Obama Lifestyle Hypocrite

Get Liberty

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Barack Obama, Anti-Christ Superstar

I do not believe that Barack Obama is the anti-Christ. In fact, I do not believe the identity of the anti-Christ will be revealed until after the advent of the rapture of the Christian Church. There are no biblical passages that convince me otherwise. Even Satan himself does not know the indentity of the anti-Christ. After all, Satan is not omnipotent, and therefore cannot possibly know the details of the future as does God. Since Lucifer does not know the future, he could not possibly know the identity of the anti-Christ.

That said, I found the following video very fascinating. If the language peculiarities mentioned in the video are true, it makes one wonder deeply about the significance of one, Barack Hussein Obama.



VIDEO

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Definition Natural Born Citizens

Growing up one of the truths I learned along the way is that if people start freaking out with hateful responses it means you have probably touched a chord. When you touch a nerve in that manner, more often than not it means there is a speck of truth in what was said. This may not always be true, but often it is.

In an Email thread I am a part of a blog post by Third Wave Dave called "A CHALLENGE TO BILL O'REILLY, ED MORRISSEY, AND SENATOR JIM DeMINT" became the topic of discussion. In the piece Dave simply asks that if Obama's birth records are in order, and Obama is a Natural Born Citizen, then why is it that with the last group of presidents each and every one of their birthplaces are known, to the detail, in the sense of exact address, attending physicians, etc., but with Barack Obama, all we have is a computerized birth certificate provided by websites (rather than by Obama) that gives only the city of Honolulu, Hawaii. Granted, in an attempt to verify Obama's birth in Hawaii, Dr. Chiyome Fukino even recently proclaimed that she has seen the original birth records confirming Obama's birth in Honolulu.

(Turn on Sarcasm Pump #1) - Oh, well, since some Doctor claims to have seen the documents that are not being released, that settles it. He must've been born in Hawaii after all!

Of course nobody is making mention that if Dr. Fukino's statement is true, she broke Hawaiian law by violating Hawaii's Revised Statutes Section 338-18, which pertains to the disclosure of records.

In response to the "A Challenge!!" Email, one of the folks on the list responded with concerns, asking ". . . what if it is proven conclusively that B-HO was not/is not eligible to be president? What then? I know what should happen; I'm asking what will be the consequences? There's the real challenge, and that could be why some are on the right are ridiculing those of us with questions, trying to get us to STFU."

In a short answer, there would be blood in the streets.

But on the Email thread I provided this response:

If Barack Obama is not eligible, every piece of legislation he signed will be null and void, and he will be guilty of criminal actions. After all, it would mean that he willfully lied, and misled the American People. In fact, if Obama was found to be ineligible for the presidency, he could be tried for treason.

I don't know if Barack was born in Hawaii, Kenya, or Mars. I wasn't there when he was born. What makes me pay attention regarding this issue is the fact that Obama's response to the allegations has not been to simply provide proof. Instead a computerized version of a short-form birth certificate appeared on liberal websites, and Obama sealed all of his personal records while hiring a dozen lawyers to fight the allegations. Hardly the actions of an innocent man.

However, something to consider further stems from my conversations with my good friend, the U.S. Constitution expert, Loki. Does it matter where Barack Obama was born? Notice the words: Natural Born Citizen. A citizen is simply someone born in the United States, someone who has been naturalized, etc. Notice the 14th Amendment does not say anything about "natural born citizen" in its definition - it is only about being a citizen. This is because the 14th Amendment was written specifically regarding the expatriated slaves. To understand the true nature of what a natural born citizen of the United States is, one must go back through history, and ultimately, to "common law" of the time period the U.S. Constitution was written.

Common Law, at the time of the founding of this nation, indicated that a Natural Born Citizen was an American born from two American Citizen Parents. The reason for this was to combat any possibilities of dual loyalties. Since Barack Obama's father is Kenyan, based on Common Law of that era in regards to being a Natural Born Citizen, Obama is not a Natural Born Citizen, and no birth certificate from Hawaii will change the fact that Barack's father was a citizen of Kenya.

A reply from a different person in the thread came quick, beginning with the salutation, "Hey, Retards. . . "

Without relaying his complete response, I am sure simply by the greeting it is apparent to you what the reply essentially said.

Why does questioning the legitimacy of Barack Obama's eligibility to be president make me a retard? Should we not question when we believe foul play is afoot? The Left sure didn't hesitate from accusing Bush of much worse during his presidency.

Furthermore, if you understand my explanation of the definition of natural born citizenship, it would also mean that conservative champion Bobby Jindal, a son of immigrant parents, would not be eligible to be president either. After all, the law applies equally to all persons, right?

Why would I inflict that kind of potential damage on one of my own favorite politicians if I didn't believe my assessment to be true?

It is one thing that Barack Obama is asking America to follow him as he steps off the edge of a cliff. But for America to do so following a president that may not be eligible in the first place is astounding. For Americans to go on the warpath, and enter into a rampage of name calling and hateful attacks against people for merely bringing up what I consider to be a legitimate question is downright shameful.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

By Douglas V. Gibbs

A CHALLENGE TO BILL O'REILLY, ED MORRISSEY, AND SENATOR JIM DeMINT - ThirdWaveDave

Hawaii's statement on Obama birth record breaks law? - World Net Daily, Dr. Jerome Corsi

Obamacare Support Slipping Fast

Get Liberty

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Douglas V. Gibbs

Douglas V. Gibbs Guest on Ramble & Rumble with Rabbi

The radio segment I have been asked to be the guest on is being headlined as "The Passions and Persuasions of Political Pistachio Host and Producer, Douglas V. Gibbs." The program is "Ramble and Rumble with Rabbi," hosted by Rabbi D.F. Eukel, the radio rabbi.

The program runs live Wednesday morning (August 29, 2009) at 4:00 AM to 5:30 AM Pacific (7:00 AM to 8:30 AM Eastern), and I have been asked to be on the show as Rabbi Eukel's guest during the final half hour segment.

Visit the webcast of the program on Ramble & Rumble with Rabbi live, or you can catch the archive later.

