.jpg)
Get Liberty
Wednesday, October 07, 2009
Limiting Free Speech is yet another step towards Limiting Liberty
By Douglas V. Gibbs
A "Weekly Standard" article titled "You Can't Say That" by Anne Bayefsky notes Barack Obama's partnership with the United Nations in the effort of limiting the freedom of expression. The U.N. Human Rights Council is hardly about Human Rights - and is more about limiting freedoms based on the opinions of a bunch of bureaucrats what is acceptable, and what is not. Interestingly enough, the main players on this council that wish to limit our freedom of speech is China, Cuba and Saudi Arabia.
Oh, yeah, those are nations that definitely have the American Citizen's best interest at heart!
Not!
This is nothing new. The United Nations has been pushing for limiting free expression for a long time, but the U.S., considering that Freedom of Speech is one of America's most treasured freedoms, has not been willing to jump on board.
Enter, stage left, Internationalist: Barack Obama.
The new resolution, introduced October 1, in the words of the ranking U.S. diplomat, Chargé d'Affaires Douglas Griffiths, ". . . is a manifestation of the Obama administration's commitment to multilateral engagement throughout the United Nations and of our genuine desire to seek and build cooperation based upon mutual interest and mutual respect in pursuit of our shared common principles of tolerance and the dignity of all human beings."
Tolerance is a key word for "shaping your behavior in the way we deem fit, by picking and choosing who should be tolerated, and who should not be."
Egyptian Ambassador Hisham Badr loved the resolution, proclaiming that "freedom of expression . . . has been sometimes misused."
Simply put, these people wish to be able to tell us what we are allowed to say, and not say, based on their warped set of standards, and favoritisms.
Ahh, but the nightmare is only beginning. The resolution, championed by the Obama administration, also has these disturbing elements: "the exercise of the right to freedom of expression carries with it special duties and responsibilities . . ." which include taking action against anything meeting the description of "negative racial and religious stereotyping." It also purports to "recognize . . . the moral and social responsibilities of the media" and supports "the media's elaboration of voluntary codes of professional ethical conduct" in relation to "combating racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance."
In other words, "don't say anything that might offend any religion (especially Muslims), behavior (homosexuality), or ideology (socialism, Islamism) . . . unless of course it is Christians or Jews. You can offend Christians and Jews all you want!
Don't believe me? Wait and see. Remember, some of the biggest backers of this are the communist and Islamic nations, who just so happen to hate Christians and Jews.
Coincidence?
So, when is free speech not free speech?
The claim is that this resolution will protect against religious stereotyping, when in reality it will grant preferential treatment to certain groups.
Freedom is not granted by limiting freedoms. No matter how you slice it, this resolution is a grave danger to liberty - and the Obama Administration is the main force behind it!
One wonders who's side Barack Obama it really on? The American Citizens? Or the international community's?
His divided allegiance is a danger to American liberty, and in my opinion is treasonous behavior.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
You Can't Say That - The Weekly Standard
A "Weekly Standard" article titled "You Can't Say That" by Anne Bayefsky notes Barack Obama's partnership with the United Nations in the effort of limiting the freedom of expression. The U.N. Human Rights Council is hardly about Human Rights - and is more about limiting freedoms based on the opinions of a bunch of bureaucrats what is acceptable, and what is not. Interestingly enough, the main players on this council that wish to limit our freedom of speech is China, Cuba and Saudi Arabia.
Oh, yeah, those are nations that definitely have the American Citizen's best interest at heart!
Not!
This is nothing new. The United Nations has been pushing for limiting free expression for a long time, but the U.S., considering that Freedom of Speech is one of America's most treasured freedoms, has not been willing to jump on board.
Enter, stage left, Internationalist: Barack Obama.
The new resolution, introduced October 1, in the words of the ranking U.S. diplomat, Chargé d'Affaires Douglas Griffiths, ". . . is a manifestation of the Obama administration's commitment to multilateral engagement throughout the United Nations and of our genuine desire to seek and build cooperation based upon mutual interest and mutual respect in pursuit of our shared common principles of tolerance and the dignity of all human beings."
Tolerance is a key word for "shaping your behavior in the way we deem fit, by picking and choosing who should be tolerated, and who should not be."
Egyptian Ambassador Hisham Badr loved the resolution, proclaiming that "freedom of expression . . . has been sometimes misused."
Simply put, these people wish to be able to tell us what we are allowed to say, and not say, based on their warped set of standards, and favoritisms.
Ahh, but the nightmare is only beginning. The resolution, championed by the Obama administration, also has these disturbing elements: "the exercise of the right to freedom of expression carries with it special duties and responsibilities . . ." which include taking action against anything meeting the description of "negative racial and religious stereotyping." It also purports to "recognize . . . the moral and social responsibilities of the media" and supports "the media's elaboration of voluntary codes of professional ethical conduct" in relation to "combating racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance."
In other words, "don't say anything that might offend any religion (especially Muslims), behavior (homosexuality), or ideology (socialism, Islamism) . . . unless of course it is Christians or Jews. You can offend Christians and Jews all you want!
Don't believe me? Wait and see. Remember, some of the biggest backers of this are the communist and Islamic nations, who just so happen to hate Christians and Jews.
Coincidence?
So, when is free speech not free speech?
The claim is that this resolution will protect against religious stereotyping, when in reality it will grant preferential treatment to certain groups.
Freedom is not granted by limiting freedoms. No matter how you slice it, this resolution is a grave danger to liberty - and the Obama Administration is the main force behind it!
One wonders who's side Barack Obama it really on? The American Citizens? Or the international community's?
His divided allegiance is a danger to American liberty, and in my opinion is treasonous behavior.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
You Can't Say That - The Weekly Standard
Franken Reads His Constitution
When Liberals quote the U.S. Constitution it is usually because they believe the document is somehow supporting their inane, big government policies. It is gratifying when someone in the know straightens them out, though usually they won't admit it.
The following exchange between Franken and Assistant Attorney General David Kris is such an example:
(from Powerline Blog)
Senator Franken?
FRANKEN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Fine, I'm going to ask you a question soon.
(LAUGHTER)
FINE: OK. I'm waiting for it.
FRANKEN: Yes.
But, first, Mr. Kris, I'm not a lawyer like all the -- my colleagues here now. Nor a careful lawyer like you singled out.
(LAUGHTER)
(CROSSTALK)
FRANKEN: But I did some research and most Americans aren't lawyers.
(LAUGHTER)
So I got a question on the roving wire tap thing. And I think I understand why it's important, because the terrorist and other people you suspect of being terrorists use different phones, right?
KRIS: Yes.
FRANKEN: OK, and that's why it's there.
But under the Patriot Act, the roving wiretap provision does not require law enforcement officials to identify the individual or the phone or the computer that will be tapped, is that right?
KRIS: No, I don't think -- I don't think so. The statute requires, roving or not, that the government identify -- provide the identity if known or a description of the specific target. So...
FRANKEN: A description of it, but not the actual...
KRIS: Not always the name, but you have to say something about the specific target.
FRANKEN: OK. Well, that's what brings me to this, because they give you this when you get in the Senate, it's the Constitution.
(LAUGHTER)
And I was sworn to uphold it, or support it anyway, and protect it.
This the Fourth Amendment: "The right the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated and no warrant shall issue but upon probable cause supported by oath or affirmation." And particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.
Now, it seems to me that's pretty explicit language, and I was wondering if you think that this is consistent with the Fourth Amendment.
KRIS: I do think it is, and I kind of want to defer to that other third branch of government. The courts in looking at...
FRANKEN: I know what they are.
(LAUGHTER)
Go ahead, sir.
(LAUGHTER)
KRIS: The courts prior to FISA -- sorry, prior to FISA, every court of appeals to squarely consider the question had actually upheld warrantless foreign intelligence surveillance. That is, without an advance court order. And the Supreme Court had declined to hold that a warrant was required in the so-called Keefe (ph) case for foreign intelligence surveillance. So I think you begin with that baseline.
This is a point that I made repeatedly when liberals claimed that the NSA warrantless surveillance program was illegal, as, for example, here. It's good to see that the Obama administration agrees with my legal analysis and not with the Bush administration's liberal critics.
FISA then, by requiring advanced judicial approval, goes above and beyond what the Constitution requires for this kind of foreign intelligence surveillance.
I do think there is an argument, and probably a good argument, that the language that I read to you before, that even if you cannot identify the particular target but that you describe the specific target, that it would satisfy the particularity clause that you just cited.
FRANKEN: OK, thank you.
Byron York adds that when Franken made his joke about knowing what courts are--he is, after all, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee--Kris muttered, "This is surreal." One suspects that Franken's comedy routine will wear thin long before his six-year term is up.
Still, one can only commend Franken for reading that copy of the Constitution they gave him when he assumed office. Maybe he'll let us know whether he finds anything about owning automobile companies and controlling American citizens' health care.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Tuesday, October 06, 2009
Obama Won't Pull Out of Afghanistan
By Douglas V. Gibbs
I seem to remember the liberal left being livid that Bush would not pull out of Iraq at a moment's notice when they demanded it. Peace symbols grace a great many automobiles I see on the roadways here in California, more often than not right next to an "Obama" bumper sticker. Barack Obama is a man of peace, they have proclaimed. They voted him into office because he wants to rid the world of nuclear weapons, and stop war. . . except Afghanistan. Pulling out of Afghanistan is not on the table, for some reason.
The liberal left has removed the word "terrorism" from the description of the conflict because we don't want to offend our Muslim friend. Obama has decided to strike the word "victory" from his vocabulary because he doesn't want images of the Japanese Surrender after World War II to flood people's minds. He wants to read the enemy their miranda rights, and close down that horrid Gitmo prison (even though he hasn't, and won't), rather than fight the enemy.
Yet, Barack Obama wants to keep on fighting in Afghanistan, despite the fact that he was voted into office to stop "senseless war."
Isn't it a contradiction to claim to be a peace-monger, and hate all war, but support Obama's continued engagement of the Afghanistan front?
Oh, wait, I get it, liberals: All war is bad unless a Democrat wages it - then, suddenly it is a righteous war (despite the fact he only said that during his campaign only to further demonize the Iraq War, and to cover up that Barry is a beta-male wimp who really has no clue when it comes to leadership).
Obama is a community organizer, and a campaigner. This leadership thing is really not his cup of tea. That's why, in reality, during his presidency he has done absolutely nothing.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
White House: US won't pull out of Afghanistan - Associated Press, Yahoo News
I seem to remember the liberal left being livid that Bush would not pull out of Iraq at a moment's notice when they demanded it. Peace symbols grace a great many automobiles I see on the roadways here in California, more often than not right next to an "Obama" bumper sticker. Barack Obama is a man of peace, they have proclaimed. They voted him into office because he wants to rid the world of nuclear weapons, and stop war. . . except Afghanistan. Pulling out of Afghanistan is not on the table, for some reason.
The liberal left has removed the word "terrorism" from the description of the conflict because we don't want to offend our Muslim friend. Obama has decided to strike the word "victory" from his vocabulary because he doesn't want images of the Japanese Surrender after World War II to flood people's minds. He wants to read the enemy their miranda rights, and close down that horrid Gitmo prison (even though he hasn't, and won't), rather than fight the enemy.
Yet, Barack Obama wants to keep on fighting in Afghanistan, despite the fact that he was voted into office to stop "senseless war."
Isn't it a contradiction to claim to be a peace-monger, and hate all war, but support Obama's continued engagement of the Afghanistan front?
Oh, wait, I get it, liberals: All war is bad unless a Democrat wages it - then, suddenly it is a righteous war (despite the fact he only said that during his campaign only to further demonize the Iraq War, and to cover up that Barry is a beta-male wimp who really has no clue when it comes to leadership).
Obama is a community organizer, and a campaigner. This leadership thing is really not his cup of tea. That's why, in reality, during his presidency he has done absolutely nothing.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
White House: US won't pull out of Afghanistan - Associated Press, Yahoo News
Letterman's Woes Deepen
By Douglas V. Gibbs
I was disappointed by the David Letterman Show audience when they laughed and applauded when Letterman admitted to having sex with members of his staff. The only reason he came out with the truth was because of an extortion attempt by a CBS producer. The blackmailer faces grand larceny charges, Letterman has bigger ratings and a clear conscience, and his wife his horribly upset.
No matter how hard you try to hide your sin, or convince others it is justifiable, it always catches up to you in the end.
When you "horribly hurt" a loved one like that, suddenly the consequences of your actions come into plain view. Despite a leftist claim of empty moral standards, whether one wishes to believe in "right and wrong," those loved ones around you may remind you that standards matter.
Hurting a loved one with bad behavior, however, may be the least of your worries, Mr. Letterman. Search your soul to understand my meaning.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Letterman says wife "horribly hurt" by sex scandal - Yahoo News
I was disappointed by the David Letterman Show audience when they laughed and applauded when Letterman admitted to having sex with members of his staff. The only reason he came out with the truth was because of an extortion attempt by a CBS producer. The blackmailer faces grand larceny charges, Letterman has bigger ratings and a clear conscience, and his wife his horribly upset.
No matter how hard you try to hide your sin, or convince others it is justifiable, it always catches up to you in the end.
When you "horribly hurt" a loved one like that, suddenly the consequences of your actions come into plain view. Despite a leftist claim of empty moral standards, whether one wishes to believe in "right and wrong," those loved ones around you may remind you that standards matter.
Hurting a loved one with bad behavior, however, may be the least of your worries, Mr. Letterman. Search your soul to understand my meaning.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Letterman says wife "horribly hurt" by sex scandal - Yahoo News
Shroud of Turin a Medieval Fake
By Douglas V. Gibbs
In Italy a scientist has proven the Shroud of Turin to be a fake.
Some members of the Christian Church revere the Shroud of Turin as the burial cloth Jesus Christ was buried in. An image, that looks nearly like it is a photographic image on the shroud has been said to be the image of Christ.
According to Reuters: "To show how the image on the shroud could be faked, Garlaschelli (the Italian scientist) reproduced the full-sized shroud using materials and techniques that were available in the middle ages. He then placed a linen sheet flat over a volunteer and then rubbed it with a pigment containing traces of acid. A mask was used for the face. The pigment was then artificially aged by heating the cloth in an oven and washing it, a process which removed it from the surface but left a fuzzy, half-tone image similar to that on the Shroud. He believes the pigment on the original Shroud faded naturally over the centuries. They then added blood stains, burn holes, scorches and water stains to achieve the final effect."
Carbon dating, a method I don't believe to be very accurate, but is believed to be accurate by the folks administering it, places the shroud to be about 800 years old, rather than two thousand years old.
In my daily life I have been asked about the Shroud of Turin often. Based on biblical text, I have told people numerous times that the shroud is not the genuine article, no matter how many people believe it is. Therefore, the article about the invalid nature of the Shroud of Turin did not surprise me.
To prove my point that the Shroud of Turin is a fake, without needing scientific confirmation (though it is nice to see science once again confirm the inerrant nature of Biblical text), one must only refer to the Holy Bible. Luke 24:12 reads: Then arose Peter, and ran unto the sepulchre; and stooping down, he beheld the linen clothes laid by themselves, and departed, wondering in himself at that which was come to pass. Note that the linen clothes (wrappings) are in the plural. In John, though in Chapter 19, verse 40 it is indicated Jesus was wrapped in a long linen cloth, the details of the wrappings in John, Chapter 20 becomes more clear. In verse 6 it says: Then Simon Peter arrived and went inside. He also noticed the linen wrappings lying there. Once again, the wrappings are in the plural. Verse 7 gives us an even clearer look at the wrappings, and is definitive in its regards of proving the Shroud of Turin to be a fake. Verse 7 reads: While the cloth that had covered Jesus' head was folded up and lying to the side.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Italian scientist reproduces Shroud of Turin - Reuters, Yahoo News, Philip Pullella
In Italy a scientist has proven the Shroud of Turin to be a fake.
Some members of the Christian Church revere the Shroud of Turin as the burial cloth Jesus Christ was buried in. An image, that looks nearly like it is a photographic image on the shroud has been said to be the image of Christ.
According to Reuters: "To show how the image on the shroud could be faked, Garlaschelli (the Italian scientist) reproduced the full-sized shroud using materials and techniques that were available in the middle ages. He then placed a linen sheet flat over a volunteer and then rubbed it with a pigment containing traces of acid. A mask was used for the face. The pigment was then artificially aged by heating the cloth in an oven and washing it, a process which removed it from the surface but left a fuzzy, half-tone image similar to that on the Shroud. He believes the pigment on the original Shroud faded naturally over the centuries. They then added blood stains, burn holes, scorches and water stains to achieve the final effect."
Carbon dating, a method I don't believe to be very accurate, but is believed to be accurate by the folks administering it, places the shroud to be about 800 years old, rather than two thousand years old.
In my daily life I have been asked about the Shroud of Turin often. Based on biblical text, I have told people numerous times that the shroud is not the genuine article, no matter how many people believe it is. Therefore, the article about the invalid nature of the Shroud of Turin did not surprise me.
To prove my point that the Shroud of Turin is a fake, without needing scientific confirmation (though it is nice to see science once again confirm the inerrant nature of Biblical text), one must only refer to the Holy Bible. Luke 24:12 reads: Then arose Peter, and ran unto the sepulchre; and stooping down, he beheld the linen clothes laid by themselves, and departed, wondering in himself at that which was come to pass. Note that the linen clothes (wrappings) are in the plural. In John, though in Chapter 19, verse 40 it is indicated Jesus was wrapped in a long linen cloth, the details of the wrappings in John, Chapter 20 becomes more clear. In verse 6 it says: Then Simon Peter arrived and went inside. He also noticed the linen wrappings lying there. Once again, the wrappings are in the plural. Verse 7 gives us an even clearer look at the wrappings, and is definitive in its regards of proving the Shroud of Turin to be a fake. Verse 7 reads: While the cloth that had covered Jesus' head was folded up and lying to the side.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Italian scientist reproduces Shroud of Turin - Reuters, Yahoo News, Philip Pullella
Obama Lied About Afghanistan
By Douglas V. Gibbs
The fact that Obama lied about Afghanistan a year ago during his campaign is not a surprise. His whole presidential campaign was a lie. What is amazing is how readily he lies, how blatantly he lies, and how the media is not willing to call him on any of his lies.
Among the criticisms of George W. Bush was that he didn't listen to his generals. Whether or not that is true is not the point. The point is that the Democrats made that accusation, so in turn the Democrat President of the United States, Barack Obama, would need to listen intently to his generals in order to be unlike Bush.
General Stanley A. McChrystal, the commander in charge of Afghanistan, has made it clear to Obama that his assessment of the war reveals that he needs additional troops within the next year or else the conflict "will likely result in failure."
Meanwhile, Obama has been skeptical about sending any more troops into Afghanistan, a position that might be because of the growing opposition to the war within his own party.
What is even more striking about Obama's waffling over whether or not to send more troops to Afghanistan is the fact that his indecisiveness is in direct opposition of what he had to say about the war in Afghanistan only a year earlier while campaigning. On Face The Nation, Obama was very strong in his opinion about the need to fight "the right war" in Afghanistan.
When you compare what he said a year ago, and his actions (or lack of actions thereof) now, the only conclusion you can come to is, as he has many times, Obama was lying.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
General Calls for More U.S. Troops to Avoid Afghan Failure - New York Times, ERIC SCHMITT and THOM SHANKER
McChrystal Now Just One of Many Leaders as Obama Rethinks Afghan Strategy - Fox News
The fact that Obama lied about Afghanistan a year ago during his campaign is not a surprise. His whole presidential campaign was a lie. What is amazing is how readily he lies, how blatantly he lies, and how the media is not willing to call him on any of his lies.
Among the criticisms of George W. Bush was that he didn't listen to his generals. Whether or not that is true is not the point. The point is that the Democrats made that accusation, so in turn the Democrat President of the United States, Barack Obama, would need to listen intently to his generals in order to be unlike Bush.
General Stanley A. McChrystal, the commander in charge of Afghanistan, has made it clear to Obama that his assessment of the war reveals that he needs additional troops within the next year or else the conflict "will likely result in failure."
Meanwhile, Obama has been skeptical about sending any more troops into Afghanistan, a position that might be because of the growing opposition to the war within his own party.
What is even more striking about Obama's waffling over whether or not to send more troops to Afghanistan is the fact that his indecisiveness is in direct opposition of what he had to say about the war in Afghanistan only a year earlier while campaigning. On Face The Nation, Obama was very strong in his opinion about the need to fight "the right war" in Afghanistan.
When you compare what he said a year ago, and his actions (or lack of actions thereof) now, the only conclusion you can come to is, as he has many times, Obama was lying.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
General Calls for More U.S. Troops to Avoid Afghan Failure - New York Times, ERIC SCHMITT and THOM SHANKER
McChrystal Now Just One of Many Leaders as Obama Rethinks Afghan Strategy - Fox News
Monday, October 05, 2009
Separation of Church and State double-standard
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Under the guise of "Separation of Church and State," of which in itself is an unconstitutional idea, Christianity has seen its share of attacks. Michael Newdow is continually trying to remove any vestige of Christianity from public view. Two Florida school administrators faced possible jail time for blessing a meal at a school luncheon in Florida. The ACLU launched an effort to stop midshipmen from praying before their noon meal in Annapolis. The United Nations has begun a plan that would make Christians criminals under international law. Christians are continually harassed worldwide, often to the point of violence against the Christians, and the destruction of Christian churches. Media is applauded by the Left when they censor out Faith. Attack after attack after attack against Christians in public are being reported. British atheist Richard Dawkins has even gone so far as to proclaim that teaching the Christian Faith to children is child abuse.
Yet, while it has become nearly sport to hammer away at the faith that this nation's founding principles are based on, daring to criticize Islam in the State of Maine brings upon the perpetrators a $4,000 fine.
What is wrong with this picture?
A Christian organization in Maine was fined $4,000 fine for its "criticism" of Islam.
The issue centers around a Christian Action Network fundraising letter several months ago that exposed "how some public schools were promoting Islam by providing instruction on the Five Pillars of Islam and the Quran."
The letter also pointed out that some schools have provided prayer rooms for Muslims, and one textbook that told seventh grade students they "will become Muslim."
Considered by state officials to be "an inflammatory anti-Muslim message," and using the governor's name without his permission, the State of Maine canceled the group's registration, imposed a $4,000 fine and said it no longer could send out letters. The renewal of its business license, which is simply a tax, was allowed, however, and the state took the money gladly.
Feeling that they have been singled out, and that Maine's decision is in direct violation of the First Amendment, a court battle is being pursued.
The letter that has brought down Maine's wrath also criticized a decision in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in California that affirmed the right of public schools to ask students to dress up as Muslims, wear the Islamic crescent moon and star, chant "Praise be to Allah," learn the five pillars of Islamic belief and cite Muslim prayers. Remember, in those same schools Christian prayer is not allowed, Christian clothing is often not allowed, and in some schools necklaces with crucifixes on them are urged to be tucked behind the shirt, out of view, so as not to offend any people who are not of faith.
Why the double standard? Why is Christianity under severe attack while Islam is being given the golden key to the gateway of the public arena? And where in the U.S. Constitution does it say anything about faith being required to be pushed out of the view of the public? Where in Maine's State Constitution does it say that it is fine to criticize Christianity, but daring to criticize Islam deserves a fine?
"If men will not be governed by God, they then must be governed by tyrants." - William Penn
"The God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of this nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God?" - Thomas Jefferson
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Judge tosses challenge to 'under God' - World Net Daily, Bob Unruh
Atheist challenges ‘In God We Trust’ - MSNBC, Associated Press
Florida school officials won't go to jail for praying - CNN
ACLU vying to stop Naval prayer - One News Now, Jeff Johnson
U.N. crackdown on Christians to get review? - World Net Daily
German Leftists Harrass Christian Youth Festival - Infidels Are Cool
Evangelical teens rally in S.F. (greeted by an official city condemnation and a clutch of protesters) - SFGate, Joe Garofoli
When Faith Is Censored - Political Pistachio, Douglas V. Gibbs
Six Pastors Killed, 40 Churches Razed in Jos, Nigeria Violence - Christian News Today, Obed Minchakpu
Suit claims recognition of God violates law - World Net Daily
NY parents grilled in 'religious sincerity test' - One News Now, Pete Chagnon
'God', the new four-letter word in public schools - One News Now, Charlie Butts
Va. Senate Panel Kills Bill Allowing 'Jesus' Prayers - Christian Post, Katherine T. Phan
State bans prayer at Christian institutions - World Net Daily
'Jesus' banned -- so chaplain resigned - One News Now, Allie Martin
Clergy in the Crosshairs - One News Now, Jim Brown
Christian students censored at Nashville-area school - One News Now, Pete Chagnon
Miss California told 'not to talk about your faith' - World Net Daily, Drew Zahn
7 Students Suspended For Refusing anti-Christian Class - World Net Daily
Christians arrested at homosexual event - World Net Daily
Religion's Real Child Abuse - Richard Dawkins
Maine fines group for criticizing Islam - World Net Daily, Bob Unruh
Under the guise of "Separation of Church and State," of which in itself is an unconstitutional idea, Christianity has seen its share of attacks. Michael Newdow is continually trying to remove any vestige of Christianity from public view. Two Florida school administrators faced possible jail time for blessing a meal at a school luncheon in Florida. The ACLU launched an effort to stop midshipmen from praying before their noon meal in Annapolis. The United Nations has begun a plan that would make Christians criminals under international law. Christians are continually harassed worldwide, often to the point of violence against the Christians, and the destruction of Christian churches. Media is applauded by the Left when they censor out Faith. Attack after attack after attack against Christians in public are being reported. British atheist Richard Dawkins has even gone so far as to proclaim that teaching the Christian Faith to children is child abuse.
Yet, while it has become nearly sport to hammer away at the faith that this nation's founding principles are based on, daring to criticize Islam in the State of Maine brings upon the perpetrators a $4,000 fine.
What is wrong with this picture?
A Christian organization in Maine was fined $4,000 fine for its "criticism" of Islam.
The issue centers around a Christian Action Network fundraising letter several months ago that exposed "how some public schools were promoting Islam by providing instruction on the Five Pillars of Islam and the Quran."
The letter also pointed out that some schools have provided prayer rooms for Muslims, and one textbook that told seventh grade students they "will become Muslim."
Considered by state officials to be "an inflammatory anti-Muslim message," and using the governor's name without his permission, the State of Maine canceled the group's registration, imposed a $4,000 fine and said it no longer could send out letters. The renewal of its business license, which is simply a tax, was allowed, however, and the state took the money gladly.
Feeling that they have been singled out, and that Maine's decision is in direct violation of the First Amendment, a court battle is being pursued.
The letter that has brought down Maine's wrath also criticized a decision in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in California that affirmed the right of public schools to ask students to dress up as Muslims, wear the Islamic crescent moon and star, chant "Praise be to Allah," learn the five pillars of Islamic belief and cite Muslim prayers. Remember, in those same schools Christian prayer is not allowed, Christian clothing is often not allowed, and in some schools necklaces with crucifixes on them are urged to be tucked behind the shirt, out of view, so as not to offend any people who are not of faith.
Why the double standard? Why is Christianity under severe attack while Islam is being given the golden key to the gateway of the public arena? And where in the U.S. Constitution does it say anything about faith being required to be pushed out of the view of the public? Where in Maine's State Constitution does it say that it is fine to criticize Christianity, but daring to criticize Islam deserves a fine?
"If men will not be governed by God, they then must be governed by tyrants." - William Penn
"The God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of this nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God?" - Thomas Jefferson
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Judge tosses challenge to 'under God' - World Net Daily, Bob Unruh
Atheist challenges ‘In God We Trust’ - MSNBC, Associated Press
Florida school officials won't go to jail for praying - CNN
ACLU vying to stop Naval prayer - One News Now, Jeff Johnson
U.N. crackdown on Christians to get review? - World Net Daily
German Leftists Harrass Christian Youth Festival - Infidels Are Cool
Evangelical teens rally in S.F. (greeted by an official city condemnation and a clutch of protesters) - SFGate, Joe Garofoli
When Faith Is Censored - Political Pistachio, Douglas V. Gibbs
Six Pastors Killed, 40 Churches Razed in Jos, Nigeria Violence - Christian News Today, Obed Minchakpu
Suit claims recognition of God violates law - World Net Daily
NY parents grilled in 'religious sincerity test' - One News Now, Pete Chagnon
'God', the new four-letter word in public schools - One News Now, Charlie Butts
Va. Senate Panel Kills Bill Allowing 'Jesus' Prayers - Christian Post, Katherine T. Phan
State bans prayer at Christian institutions - World Net Daily
'Jesus' banned -- so chaplain resigned - One News Now, Allie Martin
Clergy in the Crosshairs - One News Now, Jim Brown
Christian students censored at Nashville-area school - One News Now, Pete Chagnon
Miss California told 'not to talk about your faith' - World Net Daily, Drew Zahn
7 Students Suspended For Refusing anti-Christian Class - World Net Daily
Christians arrested at homosexual event - World Net Daily
Religion's Real Child Abuse - Richard Dawkins
Maine fines group for criticizing Islam - World Net Daily, Bob Unruh
Self-Esteem and Tyra Banks
By Douglas V. Gibbs
While cooking I heard the television in the other room. My adult daughter was watching the Tyra Banks Show. I didn't catch the whole conversation between Tyra and her whimpering guest, but from what I could gather the woman in the hot seat was complaining about how distraught she was because people constantly said mean things to her, and as a result she didn't feel very confident in herself.
I looked around the corner as Tyra Banks took the spotlight, and the camera zoomed in on her. She said that we can't go around saying mean things to people, even if it is the truth. We need to say things that build people up, and make them feel good about themselves. We should only say encouraging things. If a person is fat, we shouldn't just say "you're fat" to them. We should focus on the positive things they portray. We should know when to say nothing at all.
My first thought was, "Why do people allow others to have that kind of power over them? Why would anyone allow themselves to have low confidence about themselves because some jerk said mean things to them?"
I agree in part with Tyra Banks. We shouldn't say messed up things to people. Sometimes we do say hurtful things without even realizing it. Some people are more willing to blurt out negative remarks than others. Most never realize they do it, and often the reason behind it is to build themselves up at the expense of the recipient of their remarks. There are even people out there that say mean things because they are mean people, and know very well that the recipient is going to crawl into a corner and contemplate suicide because of the wrong remarks. Like it or not, that is a fact of life. The thing is, it is not my responsibility to make sure someone else feels good about themselves. That responsibility lies within themselves, and no one else.
People say offensive things all the time. Instead of believing them, how about we decide to not get offended and suck it up? Of course there are limits, and as I said earlier, folks ought not say mean things. . . but if they do, why not just consider the source and move forward?
Sometimes the mean things said are accurate. Sometimes we need to hear the truth, no matter how messed up it is. Once again, rather than curling up into a ball and crying for mommy, wouldn't it be more productive to say, "Hey, I am [insert mean remark here], and . . . " The rest of the sentence would then be up to you. Maybe it is a call for changing whatever it is that was attacked. Maybe it is a sign that the person saying things needs to be dropped out of your fab-five list, or what not. Maybe it is simply just another remark about something you don't care to change, and if the people saying something about it don't like it, it's their tough tea cups.
Many may argue that persons delivering verbal attacks of this nature are "haters." Just because someone has a problem with something about you, it doesn't make them a hater. I am sure you have things you don't like about them too. So what?
Nobody has power over how I feel. At one time in my life, people did. But ultimately, I realized how foolish it was. I asked myself, "How will it benefit me if I am bothered by something someone says?"
Should I shudder when a liberal says I couldn't possibly understand the things I think I understand because I am some lowly truck driver? Should I stop writing because the opposition says that what I write is poorly written, or loaded with untruths when I know that what I am presenting is true to my opinion? Should I give up because the government has determined that I am some out of control right wing, extremist domestic terrorist, when I know I am nothing of the sort?
Screw them.
We drive on a two-way street, and just because someone says something that should offend me, it doesn't mean I have to be offended. My "self-esteem" is not dependent upon anyone else's opinion. I am not going to have low self-confidence because some jackass is too much of an idiot to keep his mouth shut.
And neither should you.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
While cooking I heard the television in the other room. My adult daughter was watching the Tyra Banks Show. I didn't catch the whole conversation between Tyra and her whimpering guest, but from what I could gather the woman in the hot seat was complaining about how distraught she was because people constantly said mean things to her, and as a result she didn't feel very confident in herself.
I looked around the corner as Tyra Banks took the spotlight, and the camera zoomed in on her. She said that we can't go around saying mean things to people, even if it is the truth. We need to say things that build people up, and make them feel good about themselves. We should only say encouraging things. If a person is fat, we shouldn't just say "you're fat" to them. We should focus on the positive things they portray. We should know when to say nothing at all.
My first thought was, "Why do people allow others to have that kind of power over them? Why would anyone allow themselves to have low confidence about themselves because some jerk said mean things to them?"
I agree in part with Tyra Banks. We shouldn't say messed up things to people. Sometimes we do say hurtful things without even realizing it. Some people are more willing to blurt out negative remarks than others. Most never realize they do it, and often the reason behind it is to build themselves up at the expense of the recipient of their remarks. There are even people out there that say mean things because they are mean people, and know very well that the recipient is going to crawl into a corner and contemplate suicide because of the wrong remarks. Like it or not, that is a fact of life. The thing is, it is not my responsibility to make sure someone else feels good about themselves. That responsibility lies within themselves, and no one else.
People say offensive things all the time. Instead of believing them, how about we decide to not get offended and suck it up? Of course there are limits, and as I said earlier, folks ought not say mean things. . . but if they do, why not just consider the source and move forward?
Sometimes the mean things said are accurate. Sometimes we need to hear the truth, no matter how messed up it is. Once again, rather than curling up into a ball and crying for mommy, wouldn't it be more productive to say, "Hey, I am [insert mean remark here], and . . . " The rest of the sentence would then be up to you. Maybe it is a call for changing whatever it is that was attacked. Maybe it is a sign that the person saying things needs to be dropped out of your fab-five list, or what not. Maybe it is simply just another remark about something you don't care to change, and if the people saying something about it don't like it, it's their tough tea cups.
Many may argue that persons delivering verbal attacks of this nature are "haters." Just because someone has a problem with something about you, it doesn't make them a hater. I am sure you have things you don't like about them too. So what?
Nobody has power over how I feel. At one time in my life, people did. But ultimately, I realized how foolish it was. I asked myself, "How will it benefit me if I am bothered by something someone says?"
Should I shudder when a liberal says I couldn't possibly understand the things I think I understand because I am some lowly truck driver? Should I stop writing because the opposition says that what I write is poorly written, or loaded with untruths when I know that what I am presenting is true to my opinion? Should I give up because the government has determined that I am some out of control right wing, extremist domestic terrorist, when I know I am nothing of the sort?
Screw them.
We drive on a two-way street, and just because someone says something that should offend me, it doesn't mean I have to be offended. My "self-esteem" is not dependent upon anyone else's opinion. I am not going to have low self-confidence because some jackass is too much of an idiot to keep his mouth shut.
And neither should you.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Why Support Israel?
By Douglas V. Gibbs
As a Christian Conservative, the Left does not understand why I have such love, and support, for Israel. I receive from liberals comments that question my motives. After all, the only unpardonable sin is rejection of Christ, and if anybody rejected Jesus, it was the Jews.
"Are you going to tell them they are going to burn in Hell?" asks one leftist commenter. "I'd like to be there when you do."
In fact, one of my good friends, Eric from Tygrrr Express, is Jewish, and when I met with him last January this topic did in fact come up in conversation.
Eric said to me, "When Mr. J shows up, I will just ask Him, is this your first time here, or your second? If he says 'second,' I have a lot of explainin' to do."
Jesus Christ, in fact, is the Messiah for Israel. His coming was prophesied througout the Old Testament. On the cross on Calvary a sign was jokingly nailed to it by the Roman Soldiers proclaiming Him to be the "King of the Jews." Thing is, that sign was absolutely correct.
The first Christians were Jews. It was not the Jewish people that called for Christ's crucifixion, it was the leadership. The blame lands squarely on the establishment, and more specifically, the Jewish religious leaders who saw Jesus as a threat to their power structure.
Growth of the Christian Church extended into the Gentile (non-Jewish) world, and these new Christians saw themselves as adopted into the family of God. The great thing about this adoption is that all we needed to do was ask to be a part of the family, and we were welcomed with open arms.
Though a large segment of Israel accepted Christ as the Messiah, the majority did not. The Jewish People expected a King with flaming swords on a white stallion, not a humble carpenter riding in on a donkey.
There are some Christians, like Calvinists, that believe in replacement theology. These folks have decided that Jews gave up their "chosen people" status when they rejected Christ, and the Christians are now God's chosen people. With this attitude, they have sided with those against Israel in most cases (as exhibited by commenter "Caday" on my Townhall blog), and have determined that Israel is in fact the reason for the problems of the world.
Most Christians, however, do not see Israel this way. The Jews are God's children, and we have been adopted into that fantastic family through the grace of God, and in the name of Jesus Christ. I would stop loving the Jews because of their rejection of Christ no more than I would stop loving my own brother if he decided to disown himself from my family. In fact, my love would increase, and I would work very hard to bring him back into the family circle.
Israelites, however, do not always respond well to the word "Christian." The term reminds them of Rome, and the foolish actions of "Christians" against Jews in the Crusades, or the actions of those persecuting Jews in the name of Christianity, even though these persecutors exhibited nothing that could be considered Christian in their actions. So, as my mother told me after a trip to Israel, she called herself a "believer" to the Israelites. Jews have no problem with those that accept Jesus as the Messiah, aside from the opinion that Jesus is not the Messiah they have been waiting for.
Interestingly enough, Christ represents Israel in so many ways. The destiny of mankind is intimitely tied to the Nation of Israel, and the suffering, death, and ressurection of that tiny nation mirrors the life of Christ. The hatred of Jesus runs parallel to the hatred the world has for Israel. Psalm 129:3-5 describes this shared hatred for both, reading: "The plowers on my back; They made their furrows long," referring to Christ's suffering as He was whipped and the injuries were deep and bleeding. Then, Psalms continues by saying, "Let all these who hate Zion be put to shame and turned back." This is a clear indication that the Messiah, Jesus Christ, would identify himself with Israel.
As was Christ, Israel will be tormented. Violence will be done to Israel as to the flesh of Christ (Jeremiah 51:35).
So to answer the questions, "Why support Israel? After all, aren't the Jews going to burn in Hell?" - Should I not support my brethren? And who says Hell is the ultimate home for God's chosen people? Remember, Christianity is the third largest religion in Israel, and the second largest religion among the Jewish people.
By asking me to turn my back on Israel, you are asking me to deny my brother, and my love for the family of God runs deeper than that.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
As a Christian Conservative, the Left does not understand why I have such love, and support, for Israel. I receive from liberals comments that question my motives. After all, the only unpardonable sin is rejection of Christ, and if anybody rejected Jesus, it was the Jews.
"Are you going to tell them they are going to burn in Hell?" asks one leftist commenter. "I'd like to be there when you do."
In fact, one of my good friends, Eric from Tygrrr Express, is Jewish, and when I met with him last January this topic did in fact come up in conversation.
Eric said to me, "When Mr. J shows up, I will just ask Him, is this your first time here, or your second? If he says 'second,' I have a lot of explainin' to do."
Jesus Christ, in fact, is the Messiah for Israel. His coming was prophesied througout the Old Testament. On the cross on Calvary a sign was jokingly nailed to it by the Roman Soldiers proclaiming Him to be the "King of the Jews." Thing is, that sign was absolutely correct.
The first Christians were Jews. It was not the Jewish people that called for Christ's crucifixion, it was the leadership. The blame lands squarely on the establishment, and more specifically, the Jewish religious leaders who saw Jesus as a threat to their power structure.
Growth of the Christian Church extended into the Gentile (non-Jewish) world, and these new Christians saw themselves as adopted into the family of God. The great thing about this adoption is that all we needed to do was ask to be a part of the family, and we were welcomed with open arms.
Though a large segment of Israel accepted Christ as the Messiah, the majority did not. The Jewish People expected a King with flaming swords on a white stallion, not a humble carpenter riding in on a donkey.
There are some Christians, like Calvinists, that believe in replacement theology. These folks have decided that Jews gave up their "chosen people" status when they rejected Christ, and the Christians are now God's chosen people. With this attitude, they have sided with those against Israel in most cases (as exhibited by commenter "Caday" on my Townhall blog), and have determined that Israel is in fact the reason for the problems of the world.
Most Christians, however, do not see Israel this way. The Jews are God's children, and we have been adopted into that fantastic family through the grace of God, and in the name of Jesus Christ. I would stop loving the Jews because of their rejection of Christ no more than I would stop loving my own brother if he decided to disown himself from my family. In fact, my love would increase, and I would work very hard to bring him back into the family circle.
Israelites, however, do not always respond well to the word "Christian." The term reminds them of Rome, and the foolish actions of "Christians" against Jews in the Crusades, or the actions of those persecuting Jews in the name of Christianity, even though these persecutors exhibited nothing that could be considered Christian in their actions. So, as my mother told me after a trip to Israel, she called herself a "believer" to the Israelites. Jews have no problem with those that accept Jesus as the Messiah, aside from the opinion that Jesus is not the Messiah they have been waiting for.
Interestingly enough, Christ represents Israel in so many ways. The destiny of mankind is intimitely tied to the Nation of Israel, and the suffering, death, and ressurection of that tiny nation mirrors the life of Christ. The hatred of Jesus runs parallel to the hatred the world has for Israel. Psalm 129:3-5 describes this shared hatred for both, reading: "The plowers on my back; They made their furrows long," referring to Christ's suffering as He was whipped and the injuries were deep and bleeding. Then, Psalms continues by saying, "Let all these who hate Zion be put to shame and turned back." This is a clear indication that the Messiah, Jesus Christ, would identify himself with Israel.
As was Christ, Israel will be tormented. Violence will be done to Israel as to the flesh of Christ (Jeremiah 51:35).
So to answer the questions, "Why support Israel? After all, aren't the Jews going to burn in Hell?" - Should I not support my brethren? And who says Hell is the ultimate home for God's chosen people? Remember, Christianity is the third largest religion in Israel, and the second largest religion among the Jewish people.
By asking me to turn my back on Israel, you are asking me to deny my brother, and my love for the family of God runs deeper than that.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Sunday, October 04, 2009
The War of Northern Aggression - OR - Abraham Lincoln, the Benevolent Dictator
By Douglas V. Gibbs
I was once like you. History was only a story told by my teachers, and parents. The past was laid out neatly by those who told it, minus some of the more important details. Emphasis is placed where necessary, and anything that may suggest that history is in conflict with the unseen hand is simply discarded.
The winners recount history, some may say.
The winners of what?
In the case of the American Civil War the common understanding is that the Confederate troops fought on the side of the South because they were a bunch of racists, and were fighting only to keep their slaves. Seems reasonable, considering what we have been taught. But slavery is not the whole story. In fact, slavery was but one of many ingredients that led to the war between the states, and didn't become the goal of the war until it was declared to be in the political move called The Emancipation Proclamation.
Long before the American Civil War, before the United States was even a nation, General Stark's Revolutionary War cry was, "Live free or die!" But was it reasonable to demand freedom from Britain while enslaving a race of people in the New World?
The Declaration of Independence declares "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. . . "
Were some men more equal than others? With their cry for liberty, how could the men of that era live with their choice to enslave fellow members of humanity?
It is reasonable that these questions weighed heavily on the minds of the founders, and that the abolition movement found its roots in those very thoughts. Britain moved a little faster at abolishing slavery as both members of the Enlightenment movement criticized it for violating the rights of man, and Christian evangelicals considered slavery to be un-Christian. William Wilberforce led the cause of abolition in Britain in 1787, leading the Parliamentary campaign to abolish the slave trade in the British Empire with the Slave Trade Act 1807. The abolition of slavery throughout the British Empire followed with the Slavery Abolition Act in 1833.
Meanwhile, in America, though the Northern States moved away from slave holding, in eleven states in the American South slavery became a social and economic institution, and a valuable tool regarding the production of goods made available for trade with a number of European nations, and in fact, nations around the world.
Early American movements towards abolishing slavery came as early as 1688 when Quakers in Pennsylvania condemned the practice, and urged the leadership of the Quaker church to assist in the elimination of slavery. The Society of Friends did not bring about any action by the establishment, but the petition brought the sin of slavery to the forefront of politics, and initiated a process that eventually led to the banning of slavery in Pennsylvania in 1780.
During the American Revolution, while surely asking themselves the questions I posed earlier in this article, founders like Thomas Paine wrote about the importance of the United States abolishing slavery and freeing the slaves. The Quakers would once again lead the charge, while also joined by other evangelical Christian organizations, in the campaign against slavery, ramping up the effort after the Revolutionary War. With the help of Benjamin Franklin, a reorganized Society of Friends, led the charge. The movement eventually led to actions in all of the states toward the abolition of slavery. By 1804, as a result of the activism by the abolitionists, legislation had been passed that would eventually lead to the emancipation of slaves in every state north of the Ohio River and the Mason-Dixon Line. The importation of new slaves into the United States was officially banned on January 1, 1808.
Missouri petitioned to become a state in 1818 twice. By 1819 the debate over Missouri was in full swing. New York Representative James Tallmadge proposed an amendment to the Missouri statehood bill requiring Missouri to halt the further introduction of slaves to the territory and to provide for the gradual emancipation of the slaves already there. After much debate, Missouri rejected anti-slave rhetoric, and a compromise arose from the arguments. On March 3, 1820 Maine was admitted to the U.S. as a free state, and Missouri was then admitted to the U.S. as a slave state. A few months later, on July 1, 1820, at a convention in St. Louis, Missouri passed a pro-slave state constitution. Missouri was officially admitted to the Union on August 10, 1821.
In the 1830s the Postmaster General stopped allowing the delivery of pro-abolition literature to The South.
By the middle of the 19th century the abolition movement had grown to the point that Northern abolitionists controlled the House of Representatives. In 1850, California was admitted to the Union, and for the first time the number of free states (16) exceeded the number of slave states (15). Also, as a part of the Compromise of 1850, the District of Columbia banned slave trade.
The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 was a part of the compromise of 1850, along with admission of California as a free state, the prohibition of slave trading in the District of Columbia, and concessions to slaveholding in Texas. The law was written to further enforce the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793, of which northern states had been ignoring. Northern states had been passing "personal liberty laws" which was not only designed to keep free blacks from being kidnapped into slavery, but to disallow escaped slaves from being returned to the South. In short, the Fugitive Slave Act was put into place to enforce Article 4, Section 2 of the United States Constitution that required the return of runaway slaves, forcing the authorities in free states to return fugitive slaves to their masters by making it illegal for law enforcement not to arrest escaped slaves and ensure their return to their masters. The need for the law was induced by a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in 1842, Prigg v. Pennsylvania, that stated states did not have to offer aid in the hunting or recapture of slaves.
The laws were seen by Northerners as making them, and their institutions, responsible for enforcing slavery. In 1854 the Wisconsin State Supreme Court went so far as to declare the law unconstitutional, of which the U.S. Supreme Court overturned in 1859. Those involved with the "underground railroad," and other activities to bring slaves to freedom, like Harriet Tubman, treated the Fugitive Slave Law as just another complication in their activities, and a complication that made them simply change the destination of the runaway slaves to the neighboring country of Canada.
In The South the federal government's unwillingness to enforce Article 4, Section 2 of the United States Constitution that required the return of runaway slaves was seen as a breach of contract. If Washington was unwilling to uphold the Constitution, while trampling on the sovereign rights of the states, the southern states saw no reason to remain in the Union. A broken nation seemed inevitable to Abraham Lincoln when he delivered his inaugural address in 1861. By the date of his inauguration on March 4, 1961 seven states had declared secession from the United States and had formed the Confederate States of America. Four more states were sure to follow. With his speech Lincoln hoped to allay the fears of the South, while also promising to "hold, occupy and possess the property and places belonging to the government," a direct reference to Fort Sumter. Despite his pledge, he was having a hard time making up his mind about Sumter. Most of his advisers were choosing to abandon Fort Sumter, rather than rearm and re-supply it. In fact, they voted five to two to abandon the Northern military instillation. The assumption was that even if it was possible to give provisions to Fort Sumter, it would take too many resources to protect it.
Lincoln decided not to abandon Sumter. Despite the fact that the Confederate congress voted to open the Mississippi River to Northern shipping in an act of friendship, they were expecting in return for the North to abandon Fort Sumter in South Carolina. Fort Sumter was seen as a real threat to the South, since the military facility was a Union bastion in the midst of southern territory. Abandoning Fort Sumter could lead to averting a war, a conflict many believed should be avoided at all cost. After all, abolition movements were underway in the South, and slavery was on its final leg. Within the next decade or two each state in the South would probably abolish slavery, on their own, without a shot ever being fired. The invention of the cotton gin, in addition to the growing abolition movements, almost guaranteed that slavery would be a thing of the past soon.
Abraham Lincoln could prevent war, or assure the South started it, by simply backing off, and protecting the state sovereignty of the Southern states, by not allowing the federal government to interfere with their affairs on the issue of slavery. However, Lincoln believed war might be the only resolution to the problem.
On April 6th of 1861 Lincoln made up his mind, deciding to sign the orders to proceed with the re-supply and defense of Fort Sumter. The reports coming in to Washington insisted Fort Sumter only had enough provisions to last until April 15, so if she was to be resupplied, it would need to be soon.
Lincoln ordered a fleet of ships to Charleston Harbor. On April 6, 1861 the first ships began to set sail for South Carolina. The first ship arrived just before midnight on April 11, 1861. Meanwhile, the Confederacy sent three men to Sumter to demand the surrender of the fort. The commanding officer declined, and it was decided that the South would take the fort by force.
Nearby Fort Johnson opened fire on Fort Sumter on April 12, 1861, and the American Civil War began. On April 13, the fort was surrendered and evacuated.
Although the desire to abolish slavery was an important ingredient to the events that transpired, the driving force behind the secession of the Southern States was the federal government's unwillingness to uphold the U.S. Constitution, and the federal disregard for state's rights.
The blood spilled in the Civil War was the result of the impatience of Lincoln, and the Northern politicians. Not all politicians in the North, however, sought war as the only solution. Clement Vallandigham of Ohio was a staunch opponent to war as the solution to settle the differences betwen the North and the South. He believed President Lincoln should allow the South to secede, and to wait patiently as the abolition movement in those states finished their course, and the states ultimately requested readmittance to the Union.
After the Union suffered the loss of Fort Sumter, Maryland walked the tightrope between the Union and the Confederacy. Evenly divided between sympathies to the North and the South, Maryland became a strategic piece of the puzzle because of her location. Should Maryland secede Washington DC would be surrounded by hostile states. On April 19, 1861, Union soldiers were attacked by a pro-Southern mob as they moved through Baltimore on their way to Washington. To avoid further riots, and to ensure Maryland remained loyal to the North, the Federal Government dispatched troops to Maryland. After Maryland's legislature protested the Union occupation of Maryland, on August 7 Federal troops and Baltimore police officers arrested the pro-Confederate members of Maryland's General Assembly. Once again, the federal government committed an unconstitutional action, further confirming the South's reasons for battling against the Union.
The excuse used to arrest the Maryland legislature was a move on April 27, 1861 that Lincoln made when ordering the head of the nation's military "to arrest anyone between Washington and Philadelphia suspected of subversive acts or speech." The order by Lincoln was specifically a suspension of Habeaa Corpus. The order was passed down the line, and eventually led to the arrest of Southern sympathizers in Maryland.
As the war progressed, the North found that Europe was helping the Confederacy because of the hopes that a Southern victory would allow the flow of cotton to continue. Britain, in fact, was blockading the Northern ships so that the Union vessels had no access to the Southern ports. Knowing that the war had been primarily about state's rights up to this point, Abraham Lincoln realized he needed a strategy to get Britain out of the way, and he knew exactly what to do.
If Lincoln could change the primary purpose of the war from the South's defense of state sovereignty to emancipation of the slaves, it would push Britain out of the war. After all, Britain had long since abolished slavery in her empire, and if the American Civil War became about freeing slaves, Britain would not wish to be seen as siding with slavery.
On January 1, 1863, President Abraham Lincoln politicized the slavery ingredient of the war by delivering The Emancipation Proclamation. Ironically enough, though many will claim Emancipation Proclamation freed the slaves, the document actually did nothing of the sort. It was only a proclamation, not a law or amendment. The soul purpose was to make the goal of the American Civil War primarily about the abolition of slavery so that Britain would retreat from the conflict. As expected, Britain returned across the Atlantic, exposing Southern ports, and the North moved in.
Despite the growing number of sea victories as a result of Britain removing their blockade, the Union army was finding itself in a situation of having a shortage of soldiers. On March 3, 1863, Lincoln signed another unconstitutional act. This one, The Enrollment Act, required the enrollment of every male citizen, and those immigrants who had filed for citizenship, between ages twenty and forty-five. In other words, Lincoln instituted the first federal military draft in American history.
By 1863 the Confederacy's northward advance was turned back after the Battle of Gettysburg and, in the west, the Union gained control of the Mississippi River at the Battle of Vicksburg, thereby splitting the Confederacy. Confederate resistance collapsed after Lee surrendered to Grant at Appomattox Court House on April 9, 1865.
620,000 soldiers, and an unknown number of civilians, died during the America Civil War. The result of the war did in fact end slavery, but more devastatingly, it strengthened the role of the federal government.
The saddest part of it all is had Abraham Lincoln acted Constitutionally, and recognized the secession of the Southern states as a constitutional act of state sovereignty, rather than rebellion, and had Lincoln allowed the abolition movements in the Southern states to take their course, though slavery may not have ended until a decade or two later, the more than half of a million American deaths during the American Civil War would not have occurred.
Though hailed as the president that held together the Union, Lincoln was also the president that died with the blood of hundreds of thousands of young American men on his hands.
So, when you see a confederate battle flag flying, or the stars and bars shown at the top of this piece, remember that they are not necessarily the symbol of slavery or racism as many assume. These flags are symbols of the heritage of the South, symbols of state sovereignty, and symbols of the willingness of states to stand up to the federal government when Washington is acting unconstitutional.
"Live Free or Die!" still resonates loud and clear.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
I was once like you. History was only a story told by my teachers, and parents. The past was laid out neatly by those who told it, minus some of the more important details. Emphasis is placed where necessary, and anything that may suggest that history is in conflict with the unseen hand is simply discarded.
The winners recount history, some may say.
The winners of what?
In the case of the American Civil War the common understanding is that the Confederate troops fought on the side of the South because they were a bunch of racists, and were fighting only to keep their slaves. Seems reasonable, considering what we have been taught. But slavery is not the whole story. In fact, slavery was but one of many ingredients that led to the war between the states, and didn't become the goal of the war until it was declared to be in the political move called The Emancipation Proclamation.
Long before the American Civil War, before the United States was even a nation, General Stark's Revolutionary War cry was, "Live free or die!" But was it reasonable to demand freedom from Britain while enslaving a race of people in the New World?
The Declaration of Independence declares "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. . . "
Were some men more equal than others? With their cry for liberty, how could the men of that era live with their choice to enslave fellow members of humanity?
It is reasonable that these questions weighed heavily on the minds of the founders, and that the abolition movement found its roots in those very thoughts. Britain moved a little faster at abolishing slavery as both members of the Enlightenment movement criticized it for violating the rights of man, and Christian evangelicals considered slavery to be un-Christian. William Wilberforce led the cause of abolition in Britain in 1787, leading the Parliamentary campaign to abolish the slave trade in the British Empire with the Slave Trade Act 1807. The abolition of slavery throughout the British Empire followed with the Slavery Abolition Act in 1833.
Meanwhile, in America, though the Northern States moved away from slave holding, in eleven states in the American South slavery became a social and economic institution, and a valuable tool regarding the production of goods made available for trade with a number of European nations, and in fact, nations around the world.
Early American movements towards abolishing slavery came as early as 1688 when Quakers in Pennsylvania condemned the practice, and urged the leadership of the Quaker church to assist in the elimination of slavery. The Society of Friends did not bring about any action by the establishment, but the petition brought the sin of slavery to the forefront of politics, and initiated a process that eventually led to the banning of slavery in Pennsylvania in 1780.
During the American Revolution, while surely asking themselves the questions I posed earlier in this article, founders like Thomas Paine wrote about the importance of the United States abolishing slavery and freeing the slaves. The Quakers would once again lead the charge, while also joined by other evangelical Christian organizations, in the campaign against slavery, ramping up the effort after the Revolutionary War. With the help of Benjamin Franklin, a reorganized Society of Friends, led the charge. The movement eventually led to actions in all of the states toward the abolition of slavery. By 1804, as a result of the activism by the abolitionists, legislation had been passed that would eventually lead to the emancipation of slaves in every state north of the Ohio River and the Mason-Dixon Line. The importation of new slaves into the United States was officially banned on January 1, 1808.
Missouri petitioned to become a state in 1818 twice. By 1819 the debate over Missouri was in full swing. New York Representative James Tallmadge proposed an amendment to the Missouri statehood bill requiring Missouri to halt the further introduction of slaves to the territory and to provide for the gradual emancipation of the slaves already there. After much debate, Missouri rejected anti-slave rhetoric, and a compromise arose from the arguments. On March 3, 1820 Maine was admitted to the U.S. as a free state, and Missouri was then admitted to the U.S. as a slave state. A few months later, on July 1, 1820, at a convention in St. Louis, Missouri passed a pro-slave state constitution. Missouri was officially admitted to the Union on August 10, 1821.
In the 1830s the Postmaster General stopped allowing the delivery of pro-abolition literature to The South.
By the middle of the 19th century the abolition movement had grown to the point that Northern abolitionists controlled the House of Representatives. In 1850, California was admitted to the Union, and for the first time the number of free states (16) exceeded the number of slave states (15). Also, as a part of the Compromise of 1850, the District of Columbia banned slave trade.
The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 was a part of the compromise of 1850, along with admission of California as a free state, the prohibition of slave trading in the District of Columbia, and concessions to slaveholding in Texas. The law was written to further enforce the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793, of which northern states had been ignoring. Northern states had been passing "personal liberty laws" which was not only designed to keep free blacks from being kidnapped into slavery, but to disallow escaped slaves from being returned to the South. In short, the Fugitive Slave Act was put into place to enforce Article 4, Section 2 of the United States Constitution that required the return of runaway slaves, forcing the authorities in free states to return fugitive slaves to their masters by making it illegal for law enforcement not to arrest escaped slaves and ensure their return to their masters. The need for the law was induced by a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in 1842, Prigg v. Pennsylvania, that stated states did not have to offer aid in the hunting or recapture of slaves.
The laws were seen by Northerners as making them, and their institutions, responsible for enforcing slavery. In 1854 the Wisconsin State Supreme Court went so far as to declare the law unconstitutional, of which the U.S. Supreme Court overturned in 1859. Those involved with the "underground railroad," and other activities to bring slaves to freedom, like Harriet Tubman, treated the Fugitive Slave Law as just another complication in their activities, and a complication that made them simply change the destination of the runaway slaves to the neighboring country of Canada.
In The South the federal government's unwillingness to enforce Article 4, Section 2 of the United States Constitution that required the return of runaway slaves was seen as a breach of contract. If Washington was unwilling to uphold the Constitution, while trampling on the sovereign rights of the states, the southern states saw no reason to remain in the Union. A broken nation seemed inevitable to Abraham Lincoln when he delivered his inaugural address in 1861. By the date of his inauguration on March 4, 1961 seven states had declared secession from the United States and had formed the Confederate States of America. Four more states were sure to follow. With his speech Lincoln hoped to allay the fears of the South, while also promising to "hold, occupy and possess the property and places belonging to the government," a direct reference to Fort Sumter. Despite his pledge, he was having a hard time making up his mind about Sumter. Most of his advisers were choosing to abandon Fort Sumter, rather than rearm and re-supply it. In fact, they voted five to two to abandon the Northern military instillation. The assumption was that even if it was possible to give provisions to Fort Sumter, it would take too many resources to protect it.
Lincoln decided not to abandon Sumter. Despite the fact that the Confederate congress voted to open the Mississippi River to Northern shipping in an act of friendship, they were expecting in return for the North to abandon Fort Sumter in South Carolina. Fort Sumter was seen as a real threat to the South, since the military facility was a Union bastion in the midst of southern territory. Abandoning Fort Sumter could lead to averting a war, a conflict many believed should be avoided at all cost. After all, abolition movements were underway in the South, and slavery was on its final leg. Within the next decade or two each state in the South would probably abolish slavery, on their own, without a shot ever being fired. The invention of the cotton gin, in addition to the growing abolition movements, almost guaranteed that slavery would be a thing of the past soon.
Abraham Lincoln could prevent war, or assure the South started it, by simply backing off, and protecting the state sovereignty of the Southern states, by not allowing the federal government to interfere with their affairs on the issue of slavery. However, Lincoln believed war might be the only resolution to the problem.
On April 6th of 1861 Lincoln made up his mind, deciding to sign the orders to proceed with the re-supply and defense of Fort Sumter. The reports coming in to Washington insisted Fort Sumter only had enough provisions to last until April 15, so if she was to be resupplied, it would need to be soon.
Lincoln ordered a fleet of ships to Charleston Harbor. On April 6, 1861 the first ships began to set sail for South Carolina. The first ship arrived just before midnight on April 11, 1861. Meanwhile, the Confederacy sent three men to Sumter to demand the surrender of the fort. The commanding officer declined, and it was decided that the South would take the fort by force.
Nearby Fort Johnson opened fire on Fort Sumter on April 12, 1861, and the American Civil War began. On April 13, the fort was surrendered and evacuated.
Although the desire to abolish slavery was an important ingredient to the events that transpired, the driving force behind the secession of the Southern States was the federal government's unwillingness to uphold the U.S. Constitution, and the federal disregard for state's rights.
The blood spilled in the Civil War was the result of the impatience of Lincoln, and the Northern politicians. Not all politicians in the North, however, sought war as the only solution. Clement Vallandigham of Ohio was a staunch opponent to war as the solution to settle the differences betwen the North and the South. He believed President Lincoln should allow the South to secede, and to wait patiently as the abolition movement in those states finished their course, and the states ultimately requested readmittance to the Union.
After the Union suffered the loss of Fort Sumter, Maryland walked the tightrope between the Union and the Confederacy. Evenly divided between sympathies to the North and the South, Maryland became a strategic piece of the puzzle because of her location. Should Maryland secede Washington DC would be surrounded by hostile states. On April 19, 1861, Union soldiers were attacked by a pro-Southern mob as they moved through Baltimore on their way to Washington. To avoid further riots, and to ensure Maryland remained loyal to the North, the Federal Government dispatched troops to Maryland. After Maryland's legislature protested the Union occupation of Maryland, on August 7 Federal troops and Baltimore police officers arrested the pro-Confederate members of Maryland's General Assembly. Once again, the federal government committed an unconstitutional action, further confirming the South's reasons for battling against the Union.
The excuse used to arrest the Maryland legislature was a move on April 27, 1861 that Lincoln made when ordering the head of the nation's military "to arrest anyone between Washington and Philadelphia suspected of subversive acts or speech." The order by Lincoln was specifically a suspension of Habeaa Corpus. The order was passed down the line, and eventually led to the arrest of Southern sympathizers in Maryland.
As the war progressed, the North found that Europe was helping the Confederacy because of the hopes that a Southern victory would allow the flow of cotton to continue. Britain, in fact, was blockading the Northern ships so that the Union vessels had no access to the Southern ports. Knowing that the war had been primarily about state's rights up to this point, Abraham Lincoln realized he needed a strategy to get Britain out of the way, and he knew exactly what to do.
If Lincoln could change the primary purpose of the war from the South's defense of state sovereignty to emancipation of the slaves, it would push Britain out of the war. After all, Britain had long since abolished slavery in her empire, and if the American Civil War became about freeing slaves, Britain would not wish to be seen as siding with slavery.
On January 1, 1863, President Abraham Lincoln politicized the slavery ingredient of the war by delivering The Emancipation Proclamation. Ironically enough, though many will claim Emancipation Proclamation freed the slaves, the document actually did nothing of the sort. It was only a proclamation, not a law or amendment. The soul purpose was to make the goal of the American Civil War primarily about the abolition of slavery so that Britain would retreat from the conflict. As expected, Britain returned across the Atlantic, exposing Southern ports, and the North moved in.
Despite the growing number of sea victories as a result of Britain removing their blockade, the Union army was finding itself in a situation of having a shortage of soldiers. On March 3, 1863, Lincoln signed another unconstitutional act. This one, The Enrollment Act, required the enrollment of every male citizen, and those immigrants who had filed for citizenship, between ages twenty and forty-five. In other words, Lincoln instituted the first federal military draft in American history.
By 1863 the Confederacy's northward advance was turned back after the Battle of Gettysburg and, in the west, the Union gained control of the Mississippi River at the Battle of Vicksburg, thereby splitting the Confederacy. Confederate resistance collapsed after Lee surrendered to Grant at Appomattox Court House on April 9, 1865.
620,000 soldiers, and an unknown number of civilians, died during the America Civil War. The result of the war did in fact end slavery, but more devastatingly, it strengthened the role of the federal government.
The saddest part of it all is had Abraham Lincoln acted Constitutionally, and recognized the secession of the Southern states as a constitutional act of state sovereignty, rather than rebellion, and had Lincoln allowed the abolition movements in the Southern states to take their course, though slavery may not have ended until a decade or two later, the more than half of a million American deaths during the American Civil War would not have occurred.
Though hailed as the president that held together the Union, Lincoln was also the president that died with the blood of hundreds of thousands of young American men on his hands.
So, when you see a confederate battle flag flying, or the stars and bars shown at the top of this piece, remember that they are not necessarily the symbol of slavery or racism as many assume. These flags are symbols of the heritage of the South, symbols of state sovereignty, and symbols of the willingness of states to stand up to the federal government when Washington is acting unconstitutional.
"Live Free or Die!" still resonates loud and clear.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Saturday, October 03, 2009
Obama Eligibility to see its day in court discussed on Political Pistachio Radio
California judge David Carter scheduled a tentative trial date for the case of Barack Obama's eligibility to be President of the United States for Jan. 26, 2010. But, to meet that trial date, the case must survive an Oct. 5 hearing on the Department of Justice motion to dismiss.
Also discussed tonight will be Polanski, Letterman, Obama's failed bid for the Olympics to be in Chicago in 2016, attacking Christianity is okay but $4,000 fine in Maine for criticizing Islam, Steve Schmidt claims Palin dangerous and that GOP is bankrupt in ideas regarding health care, and much more.
See you tonight live at 7pm Pacific (or catch the archive later) on BlogTalkRadio.com/PoliticalPistachio.
No-Disclosure Campaign Contributions
By Douglas V. Gibbs
A commenter on Political Pistachio recently stated he preferred Constitutional (hereditary) Monarchy over a Constitutional Republic because the President is easily influenced by, and can be bought by, those that contribute to his campaign. Corruption sets in, and the politician becomes less about what is best for the nation, and more about giving perks and payback to those that propped him up with money.
Corruption in campaign contributions is the reason McCain and Feingold got together to sponsor a bill designed to curb corruption in the first place. These politicians figured that by limiting contributions by any one entity or person, it would keep politicians honest. However, McCain-Feingold limits the people, and their ability to freely give to the candidate they believe in.
Disclosure in politics is also referred to as transparency. Disclosure by public officials, and those working in the public sphere in Washington, is mandated by federal laws and Congressional rules. However, politicians are hardly transparent, as exhibited by the Obama Administration.
The reason the American People demand disclosure is to enourage accountability. If those who work in, or lobby, the U.S. Congress are subject to a number of disclosure regulations it will force them to not fall into a cycle of corruption, but it keeps the constituents happy as well.
But what about the disclosure to the politicians? Though we expect them to be open with us, why must we allow them to have all the information?
Let me clarify that statement. The cause of corruption in politics is often that the politicians want to do for those that do for them, giving perks and votes to those contributing the most money. So, what if the politicians, or at least while they are in office, didn't know where the money was coming from? How could they vote in favor of legislation their contributors wish them to vote in favor of, if they don't know who those contibutors are? Combined with term limits (which would also eliminate these cockroaches putting re-elections before doing what is right), wouldn't that put a stake in the heart of corruption?
Rather than an idiotic piece of reform like McCain-Feingold, why not put into place a "No-Disclosure of Campaign Contributors" law?
Then, maybe, we could focus on a politician's other avenues of corruption, like bending over backwards for globalists, or unconstitutional activities and proposals.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
A commenter on Political Pistachio recently stated he preferred Constitutional (hereditary) Monarchy over a Constitutional Republic because the President is easily influenced by, and can be bought by, those that contribute to his campaign. Corruption sets in, and the politician becomes less about what is best for the nation, and more about giving perks and payback to those that propped him up with money.
Corruption in campaign contributions is the reason McCain and Feingold got together to sponsor a bill designed to curb corruption in the first place. These politicians figured that by limiting contributions by any one entity or person, it would keep politicians honest. However, McCain-Feingold limits the people, and their ability to freely give to the candidate they believe in.
Disclosure in politics is also referred to as transparency. Disclosure by public officials, and those working in the public sphere in Washington, is mandated by federal laws and Congressional rules. However, politicians are hardly transparent, as exhibited by the Obama Administration.
The reason the American People demand disclosure is to enourage accountability. If those who work in, or lobby, the U.S. Congress are subject to a number of disclosure regulations it will force them to not fall into a cycle of corruption, but it keeps the constituents happy as well.
But what about the disclosure to the politicians? Though we expect them to be open with us, why must we allow them to have all the information?
Let me clarify that statement. The cause of corruption in politics is often that the politicians want to do for those that do for them, giving perks and votes to those contributing the most money. So, what if the politicians, or at least while they are in office, didn't know where the money was coming from? How could they vote in favor of legislation their contributors wish them to vote in favor of, if they don't know who those contibutors are? Combined with term limits (which would also eliminate these cockroaches putting re-elections before doing what is right), wouldn't that put a stake in the heart of corruption?
Rather than an idiotic piece of reform like McCain-Feingold, why not put into place a "No-Disclosure of Campaign Contributors" law?
Then, maybe, we could focus on a politician's other avenues of corruption, like bending over backwards for globalists, or unconstitutional activities and proposals.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Flag Burner Gets A Lesson In Patriotism
Appropriate Actions By A Fine United States Military Veteran
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Obama's Arrogance Falls Flat Before The Olympic Committee
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Chicago lost the 2016 Olympic bid in the first round of voting. I really didn't care if Chicago won the bid or not. I am not one of those folks hanging on the edge of my seat to see who gets the Olympics. I watch the Olympics for hockey, some of the sled-style races, baseball (when they have it), most of the track and field, and basketball. Otherwise, I am more entrenched in what is going on in Major League Baseball, or professional football during the years the Olympics dominates sporting news.
Despite my normal disinterest in where the Olympics eight years from now is going to be held, I got a kick out of the fact that Chicago did not win the bid for 2016 - despite Obama's efforts, and despite the mainstream media's claims that since Barry got involved Chicago was all but a shoe-in.
Even more amazing is that Chicago lost in the very first round of voting!
But I thought Obama is loved the world over. I thought he could talk anyone into anything! Barack went into these Olympic negotiations as a man of the world, with no pre-conditions, and they rejected his "charisma" and "superior ability to communicate" without as much as a sniffle and an apology.
The funniest part of it all is the reaction by the media. They are astounded. They are so infatuated with Obama that his failure in Copenhagen was hardly what these people expected. In fact, it is so astounding to them that Chicago would not win the bid, much less be voted out in the first round, after "The One" traveled all the way to Europe (on the taxpayer's dime, mind you), that some are suggesting "anti-Americanism" is in play (even to go so far that it is a residual effect on how much the rest of the world hated Bush!).
Others have suggested that Rio De Janeiro received sympathy votes, and that those votes added up to enough to eliminate other cities that may have been the better choice.
Theory after theory as to why Chicago lost is popping up, and in the end, all of those theories mean nothing. Chicago lost because the folks voting decided not to choose the American City.
I could almost hear Obama's ego slam into the ground.
I suppose you can't blame him. He is a legend in his own mind, and doesn't realize the rest of the world has caught on to his "all flash, no substance" characteristics. Obama is the kind of person that thinks he is the deciding vote, the voice of reason, and the apple of everyone's eye. And the Olympics in Chicago would have been a great gran finale, wouldn't it? After all, the Democrats have all but determined that it is fate he will serve two terms, and 2016 will be that final moment of his presidency where the world will be weeping because they will be losing the great Obama. The 2016 Olympics in Chicago could have been his grand farewell. Obama's chance to stand up on a massive world stage with his arms in the air under the five rings of Olympic brotherhood, granting a farewell to the new world he helped engineer. . . but in the end, it turns out that Obama is just another politician, and that the world really doesn't care what he has to say nearly as much as he thinks.
The press is devastated. How could it be that Obama was unable to sway the vote? How could it be that the great Obama was unable to get the IOC to eat out of his hand?
The video at the bottom of this article from WGN Television is a great example of the dismay exhibited by the biased Obama-press. The reaction to Chicago being voted out in the first round was accompanied by statements like:
- Pandemonium here in the broadcast center
- Difficult and Shocking
- Flies in the face of every prediction we heard
- Everyone believed it would come down to Chicago and Rio for the final vote
- You look as shocked as we are
- No one expected this
- Gasps were heard all around
- Chicago had long been one of the front runners
- With Obama in place, and more popular at this juncture
Also notice that these people go into 2002's New York City failure, and blame Bush for it. You know, all of that anti-American sentiment that Obama has magically reversed.
Finally, my favorite from the slobbering WGN reporters is this little tid bit:
- With this President, Barack Obama, who has an international flavor, international following, his parents from two different continents, [you would think] there would be a great deal of international appeal . . . that did not happen.
These people truly do not understand how not only Chicago could lose the bid, but why there isn't an international uproar. After all, doesn't everyone love Obama? Aside from those fringe right wing crazies, everyone thinks "The One" is the great savior of mankind, right? Isn't he?
Believe me when I say that in the end Barack Obama will just be another failed politician, and history will look down upon him as just another despised great failure. In fact, I believe after it is all over Barack Obama will be seen as a greater failure than Jimmy Carter was - and that's sayin' something.
The lingering question is, will this loss in Copenhagen be yet another nail in the coffin of Obama's already failing policies and proposals?
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Rio celebrates 2016 Olympic games bid victory - The Province, Paul Radfor and Stuart Grudgings, Reuters
Why Did Chicago Lose? - The Politico, Kenneth P. Vogel
Clang! With chance to Be Like Mike, President Obama comes up empty - Sports Illustrated, S.L. Price
Analysis: Chicago's loss is a blow to Obama, too - Yahoo News, JENNIFER LOVEN and JULIE PACE, Associated Press Writers
Chicago lost the 2016 Olympic bid in the first round of voting. I really didn't care if Chicago won the bid or not. I am not one of those folks hanging on the edge of my seat to see who gets the Olympics. I watch the Olympics for hockey, some of the sled-style races, baseball (when they have it), most of the track and field, and basketball. Otherwise, I am more entrenched in what is going on in Major League Baseball, or professional football during the years the Olympics dominates sporting news.
Despite my normal disinterest in where the Olympics eight years from now is going to be held, I got a kick out of the fact that Chicago did not win the bid for 2016 - despite Obama's efforts, and despite the mainstream media's claims that since Barry got involved Chicago was all but a shoe-in.
Even more amazing is that Chicago lost in the very first round of voting!
But I thought Obama is loved the world over. I thought he could talk anyone into anything! Barack went into these Olympic negotiations as a man of the world, with no pre-conditions, and they rejected his "charisma" and "superior ability to communicate" without as much as a sniffle and an apology.
The funniest part of it all is the reaction by the media. They are astounded. They are so infatuated with Obama that his failure in Copenhagen was hardly what these people expected. In fact, it is so astounding to them that Chicago would not win the bid, much less be voted out in the first round, after "The One" traveled all the way to Europe (on the taxpayer's dime, mind you), that some are suggesting "anti-Americanism" is in play (even to go so far that it is a residual effect on how much the rest of the world hated Bush!).
Others have suggested that Rio De Janeiro received sympathy votes, and that those votes added up to enough to eliminate other cities that may have been the better choice.
Theory after theory as to why Chicago lost is popping up, and in the end, all of those theories mean nothing. Chicago lost because the folks voting decided not to choose the American City.
I could almost hear Obama's ego slam into the ground.
I suppose you can't blame him. He is a legend in his own mind, and doesn't realize the rest of the world has caught on to his "all flash, no substance" characteristics. Obama is the kind of person that thinks he is the deciding vote, the voice of reason, and the apple of everyone's eye. And the Olympics in Chicago would have been a great gran finale, wouldn't it? After all, the Democrats have all but determined that it is fate he will serve two terms, and 2016 will be that final moment of his presidency where the world will be weeping because they will be losing the great Obama. The 2016 Olympics in Chicago could have been his grand farewell. Obama's chance to stand up on a massive world stage with his arms in the air under the five rings of Olympic brotherhood, granting a farewell to the new world he helped engineer. . . but in the end, it turns out that Obama is just another politician, and that the world really doesn't care what he has to say nearly as much as he thinks.
The press is devastated. How could it be that Obama was unable to sway the vote? How could it be that the great Obama was unable to get the IOC to eat out of his hand?
The video at the bottom of this article from WGN Television is a great example of the dismay exhibited by the biased Obama-press. The reaction to Chicago being voted out in the first round was accompanied by statements like:
- Pandemonium here in the broadcast center
- Difficult and Shocking
- Flies in the face of every prediction we heard
- Everyone believed it would come down to Chicago and Rio for the final vote
- You look as shocked as we are
- No one expected this
- Gasps were heard all around
- Chicago had long been one of the front runners
- With Obama in place, and more popular at this juncture
Also notice that these people go into 2002's New York City failure, and blame Bush for it. You know, all of that anti-American sentiment that Obama has magically reversed.
Finally, my favorite from the slobbering WGN reporters is this little tid bit:
- With this President, Barack Obama, who has an international flavor, international following, his parents from two different continents, [you would think] there would be a great deal of international appeal . . . that did not happen.
These people truly do not understand how not only Chicago could lose the bid, but why there isn't an international uproar. After all, doesn't everyone love Obama? Aside from those fringe right wing crazies, everyone thinks "The One" is the great savior of mankind, right? Isn't he?
Believe me when I say that in the end Barack Obama will just be another failed politician, and history will look down upon him as just another despised great failure. In fact, I believe after it is all over Barack Obama will be seen as a greater failure than Jimmy Carter was - and that's sayin' something.
The lingering question is, will this loss in Copenhagen be yet another nail in the coffin of Obama's already failing policies and proposals?
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Rio celebrates 2016 Olympic games bid victory - The Province, Paul Radfor and Stuart Grudgings, Reuters
Why Did Chicago Lose? - The Politico, Kenneth P. Vogel
Clang! With chance to Be Like Mike, President Obama comes up empty - Sports Illustrated, S.L. Price
Analysis: Chicago's loss is a blow to Obama, too - Yahoo News, JENNIFER LOVEN and JULIE PACE, Associated Press Writers
Friday, October 02, 2009
Sarah Palin's book success is telling
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Sarah Palin's new book has broken all records for pre-sales. The book has not even hit the printers yet, and it is the top selling book in America at this moment. She has over a thousand requests for speeches and political appearances. Her popularity is growing, and is bigger than ever before.
Sarah Palin's popularity continues to take off like a rocket, and the liberal left remains in denial.
Hearing this, it got me to thinking. The liberals can't seem to keep their newspapers and magazines in business. Yet, Fox News has more viewers than MSNBC, CNN, and Headline News combined. Conservative talk radio dominates, and liberal Air America radio went bankrupt. Glenn Beck's book "Arguing With Idiots" is insanely popular just like his "fringe, right wing, lunatic show" (I am in the middle of the book now, by the way - phenomenally written).
And the leftists say that conservatives are a 1% fringe, and that the Republican Party lost the last election because it wasn't moderate enough.
It is time to ignore the idiots, and continue the work of deposing the socialist freak in the White House, and returning the Constitution to our American Form of Government.
Reagan won landslides because he ran on optimism, love for America, and Conservatism. I know there is not another Reagan out there, but to ignore the lessons of history is insane. The GOP lost in 2006 and 2008 because they have abandoned the party platform. They have erroneously believed the liberal left, and tried to become more moderate to win. Being "liberal-light" was a one way ticket to defeat. Conservatives stayed home, and independents refused to follow the Republicans because they stood for nothing.
Sarah Palin is a fresh voice of conservatism, and the people love her for it.
A concept that the Democrats remain in denial over.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
ONE AND A HALF MILLION COPIES. DRIVING THE LEFT NUTS - Radio Patriot, Andrea Shea King
Palin co-author: Evangelical, partisan - Politico, Ben Smith
Sarah Palin and Fox News Sell Because Conservatism is Popular - Rush Limbaugh
Sarah Palin's new book has broken all records for pre-sales. The book has not even hit the printers yet, and it is the top selling book in America at this moment. She has over a thousand requests for speeches and political appearances. Her popularity is growing, and is bigger than ever before.
Sarah Palin's popularity continues to take off like a rocket, and the liberal left remains in denial.
Hearing this, it got me to thinking. The liberals can't seem to keep their newspapers and magazines in business. Yet, Fox News has more viewers than MSNBC, CNN, and Headline News combined. Conservative talk radio dominates, and liberal Air America radio went bankrupt. Glenn Beck's book "Arguing With Idiots" is insanely popular just like his "fringe, right wing, lunatic show" (I am in the middle of the book now, by the way - phenomenally written).
And the leftists say that conservatives are a 1% fringe, and that the Republican Party lost the last election because it wasn't moderate enough.
It is time to ignore the idiots, and continue the work of deposing the socialist freak in the White House, and returning the Constitution to our American Form of Government.
Reagan won landslides because he ran on optimism, love for America, and Conservatism. I know there is not another Reagan out there, but to ignore the lessons of history is insane. The GOP lost in 2006 and 2008 because they have abandoned the party platform. They have erroneously believed the liberal left, and tried to become more moderate to win. Being "liberal-light" was a one way ticket to defeat. Conservatives stayed home, and independents refused to follow the Republicans because they stood for nothing.
Sarah Palin is a fresh voice of conservatism, and the people love her for it.
A concept that the Democrats remain in denial over.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
ONE AND A HALF MILLION COPIES. DRIVING THE LEFT NUTS - Radio Patriot, Andrea Shea King
Palin co-author: Evangelical, partisan - Politico, Ben Smith
Sarah Palin and Fox News Sell Because Conservatism is Popular - Rush Limbaugh
Michelle Obama's Sacrifice
By Douglas V. Gibbs
As the generals beg Obama for more troops, and America's economy continues to nose dive, President Obama headed for Copenhagen, Denmark to convince the Olympic Committee that the 2016 Olympics belongs in thug-infested Chicago.
Michelle said in a speech in Copenhagen that the trip is a real sacrifice.
Lady, you have no idea what sacrifice is.
A friend of mine told me about him and his wife putting together a care package filled with groceries for a neighbor up the street because after paying their bills there was nothing left for food.
Our troops live in tents in Afghanistan, missing their families dearly, and are under the constant threat of death every day.
An acquaintance of mine is working two jobs, and pulling weeds for neighbors on the weekends, to make ends meet.
Many give up finishing college, or pursuing their dreams, to take care of ill family members, or to help keep the family financially afloat.
Thousands have perished in Samoa and Indonesia as earthquakes and tsunamis have ravaged the two areas.
In California a drought is underway, and mandatory water conservation is in place.
In the southeast storms recently flooded neighborhoods.
I once read a story of a woman in China caught in a snow storm, protecting her baby with her body, and dying in that position. The child survived because of his mother's sacrifice.
Despite the sadness of poverty in America, the poor in this country are richer than over 90% of the people in the rest of the world who sacrifice daily to protect their children, or to locate sustenance for themselves or loved ones.
Michelle Obama, you consider sacrifice having to fly in a separate plane than your husband on the taxpayer's dime? Was it a sacrifice at the high-end hotel because your pillow wasn't fluffy enough? Was it a sacrifice to eat at the plush restaurants? Perhaps they didn't have your favorite wine?
Oh, sorry, she said it's all for the kids. Excuse me. Pardon me, ma'am. If it is for the kids, then all criticisms are off. . .
And folks wonder why we call these inconsiderate, narcissistic, self-serving boobs elitists.
Sacrifice. Michelle Obama doesn't know the meaning of the word.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
President and First Lady Travel 4,000 Miles -- on Separate Planes -- to Lobby for Olympics - CNSNews, Penny Starr
Michelle’s Copenhagen Taxpayer-Funded Junket - Canada Free Press, Bob Parks
Michelle Obama: It's a 'sacrifice' to travel to Europe to pitch for the Olympics. But I'm doing it for the kids. - Washington Examiner, Byron York
As the generals beg Obama for more troops, and America's economy continues to nose dive, President Obama headed for Copenhagen, Denmark to convince the Olympic Committee that the 2016 Olympics belongs in thug-infested Chicago.
Michelle said in a speech in Copenhagen that the trip is a real sacrifice.
Lady, you have no idea what sacrifice is.
A friend of mine told me about him and his wife putting together a care package filled with groceries for a neighbor up the street because after paying their bills there was nothing left for food.
Our troops live in tents in Afghanistan, missing their families dearly, and are under the constant threat of death every day.
An acquaintance of mine is working two jobs, and pulling weeds for neighbors on the weekends, to make ends meet.
Many give up finishing college, or pursuing their dreams, to take care of ill family members, or to help keep the family financially afloat.
Thousands have perished in Samoa and Indonesia as earthquakes and tsunamis have ravaged the two areas.
In California a drought is underway, and mandatory water conservation is in place.
In the southeast storms recently flooded neighborhoods.
I once read a story of a woman in China caught in a snow storm, protecting her baby with her body, and dying in that position. The child survived because of his mother's sacrifice.
Despite the sadness of poverty in America, the poor in this country are richer than over 90% of the people in the rest of the world who sacrifice daily to protect their children, or to locate sustenance for themselves or loved ones.
Michelle Obama, you consider sacrifice having to fly in a separate plane than your husband on the taxpayer's dime? Was it a sacrifice at the high-end hotel because your pillow wasn't fluffy enough? Was it a sacrifice to eat at the plush restaurants? Perhaps they didn't have your favorite wine?
Oh, sorry, she said it's all for the kids. Excuse me. Pardon me, ma'am. If it is for the kids, then all criticisms are off. . .
And folks wonder why we call these inconsiderate, narcissistic, self-serving boobs elitists.
Sacrifice. Michelle Obama doesn't know the meaning of the word.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
President and First Lady Travel 4,000 Miles -- on Separate Planes -- to Lobby for Olympics - CNSNews, Penny Starr
Michelle’s Copenhagen Taxpayer-Funded Junket - Canada Free Press, Bob Parks
Michelle Obama: It's a 'sacrifice' to travel to Europe to pitch for the Olympics. But I'm doing it for the kids. - Washington Examiner, Byron York
New School Prayer Poem
I received the following poem from one of my friends in my Email. The author is unknown, but the message is loud and clear:
New School Prayer
Now I sit me down in school
Where praying is against the rule
For this great nation under God
Finds mention of Him very odd.
If Scripture now the class recites,
It violates the Bill of Rights.
And anytime my head I bow
Becomes a Federal matter now.
Our hair can be purple, orange or green,
That's no offence; it's a freedom scene.
The law is specific, the law is precise.
Prayers spoken aloud are a serious vice.
For praying in a public hall
Might offend someone with no faith at all
In silence alone we must meditate,
God's name is prohibited by the state.
We're allowed to cuss and dress like freaks,
And pierce our noses, tongues and cheeks.
They've outlawed guns, but FIRST the Bible.
To quote the Good Book makes me liable.
We can elect a pregnant Senior Queen,
And the 'unwed daddy,' our Senior King.
It's 'inappropriate' to teach right from wrong,
We're taught that such 'judgments' do not belong.
We can get our condoms and birth controls,
Study witchcraft, vampires and totem poles
But the Ten Commandments are not allowed,
No word of God must reach this crowd.
It's scary here I must confess,
When chaos reigns the school's a mess.
So, Lord, this silent plea I make:
Should I be shot; My soul please take!
Amen !
New School Prayer
Now I sit me down in school
Where praying is against the rule
For this great nation under God
Finds mention of Him very odd.
If Scripture now the class recites,
It violates the Bill of Rights.
And anytime my head I bow
Becomes a Federal matter now.
Our hair can be purple, orange or green,
That's no offence; it's a freedom scene.
The law is specific, the law is precise.
Prayers spoken aloud are a serious vice.
For praying in a public hall
Might offend someone with no faith at all
In silence alone we must meditate,
God's name is prohibited by the state.
We're allowed to cuss and dress like freaks,
And pierce our noses, tongues and cheeks.
They've outlawed guns, but FIRST the Bible.
To quote the Good Book makes me liable.
We can elect a pregnant Senior Queen,
And the 'unwed daddy,' our Senior King.
It's 'inappropriate' to teach right from wrong,
We're taught that such 'judgments' do not belong.
We can get our condoms and birth controls,
Study witchcraft, vampires and totem poles
But the Ten Commandments are not allowed,
No word of God must reach this crowd.
It's scary here I must confess,
When chaos reigns the school's a mess.
So, Lord, this silent plea I make:
Should I be shot; My soul please take!
Amen !
Thursday, October 01, 2009
Pelosi's Double Standard Regarding Harsh Rhetoric
By Douglas V. Gibbs
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says anyone using harsh rhetoric to raise fears about health care reform should apologize and get on with writing policy.
She was referring to Grayson's comments that the Republican Health Care Plan was "don't get sick, and die quickly."
It is amazing how Pelosi, and gang, suddenly are trying to take the high road. They sure didn't care about harsh rhetoric when Bush was president.
Let me see. Just to name a few, Pelosi called Bush a Total Failure, Questioned Bush's Competence, and considered pursuing impeachment of Bush.
But now she's worried about harsh rhetoric?
Nancy "double-standard" Pelosi.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says anyone using harsh rhetoric to raise fears about health care reform should apologize and get on with writing policy.
She was referring to Grayson's comments that the Republican Health Care Plan was "don't get sick, and die quickly."
It is amazing how Pelosi, and gang, suddenly are trying to take the high road. They sure didn't care about harsh rhetoric when Bush was president.
Let me see. Just to name a few, Pelosi called Bush a Total Failure, Questioned Bush's Competence, and considered pursuing impeachment of Bush.
But now she's worried about harsh rhetoric?
Nancy "double-standard" Pelosi.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Obama Socialism, and the Catholic Church
I am not Catholic. My Catholic friends, and I, have a few doctrinal disagreements. But, we are all on the side of Christ, and the enemy knows it, and will do whatever it takes to divide and conquer us. The video linked below addresses Obama's "Catholic Plan," and even if you are not Catholic, the video is worth watching. And remember, whenever tyranny removes the liberty from one group, other groups are always next.
Go Here For The Video
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Go Here For The Video
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Afghanistan: The Politically Convenient War
By Douglas V. Gibbs
When Obama was campaigning he constantly demonized George W. Bush, and the Republicans, for the war in Iraq. In order to not sound like he was not willing to protect America in the War on Terror, he proclaimed that Iraq was the wrong war, and Afghanistan was the right war.
If Afghanistan is the right war, then why the sidestepping going on now as the generals ask for more troops? Why does Obama have to think about the request, while conveniently forgetting that one of his major criticisms of Bush was that Bush didn't "listen to his generals?"
He's not a Commander in Chief, and with his weak leadership, I am surprised the death toll of our troops isn't higher.
Remember, Obama's comprehensive new strategy doesn't include the word "victory." He doesn't want to offend any members of the enemy factions.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforcements - CNSNews, Susan Jones
Obama Says Victory Is Not The Goal - Political Pistachio, Douglas V. Gibbs
When Obama was campaigning he constantly demonized George W. Bush, and the Republicans, for the war in Iraq. In order to not sound like he was not willing to protect America in the War on Terror, he proclaimed that Iraq was the wrong war, and Afghanistan was the right war.
If Afghanistan is the right war, then why the sidestepping going on now as the generals ask for more troops? Why does Obama have to think about the request, while conveniently forgetting that one of his major criticisms of Bush was that Bush didn't "listen to his generals?"
He's not a Commander in Chief, and with his weak leadership, I am surprised the death toll of our troops isn't higher.
Remember, Obama's comprehensive new strategy doesn't include the word "victory." He doesn't want to offend any members of the enemy factions.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforcements - CNSNews, Susan Jones
Obama Says Victory Is Not The Goal - Political Pistachio, Douglas V. Gibbs
Roman Polanski: Child Molester, Pedophile, Pervert, Sodomizer and Rapist
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Roman Polanski has been hiding out because he knows what he did was wrong, and would land his butt in jail. Thirty two years ago, when he was forty-something, he raped a thirteen year old girl by drugging her, and frightening her into submission.
Extradition, now that Polanski left France for Zurich, Switzerland's Zurich Film Festival, has caught up to him, and he was arrested.
What is even more disgusting than the fact that this animal raped a child is the fact that all of the Hollywood liberals are suddenly defending him.
Polanski's actions are reprehensible, and indefensible, and he pleaded guilty at one point. However, once realizing he was not above the law, and punishment was going to be handed out, Polanski ran.
Despite the sickening action of this man, and his cowardly run away from the authorities regarding this matter, the scum of the liberal film industry are demanding this felon child molester be set free.
Whoopi Goldberg said that Polanski didn't rape-rape the girl.
Then what do you call sex with a child as the child says no?
Woody Allen (his sex history speaks for itself), Pedro Almodovar (homosexual pedophile filmmaker whose first flick was about a man having a relationship with an underage boy), Martin Scorsese (the muck is getting deep), and Costa Gavras have actually signed a petition with about 100 other Hollywood-types names expressing anger about Mr. Polanski's arrest.
Even liberal blogs like the Huffington Post is coming to Polanski's defense.
Why did the arrest take so long?
This is the first opportunity they've had. The coward has been doing anything he can to escape the consequences for his perverted actions.
Hopefully, in the end, the piece of garbage will be in a U.S. prison soon. . . and the inmates don't take kindly to having pedophiles in their midst.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Polanski arrested in connection with sex charge - CNN
Polanski's Arrest: Shame on the Swiss - The Huffington Post
Roman Polanski has been hiding out because he knows what he did was wrong, and would land his butt in jail. Thirty two years ago, when he was forty-something, he raped a thirteen year old girl by drugging her, and frightening her into submission.
Extradition, now that Polanski left France for Zurich, Switzerland's Zurich Film Festival, has caught up to him, and he was arrested.
What is even more disgusting than the fact that this animal raped a child is the fact that all of the Hollywood liberals are suddenly defending him.
Polanski's actions are reprehensible, and indefensible, and he pleaded guilty at one point. However, once realizing he was not above the law, and punishment was going to be handed out, Polanski ran.
Despite the sickening action of this man, and his cowardly run away from the authorities regarding this matter, the scum of the liberal film industry are demanding this felon child molester be set free.
Whoopi Goldberg said that Polanski didn't rape-rape the girl.
Then what do you call sex with a child as the child says no?
Woody Allen (his sex history speaks for itself), Pedro Almodovar (homosexual pedophile filmmaker whose first flick was about a man having a relationship with an underage boy), Martin Scorsese (the muck is getting deep), and Costa Gavras have actually signed a petition with about 100 other Hollywood-types names expressing anger about Mr. Polanski's arrest.
Even liberal blogs like the Huffington Post is coming to Polanski's defense.
Why did the arrest take so long?
This is the first opportunity they've had. The coward has been doing anything he can to escape the consequences for his perverted actions.
Hopefully, in the end, the piece of garbage will be in a U.S. prison soon. . . and the inmates don't take kindly to having pedophiles in their midst.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Polanski arrested in connection with sex charge - CNN
Polanski's Arrest: Shame on the Swiss - The Huffington Post
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)