Don't Pay Your Mortgage, and Feel The Wrath of the Federal Government

Charles Ward fell behind on his mortgage in September, just as his late wife began a losing battle with lung cancer and her medical costs soared.

His lender seized his $2,958 federal tax refund and has taken a $131 bite from each of his last four monthly Social Security checks.

"What little money I had saved up has just disappeared," says Mr. Ward, a 71-year-old former truck driver who bought his $128,000 home in Nelsonville, Ohio, in 2008. He receives about $200 a month in food stamps and takes on odd jobs to make ends meet.

Mr. Ward's lender isn't a bank. It is the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Rural Housing Service, which provides mortgage loans to rural homeowners and guarantees loans made by banks. It accounted for at least a third of all mortgages issued in 2010 in sparsely populated areas such as Morton County, Kan., and Sioux County, Neb., according to data reported under the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act.

Unlike private firms, the USDA doesn't need permission from a court to start collecting on unpaid debts. It can in some cases seize government benefits and tax refunds before a foreclosure is completed. After foreclosure, the USDA can go after unpaid balances, even in states that limit such actions by private lenders.

Read More at the Wall Street Journal

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Rand Paul Proposes Disarming Some Federal Agents

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Prior to the American Revolution in order to enforce the Intolerable Acts, The Townsend Acts, and other unjust actions against the American Colonies, the British sent in the troops. The colonists reasoned that if the laws were just, the Crown would not need weaponry to enforce them. The colonists also realized that since the tyranny of Britain had reached a point where the colonists were being controlled by gun point, and the only way to stop the authoritarianism was for the colonists to use firearms themselves. Great Britain also understood that the colonists' only way out was armed rebellion, so they decided they were going to take the guns away from the colonists as well. The British army marched towards Concord, Massachusetts where the largest colonial armory existed, but short of their goal, in Lexington, the Americans met them. It was one thing to try to force unjust laws on the people through armed agents, but it was another for the British to come and take away the guns.

Senator Rand Paul is a student of history, and of the United States Constitution.  When the news came to him about armed agents raiding Amish farms to prevent them from selling raw milk, which is one of many different tyrannical actions the FDA engages in to force the will of the federal government on Americans, the Senator from Kentucky introduced an amendment designed to disarm Food and Drug Administration bureaucrats.

On the Senate Floor Rand Paul said of his proposal, “I think we have bigger problems in our country than sending armed FDA agents into peaceful farmers’ land and telling them they can’t sell milk directly from the cow.”

The amendment would disarm the FDA, halting armed raids against farmers, and stop the FDA's censorship of truthful health claims of dietary supplements and medicinal herbs, which serve as a mercantilism favor to pharmaceutical companies.

The amendment was later defeated 78-15 (which is yet another piece of evidence supporting the need for an Article V. Convention).

According to Bob Unruh at World Net Daily, "The core of the conflict stems from the federal government’s desire to regulate the food industry from start to finish. Local growers and producers who would like to sell their products often face enforcement actions for not having a proper packaging facility or following some other regulation. A major dispute has developed over the sale of unpasteurized milk, which many people consider more healthy. Thirty states allow it but 20 don’t, and the federal government forbids it in interstate commerce."

But how do you stop government tyranny if it is that same government that is needed to address the tyranny? No amendment limiting the powers, or the fire power, of the federal government will ever succeed in the halls of Congress. Rand Paul may be a fantastic leader that understands the Constitution and is willing to fight for the freedoms of Americans, but he is surrounded by an establishment hell-bent on expanding their centralized control over the populace. The establishment claims it is for the good of the people, as they strip away liberty after liberty.

This kind of tyranny is exactly why the FDA is unconstitutional in the first place. The federal government, through the Constitution, has never been given the authority to regulate food and drugs. Even the Commerce Clause is used inaccurately in this case. The clause was created so that the federal government could be a mediator in the instances of conflict between the States over interstate commerce, not for the government to use an iron fist to control anything and everything that moves between the States. The creation of laws, and enforcing those laws, regarding food safety and drugs is a power that was reserved to the States. Each State is supposed to be responsible for these kinds of laws. Whenever you give that kind of power to a centralized system, what has happened is what happens - they take that power too far, arm themselves to enforce it, and eventually start stripping away freedoms.

According to Rand Paul, the Constitution cites four federal crimes. Through federal bureaucracies Washington has created over 4,000.

The problem is, these actions by armed FDA agents are also performed without due process, and “It can’t be an honest mistake where a businessman or woman has broken a regulation and didn’t intend to harm someone.”

Rand Paul also said on this issue, “We’ve gone too far, and we’ve abrogated the First Amendment, and what we need to do is tell the FDA that the courts have ruled that the First Amendment does apply to commercial speech, and the FDA has been overstepping their bounds.”

According to World Net Daily and Natural News it has even gotten to the point where a business in California said government health officials have begun tracking down the names and addresses of natural-foods customers and are showing up at their homes, demanding to confiscate any raw milk they might have. It has even extended to a door-to-door search by confiscation teams who threaten and intimidate raw dairy customers into surrendering raw milk products they legally purchase and own.

This is the kind of thing you would expect from Nazi Germany, or the Soviet Union, where the government is going around, with firearms at their sides, collecting food from people's houses.

How long before they decide your homegrown vegetables from your backyard garden needs to be confiscated? How long before they determine certain tools need to be confiscated? How long before it progresses to our guns, or our Bibles?

So how does an amendment like Rand Paul's survive the onslaught by the establishment?

We take it out of the establishment's hands. The States have the power to nullify unconstitutional laws, and refuse the unconstitutional actions of unconstitutional agencies. As for the law on the books? The people, through their States, also have the authority to hold their own convention, where delegates from the States propose amendments, and then send them out to be ratified by the State legislatures.