Hope to see you there.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Douglas V. Gibbs

Cambridge Police Support Their Own

VIDEO

Give it a rest, Barack. . .



Get Liberty

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Douglas V. Gibbs

Israel Faceoff With Iran's Nuclear Weapons Aspirations

Israel Regarding Iran: "Whatever It Takes"

The Associated Press is reporting that Israel has announced an even harder stance against Iran's nuclear program.

Israel has continually voiced the opinion that the Obama Administration is naive about Iran's intentions, and so Israel plans to take it upon herself to move on Iran's nuclear facilities. Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak is not ruling out any military action, and says that Israel is considering a pre-emptive strike to take away Iran's ability to obtain nuclear weapons.

"No option should be removed from the table," said the Israeli Defense Minister in a press conference.

The American Government currently has a different opinion on how to deal with Iran's nuclear aspirations, desiring to take a diplomatic road first. Since Israel considers itself the prime target of any eventual Iranian nuclear bomb, it has become apparent to the Israelis that it is up to them to stop Iranian nuclear aggression before it begins.

Iran has continually claimed its nuclear aspirations are for domestic purposes.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Israel on Iran: Anything it takes to stop nukes - Associated Press/Yahoo News, Anne Gearan

Muslims Own Police In London

In a continuance of the Islamization of Europe, in London the police department will be ensuring that officers used in an investigation are of the same religion as the neighborhood the situation occurred in.

Sharia Courts are already being allowed to supersede British Law in Muslim communities, but now Muslim officers are being added with the intention of investigating "honor" killings and forced marriages with officers that better understand the customs of the religion.

Chief Supt Joanna Young said of the plan, "It's political correctness gone mad. We are talking about the creation of a separate force within a force."

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

By Douglas V. Gibbs

MUSLIMS COULD GET OWN POLICE - Daily Express, Katherine French

State's Rights Powder Keg, Constitutional Sovereignty

The United States Constitution was written to limit the powers of the federal government. Protecting the rights of the sovereign states was a primary goal of the founders when they wrote the document. They plainly intended to strictly limit the prerogatives of the federal government to those powers explicitly assigned to it in Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, while reserving to the states all other powers not explicitly forbidden them in Section 10 of Article I.

History is filled with controversy over the concept of state's rights. Prior to the American Civil War one of the arguments in support of the sovereignty of the states was that a state could legally refuse to carry out federal enactments that they regarded as unconstitutional encroachments on their sovereignty, and there was nothing the federal government could do about it.

Constitutional Originalists of today still follow that line of thought.

Opponents of state's rights argue that the U.S. Constitution is more of a set of guidelines that can be liberally interpreted, asserting that the federal government has "implied" powers that are not necessarily explicitly stated, but are in accord with general powers given by certain statements within the U.S. Constitution, such as the duty of the government to "provide for the general welfare."

Approaching the War Between the States, the sovereignty of the states became the primary issue that eventually led to the bloody civil war. Slavery was but a minor ingredient at that point, and was not considered a major issue regarding the war until the Emancipation Proclamation was read by President Abraham Lincoln. The Emancipation Proclamation, while holding no legal powers, was actually a politically motivated move intended to back Britain off from supporting the Confederate States. By making the Civil War a noble war of the abolition of slavery, rather than simply a war over state's rights, Great Britain, who had outlawed slavery long before, bowed out quickly for fear of being criticized for siding with the slave states in a war now labeled as a war to free the slaves.

Abraham Lincoln used strategies that were not constitutional to hold together the union, and he encroached on the rights of the southern states, which resulted in the ultimate move to ensure the sovereignty of the states, secession. He was willing to circumvent the rule of law to achieve victory, which is why among many conservative historians Lincoln is referred to as the "Benevolent Dictator."

Many would argue Lincoln, and the presidents before him, brought on the American Civil War by not abiding by the Constitutional concept of state's rights. After all, an abolition movement had already begun in the southern states, and though it may take an extra decade or so, slavery would have been abolished, most likely, without a shot ever being fired. Following this line of thinking, one could say that the American Civil War was avoidable, from a slavery viewpoint, had the federal government decided not to step on state's rights, and force the hand of the southern states into declaring independence.

Nonetheless, the federal government exercised unconstitutional control over the states, and the American Civil War broke out. During the war it looked as if the Confederacy had a chance to win, though many historians point out that even if the southern states had succeeded in becoming a separate nation, ultimately the United States would have rejoined into a single entity eventually, most probably due to the need to unite for the cause of protecting the states from foreign enemies.

The war, however, after the British blockade was broken through the underhanded political strategy of the Emancipation Proclamation, progressed to its conclusion, ending in the defeat of the Confederacy. This defeat of the southern states in the Civil War was the end of the final attempt, and any future attempts, of states to use their sovereignty to keep the federal government under control. As the twentieth century approached, states seemed to accept the death of their power to veto or otherwise contravene enactments and policies of the federal government.

In 1913 the Federal Reserve Act, implementation of the Federal Income Tax (16th Amendment), and the elimination of state representation in U.S. Congress with the passage of the 17th Amendment (which changed the vote for the U.S. Senate from that of the State Legislators, to a direct vote by the people) represents, according to Constitutionalists, the year the federal government jumped the divide, and moved away from the Constitution's original intent more so than anytime in previous history. With the removal of the state's representation in the U.S. Government via the U.S. Senate, it seemed the only recourse states would have there on out would be an Article V Convention, or a direct declaration of sovereignty.

With the passage of the Federal Reserve Act, the central bankers of Europe realized that, after looking back on their own 220 years of experience with the Bank of England and other European central banks prior, American indebtedness would eventually grow so large that the central bankers would eventually own the American nation, and the federal government would be able to seize control of the populace under the guiding hand of the bankers.

