Massacre

By Douglas V. Gibbs

A well reasoned argument for liberty, limited government, free speech, and values Americans believe to be right and just, has erupted in America. The revolution is being delivered at nationwide Tea Parties, and at Town Hall meetings. The argument, if we are in fact endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights, is that we have little need for an overpowering government that believes our rights are granted by politicians, and that it is up to them to administer those rights. The government has become infested with leaders that believe their position is a birthright, and that they are in place to rule over America, rather than govern in accordance to the law of the land, as prescribed by the United States Constitution.

America has been unique from day one. We have always been a confident, self-reliant population that has rejected for over two centuries the worldview of big government, and the culture of dependency that walks hand in hand with a government that ultimately becomes a strong, central governance headed by a powerful ruling faction of bureaucrats.

The Founding Fathers desired that power in the hands of men be controlled, and these men that forged our nation deemed the best way to accomplish their aim was to divide power as much as possible. Those that make laws became representatives of the people and states, and formed the two houses of Congress. Those given the task to execute those laws formed the Executive Branch, lead by the president, also elected by the people. When the law needed to be applied, and justice served, the task would befall a third branch of government, the judiciary. And to further divide the power, the three branches needed to be independent of each other, with limited connections, and granted limited powers enumerated by the U.S. Constitution. A government with too much power becomes a government that rules with tyranny.

British rule in the 1760s granted little liberty to the colonists. Under an ever increasing economic strain, partially caused by the French and Indian War, and many of Britain's troops being permanently garrisoned in the American Colonies, The Crown needed a source of revenue, and they needed it fast.

The Stamp Act, and Quartering Act which followed the Boston Massacre, were the straws that broke the proverbial camel's back. Americans erupted into dissent. The control of the people by the British Government, and the constant barrage of new taxes, encouraged the colonists to stage protest rallies, and boycotts of British goods. The colonists, led by The Sons of Liberty, began to call for an assembly, where each colony could be represented.

Perplexed, the British Government saw the dissent as the childish insolence of a fringe movement of extremists that edged on mob rule. In response, the British began to tighten an iron fist, refusing to listen to the people, and disregarding the dissent as being manufactured by a well educated, affluent elite that was simply exploiting the opportunities of unrest.

Little did The Crown realize, as Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1815, "Revolution was in the minds of the people. . . years before a drop of blood was drawn."

When, in the streets of Boston, men and boys began to taunt and throw items as British soldiers, the British soldiers fired into the crowd. John Adams later proved in the court of law that the order to fire did not come from the officer in charge. But, the damage had been done. Some of the dead were mere children. Five dead, men and boys, others injured severely. And from that point, the Boston Massacre became the event that began the inevitable fall of dominoes that led to the American Revolution.

The Bostonians did not have the intention of creating an environment where blood would be shed. The British troops had no intention of acting violently against the protesting colonists. The storm, however, was destined to erupt as long as the British government continued to tighten its grip, and the colonists continued to increasingly yearn for liberty, and independence. Whether or not intended, the Boston Massacre became the rallying point, the beginning point of a movement in which Americans fought back in ways beyond organized protests and boycotts. The Boston Tea Party, and the blood shed in Lexington and Concord, were soon to follow.

Our rights are derived from our Maker, and for government to take control of these rights, and hand them out in rationed parts, is hardly the signature of liberty. Liberty must be continuously fought for.

"Freedom is not something to be secured in any one moment of time. We must struggle to preserve it everyday. And freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction." - Ronald Reagan

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Greg Laurie and Twenty Years of Harvest Crusades

Harvest Christian Fellowship in Riverside, California was founded in 1974. Today, it is one of the largest churches in America. Harvest doesn't have one of those mega-church feels to it, however. The basics of biblical Christianity have remained the focus. The church does not exist for the church, but for the message of the Lord. Since I discovered the church in 1979, the only thing that has changed is the size of the church, and the creation of the Harvest Crusades.

Twenty years ago, this month, Harvest decided that with the massive growth of the church in Riverside, the responsibility of sharing the Gospel of Jesus Christ was increasing, and the need to reach out to more people was the duty of the church. The first Harvest Crusade at Angels Stadium in Anaheim, California, drew 35,000 people, nearly filling the stadium, and launching a national evangelistic ministry that has become a welcomed event each year at Angels Stadium, and around the world. Worldwide, Harvest Christian Fellowship's Greg Laurie has reached more than 3.8 million people who have attended these events, a million of those people at events outside of Anaheim. The various other locations have included New York, Philadelphia, Raleigh N.C., Athens Georgia, Fayetteville Arkansas, Waikiki, Fort Lauderdale, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. 317,000 recorded professions of faith have resulted from these events.

Tonight is the third evening of this weekend's event in Anaheim, and as always, the events this weekend were filled with inspirational music by a variety of Christian music bands, prayer, a powerful message from Greg Laurie, and an invitation for the attendees to come to Christ.

This year's event follows a year of reflection since the death of Christopher Laurie, who joined the Lord July 24, 2008. Greg and Cathe Laurie's son died in a single-car crash while on his way to the church, leaving behind his pregnant wife, and daughter. After the traumatic event Greg Laurie has grown in ways he never expected, seeing everything a little differently, and becoming aware of how many others out there hurt from the loss of a child. Now, his message carries a new perspective by adding a deeper dimension regarding the storms of life.

The message over the years has remained consistent with the Word of God, though the music, style, and a greater opening of his heart since the death of his son, has tweaked the event here and there. The journey of the last twenty years for Greg, as with his church members, has been one of personal growth. Greg is not the person he was twenty years ago. He has become a stronger person, and more intent on continuing, and growing, the outreach God has blessed him with.

To learn more about Greg Laurie, Harvest Christian Fellowship, and the Harvest Crusades, visit Harvest.org.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Invading America

I remember when the untrue rumor arose that Sarah Palin was a proponent of banning certain books from school libraries. Remember the uproar by the Left? Do you remember how dangerous that made her, according to those that opposed her?

In one of my favorite movies of all time, "Field of Dreams," a woman arguing at a PTA meeting for the banning of a book called "The Boat Rocker" by fictional character Terence Mann (James Earl Jones) declares the book to be smut, using "filthy" language, and has no place in their school. Kevin Costner's movie wife (played by actress Amy Madigan) turns to Kevin Costner's ear and tells him the woman is a "fascist."

A school board member in the movie explains to the woman that the book is not "smut," but is considered by most to be a classic novel about the 1960s. A man jumps up and calls the book "pornography," and the board member replies, "No, no, the Supreme Court says it's not."

Then, of course, the cat is let out of the bag. These wannabe book burners are Christians, upset about the Godlessness of the book their children are being exposed to during school hours. The book promotes, according to the actress in the movie, "Promiscuity, Godlessness, the mongrelization of the races, and disrespect to high ranking officers in the United States Army." She then adds that is why "right-thinking" school boards across America have been banning Terence Mann's books since 1969. She then adds a personal attack about Terrence's personal sexual activities to drive the message home.

Finally, Amy Madigan's character has had enough, rises up, and tries to approach the manner in a fairly civil manner, explaining how Mann was a voice of reason during a time of madness, coining the phrase "Make Love, Not War," and while rage filled society he was promoting peace and understanding.

The potential book banner's response was confrontational, and then the battle really begins. After verbally attacking Costner's character regarding how he plowed under his corn to build a baseball field, Amy's character responds: "At least he's not a book burner you Nazi cow."

Then, after referring to the "book banner" as Eva Braun, she turns to the crowd. She goes into a speech asking them who is for burning books? Who wants to spit on the Constitution of the United States? Who's for the Bill of Rights? Who thinks freedom is a pretty darn good thing? Who thinks we need to stand up to the kind of censorship they had under Stalin?

Then after the characters played by Costner and Madigan leaves the meeting she exclaims with excitement, "It was just like the 60s again. I just helped stop the spread of neo-fascism in America."

Now, I imagine that is how the liberal left felt when Sarah Palin emerged on the scene. They tried to beat her back with numerous attacks to her character and integrity. I am sure they felt especially giddy when they realized that Palin could possibly be a "book burner." After all, if they firmly believe, as is (it seems) to be the prevalent worldview opinion among that side of the political spectrum, that Conservatism and Christianity is out to force them to fit into some small box of morality, and let go of all of the "freedoms" they hold near and dear, then that anger may be understandable.

One must remember that with freedom comes responsibility. So the question would be, is it responsible to expose children to experimental theories of "reason" and "psychology" against the will of parents?

I understand that the "Field of Dreams" is only a movie, and that it turned out the accusation that Sarah Palin wanted to ban books was unfounded. Regarding Palin, the Left's excitement that she might be some "First Amendment killing radical" was nothing more than a pipe dream. But, using those two examples, and the words of support by the Left of the anti-war protesters of the 1960s, and during the War in Iraq, it becomes clear that the Left considers the voice of dissent to be patriotic - or at least as long as that voice of dissent isn't at Tea Parties, or voices opposition to what the Left believes (such as at Town Hall meetings). If the voice of dissent dares to disagree with them, it is no longer patriotic dissent, it becomes manufactured, radical, extremist mob-style tactics by a bunch of yokels that don't know reasonable government policy from a hole in the ground.

When I first became a blogger a liberal reader, though she disagreed with me on pretty much everything I had to say, used to tell me that despite our disagreement, she would defend my right to say what I believe by shouting from the mountain tops, if need be. I wonder, now that there is heavy disagreement with Obama's policies by the Right, if she still feels the same?

So this is how I understand the Left's position of freedom of speech based on my observations, and what I have heard them say on blogs, and through the mouths of Democrat Politicians:

- Banning any kind of book makes one a "book burner," and such activity is neo-fascism, and in the style of Nazism.

- Not allowing Americans to protest in the streets, especially if it is against the U.S. Government during a time of war, is a violation of those people's right to exercise their First Amendment Rights.

- Disallowing the full freedom to talk about any topic in the schools, such as the gay lifestyle, abortion, Darwinism, atheism (as in the writings of Richard Dawkins), racial issues, and so forth, would be insensitive, and fosters hate among our children.

- To disagree with any speech, regardless of its nature, in schools, television, on the radio, et cetera, or to do anything to impede the distribution of materials that could be deemed by some as inappropriate, such as pornography, is censorship, and fascist.

I know there are more, but that is the basic gist of it all, right Leftists?

Using the rules given to us by the Left that book banning is fascist, censoring language is Nazi-like, and disallowing any belief system (like the normalization of homosexuality) is breeding hate, I have a few questions to ask.

1. If banning books is wrong, then why is banning the Bible from Public Schools, attempting to ban the Gideons from placing Bibles in Hotel Rooms as they have for generations, and banning Biblical teachings and principles from the public square acceptable?

2. If it is wrong to challenge belief systems like Darwinism, Atheism, and the Gay Lifestyle, then why is the slightest portrayal of the Christian Faith not allowed, and in some cases, a criminal action? Why is that not considered breeding hate against Christians?

3. If dissent is patriotic, as told to us by Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton during the anti-war protests over the Iraq War, then why are Tea Party and Town Hall protesters being labeled as radicals and extremists, and why is it okay with you that the government is taking actions to silence those people?

4. If censoring language is un-American, especially if it were to be done by the governmental system, then why is it okay to ban words from the textbooks given to our children that identify gender?

To expound upon that last point: Gender Identity is being banned from school textbooks. It is another example of the invasion of America, and the changing of the American Culture, through language.

For example, in textbooks the words "Founding Fathers" is now banned from public school textbooks because it signifies that the "Framers" were men. Therefore, "Framers," and "Founders" are now the only acceptable words in school textbooks for the purpose of referring to the men, er, uhh, genderless people that founded this nation.

Doesn't the banning of words that identify gender, or a person's portrayal of their faith, the banning of biblical text, and the banning of anything else by the leftists make them fascists? Wouldn't it be accurate to consider their attempts to silence protesters against the health care bill akin to the censorship the downtrodden had under Stalin? Doesn't the criminalization of prayer, as we saw in an example of two school officials being threatened with jail time for offering prayer at a luncheon, make the Left a bunch of Nazi cows? And I wonder what the Founding Fathers would think about the government unconstitutionally providing a "public option" for health care, unconstitutionally creating an atmosphere of dependence with entitlement programs, unconstitutionally inciting violence by proclaiming the Obama supporters need to "push back," unconstitutionally taking the reins of private industry as in the case of the auto industry and the banking industry, unconstitutionally controlling the media through the Federal Communications Commission, unconstitutionally forcing advertisers away from a voice of dissent (Glen Beck) through threats, unconstitutionally making plans to post the U.S. Military throughout the U.S. for the purpose of controlling the populace, unconstitutionally fostering the hysteria surrounding mythical man-made Global Warming (a.k.a. Climate Change), unconstitutionally attempting to take away parental rights, and unconstitutionally infringing on the free exercise of religion by banning God from the public square, public schools, and federal properties?

What would the Founding Fathers think of the invasion of America, and the attempt to subvert liberty and contain certain "conservative" segments of the population through the control of the school system, and language?

Would they approve? Or would they see it as the spreading of neo-fascism in America?

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Guess Which Words Are Banned from Your Kids' Textbooks? - Fox Nation

'Obamacare:' What does the Constitution have to say? - World Net Daily, Chelsea Schilling

Is Obamacare Consistent With Our First Principles? - The Heritage Foundation

Global warming battle: Thar she blows! - World Net Daily, Jerome Corsi

Obamacare a 'rotten fish,' says Broun at town hall - Online Athens, Blake Aued

The Pentagon Wants Authority to Post Almost 400,000 Military Personnel in U.S. - The Progressive, Matthew Rothschild

Obama Behind Beck Boycott - Atlas Shrugs, Pamela Geller

GLENN BECK ADVERTISERS IN THE CROSSHAIRS - The Radio Patriot, Andrea Shea King

New FCC official: 'Fairness Doctrine never repealed' - World Net Daily

Obama considers real America "the enemy" - Renew America, Chris Adamo

The White House Mob – The True Gangsters At Work In America - Gribbit's Word

States Rights Killed by Public Schools, and it began with the story of Lincoln

The American Civil War did not begin as a war about slavery. Abolition of slavery was one of the ingredients, but not the main reason for the bloody war between the states. The primary issue was state's rights, and Abraham Lincoln was unconstitutionally trouncing on State's Rights. Slavery, in fact, did not become the major component of the war until the Emancipation Proclamation, which did nothing legally. The famous proclamation was a political move to get Britain out of the war, and allow the Union Navy access to Southern Ports.

The Public School System has willfully suppressed the facts, and teach our children that the Civil War was in fact about slavery.

Joshua Taylor joins me tonight to discuss a little history, and the parallels to today's battle for State's Rights, and Obama's attempt to take away State Sovereignty as given to the states by the U.S. Constitution.

Join us live at 7:00 pm Pacific, or catch the archive later, on the Political Pistachio Radio Revolution - BlogTalkRadio.com/PoliticalPistachio.

California Fires

Firestorms have become a way of life in California. They rage now, every year, more than I remember as a child. Usually Southern California is under siege, and I am sure before Fire Season is over we will get our share, but right now it is Northern California that is mostly going up in flames.

Southern California is getting a taste of the fire season to come, however. As I look out my window it is overcast. Some of that is not only low cloud cover, but from smoke a little to my north. A fire just south of San Luis Obispo, and east of Santa Maria, the La Brea Fire, did its share in filling the skies over the Los Angeles basin with smoke. The massive fire in Santa Barbara County has burned 75,486 acres, and is about 25% contained. The Los Padres National Forest, much of which is roadless in the San Rafael Wilderness, has made the blaze difficult to battle as winds gusting to 50 mph fan the flames. The cost of battling the fire is approaching $3 million.

Strong winds have played a major role in spreading multiple fires into thousands of acres in Northern California as well. The Lockheed Fire erupted three days ago in the Santa Cruz Mountains. So far the fire has scorched 5,036 acres, and is only 15% contained. Two structures have been damaged, and more than 250 residences currently remain threatened by the blaze. The two communities that are threatened have been evacuated, affecting 2,000-2,400 people. The cause is unknown, but the cost of the fire is currently at $2.6 million.

The Corral Fire, burning in Alameda County, is about 20% contained, and has burned 15,000 acres at this point. The rural aspects of the terrain has enabled the fire to only threaten one residence since it sparked into existence on August 13. Currently, 337 Fire Personnel are fighting this fire, costing half a million dollars. As with all of the fires, weather is a major factor in fueling this inferno, and driving it into new, fresh fuel, areas. A warming trend is expected in the weather, which will increase the violent behavior of the fire as it continues to burn in a location that is known for its hot, dry, down-canyon winds at night.

The Coffin Fire near Shasta is 85% contained and has burned 1,200 acres. The Yuba Fire, north of Sacramento, has burned 1,000 acres, is 35% contained, has destroyed two structures, and threatens multiple structures. The SHU Lightning Fire near in Shasta County has charred 17,623 acres, and is currently 80% contained. Full containment of that fire is expected by tomorrow.

A State of Emergency has been declared, and the hot, dry days of summer continue.

Is this a preview of what we have in store for us as the Santa Ana winds loom on the horizon?

For continuous updates on the fires mentioned above, and others currently burning in California, visit the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection website, current incidents section.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Consequences

Dad used to tell me when I was a kid that the best way to stay out of trouble is to not put yourself in that kind of situation in the first place. If the possibility of something bad happening is allowed to exist, when it happens you have nobody to blame but yourself.

Right and Wrong go beyond just biblical standards. Scriptural limitations were created to protect us from consequences. Unwanted consequences can be the result of poor decisions, and God knew with our sinful nature we tend to be lousy decision makers when it comes to that kind of thing. Our lives are a direct, or indirect, result of the decisions we make in life, and often without the guiding principles of Judeo-Christian values, we tend to foul things up.

Promiscuity opens up the opportunity for an unwanted pregnancy, or disease. Unhealthy lifestyles opens up the opportunity for unhealthy consequences. Unwillingness to manage one's debts properly will result in debt, and worse. Gambling and alcohol can open one up to addiction. Eating too much on a consistent basis can lead to obesity. Love of money creates a situation where other, more important things become footnotes.

Anytime anything becomes more important than God, it tends to lead us into trouble.

The Left, hoping to justify most poor decisions, is working to eliminate, or at least downplay, a number of consequences. This way they can justify their selfishness.

Condoms and abortions eliminate sexual consequences, for example. Now, don't get me wrong, birth control in itself is not something I recommend against, but when it is used to protect against disease and pregnancy because the person is being promiscuous or adulterous, rather than the person remaining pure until marriage, the condom becomes a bad thing.

It is like a large knife. A knife is a tool. It can be used to cut food, cut rope to free whatever is restrained, or kill. The knife is not necessarily a bad thing, but the wielder's use of it can make it a bad thing, as much as a good thing. The holder of the knife, his usage, and the motivations behind the use of the knife, all become factors, and can make the knife a terrible thing.

With Freedom comes responsibility, and eliminating consequences does not make something right - it is just an attempt to limit God's influence, and eventually replace God with the all-powerful government.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Molotov Mitchell Enters The Political Pistachio Radio Revolution

Molotov Mitchell of World Net Daily and Illuminati Pictures has a new video on health care Town Hall meetings titled: Revolution Rising. Molotov Mitchell is president of the award-winning Illuminati Pictures and the national spokesman for the Domestic Emergency Network. His specialty is entertainment communications, particularly reaching the "under 40" demographic. Tonight Molotov joins Political Pistachio Radio to discuss this issue, his videos, and much more. Don't miss Molotov Mitchell on Political Pistachio beginning at 7:00 PM Pacific Time tonight, or listen to the archive later, at BlogTalkRadio.com/PoliticalPistachio.

View Revolution Rising HERE on World Net Daily.

Check out some of Molotov's past videos by going to the links below:

Darwin vs. Liberals

Right Wing Extremists Pt. 1

Right Wing Extremists Pt. 2

Democratic Dyslexic Disorder

Obama's Abortion Bailout

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

ThirdWaveDave Ends

Inexplicably, ThirdWaveDave exits. Read His Final Post.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

P.S. My Final Comment on his Site:

Dave, You may never realize how much you have touched my life, and the lives of others. You are dearly loved, and you will be sincerely missed. Despite hanging up the gloves (for now), don't be a stranger - keep visiting, reading, and influencing. Your opinion, and your friendship, has become an important part of our lives, and we can't go cold turkey. Love ya, man. Blessings, Douglas V. Gibbs, Political Pistachio

The Israel Test

Past Political Pistachio Radio guest John C. Wohlstetter wrong a great book review on George Gilder's "The Israel Test". The Review is published below with permission. It can also be found on The American Spectator.
Israel Inside

By John C. Wohlstetter on 8.10.09 @ 6:08AM


The Israel Test
By George Gilder
(Richard Vigilante Books, 296 pages, $27.95)

This latest book from one of the planet's intellectual titans of the past generation is one of his most important. Given George Gilder's astonishing range and foresight -- including family structure, welfare, the practical and moral case for enterprise capitalist wealth creation, the transformation of the computer and telecommunications industries -- this is saying a lot.

What Gilder sets out to do in his poetic prose is show how Israel's accelerating migration over the past twenty years from a socialist to a capitalist economy has transformed the Jewish state from an economic basket case to a powerhouse player in the world economy. Gilder then applies the implications of this metamorphosis to the prospects for finding a way to settle the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Israel has become such a huge driving force in computing and telecommunications that Gilder intellectually riffs off the "Intel Inside" logo that sits on the exterior case of countless millions of personal computers, and says that today's Internet and computers should be labeled "Israel Inside." Now Israel is making major moves in biotechnology, including drugs for plants used in agriculture. Symbolic of the more agile Israeli economy, one CEO noted: "The process is faster for drugs because the plants don't have lawyers."

Calling Israel the central front in the war dividing two global camps, Gilder begins his book by framing the divide:

The prime issue is not a global war of civilizations between the West and Islam or a split between Arabs and Jews….The real issue is between the rule of law and the rule of leveler egalitarianism, between creative excellence and covetous "fairness," between admiration of achievement versus envy and resentment of it….

The test can be summarized by a few questions: What is your attitude toward people who excel you in the creation of wealth or in other accomplishment? Do you aspire to that excellence, or do you seethe at it? Do you admire and celebrate exceptional achievement, or do you impugn it and seek to tear it down?

The Palestinians, needless to say, epitomize the wrong side of these juxtapositions, while Israel and America generally are on the right side. But now America must look toward Israel, whose Prime Minister exemplifies the right side of these divides, whereas the newly elected American President is on the wrong side -- despite his having been richly rewarded by the society he now wishes to turn away from its historical celebration of private capitalist enterprise.

Gilder notes the politically incorrect fact that Jews contributed to scientific progress (and artistic achievement) in vast disproportion to their minuscule number. As for Arab militancy its roots, he explains, lie in the noxious totalitarian ideologies of Marxist socialism and Nazism. Ironically, Marx's socialism also animated the early generations of Israelis. Thus Israel was for its first four decades an economic mess.

Gilder spotlights the legendary mathematician John von Neumann as first among the genius Jews who transformed mathematics, physics, game theory, information theory and many other disciplines; von Neumann was the intellectual godfather of the modern computer as it evolved over six decades. Nazi persecution drove von Neumann and a legion of great Jewish scientists out of the lands of Eastern Europe and from Germany. Gilder captures the result perfectly: the great mathematician David Hilbert, a von Neumannn mentor at Göttingen University in Germany, was asked in 1934 by Hitler's education minister, "How is mathematics in Göttingen, now that it has been freed of the Jewish influence?" Replied Hilbert: "Mathematics at Göttingen? There really is none anymore." Von Neumann, Einstein and many other Jews combined with Jews like J. Robert Oppenheimer in the West to win the race for the atomic bomb, and thus end World War II; many then were central to the West winning the Cold War. After the Berlin Wall fell, a huge wave of Russian Jewry took immense scientific talent and entrepreneurial energy out of Russia and into Israel, laying the foundation of Israel's rise to world economic ascendancy.

The prime Israeli architect of economic prosperity was Benjamin Netanyahu, who learned his economics during his education in the States and was an early supply-side tax cutter. His shining moment came in Ariel Sharon's term as prime minister. Israel's economy was still 60 percent government controlled. The Palestinian suicide bombing campaign of 2000-2002 scared off foreign investors and caused an added risk premium to be priced into Israeli bonds. Needing a guarantor, Sharon's Finance Minister, Netanyahu approached the Bush administration. President Bush and his Treasury Secretary, John Snow, agreed to have the Treasury guarantee Israel's bonds, which would reduce the risk premium and make affordable financing possible for Israel, on one condition, to which Netanyahu eagerly assented: implement broad financial and economic deregulation. The upshot was that within a few years the government share of Israel's economy plummeted by two-thirds to 20 percent, and Israeli economic growth went into racing gear.

Gilder details how from 1967 to 1992, when Israel governed the West Bank and Gaza, Palestinians prospered as never before. In the 20 years from the 1967 War to the launching of the first Palestinian "Intifada" (Arabic for "shaking off"), 250,000 settlers on the West Bank and Gaza built the area's first real modern infrastructure, and thus attracted ten Arabs for every Jew living there. The territories saw annual economic growth running 25 percent, far higher than socialist stagnated Israel. Arab incomes tripled, seven universities and 2,500 factories were built, and life expectancy jumped from 40 to 70. In an area widely viewed as an economic backwater under Israeli rule, 92.8 percent of the Arab population had electricity in 1986, compared to 20.5 percent in 1967. Then came the UN, the "international community" and Israel's "peace now" leaders, who gave the Mideast the Oslo Accords and placed Yasser Arafat, lifelong terrorist and mass murderer, on the throne of Arab Palestine.

The upshot: terrorism, Nazified brainwashing of children to hate Jews, massive corruption and economic immiseration. Inundated by foreign aid that fell into Arafat's palm Palestinians, Gilder writes, "became arguably the world's most twisted welfare culture of violence and demoralization….with leadership based entirely upon terrorism and hatred and international grievance-mongering."

Thus the path to peace is not the hidebound "peace process" in which Israel makes irrevocable territorial concessions in return for revocable Palestinian peace promises. It lies, rather, in Arabs being freed from terrorist leaders and anti-Semitic fantasy, instead embracing cooperation with and thus acceptance of Israel. Modern game theory explains the divide. A short-run game rewards predatory players, while productive players must use cooperation to gain vastly more over time.

History suggests strongly that Gilder is right. The two most successful Mideast peace accords were based upon Arabs moving first: accepting Israel's right to exist, then making peace. Israel is, in truth, the easiest country in the world to make peace with. All it needs is a partner for peace. But when Israel has gone first the result has been disaster:

After the 1993 Oslo Accords, Israel traded land for lies -- broken Palestinian promises. After Israel vacated southern Lebanon unilaterally, it got the al-Aqsa Intifada and suicide bomber attacks. After Israel uprooted settlers in Gaza and unilaterally vacated, the Palestinians destroyed the assets Israel let behind, and then let loose with thousands of rockets, leading to the 2008-2009 Gaza War. Thus over the past 16 years of "peace process" Israel's "peace now" faction has serially traded land for lies, land for suicide bombers and land for rockets. If they trade land yet again, whatever they get will not be peace.

Yet the international community -- the UN and most nations -- persists in the fiction that Israel's "occupation" of the West Bank is the reason for Palestinian terror, although terror antedates Israel's 1967 victory. The "L" in "PLO" stands for "liberation" of Israel from Jewish control. Gilder also notes in a bitter irony that alone among peoples on the planet Arabs are given a presumed right to a territory free of Jews -- the judenrein ("Jew-free") dream of Hitler. (Conveniently forgotten is that Jordan's 1950 annexation of the West Bank was legally recognized only by two nations: Britain, and Britain's creation, Pakistan.)

After each wave of Arab aggression the international community libels Israel as the aggressor or as a war criminal for using excessive -- "disproportionate" -- force. Aid flows invariably to the Palestinians, nearly all of it diverted from avowedly humanitarian purposes to financing the next round of terrorism. In national security as in economics, if you tax (penalize) something you get less of it, while if you subsidize (reward) it you get more. In this case, terror is rewarded, and grows.

Perhaps most important in Gilder's masterwork is that he shows why Israel is essential to American prosperity as well, with its technological prowess. Israel could be the economic engine for the entire Mideast. This is the new Israel, no longer a financial ward of America. It is this Israel that most Americans know not of. "Israel Inside" would be a great slogan for an ad campaign educating Americans about the new Israel, and its supreme value to America and the West. In lieu of an ad blitz, Gilder's book does the job beautifully.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Steven Crowder's "Flag Yourself" Campaign

VIDEO

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

NewsBusted Delivers a Little Conservative Humor

From SEIU Thugs Crashing the Protests at the Townhall Meetings, to Hitler References and Russian Subs, Jody Miller delivers a few laughs while referring to very real news items.



VIDEO

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Luncheon Prayer Brings Criminal Charges

In Santa Rosa County, Florida, school principal Frank Lay and Athletic Director Robert Freeman could go to jail for a prayer over a meal at an appreciation luncheon with booster club members and other adults.

The hullabaloo began when the ACLU filed a lawsuit last year against Santa Rosa County schools over the prayer in a classic bullying tactic to complete the secular/humanistic goal to kill God in the public square, and eliminate him from American Life altogether. Then, the ACLU turned its sights on individuals, and made a move against Lay and Freeman.

Did the school employees force the people at the luncheon to join in the prayer? Were there people going around to ensure everyone's head was bowed? Were the doors locked to block escape from the prayer?

No, of course not. If there was anyone who wasn't hip with the prayer, they had every opportunity to not participate.

Hardly a case of the state establishing religion, or requiring people to participate.

The order by a federal judge to an overly broad court order that banned any prayer or religious activities by school employees before, during, or after school is clearly unconstitutional. Worse, U.S. District Court Judge Casey Rodgers criminal contempt proceedings and referral of the case to the U.S. Attorney's office was based solely on the ACLU's allegations, and no other evidence was reviewed.

As a result, a pair of school employees will face a federal court with criminal contempt charges and could serve jail time in a federal prison for uttering a prayer at a luncheon.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Document tells Pace High officials to answer to criminal charges - Pensacola News Journal

Garden Grove's Greener Street Lights

"Garden Grove is testing Greener Street Lights that will save money, and the planet." - CBS2 News at 11:00 O'Clock.

Save the Planet? The term is becoming so overly used, that its actual meaning is being lost in translation.

Will a bunch of L.E.D. street lights in a single city really "save the planet?"

No, of course not.

LED lights are highly efficient, and it is estimated by the city of Garden Grove that the use of the LED street lights will cut energy use by 30 percent to 60 percent. In the sense of saving the taxpayer's a few bucks, that is a good thing. With that kind of savings in energy, a switch over to LED lights just might be worth it.

But the switch isn't going to save the planet. Using that term is simply a way to make sure folks that have bought into the Man-made Global Warming Hysteria of mythical proportions are fully on board with the switch to LED. After all, the four 250-watt LED street lights that are going to switch over during this test don't come cheap. Regular street lights costs $300 a fixture, while LED lights cost about $2,000 a fixture.

Might as well use some "Climate Change will kill us all if we don't do something about it" magic to make the sell, right?

The upside is that the LED lights are constructed with 100 percent recycled aluminum, which means they contain no mercury or lead and do not require hazardous waste disposal handling.

I use an LED flashlight when I inspect my big rig in the early morning hours, and with a full charge in the battery, they are bright, and more than acceptable.

The downside is, when it comes to using LEDs in street lights, however, is that they are more expensive to install, and despite all of the rhetoric, they are not a factor in "the battle against climate change." We could eliminate the entire human carbon footprint, and the worldwide temperature would not change enough for us even to notice, because our contribution of greenhouse gases is so small, it has little effect on the environment - despite what the environmental alarmists may tell you. A less than one percent carbon contribution battle for a greener humanity is a moot point.

Congratulations to Garden Grove for possibly saving the taxpayer money somewhere down the road with these LED lights, but don't advertise it as "saving the planet," because in the end, that is a big, fat lie.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Garden Grove tests LED street lights - Orange County Register, DEEPA BHARATH

Keith Olbermann and Bill O'Reilly Wimp Out

Part of the reason that the mainstream media can't be trusted is because of the corporate sponsors, and the interference by the companies that own the networks. Many issues are not touched, and many things are not said, because of the controlling factors involved. So much so that the war between Keith Olbermann (idiot to the extreme) and Bill O'Reilly (the independent that everyone thinks is a conservative) has come to an end. In Olbermann's case, when faced with the opportunity to tell his viewers that he is the big corporate owner's patsy and is being forced into silence, Keith Olbermann did what all good liberals do under pressure: He lied.

Olbermann essentially said regarding the issue that MSNBC did not muzzle him, it was his own decision. He did not fold to pressure by the corporate office, nor the pressure applied by an article in the New York Times that proclaimed he was under the scrutiny of GE, owner of MSNBC.

All Keith Olbermann did, however, was act as the Democrats will be forced to do soon - he folded like a wimp, and is no doubt hiding in his dark little corner hoping that his bosses, out of the goodness of their black hearts, will let him stay around for just a little longer.

Wimp.

I am sure the liberal freaks that watch you on the tube, Keith Olbermann, while you spew your hateful dribble, were dismayed by your sudden exhibition of no intestinal fortitude.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Keith Olbermann Playing Viewers For Fools On O'Reilly Truce - CNN

Obama Health Care Presents: Taking Control of Parenting

Government has a history of trying to force parents to raise their kids as the government desires, rather than what the parent thinks is best. Government indoctrinates the children in the public school system, proposes legislation to ban disciplinary methods (such as AB 2943 which would have imposed a spanking ban that would have jailed good parents for using proven disciplinary methods), and tries to pass legislation and make treaties with the United Nations, that will hijack your parental rights.

A year ago H.R. 2343 (Education Begins At Home Act) was proposed to help evaluate developmental problems in children. Seems benevolent enough, right? Yeah, until you realize the bill would allow the government to disallow a parent's ability to decline evaluations, drugs or treatment for their children once the government, through the program, diagnosed children with developmental or medical conditions. It also allowed government home visits for monitoring purposes.

Last year's H.R. 3289 (The Pre-K Act) would provide funds for state-approved pre-school. Voluntary government funded pre-school, like Head Start already exists, but the Pre-K Act would institute curriculum that deals with issues that have nothing to do with academic development (gender issues, environmentalism, multiculturalism, feminism). The concern was that the programs would become mandatory as Hillary Clinton was recommending at the time with her "it takes a village to raise a child" statement.

Red Flags especially went up when the Democrats began to court the United Nations Convention on the Rights of a Child, which could not only destroy American sovereignty by imposing international rulings on American Law, but would allow international organizations the authority to override parental decisions by applying even to good parents a standard now only used against parents convicted of abuse or neglect.

Each of these were met with anger by the American People because not only do parents believe that the government does not know better then them when it comes to how to raise their children, but the fear was that with so much government intrusion in parenting we would begin to see cases similar to what we see in other countries, like when in Canada a court overturned a father's grounding of his 12-year old child, deeming it unfair to the child.

Unable to satisfy the American People with legislation and treaties that would erode parental rights, the Democrats have decided to sneak such an insidious attack on parental rights inside the government health care bill, H.R. 3200.

On page 838 of the Obamacare monstrosity, it reads: "Home visitation programs for families with young children and families expecting children"

As I have already explained, the Democrats have been trying to come into homes and usurp parental rights for quite a while - under the guise of ensuring proper child development.

Essentially, if passed, the Obama Health Care bill would allow the government to come into your home to tell you how to raise your children, using their idiotic ideas regarding child behavior and parenting skills.

Specifically, the bill says, "well-trained and competent staff," would "provide parents with knowledge of age-appropriate child development in cognitive, language, social, emotional, and motor domains ... modeling, consulting, and coaching on parenting practices," and "skills to interact with their child to enhance age-appropriate development."

You know, like loading kids up with Ritalin because by their behavior they must be having difficulty with keeping their attention - when in reality the kids are simply being kids!

I have extensive formal education in this matter, as well as helping my wife earn her degrees in Child Development, and Psychology. This is nothing new. As with everything else with the liberal left, they have determined that theories are fact, and that individuals can be squeezed into a one-size-fits-all meat grinder so that we can all be treated the same with wonderful, well intentioned, leftist conclusions. Or at least that is what it says on paper.

How dare they, under the guise of "what's best for us", determine they can stomp all over our rights as parents. They do not know what is best for my children. I do. The government's, and psychology's, influence in our public school system has ruined the schools, and our children. As a parent I spent a lot of time deprogramming my kids from the loads of crap the schools were teaching them. These people can't even run their own lives right, and they think they can tell me how to raise my kids?

That is not even mentioning the destruction of liberty, here. How are we a free nation when the government is telling us how to raise our kids?

Every child is different, and every family situation is unique. For many families, their religious convictions play a large part in the raising of their child, as well as their life experiences that prepared them for their roles as parents.

The point of this by the Democrats, however, is to eliminate that individualism. To the Left, personal responsibility is something to be frowned upon, ridiculed, and eliminated. Remember, these are the same people who are directly influenced by a worldview that takes much of its marching orders from Marxist-style ideals. It is an attempt to destroy the family, and nullify individualism. One-size-fits-all, and the all-powerful government desires to become the arbiter of everything.

Proponents of the bill are claiming the program will be voluntary.

Bull Crap.

They will find any way they can to snake their way in, especially if you dare to be one of those Christians who is willing to spank your kids. Remember, celebrated atheist idiots like Richard Dawkins claims that teaching children about the Christian Faith, and the existence of Hades, is child abuse. The moment the government believes a parent is daring to teach their children something the government doesn't approve of, like the Christian Faith, they won't hesitate to pay a visit to the offending family and set them straight (a.k.a. re-education programs).

After all, the bill points to specific targeted groups and problems, like on Page 840: The state "shall identify and prioritize serving communities that are in high need of such services, especially communities with a high proportion of low-income families."

So the lower the income the less the folks know about parenting? Is that the government conclusion? Suddenly elitists like them are better parents because they have a big bank account?

This is one of the reasons the politicians are not reading the bill, and why they are trying to push it through fast. The Left wants this thing approved before you realize the fascist, freedom-killing provisions the government will receive once it is passed. H.R. 3200 spells the end of America as we know it, should it pass. The Democrats know this. Changing the American Form of Government into something that disallows liberty is exactly what they had in mind when Obama based his campaign on "Change."

Be involved. Continue to storm the Townhall Meetings, continue to be a part of the Tea Party events, make a statement on 9/12 in Washington.

United We Stand, Combined We Kick Butt!

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Obama's Thugs to Visit Your Home to Check on How You're Raising Your Kids - Atlas Shrugs, Pamela Geller

Lawmakers To Consider Spanking Ban - WCVB TV ABC 5, The Boston Channel

U.S. government: We know parenting better than you - World Net Daily, Chelsea Schilling

Proposed California ’spanking’ ban would intrude on parental rights - Alliance Alert/CNS News

United Nations Could Dictate American Parental Rights - Political Pistachio, Douglas V. Gibbs

Court overturns father's grounding of 12-year-old - AFP

Christian attorney sees threat to parental rights - Associated Press

'Parental rights' - Congress in a race against the U.N. - One News Now

United Nations' threat: No more parental rights - World Net Daily, Chelsea Schilling

Boxer Seeks to Ratify U.N. Treaty That May Erode U.S. Rights - Fox News, Joseph Abrams

Destruction of the Democrat Party

Mindless liberal sheep have gathered together for their blessed Democratic Party, proclaiming this is their finest hour, as the party they blindly follow methodically self-destructs. The turn of the Twentieth Century brought liberalism into the Democratic Party, and the liberalism evolved into something worse than Marxism. Creeping incrementalism has been their tool. Patience and persistence their specialty. Marxism their inspiration. An eventual change of America into a Utopian Society where true communism reigns supreme their ultimate goal.

The liberals of the Democratic Party believed this was their time. America was ready for the hope of a change from Constitutionalism to Liberalism, from Capitalism to Socialism, from a Republic to a Democracy, and from Liberty to Slavery.

They jumped the shark, and now there is no turning back.

Lashing out at average Americans who are upset, and feel betrayed, by this sudden fascist turn of events in American Politics, the Democrats are comparing the Tea Party and Townhall protesters to Nazis, and the Klu Klux Klan, while accusing these grass roots citizens as being shepherded into these gatherings by organizations, facing their representatives as a part of some kind of a manufactured conspiracy backed by special interest groups.

The individual, independently thinking, Americans protesting at these events are offended by that insinuation.

As a political cartoon I saw recently quipped, it is like the British Red Coats in a small boat in Boston Harbor watching Tea being thrown overboard by the colonists as the Boston Tea Party was underway well over two hundred years ago, and turning to each other to say, "King George says there is nothing to worry about because the protest is manufactured by special interest groups."

Rather than respond to the folks who are angry about the health care bill, the cowardly representatives are shutting the doors, are refusing to meet with the people, and Obama is sicking his SEIU thugs on the people. ACORN has also played a part in trying to keep people who disagree with Obama's Health Care bill from talking to each other about it at events. The Democrats believe the best way to handle Americans exercising their First Amendment Rights is to close an iron fist around their neck, and clamp down hard on any dissent while demonizing the dissent as simply the ranting and raving of a bunch of fringe extremists.

The American People are not standing for the bullying tactics by the Left, and the anger is held by a majority of Americans.

Obama's popularity is plummeting, all of his policies are immensely unpopular with the American People, and the Democratic Party is revealing itself as the Marxist, fascist party that it is. Those in the Democratic Party that are not a part of the thuggery are even protesting, and are enthusiastically attending the Tea Parties. This is no longer about Conservatives and Liberals, or a disagreement between two political parties. The political atmosphere has become about the Will of The People, versus the tyranny of the Obama Administration, and his Leftist Minions. And through the process, the Democrat Party is destroying itself, and its fragile standing with the American People.

The big question, however, is whether or not the Republican Party will get its act together and capitalize on the fact that the Democratic Party is putting a noose around its neck, or continue its leftward journey to becoming as much of an enemy of Liberty, and an adversary of the will of The People, as has the Democratic Party.

A return to "The Party of Reagan" by the Republicans will ensure a landslide victory for the GOP in the next election cycle. Failure of the Republican Party to return to its Conservative Base will result in an interesting trail of successes for independents in 2010.

Destruction of the Democrat Party is eminent, should the Party of the wayward Donkey continue to cater to the far left liberal Marxists that have infiltrated the party, and are slowly destroying it brick by brick, and tile by tile.

The amazing part of it all is the goons that inhabit the far left zone of the party don't see it coming. They have scales over their eyes, and are unable to recognize the obvious. Their leftist agenda is crumbling around them, and they are not even willing to open their eyes enough to recognize it happening.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

By Douglas V. Gibbs

The Obama Press Conference You Won’t See - Whadya know?

ACORN Using Police to Keep Obamacare Opponents Quiet - Political Pistachio

Under Pressure on Health Care, White House Fights Back - The New York Times, JIM RUTENBERG and JACKIE CALMES

Lou Dobbs on Obama's Birth Certificate

Lou Dobbs has repeatedly stated that he believes Barack Obama was born in Hawaii. People like Philip J. Berg may be 1,000 percent positive Barry was born in Kenya, but for most folks the issue is not necessarily about if Obama was born in Hawaii, but rather asking why the President is not being upfront with the issue regarding his birth certificate, and eligibility to be President of the United States.

The Associated Press apparently has a problem with Lou Dobbs of CNN being willing to ask the question about Obama's Birth Certificate. The AP has called him a publicity nightmare for CNN, embarrassing his bosses by hosting shows that contradicts CNN's "No Bias."

CNN no bias? Don't even get me started.

Asking the question about Obama's birth certificate is a legitimate question, and Lou Dobbs knows it. He may not necessarily agree with the "birthers," but he believes it is important to at least listen to what these people have to say. Unfortunately, by the mere suggestion that Obama should release his birth certificate, Lou Dobbs has been branded a wing-nut, and war has been declared on him by the liberal left.

As mentioned earlier, Lou Dobbs believes Obama was born in Hawaii. His concern is not whether or not Obama was born in Hawaii, but rather why Obama has refused to release a valid birth certificate, rather than the fake half-job that is floating around liberal sites.

Barack Obama could put the matter to rest by releasing his actual birth certificate, which would show, among other things, the hospital of his birth, and the doctor who performed the birth procedure.

This information is not provided on the document provided before.

And this is not the first time Obama has refused to release key documents. According to NewsMax, Obama has also shielded from the public:

• Obama released just one brief document detailing his personal health. McCain, on the other hand, released what he said was his complete medical file, totaling more than 1,500 pages.

• Obama refused to offer his official papers as a state legislator in Illinois. Nor did he produce correspondence, such as his schedules of appointments or letters from lobbyists, from his days in the Illinois state Senate.

• Obama did not release his client list as an attorney or his billing records. He maintained that he performed only a few hours of legal work for a nonprofit organization with ties to Tony Rezko, the Chicago businessman convicted of fraud in June 2008 but did not release billing records that would prove this assertion.

• Obama ignored requests for his records from Occidental College, where he studied for two years before transferring to Columbia University.

• Obama’s campaign refused to give Columbia, where he earned an undergraduate degree in political science, permission to release his transcripts. Former President George W. Bush and presidential contenders Al Gore and John Kerry all released their college transcripts.

• Obama did not agree to the release of his application to the Illinois State Bar, which would have cleared up intermittent allegations that his application may have been inaccurate.

• Obama did not release records from his time at Harvard Law School.

• During the presidential campaign, McCain’s campaign released a full list of all online donors. Obama’s campaign still has not released the names of those who donated at least one-third of the $750 million he raised.

So much for transparency.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Lou Dobbs Right on Obama Birth Certificate - NewsMax

Your Health Insurance Sucks, So Feel Free To Keep It

President Obama is doing all he can to make sure the American People believe him when he says that if you like your private insurance you can keep it should his Nationalized Health Care bill get passed. Then, out of the other side of his mouth he demonizes the industry, calls the doctors greedy, and says the system is an unsustainable disaster. If the existing system is so terrible, then why is he trying to convince the American People that if you like your insurance you can keep it?

Speaking of folks that like their health care coverage, the Wall Street Journal had a survey a couple years back that revealed 89% of adults are very or somewhat confident that their health insurance for next year will meet their needs, compared to 9% who were not confident in their plan.

Does that mean that Obama is willing to destroy a private health care system, and replace it with a nationalized system for a minority of people, while screwing everyone else?

I guess the squeeky wheel really does get the grease.

And believe me when I say that the Democrat's health care reform will destroy the private system, and that is their plan, regardless of the lies Obama tries to convince you of.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Most Americans Like Their Health Plans - Tim's Golden Nuggets

As Obama Pushes National Health Care, Most Americans Already Happy With Coverage - Fox News, John R. Lott, Jr.

Obamacare's Fatal Flaw - Time, Ramesh Ponnuru

How a Public Health Plan Will Erode Private Care - The Heritage Foundation, Robert E. Moffit, Ph.D.

Reparations By Way Of Health Care Reform - Investor's Business Daily

SKYPE Trouble

Over the weekend I was listening to a technology radio program and the host was asked by a caller about SKYPE's troubles. Apparently, E-Bay bought SKYPE for an ungodly amount of money, but failed to buy the patent for the core technology from the former owner. The guy with the patent was then fired as CEO, and is now threatening to pull the patent, which would pull the plug on SKYPE.

Simply put, the company that spent nearly $3 billion on a voice over IP company did so without ensuring they had the right to use the programming that makes it work. Without that core technology, the system is useless - unless of course they can come up with their own software to make it work, which they are attempting to do at this time.

As a result, the company could be closed down.

The Court Battle has been scheduled for June 2010 in London, so if you have SKYPE, you may still have a year or so to use it.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Skype could be cut off for good over dispute - Federal Jack

Troubling . . . to the Left

Get Liberty/Net Right Nation

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Peter Schiff Interviewed by MSNBC

Peter Schiff is one of the best and brightest economic minds. In 2006 he predicted the economic crisis that put us into the recession we are now experiencing in his book, Crash Proof: How to Profit From the Coming Economic Collapse in 2007. He understands the free market, and recognizes the importance of reducing government intrusion into private industries. The Left has preconceived notions of what fiscal Conservatives believe, and because of the limited minds of the Liberals, they miss the whole point. The interview in the video below is a great example of Peter Schiff being a class act under fire, and a liberal interviewer, in this case Lawrence O’Donnell filling in for Ed Schultz on The Ed Show, being a typical, out of control, overpowering, small minded Leftist. Watch carefully. Notice how O'Donnell asks questions he never intends to allow Schiff to answer, and how he inserts his insane talking points while trying to bully Peter Schiff into submission.



VIDEO

Reminds you a little of the thuggish tactics used by the Democratic Politicians in power, doesn't it? Obama must be proud of the media's biased, bullying tactics.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Iran Nuclear Ready?

Iran is capable of making a nuclear warhead. Nothing is stopping Iran from having nuclear weapons except the thumbs up from the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The American President, Barack Obama, has no intentions to stop Iran. He would rather we all just talk about it. Surely, a stern diplomatic session will convince Iran that having a nuclear weapon, and planning on using it against Israel, is a bad thing.

Then again, maybe not.

Israel came to the conclusion that Iran is ready to fashion a nuclear bomb long before any of the American Intelligence agencies decided it was possible. As a result, Israel has been poised for an attack on Iran for some time now.

In fact, as Israel was coming to the conclusion that an Iranian nuclear bomb is inevitable, the U.S. National Intelligence Estimate concluded two years ago that Iran had cut off its nuclear bomb research effort in 2003.

Iran has the means to detonate such weapons as well, thanks to Russian-made delivery systems. And Israel has been very clear about their intentions should such a weapon be poised to strike the Jewish Nation. Israel's military option is on the table.

A strike on the two known Iranian nuclear facilities would set back the Iranian nuclear weapons program two to three years.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Global Warming: the Imaginary Enemy

The New York Times: Climate Change Seen as Threat to U.S. Security

With all of those "The Day After Tomorrow" style crises on the way, Global Warming is now a greater national security threat than Islamic Jihad. What, with all of those tornadoes and hurricanes and water-logged cities, the military will need to be on alert to protect the American People from themselves. Enter, stage left, Martial Law, and the final step to complete control over the citizenry of the United States of America.

One question: How could "Climate Change" be a threat to U.S. Security if the whole idea of man-made global warming is a hoax, and the planet has been actually cooling for the last ten years?

Ten members of Congress, on a fact-finding mission to prove me, and all of us other Global Warming Doubters, wrong, experienced all they could to learn more about climate change. The eleven day trip, with six spouses along for the ride, included a grueling work schedule that was not only about dipping their toes into the subject, but also experiencing the ravages of Global Warming by diving and snorkeling at the Great Barrier Reef. They rode a cable car through the Australian rain forest, visited a penguin rookery and flew to the South Pole.

The horror of it all.

And a half of a million bucks later, they concluded they learned more on the trip than had they not gone.

For Democratic Congressman Brian Baird, the trip was one of two such excursions in six months. A year ago he also went to the Galapagos Islands with several lawmakers, also to gain expertise in climate change, and dip their toes into the horribly warm ocean waters.

With proof of global warming like that, it must be apparent to them that the U.S. must incorporate climate change into national security strategy planning.

Along with unicorn training, and planned defenses against Godzilla.

Hey, gullible ones! The sky is falling!

Ha ha ha, gotcha.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Climate Change Seen as Threat to U.S. Security - The New York Time, John M. Broder

Lawmakers' Global-Warming Trip Hit Tourist Hot Spots - Wall Street Journal, BRODY MULLINS and T.W. FARNAM

National Socialist Health Care

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Obama's Enemy List

If you can't control them, run over them - or at least that seems to be the attitude of the Obama Administration, and the liberal Democrats. As the country examines their leftist policies, the American People is becoming angry, and the Democrats are becoming more shrill.

Blue Dog Democrats are fast realizing they need to oppose the Health Care plan because if they don't, they run the risk of losing their seat in 2010. A big government, control over the life of the citizen, model is being rejected by the people. If the liberals try to appease the Blue Dogs, the liberal left will be very upset. If they don't appease the Blue Dogs, they will lose votes in Congress. Now it is the Blue Dog Democrats decision: Do they be lap dogs of the leftists and lose their seat to a Republican in 2010? Or do they vote the way their constituents wish them to vote and anger the far left, socialist, fascist, liberal Democrats?

This is part of the reason the liberal left is pushing hard to pass their socialistic legislation as fast as they can. In 2010, they may not have a majority in Congress any more. In the Senate, they may not lose the majority, but the will lose their super majority.

So how does the Left stop the bleeding?

They apparently believe by creating an enemy list and lashing out at those on it they will slow down the free fall of Obama's approval rating, and the inevitable collapse of the Marxist Wing of the Democratic Party. Sarah Palin, and anyone that might support her, tops the list. In other words, grass roots Conservatives. However, the list is growing rapidly, including essentially anyone who disagrees with Obama and the Left. Just ask any far left liberal freak - if you have one Conservative thought, you are the enemy.

In fact, Obama has decided that it is important to ensure these members of the enemy faction be shut up, and pushed aside. On White House dot gov it is actually recommended that his followers not only turn in those who dare oppose him, but on a pro-Obama site it is being suggested that the liberal left is now needing to embark on a plan to "fight back against the right" - note that on one part of that site it says when referring to Townhall meetings, "Don’t wait for the reporter to approach you. You must approach the reporters and be assertive in shaping the narrative that they write."

Like the media needs help in writing in a leftward fashion.

And these are the people accusing the protesters at the Townhall meetings of being manufactured, and using unfair tactics in the style not unlike those used by community organizers.

I wonder how low these Leftists are willing to go to make sure their unpopular, socialist programs get passed?

I really do not want to find out the answer to that question.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Health Care For America NOW! - Fight Back Against The Right

Facts are Stubborn Things - White House dot gov