That may be the only way to pass an amendment like Rand Paul's.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Why do we need arms to enforce just laws - Tea Party Nation

It's Rand Paul vs. Armed Bureaucrats - World Net Daily

California Food Police Gone Wild: LA County Health Enforcers Conduct Door to Door Raw Milk Confiscation Operations - Natural News

Udder Nonsense: Raw Milk Confiscations Begin - World Net Daily

Also read these articles from Political Pistachio to better understand federal authorities:

Myth #2: Federal law supersedes state law. No state can make any law contrary to any federal law.

Myth #5: A Con-Con (Article V. Convention) would allow the Constitution to be re-written.

Myth #6: The Commerce Clause allows the federal government to regulate all commerce between the states however it seems fit.

California's 42nd District Congressional Race Getting Ugly

By Douglas V. Gibbs

The district lines in California have been redrawn. Southwest Riverside County used to largely be a part of the district Mary Bono Mack is the representative for. Now that the lines have been adjusted, her district pretty much remains in the desert areas around Palm Springs. Ken Calvert's district now includes much of Southwest Riverside County, along with Corona, Norco, and Eastvale. Mr. Calvert is considered a Republican In Name Only to conservatives of the region, so a number of more conservative candidates have come out to challenge him.

Clay Thibodeau ran against Mary Bono Mack in the last election, and he established himself as a strong candidate in Southwest Riverside County. Mack's strong numbers in the desert communities kept her on top, and she held on to her seat in 2010. Now, Clay is back, challenging Ken Calvert in the 42nd District. His prowess regarding national issues, and the United States Constitution, has made him a favorite among many conservatives in the area. His biggest challenge, however, aside from Mr. Calvert, is a black female candidate by the name of Eva Johnson.

Dr. Eva Johnson has deeper roots locally than Clay, and has more experience in regards to her involvement in local politics. Her deep Christian faith, and extensive education, has earned her the respect of a large swath of local voters. Dr. Johnson also holds the U.S. Constitution as an important part of her campaign, though her understanding of the document is still in its infancy.

Both candidates have appeal, and drawbacks. Both candidates are also better than Ken Calvert, the RINO. In tomorrow's primary, it is pretty much understood that Calvert will land one of the two spots available on the general election ballot. The other will likely belong to Clay, or Eva.

The realization that Clay or Eva will likely hold the final spot has made the battle between these two quite interesting. Mud throwing, however, has not come from the candidates, but from their followers.

In response to an article in the Murrieta Patch about an attorney endorsing Congressional Candidate Eva Johnson, a supporter of Eva's campaign wrote a scathing letter against both Clay Thibodeau, and one of his primary campaign volunteers, Diana Serafin.

"Diane both you and Clay are deceptive and immoral. You are no longer allowed to attend Republican Women's Federated functions because of immoral behavior which includes gathering signatures to Liberal causes and candidates. You have sold your soul to make a buck. Diane claims her candidate won a debate when there was none. It was A FORUM , Loading the audience with Clay supporters to clap for him doesn't constitute a win. It constitutes deception. Diane has no morals only lies.She also twists the truth. Bob Kowell persoanlly endorsed Eva Johnson as Richard Ackerman has. No where was it mentioned the the MTRA was a part of that. as Diane likes to "imply" a lie. Wow and Diane wants to be on the Republican Central Committee? Allowing her any power is a mistake. She is not responsible or trustworthy enough to wield it wisely.She needs to be checked not put in any office. And deceptive Carpetbagger Clay has erased all references to his El Cajon residence online as well as his confession that he has no social affiliations to anything in the 42nd district. You Diane are a hypocrite. You have a web site listing LGPAC on it without LGPAC approving the use of its name on it. You are being told to take it down tommorow if you haven't already."

Diana replied through email, indicating that these kinds of attacks are nothing new, and rather than publish her response to these vial smears and lies, she decided to respond through email.

In responding, she listed her own bullet points of truth. . .

1. I am an honorary member of the Women’s Federated. This has been confirmed by a few board members.

2. I have NOT been kicked out

3. I am still doing voter registration – next event: this Saturday at Sam Hicks Park Event

4. Attacking the Central Committee is attacking all Republicans

5. The candidate that wins will want the Central Committee on their side They will also want the Riverside GOP endorsement and large donations.

6. This person is working very hard for a candidate – what if this person gets elected and gets a job in the 42nd district office???? Will he treat everyone this way.

7. Yes I am a candidate for the Central Committee. Win or lose, I am still going to be active fighting for our rights, voter registration, petitions and whatever else I can do to protect our future generations. I will also attend the Central Committee meetings.

8. Calling a candidate a carpetbagger is also calling Michelle Bachman and Alan West a carpetbagger. They do not live in their districts either. It is more important to understand and defend the constitution, then it is to  live here.

9. I also have been threatened by a law suit from one candidate. I have challengedmany candidates platforms in all races and areas they are breaking laws. I have been in touch by email with ALL the candidates from the 42nd district and the 67th District. I was investigating their platform. I do my homework thoroughly.

10. Zorina and I have found many signs thrown into fields for most candidates. We have picked up the signs, put them back up and I notified the campaigns.

11. This gentleman Roy, called me and threatened me regarding stealing signs. My cell phone is automatically on speaker when I am driving so I had a witness. We filed a police report.

12. I have NEVER done any “liberal” petitions and NEVER will. At present I am working on Stop SB48 and part time legislature petitions.

God Bless this country and pray everyone votes to save our country and freedoms.

As a result of the fireworks, a number of people associated with my Constitution Classes, and others because they know I am friends with both Clay and Eva, have asked me about my opinion on this mess. My response has been as simple, and as neutral, as I can make it:

I have been keeping up with what's going on, but there are a lot of accusations from both sides that can't necessarily be substantiated. In other words, it is word against word. That said, as I told Suzanne on my radio show at KCAA last Saturday when she called in, I am staying neutral. Both candidates have good things, and bad things, about them. Clay is more solid on the Constitution. Eva has more experience in her involvement with local government. Both are educated, but Eva's education is more geared towards running for office, and her education is more extensive, having a doctorate. Clay is a better speaker, and has a better handle on the overall issues. Eva is a Christian, while Clay is a Mormon. Eva lives permanently in the local area, while Clay has a local address simply for running for office. Clay has done more research on the federal issues. and so on and so on. Therefore, I must say that I like Clay more because of his constitutional understanding and grasp on the issues. And Eva more because of her experience in the local political scene, and her position of faith.

