Saturday, August 04, 2012
Marxism Explained on Constitution Radio with Douglas V. Gibbs
Don Jans, author of "My Grandchildren's America," will be our guest today. He is an expert on Marxism, and will explain how Marxism is alive and well today right here in the United States of America.
Don't miss this episode!!!
After the interview we will welcome Paul from Prying1Books to tell us what the Book of the Week is, and then we will ask the Constitution Quest Question of the Week. If you answer this question correctly, you will receive a vintage book from Prying1Books. . .
The number to call into the show for questions, comments, challenges, or to answer the Constitution Quest Question of the Week is 888-909-1050.After the Book of the Week and Question of the Week, we will welcome JASmius to the program to go over with us the 5 Big Stories of the Week:
5 Big Stories of the Week, August 4, 2012
Honorable Mention: NYC Mayor Bloomberg Sets Sights on Boobies
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/mayor_knows_breast_WqU1iYRQvwbEkDuvn0vb1H
5. What’s the Capital of Israel?
http://politicalpistachio.blogspot.com/2012/07/obama-administration-agrees-with-islam.html
4. Obamacare Contraceptive Mandate Takes Effect
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/08/01/contraceptive-mandate-begins-amid-calls-to-overturn-concerns-about-religious/
http://christiannews.net/colorado-federal-judge-acts-to-block-obamacares-contraception-mandate/
3. Democrats Work to Bring Back Policy that Caused Mortgage Meltdown
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/07/27/and-you-thought-the-housing-cr
2. Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day followed by Gay Kiss-In
http://politicalpistachio.blogspot.com/2012/08/chick-fil-appreciation-day-creates.html
http://www.policymic.com/articles/12301/anti-gay-companies-chick-fil-a-same-sex-kiss-in-day-is-a-big-flop
1. Constitution Radio One Year Anniversary on KCAA. . . Okay, fine, technically it is two days away.
Combating Liberalism with a Dose of Truth
1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity, by legislating the wealth out of prosperity.
2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.
3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.
4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.
5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work, because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.
Liberalism fails wherever and whenever it is tried.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Two Men and a Boy
On my property in Oregon I have done my fair share of logging. That is some of the hardest work I have ever done - even harder than my 13 years in Construction. Reagan and Bush would have worked well on those occasions when we did some selective logging. Obama can't even hold a pick-ax correctly.
As a leader, Obama has shown us the same. He is a boy in a man's world, and either doesn't know what he is doing and is in over his head, or he is purposely destroying America with his policies. . . I've been thinking it might be a little bit of both.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Friday, August 03, 2012
Liberals Call for Killing of Child Because He Verbalizes Conservatism
Liberals Call for Killing of 6 year old Conservative!
Patriot Update recently posted a video on YouTube entitled, “6-Year-Old Gives 10 Reasons NOT to Vote for Obama!”, which has caused liberals to go on the warpath. With over 350,000 views and climbing, the venomous and hate-filled comments from the left are intolerable. Liberal around the country are accusing the parents of “brainwashing” and “exploiting” their child. (Somehow a bunch of elementary school children singing praises to Obama doesn’t count as “brainwashing or exploitation.”) Ironically, the left couldn’t care less if you abort your child. Teaching them conservative values, however, is tantamount to child abuse!
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Thomas Sowell regarding Honor and Trust
"One of the common failings among honorable people is a failure to appreciate how thoroughly dishonorable some other people can be, and how dangerous it is to trust them." - Thomas Sowell
For some reason the hard left came to mind. . .
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
For some reason the hard left came to mind. . .
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
John Adams on Morality
"The foundation of national morality must be laid in private families. ... How is it possible that children can have any just sense of the sacred obligations of morality or religion if, from their earliest infancy, they learn their mothers live in habitual infidelity to their fathers, and their fathers in as constant infidelity to their mothers?" --John Adams, Diary, 1778
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Murrieta Fire Burns Down Homes
This was sent to me by a member of my Constitution Class. . . A friend of hers lost their home in this blaze. Please pray for those in the La Cresta and Teneja area of Murrieta. "Firefighters battle a wall of flame as it approaches the backyard of this home along Valle Vista in the La Cresta area west of Murrieta on Wednesday." DON BOOMER | dboomer@californian.com
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
another newsletter just went out!
Do you receive my Constitution Letter newsletter?
It is easy to subscribe, and only $2 per month for about three email mailings per month. . .
That is less than fifty cents a week!
Less than a dime a day!
My newsletter includes exclusive articles and information. You will be informed of my upcoming speaking dates long before the news appears on my sites. You will receive information on my classes, as well.
And guests? Newsletter subscribers learn who my guests are on my KCAA radio program long before the readers of my site.
All this for less than a dime a day!
And yes, when my book hits the bookstores, subscribers will get a free autographed copy!
Be informed. Learn the Constitution. Follow the events I am a part of. Get my upcoming book for free, autographed.
Subscribe.
Thursday, August 02, 2012
Obama Uses Daughters to Promote Abortion
The Obamas Trot Out Their Daughters For Pro-Abortion Ad
President Barack Obama used his daughters as props to promote abortion, stating at an Oregon fundraiser (video here):
Mr. Romney wants to get rid of funding for Planned Parenthood. I think that’s a bad idea. I’ve got two daughters. I want them to control their own health care choices. We’re not going backwards, we’re going forwards.
We all know the word “choice” is a euphemism for “abortion.” And the fight to defund Planned Parenthood is all about abortion. So clear as mud, Obama was advocating the freedom for his daughters to abort his own grandchildren.
Also at LifeSiteNews: Beyond creepy: Obama uses daughters to push abortion
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Temecula Constitution Class: 14th Amendment. . . Apportionment, Political Office, Validity of Public Debt
Then, after we finish the Civil War tonight, next week we will dive into the 16th Amendment. . . Income Tax!
Obama's Attack on Religious Freedom Takes Effect
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Yesterday, Obama's health care law's mandate against religion in the form of forcing insurance to pay for all contraceptives, including the day after abortion pill, took effect. The democrats claim they are protecting women's health, while religious groups consider it forcing them to participate in something they are morally against, which means their religious liberties are being taken away.
The first Americans came to the New World seeking religious freedom, and that was the inspiration for our religious freedom's being notated in the First Amendment. The democrats reject it, and are willing to force their will upon people, not only citizens, but now even religion.
Never mind that the federal government has no constitutional authority to force such things upon businesses, religiously affiliated or not. Never mind that Obama is trampling on faith, and job producers. The Obama administration believes that their mandate, their own beliefs, are above those of the citizens and religious organizations, so they must be forced to comply with the government's warped morals, or be punished.
Yesterday, Obama's health care law's mandate against religion in the form of forcing insurance to pay for all contraceptives, including the day after abortion pill, took effect. The democrats claim they are protecting women's health, while religious groups consider it forcing them to participate in something they are morally against, which means their religious liberties are being taken away.
The first Americans came to the New World seeking religious freedom, and that was the inspiration for our religious freedom's being notated in the First Amendment. The democrats reject it, and are willing to force their will upon people, not only citizens, but now even religion.
Employers, even those affiliated with church organizations, despite any moral disagreement, are being forced to pay for abortion inducing drugs, contraception, and sterilization for their employees. Employers are now required, by federal mandate, whether they like it or not, to offer these services for free. In other words, employers must carry the cost of including these services in their health insurance plans. And they have to do this regardless of their deeply held beliefs against these services.
Never mind that the federal government has no constitutional authority to force such things upon businesses, religiously affiliated or not. Never mind that Obama is trampling on faith, and job producers. The Obama administration believes that their mandate, their own beliefs, are above those of the citizens and religious organizations, so they must be forced to comply with the government's warped morals, or be punished.
Sound like the freedom of America?
Sounds more like a soviet regime.
The liberals have offered a small exemption for churches, but not religious employers like universities, hospitals, and the like.
I am positive that exemption won't last long if this mandate stays in place.
More than twenty lawsuits have been filed against Obama's Human and Health Services Department by nearly sixty organizations.
More than twenty lawsuits have been filed against Obama's Human and Health Services Department by nearly sixty organizations.
And the thing is, when it comes to the Affordable Care Act's bag of tricks, this is only the beginning. Mandates are littered throughout this law - draconian mandates like this one are written into the law with the specific design of control over the populace by the federal government - while taxing the people so that the federal government can pay for the tyranny of the Obamacare law.
In other words, they are charging you for their enslavement of you, and you have no choice but to pay it.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Contraceptive Mandate Takes Effect Amid Calls to Overturn, Concerns About Religious Freedom - Fox News
Colorado Federal Judge Acts to Block Obamacare's Contraceptive Mandate - Christian News Network
Obama Holds Off Regulations Until After Election
Editor Note: In addition to the draconian nature of these regulations, each of them are also unconstitutional. No express powers regarding these issues are granted to the federal government by the U.S. Constitution.
Politically damaging regulations held until after election
By Rebekah Rast
Call it an election strategy. President Obama is sitting on numerous regulations, coming from the Environmental Protect Agency (EPA), Agriculture Department and even those concerning worker safety that will likely have to wait for approval until after the elections.
While it’s common to back off from pursuing controversial legislation or regulations during an election year, it creates a troubling outlook of what we can expect if President Obama wins a second term.
The Washington Post lists some of these idling regulations “as cracking down on junk food at school bake sales, another banning children from dangerous work on farms and one setting federal standards for disposing toxic ash from coal-fired power plants.”
A particularly harmful regulation specific to Florida, which happens to be an important state in this upcoming election, would require water in the state’s drainage canals to match the same EPA standards as its rivers and streams.
In a joint press release with Americans for Limited Government, Free Market America Executive Director Ryan Houck said postponing this outrageous Florida EPA regulation doesn’t make it any better.
“Postponing a bad idea does not qualify as a solution,” he said. “The EPA’s nutrient rules for Florida would require that the water in roadside drainage canals match the same standards as pristine rivers and streams. These nonsensical regulations will be as scientifically baseless and as economically devastating next year as they would be this year.”
Fighting against this EPA regulation, Free Market America noted that this, “so-called ‘Water Tax’ will cost Florida’s farmers, taxpayers, businesses and consumers billions each year.”
Houck continued, “The Administration should do the right thing and scrap their proposed federal regulations before they leave Florida with fewer farming jobs and higher utility bills.”
The Administration should consider taking this advice and applying to more than just this EPA Florida regulation.
From a campaign standpoint, does postponing these regulations help President Obama? Why would voters, especially in key states like Florida, be supportive of this Administration knowing what kind of government regulations are headed their way come January?
Americans for Limited Government President Bill Wilson said that, “by delaying these regulations the Obama team is pointing out how harsh their election will be.
“They think they are not poking the hornet’s nest before the election but in reality they are telling all voters in the affected states ‘re-elect Obama and this is the nasty, abusive rules that will be imposed on you.’ ”
Houck points out that since 1960, federal spending on environmental regulations has skyrocketed. “The cost of environmental regulation exceeds 281 billion each year and costs the average small business owner more than $4,000 per worker. That’s more than four times greater than the average large business,” he said.
Whether President Obama sits on these regulations for another few months or if he approves them now, they are nothing more than a dagger to the heart of the U.S. economy.
ALG’s Wilson concluded, “Obama is holding off on these regulations now because he knows the devastating effect they will have, and he doesn’t want to bear the political fallout.”
Rebekah Rast is a contributing editor to Americans for Limited Government (ALG) andNetRightDaily.com. You can follow her on twitter at @RebekahRast.
Read more at NetRightDaily.com
While it’s common to back off from pursuing controversial legislation or regulations during an election year, it creates a troubling outlook of what we can expect if President Obama wins a second term.
The Washington Post lists some of these idling regulations “as cracking down on junk food at school bake sales, another banning children from dangerous work on farms and one setting federal standards for disposing toxic ash from coal-fired power plants.”
A particularly harmful regulation specific to Florida, which happens to be an important state in this upcoming election, would require water in the state’s drainage canals to match the same EPA standards as its rivers and streams.
In a joint press release with Americans for Limited Government, Free Market America Executive Director Ryan Houck said postponing this outrageous Florida EPA regulation doesn’t make it any better.
“Postponing a bad idea does not qualify as a solution,” he said. “The EPA’s nutrient rules for Florida would require that the water in roadside drainage canals match the same standards as pristine rivers and streams. These nonsensical regulations will be as scientifically baseless and as economically devastating next year as they would be this year.”
Fighting against this EPA regulation, Free Market America noted that this, “so-called ‘Water Tax’ will cost Florida’s farmers, taxpayers, businesses and consumers billions each year.”
Houck continued, “The Administration should do the right thing and scrap their proposed federal regulations before they leave Florida with fewer farming jobs and higher utility bills.”
The Administration should consider taking this advice and applying to more than just this EPA Florida regulation.
From a campaign standpoint, does postponing these regulations help President Obama? Why would voters, especially in key states like Florida, be supportive of this Administration knowing what kind of government regulations are headed their way come January?
Americans for Limited Government President Bill Wilson said that, “by delaying these regulations the Obama team is pointing out how harsh their election will be.
“They think they are not poking the hornet’s nest before the election but in reality they are telling all voters in the affected states ‘re-elect Obama and this is the nasty, abusive rules that will be imposed on you.’ ”
Houck points out that since 1960, federal spending on environmental regulations has skyrocketed. “The cost of environmental regulation exceeds 281 billion each year and costs the average small business owner more than $4,000 per worker. That’s more than four times greater than the average large business,” he said.
Whether President Obama sits on these regulations for another few months or if he approves them now, they are nothing more than a dagger to the heart of the U.S. economy.
ALG’s Wilson concluded, “Obama is holding off on these regulations now because he knows the devastating effect they will have, and he doesn’t want to bear the political fallout.”
Rebekah Rast is a contributing editor to Americans for Limited Government (ALG) andNetRightDaily.com. You can follow her on twitter at @RebekahRast.
Read more at NetRightDaily.com
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Community Reinvestment Act Re-Do: Democrats Begin Policies Again that Caused the Mortgage Meltdown
By Douglas V. Gibbs
The mortgage meltdown that put us in our current economic difficulties (recession, depression, collapse) has been blamed on George W. Bush. Somehow, the Republican President had the ability to force people to take bad loans, force banks to act stupidly, disallowed regulations against Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (even though republicans were calling for such during his first term), and with his magic want popped the housing bubble. In reality, like Obama's policies which are extending the economic slow down, the collapse was caused by democrats, and it was done on purpose.
We were told the banks weren't lending to minorities for racist reasons, so under Jimmy Carter, and later renewed under Clinton, we saw the creation of the Community Reinvestment Act. The law enabled the federal government to force banks to lend money to consumers that were high risk borrowers, with the claim that everyone deserved to own a home. Black leaders were claiming that Blacks were not getting into homes because of the racist policies of banks, so the democrats came to the rescue to force the banks to loan the money to them. It was the usual crap. We've got to be fair, and it is not fair that some people have houses while others don't. So the federal government under liberal direction forced the banks to loan these people money at sub-prime interest rates, even if on paper it looked like the borrower was getting in financially over their head. That's okay, was the attitude. The mean ol' banks will eat the loss.
Threats of investigations emerged, and the banks were intimidated into making these loans. Then, after making these worthless loans, they got together so as to scrape something out of it. With the assistance of Fannie and Freddie, they created a new investment. Derivatives. They sold them to people saying they were a great investment, even though they were actually worthless loans doomed to fail. They even got AAA ratings on these worthless "derivatives."
This was the only way the banks could get their money back after being forced by the federal government to take the loans. But eventually word got out, and the pool of investors dried up. Then, people got to the point of not being able to pay those mortgages anymore, as was expected, and investment houses and banks began to go under.
Then, the democrats told us that the banks were evil for making these mortgages. They did it on their own accord, and Bush was at fault for doing nothing about it. The bankers forced these people to get the loans, we were told, and the poor people didn't understand the fine print. Never mind that Bush and the republicans warned about the GSEs in 2001 and 2003, and the democrats argued back, saying there was nothing to worry about.
The mortgage meltdown that put us in our current economic difficulties (recession, depression, collapse) has been blamed on George W. Bush. Somehow, the Republican President had the ability to force people to take bad loans, force banks to act stupidly, disallowed regulations against Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (even though republicans were calling for such during his first term), and with his magic want popped the housing bubble. In reality, like Obama's policies which are extending the economic slow down, the collapse was caused by democrats, and it was done on purpose.
We were told the banks weren't lending to minorities for racist reasons, so under Jimmy Carter, and later renewed under Clinton, we saw the creation of the Community Reinvestment Act. The law enabled the federal government to force banks to lend money to consumers that were high risk borrowers, with the claim that everyone deserved to own a home. Black leaders were claiming that Blacks were not getting into homes because of the racist policies of banks, so the democrats came to the rescue to force the banks to loan the money to them. It was the usual crap. We've got to be fair, and it is not fair that some people have houses while others don't. So the federal government under liberal direction forced the banks to loan these people money at sub-prime interest rates, even if on paper it looked like the borrower was getting in financially over their head. That's okay, was the attitude. The mean ol' banks will eat the loss.
Threats of investigations emerged, and the banks were intimidated into making these loans. Then, after making these worthless loans, they got together so as to scrape something out of it. With the assistance of Fannie and Freddie, they created a new investment. Derivatives. They sold them to people saying they were a great investment, even though they were actually worthless loans doomed to fail. They even got AAA ratings on these worthless "derivatives."
This was the only way the banks could get their money back after being forced by the federal government to take the loans. But eventually word got out, and the pool of investors dried up. Then, people got to the point of not being able to pay those mortgages anymore, as was expected, and investment houses and banks began to go under.
Then, the democrats told us that the banks were evil for making these mortgages. They did it on their own accord, and Bush was at fault for doing nothing about it. The bankers forced these people to get the loans, we were told, and the poor people didn't understand the fine print. Never mind that Bush and the republicans warned about the GSEs in 2001 and 2003, and the democrats argued back, saying there was nothing to worry about.
Then, when it all fell apart, we heard lie after lie after lie to cover up the fact that it was the democrats that caused the damn mortgage collapse in the first place.
With a deceptive mask of compassion, the liberals in the federal government caused the sub-prime mortgage disaster. And now, after all of the economic pain we have been enduring, they are working on doing the same thing again.
With a deceptive mask of compassion, the liberals in the federal government caused the sub-prime mortgage disaster. And now, after all of the economic pain we have been enduring, they are working on doing the same thing again.
The federal government is currently working on a new program designed to force the banks to lend to low-credit minorities, because it is racist that they aren't getting these loans.
But now, they are even taking this to the next level. With the bank regulations and credit regulations in place, they are in place to take control of the credit rating agencies, and through regulations are planning on forcing the credit rating agencies to change their standards to accommodate these high-risk borrowers.
But now, they are even taking this to the next level. With the bank regulations and credit regulations in place, they are in place to take control of the credit rating agencies, and through regulations are planning on forcing the credit rating agencies to change their standards to accommodate these high-risk borrowers.
So, after causing this mess, and then blaming it on the banks and Bush, they are doing it again - forcing another round of bad loans, looting the banks once again, and this time beyond the reaches of any bail-out.
Why would they do this? Why would liberals push for the same policies that caused this mess in the first place?
This is all happening through Dodd-Frank, and the idea is to destroy the banking industry. They can't just take over the banks in the open. You'd recognize the fascism for what it is. They have to destroy the banks, and then claim they have to take it over to save it. That is how the liberal left works.
If a black or Hispanic is disapproved for a loan, the democrats are crying racism, so through government they are playing the good guy to protect the minorities from being discriminated against. Never mind that the people targeted are unable to pay back the loans.
Obama has spent his whole Presidency claiming that republicans are racist, banks are racist, credit companies are racist, and pretty much anyone that dares to disagree with him are racist. So, since it has been drilled into the uninformed voter's heads, it's pretty easy to convince them that if they don't get a loan it is because the lender is racist.
If a black or Hispanic is disapproved for a loan, the democrats are crying racism, so through government they are playing the good guy to protect the minorities from being discriminated against. Never mind that the people targeted are unable to pay back the loans.
Obama has spent his whole Presidency claiming that republicans are racist, banks are racist, credit companies are racist, and pretty much anyone that dares to disagree with him are racist. So, since it has been drilled into the uninformed voter's heads, it's pretty easy to convince them that if they don't get a loan it is because the lender is racist.
Besides, those banks are private, and he's already told us that nobody is successful without the government (remember? You didn't build that!). Banks are screwing you, the democrats are telling minorities, and they've been screwing you since the founding of this nation, and the only way to stop it is through government intervention. The bankers are rich, and are after profit, so they are evil.
Obama and the democrats have convinced a large number of people of this crap.
Many of these people already think the system is against them, so why not believe Obama and the democrats on this one? They are just trying to help. . . right?
Many of these people already think the system is against them, so why not believe Obama and the democrats on this one? They are just trying to help. . . right?
The next mortgage crisis will completely collapse the private mortgage and credit industry, and just like with health care, the democrats (and progressive republicans) will be poised for a government takeover of that industry too!
Unless we stop them.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
And You Thought the Housing Crisis Was Over! - The American Spectator
Taxing Olympic Medals
There are also prizes that accompany each medal: $25,000 for gold, $15,000 for silver, and $10,000 for bronze.
Silver medalists will owe $5,385. You win a gold? Timothy Geithner will be standing there with his hand out for $8,986.
By the way, Marco Rubio has proposed a bill to eliminate the tax.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Go for the Gold! (Pay the IRS) - Weekly Standard
Wednesday, August 01, 2012
Keeping Bush Tax Rates Passed by House of Representatives
House OKs GOP Tax Plan, Setting Up Rate Showdown
House approves GOP bill to extend Bush-era tax rates for all Americans, and not raise taxes on top earners.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
For Jihad, Muslims Widen Anus with Sodomy
Abdullah Hassan al-Asiri, who plotted to assassinate Saudi Prince Muhammad bin Nayef in 2009 with a bomb hidden in his rectum, had apparently relied on a fatwa by an obscure cleric permitting sodomy to "widen" his anus to accommodate the explosives.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Sodomy "For the Sake of Islam" - Gatestone Institute
Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day Creates Traffic Jams, Long Lines
By Douglas V. Gibbs
As I drove by Chino Hills today on my way in from Moor Park, I glanced over at a Chick-fil-A in a shopping center that runs along the 71 Freeway. The parking lot was full, and the line went out the door and along the side of the building. Radio shows were saying all day that if you were planning to go to just about any Chick-fil-A in the country, traffic jams and long lines should be expected.
Not exactly the response gay activists and hard left liberals expected when they went after the Christian owned fast food restaurant, I am thinking.
Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee called for today to be Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day so Americans could show support for the restaurant's owners, freedom of speech, and traditional marriage. The idea when viral, and thanks to the Tea Party (which is still strong and loud) and community churches, Chick-fil-A got what is probably their best day in terms of revenue that the restaurant has seen since its founding.
Talk about putting your money where your mouth is.
Gays are planning a same-sex disgust fest (smooching) at the restaurants on Friday to protest the owners of the establishment daring to stand up for their moral convictions.
All of this hub-bub because the President of the restaurant chain said in an interview with a Baptist publication: "We are very much supportive of the family -- the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that."
What did the homosexuals expect him to say?
They were simply looking for an excuse to go on the warpath, and they erroneously think that most Americans support their attempt to justify their behavior and their attempt to destroy marriage. It turns out that like adultery and pedophilia, homosexuality is still considered a wrong sexual behavior.
Note that nobody, as the gays want to claim, has called for outlawing their sexual behavior. They are free to do what they want, short of destroying the institution of marriage, or forcing our children to be exposed to their activities (or in the case of California, forcing our children to be taught that homosexuality is a wonderful thing).
The proof is in the chicken.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Chick-fil-A restaurants become rallying points for supporters - CNN
Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day: Great Turnout - American Thinker
Massive Turnout Coutrywide for Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day - Red Alert Politics
Chick-fil-A Supporters To Turn Out For Appreciation Day - CBS Chicago
As I drove by Chino Hills today on my way in from Moor Park, I glanced over at a Chick-fil-A in a shopping center that runs along the 71 Freeway. The parking lot was full, and the line went out the door and along the side of the building. Radio shows were saying all day that if you were planning to go to just about any Chick-fil-A in the country, traffic jams and long lines should be expected.
Not exactly the response gay activists and hard left liberals expected when they went after the Christian owned fast food restaurant, I am thinking.
Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee called for today to be Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day so Americans could show support for the restaurant's owners, freedom of speech, and traditional marriage. The idea when viral, and thanks to the Tea Party (which is still strong and loud) and community churches, Chick-fil-A got what is probably their best day in terms of revenue that the restaurant has seen since its founding.
Talk about putting your money where your mouth is.
Gays are planning a same-sex disgust fest (smooching) at the restaurants on Friday to protest the owners of the establishment daring to stand up for their moral convictions.
All of this hub-bub because the President of the restaurant chain said in an interview with a Baptist publication: "We are very much supportive of the family -- the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that."
What did the homosexuals expect him to say?
They were simply looking for an excuse to go on the warpath, and they erroneously think that most Americans support their attempt to justify their behavior and their attempt to destroy marriage. It turns out that like adultery and pedophilia, homosexuality is still considered a wrong sexual behavior.
Note that nobody, as the gays want to claim, has called for outlawing their sexual behavior. They are free to do what they want, short of destroying the institution of marriage, or forcing our children to be exposed to their activities (or in the case of California, forcing our children to be taught that homosexuality is a wonderful thing).
The proof is in the chicken.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Chick-fil-A restaurants become rallying points for supporters - CNN
Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day: Great Turnout - American Thinker
Massive Turnout Coutrywide for Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day - Red Alert Politics
Chick-fil-A Supporters To Turn Out For Appreciation Day - CBS Chicago
Set-Up For Racism Claim in Presidential Election
As the presidential election nears, the democrats are trying to distract voters from ideology. They want their base to think that folks voting for Romney are not doing so because of his policies, but because he is white. This, they hope, will encourage every minority in the country to run to the polls to stop that racist white guy running for President.
Headlines are now quoting a recent Rasmussen poll that states: Romney has a 20-point advantage among white voters.
The next sentence seems to some to be inconsequential: Obama is supported by 91% of black voters and 57% of other minority voters.
Understand this. Blacks are largely voting for Obama because he has African blood running through his veins thanks to his father. They will tell you this straight out. Most whites are voting for Romney because they do not approve of Obama's handling of the economy, and because they disagree with his ideology. Therefore, the whites must be racist.
That makes no sense.
It is a set-up. The democrats are trying to convince people it is all about race when it isn't. When I say as a conservative that my vote it going to Romney because Obama is a radical socialist and I do not approve of his policies, I have been told I am lying. I am white, therefore, it must be because I am racist. I am told that people like me can't stand the fact that a man with darker pigmentation in his skin is in the Oval Office, so I am rushing to the polls to put in the white man.
It is a set-up.
They are not trying to convince us we are racist. We know what we think. We know it is all about ideology. They are trying to convince their own that it is about race. The democrats are trying to anger their base, make their base come out in droves, and maybe even stir up a race riot... after all, democrats love crisis - and they never want to allow a good crisis to go to waste.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Romney Has a 20 point advantage among white voters - Free Republic
Defending "Trouble With Treaties"
By Douglas V. Gibbs
The article I wrote a few days ago titled "Trouble with Treaties" has received a fair amount of criticism from my fellow conservatives. Two emails, in particular, challenged by assertion that treaties are the law of the land just like the Constitution, and regardless of constitutionality.
When studying the Constitution, you have to take the good with the bad. I refuse to bend the Constitution to fit what I want it to say, and neither should you.
Patriot Rodney began his email indicating he thought the title to my article might be connected with a Star Trek episode, "Trouble with Tribbles." That was very astute, Rodney. That is exactly where the title found its inspiration. Like the little fuzz-ball tribbles, in the beginning treaties seem harmless enough. But, as they begin to pile up one realizes that they can actually be a detriment to our free society.
Both Vincent and Rodney, the emailers, echo each other on their criticism of my piece, beginning with, "treaties can't change the Constitution. The Constitution can only be changed by amendment."
Correct.
I never wrote that treaties can change the Constitution. They can't. You assume that is what I meant, but it is not.
Next, my two email friends state that the Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and all treaties and laws that are pursuant thereof are subject to the Constitution.
Not exactly. That is not what Article VI. says.
Here's the clause: "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the Supreme Law of the Land."
Let's now break down the language.
The things that are the supreme law of the land are broken down into three groups:
1) This Constitution
2) Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof
3) All treaties made, or which shall be made
Each of these things are the supreme law of the land on equal footing.
The first group is very simple to understand. "This Constitution" is the supreme law of the land. Simply stated, and there is no argument.
The second group takes a little thinking. "The laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof" are the supreme law of the land. "Laws" are laws passed by Congress and signed by the President. "Of the United States" means "of the federal government." So, the beginning of this part of the clause specifically addresses laws made by the federal government, not laws made by States or cities.
"Which shall be made in pursuance thereof" begs us to ask, "In pursuance of what?" The answer is "This Constitution." What this means is that not all federal laws qualify as being the supreme law of the land - only laws made in pursuance of the Constitution are. Unconstitutional laws would then be null and void. However, it is not within the court's authority to decide if a law is unconstitutional. In the end, it is up to us through our States, hence the State ability to "nullify," or ignore, unconstitutional laws.
The final group that is the supreme law of the land is "All treaties made, or which shall be made." Note that in the clause treaties follows a semi-colon, which follows the words, "pursuance thereof." This clause separates treaties from laws, and applies the "pursuance thereof" to laws, but not to treaties. If "pursuance thereof" applied to both laws, and treaties, then the clause would have read, "the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, shall be made in pursuance thereof."
So when that part of the clause begins with the words "all treaties," that is what it means. . . All Treaties.
Why would the Founding Fathers exclude from the clause the part that would have made treaties only legal if they were constitutional?
Understand, I never wrote that treaties can supersede the Constitution, but at the same time treaties ratified are the law of the land, and cannot be superseded by the Constitution, either. They are the supreme law of the land on equal footing. So how is it they can both be the law of the land yet conflict with each other.
The key is that the founders did not expect this to happen because the final arbiters of the Constitution were also the ratifiers of treaties.
The States were the voice of the Senate, but the 17th Amendment changed that, which is what has put us into this predicament of unconstitutional treaties.
The thing is, even if Patriot Rodney and Vincent were right, and the treaties were technically not in force if they weren't constitutional, would the powers in control of the establishment abide by that? They already don't care about what the Constitution says. So, regardless of where you stand on this issue, the fact is the way to protect our republic is to stop these treaties, regardless of the particulars in regards to constitutionality.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
The article I wrote a few days ago titled "Trouble with Treaties" has received a fair amount of criticism from my fellow conservatives. Two emails, in particular, challenged by assertion that treaties are the law of the land just like the Constitution, and regardless of constitutionality.
When studying the Constitution, you have to take the good with the bad. I refuse to bend the Constitution to fit what I want it to say, and neither should you.
Patriot Rodney began his email indicating he thought the title to my article might be connected with a Star Trek episode, "Trouble with Tribbles." That was very astute, Rodney. That is exactly where the title found its inspiration. Like the little fuzz-ball tribbles, in the beginning treaties seem harmless enough. But, as they begin to pile up one realizes that they can actually be a detriment to our free society.
Both Vincent and Rodney, the emailers, echo each other on their criticism of my piece, beginning with, "treaties can't change the Constitution. The Constitution can only be changed by amendment."
Correct.
I never wrote that treaties can change the Constitution. They can't. You assume that is what I meant, but it is not.
Next, my two email friends state that the Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and all treaties and laws that are pursuant thereof are subject to the Constitution.
Not exactly. That is not what Article VI. says.
Here's the clause: "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the Supreme Law of the Land."
Let's now break down the language.
The things that are the supreme law of the land are broken down into three groups:
1) This Constitution
2) Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof
3) All treaties made, or which shall be made
Each of these things are the supreme law of the land on equal footing.
The first group is very simple to understand. "This Constitution" is the supreme law of the land. Simply stated, and there is no argument.
The second group takes a little thinking. "The laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof" are the supreme law of the land. "Laws" are laws passed by Congress and signed by the President. "Of the United States" means "of the federal government." So, the beginning of this part of the clause specifically addresses laws made by the federal government, not laws made by States or cities.
"Which shall be made in pursuance thereof" begs us to ask, "In pursuance of what?" The answer is "This Constitution." What this means is that not all federal laws qualify as being the supreme law of the land - only laws made in pursuance of the Constitution are. Unconstitutional laws would then be null and void. However, it is not within the court's authority to decide if a law is unconstitutional. In the end, it is up to us through our States, hence the State ability to "nullify," or ignore, unconstitutional laws.
The final group that is the supreme law of the land is "All treaties made, or which shall be made." Note that in the clause treaties follows a semi-colon, which follows the words, "pursuance thereof." This clause separates treaties from laws, and applies the "pursuance thereof" to laws, but not to treaties. If "pursuance thereof" applied to both laws, and treaties, then the clause would have read, "the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, shall be made in pursuance thereof."
So when that part of the clause begins with the words "all treaties," that is what it means. . . All Treaties.
Why would the Founding Fathers exclude from the clause the part that would have made treaties only legal if they were constitutional?
Understand, I never wrote that treaties can supersede the Constitution, but at the same time treaties ratified are the law of the land, and cannot be superseded by the Constitution, either. They are the supreme law of the land on equal footing. So how is it they can both be the law of the land yet conflict with each other.
The key is that the founders did not expect this to happen because the final arbiters of the Constitution were also the ratifiers of treaties.
The States were the voice of the Senate, but the 17th Amendment changed that, which is what has put us into this predicament of unconstitutional treaties.
The thing is, even if Patriot Rodney and Vincent were right, and the treaties were technically not in force if they weren't constitutional, would the powers in control of the establishment abide by that? They already don't care about what the Constitution says. So, regardless of where you stand on this issue, the fact is the way to protect our republic is to stop these treaties, regardless of the particulars in regards to constitutionality.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Liberal Hypocrisy over What Private Business Owners Can Do
Remember a couple years ago when a Christian youth pastor was arrested for talking about his faith in a mall? Though, in my article, I agreed that the mall had the right to decide what to do with their own private business, I felt it was kind of messed up. I was not surprised, though. It kind of followed the typical liberal tactic of "free speech for all, as long as you agree with them." Otherwise, be silenced.
The Chick-fil-A situation revisits the topic. This time a business owner has indicated he supports traditional marriage, and the leftists and homosexuals have gone nuts. How dare he!
Gays and liberals have decided to boycott Chick-fil-A, and business is better than ever.
As for their protests and hate-filled anger towards Chick-fil-A, I can only say, "So much for free speech." It's not like he's arresting people at his business for talking about homosexuality, or anything - which would have been the same thing as what the liberal mall owner did when he arrested the Christian. The owner of Chick-fil-A simply revealed a political opinion, and all hell broke loose.
The latest, and this is not the first time this has happened, is that a bakery has refused to make a wedding cake for a gay wedding. It would be against their morals, and in response the gays threw some profanity around, and now is boycotting the bakery.
I am sure there were other bakeries in town. Why didn't they just try another one? Can't a business decide its own rules? The mall that arrested the Christian for talking about religion did.
The gay agenda and the liberal left use a double standard. It is okay to throw out a Christian for talking about Christianity, but you better not even have an opinion against homosexuality.
Notice the gay couple didn't ask a Muslim bakery to make their cake.
All of this double-standard liberal activity is sort of like the one about how gays applaud the fact that prayer was kicked out of schools because they don't want Christians pushing their beliefs on people, but they also support forcing teachers to teach gay history in a positive light, like it or not, regardless of the teacher's, or the parents of the student's, personal feelings on the subject.
So, let's get this straight, it is okay to force homosexuality on schools, bakeries, and chicken fast food, but talking about religion at a mall is wrong, praying at school is wrong, and a business owner daring to allow his pro-traditional marriage opinion out into the public is a no-no. Do I have that straight?
And, now, who is the totalitarian types?
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Galleria Mall: Talk About God, and Get Arrested - Political Pistachio
Gay Rights Uproar Over Chick-fil-A Widens - New York Times
Bakery Faces Boycott for Refusing to Make Gay Wedding Cake - Fox News and Commentary: Todd Starnes
Is Chinese Olympic Swimmer Doping? Nah, She's Chinese. If you were her, you'd be fast too!
Ye Shiwen is winning races, breaking records, and collecting Olympic medals. In fact, the sixteen year old Chinese swimmer is so fast and so good that she is being swamped with questions about doping.
However, my buddy Robert Bush came up with another possibility about why she is so fast:
"Why is everyone so worried about that Chinese swimmer? In China girls are thrown away or aborted because of the one child police. This chick is swimming for her life! You'd be fast too!"
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Chinese Swimmer Wins Again as Questions Persist - New York Times
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)