Obama the Habitual Liar

This is old (2008), but a reminder of how freely and easily Barack Obama lies. Remember, as you listen to this, Obama's father was born in Kenya in 1936.



That's right, Obama said "My father served in World War II, and when he got home he received the services he needed."

Actually, this may be evidence as to my theory regarding why Obama is closely guarding his birth certificate. It may not be because he wasn't born in Hawaii, but because of what it says in the slot labeled: Father's Name.

Either that, or Barry truly is the idiot we all believe him to be.

He lied on The View, recently, too.

Asked about Jersey Shore star Snooki on The View, the President replied, "I don't know who that is."

But two months ago, her name was a punchline in a joke he himself told to members of the fawning news media.

So, in addition to being an idiot, he is a habitual liar too.

Remember all of those campaign promises?

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Did Obama Lie To The Ladies On The View? - Examiner

Islamist Claims The Jews Killed Kennedy, and Obama is Next

First they deny the Holocaust. Now they claim the Jews killed Kennedy. What's next? Sheeeesh.



-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

A Drive Through the Country Reveals a Soviet Flag

By Terresa Monroe-Hamilton

We were out for a nice drive on a Saturday. Something we do frequently.

We live in Northwestern Idaho. And today, we drove a short distance to Hauser Lake where we were looking at homes. We were almost done for the day, when my hubby slammed on the brakes and uttered an, “Oh, my G-d!” At first, I couldn’t tell what he was looking at and then I looked up at the flag.

We are used to seeing American flags up and around Coeur D Alene, ID. It’s a beautiful and patriotic slice of heaven here. We frequently see the Marine flag, the P.O.W. flag, the American flag, our Kootenai county flag, the Idaho flag and since we are about 100 miles from the Canadian border – the Canadian flag. But, this is a first. Flying proudly over a beautiful Hauser home was the Soviet Russia flag.

Read The Rest At: The Noisy Room - That's Just Not Right

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

I Can Only Imagine - Mercy Me

Arizona Immigration Law Protesters Desecrate American Flag

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Yes, indeed, the desecration to the American Flag you see in the picture above is illegal. Nobody was punished, however, and nobody will be. The crime of desecrating the American Flag is a federal crime, but the U.S. Government is not willing to enforce the immigration laws, so why would they be willing to prosecute people spray painting and walking on the American Flag who are doing so in support of the illegal aliens the federal government won't go after?

The thing to really consider is if that had been a Mexican flag being desecrated, there would have been an uproar in the press, and the offenders would have been fined and jailed.

No doubt in my mind.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Conservative Black Tea Party Leaders at Press Conference

August 4, 2010, many recent issues are addressed. Powerful. Aim of press conference is to indicate that the Tea Party does not endorse racism, and to introduce America to Conservative Blacks.



-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Political Pistachio Radio Revolution Takes on Immigration, Islamic Mosques, and Racism!

Arizona, Immigration, Islam, Mosques, and Conservative Blacks - Political Pistachio Radio Revolution

Arizona, Immigration, Islam, Mosques, and Conservative Blacks, Oh My! - Political Pistachio Radio Revolution, Conservative News and Commentary

Join Us Live at 7:00 PM Pacific, or catch the Archive Later, at BlogTalkRadio.com/PoliticalPistachio.

Battle Over Temecula Mosque Joins National Effort, Press Falls For Trojan Horse

By Douglas V. Gibbs

The national effort to stop the erection of new mosques, actually, is not new, but the New York Times, and the Associated Press, have given the battle national attention. Temecula, in particular, is one of the confrontations I am loosely involved in.

Media writers are proclaiming that the folks attempting to stop the building of mosques in communities around the country are "a typical stew of religion, politics and anti-immigrant sentiment." If you do not understand the details of the fight, or the true reasons behind the effort, I suppose that would make a little sense.

Perhaps religion plays a part, because Islam claims to be a religion. Perhaps politics plays a part because the Democrats have politicized the clash. Perhaps it could be considered anti-immigrant, because the groups are not happy with the immigration of the members of an ideology bent on our destruction into this nation.

The folks standing up against the mosques are not standing against the people of Islam, but against the Muslim ideology itself. There may be moderate Muslims, and God bless them wherever they may be, but there is no such thing as moderate Islam. The ideology is rooted in violence, and the aim is the same as it was when Muhammad first created this so-called religion.

