By Douglas V. Gibbs
Questions.
Many ask why the evil of communism was even given the chance to spread as it did, especially after a worldwide war to fight off Nazism, an ideology that also found its roots in far-left socialism. General Patton believed that after we defeated Germany in World War II, we needed to continue on into Russia and destroy the communist threat before it became too large to contain. During the Korean War General MacArthur recommended a stronger move into North Korea, and for the atomic bomb to be used on various targets in North Korea and China. Both were dismissed for their recommendations. Had we followed the advise of our military generals, the world would be a much different place, and more than likely, a much better place.
Communism is just another name for Utopianism, and a Utopian Society is the final goal of today's progressives. Regardless of the name, the hope by these leftists is the same, and the path to enact such a system of collectivism always follows the same destructive route. They desire a communal society that theoretically eliminates poverty, the need for monetary wealth, and the very concept of winning and losing. Problem is, human nature will never support such a pipe dream. We have seen such failures in the past. Today's Liberals are yesterday's Bolsheviks, and they don't even realize it.
Whenever the leftists attempt to equalize all, to make all things fair for people through government intervention, individual human nature will always reject the liberty-killing philosophy. If the system ever does take hold, as it has countless times throughout history, it will fail, leaving behind a bloody trail of millions. The "enlightened" minds behind the progressive movement are unwilling to accept the fact that as it has countless times before, their philosophy is doomed to failure. Each time rejection of their progressive system of government happens, the elitists behind the movement towards a Utopian society determine that they must push harder. After all, they think they know what is best for society more than the individual does, and that in the end collectivism will win out over individuality. However, every time collectivism makes such a push, the populace is not as receptive to socialistic collectivism as they had hoped. As a result, they decide to enact a new strategy, one that must be implemented without the people realizing what is going on, so that they can force liberal socialism upon the people whether the people like it, or not.
The strategy of deception is often compared to the boiling of a frog. At first, in the cooking pot, the frog believes he is in a hot tub, until the slowly rising heat gets to a point that he is cooked, and it is too late to escape. What was thought to be good for him turned out to be the end of him.
Creeping incrementalism promises the people one thing while delivering another. The socialists could never allow the populace to realize the true nature of their movement, so they hide their socialism, calling it by other names, even though their platforms are obviously socialist in nature. They inject the socialism slowly, careful not to deliver so much socialism that the populace discovers the exact nature of the strategy, and removes the liberals from office.
Socialism cannot win in the arena of ideas because ultimately the citizens of a free country will reject it should they discover what it is. Therefore, along with the stealth tactics of implementing socialism, the leftists must also destroy the trust and faith the people have in their current system. Capitalism must be demonized, and the citizenry is convinced that the free market is the cause of their economic woes, despite the fact, as in the case of the United States, it was that same free market that made the United States the most prosperous nation on the face of the Earth.
The attack against any dissent is vicious and unrelenting. Most people don't want socialism, and they do not desire to live under a socialist system, so the Socialists resort to deception through a series of lies, coupled with the unrelenting demonization of any system that dares to oppose socialism, including capitalism and faith-based religions.
One way to attack the opposition is for members of the liberal left to ask questions that corners the opposition, forcing them into a defensive posture. The leftists then to use the answers by their opposition as a tool of propaganda, twisting the meaning of the conservative's words any way they can. They ask questions of non-socialists not because they are searching for answers. They ask questions not in the hopes of learning something. They don't even ask questions with the determination of figuring out where "right-wingers" stand based on the answers given. The entire goal of asking pointed questions is to receive answers that can be used as fodder for their destruction of faith in the capitalistic system, and to further demonize the positions of those that oppose them.
As the opposition is demonized, programs are put into place by the leftists that masquerade as beneficial to the society. The purpose of these programs, however, is not to benefit the populace, but to soften the populace up, get them used to receiving gifts from the national treasury, and to allow the government to be able to exert more control over the populace. One of the tools used to achieve such control the redistribution of wealth. The promise is that the wealth is to be redistributed from the wealthy to those poor individuals at the bottom of the economic ladder. In reality, the government is taking from one to give it to another, but the receptor is ultimately those who control the system.
Once Socialism gains total control over the market place, and the government becomes the final employer of all workers. The right to provide for one's family becomes a privilege once the private sector is eliminated - a privilege that can be taken away from the government if the leaders should choose.
If the American People were to realize that the final result of liberalism is the same as that of communism, Obama would never have been elected. This is why the deception must be used. The true nature of leftism would never win an election.
Leftism contains two kinds of people. The deceivers, and the deceived. Collectivism is a wicked spell put on the people, that finds its roots in a variety of evils that have traipsed across the world stage throughout history. Today's leftism, however, is not just utopianism or Marxism, but a bastard child that encompasses all of the worst philosophies, and much, much more. The only hope to turn it around is to battle against this dangerous ideology with conservatism. Once those that have been deceived realize the dangerous nature of the philosophy of liberalism, the nation will then be set back on the right track, following a course set out by the founding fathers of this nation - a course that includes a small, limited federal government.
It seems amazing to me that anyone could be so naively optimistic about a utopian style belief system when it has failed so many times in the past. Today marks the anniversary of the day the Berlin Wall fell, a blazing example of the failure of Marxist utopianism. In fact, every time the push for a worldwide utopia has been launched, the fall of the effort created a worldwide reminder of the danger of such endeavors. Progressivism in any form is very dangerous.
Liberalism eliminates choice, which in turn kills freedom, but nonetheless, the deception finds a way to convince the people that such slavery is what they need.
Socialists never admit the failures of the past, and will only keep trying to force socialism on the people until they succeed - a success that will always elude them for eternity because a socialistic form of government cannot exist for long. This is part of the reason, I believe, Barack Obama refused to attend in person the celebration of the 20th anniversary of the day the Berlin Wall fell. He does not celebrate the day the Berlin Wall fell - he mourns it. He is a socialist, and the fall of the Berlin Wall represents yet another failure of the kind of governmental system that Barack Obama believes in.
Besides, Obama's narcissistic nature would never allow him to attend the event anyway - the memory of Ronald Reagan would upstage him, and his ego would never be able to handle that.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Monday, November 09, 2009
Sunday, November 08, 2009
Obama's Health Care Bill Narrowly Passes House, On Its Way To Destroy Choice and Liberty
By Douglas V. Gibbs
The Democratic Party's proposal for health care changes has been losing steam, and one by one politicians have been realizing that a vote for Obamacare spells no re-election for them in 2010, or whenever their next re-election bid is. Recognizing the writing on the wall, Nancy Pelosi knew they had to work fast before they lost any more votes, and the people had the chance to convince more legislators to move away from government-controlled health care. One of the methods of slowing the damage was for Pelosi and gang to eliminate the words upsetting people, and replace them with more acceptable verbiage - even though the goals of the bill changed very little. By changing the language into an even more ambiguous piece of legislative trash that promotes the end of the private health care industry as we know it, the nearly 2,000 page monstrosity, of which nobody in Congress has fully read, went to vote on Saturday. Government intervention into the health insurance world won yesterday by a narrow 220-215 vote, clearing the way for the Senate to begin what will prove to be a long and vicious debate on the issue that has become more important to Obama than even the lives of our troops in Afghanistan.
Public opinion is hostile towards the idea of federal government intrusion into the best health care system in the world. Amazingly, the little bubble the leftist politicians live in says otherwise to Pelosi's zombies, and inside the beltway of Washington DC the bill looks unstoppable to the small-brained leftist politicians. The fact that the American People are rejecting the dangerous step into a socialist society did not convince them to put a stop to the bill, but it will be defeated in the Senate. Enough not-so-Marxist Democrats in the United States Senate will shy away from joining their hard left whacko compadres, and the move towards choice-killing government-controlled health insurance will die on the Senate floor. Or at least such legislation will be killed until the leftists can come up with more language for a piece of legislation that makes less sense, but sounds like it might not be a pledge to Marxism as this bill does.
A couple Saturdays ago, on Halloween, a liberal Canadian called into my Political Pistachio Radio Revolution radio program during the second hour to try to explain to me why government intrusion into a private system is a good idea. He threw around the usual propaganda, beginning with the argument that Canada spends less on health care, per capita, than does the United States. Therefore, that must mean the Canadian government-controlled system must be better. I don't know the details on why we spend more, but I am willing to bet that malpractice suits (and the behavior by the medical industry the fear of malpractice suits bring), and the behavior of Americans in their daily lives, are a large part as to why our health care costs more. Think about it, we are the wealthiest nation in the world. Our poverty-stricken citizens live better than nearly 90% of the rest of the world. We eat a lot of fast-food, participate in more activities that carry some kind of risk, and more Americans smoke than in other countries. So could it be that our health care costs are higher per capita partly because we live so well, and not because our health care system is lousy?
The caller then argued that 47 million people in the United States are without health care. When I questioned the number, he argued it must be true because all of the news outlets say so. They get their numbers from the Democrat controlled government, so of course those are the numbers they are going to report. But, the number is in error. "47 million" without health care is a lie. The Democrats are lying to you every time they say that all these people are without health care, but they continue on with the number because they realize it strikes a chord with the American People.
First of all, 47 million people would be roughly 1 out of 6 Americans, and that is obviously false. Secondly, included in that number is a large amount of people that are either in this country illegally, are between employers and will have health insurance soon through a new employer, or choose not to buy health insurance for personal reasons. As for the people that are indeed without health insurance, and desire to have coverage, they are not without health care - almost every state has a state-run system, usually used by people as temporary care. If I was without health insurance, here in California, I could go down to the county hospital and receive care using the Medi-Cal program. Health care is available to the 47 million the Democrats claim are without health care, through the states. So, the Democrats are not really trying to get people health care that don't have care, but are trying to get the federal government into the mess of things, which will ultimately kill the private care system, and the state programs, leaving only the federal government in control of all health issues. And they are willing to destroy a private system that most Americans are happy with to do so, leaving Americans without choice.
"If you were president right now, then, what would you do to fix the health care system that is obviously broken?" asked the caller.
Tort Reform is one thing I would encourage if I were president, but I think it is unconstitutional for the Republicans to try to push for Tort Reform from a federal angle. This is something the states must pursue. Tort Reform is reforming the legal system, of which the federal government has no authority. But, if states were to institute Tort Reform, it would eliminate, or at least control, frivolous malpractice suits. The real savings, however, from Tort Reform, would not just be a drop in costs regarding the law suits, but the changes in the behavior of the medical community as a result of such. Currently, malpractice insurance is sky-high because of the problem of frivolous suits. The eventual drop in those rates would transfer into a drop in health care costs as well. Other benefits would be that doctors, now not so fearful of frivolous suits, would not order unnecessary procedures to show they covered all bases, nor would they depend so heavily on pharmaceuticals. Ultimately, health care costs would drop dramatically if Tort Reform was instituted among the states. Tort Reform should also limit punitive damage cases that award millions, while reducing the size of punitive awards.
As president I would also institute a "get government out of health care plan" that would draw back on many rules and regulations that do not necessarily make the system better, but actually hurt health care in America. I would allow companies to sell across state lines, and I would allow insurance to create products that include "catastrophic care only." Currently, such products are not allowed because of government regulations.
Our health care system is like a car engine, and the engine has a great number of things wrong with it. The person who wishes to keep his costs down, and get his hands dirty, is going to stick his hands into that engine and fix what is wrong with it.
The engine of health care is not running smoothly. It needs an oil change, a new battery, a tune up, and the belt on the alternator needs to be pulled tighter. Knowing this, it doesn't seem wise to then say, "Okay, I guess we have to replace the whole engine, and while we are at it, let's put an engine in that is not made for this make and model, and has been proven to fail." Instead, we need to fix the individual problems, and allow capitalism to finish the job of straightening out our problem through healthy free market principles. Increasing private industry competition (which is not achieved by inserting a government competitor) will increase quality and decrease cost.
Liberals argue Capitalism had its chance - but that is not true - because the government has been fiddling with the system through outrageous government controls for decades. A true free market option has yet to be allowed by government.
The government has been the primary problem regarding our deteriorating health insurance system, and the government thinks it can now fix the health care mess by injecting more government. If government's misuse of the Commerce Clause in the U.S. Constitution was lifted, and policies could be sold across state lines, the competition alone will drive down prices. If government regulation, of which Teddy Kennedy was behind a lot of, that determines how policies are built was pulled back, and insurance companies were allowed to build policies the people want to buy, the prices would also drop.
The HMO style insurance, which was pushed by the Democrats, is a large part of the problem. I don't charge my auto insurance to take my car in for an oil change, a brake job, or an alignment, so why do we use insurance for every routine doctor's visit? If insurance companies were allowed to create catastrophic policies, meaning that people would be paying out of their pocket for most of their health care, it would drive prices down as doctors began to compete for patients. The price of coverage would drop as well because the insurance companies would not be paying for every sniffle, cough, and sneeze. The problem is, thanks to Teddy Kennedy and the Democrats of 50 years ago (and since), we expect our insurance to pay for us to have our temperature taken. That's crazy. My routine visits should be paid by me. I should have the ability to buy catastrophic insurance if I so desire. But the federal government has so many restrictions on the industry that those kinds of products are not readily available.
Now, after not allowing the health insurance industry to create products for the consumer that is best for the consumer, they wish to insert themselves directly into the health care circus. But the Congress, in the bill that just narrowly squeezed by in the House vote, is making the politicians exempt from having to use Obamacare. If a government option is so wonderful, why won't the elitist politicians use it?
Ultimately, after all of the arguments from his side, and myself, the caller on my radio program brought up how in his province, Manitoba, automobile insurance is through a government program. He was bringing it up to illustrate how well the government can run something. He said that his public auto insurance is second to none. It is one of the most affordable insurance plans in the country with fantastic coverage, quick claims service, and it has a variable rate that rewards drivers that live in lower-risk areas (using risk tables which are also used in the private industry).
I asked the caller, "What about the private companies? Aren't they able to compete with this automobile public option? Are there any private companies?"
He responded, "For auto insurance? No."
"Why not?"
"Because it's public."
I then asked, "So are private insurance companies not allowed?"
"Not for auto insurance, not in this province."
The rope was in place, so I asked, "Doesn't that limit you? Even though this public insurance is so good, and I am glad it is a wonderful thing, but doesn't that limit you? What if you wanted different coverage, of just simply desired something different? I mean, you are limited to only what the government can offer. What if the government decided they wanted to change it on you? There's nothing you can do about it."
The Canadian liberal responded, "Like I said, it is second to none."
I guess it's easy to be "second to none" when there is no competition because you killed it all with a governmental option.
I continued, "That's not my point. I am glad it is second to none. That's wonderful, I am glad it works out very well for you. But the opportunity is there for the government to change things on you, and there is nothing you could do about it. Your choice is limited. If you suddenly didn't like what they were doing you couldn't say, 'okay, fine, they suck now, I am going to go over to this company.' You can't, because there is no other company. See, that's my point. I am glad it is wonderful, and I am not putting down that you have a wonderful option, that's great - but what if it stops being great? You don't have a choice. Liberty is all about choice. That is one of my problems with, for example, federally funded health insurance. Eventually it will kill the private industry, and my choice will be limited to one location. Choice equals freedom, and freedom equals liberty. So you are in a situation. . . that even if it is second to none, your government if they wanted to - let's say they ran into problems with paying, there is a lot of accidents, whatever, and they stop covering a certain thing, and they raise how much you are paying, and all that, and suddenly it's like 'Wow, this is starting to really suck,' you've got nowhere to go because that's it, that's your choice. That's it! That's my complaint about government funded systems like that."
For those that believe Obama when he says, "If you like your coverage, you can keep it," grow up and face reality. Government is not providing competition with this plan that just passed the House of Representatives. The government has no profit margin, sets the rules, and can print money if it gets into trouble. How is that competition? The ultimate result, be it next year, ten years from now, or two dozen years from now, is the eventual death of private health insurance, and for the public option to be the only option. Period. And that eliminates your choice, your freedom to choose the product you wish to use. The solution to our health insurance problem is not more government. The solution is less government in the system. The federal government needs to back off and allow companies to sell across state lines, and for companies to be able to create products the consumers need - not products the government requires them to have.
Believe me when I say that if this bill passes the Senate, it will destroy choice. The government has already unconstitutionally (and even without legislative authority) taken over much of the banking industry, automobile industry, credit industry, and mortgage industry. The federal government has control of roughly 34% of the private sector, and will be in control of nearly half of the private sector should this bill pass, and the private health insurance industry will die as a result.
Ask yourself: Do you believe that is what the Founding Father's intended when they wrote the U.S. Constitution? Do you believe they desired the federal government to grow astronomically, control our lives, and tax us heavily? Do you believe they intended for America to eventually regress into a socialist nation controlled by a huge, centralized federal government?
The answer to each of those three questions is a resounding, "NO!"
Choice is liberty, and government paid health insurance is a liberty killer, and a move towards socialism - and socialism is a nation killer. America is exceptional because of its 233 year refusal to be like Europe. If we kill the American dream with the policies of today's hard left Democrat, we are doing more than just changing the foundation of the American Form of Government - we will kill this nation once and for all.
The traitors of the left would have you believe they are doing this to strengthen America, but in reality they are doing this to change America. They have a problem with our 233 year prosperity, and our standing as the greatest nation on Earth. For some reason they wish to destroy that - and that is anti-American. Stand with the real Americans, and do all you can to stop the anti-American, treasonous government-run health care that these hard left liberals are pushing.
We are our last hope. We are the resistance. We are America.
United We Stand, Combined We Kick Butt.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
The Democratic Party's proposal for health care changes has been losing steam, and one by one politicians have been realizing that a vote for Obamacare spells no re-election for them in 2010, or whenever their next re-election bid is. Recognizing the writing on the wall, Nancy Pelosi knew they had to work fast before they lost any more votes, and the people had the chance to convince more legislators to move away from government-controlled health care. One of the methods of slowing the damage was for Pelosi and gang to eliminate the words upsetting people, and replace them with more acceptable verbiage - even though the goals of the bill changed very little. By changing the language into an even more ambiguous piece of legislative trash that promotes the end of the private health care industry as we know it, the nearly 2,000 page monstrosity, of which nobody in Congress has fully read, went to vote on Saturday. Government intervention into the health insurance world won yesterday by a narrow 220-215 vote, clearing the way for the Senate to begin what will prove to be a long and vicious debate on the issue that has become more important to Obama than even the lives of our troops in Afghanistan.
Public opinion is hostile towards the idea of federal government intrusion into the best health care system in the world. Amazingly, the little bubble the leftist politicians live in says otherwise to Pelosi's zombies, and inside the beltway of Washington DC the bill looks unstoppable to the small-brained leftist politicians. The fact that the American People are rejecting the dangerous step into a socialist society did not convince them to put a stop to the bill, but it will be defeated in the Senate. Enough not-so-Marxist Democrats in the United States Senate will shy away from joining their hard left whacko compadres, and the move towards choice-killing government-controlled health insurance will die on the Senate floor. Or at least such legislation will be killed until the leftists can come up with more language for a piece of legislation that makes less sense, but sounds like it might not be a pledge to Marxism as this bill does.
A couple Saturdays ago, on Halloween, a liberal Canadian called into my Political Pistachio Radio Revolution radio program during the second hour to try to explain to me why government intrusion into a private system is a good idea. He threw around the usual propaganda, beginning with the argument that Canada spends less on health care, per capita, than does the United States. Therefore, that must mean the Canadian government-controlled system must be better. I don't know the details on why we spend more, but I am willing to bet that malpractice suits (and the behavior by the medical industry the fear of malpractice suits bring), and the behavior of Americans in their daily lives, are a large part as to why our health care costs more. Think about it, we are the wealthiest nation in the world. Our poverty-stricken citizens live better than nearly 90% of the rest of the world. We eat a lot of fast-food, participate in more activities that carry some kind of risk, and more Americans smoke than in other countries. So could it be that our health care costs are higher per capita partly because we live so well, and not because our health care system is lousy?