As for the back biting, and attacks. Are we surprised? I'm not. But I refuse to get sucked into it. I consider all parties to be my friends and valued acquaintances, and can simply say, "May the best candidate win."

Added Note: Prior to the posting of this article, I had a conversation with Diana Serafin where she added the following tidbits:
In regards to deep local roots, Clay has over 40 years in Riverside county. Eva has only been here I think 17 years. Clay has two Master Degrees. Masters Degrees in Business Administration and Education. Eva has personally attacked members of Clay's team, and though Eva served on local committees she never showed up to the meetings. She did not help with Measures C D E and Ban the Cams. She did not attend regularly the commission and quit it. Never finished out the term.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Samuel Adams on the Importance of Voting

"Let each citizen remember at the moment he is offering his vote that he is not making a present or a compliment to please an individual - or at least that he ought not so to do; but that he is executing one of the most solemn trusts in human society for which he is accountable to God and his country." --Samuel Adams, in the Boston Gazette, 1781

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Proposition 29 in California, Punitive Cigarette Tax

By Douglas V. Gibbs

When the idea of an additional one dollar cigarette tax was floated early on in this election season, voters overwhelmingly supported the idea. Then, as the opposition, funded by the cigarette companies, began their advertisements revealing the weaknesses of the proposition, including the fact that the revenue did not have to remain in California, the opinion of the proposed tax began to change direction.

Here in California we have some of the toughest smoking laws in the nation. Even before I quit smoking seven years ago the laws were becoming tough on smokers. Indoor smoking at business establishments is out of the question, and in some places you can't even smoke in your own apartment. The harsh laws, however, have changed the behavior of the citizens, as planned. The reformers and authoritarians have done all they can to stamp out smoking from the State. As a result, California has the second lowest per capita smoking rate in the country.

It has also been fourteen years since the last rise in the cigarette tax.

In one of the ads supporting Proposition 29 the actors use absurdity to get across their point about how they think "big tobacco" is evil. One of the actors portrays a farmer standing in a field, saying, "I love big tobacco because they killed my wife, and that's one less mouth to feed."

The premise is the same as with all other liberal agendas. Someone else is to blame. This big bad corporation, or that big bad group, is to blame. Never mind individual choice. Never mind that the man's wife decided to smoke voluntarily, and her death was the result over her own, personal choices.

As for the dangers of smoking, they are well documented. I think some of it is exaggerated, especially the second-hand smoke rhetoric. For some, it is a matter of genetic predisposition. My grandfather began smoking when he was fourteen, smoked a couple packs of non-filter cigarettes a day, and lived well into his eighties. I smoked for 21 years, and during that time doctors thought I was a non-smoker.  My lungs remained as clear and crisp as when I was a long-distance runner in my pre-smoking years. In fact, I continued to run, play basketball, and participate in other similar activities while I was a smoker. My stamina never waned.

When I quit, it was cold turkey, and simply because of a stomach surgery I was going to undergo, and after talking to the anesthesiologist, I felt it was in my best interest to quit. The thought of dying on the operating table while I was asleep was a greater convincing factor than the possibility of a slow, painful, emphysema ridden death later in life.

The thing is, all of the arguments miss the whole point. When it comes down to the nuts and bolts of it all, Proposition 29 will create a huge bureaucracy established for the specific reason of using punitive taxation to alter people's behavior. Regardless of all of the arguments, the very fact that the goal is to force people to change their individual behavior to something acceptable to a bunch of people who have decided that not smoking is acceptable behavior is reason enough to vote against it.  If you don't like cigarette smoke, then don't go to places that smokers gather.

It brings to mind something I've heard before about the difference between liberals and conservatives. If a conservative dislikes guns, they don't buy one. If liberals don't like guns, they want to make sure nobody owns one.

I don't smoke anymore, and when I am around a person who does smoke, I am not real fond of the smell. But that is their decision. As long as they are decent about it, and they aren't doing something messed up like blowing smoke in my face, what do I care if they smoke?

The argument used is usually the burden smokers put on the health care system. Perhaps. Obesity puts a burden, they claim, on the health care system, too. For the sake of the good of the community, society, and the tax payers, they claim, people need to behave as they dictate. For some, that may seem like a noble thing, but when choice is taken away by a meddling group of people, it is anything but liberty.

Proposition 29 ranks right up there with Mayor Bloomberg's decision to ban soft drinks over eight ounces, and the mandate in Obamacare requiring people to buy insurance. At this rate, we might as well change the name of this country to the Soviet States of America.

I plan to vote "no" on Proposition 29.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Political Parties are in our Human Nature

"The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man." --James Madison

If, hypothetically, we were to eliminate political parties, by the simple nature of our humanity, we would end up forming parties. Birds of a feather flock together, they organize, and then you have parties.

So, for those of you dreaming of eliminating political parties, I don't see it as possible. However, at the federal level, if all politicians were to only abide by the Constitution, no parties would be necessary.

Just a thought.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Republicans Made To Apologize for Birther Remarks

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Republican Colorado Congressman Mike Coffman at a fundraiser was caught on tape indicating he "didn't know if Barack Obama was born in the United States."

Republican Secretary of State Kenneth Bennett in Arizona attempted to keep Obama off of the ballot in November, citing that Obama was not born in the United States.

Both were made to apologize for their statements.

The democrats, and their supporters, claim the campaign is only supposed to be about the economy, and this kind of rhetoric is unacceptable, therefore such desperate actions such as this must not be allowed, and they must be made to apologize for what they said.

The democrats have determined that the Republican Party is engaging in a war on the president laced with racism. The democrats have also accused the republicans of waging a war on women. Their harsh rhetoric such as Reverend Al Sharpton accusing the Republican Party of being like Hitler, and wanting genocide, conveys the message that they believe in a world of double standards. They can accuse their opposition of anything they want, but if their opposition dares say anything outside what they allow, the accusatory rhetoric by the Left simply escalates. Then again, that is no surprise. Conservatives have known this of the liberal left for a very long time.