According to former Muslims like Walid Shoebat, Kamal Saleem, Mano Bakh, and a long host of others, the aim of Islam is simple: To Kill All Those That Oppose Them! Muslim countries were allies with Hitler's Germany, and Adolf Hitler's anti-Semitism was created from his relationships with Muslims. Islam is the Nazism of our generation, and we are literally welcoming their symbols of conquest into our cities and towns. The proposed mosque in New York is mere blocks from Ground Zero, and regardless of what we are being told, it is not an attempt at religious freedom. The building of a mosque near Ground Zero is a flag of victory being planted into the ground by Islam.

According to those that have escaped the clutches of Islam, the Muslim religion is the most clear and present danger to not only Christians and Jews in the world as we know it today, but to all societies that do not wish to become yet another Muslim nation serving under Shariah law. And remember, these former Muslims must live in hiding - because they fear for their lives from the radical jihadists that are at the heart of the desire to resurrect the old caliphate, the Ottoman Empire.

So much for Islam being a peaceful religion.

Muhammad was a barbarian. A vicious killing machine that yearned for greatness, and devotion from his followers. What better way to earn that devotion than to tell your warriors that their war path is divine? Muhammad proclaimed himself a prophet, proclaimed his miracle to be riding a flying donkey, labeled his rampage of violence and hate a religion, and somehow the ideology grew into something that is now poised to violently force the world into submission.

Violence is a repeated activity among the followers of Islam, and when those acts of violence occur, the Muslims dance in the streets, and welcome the death of those they oppose. What is most horrific about it, however, is that when Muslims held American's hostage in Tehran in 1979, when Muslim terrorists threw elderly and wheelchair bound Leon Klinghoffer overboard to his death from the hijacked cruise ship Achille Lauro in 1985, when militant Muslims first bombed the World Trade Center in 1993, when they killed nineteen American soldiers in the bombing of the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia in 1996, when they bombed the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, when they bombed the USS Cole in 2000, and when they slaughtered 3,000 Americans on September 11, 2001, everybody still hastened to reassure themselves, and everyone else, that these are only isolated cases. . . that Islam is actually a religion of peace.

Really?

How do you explain that to the families and loved ones of the victims of the countless girls that have died from clitorectomies, those caught in the backlash because a teacher allowed one of her pupils to name a teddy bear "Muhammad", the riots over cartoons drawn of Muhammad, to the families in Islamic countries of little girls as young as one year old told that their daughter must marry a Muslim man, the families of Muslims who have been killed for daring to marry outside of the Muslim religion, or the families of the victims of attacks against Christian churches by Muslims throughout the world (the most heinous have been on the continent of Africa) where thousands of Christians have been slaughtered for not being Muslim?

Ever hear about the Afghan Muslim that dared to read about women's rights? He was sentenced to death by an Islamic Shariah court.

What is considered a good Muslim by those who are entrenched in Islam cannot even be a good American. Their allegiance is only to Allah, Mecca, and the five pillars of Islam. A good Muslim cannot accept the existence of any other religion (Quran 2:256), they cannot be friends or co-exist with Christians or Jews, they must submit to mullahs that teach the annihilation of Israel and the destruction of America, their laws are contradictory to our laws (such as being able to beat and scourge their wives if they disobey - Quran 4:34), they cannot accept the U.S. Constitution because it is founded on Biblical principles and they consider the Bible to be corrupt, Islam does not allow freedom of religion and expression therefore they cannot tolerate our government and free society for long (ever notice that Muslim governments tend to be dictatorial or autocratic?). Therefore, Muslims in America cannot be a good Muslim, and a good American, at the same time.

Those that adhere to Islam support extreme violence against non-Muslims, including rape of the wives and daughters of non-Muslims. An Imam in London once said of the violence against non-believers, "Because non-Muslims are never innocent, they are guilty of denying Allah and his prophet."

And we still call them the religion of peace?

Then to add insult to injury, our appeasing leftist idiot fellow Americans are doing things like continuing to disallow Christian prayer in our schools while bending over backwards to make sure the poor Muslims have prayer rooms!

Ever seen a Christian Jihadist? Neither have I. And when someone does do something vile in the name of Christ (like the Westboro Baptists), Christians don't dance in the streets as Muslims did on 9/11. Such actions in the name of Christ are condemned by the faithful. And please, don't start throwing around the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisitions. . . those were both responses to the barbaric advancement of Islam. . . You should be thanking the Crusaders of that era, because it is because of them that Shariah did not spread across Europe back then.