During the first three decades of the 1900s it was difficult to determine if it was the Republicans or the Democrats that were more in favor of a strong, central federal government. Once Franklin Delano Roosevelt took office, however, it became apparent that the ownership of a policy supporting an intrusive big federal government belonged to the Democrats. During his presidency, FDR extended federal powers far beyond what was granted to the federal government under the U.S. Constitution, and these dangerous policies were routinely denounced by conservative opponents of socialist legislation. Roosevelt's policies were seen as intrusive on the American People, and as obvious abridgments of states' rights.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt's successor, Harry S. Truman, continued the policy of expanding the prerogatives of the central government, ignoring the demand of a strict protection of state's rights by many in his own party. The "Dixie-crats," southern Democrats that supported state's rights, left the Democratic Party and joined the Republicans. The Dixie-crats would later demand compromises in the Civil Right's legislation that the Democratic Party was strongly against as well. While the Republican Party was firmly in support of Civil Rights legislation, the newest members of the party, the former Dixie-crats, demanded that such federal legislation not be used to compromise state's rights in the matter of civil rights. Democrats, meanwhile, filibustered against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (after also opposing similar bills in 1957 and 1960), and to appease both the Democrats, and the newly Republican Dixie-crats, the bill was adjusted, and then was passed into law on July 2, 1964. In the end, it was the Republicans that were largely responsible for the enactment of Civil Rights Laws, but it was the Dixie-crats in the party that ensured the laws were written in such a way that federal intrusion on state's rights were at a minimum.

Republicans have since reversed much of the federal entitlement programs, which is also an issue that encroaches on state's rights, by implementing a system of block grants to the states. This conservative approach underlay the landmark welfare legislation of 1996 by the Republican-led Congress. After balking the legislation twice, Democratic President reluctantly signed the Welfare Reform bill in August, 1996.

Now, with the Barack Obama Administration enacting socialist legislation that even Franklin Delano Roosevelt was not foolhardy enough to enact (or maybe he simply ran out of time and support), the issue of state's rights has arisen again. Lawmakers in various states have now introduced resolutions declaring state sovereignty under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution States.

Montana and Tennessee (and possibly Utah to soon follow) have passed laws designed 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." The intention of the legislation is to run and end-around pass the Commerce Clause, of which the federal government constantly uses, against the original intention of the clause, to poke its nose into state issues.

The federal government, completely ignoring the U.S. Constitution, has responded in writing telling Tennessee that the state law, despite the wording of their state law, is not legal. Specifically, the letter stated, "As you may know, federal law requires a license to engage in the business of manufacturing firearms or ammunition, or to deal in firearms, even if the firearms or ammunition remain with the same state. All firearms manufactured by a licensee must be properly marked. Additionally, each licensee must record the type, model, caliber or gauge, and serial number of each firearm manufactured or otherwise acquired, and the date such manufacture or other acquisition was made. These, as well as other federal requirements and prohibitions, apply whether or not the firearms or ammunition have crossed state lines."

The U.S. Constitution dictates that the federal government cannot infringe on the right to keep and bear arms (Second Amendment), and that the issue is up to the states to pass laws regarding. Also, it is illegal for the federal government to overturn or overrule state laws if the state law does not violate Article I, Sections 8 and 10.

In other words, the federal government's position regarding Tennessee's new law is unconstitutional.

Governor Perry of Texas has also raised the possibility of a state's rights showdown over Obama's health care plan, indicating that states and governors need to stand up and say "no" to this type of encroachment on the states with their health care.

What we are seeing, as the federal government under the control of the liberal Democrats, and Barack Obama, makes moves to trample on state's rights, is an increased demand for states to exercise their rights, and to resist the continued federal encroachment on state and local authority.

Many Constitutional Originalists I have spoken to see this as an issue that is destined to explode, and one that will result in a showdown between state sovereignty and federal control over the states.

Some would call that the next American Civil War.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

By Douglas V. Gibbs

United States Constitution - Cornell University Law School

Washington drops hammer on state gun plan - World Net Daily, Bob Unruh

Lawmakers in 20 states move to reclaim sovereignty - World Net Daily, Jerome R. Corsi

States Rebellion Pending - Townhall, Walter E. Williams

Credit Where Credit Is Due: The Republicans Passed the 1964 Civil Rights Act - Michael Zak, GOP USA

Perry raises possibility of states' rights showdown with White House over healthcare - Star-Telegram, Dave Montgomery

New World Order coming to your town - The U.S.S.A.

A Warning From Ronald Reagan and the Rivoli's, Should We Remain Complacent:



-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Douglas V. Gibbs

Thanks, Third Wave Dave.

Not Obama's First Entanglement With Cambridge Police

When I first heard about Barack Obama saying a Cambridge, Massachusetts' police officer acted stupidly in an arrest, I did not write about it because, like Obama, I didn't know the full story.

When it turned out the police officer was White, and the suspect was a Black Harvard professor, it made my ears perk up, wondering if racism was going to be evoked for this one. As expected, Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. claimed he was racially profiled. When asked his opinion on the matter in a press conference, Obama had apparently fallen for the racial plea, and jumped to conclusions, basing his answer completely on the testimony of Gates, rather than on the facts.

Still, I kept my keyboard silent on the issue.

When the news that the policeman followed procedure in his arrest of Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr., and that the local police officers union had determined that there was no evidence the arrest was race-based, which made it necessary for Obama to apologize for jumping to conclusions without learning all of the facts, I chuckled. It was a typical move for someone like Obama. After all, being a liberal, it comes as second nature for far left liberals to assume things without having all of the facts in front of them, or even using the facts properly, for that matter.

It was comical watching the Democrats scramble to try to keep their messiah, Mr. Obama, looking good and intelligent - despite his stupid remarks.

Still, I refrained from writing about the situation, though I did mention it a couple times on my radio program.

The straw that broke the camel's back, however, was when I learned that this is not the first time Barack Obama has tangled with the Cambridge Police Department. Apparently, Obama has a history with the department dating from his college years to as recently as the launch of his presidential campaign.

Remembering back to the presidential campaign, I remember when an issue regarding a whole slew of unpaid parking tickets became the subject of many conservative talkers and writers. Specifically, Obama had 17 unpaid parking tickets that he wound up paying just weeks before he announced his bid for the presidency.

The issuing department?

Give you one guess.

One would think that would mean that Obama has no love lost for the Cambridge Police Department. After all, they were a thorn in his side when he was younger, so surely they must automatically be guilty of acting in a racist manner against Mr. Gates, right?

What is really interesting is that while Obama was a law breaker (with all of those unpaid parking tickets), he practiced law in Chicago, served as an Illinois State Senator, and as a United States Senator. As John LeBoutillier of Newsmax commented, Obama during this time as a man that was supposed to be a champion of the law "allowed these almost-two-decade-old signs of his disdain for the law to remain unpaid."

Now, knowing that the Cambridge Police Department was the issuer of those parking tickets, it makes one wonder if Obama jumped to conclusions regarding the department's arrest of Gates based on his past experiences with them.

And if he is willing to jump to conclusions like he did in this situation regarding the Cambridge Police Department, without knowing all of the facts, what other conclusions is he jumping to while in the Oval Office, while pretending to be a capable leader of the free world?

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

By Douglas V. Gibbs

'Scofflaw' Obama has history with 'stupid' Cambridge police - World Net Daily

Palin Exits, Stage Right

As Sarah Palin's final day as governor of Alaska passed it was interesting listening to the pundits try to figure out her strategy, or reasons for stepping down. My local CBS Television News was proclaiming over and over again that nobody knows why she resigned as governor of Alaska, and then proceeded to play clips of a couple people, one being Sarah's father, saying, "I don't know what she has planned for the future."

Not knowing what Sarah Palin is planning for the future is not the same as not knowing why she stepped down.

Whatever. Typical media spin.

The clips were right, however. Nobody knows for sure what Sarah has planned for the future. Speculation, and the hopes of conservatives, circle around the possibility that her future plans include preparing for a national run for office.

Perhaps.

One thing is for sure, Sarah Palin energized Republicans last year in ways that none of the presidential candidates were able to accomplish. The Republican Party seemed to have purpose again, rather than being satisfied with itself acting like a light beer version of liberalism. Sarah Palin's energy would be a welcome return to the national stage, especially to possibly halt the GOP's continued leftward slide. The Party of Reagan is nothing like it was, and began a deadly journey into self-destruction during George Herbert Walker Bush's presidency, moving leftward ever since.

A little conservatism in the form of a firecracker from Alaska may just be what the party needs. . . again.

You Betcha.

The liberal left Democrats and biased media proclaim that the Republican Party lost the election in 2008 because it has swung too far to the right. It literally cracks me up when liberals and moderates claim that kind of madness. In reality the Republican Party has been suffering from a rapid move away from its conservative roots, becoming more like the Democratic Party with each passing cycle. The Republican Party ceased being the party of original conservative ideas, and has stopped having strong Constitutional stances on the issues.

Critics of conservatism say that the GOP has a better chance to win the presidential election with a wishy-washy moderate, than a conservative. Newsflash, the GOP tried that in 2008, and lost. In fact, if McCain had not have chosen the quite conservative Sarah Palin as his running mate, the loss suffered would have been even more severe.

Part of the leftward lean of the Republican Party can be attributed to both Bush Administrations who believed in something called "Compassionate Conservatism." Compassionate Conservatism is hardly conservative at all, and in reality was just another name for big government spending under the guise of conservatism. In fact in pursuit of such an idea, Dubya teamed up with Teddy Kennedy to create the disastrous "No Child Left Behind" Act, which placed big government even more front and center in an already ailing public school system. Also, the rule of law seems not to mean much to these "Compassionate Conservatives" when it comes to the illegal alien issue.

I am not Bush bashing, but as I did often during George W. Bush's presidency, I recognized that though there were many things I felt he did right, there were also many things President Bush failed at. During 2007 especially, I wrote about these less than desired positions of President Bush often. Honestly, among Conservatives, we all knew that when George W. Bush came into office that despite his claims of conservatism, when it came to the size of government, it was doubtful he was conservative in the least.

Like father, like son.

Luckily for us, Bush at least was wise enough to understand that when faced with an act of war against the nation, as was the case on 9/11, to avoid further attack a nation must spring into military action.

In all honesty, despite the liberal left's claims that the Republican Party has become the party of the "religious right," the GOP hasn't moved to the right in the slightest since the presidency of Ronald Reagan. The Democrat Party, however, has moved drastically to the Left during the same time period. When a party moves as far to the left as has the Democrats, anything not teetering on the edge of communism like they are will look like it is on the extreme right - which explains liberalism's warped view of things. In other words, contrary to popular leftard opinion, the Republicans didn't move to the right, the Democrats moved drastically to the Left - and then as they moved left, the Democrats have erroneously (through vicious propaganda) attributed the wider gap between the parties as being the fault of a GOP shift to the right.

Hence, one of the reasons for Sarah Palin's popularity.

As the Democrats move to the left, so has the GOP.

People say we have a two-party system, but when it comes to the politics of politics, there are few differences among the elitists that hold office in the U.S. Government. Politics is no longer about being a statesman, or about feeling honored to have the opportunity to serve the people. U.S. Politics has become about gaining power, keeping that power, and worrying about the next election. Money and political greed runs rampant through Washington DC in both parties, though the Democrats own it across the board. The federal government has become a growing power-grabbing monster, expanding into our lives in ways never intended by the framers of the U.S. Constitution. Sarah Palin's popularity is more than just her conservative principles, though her conservatism plays a large part in her popularity. She is seen as a person that represents the people because she comes from the people. She is a grassroots candidate not spoiled by the cess-pool of Washington. Her primary concern is serving the people with honor. Her platform is liberty. Her goal is to maintain America's exceptionalism. For Sarah Palin it is all about the will of the people.

As opposed to Nancy Pelosi who is a firm believer in the will of Congress.

It is no accident that Sarah Palin has an 80% approval rating among Republicans, and nearly a 50% approval rating among independents.

So if Sarah Palin is so popular, why did she decide to resign her governorship in Alaska?

The relentless attacks against Sarah Palin, which includes baseless allegations that have cost the Palin Family more than half a million bucks in legal fees (along with $2 million of taxpayer money investigating the more-often-than-not bogus complaints). Amazingly, the attacks have continued, and increased, since her announcement. Such a barrage of negative attention was not what was best for Alaska, Sarah's family, or Palin's political career, so she decided it was time to spare the family, and the State of Alaska, the continued problems, and step down in hopes to either regroup, or make a determination to step down from politics permanently.

What amazes me is that The Left portrays Sarah Palin as a moron, or simpleton, supported by "dimwitted conservatives." If she is so stupid, then why spend all of the time attacking her? Why hire far left writers to do hit pieces on Sarah Palin, as suggested by Bill O'Reilly's piece at Townhall titled "Marginalizing Sarah Palin?" If she is such an idiot, why worry about her?

By your very actions, liberal left, you contradict your words.

Two possibilities have been given to me as reasonable answers to the question about why Sarah Palin has been such a target. Either, liberalism sees how dangerous Sarah Palin is to them, and how capable she is of re-energizing a Conservative Base that could carry the GOP into a landslide victory in the next election, or because of her faith they see this as a major opportunity to eliminate Judeo-Christian traditions by using Sarah Palin as an example of the religious right, and hammering on her, and Christian Conservatives, until like with everything else, they convince the public that their lies are the truth.

All in all, the Left's preoccupation with Sarah Palin is incredible evidence of the corrupt tactics liberals are willing to use. Basically stated: If you dare oppose their ideology, you will be attacked relentlessly with unfounded propaganda until you are destroyed, or until a greater threat rises in your place.

Trust me, us conservative bloggers get trolls that use the same kind of tactics.

If I am so harmless, why do you care enough to attack me? Could it be because you are vile human beings who have no understanding of the words "ethics" or "standards?"

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Palin Faces Questions as She Exits Alaska Politics - Fox News

Pelosi: 'Congress will work its will' - Politico, Daniel W. Reilly

Marginalizing Sarah Palin - Townhall, Bill O'Reilly

Bauer: Palin remains among GOP frontrunners - One News Now, Chad Groening

Palin Says Latest Allegation Shows Need For New Ethics Law - Fox News, Matthew Daly

Obama Says Victory Is Not The Goal

President Barack Obama: "I'm always worried about using the word 'victory,' because, you know, it invokes this notion of Emperor Hirohito coming down and signing a surrender to MacArthur. . . So when you have a non-state actor, a shadowy operation like Al Qaeda, our goal is to make sure they can't attack the United States."


Imagine an American Football game pitting two of the strongest teams in the league against each other. One is known for its powerful, hard-hitting game, and decisive victories, and the other is known for disrupting offenses and defenses with trick plays and unexpected strategies. In a news conference, before the big match-up, the head coach of the stronger team comes out and says, "I am careful about the word 'victory' because it brings to mind the notion that at the end of the game the other team is down in the dumps as they march into the locker room with their heads down. So, since our opponent is a team that is unlike most of our opponents, using unexpected strategies and trick plays, our goal is to just make sure they don't score a touchdown."

Or better yet, let's imagine going into a game of chess with the intention of not necessarily wishing for the opponent to feel the sting of defeat, should you be victorious. Your strategy, as a result, simply becomes one of just making sure they don't capture your queen.

Could you imagine playing backgammon spending all your time blocking the opponent, but not necessarily moving your own pieces off the board, mainly because you don't want your opponent to necessarily win, but you don't wish to win yourself either because you don't want your opponent to feel the sting of defeat?

What Obama is saying, by his statement regarding the word "Victory," and how we should approach the War on Terror (oops, didn't the Liberals say we have to call it a man-made disaster, or something idiotic like that?) is we should play defense, without the use of its counterpart, offense.

If you play offense, then you might be victorious, and if you are victorious it brings upon the opposition the horrid feeling of defeat, and surely we don't want an enemy that desires each and every one of us dead, or converted to Islam, defeated. It might make us feel guilty that they were beaten. It invokes an image of the poor, murderous crazy people coming down from their caves in Pakistan, or wherever Osama bin Laden is hiding, in a forlorn manner to sign whatever it is that proclaims they've been beaten.

Oh, the inhumanity of it all!

I read a piece recently by Warner Todd Huston that added another dimension, as well. Warner, at the beginning of the piece, asked, "When I say 'victory,' what do you think of?"

The answer to Huston's question, for me, is pretty obvious. Victory is winning, accomplishment over a foe, a "warm feeling of worthy accomplishment and an assumption of gaining the accolades that accompanies victory."

I wonder how many people are like Obama, where upon hearing the word "victory," they immediately conjure up in their mind feelings of how the poor loser was beaten down by defeat. I wonder if they really do feel guilt, if they truly garner such a bad feeling that on the other end of the victory was a losing party - a loser - a beaten down person or group trying to grapple with the horrid agony of defeat.

When there are winners, there are losers. That is a fact of life. Losers, if they don't like losing, need to either learn how to be winners, or go play another game. However, people who think like Obama (we'll call them "liberals"), have the thought process that nobody should feel like losers, even a blood thirsty enemy. And in order for there to be no losers, there can't be any winners.

Preposterous.

If, in a game of chess, you are determined to just make sure the opponent never takes your queen, but you never make an aggressive effort to place your opponent in check-mate, eventually, you will lose. You can only play defense without offense for so long. The enemy, regardless of your feelings about "victory," has the goal to defeat you. Simply making them not attack the United States, but not achieving victory over them, gives them the opportunity to regroup and strike again on another day. An enemy like the Islamic Jihad will continue striking, over and over again, until eventually they are victorious. The only way to stop them from eventually reaching their goal is to defeat them. And when the enemy is defeated, it is called a "victory" for the winning side. "Victory" is the only word one can use. To use anything else is to leave yourself open to future attacks by an undefeated enemy.

Sympathy for the enemy encourages the enemy to rise up and strike again another day, because whether you like it or not, they have no sympathy for you.

On a side note, a point also brought up by Warner Todd Huston in his article, Barack Obama's statement regarding Japan's World War II surrender also shows his ignorance of history. Emperor Hirohito did not sign the document that finalized the surrender of Japan to General MacArthur. The signing of the declaration of surrender was performed by Japan’s Foreign Minister, Shigemitsu, and one of Japan's generals, Umezu.

Will The Press call him on that? I guarantee you if Bush had said such a thing, they'd have been all over it.

Obama's statement about victory is more apologetic than the words you'd expect from the Commander in Chief of American Forces. He can't get his history right, disrespects his own country, and has this guilt-ridden desire to go around apologizing for America's successes. It makes me sick. This attitude places the nation in a very vulnerable position. The enemy, based on the President's statements, are fast realizing that Obama does not desire victory. In other words, he refuses to play the worldwide chess game in an offensive manner. So, all the enemy has to do is keep striking, over and over again, until they eventually break through the line-up of pawns, knights, and bishops. "Victory" will be theirs, I am sure they are beginning to believe, if only they remain persistent, and on the offensive.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Obama: 'Victory' Not Necessarily Goal in Afghanistan - Fox News, Politics

Obama's Anti-America - American Daily Review, Warner Todd Huston

The Joys of Obamacare, a.k.a. Behavior Control

Barack Obama has tried to explain to everyone that it is essential that his government-takeover of health insurance, and ultimately the entire health care industry, happens as soon as possible. Without the passage of the health care bill that is currently being debated we are doomed, says Obama.

Why the hurry?

Is Obama's rush to push through his Obamacare because he wishes to get it passed before people begin to notice how horrific government run plans are with stories like the one about the 22-year-old alcoholic in Britain who died after being refused a life-saving liver transplant because he was too ill to leave the hospital, and was unable to prove he could stay sober?

Isn't that an example of controlling behavior by holding life saving surgeries over one's head?

If the Obamacare plan, in which the government becomes the payer of health care in America, is so wonderful, then why are the Democrats trying to disallow the Republicans from calling it "Government-Run Healthcare?" Isn't that what it is?

When I see a duck, I call it a duck, so why can't we call Obamacare "Government-Run Healthcare?" Does the truth hurt? Are the Democrats afraid that if Obama's socialized medicine is called a name that is in accordance to its true nature they won't be able to get it passed? Isn't that being dishonest?

In the beginning Obama's health care plan is designed to not be like the Universal Health Plans of other nations - but it won't take long to become that, and worse.

Do you remember how the Democrats got angry when McCain called them, and Obama, "socialists" during the 2008 presidential campaign? Now that they are in power they are announcing their socialist beliefs freely and proudly. It was even proudly acknowledged on the cover of Newsweek Magazine that we are all socialists now.

To get his health care legislation passed Obama and the Democrats are demonizing doctors, and are trying to convince folks that Obamacare won't cost a thing - while trying to hide the fact that it is a government-run health system that reaks of socialism.

Tactics like the ones the Democrats are now using sounds like desperation to me. When politicians start lying, and demonizing professionals, even more than usual like Obama is beginning to do, it is a high sign that Obama is realizing he is against the clock, and he is becoming desperate to get it passed - before people begin to tap on their calculators and realize the insanity his health care plan truly is.

What the press won't tell you are the details of the rationed health care on the horizon should this atrocious monstrosity come into reality. Even Obama himself has suggested, in order to control costs, euthanasia of the elderly may be necessary - after all, they've lived a long life - what's the loss of a few more years of life? After all, 90% of health care costs are to keep alive old folks on their way out anyway.

Sick.

Remember what I said about life being cheapened by our willingness to abort our unborn children in a recent article? Could there be a connection? Has human life lost so much value that politicians are willing to kill off the elderly to save a little money?

And after all of the dust settles, of which most of the fight surrounds the astronomical cost of this turkey of a bill, has anyone considered the Constitutional ramifications?

Is it in line with the U.S. Constitution for the federal government to force upon the citizens of the states nationalized health care?

Ultimately, Obamacare, and other pieces of garbage like the Cap and Trade Bill, are about controlling the populace.

Through Cap and Trade your use of energy will be controlled. Through the take over of the auto industry eventually what you drive (or even if we drive) will be determined by government bureaucrats, rather than the tendencies of consumers. And with the health care bill, whether or not you receive treatment, and ultimately whether or not you live or die, will be decided by some faceless bureaucrat in an office somewhere in Washington DC. The decision will be based, as this system evolves, on your value to the common good. If you are less valuable, you will be encouraged to die.

For some reason "Logan's Run" pops into mind.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Man, 22, Dies After Liver Transplant Refused - Sky News

GOP Not Allowed to Say 'Government-Run Healthcare' - Human Events, Connie Hair

Newsweek Says We Are All Socialists Now !?!?!? - Yid With Lid

The fear-mongerer-in-chief - Michelle Malkin

Obama: Greedy doctors are coming after your tonsils or something - Hot Air, AllahPundit

Obama: Euthanasia of the elderly may be necessary - Doug Ross @ Journal

Perry raises possibility of states' rights showdown with White House over healthcare - Star-Telegram, Dave Montgomery

U.S. Government Like the Mob in the Casino Industry

Gaming expert, and screenwriter for the 1990' Chuck Norris family film "Sidekicks," Lou Illar joins Political Pistachio Radio tonight to discuss his latest book, "Believe Me Or Your Lying Eyes, a History of Casinos, Corruption, and Charities in America."

Mr. Illar says that the U.S. Government has taken the place of the mob in the casino industry.

Tonight we will discuss how the government has inserted itself into the casino industry, the Hollywood connection to the gambling industry, Lou's connections as screenwriter in Chuck Norris' film "Sidekicks," Norris' own secret gambling connections, earmarked casino perks attached to President Obama's stimulus package, and the implied threat of litigation by one extremely powerful gambling mogul in what appears to be a battle among gambling entities for control over President Obama's ear.

Join us live at 7:00 pm Pacific, or on archive later, on BlogTalkRadio.com/politicalpistachio.

Abortion: One Dead, One Wounded

I bought the old, blue, Toyota pick-up with about fifty thousand miles on it. The day I brought it home I slapped a rectangular bumper sticker in the lower left corner of the rear window that read, "Abortion: One Dead, One Wounded." The sticker remained on that rear window when I sold the little truck two hundred thousand miles later.

The message regarding abortion on the back window of my truck encouraged conversation. I was asked about it wherever I went. Discussions regarding the subject of abortion, and faith, erupted at gas stations, and in parking lots. To everyone that saw it, the message was clear. Abortion is the taking of a human life.

More often than not, upon seeing my bumper sticker, people asked me if I was a Christian. Yes, as it turns out, I am. But why is it that whenever someone is discovered to be pro-life, it automatically makes them a Christian? Yes, the majority of people that call themselves Christians believe that life begins at conception, and their decision to believe that is largely influenced by biblical scripture that essentially says that God fashions us while we are in the womb, that some of us are called by God before we are even born, and that based on that fact unborn children have a spiritual identity. For these reasons, faith is almost always quickly identified with the pro-life position.

An example of such a connection between religion, and the disagreement with abortion, is apparent in an article that recently appeared in World Net Daily about a Catholic Nurse who was forced to participate in an abortion procedure, despite the fact that it was well known she considered the termination of a pregnancy in this fashion to be murder.

Mt. Sinai Medical Center in New York City is the location where Catherina Lorena Cenzon-DeCarlo was compelled to assist in the abortion of a 22-week old unborn child. The abortion, as is common with abortions performed at stages beyond the first few weeks of gestation, resulted in the dismemberment of the little body, and Nurse DeCarlo was forced watch as the doctor pulled out the bloody limbs of the child with forceps, and placed them in a specimen cup. She had to add saline to the cups, and transport the dismembered body of the slaughtered child to the specimen area.

World Net Daily adds that according to the complaint, "This happened even though according to the hospital's own protocols, the abortion was not so urgent that it would have required her assistance, and there was more than enough time to summon another nurse. . . they ordered her to participate, threatening her with disciplinary measures if she refused. The hospital then dramatically cut her on-call assignments after she refused to sign a statement promising to participate in future abortions."

DeCarlo objected to being a part of the abortion all the way up to the moment of the procedure. The abortion was not a medical necessity, and on the surface it seems to me that this was done purposely to force her to participate in the procedure of abortion against her will, as if to prove to her that "it's no big deal." To ensure she participated, Mrs. DeCarlo was threatened with disciplinary actions that could, if implemented, jeopardize her job, and her ability to be a nurse in the future. Her objections were ignored, and no doubt scoffed at.

The combination of the bullying tactics used against her, and the trauma of witnessing such a brutal, murderous procedure must have been nearly unbearable.

World Net Daily reports that the "case is being handled by the Alliance Defense Fund. It was brought on behalf of nurse Toni Lemly, who had worked in the St. Tammany Parish Hospital. She sued when she objected to dispensing the 'morning after' abortion pill because of her religious beliefs and was demoted."

What strikes me is the fact that the article continuously reminds us that the nurse's religious convictions were in play here, just as my bumper sticker automatically made people ask about my faith. I understand that the war against abortion is dominated by Christians, and that the best legal recourse in such a case as Mrs. DeCarlo's is to use the "it's against my religion" argument. But what about folks that don't necessarily have a religious conviction regarding abortion, but have still come to the conclusion that it is murder. Would they have recourse should they be forced to participate in the sickening, disgusting act of murdering unborn babies?

The time in the womb, regardless of religious convictions, is a stage of human development that progresses through adulthood. Historically, we frown upon societies that would offer their children as sacrifices to heathen gods. The test of Abraham to offer his son as a sacrifice was so horrid, that it was the ultimate test for Abraham regarding his obedience of God. Of course, the event did not end in the sacrifice of the young man - but it was a foreshadowing of the ultimate sacrifice of Christ on the cross, and it portrayed how horrible even the thought of killing one's child is.

Children are a gift. A blessing. Christian, or not, by throwing away our children at the blink of an eye with the horrid procedure of abortion is like saying that human life is not worth anything. Life has become disposable. Children have become nothing more than something that can be thrown away should they be inconvenient.

The comments of retaliation to this article will no doubt bring up rare cases of terminating pregnancy that is more of a medical procedure, than the murderous practice of voluntarily slaughtering the unborn. The argument regarding terminating pregnancies for medical reasons does not apply here, and is a rare occurrence, as is pregnancies in the cases of rape and incest. Abortions, as discussed here, is defined as the termination of a human life because a baby is "inconvenient" to the woman or couple at this point in time. These kinds of abortions represent well over 90% of the total abortions performed.

Abortionists argue that it's all about a woman's choice.

Since when is a person's selfish choice more important than the life of an innocent, defenseless baby?

How can a mother turn against her own young to destroy them? And how can anyone in this civilized age wish to force someone who is against the barbaric practice of abortion to be a part of it, whether they like it or not?

Have women lost their motherly instincts?

The implications are unthinkable.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Catholic nurse ordered to help with abortion - World Net Daily, Bob Unruh

National Tea Party Express Coming to a Town Near You

Tea Party Express dot org

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Douglas V. Gibbs

From Romania With Love, and Making Money in a Rough Economy

Curtis Weaver, Vietnam Veteran and author of Creating Customers For Life joins Political Pistachio tonight during the first hour to explain how to make money during a rough economy, with strategies regarding:

- Profitably attracting more quality customers
- Converting customers into advocates who refer you to others
- Determining how much you can afford to spend to get a new customer or retain current customers
- Ethically exploit your customers maximum financial potential

During the second hour Greg, who was born and raised in communist Romania, will discuss the story about how a small group of Christians started the revolution that brought down the Ceausescu regime.

Join us tonight at 7pm Pacific, or on archive later, on BlogTalkRadio.com/PoliticalPistachio

Founding Truth of the U.S. Constitution is on the air. . .

Tune in live, or to the archive, at BlogTalkRadio.com/Founding-Truth

California Dreaming

I live in Southern California. I am a Christian. I am a Conservative. And I am surrounded by Fruits, Flakes, and Nuts. Therefore, I live in California's "nutrution bar" region.

I have a number of friends, acquaintances, and fellow bloggers that live around the country who repeatedly ask me, "How can you possibly stand living in that state?"

There are many advantages living in California, especially Southern California between Los Angeles and San Diego as I do. Within a quick driving distance I have mountains, beaches, deserts, amusement parks, rivers, lakes, boating and hunting. Within a reasonable drive I have San Diego's Coronado Beach, Mission Beach, and every other beach I can think of from Imperial to Oceanside. I am also a quick drive to all of Orange County's beaches and Los Angeles' beaches, including the always fun Santa Monica Pier just south of Malibu.

In the summer I can go surfing in the ocean, biking in the desert, and hiking in the mountains, all in the same day if I so choose. In the winter I can go surfing in a wetsuit, biking in the desert, and snow skiing or snow boarding in the mountains, all in the same day if I wish. I can ride a motorcycle or a horse, I can swim in the ocean, a river, a lake, or a swimming pool. From Sea World to Disneyland to water parks to Knotts to Six Flags Magic Mountain to mud runs with the L.A. Sheriff's Department - it is all available.

I was in Malibu, yesterday, as a matter of fact. It is not difficult to admire the quaintness of the Pacific Coast Highway as it meanders up the busy coast west of Los Angeles between Interstate 10 and Highway 101. The beaches are accessible, and the waters are full of surfers. Ocean cities from San Diego to Crescent City offer an assorted array of shopping and restaurant adventures, but Malibu and the Santa Monica Pier to the south have their own special flare. The houses in Malibu sit atop the hills and cliffs over the ocean, overlooking the panoramic coast. Pepperdine University is a green oasis on the south end, and Point Dume splits the area with heart stopping scenery.

Sure, those houses on the cliffs are waiting patiently for the next earthquake to come in order to verify the new earthquake fittings in the home are working. The fires and mudslides make such living precarious, too. But, what a panoramic view.

Sure, there are concerns in the state, in addition to the fact that under liberal leadership the State of California is bankrupt. Building one's house on the side of a hill that could start sliding into the ocean if it suddenly decides to is a concern. Heck, here in California we live with the threat of the long awaited "big one," which some people jokingly saying will be the earthquake to drop So-Cal into the depths of the ocean when it strikes. In addition to that mega-earthquake on the horizon, we also have to deal with the four seasons each year.

Four seasons? California has four seasons? Seems like a year round summer with a few changes tossed in here and there just to confuse the meteorologists.

Four Seasons.

There is the hot season, Santa Ana Winds season, Fire Season, and Mudslide Season.

Four Seasons.

And often, those seasons overlap.

Sure, the state has its difficulties. But like I tell my friends in other parts of the country, "Tornadoes are so bad in the center of this nation that there is a stretch of turf that is called Tornado Alley. And hurricanes are such a problem that hurricanes have their own season, and it seems that season lasts half the year."

Fact is, there are advantages and disadvantages to living just about anywhere. I don't grumble about the things that I have no control over, for dwelling on those things will drive a man loony. However, it is important to take care of the things we do have power over, be it having an emergency plan available for the big quake, or leaving the state if you don't have the stomach for such a possiblity.

The economic slowdown is something else I don't have a lot of control over. I really can't do much about the fact that work in the two businesses I am most trained in is slow. As a trenching machine operator, who trenched the foundations for houses, work has essentially dried up. As a big rig driver that delivers sand and gravel (truck and transfer), considering the industry's connection to construction, work is very light indeed. I live more off of money I have saved in the bank, of late, than I do from money out of my paycheck - and the savings are rapidly becoming slim.

I can stress out over these factors I have no control over, and cannot change, but why should I? These things are beyond my control. Depression, or stress, from these events in my life I have little or no control over is not going to improve my situation.

However, knowing about these factors that are out of my control, and realizing I cannot change them, does not mean I should be without action. Since I believe political factors are involved with the economic downturn that is affecting me, I am involved politically, be it writing and talking about politics through Political Pistachio and Political Pistachio Radio, or attending local city council meetings, public hearings, or tea parties to protest the federal government's unconstitutional expansion. I also get side work when I can to supplement my income. A little extra pay here and there can add up. The tough part is, however, recognizing which things I have power over changing or influencing, and which things I don't.

As I began to write that last paragraph, something triggered inside me like a Geiger counter. I have heard this truth I am relaying before. I just couldn't place it.

How has this nugget of wisdom availed itself to me before?

Above my desk is a plaque. The image on the plague is praying hands, a door, and a shining light. The text is from the Serenity Prayer.

God grant me the Serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
Courage to change the things I can,
and Wisdom to know the difference.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Oppose Obamacare Ad

Video

Blue Dog Democrats, or Lap Dog Democrats?

Get Liberty

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Douglas V. Gibbs

Newsy.com Looks At Health Care Urgency From Many Directions

VIDEO

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Douglas V. Gibbs

The Gaping Obama Deficit

Get Liberty

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Douglas V. Gibbs

Christian Kicked Off Adoption Panel For Opinion Regarding Homosexuality

Coming soon to America, preferential treatment for gays, and loss of jobs for Christians for daring to disagree with the lifestyle.

Why not? It's happening in Canada and Britain. In fact, in the United Kingdom a Christian doctor got kicked off an adoption panel because she wished to abstain from voting on cases regarding adoption by gay couples.

Have an opinion deemed unacceptable, get canned.

Dr. Sheila Matthews is no rookie, either. Her service on the panel has lasted 5 years up to this point. A pediatrician in the community, Dr. Matthews dared to believe it is "inappropriate to place children in a household with same sex parents as the best option."

She has previously abstained from voting on same-sex couples. Her feelings on gay couples adopting children, according to the head of the Northamptonshire's Children's Services, Martin Pratt, creates "significant problems" for the adoption service.

Dr. Matthews has pushed to be reinstated to the panel, and her case is being represented by the Christian Legal Centre (CLC).

The director of CLC, Andrea Minichiello Williams, stated that "This is a further example of how a well respected professional who holds conscientious views on sexual practice, informed by Christian faith, is being asked to choose between her faith and her job. Recent anti-discrimination legislation is having the opposite effect and devout Christians are suffering the consequences. This is not the mark of a free and civilised society where freedom of speech and religion is carefully guarded."

The Hate Crimes Bill, and a bill introduced in June by Rep. Barney Frank (H.R. 3017) will bring this kind of garbage to America (not that it doesn't already exist in some forms).

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

By Douglas V. Gibbs

British Doctor Kicked of Adoption Panel for Abstaining to Vote on Same-Sex Couples - American Family Association