All of this goes hand in hand with the accusations of Islamophobia, homophobia, racism, sexism, and the accusation that the republicans are engaged in a war on women, and for some reason some of the people believe it. However, less people than the liberal left realizes falls for their campaign of personal destruction and ideological lies.

As for the apologizing republicans? Why did these republicans cave, and apologize? If they think Obama was not born in the United States, then it would be their prerogative to say so. For many Americans, that is a key issue, and a very important reason they are not voting for Obama.

The establishment is worried about these guys "embarrassing" the Republican Party. For what? Speaking freely? The Democrats dish out idiotic stuff ten times worse, but the republicans have to apologize?

These apologies are surfacing as Donald Trump's birther opinions are resurfacing, and democrats are telling Romney he needs to distance himself from Trump for that reason.

Since when should republicans cower because democrats told them to?

The democrats know that the eligibility issue is a big one, and that the belief his birth certificate is a forgery is a widespread belief. They are trying to shut down the accusations before they once again ignite the birther movement. Deep down the democrats know that more and more Americans are realizing they are full of crap, and more and more are also beginning to buy into the idea that Obama was never eligible to be president in the first place. Their attempt to silence any reference to the birth certificate, or the eligibility issue, is simply the democrats trying to nip this at the bud before it explodes once again.

Also, as the democrats try to indicate that birthers are almost exclusively republicans, we must remember that the birther movement did not emerge through the GOP. It first surfaced in the last presidential election, and it was promoted by the supporters of Obama's opposition, the followers of Hillary Clinton. In fact, there are some stories that have indicated that the Obama Campaign threatened the life of Chelsea Clinton if the Clintons did not keep quite about Obama's history.

The liberal left sheep believes those that believe Obama is not eligible for the presidency believe such because they are racists, and are unable to accept the fact that our President is black. However, the facts speak for themselves. When one studies the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1790, and Vattell's Law of Nations (a very important resource to the Founding Fathers), you will discover that to be a Natural Born Citizen both parents of the person must have been citizens (by birth or naturalization) at the time of the birth of the child. In the case of Obama, by his own admission, Barack Obama Sr. was a citizen of Kenya, and a British Subject, at the time of Barry's birth. Racism has nothing to do with it.

Romney has said nothing on the issue, but has also refused to denounce the birthers, or Donald Trump and his birther comments, for that matter.  This is important. The democrats are claiming Romney has been silent on the issue because he is being negligent, or agrees with them, or is a racist (or all of the above). In reality, Romney is doing exactly as he should: Ignore the attacks and stick to the issues.  The moment a candidate goes on defense against liberal attacks, as McCain did in 2008, his message is lost.

Romney, unlike the apologetic republicans, Bennett and Coffman, is not willing to bend to the left's will.

The liberal left can't win on the issues, and are unable to compete in the arena of ideas, so they resort to name-calling and personal attacks. Their campaign of personal destruction can be effective. It convinced a whole country to hate George W. Bush.

Romney, I have a feeling, won't apologize so easily, and that makes him a candidate that can beat the liberal left madness.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Two GOP Elected Officials Had To Apologize This Week - Examiner

Levin: Sharpton Should Be Fired for Accusing GOP of Genocide - The Daily Caller

Birther Movement Started by Bill Clinton - Truth That Matters

Natural Born Citizen, Chapter 3: The Naturalization Act of 1790 - He's Not My President

Vattel's Influence on the term Natural Born Citizen - Birthers.org

International Left's Bilderberg Conference Met With Protest

By Douglas V. Gibbs

There is a power play through internationalism that is older than this nation. From the Illuminati to the Bilderbergers to the Tri-Lateralists, the concept of globalism is nothing new. Those that attempt to expose the worldwide conspiracy are labeled conspiracy theorists, and in the past have been shrugged off as just a little nuts. However, in today's world, yesterday's conspiracy theory has become today's headlines. More people are informed of the international power brokers' push for a global system of governance, and the reality that many of these international men of position are puppeteers willing to bring down entire governments for a taste of more money, and more power. This realization by an even larger segment of society has placed the globalists front and center, and their 2012 conference near Washington DC was met by a larger group of protesters than usual.

The event was larger than ever, with its usual compliment of democrats and republicans alike.  Strangely, David Rockefeller was not in attendance.

The attendees indicated they see the Bilderberg Conference as a great opportunity for international leaders to get together for the good of the world. The protesters see it as an opportunity for internationalists to get together to further scheme towards a world governed by a global system of authoritarianism in the name of sustainable development, and global fairness.

As usual, the mainstream press was nowhere to be seen. Alternative media names like Alex Jones, however, wouldn't have missed it for anything. Jones is known for his "conspiracy theories," and calls the Bilderbergers the "Empire of the Bankers."

Years ago, he was considered kind of kooky over this stuff. Now, what he says about this stuff is being considered.

The police warned that anyone trying to get into the hotel would be arrested. Alex Jones, and his crew, were escorted out of the hotel before the event began.

The Bilderberg attendees paid little attention to the protesters, and gave out little information about the meeting. . . aside from the roster.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Demonstrators Heckle Bilderberg Attendees - Washington Times

Bilderberg 2012: Bigger, Badder, and Better than ever - U.K. Guardian

Barack Obama Campaign Funded with Planned Parenthood's Blood Money

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Back in 2008 Obama was established as not only a pro-abortion candidate, but one that believes in infanticide as evidenced by his lack of support of an anti-infanticide bill in Illinois. The bill, if it had become law, would have outlawed the killing of babies that survive abortion. As a black candidate, and one very popular with the black community, it seemed like a contradiction, because Planned Parenthood was created by Margaret Sanger with the intent of using the program to wipe out blacks, which she considered to be an inferior race. Abortion in America was originally promoted as a tool to kill minorities before they could be born. For pro-life groups, the very thought of killing any child in the womb is murder, and by many is considered to be America's genocide.

Planned Parenthood supports Barack Obama, and is currently stepping up their efforts to ensure his reelection. They are pumping money into his campaign, saying their support is in relation to the issues of "health" and "economics."

Planned Parenthood endorsed Obama's reelection earlier this week, saying Romney's positions are harmful on women's health, despite the fact that most abortions have nothing to do with a woman's health, and are performed more often as a convenience. These women who use Planned Parenthood for access to abortion services, more often than not, consider a child an inconvenience.

The argument against Romney coincides with the liberal left's current "War on Women" campaign, an argument they also used while debating against the bill that would ban abortions based on the sex of the child.

The money being used to support Obama's campaign, when one considers the government subsidies Planned Parenthood receives, is your tax dollars.

The concept of liberty is left out when the liberal left democrats argue in favor of terminating the lives of unborn kids. A person has the liberty to use birth control, or to not have sex, if they don't wish to become pregnant. Abstinence is 100% effective, in fact. Sex is a choice, and a behavior that, if pregnancy is the result, should not be picked up by the tax payer. In fact, from a Constitutional point of view, the federal government has no authority to be funding Planned Parenthood, or to be involved in the abortion issue in any way.

So, blood money by the federal government spent to kill babies, and provided against any constitutional legal authority, is being used to support the campaign of Barack Obama. Meanwhile, the promotion of free contraceptives by the government through Obamacare, and the ability to end the life of a child at pretty much any stage of pregnancy, promotes poor sexual behavior without the worry of consequences for their actions (aside from STDs).

Interestingly, this is only the third time Planned Parenthood has endorsed a candidate for president. Planned Parenthood sees this as a fight for its own survival, since Republicans have become more active in pro-life legislation, including following the Constitution in their efforts to cut off all federal government funding to Planned Parenthood, and any other group that provides access to abortion.

In their support for Barack Obama, aside from endorsing Obama, and providing funds for his campaign, Planned Parenthood has launched a $1.4 million advertising campaign attacking Romney's opposition to abortion, and his desire to eliminate Planned Parenthood.

It is understood that if the abortion of babies ever ends, it would also be the end of Planned Parenthood, so it is no surprise they are supporting Obama as they are with their blood money.  For them, it is a matter of survival. A Republican President with a Republican Congress could spell the beginning of the end for Planned Parenthood.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Planned Parenthood Pours $1.4 Million to Obama Campaign - The Loft: GOP USA

Obama's Support of Infanticide Takes Center Stage in Republican Presidential Debate - LifeSiteNews

Sex-Selection Abortions Bill Pits Democrats Against Republicans in House - ABC News

House Votes to Defund Planned Parenthood - Politico

Obama NDAA Tyranny Defies Court Ruling

When 4th District Court Judge Katherine Forrest ruled the NDAA unconstitutional, there was wide rejoicing across the internet. Posts from prominent civil liberties activists like journalist David Seaman rang out with “VIICCTOOORRYY!” A Russia Today newscast, titled the ruling “NDAA Shot Down, But Threats Remain”, seemed to imply that the fight was over, or “on hold.” But it was only just beginning.

Do you remember, from your high school or college government courses, when they talked about the court having “neither the power of the sword nor the purse?” That means the High Courts of the United States cannot force the government to accept their ruling. They can heavily imply it, but they have no power to force government compliance. When the Supreme Court ruled against the government in Worcester v. Georgia, President Andrew Jackson is famous for having responded: “[Justice] John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it.”

The tyrannical U.S. Government has taken the exact same tack with the ruling against them on the NDAA. But first, let’s quickly recap exactly how weak the government case in favor of the NDAA actually was. In Hedges v. Obama, the government routinely avoided the judge’s questions and demands:

Finish Reading at The Western Center for Journalism

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Protests Escalate in Egypt

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Cairo's Tahrir Square is once again the site of protesters shouting for removal of the tyrannical government. Now, instead of Mubarak, they are chanting for the removal of the military government. Revolution is back, and change is afoot. . . again.

With the sentencing of former Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak to 30 years in prison, the celebrations in the streets quickly turning into protests. The people wanted Mubarak executed, and his sons, who were acquitted, also punished.

The anger then grew, and chants became a new call for revolution.

Once outlawed, The Muslim Brotherhood has risen to prominence, and it was that group that called for the massive protests at Tahrir Square. The sentiment is that justice was not served, and that the current government is as much of a sham as the previous one.  Mubarak's sentence did show, however, that Egypt's leaders are not above the law, and that the old regime was not coming back.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Arab Spring: Egyptians March in Outrage - ABC News/Yahoo News

Constitution Study Radio: Preamble, Legislative Powers

Constitution Study Radio: Lessons 2.1-2.2 - Preamble/Legislative Powers

• by Douglas V Gibbs
• in Politics Conservative
• Sun, June 3, 2012 06:00AM Pacific

Constitution Study Radio: Lessons 2.1-2.2 - Preamble, Legislative Powers. Through the Constitution with Douglas V. Gibbs

Ben Franklin on Obama's Narcissism

"He that falls in love with himself will have no rivals." --Benjamin Franklin, 1758

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Romney On The Verge Of Perceived Greatness

By J.J. Jackson

Perception is reality. It isn’t true, but that’s what they say and what a lot of people believe. Reality is reality.

In 2008, the U.S. electorate stupidly opted to double down on socialism. They elected a far left Senator namedBarack Obama to be President. Of course, the only other option was a left leaning Senator named John McCain. Well, that was perception anyway. There were other choices, former ambassador Alan Keyes for example. Mr. Keyes actually knows his posterior from a hole in the ground. However, because so many people perceived the only choices as being Obama and McCain, they were the only two considered on Election Day.

So, here we are again, just four years later. Once again, we have two perceived options. On the far left, it is the now President Barack Obama. He is going to be up against left leaning, moderate at best, Mitt Romney. There are other options, but, once again, the perception of the masses clouds their judgment and forces them into a false reality. With the way things are going; the U.S. economy still in the doldrums, government spending at levels never before seen, and debt so massive that our great grandchildren are already hurting at the prospect of having to pay it off, President Obama is desperately trying everything and anything to get re-elected. Barring a major bout of incompetency by the citizenry, or voter fraud on a scale so massive that it would make previous voter fraud perpetuated by the Democratic Party look like a rigged bingo game, President Obama does not look likely to win re-election. His record is just that bad.

What does that mean? It means that, in all likelihood, we are in for four years of President Romney. Subdued cheers ensue.

Under, President Romney, in all likelihood, most, if not all of President Obama’s horrendous socialism will be overturned. While conservatives might rejoice at such news, before breaking out the champagne, it is important to realize something important. Ok, so the socialism of Obama’s reign is undone. What does that leave us with? It leaves us with the level of socialism we had at the end of President George Bush's tenure. If we are lucky, there might even be some serious tax reform. I would not hold my breath expecting it, but it is possible if Congress is conservative enough after November's elections. In 2016 there will most likely still be a massive national debt, and it will probably be even bigger than it is today.

But, perception will likely win out over reality. Perception will be that a rollback to the levels of socialism four years ago is good and the economy and the nation will start to recover. Jobs will be created - finally. Things will improve. Even though things will still be bad, they will not be as bad. Even though government will still be spending more than it brings in, it will not be spending as much beyond its means as it is today. Even though government will still be doing unconstitutional things, it will not be doing as many unconstitutional things as it is today. People will perceive President Romney as a great man. He is not one, but he will be seen as one.

America will be better off. But it still will not be in good shape. After the previous years of President Obama, most will not care even though they should.

Funny thing about perceptions, they are just veneers. They are not real. Facades always crack and fade with time to reveal what is beneath. For the short term, President Romney, if elected, will be perceived as great. Eventually though, reality will win out.

================ 

J.J. Jackson is a libertarian conservative author from Pittsburgh, PA who has been writing and promoting individual liberty since 1993 and is President of Land of the Free Studios, Inc. He is the Pittsburgh Conservative Examiner for Examiner.com. He is also the owner of The Right Things - Conservative T-shirts & Gifts The Right Things. His weekly commentary along with exclusives not available anywhere else can be found at Liberty Reborn.

Founding Truth: Radio Finale Regarding the Constitution, and Douglas V. Gibbs, on this very busy broadcast day

Founding Truth of the U.S. Constitution

• by HOV Radio
• in Politics Conservative
• Sat, June 2, 2012 05:00PM

What is our government doing, to the American people, that is not following the Constitution? Listen here and find out!

Constitution Radio: Political Activist Paul Shibley says We Don't Have Enough Representatives

CALL IN NUMBER: 888-909-1050

Political Activist Paul Shibley joins us in studio to discuss his crusade regarding congressional representation. Paul recently lectured at U.C. Berkeley on this topic (video of his presentation at the bottom of this post), and will discuss the Constitutional angle with Douglas V. Gibbs on Constitution Radio today. Tune in at 2:00 pm Pacific to KCAA 1050 AM, or catch it at KCAAradio.com. The podcast will be available after the episode on our Podcast Page.

Then, after the Book of the Week (Presented by Prying1Books), Question of the Week (provided by Constitution Quest Game), and Constitution Corner, we will go over the 5 Big Stories of the Week. . .

5 Big Stories of the Week, June 2, 2012

5. Pelosi: ObamaCare will be Upheld 6-3 “Because I know the Constitution”
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/05/31/pelosi_obamacare_will_be_upheld_6-3_because_i_know_the_constitution.html

4. New York Soda Ban: Forcing You To Change Your Behavior

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/05/31/bloomberg_on_sad_ban_were_simply_forcing_you_to_understand.html

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/05/30/here-he-goes-again-bloomberg-set-to-ban-all-sugary-drinks-over-16-ounces/

3. Abortion Ban for Sex of Fetus Loses in House of Representatives

http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/30/politics/house-abortion-gender/index.html

http://www.infowars.com/house-votes-down-bill-banning-sex-selective-gendercide-abortion/

2. Senator DeMint: 90% of Bills Passed Without Debate

http://politicalpistachio.blogspot.com/2012/05/culture-of-washington-establishment.html

1. Unemployment Rate Rises to 8.2%

http://www.kansas.com/2012/05/31/2356074/dismal-job-growth-in-may-shows.html

American Daily Review. . . Dr. Larry Arnn Interview Aftermath

American Daily Review

• by ADR Radio
• in Politics Conservative
• Sat, June 2, 2012 12:00PM

Welcome to the pre-game show for Constitution Radio on the Political Pistachio Radio Network.

Janet Napolitano: The Hurricanes are Coming! The Hurricanes are Coming!

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Hoping for crisis, the Department of Homeland Security is warning this could be a difficult hurricane season. The liberal left loves hurricanes. Remember Katrina? It gave them the chance to start confiscating guns.

The Obama Administration is also using the warnings of a difficult hurricane season as an excuse for a call for government controlled communitarianism. They say community, but they mean authoritarian control of the masses.

Remember the last time they predicted a rough hurricane season? Yep, there were hardly any hurricanes. Well, they figure they have a 50-50 chance, and they couldn't foul it up this bad twice. Surely, that global warming thing will come through for them eventually, right?

It is sort of like evolution. They are full of theories, but never seem to be able to pull together any real evidence.

As for the massive hurricanes we are supposed to be looking for? Time will tell. We'll see.

Personally, I am keeping my powder dry. Nobody's confiscating my guns.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

DHS Warns of Hurricanes - Weekly Standard

The Blaze: Obama's Truth Teams

OBAMA’S TRUTH TEAMS: ‘FIGHT BACK, REPORT AN ATTACK’

Back in February, The Blaze reported on Obama’s “Truth Teams,” described on the official site as “a network of [President Obama's] supporters who are committed to responding to unfounded attacks and defending the President’s record.”