As for the religious status of Islam, they stopped being a religion when it became known that their Nazi-like teachings aim to conquer the world, and change our laws into their laws. Islam is not a religion by anything Americans believe one to be. Islam is a totalitarian political machine of blood thirsty conquest whose primary goal is to bring down the governments of all those who oppose them. Their mantra is "surrender or die." Islam is a religion of war, and for us to allow mosques to spring up around America is to give our enemy centers of planning, teaching and training in regards to how to bring down America.

We would not have allowed the Japanese to erect a Shinto Temple in Pearl Harbor after the attack against our naval forces there in 1941, nor would we have allowed the Nazis to erect Nazi education centers around America during the height of World War II. Mosques in America are footholds against America. They are symbols of conquest, and flags planted in the ground to show their supremacy. It begins small, with a few mosques, but just ask Europe how fast Shariah law begins to spread. Just take a look at Dearborn, Michigan.

The invasion has begun, and those protesting in Temecula, and around the country, are the only ones trying to stop it.

How long will you wait?

If you don't join the fight to stop the Islamization of America, who will?

If we don't stop the planned erection of the mosques in America now, how far will this go before enough people realize we are under attack, and that we must stand tall against the Islamic War Machine?

Islam as a whole is trying to conquer the world, and their strategy is to use our tolerance of religion to gain a foothold so that they can gradually take over. 1500 years of historical facts support this opinion. The only difference between the Muslims we fought in the Crusades and the Barbary Wars is that this time they are using Ideological and Economic tactics. They have presented us with a Trojan Horse, claiming they come in peace.

Remember, Neville Chamberlain didn't think Hitler and the Nazis were that dangerous, either.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Across Nation, Mosque Projects Meet Opposition - New York Times

Far from ground zero, opponents fight new mosques - Associated Press

Former Muslims United

The Religion of Peace List of Terrorist Attacks

SECOND 13 YEAR OLD GIRL DIES OF CLITORECTOMY - Atlas Shrugs

Be My Little Teddy Bear - Political Pistachio

Sentenced to death: Afghan who dared to read about women's rights - The Independent

Report: Non-Muslims Deserve To Be Punished - Fox News

Saudi Marriage Official Says 1-Year-Old Brides OK - Fox News

Kangaroo Court Executes Husband - Telegraph India

20,000 Muslims Attack a Church in Cairo - Assyrian International News Agency

Islam, The Religion of Peace, Slaughters Christians in Nigeria - Political Pistachio

Hot topic: Muslim prayer in public schools - Michelle Malkin

God Save Arizona - Ray Stevens

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Executive Orders and the Constitution

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Executive Orders are not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution. Many believe that executive orders, in addition to the functions of modifying how an executive branch department or agency does its job (rule change), or to issue a proclamation, can modify existing law. Modifying law, however, would need to accompany the authority to make law, and that authority rests solely with the Legislative Branch. Therefore, any executive order that modifies the law is unconstitutional. Article I, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution grants to the Congress all legislative powers, therefore, the Executive and Judicial branches cannot make law, repeal law, strike down law, or modify law. Only Congress can.

Executive Orders are nothing new, for George Washington issued several Presidential Proclamations. Executive Orders and Proclamations, once again, are not law, but they do sometimes have the effect of statutes. A typical modern Proclamation might declare a day to be in someone's honor.

The Emancipation Proclamation had a broader effect, but did not free the slaves. The Emancipation Proclamation was not a law. It was a proclamation. It did change the course of the war, proclaiming the Civil War to be all about slavery, which encouraged the European Nations to step back in regards to their support of the Confederacy.

In line with that, we have often seen Executive Orders instruct the government to do no business with a country we are at war with. Executive orders are subject to judicial review, and can be declared unconstitutional. But since the executive orders hold no power over law, we can simply refuse to follow unconstitutional Executive Orders if we wish. Congress can refuse to follow Executive Orders that modify law, as well, since the Legislative branch alone is tasked with making law. Problem is, Congress has not been functioning in accordance with the U.S. Constitution, and has been allowing the Executive branch to wield more power.