The caller then argued that 47 million people in the United States are without health care. When I questioned the number, he argued it must be true because all of the news outlets say so. They get their numbers from the Democrat controlled government, so of course those are the numbers they are going to report. But, the number is in error. "47 million" without health care is a lie. The Democrats are lying to you every time they say that all these people are without health care, but they continue on with the number because they realize it strikes a chord with the American People.
First of all, 47 million people would be roughly 1 out of 6 Americans, and that is obviously false. Secondly, included in that number is a large amount of people that are either in this country illegally, are between employers and will have health insurance soon through a new employer, or choose not to buy health insurance for personal reasons. As for the people that are indeed without health insurance, and desire to have coverage, they are not without health care - almost every state has a state-run system, usually used by people as temporary care. If I was without health insurance, here in California, I could go down to the county hospital and receive care using the Medi-Cal program. Health care is available to the 47 million the Democrats claim are without health care, through the states. So, the Democrats are not really trying to get people health care that don't have care, but are trying to get the federal government into the mess of things, which will ultimately kill the private care system, and the state programs, leaving only the federal government in control of all health issues. And they are willing to destroy a private system that most Americans are happy with to do so, leaving Americans without choice.
"If you were president right now, then, what would you do to fix the health care system that is obviously broken?" asked the caller.
Tort Reform is one thing I would encourage if I were president, but I think it is unconstitutional for the Republicans to try to push for Tort Reform from a federal angle. This is something the states must pursue. Tort Reform is reforming the legal system, of which the federal government has no authority. But, if states were to institute Tort Reform, it would eliminate, or at least control, frivolous malpractice suits. The real savings, however, from Tort Reform, would not just be a drop in costs regarding the law suits, but the changes in the behavior of the medical community as a result of such. Currently, malpractice insurance is sky-high because of the problem of frivolous suits. The eventual drop in those rates would transfer into a drop in health care costs as well. Other benefits would be that doctors, now not so fearful of frivolous suits, would not order unnecessary procedures to show they covered all bases, nor would they depend so heavily on pharmaceuticals. Ultimately, health care costs would drop dramatically if Tort Reform was instituted among the states. Tort Reform should also limit punitive damage cases that award millions, while reducing the size of punitive awards.
As president I would also institute a "get government out of health care plan" that would draw back on many rules and regulations that do not necessarily make the system better, but actually hurt health care in America. I would allow companies to sell across state lines, and I would allow insurance to create products that include "catastrophic care only." Currently, such products are not allowed because of government regulations.
Our health care system is like a car engine, and the engine has a great number of things wrong with it. The person who wishes to keep his costs down, and get his hands dirty, is going to stick his hands into that engine and fix what is wrong with it.
The engine of health care is not running smoothly. It needs an oil change, a new battery, a tune up, and the belt on the alternator needs to be pulled tighter. Knowing this, it doesn't seem wise to then say, "Okay, I guess we have to replace the whole engine, and while we are at it, let's put an engine in that is not made for this make and model, and has been proven to fail." Instead, we need to fix the individual problems, and allow capitalism to finish the job of straightening out our problem through healthy free market principles. Increasing private industry competition (which is not achieved by inserting a government competitor) will increase quality and decrease cost.
Liberals argue Capitalism had its chance - but that is not true - because the government has been fiddling with the system through outrageous government controls for decades. A true free market option has yet to be allowed by government.
The government has been the primary problem regarding our deteriorating health insurance system, and the government thinks it can now fix the health care mess by injecting more government. If government's misuse of the Commerce Clause in the U.S. Constitution was lifted, and policies could be sold across state lines, the competition alone will drive down prices. If government regulation, of which Teddy Kennedy was behind a lot of, that determines how policies are built was pulled back, and insurance companies were allowed to build policies the people want to buy, the prices would also drop.
The HMO style insurance, which was pushed by the Democrats, is a large part of the problem. I don't charge my auto insurance to take my car in for an oil change, a brake job, or an alignment, so why do we use insurance for every routine doctor's visit? If insurance companies were allowed to create catastrophic policies, meaning that people would be paying out of their pocket for most of their health care, it would drive prices down as doctors began to compete for patients. The price of coverage would drop as well because the insurance companies would not be paying for every sniffle, cough, and sneeze. The problem is, thanks to Teddy Kennedy and the Democrats of 50 years ago (and since), we expect our insurance to pay for us to have our temperature taken. That's crazy. My routine visits should be paid by me. I should have the ability to buy catastrophic insurance if I so desire. But the federal government has so many restrictions on the industry that those kinds of products are not readily available.
Now, after not allowing the health insurance industry to create products for the consumer that is best for the consumer, they wish to insert themselves directly into the health care circus. But the Congress, in the bill that just narrowly squeezed by in the House vote, is making the politicians exempt from having to use Obamacare. If a government option is so wonderful, why won't the elitist politicians use it?
Ultimately, after all of the arguments from his side, and myself, the caller on my radio program brought up how in his province, Manitoba, automobile insurance is through a government program. He was bringing it up to illustrate how well the government can run something. He said that his public auto insurance is second to none. It is one of the most affordable insurance plans in the country with fantastic coverage, quick claims service, and it has a variable rate that rewards drivers that live in lower-risk areas (using risk tables which are also used in the private industry).
I asked the caller, "What about the private companies? Aren't they able to compete with this automobile public option? Are there any private companies?"
He responded, "For auto insurance? No."
"Why not?"
"Because it's public."
I then asked, "So are private insurance companies not allowed?"
"Not for auto insurance, not in this province."
The rope was in place, so I asked, "Doesn't that limit you? Even though this public insurance is so good, and I am glad it is a wonderful thing, but doesn't that limit you? What if you wanted different coverage, of just simply desired something different? I mean, you are limited to only what the government can offer. What if the government decided they wanted to change it on you? There's nothing you can do about it."
The Canadian liberal responded, "Like I said, it is second to none."
I guess it's easy to be "second to none" when there is no competition because you killed it all with a governmental option.
I continued, "That's not my point. I am glad it is second to none. That's wonderful, I am glad it works out very well for you. But the opportunity is there for the government to change things on you, and there is nothing you could do about it. Your choice is limited. If you suddenly didn't like what they were doing you couldn't say, 'okay, fine, they suck now, I am going to go over to this company.' You can't, because there is no other company. See, that's my point. I am glad it is wonderful, and I am not putting down that you have a wonderful option, that's great - but what if it stops being great? You don't have a choice. Liberty is all about choice. That is one of my problems with, for example, federally funded health insurance. Eventually it will kill the private industry, and my choice will be limited to one location. Choice equals freedom, and freedom equals liberty. So you are in a situation. . . that even if it is second to none, your government if they wanted to - let's say they ran into problems with paying, there is a lot of accidents, whatever, and they stop covering a certain thing, and they raise how much you are paying, and all that, and suddenly it's like 'Wow, this is starting to really suck,' you've got nowhere to go because that's it, that's your choice. That's it! That's my complaint about government funded systems like that."
For those that believe Obama when he says, "If you like your coverage, you can keep it," grow up and face reality. Government is not providing competition with this plan that just passed the House of Representatives. The government has no profit margin, sets the rules, and can print money if it gets into trouble. How is that competition? The ultimate result, be it next year, ten years from now, or two dozen years from now, is the eventual death of private health insurance, and for the public option to be the only option. Period. And that eliminates your choice, your freedom to choose the product you wish to use. The solution to our health insurance problem is not more government. The solution is less government in the system. The federal government needs to back off and allow companies to sell across state lines, and for companies to be able to create products the consumers need - not products the government requires them to have.
Believe me when I say that if this bill passes the Senate, it will destroy choice. The government has already unconstitutionally (and even without legislative authority) taken over much of the banking industry, automobile industry, credit industry, and mortgage industry. The federal government has control of roughly 34% of the private sector, and will be in control of nearly half of the private sector should this bill pass, and the private health insurance industry will die as a result.
Ask yourself: Do you believe that is what the Founding Father's intended when they wrote the U.S. Constitution? Do you believe they desired the federal government to grow astronomically, control our lives, and tax us heavily? Do you believe they intended for America to eventually regress into a socialist nation controlled by a huge, centralized federal government?
The answer to each of those three questions is a resounding, "NO!"
Choice is liberty, and government paid health insurance is a liberty killer, and a move towards socialism - and socialism is a nation killer. America is exceptional because of its 233 year refusal to be like Europe. If we kill the American dream with the policies of today's hard left Democrat, we are doing more than just changing the foundation of the American Form of Government - we will kill this nation once and for all.
The traitors of the left would have you believe they are doing this to strengthen America, but in reality they are doing this to change America. They have a problem with our 233 year prosperity, and our standing as the greatest nation on Earth. For some reason they wish to destroy that - and that is anti-American. Stand with the real Americans, and do all you can to stop the anti-American, treasonous government-run health care that these hard left liberals are pushing.
We are our last hope. We are the resistance. We are America.
United We Stand, Combined We Kick Butt.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Saturday, November 07, 2009
Flight 93 Memorial to Break Ground Despite Protest Over Crescent
By Douglas V. Gibbs
United Airlines Flight 93 was intended to fly from Newark, New Jersey to San Francisco, California on September 11, 2001. Three other planes were hijacked by Islamic Terrorists and flown into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. United Flight 93 never reached its intended target. After phone calls to the outside world, the passengers of Flight 93 learned of the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center in New York, and the Pentagon in Washington. Realizing their flight had been hijacked by similar terrorists, the passengers decided to mount an assault against the hijackers and gain control of the aircraft. The battle for control of United 93 proved to be successful in the sense that the aircraft never reached its target. The plane crashed in a field near Shanksville, in Somerset County, Pennsylvania, killing all aboard.
Passenger Todd Beamer, and his final words, "Are you guys ready? Let's roll!" have become synonymous with heroism, and has since become widely appropriated as a battle cry.
Crackpot theories emerged shortly after that the FBI shot down Flight 93, or that the passengers never made it to the cockpit and the terrorists decided to nose dive the plane because they realized they had lost control. Honestly, we will never know the exact happenings on that flight before it crashed into that field. But regardless of the details, it makes me proud that those passengers did not just cower in their seats. They took action. They were willing to sacrifice themselves to protect countless others. The only word I can muster for such an acts is Heroism - Heroes, each and every one of them.
The site of the crash houses a temporary memorial that has brought together the residents of the surrounding area, the families of the victims, and the Americans that visit the site to pay their respects. To replace the temporary memorial, a permanent memorial site has been in the planning, and they are breaking ground for the construction of the memorial that will encompass 2,200 acres surrounding the crash site today. The $58 million permanent memorial to the 40 victims of Flight 93 includes a 93-foot tower with 40 wind chimes. The chosen design of the memorial, however, has been the subject of criticism, but despite the protests against the design, the ground-breaking will go on as scheduled, and the completed memorial is scheduled to be dedicated in 2011.
Listening to flight attendant CeeCee Lyles' message she left on her answering machine for her husband to let him know her plane had been hijacked serves as a grim reminder of what happened. Listening to the audio my eyes welled with tears, and I ask myself, what kind of monsters could do such a thing? The Islamic Jihad was behind those attacks, despite what all of the conspiracy theorists are suggesting, no different than the fact that the Islamic Jihad mentality drove an Army Major to kill 13, and injure another 30, at Fort Hood, Texas.
The outrage over the design stems from the fact that the design of the permanent memorial memorializes the terrorists as well, even placing the terrorists above the 40 Americans with symbolic images that damn the 40 while elevating the Islamic Jihadists.
The Tower of Voices, which will be a tower with 40 wind chimes in it, will be capped with an Islamic shaped crescent. The symbolic nature of the Tower of Voices, according to Alec Rawls, by hanging the 40 chimes under the Islamic crescent and star depicts the 40 heroes as damned, cast out of the symbolic Islamic heavens. The Tower of Voices quite literally has an Islamic shaped crescent soaring in the sky above forty symbolic souls that literally dangle below. The "Forty symbolic souls, never to rest in peace, gonging for eternity in their symbolic damnation, strung like fish as they hang down from the symbolic Islamic heavens projected in the sky above."
A circle of trees lines the edge of "The Bowl," but the circle is broken. Upon closer inspection the broken circle is a giant Islamic-shaped crescent (that just happens to point to Mecca, like the Mecca direction indicator around which every mosque is built). The symbolic nature of this depicts an al-Qaeda victory.
The Flight 93 Memorial is designed, quite literally, to be the world's largest mosque.
Coincidentally enough, you will find little, or no mention of the controversy regarding the design of the memorial, in the mainstream media.
A memorial needs to be at the crash site. The memorial should be a dedication to the heroism of the crew and passengers of United 93, solely designed in their memory, with no symbolism that could be construed as Islamic. The hijackers were not victims of a misunderstanding. As individuals they were fully capable of making their own decisions, and they chose to be Jihadists, and murderers.
I don't know what the reasoning is behind the Islamic symbolism at the Flight 93 Memorial, but I do know this: any Islamic references in the design, regardless of what we think, will be recognized as a symbol of Islamic Victory over the lives of those 40 Americans that died when United 93 plowed into a field near Shanksville, Pennsylvania, by the Muslim world. That is unacceptable, and should not be tolerated. The site needs to be redesigned, and the memories of those heroes should not be tainted.
Let's Roll.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Groundbreaking Saturday For Permanent Flight 93 Memorial - WJACTV
Pa. Locals, Flight 93 Families United by History - ABC News
Moral Muslims don’t want a memorial to the terrorists on the Flight 93 crash site - The Political Octagon
Flight 93 Memorial Ground Breaking - National Park Service
Petition drive now underway: Stop the Flight 93 memorial! - Crescent of Betrayal
Construction drawings released: Flight 93 crescent now points less than 3° from Mecca - Error Theory
United Airlines Flight 93 was intended to fly from Newark, New Jersey to San Francisco, California on September 11, 2001. Three other planes were hijacked by Islamic Terrorists and flown into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. United Flight 93 never reached its intended target. After phone calls to the outside world, the passengers of Flight 93 learned of the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center in New York, and the Pentagon in Washington. Realizing their flight had been hijacked by similar terrorists, the passengers decided to mount an assault against the hijackers and gain control of the aircraft. The battle for control of United 93 proved to be successful in the sense that the aircraft never reached its target. The plane crashed in a field near Shanksville, in Somerset County, Pennsylvania, killing all aboard.
Passenger Todd Beamer, and his final words, "Are you guys ready? Let's roll!" have become synonymous with heroism, and has since become widely appropriated as a battle cry.
Crackpot theories emerged shortly after that the FBI shot down Flight 93, or that the passengers never made it to the cockpit and the terrorists decided to nose dive the plane because they realized they had lost control. Honestly, we will never know the exact happenings on that flight before it crashed into that field. But regardless of the details, it makes me proud that those passengers did not just cower in their seats. They took action. They were willing to sacrifice themselves to protect countless others. The only word I can muster for such an acts is Heroism - Heroes, each and every one of them.
The site of the crash houses a temporary memorial that has brought together the residents of the surrounding area, the families of the victims, and the Americans that visit the site to pay their respects. To replace the temporary memorial, a permanent memorial site has been in the planning, and they are breaking ground for the construction of the memorial that will encompass 2,200 acres surrounding the crash site today. The $58 million permanent memorial to the 40 victims of Flight 93 includes a 93-foot tower with 40 wind chimes. The chosen design of the memorial, however, has been the subject of criticism, but despite the protests against the design, the ground-breaking will go on as scheduled, and the completed memorial is scheduled to be dedicated in 2011.
Listening to flight attendant CeeCee Lyles' message she left on her answering machine for her husband to let him know her plane had been hijacked serves as a grim reminder of what happened. Listening to the audio my eyes welled with tears, and I ask myself, what kind of monsters could do such a thing? The Islamic Jihad was behind those attacks, despite what all of the conspiracy theorists are suggesting, no different than the fact that the Islamic Jihad mentality drove an Army Major to kill 13, and injure another 30, at Fort Hood, Texas.
The outrage over the design stems from the fact that the design of the permanent memorial memorializes the terrorists as well, even placing the terrorists above the 40 Americans with symbolic images that damn the 40 while elevating the Islamic Jihadists.
The Tower of Voices, which will be a tower with 40 wind chimes in it, will be capped with an Islamic shaped crescent. The symbolic nature of the Tower of Voices, according to Alec Rawls, by hanging the 40 chimes under the Islamic crescent and star depicts the 40 heroes as damned, cast out of the symbolic Islamic heavens. The Tower of Voices quite literally has an Islamic shaped crescent soaring in the sky above forty symbolic souls that literally dangle below. The "Forty symbolic souls, never to rest in peace, gonging for eternity in their symbolic damnation, strung like fish as they hang down from the symbolic Islamic heavens projected in the sky above."
A circle of trees lines the edge of "The Bowl," but the circle is broken. Upon closer inspection the broken circle is a giant Islamic-shaped crescent (that just happens to point to Mecca, like the Mecca direction indicator around which every mosque is built). The symbolic nature of this depicts an al-Qaeda victory.
The Flight 93 Memorial is designed, quite literally, to be the world's largest mosque.
Coincidentally enough, you will find little, or no mention of the controversy regarding the design of the memorial, in the mainstream media.
A memorial needs to be at the crash site. The memorial should be a dedication to the heroism of the crew and passengers of United 93, solely designed in their memory, with no symbolism that could be construed as Islamic. The hijackers were not victims of a misunderstanding. As individuals they were fully capable of making their own decisions, and they chose to be Jihadists, and murderers.
I don't know what the reasoning is behind the Islamic symbolism at the Flight 93 Memorial, but I do know this: any Islamic references in the design, regardless of what we think, will be recognized as a symbol of Islamic Victory over the lives of those 40 Americans that died when United 93 plowed into a field near Shanksville, Pennsylvania, by the Muslim world. That is unacceptable, and should not be tolerated. The site needs to be redesigned, and the memories of those heroes should not be tainted.
Let's Roll.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Groundbreaking Saturday For Permanent Flight 93 Memorial - WJACTV
Pa. Locals, Flight 93 Families United by History - ABC News
Moral Muslims don’t want a memorial to the terrorists on the Flight 93 crash site - The Political Octagon
Flight 93 Memorial Ground Breaking - National Park Service
Petition drive now underway: Stop the Flight 93 memorial! - Crescent of Betrayal
Construction drawings released: Flight 93 crescent now points less than 3° from Mecca - Error Theory
Friday, November 06, 2009
Islamic Jihad Strikes Fort Hood
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Major Nidal Malik Hasan's attack at Fort Hood, Texas killing 13 people, and wounding another 30, was an act of terrorism. The media may be tippy-toeing around the truth, but the facts are that Hasan is a Muslim who on his web-site provided pro-jihadist propaganda, and screamed Allah Akbar as he fired upon the innocent.
Immediately, the U.S. Government said that they had discounted the possibility of it being terrorism.
Then what was it? A misunderstood victim that popped a cork?
The way government and the media are treating this horrendous tragedy is what makes me the maddest. It is a double-standard.
If a non-Muslim had fired into a room of Muslims, this would be a hate-crime. But a Muslim firing into a room of non-Muslims isn't. If a person claiming to be a Christian, screaming "Jesus is Great" as he opened fire as Hasan did, committed this kind of atrocity, the media would be all over it, launching investigations of the danger of radical right-wing Christianity in America. A Muslim does something like this, and suddenly everyone is careful about about what they say.
Why? What are you afraid of? It's not like you are drawing a cartoon of Muhammed, or anything.
The double-standard is deafening.
A terrorist attack happened on Obama's watch, and many more will follow. We had no terrorist attacks after 9-11 because Bush took it to the enemy. Appeaser Obama, however, is inviting such attacks with his weakness. And once the jihadists see Obama's lackadaisical response to this attack, they will push the boundaries, test the waters, and we will be hit again.
If we are not willing to admit who our enemy is, how are we supposed to fight them?
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Major Nidal Malik Hasan's attack at Fort Hood, Texas killing 13 people, and wounding another 30, was an act of terrorism. The media may be tippy-toeing around the truth, but the facts are that Hasan is a Muslim who on his web-site provided pro-jihadist propaganda, and screamed Allah Akbar as he fired upon the innocent.
Immediately, the U.S. Government said that they had discounted the possibility of it being terrorism.
Then what was it? A misunderstood victim that popped a cork?
The way government and the media are treating this horrendous tragedy is what makes me the maddest. It is a double-standard.
If a non-Muslim had fired into a room of Muslims, this would be a hate-crime. But a Muslim firing into a room of non-Muslims isn't. If a person claiming to be a Christian, screaming "Jesus is Great" as he opened fire as Hasan did, committed this kind of atrocity, the media would be all over it, launching investigations of the danger of radical right-wing Christianity in America. A Muslim does something like this, and suddenly everyone is careful about about what they say.
Why? What are you afraid of? It's not like you are drawing a cartoon of Muhammed, or anything.
The double-standard is deafening.
A terrorist attack happened on Obama's watch, and many more will follow. We had no terrorist attacks after 9-11 because Bush took it to the enemy. Appeaser Obama, however, is inviting such attacks with his weakness. And once the jihadists see Obama's lackadaisical response to this attack, they will push the boundaries, test the waters, and we will be hit again.
If we are not willing to admit who our enemy is, how are we supposed to fight them?
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Impeach Obama Campaign Creator Floyd Brown on Political Pistachio Radio
The Impeach Obama campaign was launched by political activist Floyd Brown, the man behind the infamous Willie Horton ad campaign that devastated Gov. Michael Dukakis' candidacy for president. Floyd Brown was also one of the first citizens to sound the alarm on impeaching President Bill Clinton. Now, with Obama in office, and the Democrats in control of Congress, Brown says the United States is collapsing around its citizens right now.
"Make no mistake," says Brown, "We're now in the middle of a bloodless coup - the takeover of an entire nation by the hate-America crowd - a cold-blooded gang that despises America's prosperity, our standing in the world, our trust in God and our generosity and goodness."
Floyd suggests the best defense is nothing less than a strike at the emperor, saying, "Like so many on the far-left before him, going all the way back to Karl Marx, Obama believes that it's his mission to promote 'equality of outcome' over 'equality of opportunity' even if Americans must learn to live in chains to make it happen. That worldview makes Barack Hussein Obama a very dangerous man and one of the greatest threats to your personal liberty today."
Brown contends that Obama was acting on his world view by 'gobbling-up major banks, adding, "If you wake up one day to discover you're broke, don't be surprised. Barack Hussein Obama is Bernie Madoff with the political power of the presidency at his disposal. That dangerous worldview explains why his attorney general, Eric Holder, despises the 2nd Amendment. . . And that dangerous worldview explains why Obama intends to take away your freedom to choose your own doctor. . . your own treatment."
"Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution reads: 'The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.'"
According to an October 8, 2009 WorldNetDaily article quoting the Impeach Obama Campaign, Obama already has:
1) Lied to the American people when he said people could keep private insurance, knowing full well that his legislation would inevitably drive private insurers out of business.
2) Vindictively fired Inspector General Gerald Walpin, who investigated Kevin Johnson, a buddy of the president, for misuse of funds from an AmeriCorps grant.
3) Supervised the effective takeover by government of banks, the largest insurance company (AIG), and General Motors (GM) and Chrysler... the bulk of the U.S. auto industry, thus depriving bondholders, shareholders, and others of their property.
4) Pursued cap-and-trade legislation. It would in a manner of speaking tax the very air people exhale and give the government unprecedented control over the economy and American businesses.
5) Added a trillion dollars to the national debt in just a handful of weeks.
6) Appointed "Czars" to oversee everything from the closing of Guantanamo to the nation's food.
And finally, Obama has consistently refused to approve the release of his actual birth certificate, college transcripts and his medical records.
Rachel Maddow spent nearly 7 minutes discussing Floyd Brown's Impeach Obama Campaign website. She attacked Floyd Brown with a series of bogus accusations including being a tool of the "Republican Establishment with a capital R and Capital E."
Featured prominently on Brown’s homepage is a quote from talk show host Tammy Bruce who provided, with few words, a simple message that Brown thinks adequately captures the reason why he has gone to this extent – publicly calling for Obama’s impeachment.
Said Bruce of Obama: "... ultimately, it comes down to... the fact that he seems to have, it seems to me, some malevolence toward this country, which is unabated."
Click HERE to view Maddow’s segment on Floyd Brown.
Floyd Brown is the guest tonight on the Political Pistachio Radio Revolution. Join us live at 7:00 PM Pacific Time, or catch the archive later, at BlogTalkRadio.com/PoliticalPistachio.
Thursday, November 05, 2009
Obama's Afghanistan Debacle Reveals Him To Be A Coward
It has been months since the military commanders told Obama that the military effort needs more troops, equipment, and supplies. Support personnel are in place, but the number of infantry personnel is low. Support personnel are essential, and I am in no way demeaning their roles, but it takes the infantry to do the fighting, of which Obama has delayed delivery of.
Obama has been sending support personnel to jack up the number, while having no intention to actually fight the war.
While Obama tests the political wind before making a decision of such magnitude regarding troop levels, two things are becoming clear. First, his popularity (or what's left of it) and socialist agenda are more important to him than the lives of our troops. Second, Obama is a coward.
Hesitation in the world of military combat equals death. A lack of adequate personnel, equipment, or supplies can also cost lives. Decisions in the field must be made without hesitation, and without doubt. Such an inability to be decisive is dangerous, and potentially devastating to the mission. Therefore, Barack Obama's delay in performing his duty as Commander in Chief is placing the many lives of our military men and women in Afghanistan in grave danger.
Retired Lt. Colonel TigerBo Dawson (USMC) once explained to me that one definition of a coward is one that makes no decision for fear it might be the wrong decision. Using that definition, Barack Obama is a coward, and has no business trying to perform the role of Commander in Chief.
Barack Obama needs to make a decision (but his cowardliness won't allow him to). He needs to either follow his commander's recommendation, or he needs to pull the troops out. Anything else places our military in grave danger.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Obama has been sending support personnel to jack up the number, while having no intention to actually fight the war.
While Obama tests the political wind before making a decision of such magnitude regarding troop levels, two things are becoming clear. First, his popularity (or what's left of it) and socialist agenda are more important to him than the lives of our troops. Second, Obama is a coward.
Hesitation in the world of military combat equals death. A lack of adequate personnel, equipment, or supplies can also cost lives. Decisions in the field must be made without hesitation, and without doubt. Such an inability to be decisive is dangerous, and potentially devastating to the mission. Therefore, Barack Obama's delay in performing his duty as Commander in Chief is placing the many lives of our military men and women in Afghanistan in grave danger.
Retired Lt. Colonel TigerBo Dawson (USMC) once explained to me that one definition of a coward is one that makes no decision for fear it might be the wrong decision. Using that definition, Barack Obama is a coward, and has no business trying to perform the role of Commander in Chief.
Barack Obama needs to make a decision (but his cowardliness won't allow him to). He needs to either follow his commander's recommendation, or he needs to pull the troops out. Anything else places our military in grave danger.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Wednesday, November 04, 2009
Khomeini Class Destroyers
By Douglas V. Gibbs
The United States built four naval destroyers for the Shah of Iran, laying the keels in 1978. The ships were built on the modified plans of the Spruance-class destroyers, and were equipped with state of the art equipment, including guided missile launchers. When the Islamic Revolution engulfed Iran the order was cancelled, and the U.S. Navy kept the four vessels.
The four destroyers were commissioned in 1982 as the USS Kidd, USS Callaghan, USS Scott, and the USS Chandler. The Kidd Class Guided Missile Destroyers were the most powerful multi-purpose destroyers in the fleet at the time. I served aboard the USS Chandler, DDG-996.
The Chandler was home ported at NAS North Island, across the bay from the rest of the fleet at Naval Station, San Diego. I worked in Damage Control Central during General Quarters, and served as a watch stander underway while also performing duties in the ship's office. It was on the Chandler that I first experienced the intensity of the Cold War when we encountered a brief run-in with a Soviet Ship. My tour aboard the Chandler was cut short when tragedy struck, and I found myself fighting against death in July of 1985.
I later served aboard the USS Peoria LST-1183, a gator-freighter, and the amphibious operations were challenging. But my heart, my first Battle E, and my earliest Navy memories will always reside on the decks of the USS Chandler.
Both vessels I served on have since been de-commissioned, and dismantled. The impact of the Khomeini Class (the Kidd Class Destroyers are also sometimes called the Ayatollah Class) remains with the Navy. Whenever I find myself in a discussion with a Navy vet, or active duty Navy servicemember, even those that began to serve after the Kidd Class was long gone, and I tell the person I served aboard a Khomeini Class ship, they always smile in recognition.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
The United States built four naval destroyers for the Shah of Iran, laying the keels in 1978. The ships were built on the modified plans of the Spruance-class destroyers, and were equipped with state of the art equipment, including guided missile launchers. When the Islamic Revolution engulfed Iran the order was cancelled, and the U.S. Navy kept the four vessels.
The four destroyers were commissioned in 1982 as the USS Kidd, USS Callaghan, USS Scott, and the USS Chandler. The Kidd Class Guided Missile Destroyers were the most powerful multi-purpose destroyers in the fleet at the time. I served aboard the USS Chandler, DDG-996.
The Chandler was home ported at NAS North Island, across the bay from the rest of the fleet at Naval Station, San Diego. I worked in Damage Control Central during General Quarters, and served as a watch stander underway while also performing duties in the ship's office. It was on the Chandler that I first experienced the intensity of the Cold War when we encountered a brief run-in with a Soviet Ship. My tour aboard the Chandler was cut short when tragedy struck, and I found myself fighting against death in July of 1985.
I later served aboard the USS Peoria LST-1183, a gator-freighter, and the amphibious operations were challenging. But my heart, my first Battle E, and my earliest Navy memories will always reside on the decks of the USS Chandler.
Both vessels I served on have since been de-commissioned, and dismantled. The impact of the Khomeini Class (the Kidd Class Destroyers are also sometimes called the Ayatollah Class) remains with the Navy. Whenever I find myself in a discussion with a Navy vet, or active duty Navy servicemember, even those that began to serve after the Kidd Class was long gone, and I tell the person I served aboard a Khomeini Class ship, they always smile in recognition.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Iran Hostage Crisis 30th Anniversary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Today was the 30th Anniversary of the day where 53 Americans were held hostage for 444 days. The ordeal began November 4, 1979 and ended on January 20, 1981. The perpetrators were a group of Islamist students and militants who took over the American embassy in support of the Iranian Revolution that had overtaken Iran.
Jimmy Carter was President of the United States, and the Vietnam War still resided in America's recent memory. Few of us knew much about the country of Iran, aside from the fact the Shah was pro-American.
On November 4, 1979 a group of Iranian militants, mere students, took control of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran. For 444 days those hostages were held. A failed attempt to rescue the hostages on April 24, 1980 resulted in the death of eight American servicemen.
The hostages were released 20 minutes after the inauguration of President Reagan, a politician known for his no-nonsense approach, and "peace through strength" philosophy.
Looking back it is reasonable to say that Jimmy Carter's weak foreign policy served as encouragement to the Islamic radicals to seize the U.S. Embassy, while the terrorists used Carter's willingness to aid the Shah as an excuse. Carter's weakness enabled the militants to not worry about retaliation or consequences because Carter had already proven to be an appeaser.
The lesson is obvious. Appeasement emboldens Islamic Jihadists, and a strong military led by a decisive Commander in Chief that believes in peace through strength neutralizes terrorism.
Barack Obama's weak position on defending this nation, and his indecisiveness regarding Afghanistan, is setting us up for another terrorist attack. Obama's appeasement position is putting American lives at risk, and if we are hit again by terrorism, the blood will be on Obama's hands.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Today was the 30th Anniversary of the day where 53 Americans were held hostage for 444 days. The ordeal began November 4, 1979 and ended on January 20, 1981. The perpetrators were a group of Islamist students and militants who took over the American embassy in support of the Iranian Revolution that had overtaken Iran.
Jimmy Carter was President of the United States, and the Vietnam War still resided in America's recent memory. Few of us knew much about the country of Iran, aside from the fact the Shah was pro-American.
On November 4, 1979 a group of Iranian militants, mere students, took control of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran. For 444 days those hostages were held. A failed attempt to rescue the hostages on April 24, 1980 resulted in the death of eight American servicemen.
The hostages were released 20 minutes after the inauguration of President Reagan, a politician known for his no-nonsense approach, and "peace through strength" philosophy.
Looking back it is reasonable to say that Jimmy Carter's weak foreign policy served as encouragement to the Islamic radicals to seize the U.S. Embassy, while the terrorists used Carter's willingness to aid the Shah as an excuse. Carter's weakness enabled the militants to not worry about retaliation or consequences because Carter had already proven to be an appeaser.
The lesson is obvious. Appeasement emboldens Islamic Jihadists, and a strong military led by a decisive Commander in Chief that believes in peace through strength neutralizes terrorism.
Barack Obama's weak position on defending this nation, and his indecisiveness regarding Afghanistan, is setting us up for another terrorist attack. Obama's appeasement position is putting American lives at risk, and if we are hit again by terrorism, the blood will be on Obama's hands.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
%2520(500).jpg)
Abortion Seen As Murder By Former Director of Planned Parenthood
By Douglas V. Gibbs
In thirty-two states movements have erupted seeking to legally define every unborn baby as a "person" protected by God-given and constitutionally protected rights, including the right to life. Americans have rejected the government-paid abortions provision in the Democrat's idiotic health care bill. Obama's support of partial birth abortion continues to be a factor in the nose dive of his approval ratings.
People are realizing the barbaric nature of abortion.
The stories that best exhibits how our moral character is beginning to reject the genocide of babies in the form of abortion are those of abortionists, that when faced with the reality of the barbaric practice, change their tune.
The most famous conversion to the pro-life side of the debate is of Jane Roe (Norma McCorvey), from the Roe v. Wade case of 1973, who in 1995 became a pro-life advocate.
Recently, another case of "change of heart when faced with the truth" has emerged.
The former director of a Planned Parenthood clinic in Texas quit her post and joined a pro-life group outside the facility in prayer. Her "change of heart" came after watching an abortion. On the screen, visible because of an ultrasound, she watched the unborn child "crumple" as it was vacuumed out of a patient's uterus.
She went from extremely pro-choice to pro-life by merely being exposed to the truth.
I have been a firm believer that often leftists don't understand what they read or see when exposed to the truth because they are unable to process the truth. They have been so deceived that the truth simply does not compute.
The story of this woman becoming pro-life after being exposed to the truth gives me hope. When the deceived are exposed to the truth, sometimes, their humanity, and common sense, reawakens. Sometimes, it is possible to turn from the dark side.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Planned Parenthood Director Quits After Watching Abortion on Ultrasound - Liberty Post
'Personhood' movement explodes in 32 states - World Net Daily
In thirty-two states movements have erupted seeking to legally define every unborn baby as a "person" protected by God-given and constitutionally protected rights, including the right to life. Americans have rejected the government-paid abortions provision in the Democrat's idiotic health care bill. Obama's support of partial birth abortion continues to be a factor in the nose dive of his approval ratings.
People are realizing the barbaric nature of abortion.
The stories that best exhibits how our moral character is beginning to reject the genocide of babies in the form of abortion are those of abortionists, that when faced with the reality of the barbaric practice, change their tune.
The most famous conversion to the pro-life side of the debate is of Jane Roe (Norma McCorvey), from the Roe v. Wade case of 1973, who in 1995 became a pro-life advocate.
Recently, another case of "change of heart when faced with the truth" has emerged.
The former director of a Planned Parenthood clinic in Texas quit her post and joined a pro-life group outside the facility in prayer. Her "change of heart" came after watching an abortion. On the screen, visible because of an ultrasound, she watched the unborn child "crumple" as it was vacuumed out of a patient's uterus.
She went from extremely pro-choice to pro-life by merely being exposed to the truth.
I have been a firm believer that often leftists don't understand what they read or see when exposed to the truth because they are unable to process the truth. They have been so deceived that the truth simply does not compute.
The story of this woman becoming pro-life after being exposed to the truth gives me hope. When the deceived are exposed to the truth, sometimes, their humanity, and common sense, reawakens. Sometimes, it is possible to turn from the dark side.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Planned Parenthood Director Quits After Watching Abortion on Ultrasound - Liberty Post
'Personhood' movement explodes in 32 states - World Net Daily
Ford Proves Left Wrong
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Ford Motor Company posted a $1 billion profit. The other American rivals, GM and Chrysler, continue to struggle.
Isn't it interesting? The only auto company in America not to take a government bail out, and allow the government to pull puppet strings on pay, and force CEOs to resign, is improving.
Chalk one up for capitalism.
The mainstream media calls it a "surprise" profit.
They are surprised because they are in the tank for Obama, and actually believe the lies the leftists are telling them.
Ford's biggest obstacle? The labor union. You know the union I am talking about, the unions that once were important for protecting the rights of workers (which led to laws being in place that makes the need for unions unnecessary), and now kills business? By being profitable, the union will demand more from the company, killing the profit, and ultimately sinking Ford - should the unions get their way.
The profitability of Ford may also be a sign of the American People's rejection of the Democrats. They are choosing to buy from the company that isn't under government control. The message is loud and clear. The deceived leftists are too stupid to see the writing on the wall, and the deceivers are too greedy for power to care.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Ford Stirs Hope of Car U-Turn - Wall Street Journal
Ford reports surprise $1 billion profit - MSNBC
Ford Motor Company posted a $1 billion profit. The other American rivals, GM and Chrysler, continue to struggle.
Isn't it interesting? The only auto company in America not to take a government bail out, and allow the government to pull puppet strings on pay, and force CEOs to resign, is improving.
Chalk one up for capitalism.
The mainstream media calls it a "surprise" profit.
They are surprised because they are in the tank for Obama, and actually believe the lies the leftists are telling them.
Ford's biggest obstacle? The labor union. You know the union I am talking about, the unions that once were important for protecting the rights of workers (which led to laws being in place that makes the need for unions unnecessary), and now kills business? By being profitable, the union will demand more from the company, killing the profit, and ultimately sinking Ford - should the unions get their way.
The profitability of Ford may also be a sign of the American People's rejection of the Democrats. They are choosing to buy from the company that isn't under government control. The message is loud and clear. The deceived leftists are too stupid to see the writing on the wall, and the deceivers are too greedy for power to care.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Ford Stirs Hope of Car U-Turn - Wall Street Journal
Ford reports surprise $1 billion profit - MSNBC
Tuesday, November 03, 2009
Republicans Win! - What does that say?
The vote for Virginia's governor is all wrapped up, and McDonnell (Republican) won with ease. In New Jersey, and remember it is a very liberal state, Chris Christie (Republican) pulled off the win. And these guys are conservative Republicans, winning in areas where it is obvious the independents voted GOP along with the Republicans.
Is this a sign of a GOP comeback?
I don't know, but it is a clear message of discontent with the Democrats.
Did you notice something? The Republicans won as conservatives, not as moderates or liberals. The left says that if the GOP is to have a chance they need the moderates - and that is false. Conservatism wins, if presented as conservatism should be presented - factually.
Moderates, or independents, are not conservative or liberal, but we must also remember they are not an ideology. Republicans have been losing because of the moderates in the party - it makes the GOP look like liberal-light. With no clear message, there is no clear reason for non-conservatives to consider a GOP candidate.
Conservatism (limited government, supporting life and tradition, peace through strength, lower taxes, less spending) is a winning ticket - but it must not be muddied by liberalism.
Now all we have to do is wait for New York's District 23 where the conservative (Doug Hoffman) is neck and neck with the Democrat (Owens) with about half the precincts reporting.
And don't forget California District 10, near Pelosi's San Francisco district. Tonight is also a vote there, and the Republican's chances are looking good. (UPDATE on District 10: Garamendi (Democrat) won, but the Republican made a better showing than expected.)
This is the response of the incompetence of the Democrats, and the GOP moving away from the neo-con, moderate big-tent idiots.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Is this a sign of a GOP comeback?
I don't know, but it is a clear message of discontent with the Democrats.
Did you notice something? The Republicans won as conservatives, not as moderates or liberals. The left says that if the GOP is to have a chance they need the moderates - and that is false. Conservatism wins, if presented as conservatism should be presented - factually.
Moderates, or independents, are not conservative or liberal, but we must also remember they are not an ideology. Republicans have been losing because of the moderates in the party - it makes the GOP look like liberal-light. With no clear message, there is no clear reason for non-conservatives to consider a GOP candidate.
Conservatism (limited government, supporting life and tradition, peace through strength, lower taxes, less spending) is a winning ticket - but it must not be muddied by liberalism.
Now all we have to do is wait for New York's District 23 where the conservative (Doug Hoffman) is neck and neck with the Democrat (Owens) with about half the precincts reporting.
And don't forget California District 10, near Pelosi's San Francisco district. Tonight is also a vote there, and the Republican's chances are looking good. (UPDATE on District 10: Garamendi (Democrat) won, but the Republican made a better showing than expected.)
This is the response of the incompetence of the Democrats, and the GOP moving away from the neo-con, moderate big-tent idiots.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Full Text of Health Care Bill, and Feed Your ADHD
Nearly two thousand pages of over a trillion dollars worth of socialism, and the jerks in Congress won't even read it. . . because they trust the writers.
But you can read it:
Check it out at Feed Your ADHD
But you can read it:
Check it out at Feed Your ADHD
Washington Corruption in the Crosshairs
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Ways and Means Chairman, Democrat Charlie Rangel, is under investigation for his real estate holdings and rental income. Pennsylvania Democrat John Murtha's ties to defense contractors is under investigation by the Ethics Committee, as well.
And there's more:
According to the L.A. Times, "nearly half the members of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, which Murtha chairs, are under investigation for funneling millions in federal funds to clients of a lobbyist who used to work on the Hill. The charge: They put earmarks worth $300 million in the 2008 Defense appropriation bill to benefit clients of the PMA Group, a now-defunct lobbying firm headed by Paul Magliocchetti, a former aide to the committee."
The Democrat Party keeps hanging itself, showing that it is the party of corruption, and that they are only in the game for money and power.
And surprise, surprise, a few "progressive" Republicans got caught up in the corruption too.
No wonder conservatism is on the rise!
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Ethics probe so big lawmakers have to take a number -- half the Pentagon spending committee caught in net - Los Angeles Times
Ethics panel scrutinizing dozens of House members - Yahoo News, Associated Press
Ways and Means Chairman, Democrat Charlie Rangel, is under investigation for his real estate holdings and rental income. Pennsylvania Democrat John Murtha's ties to defense contractors is under investigation by the Ethics Committee, as well.
And there's more:
According to the L.A. Times, "nearly half the members of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, which Murtha chairs, are under investigation for funneling millions in federal funds to clients of a lobbyist who used to work on the Hill. The charge: They put earmarks worth $300 million in the 2008 Defense appropriation bill to benefit clients of the PMA Group, a now-defunct lobbying firm headed by Paul Magliocchetti, a former aide to the committee."
The Democrat Party keeps hanging itself, showing that it is the party of corruption, and that they are only in the game for money and power.
And surprise, surprise, a few "progressive" Republicans got caught up in the corruption too.
No wonder conservatism is on the rise!
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Ethics probe so big lawmakers have to take a number -- half the Pentagon spending committee caught in net - Los Angeles Times
Ethics panel scrutinizing dozens of House members - Yahoo News, Associated Press
Valerie Jarrett, President Obama's closest friend in the White House
By Douglas V. Gibbs
A radical, hard left, socialist, Valerie Jarrett is perfect for Obama, because like him she is all about power and wealth, and screwing the American People in the process. The New York Times called Valerie Jarrett the "president’s closest friend in the White House, and it is not lost on her colleagues that when senior staff meetings in the Oval Office break up, she often stays behind with the boss."
Valerie Jarrett is Obama's closes advisor, and she most for both originating and orchestrating his most brazen attempts to impose a new socialist regime upon America.
But there is more about Valerie Jarrett and Barack Obama the people just don't understand. Watch this video about Obama's Housing Policies, and you will get the picture:
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
A radical, hard left, socialist, Valerie Jarrett is perfect for Obama, because like him she is all about power and wealth, and screwing the American People in the process. The New York Times called Valerie Jarrett the "president’s closest friend in the White House, and it is not lost on her colleagues that when senior staff meetings in the Oval Office break up, she often stays behind with the boss."
Valerie Jarrett is Obama's closes advisor, and she most for both originating and orchestrating his most brazen attempts to impose a new socialist regime upon America.
But there is more about Valerie Jarrett and Barack Obama the people just don't understand. Watch this video about Obama's Housing Policies, and you will get the picture:
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Monday, November 02, 2009
Obama, Glenn Beck, and Martin Luther King
By Douglas V. Gibbs
I entered the entrance of the car shop with my Glenn Beck book, "Arguing With Idiots," under my left arm. To my left, with her eyes fixated on the cover of the book, was a woman wearing a shirt with an image of Barack Obama and Martin Luther King on it. She brought her eyes up to gaze into mine, and transmitted a look of disgust. She promptly, then, got up and left the room, not returning until after I departed.
My first thought was that my Glenn Beck book to liberals must be like garlic is to vampires. Maybe I should attend a Democrat Party rally with a Glenn Beck book in one hand, and a Rush Limbaugh book in the other, holding them out in front of me, watching the zombies run for cover with fear in their eyes, and retreat in the voices.
If only we could be so fortunate.
What struck me to be the most interesting part of my encounter with the liberal in the car shop was not the fact that she recoiled when faced with the cover of a book by a well known conservative (talk about tolerance), but that her shirt had images of both Barack Obama and Martin Luther King on it.
It seemed strange to me because the two men are diametrically opposed to each other in both political, and religious, beliefs.
Barack Obama is no Martin Luther King.
Martin Luther King taught about the love of Christ, and the truth of the Holy Bible. Barack Obama attended a church that taught hate of America and whites. Barack Obama made jokes about the Bible in speeches, and told the world this is no longer a Christian nation.
Barack Obama voted three times against protecting born alive victims of abortion. These babies were left to die in dirty laundry closets at Christ Hospital in Chicago. Obama voted against doctors doing something on the behalf of these botched abortions. Obama voted for the death penalty of these struggling infants in desperate need of assistance. The innocent babies, who were originally doomed to die by the hand of abortionists, fighting for their fragile little lives, lying there naked, helpless, and in extreme pain, received no assistance, no doctor's aid, and no mother's care. Barack Obama's response, after given the facts regarding the brutal, calloused acts of man's inhumanity to babies, voted to allow this heinous, barbaric behavior to continue.
In Martin Luther King's Letter From a Birmingham Jail, he wrote of the early Christians: "By their effort and example they brought an end to such ancient evils as infanticide."
What King was speaking of was the Roman law, during the decline of the empire, that allowed citizens to leave their child by the side of the road to die if the parents didn't like the color of their eyes, the texture of their hair, or the complexion of their skin. The law also stated that anyone touching the child to give aid would be put to death. The newborn child was to be left to die without any aid, just as the survivors of botched abortions are. Under the threat of death, the early Christians scooped the children up and raised them as their own. Martin Luther King called the practice of leaving children on the side of the road evil.
Barack Obama has defended such actions, and his wife has campaigned for partial birth abortion. More than three quarters of Americans call partial birth abortion evil, and I have no doubt that Martin Luther King would too. Between partial birth abortions, and infanticide, no evil seems to be greater.
Obama does not deserve to be on the same shirt as Martin Luther King. In fact, Obama's name should not even be uttered in the same sentence as Martin Luther King's.
Obama is no Martin Luther King.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
I entered the entrance of the car shop with my Glenn Beck book, "Arguing With Idiots," under my left arm. To my left, with her eyes fixated on the cover of the book, was a woman wearing a shirt with an image of Barack Obama and Martin Luther King on it. She brought her eyes up to gaze into mine, and transmitted a look of disgust. She promptly, then, got up and left the room, not returning until after I departed.
My first thought was that my Glenn Beck book to liberals must be like garlic is to vampires. Maybe I should attend a Democrat Party rally with a Glenn Beck book in one hand, and a Rush Limbaugh book in the other, holding them out in front of me, watching the zombies run for cover with fear in their eyes, and retreat in the voices.
If only we could be so fortunate.
What struck me to be the most interesting part of my encounter with the liberal in the car shop was not the fact that she recoiled when faced with the cover of a book by a well known conservative (talk about tolerance), but that her shirt had images of both Barack Obama and Martin Luther King on it.
It seemed strange to me because the two men are diametrically opposed to each other in both political, and religious, beliefs.
Barack Obama is no Martin Luther King.
Martin Luther King taught about the love of Christ, and the truth of the Holy Bible. Barack Obama attended a church that taught hate of America and whites. Barack Obama made jokes about the Bible in speeches, and told the world this is no longer a Christian nation.
Barack Obama voted three times against protecting born alive victims of abortion. These babies were left to die in dirty laundry closets at Christ Hospital in Chicago. Obama voted against doctors doing something on the behalf of these botched abortions. Obama voted for the death penalty of these struggling infants in desperate need of assistance. The innocent babies, who were originally doomed to die by the hand of abortionists, fighting for their fragile little lives, lying there naked, helpless, and in extreme pain, received no assistance, no doctor's aid, and no mother's care. Barack Obama's response, after given the facts regarding the brutal, calloused acts of man's inhumanity to babies, voted to allow this heinous, barbaric behavior to continue.
In Martin Luther King's Letter From a Birmingham Jail, he wrote of the early Christians: "By their effort and example they brought an end to such ancient evils as infanticide."
What King was speaking of was the Roman law, during the decline of the empire, that allowed citizens to leave their child by the side of the road to die if the parents didn't like the color of their eyes, the texture of their hair, or the complexion of their skin. The law also stated that anyone touching the child to give aid would be put to death. The newborn child was to be left to die without any aid, just as the survivors of botched abortions are. Under the threat of death, the early Christians scooped the children up and raised them as their own. Martin Luther King called the practice of leaving children on the side of the road evil.
Barack Obama has defended such actions, and his wife has campaigned for partial birth abortion. More than three quarters of Americans call partial birth abortion evil, and I have no doubt that Martin Luther King would too. Between partial birth abortions, and infanticide, no evil seems to be greater.
Obama does not deserve to be on the same shirt as Martin Luther King. In fact, Obama's name should not even be uttered in the same sentence as Martin Luther King's.
Obama is no Martin Luther King.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
California's 10% Witholding, without permission
By Douglas V. Gibbs
State income tax will be withheld 10% in everyone's paychecks in California without the permission of the citizens, without a vote in the state assembly, and without the Governor seeking permission. They say it is not an income tax increase, it is simply a quick loan for the state, of which you will get back at income tax time.
The State of California is broke, and they are figuring they have to get the money somehow, so taking it from the populace as everyone struggles to survive in this economy, and every dollar counts, is their plan.
The progressives that have run this state into the ground for the last four decades have officially become tyrannical.
This is a "forced" withholding. The State of California is stealing from the populace, and doing it without our voice.
How long before the federal government catches on and does the same thing?
The officials say 10% is only a small amount, but for those counting pennies it could mean the difference between paying bills or not, or even being able to buy food.
The breakdown is as follows:
From a single taxpayer earning $51,000 a year with no dependents, the state will be grabbing an extra $17.59 each month, according to state tax officials. A married person earning $90,000 with two dependents would receive $24.87 less in monthly pay.
Experts are expecting California to continue to collect the tax at a higher rate for many years.
As for the promise to pay us back, how does a broke state do that? IOUs?
It is possible to get out of them taking extra by increasing the number of personal withholding allowances claimed on employer tax forms.
The largest concern is that this decision to steal from Californians comes at a ttime when the holiday shopping season is coming, a time in which many small store owners depend on to keep their businesses in survival mode.
Consumer spending is already in a tail spin, and California has been suffering more than most of the rest of the nation under this economic collapse. This move by Sacramento will kill any economic growth we may have seen coming, despite the fact that they believe it will have a small impact on the consumer's income.
As I said already, every penny counts, and they are simply making it harder for citizens to survive. This is a great example of government doing whatever it takes for its own survival, at the expense of the citizens, short of cutting spending.
The progressives still don't get it. The problem is not a revenue problem, it is a spending problem.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
California to withhold a bigger chunk of paychecks - Los Angeles Times
State income tax will be withheld 10% in everyone's paychecks in California without the permission of the citizens, without a vote in the state assembly, and without the Governor seeking permission. They say it is not an income tax increase, it is simply a quick loan for the state, of which you will get back at income tax time.
The State of California is broke, and they are figuring they have to get the money somehow, so taking it from the populace as everyone struggles to survive in this economy, and every dollar counts, is their plan.
The progressives that have run this state into the ground for the last four decades have officially become tyrannical.
This is a "forced" withholding. The State of California is stealing from the populace, and doing it without our voice.
How long before the federal government catches on and does the same thing?
The officials say 10% is only a small amount, but for those counting pennies it could mean the difference between paying bills or not, or even being able to buy food.
The breakdown is as follows:
From a single taxpayer earning $51,000 a year with no dependents, the state will be grabbing an extra $17.59 each month, according to state tax officials. A married person earning $90,000 with two dependents would receive $24.87 less in monthly pay.
Experts are expecting California to continue to collect the tax at a higher rate for many years.
As for the promise to pay us back, how does a broke state do that? IOUs?
It is possible to get out of them taking extra by increasing the number of personal withholding allowances claimed on employer tax forms.
The largest concern is that this decision to steal from Californians comes at a ttime when the holiday shopping season is coming, a time in which many small store owners depend on to keep their businesses in survival mode.
Consumer spending is already in a tail spin, and California has been suffering more than most of the rest of the nation under this economic collapse. This move by Sacramento will kill any economic growth we may have seen coming, despite the fact that they believe it will have a small impact on the consumer's income.
As I said already, every penny counts, and they are simply making it harder for citizens to survive. This is a great example of government doing whatever it takes for its own survival, at the expense of the citizens, short of cutting spending.
The progressives still don't get it. The problem is not a revenue problem, it is a spending problem.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
California to withhold a bigger chunk of paychecks - Los Angeles Times
The Church of Liberalism
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Liberalism is a religion.
A religion is a belief system. In the American Century Dictionary religion is defined as a belief in a personal God or gods entitled to obedience and worship, a thing that one is devoted to.
Big government is a system of governance that limits one's choices, and demands the citizen to be obedient, and devoted, to the ruling class.
Liberalism cannot have competition, therefore there is a natural opposition to the Christian God. After all, how can one devote all allegiance to big government when one is willing to worship a God other than the men that run government?
Belief in God means that the individual believes man's rights are God-given. If your rights are God-given, then only God can take them away. Socialists believe that man's rights come from man himself, and therefore can be limited or removed by man, or by other men through laws created by men.
Our Founding Fathers realized this. They recognized our unalienable rights were given to us by God, and that government should never rise above the Creator. Liberalism desires exactly that, and that is why this battle for our country is so important.
America is being changed at its foundation by leftists into something that our Founding Fathers never intended it to be, and our victory over the leftists is imperative if we are going to save this nation.
The resistance starts here. The resistance starts now. The spread of socialism must be stopped, and it will be stopped. I believe in America, and I believe in you.
Virginia, New Jersey, and New York 23 is only the start. Conservatism is on the rise. Be a part of the removal of tyranny. Be involved. Be a part of the resistance.
God Bless America.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Liberalism is a religion.
A religion is a belief system. In the American Century Dictionary religion is defined as a belief in a personal God or gods entitled to obedience and worship, a thing that one is devoted to.
Big government is a system of governance that limits one's choices, and demands the citizen to be obedient, and devoted, to the ruling class.
Liberalism cannot have competition, therefore there is a natural opposition to the Christian God. After all, how can one devote all allegiance to big government when one is willing to worship a God other than the men that run government?
Belief in God means that the individual believes man's rights are God-given. If your rights are God-given, then only God can take them away. Socialists believe that man's rights come from man himself, and therefore can be limited or removed by man, or by other men through laws created by men.
Our Founding Fathers realized this. They recognized our unalienable rights were given to us by God, and that government should never rise above the Creator. Liberalism desires exactly that, and that is why this battle for our country is so important.
America is being changed at its foundation by leftists into something that our Founding Fathers never intended it to be, and our victory over the leftists is imperative if we are going to save this nation.
The resistance starts here. The resistance starts now. The spread of socialism must be stopped, and it will be stopped. I believe in America, and I believe in you.
Virginia, New Jersey, and New York 23 is only the start. Conservatism is on the rise. Be a part of the removal of tyranny. Be involved. Be a part of the resistance.
God Bless America.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Sunday, November 01, 2009
The Founding Fathers on Tyranny and God
Why are the leftists so opposed to a Christian God? I believe it is because they realize that tyranny cannot exist on the same plane with a Christian God. My thoughts on this are confirmed by quotes by Thomas Jefferson and William Penn:
Jefferson said, "The God that gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God?"
William Penn wrote, "If men will not be governed by God, they then must be governed by tyrants."
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
What Republican Dierdre Scozzafava Says About The GOP
There are two kinds of liberals: The deceived, and the deceivers. Leftists dominate the Democrat Party, and have taken over the leadership of the Republican Party. For progressives the increase of government intrusion into the lives of the populace is their primary goal. They don't care if the growth of the federal government takes away choices, ultimately meaning the elimination of liberty. Individual rights mean nothing to these people, and freedom to them is but a privilege that they should be able to take away from you at their whim. We are as free as the rope they are trying to lasso us with. Once they have us, we will have no more freedom than the slack in the rope they allow. Once the statists gain complete control, the nation founded on freedom will be a nation controlled by fascism.
The resistance is conservatism. Not the Republican Party, but the ideology of conservatism that finds its foundation rooted firmly in liberty, individualism, and the values and rights granted upon us by our Creator. The leftists tell you that conservatism is dead, and that without moderates and liberalism in the Republican Party, the GOP will never win an election again. But what good is the Republican Party if it is no different than the Democrat Party?
Scozzafava is one of those Republicans who should follow Arlen Specter to the party of the jackass. She is a symptom of the disease that has infiltrated the Republican Party, and has poisoned the hope of returning this nation to the foundation laid out by the founding fathers of this nation. DeDe Scozzafava is a pro-abortion, pro-gay, pro-tax, pro-big government liberal that only held on to the "R" after her name because she opposes Cap and Trade legislation. By endorsing her Newt Gingrich lost the respect of conservatives, and by endorsing her opponent, the Conservative Party opposition, Doug Hoffman, Sarah Palin's popularity rose even more.
Doug Hoffman, the conservative in the New York District 23 special election, is feared by the GOP because the leadership of the Republican Party fears the rise of conservatism - for conservatism can expose the leftists in the GOP for what they are. The liberals love Doug Hoffman because they believe he is an example of division in the Republican Party. Doug Hoffman is more than that. He is hope. He is how conservatism will save this nation. With, or without, the GOP, conservatism will take this nation back district by district, if we must.
The gubernatorial races in New Jersey and Virginia are also signs of the rise of conservatism, and the realization by Americans that liberalism is the last thing this nation needs.
Faced with defeat, and exposed as the liberal she is, Dierdre Scozzafava has dropped out of the race in New York District 23. Some are saying it is because she was concerned about splitting the right-wing vote, but there is nothing right-wing about Scozzafava, so I hardly believe that argument. I believe she did what most leftists do: when faced with true conservatism she ran away before she was truly exposed for what she is.
Scozzafava realizes that Obama has stepped out of the strategic path for instituting socialism, and exposure made her fearful. The strategy of leftism is to promise one thing, and deliver another. The appearance of socialism was not supposed to rear its ugly head, even though the policies are indeed socialist in nature. Too much socialism ought not be delivered in too much quantities or else the people discover the exact nature of the game - and if the people realize the reality of the bloodless coup, the people will remove the leftists from office, and they will have to start all over again.
That is indeed what is happening. The Democrats have overstepped, and conservatism is on the rise.
Listen tonight live at 7pm Pacific, or listen to the archive later, to the Political Pistachio Radio Revolution to hear specifics about the resistance against the rising tyranny of leftism in America, and how we can fight back, and return our nation to the land of liberty our founding fathers intended it to be. Go to BlogTalkRadio.com/PoliticalPistachio to listen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)