Friday, February 19, 2010

Carnal Striving Spiritual; Anthony Jerrod Joins Political Pistachio Radio


Carnal Striving Spiritual by Anthony Jerrod on Political Pistachio Radio Revolution

National Bestselling Author Anthony Jerrod joins the Political Pistachio Radio Revolution tonight to share his robust expertise relative to Christianity and religions, marriage and relationships, race, environmental policy and public policy. A Magna Cum Laude graduate of Southern University and Louisiana State University, as well as extensive studies at Penn State, Purdue, and Alabama A&M, Jerrod's eleven years of experience as an environmental engineer were integral in encouraging his book, "Carnal Striving Spiritual: Morality & Struggling Between Flesh & Spirit. He has been featured on many radio shows, including Top 10 nationally syndicated Mancow Mullen's show, with over 10 million listeners. Catch tonight's program as we probe religion and politics on the Political Pistachio Radio Revolution - Conservative News and Commentary.

2/19/2010, 7:00 PM, 120 Minutes - BlogTalkRadio.com/PoliticalPistachio

Thursday, February 18, 2010

Conservatism Unleashed

By Douglas V. Gibbs

I injured myself on President's Day (that would be last Monday, for you liberals). Nothing major, I am okay. I felt like I had gone ten rounds with Randy Couture and lost by submission. And despite the discomfort, and sometimes outright pain, I still went to work and did what I had to do to take care of my family. That's the kind of person that I am. When the chips are down, I do what it takes to do what is right.

Unfortunately, as my regular readers probably noticed, I did not do any writing during the week. Usually, I write a number of posts a day, but the long hours of my job, combined with the aching body of the week, gave me a good enough reason to take it easy this week, and get plenty of rest.

While I was resting, I had the opportunity to do a lot of thinking, too.

Liberals continued to attack me in comments and Emails in ways that Conservatives never do (well, I shouldn't say never, I am sure there are a few right-wingers that haunt liberal sites too). The leftists ask questions, demand responses, and make false accusations based on limited data for one reason, and one reason only - to elicit a reaction.

Watching the television, I watched as the Democrats accuse the Republicans of being the "Party of No," with no health care alternative, and so forth.'

The Left just doesn't get it.

If Conservatives believe in limited government, why would they offer a government solution to health care? Where in the Constitution does it give the federal government the authority to even consider intruding upon the health insurance industry?

"Ah," the leftist may say, "so you have no solution then?"

The solution is simple. Less government involvement, and enable the free market to solve the problem. (details in a future post)

And don't give me this "the free market had its chance the last eight years" bull crap, either.

The Free Market, ever since FDR, hasn't had the chance to resolve the problem.

Ever hear the old saying, don't fix what ain't broke?

Before Obama's drive for socialism, Johnson's Great Society, Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal, and Teddy Roosevelt's progressive politics the United States grew to become a worldwide leader in just about every category. Then, as the socialists I just mentioned, and many more, tried the alter America, despite their efforts the Free Market Capitalism system, and limited government involvement in citizen's lives, continued to make this country the most exceptional nation on Earth.

Do you know why?

The Founding Fathers forged this nation with their blood and honor to be a free nation - one nation under God.

It has worked for 234 years beautifully. So why, might one ask, would Obama and the idiot leftist Congressional Democrats wish to change it?

Why do they hate what America has been?

Why is individualism, and personal responsibility such a dangerous thing in their opinion?

Why do they hold to Marxist ideals, and then call them something else?

I've been thinking about this for the last few days, and I will be discussing a lot of this in the near future, so stay tuned.

But I will leave you with this, so that you may ponder what is coming. . .

THE CONSTITUTION IS THE SOLUTION.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Monday, February 15, 2010

President Reagan's Remarks at the Conservative Political Action Conference - 3/1/85



-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

True Face Of Islam

Shahid Malik explains the goals of Islam.



Great Britain Is Toast.



Europe is in position to become Eurabia.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Obama and Democrats Push For Cell Phone Tracking

By Douglas V. Gibbs

I am not too fond of the government tracking the whereabouts of citizens via GPS capabilities through their cell phones. I have no problem, if they deem it necessary, to look at the records after the fact, via a warrant, but to track us live is a different ball of wax.

What I find most interesting, however, regarding the Democrat's desire to use cell phone tracking as a National Security measure, is that the Democrats are once again showing us their inconsistency. The Left spent all of those years demonizing George W. Bush, and The Patriot Act, as being a violation of privacy. But suddenly, tracking cell phones through the use of GPS technology is fine?

Personally, I only agree with government getting into the life of someone if they are following a lead to who they believe to be a dangerous suspect. But, do I mind GPS tracking? Not necessarily.

But that's not the point. The point is that the Democrats barked against this kind of stuff for years because Bush did it - suddenly their guy wants to do similar things, and magically it is okay? Now, suddenly, they are fine with it?

The double-standard is what annoys me most.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Justice Dept. defends warrantless cell phone tracking - CNET News

The Eligibility of Hillary Clinton to be Secretary Of State in Question, and the Case Has Made It To The Supreme Court

By Douglas V. Gibbs

U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 6, Clause 2: "No senator or representative shall, during the time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil office under the authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time."

In other words, the emoluments (or wage) for Secretary of State was increased while she was in the U.S. Senate, therefore, Hillary Clinton is ineligible for the position.

The Democrats, however, used an oft used "fix" to correct the situation, called "The Saxbe Fix." Essentially, they rolled back the amount the Secretary of State can earn to the amount it was when Hillary Clinton took her seat in the Senate.

Sort of like waving a magic wand, going back in time, and acting as if what made her ineligible never happened.

Problem is, the Saxbe Fix is not addressed in the Constitution, and it does not change the fact that the emoluments were increased for the position of Secretary of State while she was in the Senate.

A case filed using that exact argument has worked its way through the court system, and has gotten to the point that a brief has been filed with the U.S. Supreme Court. The accusation includes government evading the clear and precise language of the U.S. Constitution through the use of a legislative "fix."

The case was brought on behalf of U.S. Foreign Service Officer David C. Rodearmel, who argues that "compensation and other emoluments" of the office of secretary of state rose during Clinton's tenure in the Senate. A special three-judge panel of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed the case, concluding Rodearmel lacked standing. Standing, however, should be granted because this issue is directly concerning the U.S. Constitution, and since the Constitution was written of the people, by the people, and for the people, clearly The People has standing.

Judicial Watch argued Rodearmel cannot be forced to serve under the former senator as it would violate the oath he took as a Foreign Service Officer in 1991 to "support and defend" and "bear true faith and allegiance" to the U.S. Constitution.

"Our client's goal is to vindicate the U.S. Constitution," said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. "The Constitution clearly prohibits Hillary Clinton from serving as secretary of state until 2013. We hope the Supreme Court assumes jurisdiction over this matter and puts a stop to this attempt to do an end-run around the Constitution."

The salary was not only increased during Mrs. Clinton's second term in the U.S. Senate, but it was increased three times. The Congress can rollback such an increase all they wish, but it does not erase the fact that the increases occurred.

"At the core of the case is the casual disregard of a clear and unambiguous directive of the Constitution," the brief states.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Hillary's eligibility challenged in Supreme Court: Can political branch evade 'clear and precise language' of Constitution? - World Net Daily

Saxbe Fix - Wikipedia

Sunday, February 14, 2010

Planning a Tea Party

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Earlier today, during the dawn of the afternoon hours, I met with a couple Tea Party organizers at a coffee house to discuss an upcoming event planned for two Saturdays from now in Temecula, California. I have been asked to man the Constitution Table, and I accepted the offer enthusiastically. In addition to answering questions regarding the Constitution, I was also asked to create a few pamphlets to hand out. Two of them are complete, and the material in them are based on my articles regarding Immigration and the Constitution, and Health Care and the Constitution. The text in the pamphlets do not read exactly as the posts on my site, for I had to make them a little more concise so that the article would fit on the tri-fold pamphlet with a font large enough that people could still read it.

I attended a couple Tea Parties last year, the Tax Day Tea Party in Fullerton, California, and one in Temecula on a later date. In both cases I found that what the mainstream media had been reporting regarding the rallies was far from the truth.

Cable networks like MSNBC, and CNN, call the Tea Parties "anti-government" rallies full of right wing extremists, and angry ideologues, while erroneously reporting that the events are all about "taxes". MCNBC, specifically, attached the low-brow sexual term "tea-bagging" to the events - a term that has caught on with the leftists, and now Tea Party participants are regularly referred to has "tea-baggers."

Attending these events, and meeting with organizers, I am happy to say that the biased media, and the liberal left lunatics, just don't get it. They do what they always do, form a preconceived notion in their heads, and attribute the myth as fact to whatever it is they are in opposition to.

Tea Parties are not populated by only right-wingers. At the events I attended, and I have learned at all of the other events as well through conversations of folks that have attended other Tea Parties around the nation, one truth is consistent among all of them. The attendees are members of both the Republican Party, and the Democrat Party. Many of the folks at these events are affiliated with neither party, as well. In fact, what is attracting most of these folks is the fact that the rallies have nothing to do with party, or political affiliation. The Tea Parties are about Americans who have realized that the political establishment is in office for one reason, and one reason alone: themselves.

The prevailing mood is one of enthusiasm, and excitement about the opportunity to be heard as an American, not some faceless constituent. The Constitution, and the Founding Fathers, dominate the topics of discussion. Political corruption, dirty political tactics, big government, unconstitutional legislation, and yes - Taxes, also become a part of the conversations.

"The Constitution is the Solution" is the ultimate message. The voice of the people
has found a platform, and it is the grass roots efforts of the various Tea Parties the make up the larger Tea Party Movement.

Be a part of the Tea Party in your area.

United We Stand, Combined We Kick Butt.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Susan Roesgen: Angry CNN Reporter Calls Tea Party Protesters Anti-Government and Anti-CNN - Blue Star Chronicles/Right Pundits

MSNBC: The Place for Low-Brow 'Teabag' Humor - NewsBusters

Newsy Takes A Look at Biden's "Greatest Achievement" Remark



-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Captain Jim Kinney, USN Retired, Author "The Second American Revolution" joins Political Pistachio Radio


Joining the Political Pistachio Radio Revolution tonight is Captain Jim Kinney, Author of The Second American Revolution.

As our founding fathers did then, so must we now move beyond impressive protest to positive action to correct the course of the future for our children and grandchildren. Against all odds, we must rise up and overthrow the tyranny of our imperial government—an elite, 535-member noble class above the law who are imposing their will on us and our children for generations to come.

As the logical next step to the grassroots TEA Party movement, we are recruiting a new “Continental Army” to wage war in the 2010 election cycle and elect federal legislators who will sponsor the Restore America Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Jim Kinney, Captain, US Navy (ret) is the founder of Inspire & Ignite. Inspire & Ignite has been created to provide consulting help to organizations seeking to expand and/or optimize their impact.

For the past thirty years, Jim’s experiences have thoroughly prepared him for this opportunity.

In 1979 he was assigned by the Navy to establish a new aviation reconnaissance squadron for the Pacific Fleet. By his change of command in 1982, the handful of sailors that had begun the task with him had grown to more than 150 men and he managed more than $100M dollars in assets. The reconnaissance unit (VPU2) flew their aircraft at 150% of the standard fleet usage for the aircraft type and never missed an operational mission. VPU2, under Jim’s leadership earned both the Navy Unit Citation and the Meritorious Unit Citation.

After a tour on the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Jim was given command of the Navy recruiting district in Little Rock, AR. The command has just failed a major inspection and ranked 33 out of 35 recruiting districts in the nation. During his tenure in command, the district passed the
re-inspection with flying colors and the following year was recognized as the number one recruiting district in the nation as well as the most improved.

As a result, Capt Kinney was asked to take command of the New York recruiting district, largest in the nation and failing badly. In his two years in command, the district became the number one recruiting command in the nation in its competitive category.

Leaving New York, He was tasked to establish the office of Director, Navy Recruiting and Retention Policy for the Chief of Navy Personnel at the Pentagon. In the same month that he assumed this responsibility, the Berlin Wall came down and the Navy was thrust into the uncomfortable position of having to downsize from a 600 ship Navy to a 350 ship force. While receiving the Legion of Merit, the highest peacetime award authorized by the Department of Defense, Captain Kinney transitioned the entire DOD recruit testing program from an antiquated paper and pencil system to a Computer Adaptive Testing (CAT) program.

He also developed a screening method accepted by the DOD that allowed the military services to recruit with confidence young men and women who failed to complete high school. This screening tool gave the services the ability to accurately identify non high school graduates who projected to be as successful as their high school graduate peers. This both expanded the recruiting market and also gave worthy young men and women a second chance to learn a skill and become successful members of their communities.

Asked by Walk Thru the Bible in 1992 to take on the challenge of revitalizing the WTB seminar ministry as Vice-President reporting directly to Dr. Bruce Wilkinson, Jim was faced with a “half time” decision. Although in zone for selection to Admiral, the call was an easy one, he retired and moved his family to Atlanta.

The seminar division of the ministry had been losing money consistently for more than a decade and the Board of Directors had decided that if this part of the Walk Thru ministry could not at least break even, it would be shut down. During the more than 10 years that he ran the live events for Walk Thru the Bible, he grew the program from less than 700 events a year to nearly 2500 seminars annually in the division’s best year (2001). As a result of some innovative approaches to the church market, controlling costs and automating the management of the operation, the seminar ministry flourished under his leadership.

In 2004, Jim left Walk Thru the Bible to join the staff of one of the largest conservative churches in the country. During his tenure at the church, Jim transitioned the communication from an old off-set printing plant to a digital print center, made major adjustments to the staff structure and prepared all the research, including site identification, to allow the church to launch a remote campus more than 20 miles from the existing church facilities.

Late in 2007, Governor Mike Huckabee, a long time friend, asked Jim and Linda to come onboard his campaign staff. When their contributions to the presidential campaign were completed, Jim was advised to consider using his gifts and experience to help organizations seeking to maximize their impact. Inspire & Ignite resulted.
Asked to describe his passion, Jim said, “I pray that God will continually stoke in me a holy, restless dissatisfaction with the way things are. That does not mean that the way things are at any given time are bad…in fact they may be quite good. But I’ve learned that as soon as we are willing to settle for the status quo, we lose our edge.”

Tonight on Political Pistachio Radio we will discuss Capt. Kinney's book, his experiences, and how we must:

1. Restore America with term limits

2. No federal pay check....Each state pays their wages

3. Govt based on GNP

Join us live at 7:00 PM, or catch the archive later, at BlogTalkRadio.com/PoliticalPistachio.

Health Care and the Constitution

By Douglas V. Gibbs

The United States Constitution was written with the intention of limiting the powers of the federal government. As a positive document, the Constitution lists only what the federal government can do. Article I, Section 8 contains eighteen clauses that enumerate the powers of the federal government's legislative branch. The Ninth and Tenth Amendments indicate that the powers granted to the federal government are specifically enumerated within the text of the Constitution, or Amendments passed, and if an issue does not fall within the purview of the authorities granted to the federal government by the U.S. Constitution, the issue belongs to each of the individual states, respectively.

Congress, in an attempt to justify the federal government's unconstitutional proposals, regularly grants themselves the power to tax and spend, and essentially do as they please, with expanded versions of the Commerce Clause and the General Welfare Clause (established, they believe, by Supreme Court decisions of the past).

The Supreme Court, when it comes to the law, is not another writer of the U.S. Constitution. Their decisions do not amend the Constitution, nor create law. The United States Supreme Court is not granted the power to "interpret" the U.S. Constitution, either. Their function is to "apply" the Constitution to the cases they rule on, and provide "opinion" regarding the constitutionality of a law. If a law is seen as unconstitutional, it is up to the legislature to change it. Only the Legislative Branch of government can "make" law, or repeal law.

The federal government may only exercise the powers granted to it, or denied to the states, as granted by the Constitution, or any Amendments. The states have control over everything else. Therefore, the Supreme Court is not suppose to rule over cases that are strictly state issues, nor can the Supreme Court make rulings that "dictate" to the states how to establish their own laws, if the issue does not fall under the authority of the federal government as granted by the U.S. Constitution.

The Legislative Branch, with proposals like Health Care, is attempting to take the federal government into uncharted political and legal territory, regardless of Constitutional authority, and regardless of the opinion of the American People.

The Constitutional problems with Health Care legislation, and the federal attempt to take control of the American health care system, are many. The proposal of allowing the federal government any intrusion into the private issue of health care, or health insurance, is unconstitutional to its very core. The General Welfare Clause was not intended to give the Congress a free-floating power to do anything it can no more than the Commerce Clause was designed to allow the federal government to restrict interstate commerce at will.

In Federalist #41, James Madison (considered the father of the Constitution), wrote that ". . . persons alleging that the General Welfare Clause permitted unlimited exertion of power were grasping at straws in their attempt to prevent the ratification of the Constitution. . ." And he wrote, in regards to people who believe the General Welfare Clause allows government to do more than provided by Article I, Section 8, that the ". . .specification of the objects by the general terms immediately follow and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semi-colon."

The General Welfare Clause states that the United States is to "promote the general Welfare." Notice the word "promote," rather than "provide," first of all. Also, note the word "general" rather than "individual," meaning that the General Welfare Clause was designed to promote the general welfare of the republic, not to each individual in the form of an entitlement.

One of the provisions of the Senate Health Care Bill gave Congress the power to require Americans to purchase health care. Congress must be able to point to at least one of its powers listed in the Constitution as the basis of the individual insurance mandate, and none of those authorities listed justifies such a mandate. One must consider the U.S. Constitution in its entirety, and recognize its "limiting principles." Considering that the text of the Constitution is specifically designed to limit the authorities of the federal government, and that nowhere in the text is there an authorization for the Congress to mandate that anybody buys anything, how constitutional would you imagine a provision to be that mandates citizens to buy health insurance under the threat of fines or prison? In other words, can the federal government force a person to enter into a contract?

Under closer scrutiny, it becomes not only glaringly apparent that mandating every American to buy health insurance is not provided as a federal authority by the U.S. Constitution, but that the provision violates the "Takings Clause" of the Fifth Amendment. In other words, the federal government cannot "seize" your opportunity to private health insurance for the greater public use while taxing (or fining) you without due process. In the health care legislation there is nothing that allows you to contest or appeal the imposition of the tax, which deprives citizens of property without "due process of law."

Contrary to the arguments presented by the supporters of federal health care legislation, government involvement in health care, as witnessed in examples of government intrusion into health care around the world, will lead to the rationing of health care (particularly where senior citizens and other classes of citizens are involved), provide free health care for illegal immigrants paid for by your tax dollars, offer free abortion services paid for by the tax dollars of everyone (including those with a moral abhorrence to abortion), and probably forced participation in those abortions by medical professionals that have moral and/or religious objections to the procedure.

Ultimately, rather than providing competition as is claimed (participants like the federal government that set the rules of the health care industry as they desire to do, and the fact that the government does not rely on profit to remain in business, is not viable competition), the government involvement in health care will eventually force private insurance companies out of business, and put everyone into a "single-payer" government run system. Once that takes place, all decisions about personal health care will be made by federal bureaucrats whose primary goal is not your health, but determining the best way for the federal government to spend less on hospital admissions and payments to physicians, while placing strict controls over the allocation of necessary medical devices.

With the incentive of profit removed, the quality of care will lessen, and the greater minds that would normally enter the medical industry, as lured by profit incentive, will opt for other opportunities, leaving the industry with less qualified personnel for an ever increasing demand created by the offer of "free" health care by the government.

In the process the government will also be given free rein over your personal health care information, your personal financial information, and the information of your employer, physician, and hospital. Anytime the government would wish, they could search through your records, and violate your right to "secure. . . papers and effects" without a warrant, or probable cause. This is a direct violation of the specific provisions of the 4th Amendment to the Constitution.

Article VI of the Constitution requires the members of Congress to be "bound by oath or affirmation" to support the Constitution. The proposal of an unconstitutional bill filled with unconstitutional provisions is a violation of that sacred oath or affirmation. No wonder the forces behind the Senate Health Care Bill felt like they had to pay off Senators to get their votes, as was the case with Senator Landrieu (Louisiana Purchase offer by Harry Reid of $300 million), or with Senator Nelson (Cornhusker Kickback that allowed Nebraska to be exempt from paying into certain provisions, which led to the expectation of the other 49 states to pick up Nebraska's portion of the monies).

This is not to say that a public option is completely unconstitutional. If a state, without federal involvement, desires to have health care programs that do not violate their own state constitution, and the program is paid completely with state funding, then a public option in that manner is completely constitutional.

One must also consider that liberty, or freedom, is a manifestation of "choice" available to individual citizens. If the government involvement in health care will eventually eliminate the private industry, that would leave Americans with no other choice than government health care. Such a limit of choice is a limit on liberty. And when considering such a limit on choice, one must ask themselves, what happens if the government does a poor job of running health care as many Americans expect? In that case, we will be stuck with what we have, because the choice to not use the government system, or to not pay into it anymore, will have been removed.

One more thought on the government intrusion into the health care industry, and this one is offered to those that support the current health care legislation proposals. What happens if future administrations do not see the health care legislation in the same way you believe the current administration does? In other words, do you really wish to grant this kind of power over your health to a future administration that turns out to be tyrannical?

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Five Unthinkable Options by J.J. Jackson (Part 1 of 5)

Five Unthinkable Options (Part 1 of 5)

By: J.J. Jackson

The scene is from The Simpsons Movie. Russ Cargill, the movie’s villain, stands before President Schwarzenegger with five plain brown file folders each containing government solutions to the pollution in Springfield . Cargill proclaims, “Well, I've narrowed your choices down to five unthinkable options. Each will cause untold misery ...” Humorously the President, as I think so many presidents have done throughout history, calls out, “I pick number three!” Cargill, perhaps stunned, but perhaps not, asks, “You don't wanna read them first?” To which President Schwarzenegger scoffs, “I was elected to leeead, not to reeead. Number three!”

As much as those on the left wants to paint me as such I am no villain. I am just a man who comes before you each week to give you my opinion on matters of great importance to the well-being of our Republic and who has a healthy dose of the facts as well as history on my side. But I do have to say that I am sorry to have to come before you with what are indeed five unthinkable options.

Oh, they are not unthinkable because they cannot be thought of. In fact they all have been thought of. They are just unthinkable because once thought of they are quickly discarded by minds that do not want to accept the truth. That truth is that the way our federal government spends money, and likewise what it spends money on, is ruining America and heading us down a road to oblivion.

I am a big boy. I can fight for myself. My children however are another story. I see what our Congress and a long line of Presidents have done when it comes to spending and year in and year out toss away more money than is collected. The numbers are staggering. The United States is not millions of dollars in debt. It is not even billions of dollars in debt. Oh no, we are far past those milestones on the road to oblivion. The United States is trillions of dollars in debt as it has spent and spent and spent some more only afterwards to maybe ask a question or two. You know, simple questions like is this or that expenditure a good and wise usage of tax payer dollars and is it even allowed under the federal constitution; things like that.

Then once those questions are asked after the fact the inevitable kabuki dance begins. First those who support the spending try to just ignore the question. Then when that fails and people keep demanding answers step two is implemented which is to justify the spending under some obscure and wholly inconceivable interpretation of the Constitution. This tactic includes inserting words that do not exist into the text, redefining words that do exist and ignoring actual documentation by the founding fathers themselves that further explains the words they penned, voted on and later approved. If that fails it is on to step three where they again try to ignore the question. When that fails they pull out a line that goes something like, “The power of Congress to do [insert expenditure here] is unquestioned,” and then again return to ignoring the question. And finally when that fails to silence critics of their plans they resort to their final excuse which is to play on your heart strings and talk about all the pain and suffering that would ensue if all this spending that should never have been implemented in the first place were to be ended. Then if absolutely necessary they go back to step one and start all over again, never actually settling anything, admit they are wrong or solving the problem of all this gosh darn spending! Meanwhile they are heaping more such programs and spending upon us to boot!

I do, despite the angry emails from progressives and liberals that I get every week, care about my children. Not just my children either but all children of all Americans. And as much as these angry liberals hate it, and tell me so every time I dare speak the truth of the matter, when I compare what we are doing to millions of our children by burdening them with huge debts to cover today’s wants and desires to slavery, there really is no other comparison that comes even close. We are enslaving our children, just as the ancestors of modern day liberals in the past enslaved blacks, to work for them. We are forcing our children to give up the right to their persons and their productivity to make the lives better of liberals who just want and want and want more right now.

It is sick.

And this is why I come before you with, what will be when it is all said and done, the five unthinkable options which I will be spelling out over the course of five weeks and doing so in terms of hard numbers so that there can be no question about each one. I am going to talk a lot about spending and taxes and I am going to use a lot of big numbers that most people cannot get their arms around because they are so inconceivable to ordinary Americans. I know that a lot of people’s eyes start to glaze over when these sorts of topics come up. But I really do not know any way to make it any clearer and discuss the problems that we have and that I think a majority of Americans intuitively understand. I do not think a majority of Americans understand what must be done in order to make things right however.

I see polls that show overwhelming majorities of Americans think that the government should tax and spend less while providing fewer services. But I know from my conversations with many of you that the common belief is that we can solve the problems of deficit spending by cutting spending from the programs that you do currently draw from. I talk to seniors who rail against Medicaid and Food Stamps and other programs that are designed to give the poor more of a benefit than they pay for in taxes. But these seniors do not want their Medicare and Social Security touched. They actually think that the problem can be solved by pairing back these selected programs and leaving their entitlements intact.

On the other end of the spectrum I talk to people of lower incomes who think that the problem can be solved by cutting military spending; one of the few things that government actual does which is Constitutional by the way. Some of them also think that we should cut spending on programs that benefit senior citizens to solve the budget crunch and save their own piece of the government pie. Again, they think that by doing this while preserving their own space in the cookie jar for their only grubby hands can save this Republic.

The more I talk to people the more I know that most people are so wrong about this and have too many misconceptions about the federal budget, where money is actually spent and what our revenues actually are each year that it is necessary to crunch the numbers and lay them out. When I do this with people who I talk to individually they get a really shocked look on their faces because so much of what they think they know about where government spends money is wrong.

What I am going to do is spell out what needs to be done in order to not just stop the rate at which we are adding to the federal deficit and further enslaving all of our children, but also what is fiscally sound and morally responsible in order to actually pay down that debt. Each option to be presented one by one over the following weeks, I am sad to say, will cause untold misery. But it is a misery that so many Americans have inflicted upon themselves and the rest of us by simply not educating themselves.

Some of these options are also completely and fiscally unsound. But they are still options that must be looked at in order to help understand the ones that are in fact reasonable courses of action to take

And to conclude this introduction to what you will be reading about in this space for what is now the next four weeks, I present you with the first of the five unthinkable options. That first option is to just ignore everything. Ignore the deficits. Ignore the spending. Ignore the Constitution. Ignore the cries of our children who are being crushed under the debt we are piling up. Just ignore everything and put on your binders and keep on moving forward towards the cliff as that whip cracks us in the rear waiting for the day we eventually run off it and take everyone, including our children, with us.

That is the first of these options in the simplest terms I can state. And the misery that will be caused if you do choose this, the first of the five unthinkable options, will be the destruction of the United States of America and a resignation that our children should suffer for the selfish actions you choose not to end.

Next week, unthinkable option number two; tax the evil rich.

“As quickly as you start spending federal money in large amounts, it looks like free money.”

— Dwight D. Eisenhower

=====================================

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. His weekly commentary along with exclusives not available anywhere else can be found at http://www.libertyreborn.com

The Future Of America Is An Echo Of Europe. . . Should We Let It Be

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Greece is a wet dream to socialist liberals. They have government health care, a third of the working population is employed by the state with primo benefits and a "can't be laid-off" clause in their contract, the unemployment benefits for the rest keep some of the bills paid for some of the citizens, and the national debt is sky-high - oh, and Greece is bankrupt, and asking for a bail-out by the rest of the European Union. Sure, they think they have social and economic equality, and they do to a point, I suppose - everyone is equally poor. . . except for the intellectual elitists who make up the ruling class.

One of the factors at play in Greece's financial woes is the high rate of government employment, so to save some dough there is talk of ending some of those jobs. As a result, the workers have gone on strike and are protesting in the streets. Isn't that something? The fact that a third of the country is employed by the government, with expensive benefits packages and pension plans, is a part of what put the country into dire straights, but those people have been so brainwashed that they are entitled to such things, they have taken to the streets to protest against Greece taking actions to prevent its collapse!

Take a good look, kids. Greece is the future of America, should Barack Obama continue to have his way.

Over a year ago Larrey Anderson penned a piece about European Socialism, shortly after Obama took office. Mr. Anderson made no bones about what Obama is, and he saw what Obama was going to do before he did it. And to those who voted for Obama that are now scratching your heads thinking, "Gosh, this isn't what I signed on for," I hate to say it, but we told you so.

The Founding Fathers knew that this kind of leader, socialists like Barack Obama, were out there too. That is why the U.S. Constitution was written with the intention to limit the authorities of the federal government. They wanted us to be nothing like Europe for a reason.

How often do you hear the argument, "We are the only Western Nation without Universal Health Care?" We are the only nation that hasn't bought into the madness of socialism for a reason.

As Mr. Anderson reminds us in his "Waltzing on the Titanic" piece, if Europe has done anything for us, they have given us a glimpse at the future should we continue down the destructive path the Democrats seem so happy to take us down.

Upon visiting Europe you will realize that the young people tend to sit around. Not all of them do so, for there is a small shred of sanity still remaining, but for the most part in places like France, Italy and Greece, the young people "tend to sit around, smoke Marlboro cigarettes, drink espresso (and Coca Cola), and (at least until this election) bitch about America" because they have all the time in the world, considering they have no jobs and all.

Like your run-of-the-mill liberal they have decided, as did the Nazis, Soviets, Chinese Communists, and Fascists of history, that capitalism is evil (although China recently took a small sip of capitalism, and likes it!). They have been taught that capitalism is evil from an early age. It is not up to their individual selves to make things happen, as far as they are concerned. Social and economic equality, as Europeans see it, is the duty of the government.

The government can, and should, provide health care, employment, and eventually, guaranteed retirement benefits for everyone.

Sure, they realize that their own governments are failing, and that the socialism they are currently living under is corrupt. But rather than consider that perhaps it is Socialism in the first place that is causing them their woes, they have decided their problems are only due to the current loser socialists, but in the next election they'll bring in some real socialists, and those guys will fix the problem for sure.

As Anderson points out, "Most European countries have become, essentially, plutocracies. The socialist governments give lip service to wealth redistribution but they are tightly interwoven with the "old money" in the banking system and in big business. . . [bailouts are] handed out to the big bankers and to big business. That is how socialism works. Politicians, bankers, and big businessmen do an age-old dance in triple time. There is no trickle down economics in socialism. Almost all of the money stays at the top."

Europeans, however, thanks to the lifetime of indoctrination that teaches socialism is good, and capitalism is evil, always come to the conclusion that as bad as they have it, at least they are not America, which is under the evil spell of capitalism.

Barack Obama pointed out that the image of America as seen through the lens of worldwide eyes is not good, and told us that he planned to alter the worldwide opinion of America so that we could be seen favorably. Obama believes those Europeans, for example, look upon America with disdain for a whole host of things that he spent an entire trip to Europe apologizing for. He apologized, essentially, for us bailing Europe out when Nazi German stood ready to dominate over the disarmed appeasers during World War II, he apologized for our involvement in nations around the world as our humanitarian aid flows into those countries, and our military holds off dictators and despots, and he apologized for our perceived "arrogance," as if we should be ashamed for prospering while the rest of the nations suffer under the weight of their bad decisions, and attachment to civilization killing socialism.

The poor opinion of America, in reality, has nothing to do with what we have done. It all revolves around the fact that those people have fallen under the same spell that the people under Soviet rule did. They have been taught that capitalism is evil, and as a result America must be evil as well because the American People will not allow themselves to vote in socialism and be as miserable as the rest of the world.

This all takes us back to the 60s when Soviet leader Nikita Kruschev said, "We will bury you!"

At the time the fools that heard him say that infamous line assumed Kruschev meant that the Soviet Union would bury us from a military point of view. They figured that Kruschev was articulating that Soviet troops, and possibly Cuban troops (like a Red Dawn situation, I suppose), would be marching across the American countryside in an attempt to take over America, shooting it out with armed Americans that have taken advantage of their 2nd Amendment rights for that very reason.

Kruschev was not talking about a military take-over of America. The Soviet leader was talking about ideology. Socialism is a religion to these people, a freedom killing religion that, like Islam, uses itself as a disease to infest the enemy, rotting a nation from within. The propaganda and ideological infiltration as Kruschev was referring could be used as a weapon just as much as, if not more than, military operations or militant terrorism.

The disease of socialism, the Marxist step towards Communism if you read the Communist Manifesto, has marched across Europe, and is now pounding on the doorway of America. A wave of dependence on the government, an entitlement mentality, is sweeping across America. The seeds were planted over a hundred years ago, and the machinery was put into place by far left socialists like Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Lyndon B. Johnson, and now we have met the shark, and Obama wishes us to jump over that shark to a point of no return.

A brand new socialism is coming, wrapped up in a package with a tag labeled Hope and Change - but there is nothing new about what Obama is offering, or about what the liberal Democrats are attempting. The same exact promises have been offered many times before, and the result is a collapsing European economy, and a failed socialist system.

The socialists know theirs is one of failure, but are convinced that the reason their version of socialism is failing is because America has not jumped on board the Bolshevik Train to ruin.

Barack Obama scoffed in a speech about the nature of what he is doing, and he may not even realize the implications of his socialist policies (but I doubt that. . . I am a firm believer he knows exactly what he is doing, and that these socialist liberals have been planning this bloodless coup for generations). The United States has reached that moment in history where we can choose one of two paths. We can follow Europe to the sinking ruins of socialism, or we can continue to be prosperous and great and follow what led us to this point in time - a free market anchored in capitalism and liberty.

We complained about the spending habits of Bush, and argued that he was hardly a Conservative - then replaced him with someone who was willing to spend more (and now has raised the debt limit so that he and the Democrats can spend even more only weeks after Obama chastised everyone for bad spending habits) with aggressive socialist policies.

Yes, I know everyone wants to brush away any talk that Obama is a socialist, or that the President of the United States, and the Congressional Democrats, would purposely destroy our system to replace it with a corrupt system of socialism. As I mentioned earlier, when in his meeting with the Republicans in Baltimore, Obama dismissed any talk of his plans being Marxist in nature with the wave of his hand, and a little chuckle accompanied by the shake of his head, as if that would be good enough to convince everyone that the wolf in sheep's clothing was indeed not a wolf.

If he is not a socialist, prove it. Go through his website, and scour all of his "actions" (actions speak louder than words, after all) and tell me: Did you find any policies grounded in free market principles?

Remember, what Obama is doing now has been tried in Europe for three generations, and it has not worked. It has failed.

The propaganda has worked, however. The politicians, bankers, and big businessmen are throwing bailout money around to each other while claiming they are for the man on the street, and you fell for it. Obama promised to look out for you, and then bailed out AIG, the big banks, and the big businesses. The money is staying at the top. And the progressives, largely populated by Democrats, did this not because those business entities were too big to fail as they claimed, but so that the government could have say over the operations of those businesses. Obama and the Democrats bailed out the big players of the struggling industries so that they can dictate to these companies whether or not they can pay bonuses promised to executives, encourage CEOs that don't play ball with them to resign, and be involved directly in the day to day activities of these businesses.

And that is something much worse than the socialism Europe is seeing, and is more in line with the socialism Europe has seen. . . and the name for it is fascism.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Waltzing on the Titanic - American Thinker

Obama Signs Debt-Limit Increase Into Law - Wall Street Journal

Roubini: Euro Zone Could Collapse Due to Greece, Spain - MoneyNews

Did We Just Get Lectured on Fiscal Responsibility By the Guy With the $1.6 Trillion Budget Deficit? - Hot Air

"Our Girls" - Lloyd Marcus Tribute to Conservative Women



-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

The Jobs Bill Payoff

By Douglas V. Gibbs

President Barack Obama is pushing a jobs bill. He didn't care about jobs before, all he cared about was his agenda. But now that the populace is screaming about jobs, he figures he might as well make it look like he cares about the unemployment rate.

Problem is, government does not create jobs, or at least not real jobs that benefits economies. Government can only create government jobs, which are leaches on the job market, sucking the living blood from the taxpayers. Government can create conditions, or a better environment, for job growth, however. To do this, government must enable the private sector to expand by backing off on the overregulation of the private industry, and by cutting taxes across the board so that consumers, producers, and all points in between have more capital to use for buying, selling, and transporting.

If Obama, and the federal government, keep expanding the employment of the public sector, and keeps letting the private sector die, it will end up in a bankrupt nation with an economy that cannot survive much longer.

Don't believe me?

Check out Greece. One out of three folks in Greece are employed by the government, and their deficit spending is through the roof. The country is in such great economic peril they are asking for a bailout by the European Union. . .

We can't afford to follow that same path.

Oh, by the way, the Jobs Bill is full of Pork, or was - Harry Reid killed the bill, worried that there would be too much opposition from the Republicans.

Note that also there are tax credits for businesses in that bill. That is not a tax cut as they are advertising. Tax credits are a one time, do for me and I'll do for you, payoff. Real tax cuts would include an across the board tax cut for all levels of income. Such a tax cut would free up capital for spending, production, and transportation of goods.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Saturday, February 13, 2010

And Now Some Breaking News From Afghanistan. . .

By Douglas V. Gibbs

It doesn't seem like very long ago, no matter which television channel I turned it to, the war in Iraq was receiving nightly coverage. The talking heads of the mainstream media discussed how the carnage was unacceptable, and how George Bush and his band of merry idiots were messing up the region with their moronic idea of nation-building.

Although I supported our presence in Iraq, I did not think the reason for our presence should be "nation building."

Now, Iraq and Afghanistan are Obama's wars. The news coverage has backed off, and the talk of carnage has changed to talk about the difficulties of the regions. Joe Biden has even said to Larry King that he sees a stable government in Iraq's future, and that Iraq will be one of the Obama Administration's great achievements. . .

Yeah, I was shaking my head in dismay on that one too.

I also seem to remember how President Bush and General Petraeus were demonized for their silly notion of a troops surge, and how adding troops to the war on terror was not going to make matters better, and in fact would make matters worse.

Now, with Barack Obama's surge in Afghanistan taking place, the increased forces are attempting to take more control over the difficulties in Afghanistan, which includes hitting strategic regions that have been largely held by the Taliban.

The press has been cool with the surge, with a few dissentions, and the rhetoric that changed the tide of the popularity of the war against Bush is absent in regards to Obama's surge.

One of the pieces of good news coming out of Afghanistan is that working with the U.S. and British troops is a large contingent of Afghan forces, much larger than it was before. And the combined force is making headway, fighting an anemic Taliban force, while navigating the various booby-traps laid.

As American forces help the Afghan government gain control over various regions, the U.S. is pouring millions of dollars of aid into those zones (remember the complaints about military spending during the Bush Years?). The money is used to rebuild damaged homes, fix infrastructure, provide cash-for-work opportunities for the locals, and police the area. This is the "hold" phase of our "clear and hold" strategy.

The Taliban, having been chased into the hinterlands and having seen its support among the locals wane in the face of our successful efforts, has been experiencing the defection of a large portion of its fighters in the region. When losing on the battlefield, the Islamists begin to doubt Allah's support in their current effort. However, if President Obama begins to draw down our forces by July of next year, it could undermine the surge's effect. American troops pulling out may cause Taliban fighters to perceive more hope for success than they otherwise would.

Nonetheless, Obama's surge is in play, and the number of American Troops is increasing in the region. My neighbor, a United States Marine stationed on Camp Pendleton, is expecting to ship out in a few days, flying out of March Air Force Base to Afghanistan. I wish him a safe flight, and a safe return. I support what he is doing, regardless of my opinions regarding the continued presence in Afghanistan. . . and I pray for victory.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Saturday Night Live Saw Rahm Emanuel's Effing Retard Comment Coming A Year Ago



Which begs me to ask, why wasn't anybody bothered by the fact that Rahm used the F-Bomb?

Or is that just politics as usual for the Democrats?

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Is Homeschooling Your Child The Best Way To Educate Them?



Terry Neven, Homeschool Authority on Political Pistachio Radio Revolution
Is homeschooling your children better than placing them in the public school system? What does homeschooling do for family relationships? Does homeschooling foster creative learners? How does homeschooling help children develop strong study, thinking, and social skills? Find out the answers tonight on the Political Pistachio Radio Revolution - Conservative News and Commentary
2/13/2010, 7:00 PM Pacific, 120 Minutes

A Sign In Kenya

By Douglas V. Gibbs

The birthplace of Barack Obama has been questioned by a number of people now dubbed as "birthers." Barack Obama, in response, has laughed at those asking about his eligibility while sealing his records and spending millions on lawyers to ensure the "birthers" are unable to uncover any evidence that may, or may not, exist regarding his past.

President Barack Obama may have very well been born in Hawaii as he claims, but if that is so, then why is he doing all he can to hide any part of his past aside from what he has told us in his books?

Despite what Mr. Obama has told us, and the alleged existence of a Hawaii birth certificate that I believe may very well exist, though I wonder what it says in the box labeled "Name of Father," there are some people that are thoroughly convinced that Barack Obama was born in Kenya - and a great number of those people that believe he was born in Kenya. . . live in Kenya.



-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Allen West on Understanding Islam



-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Global Warming Freezing Over


Get Liberty

Friday, February 12, 2010

Airport Body Scan Fatwa Issued by American Muslim Group

By Douglas V. Gibbs

As an added security measure to help alleviate the time it takes to get through the airport security checks, while also enabling security to better be able to spot potential terrorist implements, such as the placement of the incendiary device on the Christmas Bomber, Full Body Security Scanners (also called Nude-body scanners) are being installed at various airports in the United States and Europe.

The Detroit based Fiqh Council of North America (FCNA) emphasizes that a general and public use of such scanners is against the teachings of Islam, natural law and all religions and cultures that stand for decency and modesty.

It is a violation of clear Islamic teachings that men or women be seen naked by other men and women. Islam highly emphasizes ‘haya’ (modesty) and considers it part of faith. The Qur’an has commanded the believers, both men and women, to cover their private parts.

With Islam issuing a fatwa against body scanners, it tells me that they desire to not participate in that security measure because, as stated above, it is against the teachings of Islam.

If Muslims don't wish to be scanned because such security measures are not allowed by their religion, then don't fly.

The security procedures in place were initiated because of the Islamic ideology's war against The West, and it would be insane to allow people who are members of Islam to walk on by because Islam doesn't allow for such procedures, while everyone else is stuck at the airport for an extra hour or two trying to get through security.

Flying is a luxury, and if the airline industry decides these scanners are necessary, deal with it, or take the Greyhound.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Fatwa Issued Against Full Body Scans - Sweetness and Light

Bob Beauprez's Agenda For America, A Return To Values - tonight on the Political Pistachio Radio Revolution



Bob Beauprez, a former Republican Colorado Congressman, says that the remarkable grassroots political uprising taking place across the country right now may very well result in the Republicans taking control of both the U.S. Senate, and the U.S. House of Representatives. Early polls in states with U.S. Senators running for reelection in 2010 shows all of the incumbent Democrats (10 seats in total) either trailing their Republican challengers, or sweating out a shrinking margin.

Mr. Beauprez's book, A Return to Values: A Conservative Looks at His Party, analyzes today's hot button issues, and how the GOP must address them. The book, and the rise of the Tea Party Movement, run hand in hand, and by returning to our values, Bob Beauprez believes we can get the United States back on track.

Tonight at 7pm Pacific, Bob Beauprez joins me live as my guest on the Political Pistachio Radio Revolution to discuss Terrorism, Illegal Immigration, Healthcare, Education, Environmental Policy, and Fiscal Discipline. Join us live, or catch the archive later at BlogTalkRadio.com/PoliticalPistachio.

Joe Biden: Iraq One Of The Great Achievements of this Administration

By Douglas V. Gibbs

I know Joe Biden is kinda dumb, and has a habit of saying things without thinking about the consequences. I prefer to call it "allowing the truth to slip out."

The truth, to the leftist knuckleheads in Washington, is that they know what they are doing - and nothing could be further from the truth.

I've seen more organization on an episode of The Keystone Cops.

Anyhow, I remember during the Bush years the Democrats made statements like, "the war is lost," while demonizing anything Dubya did in regards to Iraq.

The Democrats especially enjoyed attacking "The Surge," claiming it was a bad move, and would never work.

In fact, Joe Biden himself said, in regards to The Surge, and Iraq being able to take over security of their own nation as suggested by General Petraeus, "He's dead, flat wrong. The fact of the matter is that there is -- that this -- uh -- this idea of the security gains we made have had no impact on the underlying sectarian dynamic. None. None whatsoever. Can anybody envision a central government made up of Sunni, Shi'a, and Kurds that's going to gain the trust and respect of 27 million Iraqis? There have been some tactical gains, but they have no ultimate bearing at this point on the prospect of there being a political settlement in Iraq that would allow American troops to come home without leaving chaos behind."

If you will remember back, some of the Democrats wanted to divide Iraq into three sections, one each for the Shia, Sunni, and Kurds. They said that was the only way Iraq would survive. The American effort, as far as the Democrats were concerned, was a lost cause, and Iraq had no hope of ever achieving a stable government.

Now that the Democrat's guy is in office (You know the guy. . . the Professor, Messiah, and the light skinned one that doesn't speak with a negro dialect as Harry Reid says, Obama), and The Surge succeeded despite the leftist's warnings it wouldn't, Joe Biden said on Larry King Live Wednesday Night, "I'm very optimistic about -- about Iraq, and this can be one of the great achievements of this administration. You're going to see 90,000 American troops come marching home by the, uh, end of the summer. You're going to see a stable government in Iraq that is actually moving toward a representative government."

One of the great achievements of this administration? And now, suddenly, a stable government is possible? Obama, Biden, and the rest of the lunatics demonized the war from day one (after they voted for it in Congress way back when. . .). They have said the war is lost, The Surge was a mistake, and there would never be a stable government in Iraq. Now, after Bush's strategy turned around the war effort, and led to a stabilization of Iraq, Biden wants to give Obama the credit!

I don't know if they really believe that the American People will buy their bull crap, or if they actually buy into this insanity themselves.

Barack Obama opposed The Surge, and the Democrats proclaimed defeat every chance they got, and especially made sure Bush and General Petraeus heard them say it. They opposed everything Bush and Petraeus did, and it was those things they opposed that led to the success and stability in Iraq today! Obama and Biden wanted the troops to leave Iraq in defeat! Harry Reid said the war was lost. The Democrats were bad mouthing the military, and criticizing every move Petraeus made. And now that the policies of Bush have come to a victory in Iraq, Biden says to Larry King that "This could be one of the great achievements of this administration."

One of the great achievements of this administration?

What achievement?

I know that liberals love to lie, but this one takes the cake!

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Joe Biden Meet The Press 2007 - You Tube

Biden: Petraeus ‘Dead Flat Wrong’ on Iraq (2007) - Sweetness and Light

Joe Biden On Iraq: Staying Is "Killing Us" (2008) - Huffington Post

Joe Biden update: Iraq one of Obama's 'great achievements' - Los Angeles Times