This is why November is so important. We need to make sure that we vote into Congress representatives that understand the U.S. Constitution, or else Obama will continue his attempt to make Congress irrelevant, and will continue to pursue a course of making the Executive branch more powerful than our Founding Fathers ever intended it to be.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Silencing The People's Voice

By Douglas V. Gibbs

When Judge Walker in California struck down Proposition 8 as unconstitutional, it sent the message that the opinion of one, gay judge was superior over the 7 million voters that approved the state constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

When Judge Bolton struck down Arizona's immigration law, it sent the message that the opinion of a single judge was superior to the voices of an entire state.

When one considers that marriage is a state issue, and a federal judge like Walker had no business hearing the case, it also indicates that State sovereignty means little to the leftist judiciary.

When you consider that there is no authority in the Constitution regarding enforcement of immigration law for the federal government, and nowhere in the Constitution is such authority prohibited to the States, meaning that the states have enforcement authority regarding immigration, one realizes that not only is Arizona's immigration law constitutional, it is the State of Arizona's responsibility to enforce immigration laws.

Than, when one realizes that according to Article III, Section 2, Clause 2 the Supreme Court has original authority when a State is a party in a case, which means that Judge Bolton also had no business taking the case in which she struck down portions of the Arizona Immigration Law, it shows that to the judiciary, the U.S. Constitution (which is a contract between We The People of "The States," and the federal government) means nothing to these leftists.

Meanwhile, with the abusive use of czars and executive orders, Obama is rendering the Congress irrelevant, thus silencing the last vestige of the people's voice.

But if all of that was not blatant enough in regards to how the Left is doing what it can to silence the people, subvert the Constitution, and do what it pleases in government regardless of the desire of the people or the letter of the law, Massachusetts has now proposed to disallow citizen petitions of the state government.

The attempt to further silence the people in Massachusetts is in the form of an amendment to the Massachusetts Constitution proposed by Democrats. The aim of the amendment is to put an end to citizen-initiated referenda in the state.

The amendment specifically would exclude any citizen petition that deals with issues concerning a person's right to "the enjoyment of life, liberty and property, according to standing laws." Passage of the amendment would virtually eliminate the citizen's right to petition in Massachusetts.

The way the amendment is worded, using "life, liberty or property," virtually every attempted petition could be affected. As with the judiciary in the Proposition 8 case, and the Arizona Immigration Law case, in Massachusetts the legislators with this amendment are literally trying to shut down the voice of the voters. They believe in the General Will, which means that the elite believes only they can recognize what is best for society. The people, according to these rats, are not "sophisticated enough" to make decisions that only the elite elected officials are.

The amendment states, "No proposition inconsistent with any one of the following rights of the individual, as at present declared in the declaration of rights … shall be the subject of an initiative or referendum petition." Citizen petitions would be all but eliminated.

To combat this kind of tyranny, this is when the voices of the people need to be the loudest.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

State to Citizens: No More Petitions For You - World Net Daily

Michelle "Antoinette" Obama choosing her next vacation. . .

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Torii Hunter Suspension Accepted, Showing Scioscia's Philosophy

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Torii Hunter's explosion that included making contact with the umpire with the bill of his helmet, and throwing baseballs on the field, is not an example of typical Angels' Baseball.

In 2004, the Angels of Anaheim let go of Jose Guillen, despite his good numbers, because of his behavior. Guillen's suspension of the last eight games of the regular season in 2004 was the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back. He was dropped from the roster after his tantrum in the dugout and clubhouse after being removed from a game on September 25th, 2004. He was hitting .294 for the season, but for Scioscia it was more about the team, and Jose was not acting like a team player. After Jose was traded, the Angels picked up key players in Maicer Izturis and Juan Rivera.

Hunter is a key part of the team, and I don't believe that the Angels' are going to deal him as a result of his explosion, and suspension. But one has to remember that after Torii was ejected from Friday's game, and went off on home-plate umpire Ron Kulpa, even making contact with him with the bill of his helmet, and throwing a bag of baseballs onto the field from the Angels' dugout, Hunter promised to appeal any suspension for his actions. Even after receiving the news of the suspension, Hunter was ready to fight it. Then, Angels Manager Mike Scioscia had a talk with Hunter, and Torii emerged from the manager's office today willing to serve the four-game suspension for his actions, and even indicating that he was "terrible," and "said some things I shouldn’t have said. I threw balls on the field. You have to pay the price for it and that’s what I’m going to do."

I wish I could have been a fly on the wall for that discussion between Hunter and Scioscia, but one thing is for sure, it is a testament to the skills that Scioscia has as a manager. Mike surely explained to Torii that Angels Baseball is about the team, respect for the game, and acting as an ambassador for the game.

“The more you think about it and the more you watch it, that’s not me,” Hunter also said. “I really let the guy push my buttons and it shouldn’t have come to that. I apologize to the fans and to the kids out there and to my kids.”

Scioscia would not admit that he had done anything to persuade Hunter to accept the suspension and forego an appeal, but it is obvious that the words of Scioscia in the manager's office convinced Hunter to make the right decision.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

A Godless America. . . What Would It Be Like?

Tonight on Political Pistachio Radio our guest is David Gregory. David is the bestselling author of "Dinner with a Perfect Stranger", a native of Houston, and a graduate of the University of Houston. He has written a fascinating novel called "The Last Christian", which explores what life might be like in a late 21st century America without Christianity.It can be purchased at any bookstore or at Amazon.com. Readers can also look him up at davidgregorybooks.com. Join us at 7:00 pm live, or catch the archive later, at BlogTalkRadio.com/PoliticalPistachio.

Brian Nieves, Missouri State Senate Message Regarding the Limiting Principles of the U.S. Constitution

Brian Nieves says to Obama and the hard-left Congressional Democrats, "Leave us alone!"

The States are sovereign, and the federal government is breaching the contract between us and them with their big government policies. The Tenth Amendment is clear, if the authority is not given to the federal government by the U.S. Constitution, and not prohibited to the States, the authority belongs to the States.

Madison wrote in Federalist 45: The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.

Madison wrote in Federalist 39: Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a FEDERAL, and not a NATIONAL constitution.

For the federal government to extend beyond the limitations of the U.S. Constitution is purely and simply tyrannical.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Widespread Fraud at Colorado Department of Labor

“Independence Investigates” has obtained internal emails from the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment (CDLE) showing that a software control intended to prevent the payment of unemployment insurance. . .

Read More

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

American Oligarchy

By Douglas V. Gibbs

An oligarchy is when the many is ruled over by a few elite.

In California 7 million voters voted for Proposition 8, and the opinion of a single gay judge struck down California's Constitutional Amendment designed to protect marriage. The political opinion of the one judge has been elevated above the desire of the populace. Does our vote even matter?

If a single judge using his own activist opinion regarding a behavioral preference can overturn the vote of the people, then what we are being told is elections don't matter.

The gay marriage issue isn't even about rights, it is about destroying an institution, and the opinion of the people, to the liberals, is completely irrelevant.

And it is not like this is about the benefits of marriage, either. In California gays have access to all of the rights of marriage through a civil union. Therefore, this is not about the legal benefits of marriage, either. It is about "marriage," it is about destroying what marriage stands for.

And the message the judge has sent is that the people can't be trusted to define marriage, and the ruling elite through the judiciary and the executive branch must do it for the people.

President Obama supports the decision because it is politically in his favor to do so, even though technically it contradicts his comments that, ". . .marriage is between a man and woman and I am not in favor of gay marriage," of which Obama said as a presidential candidate just days before the election in 2008.

A similar disregard for the vote of the people happened in Arizona, where Judge Bolton struck down what the people desire in that state in regards to enforcing immigration; and another complete disregard for the vote of the people also occurred in Missouri, where the voters in Missouri, by a 40-point margin, approved a ballot measure rejecting the individual mandate at the core of President Barack Obama's health care law. Asked what the vote meant to the White House, press secretary Robert Gibbs said: "Nothing."

What we are witnessing is an American Oligarchy carried out through the judiciary, using the age-old belief of the "General Will."

The General Will is an idea of French philosopher Jean Jacques Rousseau who was one of the influences that brought about the French Revolution shortly after the writing of the U.S. Constitution over two hundred years ago. Rousseau's main idea was his teachings of the supposed existence of the General Will.

The General Will is not necessarily expressed by the people, according to the writings of Rousseau, but is presumed to be known by the ruling elite. The General Will, says Rousseau, controls all aspects of human life, and people refusing to obey the General Will (which, remember, is only known by the ruling elite) must be restrained by the body politic. Rousseau wished to dissolve the people into a single unit, abolish decentralization, and remove representative institutions so that the General Will may be observed and promoted by the ruling elite. The General Will, according to Rousseau, was necessary for the public good.

This is why in all of these recent judicial cases we are seeing these judges acting as if they are more interested in making a political statement than upholding the rule of law.

And now the Senate has voted to confirm President Obama's Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan, yet another judicial activist that is more interested in the leftist political agenda, than the text of the law of the land. And don't forget, Kagan is the one who was willing to manipulate the law and facts to deny military recruiters equal access to Harvard law students because she did not personally approve of our military's personnel policies regarding same-sex relationships.

To these people, their agenda comes first, and the opinion of the people, even through the ballot box, means nothing to these ideologues.

As a result, the Congress and the vote of the people is becoming irrelevant, and the Executive Branch is gaining power in ways never intended by the Founding Fathers. . . and Obama is using the courts to gain much of that power.

What we have is the rise of an American Oligarchy, and only State Sovereignty will stop it, if the States are willing to follow through, and stick to their guns.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

The Obama Elite vs. The American People - Heritage Foundation

President Obama's beliefs meet his policy - Washington Post

Senate confirms Elena Kagan's nomination to Supreme Court - Washington Post

Hamilton's Curse by Thomas J. DiLorenzo, page 22

Buddy Hackett and Johnny Carson, Money for the Horses, The three legged Chicken, The Cow's Horns, The Duck Joke

Love the old Johnny Carson Tonight Show, and Buddy Hackett was a favorite too. . . and so to lighten things up I decided to put this video on. . . okay, okay, also notice how buddy talks to the environmentalist whackos. Hint: Duck and Butterfly.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

The Truth About Taxes

By Kevin J. Price

Conservatives have gotten rather animated about this idea that approximately 50 percent of the population does not pay taxes. They point at this as an example of a government that lulls the majority to sleep by keeping their tax burden low (or even "no"), while pounding the wealthy minority in order to keep themselves in power. Conservatives are half right, the intention of the "soak the rich" philosophy is to make the rest of America believe it is not paying taxes, and is thus distracted from the government's irresponsible fiscal activities.

Those who are offended by the fact that the federal government does not directly tax such a huge population, should be angry, but the story should not end there. It is not that these people are not paying taxes, it is that they are paying taxes through a huge shell game that has them being economically exploited without even realizing it. They are being taxed through the prices that businesses charge them. It is a game in which cowardly politicians use businesses that don't vote to tax the individuals who do, through the selling goods. Worried about the possibility of a Value Added Tax? Don't be, we already have it in the form of corporate income taxes.

Meanwhile, politicians disparage "big business" for its exploits and profits. The one who really takes advantage of the "little guy" is the government who uses businesses as a tax collecting vehicle.

The common retort to this argument is that "this is ridiculous, businesses pay taxes just like everyone else." Reality check...taxes are little more than a fixed cost of doing business. When the taxes go up, businesses transfer the cost to consumers in the form of higher prices or in the reduction of the quality of the products they make. If the taxes go up to levels that a business finds prohibitive, they move their companies to other countries in order to be more competitive.

Businesses do not pay taxes, people do.

The next argument is, if the government cuts or eliminates taxes on corporations, businesses would simply become richer. Maybe, but not from the tax cuts. What would actually happen if taxes on businesses were eliminated? In every industry across America there would be players that would lower prices in proportion to the cut in order to get a larger share of customers. This would rather quickly drive prices down across industries, making consumers richer and creating huge numbers of jobs. Walmart, for example, has the lowest cost per product of any retail company in the world. There is no doubt in my mind that it would drop prices immediately and others would quickly follow. The vast majority of corporations makes a net profit of 7 percent on average. This is how the market works -- either competition or the threat of competition -- forces companies to keep profits modest so their business can steadily grow. As the saying goes, "pigs get fat and hogs get slaughtered." This simple adage explains why the end of corporate taxes would lead to a proportional savings to consumers.

So what about the huge deficits that desperately need revenue? It would come from everyone directly, preferably through a sales tax, rather than one on wealth creation. A sales tax would increase fiscal responsibility because it would have to remain low in order to prevent a black market. It would get revenue from everyone -- ranging from the undocumented to the drug dealer, as well as honest working Americans -- who all have to buy things in order to live. Most importantly, those who vote would see the cost of government in every purchase they make and that would lead to a government that is much more accountable and a tax system that is far more honest.

Don't be fooled, every American pays taxes in our current system through higher prices, lost jobs, and destroyed opportunities. We need an honest system that restores political integrity and makes us more prosperous.

--
Kevin Price
Host, Price of Business, M-F at 11 am on CBS Radio News
Frequently found on Strategy Room at FoxNews.com
Syndicated columnist whose articles appear on a variety of media outlets.
His http://BizPlusBlog.com/ is ranked in the top 1 percent of all blogs by Technorati.
Kevin Price's Profile: http://www.google.com/profiles/PriceofBusiness

Progressivism: Conform or Be Cast Out

By Douglas V. Gibbs

This morning on one of my favorite radio stations they played a song by a band called "Rush." The song was "Subdivisions," and the words that caught my attention go as follows:

In the high school halls,
In the shopping malls,
Conform or be cast out. . .

The piece of societal commentary put to song ran in sync with the attitude of non-conformity of the day. You can call it anti-establishment, but I took it as meaning "being different is a good thing."

While I navigated the years where I was into Punk Rock, and Heavy Metal, on my vest I work a number of buttons, or pins, and one of them (which I also wore on my letterman's jacket later) I wore upside down, and it read: "Why be normal?"

The belief had been instilled into the children. Think for yourself, don't be like everyone else, be a non-conformist. Don't be what society considers to be normal, be whoever you are. To a certain degree, that is good advice. We should think the way we wish to think on certain matters. In other words, I believe in diversity - in the arena of ideas. There is nothing wrong with believing what you believe, and thinking the way you think - but, be prepared for opposition, and understand that in a free thinking society there will be those who disagree with you, and that is fine.

I would rather someone come to a conclusion because they thought about it, than to be just another one of the rats following the piper over the cliff and into the water.

Now, here is what is so fascinating about all of this; the people behind trying to convince everybody to be a non-conformist (peace, love, dope man!), were the same people accusing The Right of trying to fit everyone into one big homogeneous mass (when in reality conservatism teaches individualism, personal responsibility, and self-reliance). So, the people behind the non-conformist movement, the folks the kids were looking up to, were quite liberal. That was the liberal message. Their message was, and still is, "We are here to embrace your differences. To embrace your diversity. To embrace your uniqueness. To embrace your unwillingness to mindlessly conform to the rules society tells you that you must follow."

Honestly, to a degree, I agree. Be an individual. But don't forget you are an American, and that diversity of thought is also important.

The very same liberals that have been telling you to be unique, and to be a non-conformist, are also the ones behind socialistic programs that are designed to treat everyone the same, and to foster uniformity. In these programs they want everyone to be the same. They are saying to us that everybody must have government paid healthcare, nobody should be taking risks (it could, they are saying, damage our financial market), they want you to be a conformist that conforms to their policies, follows the other sheep into their programs, and don't be a part of the opposition.

If you are different from them, if you disagree, if you have an opposing view, like the Tea Party Movement, you will be cast out. You will be subject to their attacks. If you refer to history, and use the teachings and writings of the Founding Fathers as the basis of your political beliefs, and your conclusions are in opposition to what their beliefs are (like Glenn Beck's for example), you will not only be cast out. . . you will be attacked. That is the message of this administration. That is the message of the Congressional Democrats.

In the high school halls,
In the shopping malls,
Conform or be cast out. . .

As for me, I will choose free will.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Store Manager Witnesses to Would-be Robber

On July 23, 2010 20-year-old cellphone store manager Nayara Goncalves persuaded a would-be armed robber to put away his gun and leave her store in the name of the Lord. Every moment of the more than five-minute exchange between a calm Goncalves and the nervous, unidentified robber was captured on a store camera. He exchanges pleasantries with Goncalves, asking whether she was keeping dry, then asks to see a phone. Moments later, he reaches into his coat, apparently showing her a gun. He apologizes: ``I really hate to do ...

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

What the Show-Me State Showed Obama

Get Liberty

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Tonight at the Temecula Constitution Study:

August 5, 2010 - Tonight we will examine Article I, Sections 4-7; as well as when Executive Orders are Constitutional, and when they are not; and with recent federal court decisions, how the judiciary in America is becoming lawless.

Join us at 6:00 pm at Faith Armory, 27498 Enterprise Cir. W #2, Temecula, California.

Jefferson: Danger of a Centralized Government in Washington

"[W]hen all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another." --Thomas Jefferson

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Islamic Law: Professor's Right Hand Chopped Off for Blasphemy

Newspaper Report Examines Jihadist Activities in India's Kerala State After a Taliban-Style Court Ordered Chopping Off a Professor's Hand for Blasphemy

This is the kind of things that happens regularly in the Islamic World, and the building of mosques in America brings us closer to this kind of madness coming to the United States.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary