destroy their homes and settlements, their crops and their lands. Things are different in the New Testament, where the emphasis is made on love, peace, in helping others and even sacrifice for them. And yet, we believe in one God who is the same, yesterday, today and forever, and who changes not.
Read the Rest on The Christian Patriot
Sunday, July 19, 2009
CNBC Family Special - Porn: Business of Pleasure
July 15th CNBC presented their family hour special, "Porn: Business of Pleasure."
A horrific broadcasting decision, NBC is flaunting the industry of debauchery as if it should be common viewing. This television program on a station that is easily accessible, and is not a Premium Channel, is a symptomatic example of the rapidly deteriorating level of family values and morality in America.
Robert Peters, President of Morality In America, suggests this is just the beginning of a trend that could lead to more obscene programs in the future. What is the next logical step? Legalization of what imprisons one today? Will we be seeing documentaries on CNBC-like cable networks on Child Porn next?
Peters says, "Our nation's constitutional obscenity laws have not been enforced vigorously since the Reagan/Bush administrations, but that doesn't mean they can't be successfully enforced again."
Join us live tonight on Political Pistachio Radio as we invite Robert Peters to explain to us what is going on, and how we can resolve America's rapid descent into the waters of immorality.
We will air live tonight at 7pm Pacific. You may catch the program live, or on archive later on BlogTalkRadio.com/PoliticalPistachio.
Wise Conservatism Guest Host
Today at noon Pacific I will be the guest host of Wise Conservatism Radio.
Join us live, I would love to hear from you.
Blogtalkradio.com/wiseconservatism
Combating Gun Control: Tennessee Gun Law Declared Invalid By Fed
Montana and Tennessee have both passed laws to get the federal government out of their business regarding firearms. In Tennessee, General Assembly Bill 1796 (Tennessee Firearms Freedom Act) states that "any firearms or ammunition manufactured within the state and legally owned and kept within the state by citizens are not subject to federal law or federal regulation, including registration due to provisions in the Second, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments to the United States Constitution."
Sounds reasonable. It cuts the Commerce Clause completely out of the picture (not that it should have been used in the first place regarding federal gun control).
There seems to be this erroneous belief floating around among some folks that claim to know all about federal law, without understanding the text of the U.S. Constitution, that federal law supersedes state law.
In fact, that is how the federal government responded to Tennessee's law. Tennessee received a response from Assistant Director Carson W. Carroll of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives on July 16 that said, "Federal law supersedes the Act, and all provisions of the Gun Control Act and the National Firearms Act, and their corresponding regulations, continue to apply."
Wrong!
The Second Amendment does not allow the federal government to infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear Arms in any way - meaning the federal government cannot limit ownership of firearms in any way. Gun laws are a choice for the states to make, not the feds.
In the U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8 enumerates the powers of the federal government. Section 10 details what the states cannot do. The Ninth Amendment negates any expansion of governmental power on account of the enumeration of rights in the Constitution. The Tenth Amendment indicates that if an issue is not delegated to the federal government, or prohibited to the States by the Constitution, whatever it is, the issue is a State issue.
Pretty clear. Doesn't take a lawyer to understand it because the Constitution was written for We The People. States have the power to govern over their residents without federal encroachment. The federal government is limited, and if the issue is not mentioned as a power of the federal government, it is a State issue - period.
Then the federal government has this thing about the third clause of Article I, Section 8, also known lovingly as the Commerce Clause. Specifically, the clause reads: "[The Congress shall have power] To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes. . . "
The intention of this clause was to settle disputes regarding trade, not to stick the federal government's hands into anything that crosses state lines.
I am curious what Tennessee's response will be. I hope their response emphasizes state sovereignty. That would be the Constitutional thing to do.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Feds Declare Tennessee Gun Law Invalid - Dprogram.net
From Russia With No Love
Obama handshake is continuously rejected in Russia - funny stuff - look at Barry's face. . . he is clearly confused. He is used to being worshipped, not ignored.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Saturday, July 18, 2009
Make Mine Freedom
Old Cartoon clears up the isms. . . and defends the Free Market System
Should be required viewing for all Obama voters . . . A dose of truth may "change" their minds.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Should be required viewing for all Obama voters . . . A dose of truth may "change" their minds.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Bob Rinear talks about Franken, Cyber Attacks, and Statism
Cyber Czar to be selected to investigate Cyber Attacks - given the authority to shut down the Internet and private networks. . .
Comedian Al Franken becomes number 60 - providing a historic filibuster-proof supermajority. What kind of economic impact could Franken's presence in the Senate encourage?
Join us tonight at 7 pm Pacific for the answers on Political Pistachio Radio
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)