“When you’re faced with someone who misrepresents the truth, you can find all the facts you need right here—along with ways to share the message with whoever needs to hear it,” the site continues.

(Related: Obama Campaign Launches ‘Truth Teams’)

However, after consistent ridicule (particularly over the “Attack Watch” section of the site), the Truth Teams started flying lower on the political radar.

Now, it seems, they are re-joining the fray.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Pelosi: Court Will Find Health Care Law Constitutional by Vote of 6-3

By Douglas V. Gibbs

When asked why so confident, Pelosi responded, "Because I know the Constitution."

"This bill is ironclad," she continued. "It is ironclad. Nobody was frivolous with the Constitution and the health of the American people in writing the bill,” she said. “So, that’s where my confidence springs from, the merit of the bill and the nature of the Constitution. The makeup of the court, well, we’ll see."

The federal government has no constitutional authority to take over a private industry, to involve itself in health care, nor to mandate that Americans purchase a service. The Commerce Clause was designed to enable the federal government to act as a mediator in State disputes over commerce, the General Welfare Clause is a condition reached when the federal government follows the Constitution and was not meant to be a clause in the manner the statists and nationalists use it, and the Necessary and Proper Clause is only in play if the law was passed based on the the authorities expressly enumerated by the Constitution.

I believe the people behind Obamacare did not take care that the law was constitutional, but they did spend a lot of time trying to find arguments in support of the law in regards of the Constitution, even if they had to warp it through "interpretation" and the unconstitutional concept of Implied Powers.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Pelosi: ObamaCare Will Be Upheld 6-3, "Because I Know The Constitution" - Real Clear Politics

New York Soda Ban: Forcing You To Change Your Behavior

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Prior to the French Revolution one of the heroes of the Jacobins, a group today that would be considered hardcore socialists, was a statist by the name of Jean-Jacques Rousseau.  The philosophies of Rousseau were among the catalysts that brought about the French Revolution. As a supporter of big government, Rousseau championed the concept of The General Will.

The General Will was designed to ensure the public good.  Nationalists believed that the people were unable to properly maintain society. A central government power was required, according to their belief system, and a ruling elite was needed to ensure society ran smoothly, and operated in the best interest of the people. The political power was trusted by the people to serve The General Will, not their own individual interests.

The propaganda behind The General Will convinced the people that the existence of The General Will was not only real, but existed in such a manner that it was not necessarily expressed by the general public. However, The General Will was presumed to be known by the ruling elite.  According to Rousseau, "no aspect of human life is excluded from the control of the general will," and "whosoever refuses to obey the general will must in that instance be restrained by the body politic, which actually means that he is forced to be free."

Supporters of The General Will wished to dissolve the people into a homogeneous mass, abolish decentralization, and remove representative institutions. The Founding Fathers hated and feared the concept of The General Will, for if the concept were to invade the American System, then all voluntary associations would wind up becoming subjected to government regulation in the name of "the people," their "will," and for the "good of society." These mandates would be argued to be in The General Will, as interpreted by the ruling elite, and would enable the beginning of the end of individual liberty.

Big Government liberals believe in the existence of the public interest, placing the "good of the community" over the rights of the individual.  These policies tend to benefit small, but powerful, special interests at the expense of the rest of the society, but are put into place by the ruling elite because the public doesn't understand any better, and must be forced to understand, and comply.

"We've got to do something. Everybody is wringing their hands saying we've got to do something. Well, here is a concrete thing. You can still buy large bottles in stores. But in a restaurant, 16 ounces is the maximum that they would be able to serve in one cup. If you want to order two cups of the same time, that's fine. It's your choice. We're not taking away anybody's right to do things. We're simply forcing you to understand that you have to make the conscious decision to go from one cup to another cup," NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg said about his proposal to ban sugary drinks 16oz or larger.

In New York City it may soon be time to say goodbye to those Big Gulps, those Slurpees or even Venti at Starbucks. “That’s a good idea. A lot of obese people are in New York,” a resident said.

Bloomberg's proposal of an amendment to the city's health code to prohibit food service outlets from selling sugary soft drinks larger than 16 ounces would apply to restaurants, mobile food carts, delicatessens and concessions at movie theaters, stadiums or arenas, where sales of fountain drinks are common. It would not apply to convenience stores, grocery stores or drug stores, which mostly sell beverages in bottles and cans. This is being said to be a part of a larger national push to fight obesity, which allegedly places a burden on health care. Opponents of the national health care law would see this as a preview of the dictates that will be placed on the public by Obamacare in an effort to cut back expenses in the name of protecting the taxpayer.

The push to alter the public's consumption behavior in the past has focused on additional taxes that they say would curb consumption and raise billions of dollars nationally. A number of studies have shown that higher taxes on sugary beverages may reduce consumption, but critics say the taxes are an unfair way to close budget gaps and hurt consumers. The idea of increased taxes to alter behavior has also proven to be unpopular with the general public.

Now that Bloomberg has taken the effort to alter the public's consumption behavior to new heights, companies like McDonald's and Coca-Cola are striking back with strong comments against the ban. One wonders if they will be willing to pull their products from New York City completely.

Mr. Bloomberg’s proposal requires the approval of the Board of Health, a step that is considered likely because the members are all appointed by him.

Bloomberg is no stranger to heavy regulations regarding health. He has pushed a series of aggressive regulations as mayor, including bans on smoking in restaurants and parks, a prohibition against artificial trans fat in restaurant food and a requirement for health inspection grades to be posted in restaurant windows.

The Mayor of New York would have made a great Jacobin, following Rousseau's philosophy of The General Will to a tee.  With his policy, he claims he is trying to ensure the public good through draconian policies designed to force the people's behavior to alter into a manner in line with what the ruling elite desires.  The people, as far as Bloomberg is concerned, does not understand what is good for them, and they must be "forced to understand."  If they refuse to obey the general will, the body politic called New York City's local government will restrain that person, forcing him to understand by making him buy two drinks to achieve the desired number of ounces.

People like Bloomberg wish to dissolve the people into a homogeneous mass, and eliminate their volutnary choices for the good of the community.

Big Government liberals believe in the existence of the public interest, placing the "good of the community" over the rights of the individual.  These policies are being put into place by people that believe they are the ruling elite, and Bloomberg is doing this because he believes the public doesn't understand any better, and must be forced to understand, and comply.

And then people wonder why New York as a State has lost 3.4 million residents in 10 years. Could it be the high taxes, heavy regulations, and the nanny-state attitude of the leadership?

The people are voting with their feet.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Thomas J. DiLorenzo, Hamilton's Curse; New York: Three Rivers Press (2008), pgs. 20-23

Bloomberg on Soda Ban: We're Simply Forcing Your to Understand - Real Clear Politics

Here He Goes Again: New York City Mayor Bloomberg Set To Ban All Sugary Drinks Over 16 Ounces - CBS New York

Companies Fire Back at Proposed NYC Big Soda Ban - Yahoo! News Canada

Bloomberg Plans a Ban on Large Sugared Drinks - New York Times

Escape From New York? High-Taxing Empire State Loses 3.4 Million Residents in 10 Years - CNS News

Natural Born Citizen or Not: Chester A. Arthur

Email I received:

Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2012 3:18 PM
Subject: Chester A. Arthur

Hi guys,

 

My husband mentioned today that Chester A. Arthur wasn't a natural born citizen and that fact is what obama bases his eligibility on.  Do either of you know about all of this?

 

Thanks

 

My response:

It was never proven whether Arthur was natural born or not. It was believed his dad was born in Canada. Whether or not a past president pulled off not being natural born does not nullify the requirement. Chester A. Arthur, though interesting, is not a deciding factor regarding Obama's ineligibility.

Doug

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

TEA Party Lives: Ted Cruz Forces Texas Senate Runoff

We are told by the liberal left constantly that the TEA Party is dead, done with, and a minor voice in politics. The democrats believe this because the TEA Party is no longer in protest mode. That does not mean the TEA Party is gone. They are now in political mode, and the wins in the Republican Primaries this election season is evidence. One of the big ones is taking place in Texas, where TEA Party candidate Ted Cruz has forced David Dewhurst into a Texas Senate Runoff.

Ted Cruz is an American of Cuban descent, and a lawyer who served as state solicitor general. Cruz, and seven other Republicans competing in the Senate primary, held Dewhurst to 47 percent of the vote, putting Dewhurst short of the majority required to avoid a July 31 runoff. Cruz placed second with 32 percent to secure his runoff spot.

Cruz has been endorsed by the Tea Party Express, FreedomWorks, Sarah Palin and others connected to the TEA Party.

The runoff will determine the GOP nominee to succeed retiring Republican Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

House Debate over Abortion and the Gender of the Fetus

By Douglas V. Gibbs

On Wednesday I had the day off. I took it off because I had a bunch of things I needed to do with my vehicles, and my wife was unable to do it all on her own. In between dropping vehicles off, and picking them up, I watched C-Span. The U.S. Senate was arguing over Voter ID laws, and as expected, the democrats were calling the laws designed to minimize voter fraud racist and against the civil rights of minority voters. The argument is full of holes, and designed to get people's blood boiling over a racial divide being created by the democrats.

The other C-Span channel gave me a view into the debates of the House of Representatives, and the arguments were over a bill that was supposed to be voted on Thursday that would enable the federal government to ban any abortion made based on the gender of the child. Of course, the Republicans were in favor of the bill, and the Democrats were opposed. The arguments by the Democrats were tired, and full of crap. Their "War on Women" term was used by nearly every Democrat to take the microphone. The liberal leftists called the bill sexist, racist, and draconian. The Republicans defended the bill quite well, and used terminology I expected that argued that not only is abortion murder, but we have a problem with women getting abortions based on the gender of their child, which not only makes it a war on women before they are even born, but puts us in the same category as China and India regarding gender-driven abortions.

The whole debate was how the federal government should protect a woman's right to kill the baby inside her, or the federal government should protect the life of the baby that has yet to be born.

But what about the Constitution?

Though the Constitution got mentioned a couple times, and in a manner totally out of the context of the document, nobody stopped to consider whether or not the federal government has the authority over this issue, one way or the other. However, if one consults the Constitution, we realize that no place in that document is the express authority over any medical procedure, including abortion, given to the federal government. Therefore, abortion is a State issue, and if a law like this needs to emerge, it should at the State level.

Understanding the reality that abortion is a State issue means that all federal abortion laws, all federal abortion funding, and the Roe v. Wade court case itself, are all unconstitutional.

Not a single politician on C-Span made that realization, or voiced that opinion.

Additionally, I found it fascinating that the vast majority of the Democrats defending abortion were black. Planned Parenthood, created by Margaret Sanger as an institution that would promote and perform abortions, was specifically created for the sake of using abortion and contraception to kill out the "undesirable" black race. So, the black democrats arguing in favor of abortion and Planned Parenthood are arguing in favor of what was originally designed to be genocide against the blacks by the Liberal Left.

Getting back to Wednesday's debate, we ask what is wrong with Washington. When not a single one of those knuckleheads in this debate refers to the Constitution's lack of federal authority on the issue, I would say that just about everything is wrong with Washington. The establishment has completely lost touch with the Constitution.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

House Debates Abortion Ban for Sex of Fetus - CNN

The Truth About Margaret Sanger - Black Genocide .org

Obama Awards Presidential Medal of Freedom to Socialist Leader

Obama awards Presidential Medal of Freedom to socialist leader

On Tuesday, President Obama awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom to Dolores Huerta, an 82-year-old labor activist and co-founder of the United Farm Workers union, Heritage reported.

Huerta is also the honorary chair of the Democratic Socialists of America, a group that touts itself as “the largest socialist organization in the United States, and the principal U.S. affiliate of the Socialist International.”

Heritage noted that Huerta "has spoken fondly of Hugo Chavez’s despotic regime in Venezuela," and has also claimed that “Republicans hate Latinos."

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary