Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Bank of America removes American Flags Honoring fallen Marine; might offend customers
I could only drop my head in my hands. The insanity is unreal.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Obama Shows Hubris In Middle East
By Douglas V. Gibbs
The latest headline regarding Barack Obama's attempt to bring peace between the anti-Israel forces (also known as Palestinians), and Israel reads: "Stern Obama confronts Israeli, Palestinian leaders."
Stern?
Then the first sentence of the Associated Press article reads: "Bristling with impatience, President Barack Obama sternly prodded Israeli and Palestinian leaders to relaunch Mideast peace negotiations. . . "
Bristling with impatience?
Who does Obama think he is? Their father?
I guess from a media who thinks the president is the political messiah, the wording is not a surprise.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Stern Obama confronts Israeli, Palestinian leaders - Associated Press/Yahoo News, Jennifer Loven
The latest headline regarding Barack Obama's attempt to bring peace between the anti-Israel forces (also known as Palestinians), and Israel reads: "Stern Obama confronts Israeli, Palestinian leaders."
Stern?
Then the first sentence of the Associated Press article reads: "Bristling with impatience, President Barack Obama sternly prodded Israeli and Palestinian leaders to relaunch Mideast peace negotiations. . . "
Bristling with impatience?
Who does Obama think he is? Their father?
I guess from a media who thinks the president is the political messiah, the wording is not a surprise.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Stern Obama confronts Israeli, Palestinian leaders - Associated Press/Yahoo News, Jennifer Loven
Democrats are Losing Control
By Douglas V. Gibbs
The reality that is beginning to sweep across the political landscape is not only that the Democrats may lose the House in 2010, but they will lose it big. Some political analysts are suggesting the Democrats could lose as many as 20 seats. Even Joe Biden is showing concern, proclaiming that if the GOP was to win back the House of Representatives, it would be "the end of the road for. . . Barack and I."
In addition to the failure of the Democrats to convince the American People of accepting their liberal policies, the Left is also experiencing flack for their association with the criminal organizations of ACORN and the SEIU. The Service Employees International Union (SEIU) is even now beginning to experience the same difficulties as their partners at ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now), thanks to their own unscrupulous dealings.
Obama's popularity continues to plummet, as does any hope for support of his prized health care agenda. Barry's speech to Congress, which was supposed to change the tide (and was reported widely as doing so by the adoring media), turned out to be a dud, and the polls remain unchanged. Most Americans do not want the federal government involved in the health insurance industry in any way. Currently, 53% of America opposes Obamacare, and 43% strongly oppose the Obama presidency.
Funny thing about it is that Obama, and the Democrats, don't think these problems are because of their radical agendas. On Face The Nation Obama had the audacity to place the blame on "extremist" blogs and cable news for driving passions.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Charlie Cook: Dem situation has 'slipped completely out of control' - The Politico
More Trouble for the Left: SEIU to Join the Ranks of ACORN? - Health Care Horserace, Ellen Carmichael
Rasmussen: 53% Opposed to Obamacare – Essentially Unchanged Since Before Speech - Health Care Horse Race, Warner Todd Huston
Joe Biden: If the GOP wins the House back in 2010 – its the “end of the road” for the Obama agenda - Stop The Leftist Propaganda Machine
YOU EXTREMIST BLOGGERS. IT'S ALL YOUR FAULT. - Radio Patriot, Andrea Shea King
The reality that is beginning to sweep across the political landscape is not only that the Democrats may lose the House in 2010, but they will lose it big. Some political analysts are suggesting the Democrats could lose as many as 20 seats. Even Joe Biden is showing concern, proclaiming that if the GOP was to win back the House of Representatives, it would be "the end of the road for. . . Barack and I."
In addition to the failure of the Democrats to convince the American People of accepting their liberal policies, the Left is also experiencing flack for their association with the criminal organizations of ACORN and the SEIU. The Service Employees International Union (SEIU) is even now beginning to experience the same difficulties as their partners at ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now), thanks to their own unscrupulous dealings.
Obama's popularity continues to plummet, as does any hope for support of his prized health care agenda. Barry's speech to Congress, which was supposed to change the tide (and was reported widely as doing so by the adoring media), turned out to be a dud, and the polls remain unchanged. Most Americans do not want the federal government involved in the health insurance industry in any way. Currently, 53% of America opposes Obamacare, and 43% strongly oppose the Obama presidency.
Funny thing about it is that Obama, and the Democrats, don't think these problems are because of their radical agendas. On Face The Nation Obama had the audacity to place the blame on "extremist" blogs and cable news for driving passions.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Charlie Cook: Dem situation has 'slipped completely out of control' - The Politico
More Trouble for the Left: SEIU to Join the Ranks of ACORN? - Health Care Horserace, Ellen Carmichael
Rasmussen: 53% Opposed to Obamacare – Essentially Unchanged Since Before Speech - Health Care Horse Race, Warner Todd Huston
Joe Biden: If the GOP wins the House back in 2010 – its the “end of the road” for the Obama agenda - Stop The Leftist Propaganda Machine
YOU EXTREMIST BLOGGERS. IT'S ALL YOUR FAULT. - Radio Patriot, Andrea Shea King
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
No Politicians At Tea Parties
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Frank Rich of the New York Times wrote a piece recently designed to be a hit-piece on Glenn Beck. He aptly titled the editorial, "Even Glenn Beck Is Right Twice a Day." The title is a reference to a broken clock, of which has the right time twice a day.
The first sentence of the article reads: "IF only it were just about the color of his skin."
Mr. Rich obviously has fallen head first into the sewage the Left has been spewing, calling anyone that dares disagree with the great and wonderful Obama a racist.
Despite the ominous tone of the accusation of racism that dominates the early part of Mr. Rich's article, Frank goes on to say that all of the disapproval against Obama is much more than just bigotry, health care, or even Obama.
He's right, for once, sort of. Bigotry has little to nothing to do with the protests. Health care is an ingredient, but not a primary reason. Even Obama himself is not entirely the problem. The policies of Washington, and the willingness of the political establishment to move away from the original intent of the U.S. Constitution, is a larger part of the frustration by The Right, than simply the existence of a bunch of radical Democrats.
Then Frank shoves his head up his butt, again.
In the fourth paragraph of the editorial it reads as follows:
The vast majority of those that oppose Obama's policies do not hate him. I am sure there is a small group of folks that are truly racist, or truly hate the man, but I believe that is a very small crowd, and that the number of those folks is so small, it could very well be considered negligible.
During George W. Bush's presidency just about every Democrat I spoke to poured out hate for Bush. They openly talked about their hopes that Bush would suffer at the hands of an assassin, and they constantly screamed that Bush was a liar.
A single Republican Congressman says that Obama lied, and suddenly the entire non-liberal members of the American population are a bunch of racists.
Rich goes on to say that the folks at odds with the president are not real fond of the Republicans, either. He is right, but for the wrong reasons. Frank Rich believes folks are bothered by the GOP because the "right-wing loonies" have taken control of the party. In reality, it is because the Republican Party has been pushing non-conservative moderates into leadership positions, and has turned its back on Reagan's influence. The Party of Reagan is becoming "liberal-light," and as a result, does not stand very sturdy on any issues.
Then Frank Rich goes into his real error in the paragraph.
The editorial explains how none of the GOP politicians were invited to the 9/12 March on Washington a little over a week ago, and that perhaps only Sarah Palin or Ron Paul would have been accepted. Then Frank goes on to add that the real hero to the crowd was conservative talker Glenn Beck.
In short, Rich is saying the Tea Parties on 9/12 were only populated by a cross-section of the far right crowd who is so crazy they don't even accept their own political party, and were all in reality just a bunch of Glenn Beck followers.
According to Newsmax, when Glenn Beck began breaking viewer records he had about 3 million viewers. The University of Indiana estimates that there were about 1.8 million people at the 9/12 event, and this is not counting the millions of people at other events across the nation. So, if Frank Rich is right, and the Tea Party People are only far-right, Glenn Beck following, fringe loonies, then that means that every single one of Glenn Beck's viewers made it to a Tea Party, and they all brought friends (possibly kicking and screaming)!
A lot of the conservatives at the 9/12 March are no doubt big fans of Glenn Beck, and I would be a viewer too, if he was on the tube at an hour that I am normally home. But many of the Tea Party'rs were not necessarily "conservatives." Many of them were libertarians, not-so-liberal Democrats, and various brands of independents. A lot of them, also, were people who voted for Obama, and are now having buyer's remorse.
"But none of the Republican Politicians were invited," would argue Frank Rich, "so the group must've been something more radical than even the GOP."
There was a very important reason why few politicians showed up, and why none of them were invited. But, if you truly understood the reason for the Tea Parties, you would understand the reason for that.
Ask the average, unknowing person what the Tea Party protests are all about, and the majority of responses will be "taxes."
rrrrrrr - Wrong!
Many folks who at least try to pay attention to the news will tell you the rallies are all about protesting against Obama's health care proposition.
rrrrrrr - Wrong again!
Lately, a lot of the members of the liberal left may tell you the protesters are out there because they are upset that the president is a black man.
rrrrrrr - You can't get much more wrong than that!
The Democrats say that these people are being paid by the GOP and insurance industry to be out there. As far as they are concerned the rallies are all manufactured, and are being controlled by insurance lobbyists, politicians, and conservative talkers.
rrrrrrr - If that were the case, then why weren't the politicians all over the stages? In other words, Wrong Again!
I am sure there are dozens more thoughts about why the Tea Parties are happening, and every last one of them are wrong.
The reason can be summed up in three words: United States Constitution.
And because the rallies across America are about the U.S. Constitution, this is why the politicians Were Not Invited.
Still confused?
The federal government operates outside the U.S. Constitution in many ways. This is nothing new, but the creeping incrementalism of this phenomenon has been increasing speed during the last hundred years. The Obama Administration has the movement of the federal government away from the U.S. Constitution moving at break-neck speed. The people, while being boiled slowly like a frog in the pot by previous administrations, didn't notice, or didn't care. But when today's Democrats decided to turn up the heat, and the hammer and sickle of socialism began to materialize at the end of the tunnel, the sleeping giant was awakened, and the American People cried out: "Enough!"
Any piece of legislation proposed by Congress should have a question attached to it. The question should be, "Where in the U.S. Constitution does it allow the federal government to do such a thing?"
Over 85% of the federal government is unconstitutional, and so the majority of our tax money is going to things the federal government has no business doing. Our income taxes should be all but eliminated, and the government programs that do not abide by the Constitution should be repealed.
Problem is, all of this unconstitutional junk has become institutionalized. Many Americans have come to depend upon much of what the government does. So the elimination of the unconstitutional programs, which includes the entitlement programs, needs to be done in a gradual manner.
Ask yourself a simple question: Where in the U.S. Constitution does it give the federal government the power to get into the health insurance business? Where in the U.S. Constitution does it allow the federal government to own a share of the automobile industry? Where does it allow for bailouts of banks? Where does it allow for government paid abortions? Where does it allow for the federal government to consider changing the definition of marriage? Where does it even allow for the federal government to make the Supreme Court the final arbiter of the U.S. Constitution? Where?
The answer to each and every one of those questions is "no where," and "precedence" is not a part of the Constitution either.
The United States Government has no authority to do any of those things Obama and his Democrat crew wants to do.
Right about now I am going to need to grab the reins of my stallion, and head off a few folks at the pass.
I can hear those voices out there now. "But it is up to the U.S. Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution."
No it's not. It is up to the Supreme Court to "apply" the Constitution. Either the Constitution allows the federal government to do something, or it doesn't. The language is clear, and the limitations against the federal government are many.
Let's use Roe v. Wade as an example. According to the average Democrat, and the majority of Republicans, Roe v. Wade is the court case that made abortion legal in the United States. A Texas State Law outlawed abortion in Texas, and a law suit made its way all the way to the Supreme Court. The United States Supreme Court determined that Texas was in the wrong, and with a single ruling, overturned a state law, making abortion legal from a federal standpoint.
Where in the U.S. Constitution did it allow the U.S. Supreme Court to do that? Abortion is not mentioned anywhere in the U.S. Constitution, and is specifically not mentioned in Article I, Section 8, which is where the U.S. Constitution lists the powers of the federal government. Therefore, as per the 10th Amendment, abortion is a state issue. That means that Texas had a right to ban abortion in her state, and the U.S. Supreme Court had no allowance to even see the case in the first place, much less overturn a lawful state law.
If the U.S. Supreme Court had been following the Constitution, they would have seen that the federal government has no jurisdiction over abortion because it is not a federal issue, and would have refused to see the case.
Instead, the Supreme Court overturned a state law (which is unconstitutional), and made law with their ruling by making abortion legal (which is also unconstitutional).
If the federal government wanted abortion to be a federal issue, they would need to propose an amendment, and get three-quarters of the states to ratify it. Otherwise, abortion is none of the federal government's business.
I have heard another argument so many times it makes my head spin. When I talk about limiting government, and eliminating federal income tax, I always get someone leaving a comment about how insane it is to do so, because then we wouldn't have police and fire protection, and anarchy would ensue.
The U.S. Constitution is written to limit the "federal" government, not local government. Each state has its own constitution as well. Your police and fire services are provided by your local government, as it should be. It is the responsibility of the state, county, and municipal governments to take care of such protective services. Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution does it provide for the federal government to take up such responsibilities.
It's like Obama's health care plan, for example. Whenever I talk about the danger of Obama's proposition, those leftists that have been reading my site long enough remembers how a couple years ago my son had cancer while in between jobs, and he had to resort to using a public option for health care. The state run system provided by taxpayers enabled him to have his surgery, and return to the workforce. He now has private insurance, and would rather not use the county hospital again if he can help it, but the government health care came in handy at a very difficult time.
Liberals like to say, in defense of Obamacare, "Your son was saved by government health care. Do you plan to pay any of that money back?"
I have no problem with people temporarily using the public option which is currently provided by states. My son used a program associated with Medi-Cal, a state run health alternative - and its existence is completely constitutional. The U.S. Constitution does not prohibit the states from providing a public option in relation to health care. However, there is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that allows the federal government to get involved in health care.
Which leads us back to the original question: Why were no Republican politicians, even conservative ones, invited to the 9/12 March on Washington DC?
The reason they were not invited is because they are part of the problem. The March was not for government officials to participate in. They would use it as a platform for re-election, and that is part of the problem. The politicians have stopped being statesmen that serve the people, and have become cockroaches that believe they were destined to be leaders in the U.S. Government, and are willing to do anything they can to keep their power.
A few members of the GOP appeared, like Mike Pence, and it pissed off a lot of Tea Party attendees. The rally was not for the politicians to beat their chests and look good so that they would be looked favorably upon in the next election. The 9/12 event was about the people speaking out against the unconstitutional nature of the U.S. Government. It was an opportunity for citizens to gather together and speak out about how the current administration desires to move even more away from the U.S. Constitution. The 9/12 March was about the people of this nation congregating to voice their disapproval of Washington, and to begin to take back the country, and return it to its rightful place within the limitations of the U.S. Constitution.
The politicians were not invited because the Tea Parties are not about them. The Tea Parties are about the American People, and the sovereignty of the states.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Even Glenn Beck Is Right Twice a Day - The New York Times, Frank Rich
Glenn Beck Smashes Ratings Record - Newsmax
Frank Rich of the New York Times wrote a piece recently designed to be a hit-piece on Glenn Beck. He aptly titled the editorial, "Even Glenn Beck Is Right Twice a Day." The title is a reference to a broken clock, of which has the right time twice a day.
The first sentence of the article reads: "IF only it were just about the color of his skin."
Mr. Rich obviously has fallen head first into the sewage the Left has been spewing, calling anyone that dares disagree with the great and wonderful Obama a racist.
Despite the ominous tone of the accusation of racism that dominates the early part of Mr. Rich's article, Frank goes on to say that all of the disapproval against Obama is much more than just bigotry, health care, or even Obama.
He's right, for once, sort of. Bigotry has little to nothing to do with the protests. Health care is an ingredient, but not a primary reason. Even Obama himself is not entirely the problem. The policies of Washington, and the willingness of the political establishment to move away from the original intent of the U.S. Constitution, is a larger part of the frustration by The Right, than simply the existence of a bunch of radical Democrats.
Then Frank shoves his head up his butt, again.
In the fourth paragraph of the editorial it reads as follows:
- Many of those Americans may hate Obama, but they don’t love the Republican establishment either. Michael Steele, who was declared persona non grata at one of the mad “tea parties” in April, was not invited to that right-wing 9/12 March on Washington last weekend. There were no public encomiums for McCain or Bush. No Senate leader spoke to the gathering, and perhaps only Palin and Ron Paul would have been welcome from the ranks of what passes for G.O.P. presidential timber. If there was a real hero to this crowd, it was the protest's most prominent promoter, the radio and TV talker Glenn Beck.
The vast majority of those that oppose Obama's policies do not hate him. I am sure there is a small group of folks that are truly racist, or truly hate the man, but I believe that is a very small crowd, and that the number of those folks is so small, it could very well be considered negligible.
During George W. Bush's presidency just about every Democrat I spoke to poured out hate for Bush. They openly talked about their hopes that Bush would suffer at the hands of an assassin, and they constantly screamed that Bush was a liar.
A single Republican Congressman says that Obama lied, and suddenly the entire non-liberal members of the American population are a bunch of racists.
Rich goes on to say that the folks at odds with the president are not real fond of the Republicans, either. He is right, but for the wrong reasons. Frank Rich believes folks are bothered by the GOP because the "right-wing loonies" have taken control of the party. In reality, it is because the Republican Party has been pushing non-conservative moderates into leadership positions, and has turned its back on Reagan's influence. The Party of Reagan is becoming "liberal-light," and as a result, does not stand very sturdy on any issues.
Then Frank Rich goes into his real error in the paragraph.
The editorial explains how none of the GOP politicians were invited to the 9/12 March on Washington a little over a week ago, and that perhaps only Sarah Palin or Ron Paul would have been accepted. Then Frank goes on to add that the real hero to the crowd was conservative talker Glenn Beck.
In short, Rich is saying the Tea Parties on 9/12 were only populated by a cross-section of the far right crowd who is so crazy they don't even accept their own political party, and were all in reality just a bunch of Glenn Beck followers.
According to Newsmax, when Glenn Beck began breaking viewer records he had about 3 million viewers. The University of Indiana estimates that there were about 1.8 million people at the 9/12 event, and this is not counting the millions of people at other events across the nation. So, if Frank Rich is right, and the Tea Party People are only far-right, Glenn Beck following, fringe loonies, then that means that every single one of Glenn Beck's viewers made it to a Tea Party, and they all brought friends (possibly kicking and screaming)!
A lot of the conservatives at the 9/12 March are no doubt big fans of Glenn Beck, and I would be a viewer too, if he was on the tube at an hour that I am normally home. But many of the Tea Party'rs were not necessarily "conservatives." Many of them were libertarians, not-so-liberal Democrats, and various brands of independents. A lot of them, also, were people who voted for Obama, and are now having buyer's remorse.
"But none of the Republican Politicians were invited," would argue Frank Rich, "so the group must've been something more radical than even the GOP."
There was a very important reason why few politicians showed up, and why none of them were invited. But, if you truly understood the reason for the Tea Parties, you would understand the reason for that.
Ask the average, unknowing person what the Tea Party protests are all about, and the majority of responses will be "taxes."
rrrrrrr - Wrong!
Many folks who at least try to pay attention to the news will tell you the rallies are all about protesting against Obama's health care proposition.
rrrrrrr - Wrong again!
Lately, a lot of the members of the liberal left may tell you the protesters are out there because they are upset that the president is a black man.
rrrrrrr - You can't get much more wrong than that!
The Democrats say that these people are being paid by the GOP and insurance industry to be out there. As far as they are concerned the rallies are all manufactured, and are being controlled by insurance lobbyists, politicians, and conservative talkers.
rrrrrrr - If that were the case, then why weren't the politicians all over the stages? In other words, Wrong Again!
I am sure there are dozens more thoughts about why the Tea Parties are happening, and every last one of them are wrong.
The reason can be summed up in three words: United States Constitution.
And because the rallies across America are about the U.S. Constitution, this is why the politicians Were Not Invited.
Still confused?
The federal government operates outside the U.S. Constitution in many ways. This is nothing new, but the creeping incrementalism of this phenomenon has been increasing speed during the last hundred years. The Obama Administration has the movement of the federal government away from the U.S. Constitution moving at break-neck speed. The people, while being boiled slowly like a frog in the pot by previous administrations, didn't notice, or didn't care. But when today's Democrats decided to turn up the heat, and the hammer and sickle of socialism began to materialize at the end of the tunnel, the sleeping giant was awakened, and the American People cried out: "Enough!"
Any piece of legislation proposed by Congress should have a question attached to it. The question should be, "Where in the U.S. Constitution does it allow the federal government to do such a thing?"
Over 85% of the federal government is unconstitutional, and so the majority of our tax money is going to things the federal government has no business doing. Our income taxes should be all but eliminated, and the government programs that do not abide by the Constitution should be repealed.
Problem is, all of this unconstitutional junk has become institutionalized. Many Americans have come to depend upon much of what the government does. So the elimination of the unconstitutional programs, which includes the entitlement programs, needs to be done in a gradual manner.
Ask yourself a simple question: Where in the U.S. Constitution does it give the federal government the power to get into the health insurance business? Where in the U.S. Constitution does it allow the federal government to own a share of the automobile industry? Where does it allow for bailouts of banks? Where does it allow for government paid abortions? Where does it allow for the federal government to consider changing the definition of marriage? Where does it even allow for the federal government to make the Supreme Court the final arbiter of the U.S. Constitution? Where?
The answer to each and every one of those questions is "no where," and "precedence" is not a part of the Constitution either.
The United States Government has no authority to do any of those things Obama and his Democrat crew wants to do.
Right about now I am going to need to grab the reins of my stallion, and head off a few folks at the pass.
I can hear those voices out there now. "But it is up to the U.S. Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution."
No it's not. It is up to the Supreme Court to "apply" the Constitution. Either the Constitution allows the federal government to do something, or it doesn't. The language is clear, and the limitations against the federal government are many.
Let's use Roe v. Wade as an example. According to the average Democrat, and the majority of Republicans, Roe v. Wade is the court case that made abortion legal in the United States. A Texas State Law outlawed abortion in Texas, and a law suit made its way all the way to the Supreme Court. The United States Supreme Court determined that Texas was in the wrong, and with a single ruling, overturned a state law, making abortion legal from a federal standpoint.
Where in the U.S. Constitution did it allow the U.S. Supreme Court to do that? Abortion is not mentioned anywhere in the U.S. Constitution, and is specifically not mentioned in Article I, Section 8, which is where the U.S. Constitution lists the powers of the federal government. Therefore, as per the 10th Amendment, abortion is a state issue. That means that Texas had a right to ban abortion in her state, and the U.S. Supreme Court had no allowance to even see the case in the first place, much less overturn a lawful state law.
If the U.S. Supreme Court had been following the Constitution, they would have seen that the federal government has no jurisdiction over abortion because it is not a federal issue, and would have refused to see the case.
Instead, the Supreme Court overturned a state law (which is unconstitutional), and made law with their ruling by making abortion legal (which is also unconstitutional).
If the federal government wanted abortion to be a federal issue, they would need to propose an amendment, and get three-quarters of the states to ratify it. Otherwise, abortion is none of the federal government's business.
I have heard another argument so many times it makes my head spin. When I talk about limiting government, and eliminating federal income tax, I always get someone leaving a comment about how insane it is to do so, because then we wouldn't have police and fire protection, and anarchy would ensue.
The U.S. Constitution is written to limit the "federal" government, not local government. Each state has its own constitution as well. Your police and fire services are provided by your local government, as it should be. It is the responsibility of the state, county, and municipal governments to take care of such protective services. Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution does it provide for the federal government to take up such responsibilities.
It's like Obama's health care plan, for example. Whenever I talk about the danger of Obama's proposition, those leftists that have been reading my site long enough remembers how a couple years ago my son had cancer while in between jobs, and he had to resort to using a public option for health care. The state run system provided by taxpayers enabled him to have his surgery, and return to the workforce. He now has private insurance, and would rather not use the county hospital again if he can help it, but the government health care came in handy at a very difficult time.
Liberals like to say, in defense of Obamacare, "Your son was saved by government health care. Do you plan to pay any of that money back?"
I have no problem with people temporarily using the public option which is currently provided by states. My son used a program associated with Medi-Cal, a state run health alternative - and its existence is completely constitutional. The U.S. Constitution does not prohibit the states from providing a public option in relation to health care. However, there is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that allows the federal government to get involved in health care.
Which leads us back to the original question: Why were no Republican politicians, even conservative ones, invited to the 9/12 March on Washington DC?
The reason they were not invited is because they are part of the problem. The March was not for government officials to participate in. They would use it as a platform for re-election, and that is part of the problem. The politicians have stopped being statesmen that serve the people, and have become cockroaches that believe they were destined to be leaders in the U.S. Government, and are willing to do anything they can to keep their power.
A few members of the GOP appeared, like Mike Pence, and it pissed off a lot of Tea Party attendees. The rally was not for the politicians to beat their chests and look good so that they would be looked favorably upon in the next election. The 9/12 event was about the people speaking out against the unconstitutional nature of the U.S. Government. It was an opportunity for citizens to gather together and speak out about how the current administration desires to move even more away from the U.S. Constitution. The 9/12 March was about the people of this nation congregating to voice their disapproval of Washington, and to begin to take back the country, and return it to its rightful place within the limitations of the U.S. Constitution.
The politicians were not invited because the Tea Parties are not about them. The Tea Parties are about the American People, and the sovereignty of the states.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Even Glenn Beck Is Right Twice a Day - The New York Times, Frank Rich
Glenn Beck Smashes Ratings Record - Newsmax
It's Good To Be An Angels Fan Against The Yankees
By Douglas V. Gibbs
The Anaheim Angels (I refuse to use the Los Angeles addition to the name) has been my team since the mid-seventies. I hung with the Halos through the good times and the bad times (mostly rough times, back then). When the new millenium arrived, the Angels picked up Mike Scioscia as their manager, and from that time forward became a consistent winner (my Los Angeles friends constantly remind me it took a Dodgers catcher to make the Angels a winning team). The most gratifying part of the new Angels, I have to admit, is how the Angels have the Yankees number.
Last night, before a rowdy sell-out crowd in Anaheim, the Yankees lost their 18th game of their last 23 games at Angel Stadium. Andy Petitte, admittedly one of those pitchers I respect greatly both on and off the field, threw a great game, but was not enough to break Anaheim's strangle-hold on New York's beloved Yankees.
If only the Angels could have the same kind of success against the Red Sox.
With a dozen games remaining in the regular season, half a dozen is the magic number for the Angels. The boys from Anaheim have suffered a number of injuries in the pitching corps, but the youngsters have stepped in and taken care of business. Hitting has hovered around .300 for most of the starters all season long, and defense has been a crown jewel atop a season that may promise to finish as did 2002, with a World Series win.
It is very likely the Angels will meet up with the Red Sox, and the Yankees, in the playoffs. Even more interesting, is it is very possible the Angels could go up against the Los Angeles Dodgers in the World Series.
A freeway series would be interesting. I wonder if the east would care enough to watch?
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Pettitte Returns, but Doesn’t Bring Any Luck Along - New York Times, Tyler Kepner
The Anaheim Angels (I refuse to use the Los Angeles addition to the name) has been my team since the mid-seventies. I hung with the Halos through the good times and the bad times (mostly rough times, back then). When the new millenium arrived, the Angels picked up Mike Scioscia as their manager, and from that time forward became a consistent winner (my Los Angeles friends constantly remind me it took a Dodgers catcher to make the Angels a winning team). The most gratifying part of the new Angels, I have to admit, is how the Angels have the Yankees number.
Last night, before a rowdy sell-out crowd in Anaheim, the Yankees lost their 18th game of their last 23 games at Angel Stadium. Andy Petitte, admittedly one of those pitchers I respect greatly both on and off the field, threw a great game, but was not enough to break Anaheim's strangle-hold on New York's beloved Yankees.
If only the Angels could have the same kind of success against the Red Sox.
With a dozen games remaining in the regular season, half a dozen is the magic number for the Angels. The boys from Anaheim have suffered a number of injuries in the pitching corps, but the youngsters have stepped in and taken care of business. Hitting has hovered around .300 for most of the starters all season long, and defense has been a crown jewel atop a season that may promise to finish as did 2002, with a World Series win.
It is very likely the Angels will meet up with the Red Sox, and the Yankees, in the playoffs. Even more interesting, is it is very possible the Angels could go up against the Los Angeles Dodgers in the World Series.
A freeway series would be interesting. I wonder if the east would care enough to watch?
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Pettitte Returns, but Doesn’t Bring Any Luck Along - New York Times, Tyler Kepner
Not Safe From Terrorism
By Douglas V. Gibbs
For the first time since 9/11 I do not feel like the United States Government is doing all it can to protect America from terrorism.
The national security component of the Obama Administration has been undeniably weak since Barack took office on January 20. American voters chose change partly because they felt that McCain was too old, and they didn't trust Sarah Palin to receive that call at 3:00 AM. Real America, we were told by the feigning press, was tired of Bush's War, and John McCain promised to be more of the same. Barack Obama campaigned that he would shut down Guantanamo Bay, weaken our defenses, and head to the negotiation table with no pre-existing conditions with the Islamic tyrants of the world. In the end, we were made to believe, America would be safe, and peace would somehow weave its way onto the world stage filled with global understanding, and fields of poppies.
A lone, piercing cry of "You lie!" shook everyone out of the daydream. The Anger against the White House exhibited by Americans at Tea Parties and Town Hall Meetings has permeated the U.S. Congress. The response? "All who oppose Barack Obama are racist." Joe Wilson's momentary lack of discipline in his public behavior may not have been most becoming of a United States Congressman, but it sure did open the flood gates of understanding in regards to the tactics the Democrats are willing to commit in order to complete their power-grab.
Jimmy Carter, a man who has been willing to cavort with the enemy, promptly gave a little talk about how the anger against Democrat Party policies is because the current President is a black man. The supporters of Obama then shifted into "the opposition are a bunch of racists" mode, while Conservatives have rallied around Joe Wilson with support that has not only resulted in popularity, but an increase in contributions to his future campaign.
Barack Obama has become the most divisive American President in history. He talked down about a law enforcement agency for arresting a black Yale professor through proper protocols, and then decided to try to solve his blunder with a "beer summit." He called Kanye West a "jackass" for his shameful antics at an awards ceremony, and then scolded the press for reporting what he said because it was supposed to be off-the-record. He is on television more than any president since the boob-tube has been invented, and then wonders why the people are sick of his desire to continually place his face on a television screen. A growing majority of Americans feel disenfranchised by Washington, and Obama wants to solve the problem by holding another press conference.
Meanwhile, as the debate over health care, energy, and those crazy racists, goes south for the President, the threat of enemies against America remains. As Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad continues to threaten Israel and the United States, Obama plans to sit down to have a little chat with the Iranian politician under the pretense that all of the hard feelings must be some kind of insane misunderstanding. While Barack Obama hangs out with David Letterman on the Late Show fanning the flames of racism with comments about "being black," the European nations feel slighted because the Obama Administration is abandoning the missile defense shield in a blatant move of betrayal against our allies. While Michelle Obama ties up traffic in downtown in search of organic Tuscan kale, an Afghanistan-born Colorado man who allegedly received Al Qaeda training and had bomb-making instructions on his computer was arrested for a plot to bomb the New York City mass transportation system.
The threat of terrorism against the lives of Americans remains, and Obama is in happy-go-lucky campaign mode.
A broken clock is right twice a day, but that doesn't mean you should depend on it for the other twenty-three hours, fifty-nine minutes, and fifty-eight seconds of the day. George W. Bush realized this on 9/11, and he spent every waking moment doing everything he could to make sure a terrorist attack never happened on American soil again. Obama, harboring a 9/10 mentality, would rather do half a dozen Sunday television shows, and call most of America's voters a bunch of racists on the David Letterman Show.
One wonders what he will say when terrorism is once again committed against America, and the clock strikes 3:00 AM with a phone call.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Terror arrest sparks gov't warning on mass transit - The Associated Press, Ivan Moreno and P. Solomon Banda
NYC Terror Suspect Held Without Bail in Connection to Alleged Transit Bomb Plot - Fox News
Obama on Letterman: I Was Black Before the Election - Fox News
Michelle needed organic Tuscan kale so she shut down several blocks - iReport,
Hi-Ho, the Derry-O [organic Tuscan kale] - Washington Post, Dana Milbank
Ahmadinejad warns Iran will confront any attack - AFP, Hiedeh Farmani
Surrender and Betrayal Do Not Make Us Safer - The Heritage Foundation
For the first time since 9/11 I do not feel like the United States Government is doing all it can to protect America from terrorism.
The national security component of the Obama Administration has been undeniably weak since Barack took office on January 20. American voters chose change partly because they felt that McCain was too old, and they didn't trust Sarah Palin to receive that call at 3:00 AM. Real America, we were told by the feigning press, was tired of Bush's War, and John McCain promised to be more of the same. Barack Obama campaigned that he would shut down Guantanamo Bay, weaken our defenses, and head to the negotiation table with no pre-existing conditions with the Islamic tyrants of the world. In the end, we were made to believe, America would be safe, and peace would somehow weave its way onto the world stage filled with global understanding, and fields of poppies.
A lone, piercing cry of "You lie!" shook everyone out of the daydream. The Anger against the White House exhibited by Americans at Tea Parties and Town Hall Meetings has permeated the U.S. Congress. The response? "All who oppose Barack Obama are racist." Joe Wilson's momentary lack of discipline in his public behavior may not have been most becoming of a United States Congressman, but it sure did open the flood gates of understanding in regards to the tactics the Democrats are willing to commit in order to complete their power-grab.
Jimmy Carter, a man who has been willing to cavort with the enemy, promptly gave a little talk about how the anger against Democrat Party policies is because the current President is a black man. The supporters of Obama then shifted into "the opposition are a bunch of racists" mode, while Conservatives have rallied around Joe Wilson with support that has not only resulted in popularity, but an increase in contributions to his future campaign.
Barack Obama has become the most divisive American President in history. He talked down about a law enforcement agency for arresting a black Yale professor through proper protocols, and then decided to try to solve his blunder with a "beer summit." He called Kanye West a "jackass" for his shameful antics at an awards ceremony, and then scolded the press for reporting what he said because it was supposed to be off-the-record. He is on television more than any president since the boob-tube has been invented, and then wonders why the people are sick of his desire to continually place his face on a television screen. A growing majority of Americans feel disenfranchised by Washington, and Obama wants to solve the problem by holding another press conference.
Meanwhile, as the debate over health care, energy, and those crazy racists, goes south for the President, the threat of enemies against America remains. As Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad continues to threaten Israel and the United States, Obama plans to sit down to have a little chat with the Iranian politician under the pretense that all of the hard feelings must be some kind of insane misunderstanding. While Barack Obama hangs out with David Letterman on the Late Show fanning the flames of racism with comments about "being black," the European nations feel slighted because the Obama Administration is abandoning the missile defense shield in a blatant move of betrayal against our allies. While Michelle Obama ties up traffic in downtown in search of organic Tuscan kale, an Afghanistan-born Colorado man who allegedly received Al Qaeda training and had bomb-making instructions on his computer was arrested for a plot to bomb the New York City mass transportation system.
The threat of terrorism against the lives of Americans remains, and Obama is in happy-go-lucky campaign mode.
A broken clock is right twice a day, but that doesn't mean you should depend on it for the other twenty-three hours, fifty-nine minutes, and fifty-eight seconds of the day. George W. Bush realized this on 9/11, and he spent every waking moment doing everything he could to make sure a terrorist attack never happened on American soil again. Obama, harboring a 9/10 mentality, would rather do half a dozen Sunday television shows, and call most of America's voters a bunch of racists on the David Letterman Show.
One wonders what he will say when terrorism is once again committed against America, and the clock strikes 3:00 AM with a phone call.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Terror arrest sparks gov't warning on mass transit - The Associated Press, Ivan Moreno and P. Solomon Banda
NYC Terror Suspect Held Without Bail in Connection to Alleged Transit Bomb Plot - Fox News
Obama on Letterman: I Was Black Before the Election - Fox News
Michelle needed organic Tuscan kale so she shut down several blocks - iReport,
Hi-Ho, the Derry-O [organic Tuscan kale] - Washington Post, Dana Milbank
Ahmadinejad warns Iran will confront any attack - AFP, Hiedeh Farmani
Surrender and Betrayal Do Not Make Us Safer - The Heritage Foundation
Why The Left Calls The Right Racist
By Douglas V. Gibbs
The Left is all about motives. Their good intentions. You know, they have the good intentions to make everything fair and equitable.
The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.
As the debate over Leftist programs like Universal Health Care, Cap and Trade, and the systematic takeover of the private sector by government regulation and federal control, heightens during the presidential term of Barack Obama, the fact of the matter is that Democrats are losing the debate. They are unable to supply specifics, and their policies have no legs when the U.S. Constitution is applied.
No where in the United States Constitution does it provide for the federal government to provide health insurance to citizens through socialized medicine. No where in the United States Constitution does it allow the federal government to own part of a private business, as the Democrats have done in regards to General Motors. No where does the United States Constitution enable the federal government to do the majority of the things the Democrats have it doing - and they know it.
The liberal left has done everything it can to deny the charges that what they are putting into place is straight out socialism, a political ideology that is in direct opposition to the political concept of being a republic like our founding fathers set this nation up to be. They tell you their motives are pure, and they are worried about the little man, but in reality, the ultimate purpose of this altering of the American form of government is power, and they are willing to do whatever it takes to achieve it.
Those who seek power for the sake of power, and not to represent the people as intended by the founders, will be corrupted by it. They will be willing to intentionally destroy the American economy to further their desire for more power. The destruction of the U.S. economy through out of control spending, the introduction of more money into the system, and ultimately the rise of inflation, is designed. These people in control of the American Government are willing to destroy us, so that they can remake America into what they desire it to be.
As another power seeker, Russian anarchist Bakunin, once wrote, "the possession of power transformed into a tyrant even the most devoted friend of liberty."
The Democrats are not just concerned with perpetuating themselves, but desire to institutionalize a system of government that provides a hierarchical structure that remains unchanging, and in power. They desire a governmental force that holds the maximum power over the economy and the individual. They wish to redistribute wealth because doing so will enable them to concentrate and control wealth, which will ultimately allow them to concentrate and control the people. Then, as being members of that structure, ultimately they will hold power more valuable to them than any amount of monetary wealth.
Through Tea Parties, attending the town hall meetings, and huge rallies like the couple of a million people that attended the 9/12 event in Washington DC, the American People has conveyed the message that they do not agree with what the Democrats are doing. Liberty is defined as rights with responsibilities, and the government is taking that away. The Democrats wish to turn society into a prison yard, where the citizens of this nation become nothing more than prisoners who receive services, and the government becomes the warden, populated by people that think they are the great giver. They wish to provide to the people their food, their housing, their education, their clothing, their medical care, their livelihood, and their recreation. The persons providing the services will be free to come and go as they choose, while the citizens will become limited. They wish to segregate America into two groups: The haves, and the have nots.
A government of this nature, that wishes to exist to protect man from himself, to re-distribute wealth from one group of individuals to another, to grant privileges to one group over another, does not exist to protect individual rights. Its sole function is to protect itself, and to expand when able.
Americans would never accept this kind of tyranny willingly, so the strategy has been to introduce such a system through creeping incrementalism. They must never allow the citizenry to recognize them as socialists, even thought the platforms they support are socialist in nature. They have always been careful not to deliver too much socialism in one shot because the American People would discover the exact nature of their aims, and remove them from office.
This is what has happened. The Democrats overshot, and the American People recognized the liberalism/socialism for what it is. As Communist dictator of the now historical footnote nation of Yugoslavia once said, "Communism is simply state capitalism in which the state has absolute ownership of everything including the efforts of the people."
Isn't that what the Democrats are doing? They have demonized, and demoralized, capitalism so that they have free rein to replace it with a socialistic system.
They sound like a bunch of Soviets, proclaiming the capitalism is the enemy!
All Barack Obama is doing is carrying on the efforts of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Lyndon B. Johnson, and Jimmy Carter. Johnson, in fact, once wrote: "We are going to try to take all of the money that we think is unnecessarily being spent and take it from the haves and give it to the have nots that need it so much."
Sounds like something a Marxist would say, doesn't it?
But people are careful to compare the president's government philosophies to the writings and teachings of Karl Marx. The Left has convinced you that it is unfashionable to do such things.
As the Obama policies have exposed themselves for what they are, however, the American People has risen up to call them what they are: Marxism.
Like children in the recess yard, when unable to win the argument with the facts, the Democrats have resorted to baseless name-calling. First, they called the opposition right-wing radicals, fringe nuts, extremists, and anything else they could muster in the hopes of calling into question the credibility of the opposition. Problem is, many of those opposed to Obama's policies are registered Democrats, too. The folks opposed to the liberal platform of the Democratic Party is a growing group, and does not only include "conservatives."
Interestingly enough, Obama calls himself the bi-partisan president, but the only thing bi-partisan about his presidency is the opposition!
In addition to the name calling being inaccurate because of the diverse nature of the group of people standing up against the Democrat's endeavors, the people actually began to embrace the names they were being called, greeting each other as fellow extremists and domestic terrorists - in other words, using absurdity to expose the absurdity being perpetuated by the Left.
If at first you don't succeed, try, try again.
Since the original barrage of name calling didn't work, the Left would have to come up with something more horrible, so terrible that the recipients would cringe at the very thought of being accused as such.
The Democrats looked around, and noticed that one particular accusation was making headway in other movements as well. Illegals were gaining sympathy for amnesty by calling those that oppose it a bunch of racists. The gays call those that disagree with their behavior bigots. It doesn't matter if the accusation doesn't apply to a disagreement in someone's behavior. The very thought of being a "bigot" causes people to recoil.
Racism is a tool the Left could not use before. Opposition to President Johnson's policies, or Carter's idiocy, could never be seen as racist. They were white guys. Opposition to Obama's policies, however, could be seen as racist. After all, Obama's father is a black African.
The fact that Obama's policies are nothing new, and the opposition to such policies could never be thought of as racist in the past, is not the point. The fact that Obama's platform is in goose-step with white, totalitarian beliefs by historical lunatics plays no role in the decision to call the opposition a bunch of racists. All the Democrats care about is defusing the opposition now, today, with a sucker punch that will put the opposition to rest.
Racism is perfect.
How can anyone argue against racism? The moment they say they are not racist, they can be simply called a liar. After all, who would willingly admit to such a thing?
Then, if through careful searches, the past reveals actions by people that could be considered racist by a warped mind, regardless of whether or not the motive was racism, anyone and everyone associated with that person is automatically a racist too.
Hence, since Joe Wilson showed his disapproval of Obama's plans by saying "You Lie!" during Obama's speech to Congress, he must automatically be a racist. Since he supported keeping the Confederate Battle Flag flying over the State Capitol in South Carolina (the fact he was joined by 80% of Republicans, Democrats, and citizens of the state is not an important enough fact to repeat, in this case, I suppose), that makes him a racist. Since he is a member of the GOP, and the GOP also disagrees with Obama's policies, that in turn makes anyone who disagrees with Obama, and defends Wilson, a racist.
See how easy that is?
Racism is used often, too.
Are you against a strong border between the U.S. and Mexico? Ahh, that makes you a racist against Mexicans. Got a problem with ACORN? Well, since most of the employees are black, then you must be racist against blacks. Don't like Sotomayor being placed on the United States Supreme Court? Racist! You think Van Jones is a communist? Racist! Against government changing the definition of marriage, whether you like it or not? Bigot! Disagree with Obama's policies? Oh, yes, that must be racially motivated too!
And of course if you are a racist, you are a hater.
How are you going to prove otherwise?
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
The Left is all about motives. Their good intentions. You know, they have the good intentions to make everything fair and equitable.
The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.
As the debate over Leftist programs like Universal Health Care, Cap and Trade, and the systematic takeover of the private sector by government regulation and federal control, heightens during the presidential term of Barack Obama, the fact of the matter is that Democrats are losing the debate. They are unable to supply specifics, and their policies have no legs when the U.S. Constitution is applied.
No where in the United States Constitution does it provide for the federal government to provide health insurance to citizens through socialized medicine. No where in the United States Constitution does it allow the federal government to own part of a private business, as the Democrats have done in regards to General Motors. No where does the United States Constitution enable the federal government to do the majority of the things the Democrats have it doing - and they know it.
The liberal left has done everything it can to deny the charges that what they are putting into place is straight out socialism, a political ideology that is in direct opposition to the political concept of being a republic like our founding fathers set this nation up to be. They tell you their motives are pure, and they are worried about the little man, but in reality, the ultimate purpose of this altering of the American form of government is power, and they are willing to do whatever it takes to achieve it.
Those who seek power for the sake of power, and not to represent the people as intended by the founders, will be corrupted by it. They will be willing to intentionally destroy the American economy to further their desire for more power. The destruction of the U.S. economy through out of control spending, the introduction of more money into the system, and ultimately the rise of inflation, is designed. These people in control of the American Government are willing to destroy us, so that they can remake America into what they desire it to be.
As another power seeker, Russian anarchist Bakunin, once wrote, "the possession of power transformed into a tyrant even the most devoted friend of liberty."
The Democrats are not just concerned with perpetuating themselves, but desire to institutionalize a system of government that provides a hierarchical structure that remains unchanging, and in power. They desire a governmental force that holds the maximum power over the economy and the individual. They wish to redistribute wealth because doing so will enable them to concentrate and control wealth, which will ultimately allow them to concentrate and control the people. Then, as being members of that structure, ultimately they will hold power more valuable to them than any amount of monetary wealth.
Through Tea Parties, attending the town hall meetings, and huge rallies like the couple of a million people that attended the 9/12 event in Washington DC, the American People has conveyed the message that they do not agree with what the Democrats are doing. Liberty is defined as rights with responsibilities, and the government is taking that away. The Democrats wish to turn society into a prison yard, where the citizens of this nation become nothing more than prisoners who receive services, and the government becomes the warden, populated by people that think they are the great giver. They wish to provide to the people their food, their housing, their education, their clothing, their medical care, their livelihood, and their recreation. The persons providing the services will be free to come and go as they choose, while the citizens will become limited. They wish to segregate America into two groups: The haves, and the have nots.
A government of this nature, that wishes to exist to protect man from himself, to re-distribute wealth from one group of individuals to another, to grant privileges to one group over another, does not exist to protect individual rights. Its sole function is to protect itself, and to expand when able.
Americans would never accept this kind of tyranny willingly, so the strategy has been to introduce such a system through creeping incrementalism. They must never allow the citizenry to recognize them as socialists, even thought the platforms they support are socialist in nature. They have always been careful not to deliver too much socialism in one shot because the American People would discover the exact nature of their aims, and remove them from office.
This is what has happened. The Democrats overshot, and the American People recognized the liberalism/socialism for what it is. As Communist dictator of the now historical footnote nation of Yugoslavia once said, "Communism is simply state capitalism in which the state has absolute ownership of everything including the efforts of the people."
Isn't that what the Democrats are doing? They have demonized, and demoralized, capitalism so that they have free rein to replace it with a socialistic system.
They sound like a bunch of Soviets, proclaiming the capitalism is the enemy!
All Barack Obama is doing is carrying on the efforts of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Lyndon B. Johnson, and Jimmy Carter. Johnson, in fact, once wrote: "We are going to try to take all of the money that we think is unnecessarily being spent and take it from the haves and give it to the have nots that need it so much."
Sounds like something a Marxist would say, doesn't it?
But people are careful to compare the president's government philosophies to the writings and teachings of Karl Marx. The Left has convinced you that it is unfashionable to do such things.
As the Obama policies have exposed themselves for what they are, however, the American People has risen up to call them what they are: Marxism.
Like children in the recess yard, when unable to win the argument with the facts, the Democrats have resorted to baseless name-calling. First, they called the opposition right-wing radicals, fringe nuts, extremists, and anything else they could muster in the hopes of calling into question the credibility of the opposition. Problem is, many of those opposed to Obama's policies are registered Democrats, too. The folks opposed to the liberal platform of the Democratic Party is a growing group, and does not only include "conservatives."
Interestingly enough, Obama calls himself the bi-partisan president, but the only thing bi-partisan about his presidency is the opposition!
In addition to the name calling being inaccurate because of the diverse nature of the group of people standing up against the Democrat's endeavors, the people actually began to embrace the names they were being called, greeting each other as fellow extremists and domestic terrorists - in other words, using absurdity to expose the absurdity being perpetuated by the Left.
If at first you don't succeed, try, try again.
Since the original barrage of name calling didn't work, the Left would have to come up with something more horrible, so terrible that the recipients would cringe at the very thought of being accused as such.
The Democrats looked around, and noticed that one particular accusation was making headway in other movements as well. Illegals were gaining sympathy for amnesty by calling those that oppose it a bunch of racists. The gays call those that disagree with their behavior bigots. It doesn't matter if the accusation doesn't apply to a disagreement in someone's behavior. The very thought of being a "bigot" causes people to recoil.
Racism is a tool the Left could not use before. Opposition to President Johnson's policies, or Carter's idiocy, could never be seen as racist. They were white guys. Opposition to Obama's policies, however, could be seen as racist. After all, Obama's father is a black African.
The fact that Obama's policies are nothing new, and the opposition to such policies could never be thought of as racist in the past, is not the point. The fact that Obama's platform is in goose-step with white, totalitarian beliefs by historical lunatics plays no role in the decision to call the opposition a bunch of racists. All the Democrats care about is defusing the opposition now, today, with a sucker punch that will put the opposition to rest.
Racism is perfect.
How can anyone argue against racism? The moment they say they are not racist, they can be simply called a liar. After all, who would willingly admit to such a thing?
Then, if through careful searches, the past reveals actions by people that could be considered racist by a warped mind, regardless of whether or not the motive was racism, anyone and everyone associated with that person is automatically a racist too.
Hence, since Joe Wilson showed his disapproval of Obama's plans by saying "You Lie!" during Obama's speech to Congress, he must automatically be a racist. Since he supported keeping the Confederate Battle Flag flying over the State Capitol in South Carolina (the fact he was joined by 80% of Republicans, Democrats, and citizens of the state is not an important enough fact to repeat, in this case, I suppose), that makes him a racist. Since he is a member of the GOP, and the GOP also disagrees with Obama's policies, that in turn makes anyone who disagrees with Obama, and defends Wilson, a racist.
See how easy that is?
Racism is used often, too.
Are you against a strong border between the U.S. and Mexico? Ahh, that makes you a racist against Mexicans. Got a problem with ACORN? Well, since most of the employees are black, then you must be racist against blacks. Don't like Sotomayor being placed on the United States Supreme Court? Racist! You think Van Jones is a communist? Racist! Against government changing the definition of marriage, whether you like it or not? Bigot! Disagree with Obama's policies? Oh, yes, that must be racially motivated too!
And of course if you are a racist, you are a hater.
How are you going to prove otherwise?
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Monday, September 21, 2009
Understanding "Constitutional Convention" (aka Con-Con, Article V. Convention)
By Douglas V. Gibbs
The panic about Congress calling an Article V. Convention is unfounded. The Democrats aren't trying to change the Constitution with a Constitutional Convention. They are trying to avoid an Article V. Convention because such an event is a tool of the people - and they fear losing that kind of power to their constituents.
Once again there are concerns over a Constitutional Convention being called by Congress. The "Con-Con" is said, by those afraid of one being called, to be an attempt by the liberal Democrats to try and rewrite the entire U.S. Constitution. These folks erroneously believe such a convention would result in repealing the Bill of Rights, and changing forever the foundational form of government by which America operates.
I agree that the United States Congress is currently under the control of the most radical liberal Democrats in American history. They want nothing more than to change the American Form of Government, and are attempting to do it not by changing the U.S. Constitution, but by ignoring it.
Once again there are concerns over a Constitutional Convention being called by Congress. The "Con-Con" is said, by those afraid of one being called, to be an attempt by the liberal Democrats to try and rewrite the entire U.S. Constitution. These folks erroneously believe such a convention would result in repealing the Bill of Rights, and changing forever the foundational form of government by which America operates.
I agree that the United States Congress is currently under the control of the most radical liberal Democrats in American history. They want nothing more than to change the American Form of Government, and are attempting to do it not by changing the U.S. Constitution, but by ignoring it.
Obama's call for hope and change was exactly that, a cry to change America's government from a Constitutional Republic, so something else that more closely resembles the socialist nations of the world.
There has only been one Constitutional Convention, and it will be the only one we ever have. The U.S. Constitution does not allow for a re-writing of the document. The only way the Constitution can be changed is through the amendment process, and amendments must be ratified by three-quarters of the states. Read Article V. of the U.S. Constitution carfully. The fears being presented by wayward Emails and bloggers are unfounded, and are not true.
The latest set of Emails and blog posts circling the Internet claim that it only takes a request from two-thirds of the states (34 states) to get Congress to call for a Constitutional Convention (which actually should be referred to as an Article V. Convention). The claim that only 34 states are needed to call for such a convention is correct. Only two-thirds of the states must request for one for Congress to call for the convention. However, when the folks who oppose a Con-Con says that there are only two states left for an Article V. Convention to be called, that is false. All 50 states have already requested an Article V. Convention, with over 750 applications.
So if enough states have requested an Article V. Convention, then why hasn't Congress called for one?
Congress has not called for it, and they will do anything they can to keep from calling for one, because they are afraid of it.
Article V. Conventions are the people's way of circumventing the power of Congress.
Originally, during the five month long debate over the U.S. Constitution back in 1787, the intention was to only allow the people, through the states, to be able to amend the Constitution. Enabling Congress to propose amendments was added as an after-thought. Interestingly enough, all of the amendments to the Constitution have been proposed by the Congress. Despite the many requests for an Article V. Convention, none has ever been called.
The politicians can do nothing beyond calling for an Article V. Convention once it is requested. This means that the Congress chooses the place, time, and date. The delegates are chosen by the states, in whatever way the state decides to choose these delegates. Then, the delegates of all of the states will get together for the convention to propose amendments, and amendments only. There can be no "rewriting" of the U.S. Constitution. Then, the proposed amendments still have to be ratified by the states through a vote by the people. Beyond choosing the location and time, Congress would have nothing to do with the convention whatsoever. This means the people can propose amendments, and pass them, without any intrusion by the politicians. The Convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda, without Congressional interference.
Understand why Congress won't call for the convention? They are scared to death of the people having that kind of power!
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Friends of the Article V. Convention
There has only been one Constitutional Convention, and it will be the only one we ever have. The U.S. Constitution does not allow for a re-writing of the document. The only way the Constitution can be changed is through the amendment process, and amendments must be ratified by three-quarters of the states. Read Article V. of the U.S. Constitution carfully. The fears being presented by wayward Emails and bloggers are unfounded, and are not true.
The latest set of Emails and blog posts circling the Internet claim that it only takes a request from two-thirds of the states (34 states) to get Congress to call for a Constitutional Convention (which actually should be referred to as an Article V. Convention). The claim that only 34 states are needed to call for such a convention is correct. Only two-thirds of the states must request for one for Congress to call for the convention. However, when the folks who oppose a Con-Con says that there are only two states left for an Article V. Convention to be called, that is false. All 50 states have already requested an Article V. Convention, with over 750 applications.
So if enough states have requested an Article V. Convention, then why hasn't Congress called for one?
Congress has not called for it, and they will do anything they can to keep from calling for one, because they are afraid of it.
Article V. Conventions are the people's way of circumventing the power of Congress.
Originally, during the five month long debate over the U.S. Constitution back in 1787, the intention was to only allow the people, through the states, to be able to amend the Constitution. Enabling Congress to propose amendments was added as an after-thought. Interestingly enough, all of the amendments to the Constitution have been proposed by the Congress. Despite the many requests for an Article V. Convention, none has ever been called.
The politicians can do nothing beyond calling for an Article V. Convention once it is requested. This means that the Congress chooses the place, time, and date. The delegates are chosen by the states, in whatever way the state decides to choose these delegates. Then, the delegates of all of the states will get together for the convention to propose amendments, and amendments only. There can be no "rewriting" of the U.S. Constitution. Then, the proposed amendments still have to be ratified by the states through a vote by the people. Beyond choosing the location and time, Congress would have nothing to do with the convention whatsoever. This means the people can propose amendments, and pass them, without any intrusion by the politicians. The Convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda, without Congressional interference.
Understand why Congress won't call for the convention? They are scared to death of the people having that kind of power!
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Friends of the Article V. Convention
Debating Darwinism and Science with the Secular Left
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Debate can be a healthy thing. The exchange of information is important. Psalm 36 reminds us that "In their blind conceit they cannot see how wicked they really are." This is why it is important to inform and educate, and spread the message of truth.
More often than not truth serves as a light, and it causes the cockroaches of the secular humanistic left to scatter. Occasionally, it is important to have dialogue with the opposition. Usually, it is best not to give them a pedestal to stand on, or a megaphone to spread their deceit, so normally I do not engage in such discussions.
I am always, however, when I have the time to engage, up for a spirited debate. One of the people that likes to attack me most often is Harry, but none of his comments ever make it on my site, mainly because of the profanity, and his tendency to use ALL CAPS while speaking in the third person. Besides, he is like a little kid fighting over a toy, and spends more time using baseless attacks that have no merit, than actually debating the topic at hand.
The next most obsessed liberal reader/commenter is Tom. He is a gay, secular, anti-religion follower of such crazy voices as Richard Dawkins and Bill Maher. I usually don't give his comments the opportunity to see the light of day, either, more often than not because of the ad hominem attacks included in the comment, sometimes the profanity, or the pure insanity of what was written. He also tends to write comments longer than my posts, which I normally frown upon. But, sometimes the noose he is placing around his neck based on what he wrote is comical enough to reveal to the rest of you.
Science is one of my loves, and the fact that Tom is an ardent Darwinist has made me decide to do a little sparring with Tom over the topic. These posts will not dominate this site. I don't have time to spend hours upon hours on this debate. The volley between he and I will serve as occasional bits of entertaining debate - more often than not waged in the comment section. If you, the reader, enjoys this kind of thing, feel free to follow the rollercoaster. But as I stated before, it will not dominate this site, or my time, and sometimes responses may be spread out considering my very intense non-blogging schedule.
So, the following is one of my latest responses, specifically to Tom's opinions about the credentials of the people interviewed for Lee Strobel's book, A Case For A Creator (find the original comments on Haloscan HERE).
-----------
I wrote the post about their credentials because that is what you were attacking. A response to an attack on a list of obviously deep thinkers. You act as if because of other interests, suddenly the science in them is negated. That is ludicrous. Must they have only your expectation of credentials to be reliable sources?
The error made by you was to call them a bunch of philosophers and theologians, thus ignoring their education in science, and discounting any scientific opinion they may have -- despite their heavy scientific background. Then, you even brought into the argument the faith of one, of which also was not a part of the discussion. Its like you were trying to throw as many darts as you could at the wall, hoping one might stick into a bulls eye.
It is more than just "God did it." There is a plethora of evidence supporting Intelligent Design, and even more evidence discounting Darwinism. There are overlaps, because species do make minor adjustments, but not to the point of changing species. In other words, there was not a single common ancestor. The idea of that even goes against science - after all, doesn't like beget like?
A great piece of evidence is DNA. The language is very similar to computer code. If you were to find information scrawled on a wall in a cave, would you immediately assume it appeared by random? Of course not, you would recognize it as the writings of an intelligent being. Yet, when DNA was mapped, the response is that the complex writings of genetic coding is random chance, or the result of evolution - when it is obvious that DNA is the writings of an intelligent designer. Writings would be given that consideration on a cave wall, but not on the DNA strands of our bodies.
The belief that mankind has been on the planet for about 6,000 years is also something supported by evidence. In "The Collapse of Evolution" author Scott Huse, PhD sums up proof that the Earth cannot be billions of years old because it would exhibit:
-A much higher concentration of salt in the oceans than what exists today,
-much more atmospheric helium, the product of the radioactive decay of uranium and thorium; current levels would indicate ten thousand years of decay, assuming a starting point of zero,
-no mountains, because even the Himalaya and Rocky Mountains would erode to sea level in just ten million years,
-a lot more sediment deposited in the Gulf of Mexico by the Mississippi River, since what's in the delta now has been calculated to have taken about four thousand years to deposit,
-no more petroleum or natural gas beneath the earth's cap rock because the extremely high pressures containing both would have blown through the rock in ten thousand years max.
As for mankind being on the Earth for about six thousand years, you have to do the math for that. Calculating Biblical accounts and all of the begets, the Bible comes up with about 6,000 years. Mathematicians, basing a growth of about 2.12 to 2.25 children per family, taking into consideration downturns in population growth such as famine and plague, place the beginning of growth of a population of about six and a half billion people to about 4,500 years ago. Biblically, Noah is about 5,000 years ago.
Okay, let's use some other math. Without anything interfering (plague, war, famine, etc.) calculating the number of people on Earth now by growing numbers from Noah’s family using the current growth rate in number of people (1.7% per year) stretched back to Noah’s time, we would now have over sixty thousand billion billion billion (6 with 31 zeroes after it).
If anything is rather absurd, it is that humanity has been on the planet for longer than 6,000 years, or that the Earth is billions of years old.
Granted, there are, as you continually state, thousands of credentialed biologists and scientists presenting papers and PhD essays on the science behind evolution. But did it ever cross your mind that even with that many people supporting something, they could be wrong?
As for that old text called the Holy Bible, don't discount it so quickly. It holds more credibility than the Evolution Fairy Tale. It has been proven to be a flawless historical record with accurate, centuries-spanning prophecies, confirmed by the finding of the Dead Sea Scrolls containing nearly the entire Old Testament, matching almost perfectly with the text we have today (showing the unchanged nature of biblical text). There is no credible evidence the Bible has been distorted. The evidence that it was divinely inspired is not difficult to explain when you think about how difficult it would be for a single author to avoid contradiction when dealing with such a lengthy period of detailed history involving so many individuals and nations and covering such a wide variety of subjects. But 40 different prophets writing with one voice over a period of many centuries is truly amazing. There can only be one explanation: divine inspiration.
Interestingly enough, science is also throughout the Bible. The flat-earthers, in fact, were originally the non-Christians, because the Bible numerous times recognizes the Earth as a sphere. There is also the notion that the sun has an orbit of its own, written by Kind David in Psalm 19:6 "The sun's rising is from one end of heaven, and its circuit to the other end, and there is nothing hidden from its heat." The Bible touches on the microscopic world before that tiny world was even discovered. The Bible's understanding of science, regarding parts of science that humanity hadn't even discovered yet, is incredible.
Meanwhile, modern archaeology has been confirming more and more the Bible's historical accuracy. The Bible displays an incredibly amount of accurate historical data.
Mystical? Evidence in favor of biblical accuracy in science and history provides that the Bible is more than just some big dusty book full of rules handed down by a supernatural God.
As for Richard Dawkins, I viewed a film regarding his thoughts before, and was able to discount almost all of it with common sense. But, I have not read any of his works, and am willing to do so. I am constantly reading books that both support, and are opposed to, my belief system. I have no reason to not be reading material by the opposition. Otherwise, how could I say with confidence that I know what they said?
Game on (as a friend of mine likes to say).
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Debate can be a healthy thing. The exchange of information is important. Psalm 36 reminds us that "In their blind conceit they cannot see how wicked they really are." This is why it is important to inform and educate, and spread the message of truth.
More often than not truth serves as a light, and it causes the cockroaches of the secular humanistic left to scatter. Occasionally, it is important to have dialogue with the opposition. Usually, it is best not to give them a pedestal to stand on, or a megaphone to spread their deceit, so normally I do not engage in such discussions.
I am always, however, when I have the time to engage, up for a spirited debate. One of the people that likes to attack me most often is Harry, but none of his comments ever make it on my site, mainly because of the profanity, and his tendency to use ALL CAPS while speaking in the third person. Besides, he is like a little kid fighting over a toy, and spends more time using baseless attacks that have no merit, than actually debating the topic at hand.
The next most obsessed liberal reader/commenter is Tom. He is a gay, secular, anti-religion follower of such crazy voices as Richard Dawkins and Bill Maher. I usually don't give his comments the opportunity to see the light of day, either, more often than not because of the ad hominem attacks included in the comment, sometimes the profanity, or the pure insanity of what was written. He also tends to write comments longer than my posts, which I normally frown upon. But, sometimes the noose he is placing around his neck based on what he wrote is comical enough to reveal to the rest of you.
Science is one of my loves, and the fact that Tom is an ardent Darwinist has made me decide to do a little sparring with Tom over the topic. These posts will not dominate this site. I don't have time to spend hours upon hours on this debate. The volley between he and I will serve as occasional bits of entertaining debate - more often than not waged in the comment section. If you, the reader, enjoys this kind of thing, feel free to follow the rollercoaster. But as I stated before, it will not dominate this site, or my time, and sometimes responses may be spread out considering my very intense non-blogging schedule.
So, the following is one of my latest responses, specifically to Tom's opinions about the credentials of the people interviewed for Lee Strobel's book, A Case For A Creator (find the original comments on Haloscan HERE).
-----------
I wrote the post about their credentials because that is what you were attacking. A response to an attack on a list of obviously deep thinkers. You act as if because of other interests, suddenly the science in them is negated. That is ludicrous. Must they have only your expectation of credentials to be reliable sources?
The error made by you was to call them a bunch of philosophers and theologians, thus ignoring their education in science, and discounting any scientific opinion they may have -- despite their heavy scientific background. Then, you even brought into the argument the faith of one, of which also was not a part of the discussion. Its like you were trying to throw as many darts as you could at the wall, hoping one might stick into a bulls eye.
It is more than just "God did it." There is a plethora of evidence supporting Intelligent Design, and even more evidence discounting Darwinism. There are overlaps, because species do make minor adjustments, but not to the point of changing species. In other words, there was not a single common ancestor. The idea of that even goes against science - after all, doesn't like beget like?
A great piece of evidence is DNA. The language is very similar to computer code. If you were to find information scrawled on a wall in a cave, would you immediately assume it appeared by random? Of course not, you would recognize it as the writings of an intelligent being. Yet, when DNA was mapped, the response is that the complex writings of genetic coding is random chance, or the result of evolution - when it is obvious that DNA is the writings of an intelligent designer. Writings would be given that consideration on a cave wall, but not on the DNA strands of our bodies.
The belief that mankind has been on the planet for about 6,000 years is also something supported by evidence. In "The Collapse of Evolution" author Scott Huse, PhD sums up proof that the Earth cannot be billions of years old because it would exhibit:
-A much higher concentration of salt in the oceans than what exists today,
-much more atmospheric helium, the product of the radioactive decay of uranium and thorium; current levels would indicate ten thousand years of decay, assuming a starting point of zero,
-no mountains, because even the Himalaya and Rocky Mountains would erode to sea level in just ten million years,
-a lot more sediment deposited in the Gulf of Mexico by the Mississippi River, since what's in the delta now has been calculated to have taken about four thousand years to deposit,
-no more petroleum or natural gas beneath the earth's cap rock because the extremely high pressures containing both would have blown through the rock in ten thousand years max.
As for mankind being on the Earth for about six thousand years, you have to do the math for that. Calculating Biblical accounts and all of the begets, the Bible comes up with about 6,000 years. Mathematicians, basing a growth of about 2.12 to 2.25 children per family, taking into consideration downturns in population growth such as famine and plague, place the beginning of growth of a population of about six and a half billion people to about 4,500 years ago. Biblically, Noah is about 5,000 years ago.
Okay, let's use some other math. Without anything interfering (plague, war, famine, etc.) calculating the number of people on Earth now by growing numbers from Noah’s family using the current growth rate in number of people (1.7% per year) stretched back to Noah’s time, we would now have over sixty thousand billion billion billion (6 with 31 zeroes after it).
If anything is rather absurd, it is that humanity has been on the planet for longer than 6,000 years, or that the Earth is billions of years old.
Granted, there are, as you continually state, thousands of credentialed biologists and scientists presenting papers and PhD essays on the science behind evolution. But did it ever cross your mind that even with that many people supporting something, they could be wrong?
As for that old text called the Holy Bible, don't discount it so quickly. It holds more credibility than the Evolution Fairy Tale. It has been proven to be a flawless historical record with accurate, centuries-spanning prophecies, confirmed by the finding of the Dead Sea Scrolls containing nearly the entire Old Testament, matching almost perfectly with the text we have today (showing the unchanged nature of biblical text). There is no credible evidence the Bible has been distorted. The evidence that it was divinely inspired is not difficult to explain when you think about how difficult it would be for a single author to avoid contradiction when dealing with such a lengthy period of detailed history involving so many individuals and nations and covering such a wide variety of subjects. But 40 different prophets writing with one voice over a period of many centuries is truly amazing. There can only be one explanation: divine inspiration.
Interestingly enough, science is also throughout the Bible. The flat-earthers, in fact, were originally the non-Christians, because the Bible numerous times recognizes the Earth as a sphere. There is also the notion that the sun has an orbit of its own, written by Kind David in Psalm 19:6 "The sun's rising is from one end of heaven, and its circuit to the other end, and there is nothing hidden from its heat." The Bible touches on the microscopic world before that tiny world was even discovered. The Bible's understanding of science, regarding parts of science that humanity hadn't even discovered yet, is incredible.
Meanwhile, modern archaeology has been confirming more and more the Bible's historical accuracy. The Bible displays an incredibly amount of accurate historical data.
Mystical? Evidence in favor of biblical accuracy in science and history provides that the Bible is more than just some big dusty book full of rules handed down by a supernatural God.
As for Richard Dawkins, I viewed a film regarding his thoughts before, and was able to discount almost all of it with common sense. But, I have not read any of his works, and am willing to do so. I am constantly reading books that both support, and are opposed to, my belief system. I have no reason to not be reading material by the opposition. Otherwise, how could I say with confidence that I know what they said?
Game on (as a friend of mine likes to say).
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Stephanopoulos to Obama: If it Walks Like a Tax, and Quacks Like a Tax. . .
By Douglas V. Gibbs
President Obama and ABC News' George Stephanopoulos had an unexpected battle on Sunday (is ABC then going to join Fox News on the NoBama list of rejected networks?). Stephanopoulos dared to challenge The One by asking whether or not the president's health care plan includes a tax increase.
Of course, Obama claimed it didn't have a tax increase (Obama has gotten really good at lying. . . have you noticed?)
Stephanopoulos asked when referring to the mandatory coverage clause, "Under this mandate, the government is forcing people to spend money, fining you if you don't. How is that not a tax?"
Obama responded, "No, but -- but, George, you -- you can't just make up that language and decide that that's called a tax increase."
Stephanopoulos pulled out the dictionary and read the definition to Uncle Barry. "I don't think I'm making it up. Merriam-Webster's dictionary [says] 'Tax, a charge, usually of money, imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes.'"
Obama, even faced with facts (such stubborn things, they are - you know. . . facts), he continued to deny that the health care bill had a tax increase, accusing Stephanopoulos of "stretching" a little.
"No. That -- that's not true, George. The -- for us to say that you've got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase," Obama said.
Of course, the health plan the Democrats are pushing goes way beyond just tax increases. Who is Obama and his Leftist horde to tell anybody they are required to have health insurance, or that he will "let" us keep our current coverage despite the existence of a public option?
It is my moral responsibility to ensure my family has health care coverage. It is my right to decide how to do it, or if to do it.
A Right is defined as the freedom to act morally without asking permission.
We don't need Obama's permission, nor should the Left force us to have health insurance - especially if it is a socialistic public option.
And the tax increase Stephanopoulos exposed proves Obama is a liar.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Obama, Stephanopoulos Spar Over Definition of 'Tax' - Fox News, Kimberly Schwandt
President Obama and ABC News' George Stephanopoulos had an unexpected battle on Sunday (is ABC then going to join Fox News on the NoBama list of rejected networks?). Stephanopoulos dared to challenge The One by asking whether or not the president's health care plan includes a tax increase.
Of course, Obama claimed it didn't have a tax increase (Obama has gotten really good at lying. . . have you noticed?)
Stephanopoulos asked when referring to the mandatory coverage clause, "Under this mandate, the government is forcing people to spend money, fining you if you don't. How is that not a tax?"
Obama responded, "No, but -- but, George, you -- you can't just make up that language and decide that that's called a tax increase."
Stephanopoulos pulled out the dictionary and read the definition to Uncle Barry. "I don't think I'm making it up. Merriam-Webster's dictionary [says] 'Tax, a charge, usually of money, imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes.'"
Obama, even faced with facts (such stubborn things, they are - you know. . . facts), he continued to deny that the health care bill had a tax increase, accusing Stephanopoulos of "stretching" a little.
"No. That -- that's not true, George. The -- for us to say that you've got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase," Obama said.
Of course, the health plan the Democrats are pushing goes way beyond just tax increases. Who is Obama and his Leftist horde to tell anybody they are required to have health insurance, or that he will "let" us keep our current coverage despite the existence of a public option?
It is my moral responsibility to ensure my family has health care coverage. It is my right to decide how to do it, or if to do it.
A Right is defined as the freedom to act morally without asking permission.
We don't need Obama's permission, nor should the Left force us to have health insurance - especially if it is a socialistic public option.
And the tax increase Stephanopoulos exposed proves Obama is a liar.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Obama, Stephanopoulos Spar Over Definition of 'Tax' - Fox News, Kimberly Schwandt
Obama Throws Like A Girl
I never did say my peace about Obama throwing out the first pitch in a baseball game:
'nuff said.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
'nuff said.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Sunday, September 20, 2009
John Stossel Has Had Enough and is Heading To Fox News
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Obama doesn't like Fox News, nor does any of the other leftist sheep. Fox News has never really been "conservative," but as time is passing, it seems to be becoming more so. Alan Colmes has departed, and Glenn Beck has arrived, for example.
Today Obama did five Sunday shows, including Univision (Spanish), but not Fox News. Remember, he doesn't like Fox News (and hasn't been shy about talking trash on the news network, either).
Could you imagine how crazy things would have been if Bush has decided to be on only Fox News, and told MSNBC and CNN to take a hike? The backlash would have been incredible.
Jon Stossel has had enough of ABC, and so now he is deciding to move over to Fox News. What is interesting about that is the crap he is getting for his decision.
Stossel is libertarian more than he is conservative, and libertarians tend to be right about 80% of the time, and a little crazy the other 20% - but a couple things libertarians and conservatives have in common is an appreciation for the original intent of the U.S. Constitution, and a severe distaste for the liberal left's Marxist policies.
Maybe that's why Obama doesn't like Fox News - because they are willing to expose him for the liar, and anti-American socialist, that he is. Hmmm, would that make Obama a coward?
Welcome to Fox, Stossel. Looking forward to your contribution to the network.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
I'm Moving To Fox - Human Events, Jon Stossel
Obama To Pull Off Unprecendented Quintuple Sunday Show Circuit, But No FOX - Mediaite, Steve Krakauer
Post-Partisan Obama Ignores Fox News - Sweetness and Light
Obama doesn't like Fox News, nor does any of the other leftist sheep. Fox News has never really been "conservative," but as time is passing, it seems to be becoming more so. Alan Colmes has departed, and Glenn Beck has arrived, for example.
Today Obama did five Sunday shows, including Univision (Spanish), but not Fox News. Remember, he doesn't like Fox News (and hasn't been shy about talking trash on the news network, either).
Could you imagine how crazy things would have been if Bush has decided to be on only Fox News, and told MSNBC and CNN to take a hike? The backlash would have been incredible.
Jon Stossel has had enough of ABC, and so now he is deciding to move over to Fox News. What is interesting about that is the crap he is getting for his decision.
Stossel is libertarian more than he is conservative, and libertarians tend to be right about 80% of the time, and a little crazy the other 20% - but a couple things libertarians and conservatives have in common is an appreciation for the original intent of the U.S. Constitution, and a severe distaste for the liberal left's Marxist policies.
Maybe that's why Obama doesn't like Fox News - because they are willing to expose him for the liar, and anti-American socialist, that he is. Hmmm, would that make Obama a coward?
Welcome to Fox, Stossel. Looking forward to your contribution to the network.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
I'm Moving To Fox - Human Events, Jon Stossel
Obama To Pull Off Unprecendented Quintuple Sunday Show Circuit, But No FOX - Mediaite, Steve Krakauer
Post-Partisan Obama Ignores Fox News - Sweetness and Light
Black Conservative Lloyd Marcus Experiences Racism
By Lloyd Marcus
I traveled on the Tea Party Express tour bus as a singer/songwriter, entertainer and spokesperson — 16 states, 34 rallies in two weeks. I experienced vicious racial verbal attacks, not from the Tea Party protesters. The racial hate expressed against me all came from the left, people who support President Obama's radial socialist agenda.
Unfortunately, my deleted email box is littered with numerous messages expressing the following, "You are the dumbest self hating f****** n***** I have ever seen!" These racists are outraged by my opening lines I boldly proclaimed at each rally. "Hello my fellow patriots! I am NOT an African-American! I am Lloyd Marcus, AMERICAN!" At every rally, my proclamation inspired great applause and cheers of joy and approval from the audiences. After each rally many came to me with tears in their eyes. They said, "I thank you from the bottom of my heart for what you said. I am Irish (or Italian, or Asian) American. And yet, I would never hyphenate. I feel hyphening divides us. While it is fine to honor one's origin, let's all be American first."
The Tea Party audience's passionate response to my proclamation was a surprise to me. I did not know so many Americans disapproved of hyphenating pushed on us via political correctness.
I rejected hyphenating years ago. One day I woke up and heard I was no longer black, I was African American. Anyone rejecting the new term was called ignorant, insensitive and an Uncle Tom if you are black. Not intending to be provocative or controversial, I casually stated that I am not a hyphenated American, but simply an American at a Tea Party. The audience's cheers of approval were surprising and heartwarming.
Read the rest on Renew America
I traveled on the Tea Party Express tour bus as a singer/songwriter, entertainer and spokesperson — 16 states, 34 rallies in two weeks. I experienced vicious racial verbal attacks, not from the Tea Party protesters. The racial hate expressed against me all came from the left, people who support President Obama's radial socialist agenda.
Unfortunately, my deleted email box is littered with numerous messages expressing the following, "You are the dumbest self hating f****** n***** I have ever seen!" These racists are outraged by my opening lines I boldly proclaimed at each rally. "Hello my fellow patriots! I am NOT an African-American! I am Lloyd Marcus, AMERICAN!" At every rally, my proclamation inspired great applause and cheers of joy and approval from the audiences. After each rally many came to me with tears in their eyes. They said, "I thank you from the bottom of my heart for what you said. I am Irish (or Italian, or Asian) American. And yet, I would never hyphenate. I feel hyphening divides us. While it is fine to honor one's origin, let's all be American first."
The Tea Party audience's passionate response to my proclamation was a surprise to me. I did not know so many Americans disapproved of hyphenating pushed on us via political correctness.
I rejected hyphenating years ago. One day I woke up and heard I was no longer black, I was African American. Anyone rejecting the new term was called ignorant, insensitive and an Uncle Tom if you are black. Not intending to be provocative or controversial, I casually stated that I am not a hyphenated American, but simply an American at a Tea Party. The audience's cheers of approval were surprising and heartwarming.
Read the rest on Renew America
Pursuing Power - On a Global Scale
God or Government?
Power can transform even the most devoted friend of liberty into a tyrant. The process of seeking power is underway, and big government is the vessel in America. Power is the end. Power is the goal. Power is the drug.
Absolute power in the hands of the few in a nation is dangerous. Absolute power in the hands of the few on a global level is devastating. Power is the final solution, and the terms of government for the ultimate power is Utopianism (aka socialism, communism). Big Government equals governmental control of the people through a socialistic system that uses the guise of being a humanitarian system that redistributes the wealth, while is ultimately actually a system designed for concentrating and controlling people.
Part of the start of this progression toward the slavery of tyranny began when society decided our rights come from government, rather than God. As William Penn wrote, "If men will not be governed by God, they then must be governed by tyrants."
Those that wrote the U.S. Constitution knew that humanity has a tendency to grant power to government, in the hopes government will protect human rights - when in turn the government, if not limited, can be abused and used as a way of destroying the rights of the people who created the government, while trying to accumulate as much power as possible.
- A Right is a freedom to act morally without asking permission.
- A Privilege is a freedom to act morally, but only after permission has been granted by some governmental entity.
Tonight, on the Political Pistachio Radio Revolution we explore the increase in the size of government we have been seeing for over a century, and how the Democrats are trying to take the power to the limit, while conspiring to join a global system of governance that is tyrannical, and spells the end of American sovereignty as we know it.
Tune in live at 7:00 PM Pacific, 10:00 PM Eastern, or catch the archive later, for the two hour radio program on BlogTalkRadio.com/PoliticalPistachio.
United Nations Government with a One World Currency
By Douglas V. Gibbs
A Thief in the Night was a film I watched as a young man during the seventies. The plot circled around The Rapture, and as a Christian I found the movie very intriguing. A scene that still speaks to me in my memory began with a woman waking up and hearing her husband's electric razor buzzing in the bathroom. She gets up to see the shaver rumbling on the sink, and he is not there.
The other part of the film that stands out in my memory is the United Nations' role in pulling together a global effort to deal with the event of millions of people worldwide suddenly vanishing. United Nations vans cruise the streets as the government officials search for anyone not willing to comply with the new emergency measures they had to take. The government system that arises is called UNITE (United Nations Imperium for Total Emergency), and is primarily set up to find those who do not receive the mark of The Beast, which identifies them with UNITE.
Realizing that the film was only a fictional depiction of one person's view of what the Great Tribulation would be like, I decided to learn more about the possibility of a system of global governance for myself. I found myself researching globalistic movements, and political groups, that desire worldwide governance. Biblical text referencing the global aspect of the end times caught my attention, as well. I began to read books by Hal Lindsey and A. Ralph Epperson to better understand the drive for globalism Planet Earth would be in for in the near future. I retained information I believed to be a viable possiblity, and discarded the data I felt was not possible, usually using a Biblical compass to made the determination.
Science Fiction, of which I have always been a big fan of, is filled with fictional stories telling tales of a unified Earth, or federation of humanity. The idea of globalism, Utopianism, and One World endeavors is nothing new. In politics, however, those that have strove for such a system have been communists and socialists, or crazy sociopaths, bent on world domination. Every example of a drive for global governance has been by the use of war, and forceful domination.
The Bible, however, says that this system will not be reached through war, but in the name of peace. The leaders of the nations will accept slavery under a one world system, and will do so willingly, in the hopes of peace, and safety.
In order to achieve a globalistic system, a number of events must pass first. The necessity for these things to happen are not necessarily biblical, but simply a fact of progression. A one world government cannot arise as long as the United States is prosperous enough to remain independent of the need to join a worldwide union, and a global system cannot take its place as the governing power until economies are all a part of a single, global economic system, and until the sovereignty of nations is compromised, and eliminated - including the armies that protect the sovereignty of these nations. Borders must be erased, and independent nationalism must be quelled.
Interdependence among the nations must be present in order for a one world government to form. A global economy, backed by a global currency, will need to be in place. International Law will be required to supercede all national laws, and a global council or assembly will have to be in place to make decisions regarding the law of the globe, rather than national constitutions.
Right now, with the Democrats in power, and the desire for globalism growing among the world's leaders, world organizations like the United Nations are openly calling for the creation of a one-world currency to replace the dollar. According to Jerome Corsi, the Obama administration's trillion-dollar deficits are serving as a trigger for the currency switch. Recently, a United Nations report recommended that a new one-world currency should be created to replace the dollar as the standard for foreign-exchange holdings in international trade.
Corsi also noted, "That G20 summit meeting took an important step toward creating a new one-world currency through the International Monetary Fund that is designed to replace the dollar as the world's foreign exchange reserve currency of choice."
This is coupled with the liberal left's penchant for International Law, recently exhibited by statements by Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor when she indicated that she favors a broader consideration of foreign and international law in U.S. judicial opinions. In turn, there are even those that would like to take the law out of the hands of the judiciary and place it in the hands of President Barack Obama, who has made it apparent that he favors a more united world from a political and economic perspective.
Cass Sunstein, Obama's regulatory czar, has even gone so far as to say that, "There is no reason to believe that in the face of statutory ambiguity, the meaning of federal law should be settled by the inclinations and predispositions of federal judges. The outcome should instead depend on the commitments and beliefs of the President and those who operate under him."
Of course the moment a U.S. Constitution abiding Conservative was in the White House, they would change their tune real quick.
In following Sunstein's logic, however, if the president is a socialist globalist, and has a complete disregard for the U.S. Constitution, like Obama does, and would like to cast our national sovereignty to the wind, he should be able to do so . . . that is insane!
These politicians, by supporting amnesty for illegal aliens, and compromising our intelligence community, military, and drawing back on missile defense systems, are positioning the United States for a loss of sovereignty by erasing the borders, and nullifying our ability to defend ourselves.
All that remains to drive the final nails into the coffin of America's sovereignty is a national, or worldwide, disaster. A complete economic collapse, a series of national disasters, or a pandemic of global proportions, would do the job, giving the globalists the excuse to join together in worldwide unity, declare the need to unify to face the crisis, and secure a global council using the United Nations, and other organizations, to unite as a single system of global governance.
Then, to gain further control, they will begin to preach that the global population needs to be controlled, and that population growth needs to be slowed down. . . ooops, that is already happening (something I saw coming three years ago).
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
U.N. calls for replacement of U.S. dollar - World Net Daily, Jerome Corsi
Sotomayor and International Law - Wall Street Journal, Collin Levy
Sunstein: Obama, not courts, should interpret law - World Net Daily, Aaron Klein
Obama: Legalize illegals to get them health care - Washington Times, Stephen Dinan
CIA interrogations: Congressman, CIA directors voice opposition to Holder's actions - Law Enforcement Examiner, Jim Kouri
White House Scraps Bush’s Approach to Missile Shield - The New York Times, Peter Baker
Birth control could help combat climate change - Breitbart
Population Control - Political Pistachio, Douglas V. Gibbs
A Thief in the Night was a film I watched as a young man during the seventies. The plot circled around The Rapture, and as a Christian I found the movie very intriguing. A scene that still speaks to me in my memory began with a woman waking up and hearing her husband's electric razor buzzing in the bathroom. She gets up to see the shaver rumbling on the sink, and he is not there.
The other part of the film that stands out in my memory is the United Nations' role in pulling together a global effort to deal with the event of millions of people worldwide suddenly vanishing. United Nations vans cruise the streets as the government officials search for anyone not willing to comply with the new emergency measures they had to take. The government system that arises is called UNITE (United Nations Imperium for Total Emergency), and is primarily set up to find those who do not receive the mark of The Beast, which identifies them with UNITE.
Realizing that the film was only a fictional depiction of one person's view of what the Great Tribulation would be like, I decided to learn more about the possibility of a system of global governance for myself. I found myself researching globalistic movements, and political groups, that desire worldwide governance. Biblical text referencing the global aspect of the end times caught my attention, as well. I began to read books by Hal Lindsey and A. Ralph Epperson to better understand the drive for globalism Planet Earth would be in for in the near future. I retained information I believed to be a viable possiblity, and discarded the data I felt was not possible, usually using a Biblical compass to made the determination.
Science Fiction, of which I have always been a big fan of, is filled with fictional stories telling tales of a unified Earth, or federation of humanity. The idea of globalism, Utopianism, and One World endeavors is nothing new. In politics, however, those that have strove for such a system have been communists and socialists, or crazy sociopaths, bent on world domination. Every example of a drive for global governance has been by the use of war, and forceful domination.
The Bible, however, says that this system will not be reached through war, but in the name of peace. The leaders of the nations will accept slavery under a one world system, and will do so willingly, in the hopes of peace, and safety.
In order to achieve a globalistic system, a number of events must pass first. The necessity for these things to happen are not necessarily biblical, but simply a fact of progression. A one world government cannot arise as long as the United States is prosperous enough to remain independent of the need to join a worldwide union, and a global system cannot take its place as the governing power until economies are all a part of a single, global economic system, and until the sovereignty of nations is compromised, and eliminated - including the armies that protect the sovereignty of these nations. Borders must be erased, and independent nationalism must be quelled.
Interdependence among the nations must be present in order for a one world government to form. A global economy, backed by a global currency, will need to be in place. International Law will be required to supercede all national laws, and a global council or assembly will have to be in place to make decisions regarding the law of the globe, rather than national constitutions.
Right now, with the Democrats in power, and the desire for globalism growing among the world's leaders, world organizations like the United Nations are openly calling for the creation of a one-world currency to replace the dollar. According to Jerome Corsi, the Obama administration's trillion-dollar deficits are serving as a trigger for the currency switch. Recently, a United Nations report recommended that a new one-world currency should be created to replace the dollar as the standard for foreign-exchange holdings in international trade.
Corsi also noted, "That G20 summit meeting took an important step toward creating a new one-world currency through the International Monetary Fund that is designed to replace the dollar as the world's foreign exchange reserve currency of choice."
This is coupled with the liberal left's penchant for International Law, recently exhibited by statements by Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor when she indicated that she favors a broader consideration of foreign and international law in U.S. judicial opinions. In turn, there are even those that would like to take the law out of the hands of the judiciary and place it in the hands of President Barack Obama, who has made it apparent that he favors a more united world from a political and economic perspective.
Cass Sunstein, Obama's regulatory czar, has even gone so far as to say that, "There is no reason to believe that in the face of statutory ambiguity, the meaning of federal law should be settled by the inclinations and predispositions of federal judges. The outcome should instead depend on the commitments and beliefs of the President and those who operate under him."
Of course the moment a U.S. Constitution abiding Conservative was in the White House, they would change their tune real quick.
In following Sunstein's logic, however, if the president is a socialist globalist, and has a complete disregard for the U.S. Constitution, like Obama does, and would like to cast our national sovereignty to the wind, he should be able to do so . . . that is insane!
These politicians, by supporting amnesty for illegal aliens, and compromising our intelligence community, military, and drawing back on missile defense systems, are positioning the United States for a loss of sovereignty by erasing the borders, and nullifying our ability to defend ourselves.
All that remains to drive the final nails into the coffin of America's sovereignty is a national, or worldwide, disaster. A complete economic collapse, a series of national disasters, or a pandemic of global proportions, would do the job, giving the globalists the excuse to join together in worldwide unity, declare the need to unify to face the crisis, and secure a global council using the United Nations, and other organizations, to unite as a single system of global governance.
Then, to gain further control, they will begin to preach that the global population needs to be controlled, and that population growth needs to be slowed down. . . ooops, that is already happening (something I saw coming three years ago).
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
U.N. calls for replacement of U.S. dollar - World Net Daily, Jerome Corsi
Sotomayor and International Law - Wall Street Journal, Collin Levy
Sunstein: Obama, not courts, should interpret law - World Net Daily, Aaron Klein
Obama: Legalize illegals to get them health care - Washington Times, Stephen Dinan
CIA interrogations: Congressman, CIA directors voice opposition to Holder's actions - Law Enforcement Examiner, Jim Kouri
White House Scraps Bush’s Approach to Missile Shield - The New York Times, Peter Baker
Birth control could help combat climate change - Breitbart
Population Control - Political Pistachio, Douglas V. Gibbs
You Be The Judge Over The Number of People At The 9/12 Rally In Washington DC
Is that tens of thousands like the Left says, or a couple million like the Right says:
Michelle Obama's Hypocrisy regarding Health Care
Thank you, Andrea Shea King, for making me aware of this one. . .
From Michelle Malkin:
Yes, First Lady Michelle Obama is now aggressively crusading for her husband’s health care takeover under the guise of championing woman who have been "crushed" by the system.
One woman Mrs. Obama won't be spotlighting?
hint: about Michelle Obama's role in creating a patient-dumping scheme for the University of Chicago Medical Center. . .
Read the nitty-gritty at Michelle Malkin's site
From Michelle Malkin:
Yes, First Lady Michelle Obama is now aggressively crusading for her husband’s health care takeover under the guise of championing woman who have been "crushed" by the system.
One woman Mrs. Obama won't be spotlighting?
hint: about Michelle Obama's role in creating a patient-dumping scheme for the University of Chicago Medical Center. . .
Read the nitty-gritty at Michelle Malkin's site
Saturday, September 19, 2009
Fire Arms Refresher Course
From Michael, via GM Roper:
1. "Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not." ~Thomas Jefferson
2. Those who trade liberty for security have neither. ~ John Adams
3. Free men do not ask permission to bear arms.
4. An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.
5. Only a government that is afraid of its citizens tries to control them.
6. Gun control is not about guns; it’s about control.
7. You only have the rights you are willing to fight for.
8. Know guns, know peace, know safety. No guns, no peace, no safety.
9. You don’t shoot to kill; you shoot to stay alive.
10. Assault is a behavior, not a device.
11. 64,999,987 firearms owners killed no one yesterday.
12. The United States Constitution (c) 1791. All Rights Reserved.
13. The Second Amendment is in place in case the politicians ignore the others.
14. What part of ’shall not be infringed’ do you NOT understand?
15. Guns have only two enemies; rust and politicians.
16. When you remove the people’s right to bear arms, you create slaves.
17. The American Revolution would never have happened with gun control.
1. "Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not." ~Thomas Jefferson
2. Those who trade liberty for security have neither. ~ John Adams
3. Free men do not ask permission to bear arms.
4. An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.
5. Only a government that is afraid of its citizens tries to control them.
6. Gun control is not about guns; it’s about control.
7. You only have the rights you are willing to fight for.
8. Know guns, know peace, know safety. No guns, no peace, no safety.
9. You don’t shoot to kill; you shoot to stay alive.
10. Assault is a behavior, not a device.
11. 64,999,987 firearms owners killed no one yesterday.
12. The United States Constitution (c) 1791. All Rights Reserved.
13. The Second Amendment is in place in case the politicians ignore the others.
14. What part of ’shall not be infringed’ do you NOT understand?
15. Guns have only two enemies; rust and politicians.
16. When you remove the people’s right to bear arms, you create slaves.
17. The American Revolution would never have happened with gun control.
Bernard Navarro - When Castro Took Over Cuba
Listen to the parallels to the Leftist agenda in America - The Liberal Movement.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Cash For Clunkers Radio
- Did it help the economy? Why did it fail? Radio Interview with Vern Moter answers those questions, and more!
The national debate on the effectiveness of Cash For Clunkers is still brewing - and the findings are that Cash for Clunkers was ineffective, and unnecessary.
Did the program do anything for Americans, or the U.S. Economy?
Financial expert Vern Moter has answers to whether or not Cash for Clunkers will stimulate the economy, what the dealers had to deal with, what the consumers did not know when they began jumping on the Cash for Clunkers bandwagon, what the program cost the taxpayers, how it affected the national debt, why many members of Congress expressed reservations about the program, and if U.S. taxpayers should have been forced to fund the program aimed at helping the environment - plus much more!
Our guest tonight is a CPA, financial planner, and hosts a weekly syndicated radio show heard on dozens of radio stations across the country. He has appeared on The Gabriel Wisdom Show, The Rob Black Show, Me & Vinnie, Dresser After Dark, Mornings with Keith & Gail, The Florida Show with Rhett Palmer, WFTL Morning News, Doug Kellett on WOAI San Antonio, KFBK Afternoon Sacramento, ABC Radio Australia, and several others - and now he will be on the Political Pistachio Radio Revolution.
Join us live tonight at 7pm Pacific/10pm Eastern on BlogTalkRadio.com/PoliticalPistachio.
The national debate on the effectiveness of Cash For Clunkers is still brewing - and the findings are that Cash for Clunkers was ineffective, and unnecessary.
Did the program do anything for Americans, or the U.S. Economy?
Financial expert Vern Moter has answers to whether or not Cash for Clunkers will stimulate the economy, what the dealers had to deal with, what the consumers did not know when they began jumping on the Cash for Clunkers bandwagon, what the program cost the taxpayers, how it affected the national debt, why many members of Congress expressed reservations about the program, and if U.S. taxpayers should have been forced to fund the program aimed at helping the environment - plus much more!
Our guest tonight is a CPA, financial planner, and hosts a weekly syndicated radio show heard on dozens of radio stations across the country. He has appeared on The Gabriel Wisdom Show, The Rob Black Show, Me & Vinnie, Dresser After Dark, Mornings with Keith & Gail, The Florida Show with Rhett Palmer, WFTL Morning News, Doug Kellett on WOAI San Antonio, KFBK Afternoon Sacramento, ABC Radio Australia, and several others - and now he will be on the Political Pistachio Radio Revolution.
Join us live tonight at 7pm Pacific/10pm Eastern on BlogTalkRadio.com/PoliticalPistachio.
Weekend Conservative Radio
During the week there is a plethora of conservative talk radio to choose from. Terrestrial radio, satellite, and Internet Radio all offer a grand assortment of fantastic programs.
But what about the weekend?
On Saturdays and Sundays most talk radio is about food, technology, and gossip. Where can one find great conservative talk radio on a Saturday?
The answer lies within the Blog Talk Radio Network.
I host and co-host three shows on Saturdays.
American Daily Review Radio - Noon Pacific/3pm Eastern
Founding Truth - 5pm Pacific/8pm Eastern
Political Pistachio Radio Revolution - 7pm Pacific/10pm Eastern
But what about the weekend?
On Saturdays and Sundays most talk radio is about food, technology, and gossip. Where can one find great conservative talk radio on a Saturday?
The answer lies within the Blog Talk Radio Network.
I host and co-host three shows on Saturdays.
American Daily Review Radio - Noon Pacific/3pm Eastern
Founding Truth - 5pm Pacific/8pm Eastern
Political Pistachio Radio Revolution - 7pm Pacific/10pm Eastern
Baby Brianna New Mexico Reminds Us Why Death Penalty Should Be Law in Some Cases
The Baby Brianna case caused New Mexico to change its laws, giving the maximum penalty for this kind of child abuse case to be life imprisonment. That's not far enough. Monsters like these people should be put to death.
Before you recoil on my demands for the death of evil, watch the video. By the end, you will agree with me: Life Imprisonment is not punishment enough for these monsters.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Before you recoil on my demands for the death of evil, watch the video. By the end, you will agree with me: Life Imprisonment is not punishment enough for these monsters.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Friday, September 18, 2009
Flying Drunk, and Obama's brainwashing of the masses, tonight on Political Pistachio Radio
The Political Pistachio Radio Revolution has a reputation for having the best guests on Internet Radio. Tonight is no exception.
During the first segment we will speak with Joe Balzer, who also has dates with CNN and FOX, to talk about his new book, "Flying Drunk." The book recounts Joe's story of redemption after he was the part of a three man crew that was flying a Boeing 727 airliner with 91 passengers aboard while intoxicated. All three pilots stood trial for flying a commercial airliner while under the influence of alcohol, and all three were convicted and sent to federal prison.
Joe Balzer lost his dream of flying, of which he had since childhood. His alcoholism caught up with him and cost him everything. Flying Drunk is the story of how he lost everything, and then fought for redemption, and to regain all that he lost.
Join us tonight during the first hour of the Political Pistachio Radio Revolution as we discuss with Joe Balzer his incredible journey of the human spirit, from childhood to hell, and back again.
Then, during the second hour of the program our guest will be David Conn who says that Obama is alarmingly brainwashing the masses.
Three decades after the Jonestown Massacre took the lives of more than 900 clouded adn fearful followers of the infamous Reverend Jim Jones, the one man who got close to, then single-handedly tried to expose Jones, is emerging to tell his story for one compelling reason: he sees history repeating itself on a larger, potentially more tragic scale.
The second segment guest tonight on the Political Pistachio Radio Revolution is David Conn. He struggled for years with the outcome of the judgment day at Guyana, because he saw it coming during his long investigation of Jim Jones' church, and in his attempt to warn the press, several lawyers and others, he faced a world of denial and rationalization.
Now, Conn says we are deep into what he, alone, witnessed and learned inside Jonestown, but this time with President Barack Obama.
From their mutual self-absorption, rhetoric style and troubling cult-of-personality power climb, to their like-minded manipulation of the political system (right down to exercising the tactics of voter fraud) . . . from their common disturbing associations with radical socialists, to the similar sometimes hopeless, naive mindset of their supporters . . . Jim Jones' and Barack Obama's multiple parallels have awakened Conn's urgency to alarm the public.
The only difference, according to Conn, is that Obama is even more dangerous - and tonight, Conn will explain why.
Join us tonight at 7:00 PM Pacific for the interview with Joe Balzer, and then stay for the interview at 8:00 PM Pacific for the interview with David Conn. You may listen to the radio program at BlogTalkRadio.com/PoliticalPistachio.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)