.jpg)
Get Liberty
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
The Reason For The Constitution
By Douglas V. Gibbs
I was recently speaking before a group about the U.S. Constitution, and I made the statement that the reason for the writing of the Constitution was to establish the federal government in its current form, and to improve the union by enabling authorities to protect and preserve the union. A gentleman raised his hand, and politely disagreed. He said the reason the Constitution was written is to protect our individual rights and individual property.
The Preamble lists the reasons for the creation of the United States Constitution. The very first reason listed is "in order to form a more perfect union," specifically, one that can be protected. The Articles of Confederation, the constitution before the constitution, did not have a provision that allowed the federal government to protect the union. The Constitutional Convention was conducted in the hopes of improving upon the Articles of Confederation, partly to enable the ability of the federal government to have armed forces for protecting the union, and partly to allow the federal government to tax so that it may be able to pay for the new military. However, knowing that a federal government with more power than given to it in the Articles of Confederation could result in it becoming an entity that may be willing to trample on our rights, the founding fathers placed limiting principles in the Constitution so as to protect our rights and property from the federal government. It was understood that federal systems of government tend to move toward becoming a centralized system, so protections for the people needed to be present.
We need to remember that the Constitution is a contract between the States and the federal government. The States allow the federal government to exist. The States granted the federal government its authorities. The States, in order to protect the rights and property of the people, allowed in that contract the powers to the federal government to be limited specifically so that your rights and property would be protected from a potentially tyrannical federal government.
"What about protecting our rights and property from the individual States?" I have been asked.
The U.S. Constitution applies to the federal government. There has been some argument that the 14th Amendment changed much of that, and that the Bill of Rights apply to the States as well. However, considering the original purpose of the 14th Amendment was intended to protect the rights of the emancipated slaves, and that the language of the amendment is careful to explain that, I believe the 14th Amendment fails to subvert the original intention of the Constitution as some may imply.
You, my friends, are the States. If you don't want your State to trample on your liberties, then you have to make sure that your State does not do such a thing. Part of what protects you from your State getting out of hand is the State Constitution. And you have the ability, in most cases, to amend your State Constitution without legislative interference.
The closer your government is to you, the less likely it can become tyrannical. At the city and State level your access to the government is increased compared to your access to the federal government. At the federal level the people are more detached from the bureaucrats, so the U.S. Constitution is there to check the government by dividing the powers of the branches, of the vote, and of the federal government from the sovereign states. You have the responsibility of placing representatives there to represent you through the vote, but your personal hand is not nearly as involved once they are in office as it is at the more local level. Therefore, it is important to put people into office that you know will abide by the U.S. Constitution.
At the State level it is important to place people in office that will represent you while abiding by the State constitution. And with the state government you as a citizen are a little bit closer, and it is easier to be a little bit more involved. At your county and city level your ability to be involved increases even more, giving you more direct control. But, it is still the responsibility of the people to ensure government is populated by the right people. In turn, you have direct ability to ensure your rights and property are protected by ensuring your local government has the right people running it, and are acting in accordance to the wishes of the voters. With freedom comes responsibility. Your freedom is in your hands.
We must be responsible enough to hold on to our freedom. Freedom is not something we are just given, and you put it on the shelf, and it is always there. Freedom must be worked for daily. Freedom is something that must be maintained by the people, and the States, through involvement. Failure to be involved may result in the loss of freedom.
It is easy not to be free. A government that holds power with offices occupied by human beings that are corruptible can easily take your freedom from you. Freedom must be worked for, and the Founding Fathers knew it.
The Founders gave us a Constitution with everything we need in it to ensure our freedom's protected. All we must do is enforce that Constitution, protect that Constitution, and be the final arbiters of that Constitution. It is not the Supreme Court's job to make sure our government is constitutional, it is our responsibility. We have the power. If the people representing us does not uphold the Constitution, if they breach that contract, we need to fire them. If the judges are activist judges, and they are not abiding by the Constitution, we can vote in people that will impeach those judges. We have all the power if we are willing to exercise it. If we don't, if we become complacent, if we figure our freedom will just always be there, one day we will wake up and our freedom will be gone.
Freedom must be worked for. This is why I write, this is why I do the radio show, this is why I lead the Constitution Study on Thursdays in Temecula, this is why I am running for city council in Murrieta. I do these things to be involved, and to help equip people with the knowledge on how to be active, on how to protect that Constitution, and how to be responsible with our freedom. If we don't, as Ronald Reagan said, "Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free."
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Godly Quotes by the Founding Fathers and Past Presidents
Religion has long played a prominent role in the lives of not only American citizens, but American presidents. Many of our nation’s leaders derived their beliefs from Christianity and maintained strong beliefs in God, as evidenced by quotations from their speeches, letters and memoirs.
1. “Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion.” —George Washington
2. “We ought to be no less persuaded that the propitious smiles of heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right
which heaven itself ordained.” – George Washington
3. “The General hopes and trusts that every officer and man, will endeavor so to live, and act, as becomes a Christian soldier defending the dearest rights and liberties of his country.” – George Washington
4. “Let me live according to those holy rules which Thou hast this day prescribed in Thy Holy Word…direct me to the true object, Jesus Christ, the way, the truth, and the life. Bless, O Lord, all the people of this land.” – George Washington
5. “The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity. I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.” – John Adams
6. “We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion…Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other.” – John Adams
7. “We recognize no sovereign but God, and no King but Jesus!” – John Adams
8. “I have sworn upon the altar of god eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.” – Thomas Jefferson
9. “The reason that Christianity is the best friend of government is because Christianity is the only religion that changes the heart.” – Thomas Jefferson
10. “Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever.” – Thomas Jefferson
11. “I have always said and always will say that the studious perusal of the Sacred Volume will make better citizens, better fathers, better husbands… the Bible makes the best people in the world.” – Thomas Jefferson
12. “Before any man can be considered as a member of civil society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governor of the Universe. And to the same Divine Author of every good and perfect gift we are indebted for all those privileges and advantages, religious as well as civil, which are so richly enjoyed in this favored land.” – James Monroe
13. “While we assert for ourselves a freedom to embrace, to profess, and to observe, the Religion which we believe to be of divine origin, we cannot deny an equal freedom to them whose minds have not yielded to the evidence which has convinced us.” – James Monroe
14. “It is no slight testimonial, both to the merit and worth of Christianity, that in all ages since its promulgation the great mass of those who have risen to eminence by their profound wisdom and integrity have recognized and reverenced Jesus of Nazareth as the Son of the living God.” – John Quincy Adams
15. “The highest glory of the American Revolution was this: it connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity.” – John Quincy Adams
16. “My custom is to read four or five chapters of the Bible every morning immediately after rising. It seems to me the most suitable manner of beginning the day. It is an invaluable and inexhaustible mine of knowledge and virtue.” – John Quincy Adams
17. “I am profitably engaged in reading the Bible. Take all of this Book upon reason that you can, and the balance by faith, and you will live and die a better man.” – Abraham Lincoln
18. “We have forgotten God. We have forgotten the gracious hand, which preserved us in peace and multiplied and enriched and strengthened us, and we have vainly imagined, in the deceitfulness of our hearts, that all these blessings were produced by some superior wisdom and virtue of our own. Intoxicated with unbroken success, we have become too self-sufficient to feel the necessity of redeeming and preserving grace, too proud to pray to the God that made us.” – Abraham Lincoln
19. “The only assurance of our nation’s safety is to lay our foundation in morality and religion.” – Abraham Lincoln
20. “All must admit that the reception of the teachings of Christ results in the purest patriotism, in the most scrupulous fidelity to public trust, and in the best type of citizenship.” – Grover Cleveland
21. “A thorough knowledge of the Bible is worth more than a college education.” – Theodore Roosevelt
22. “The foundations of our society and our government rest so much on the teachings of the Bible that it would be difficult to support them if faith in these teachings would cease to be practically universal in our country.” – Calvin Coolidge
23. “The study of the Bible is a post-graduate course in the richest library of human experience.” – Hebert Hoover
24. “The fundamental basis of this nation’s law was given to Moses on the Mount. The fundamental basis of our Bill of Rights comes from the teaching we get from Exodus and St. Matthew, from Isaiah and St. Paul. I don’t think we emphasize that enough these days. If we don’t have the proper fundamental moral background, we will finally end up with a totalitarian government which does not believe in the right for anybody except the state.” – Harry Truman
25. “The rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God.” – John F. Kennedy
26. “Of the many influences that have shaped the United States into a distinctive nation and people, none may be said to be more fundamental and enduring than the Bible.” – Ronald Reagan
27. “Within the covers of the Bible are the answers for all the problems men face” – Ronald Reagan
28. “Without God, there is no virtue, because there’s no prompting of the conscience. Without God, we’re mired in the material, that flat world that tells us only what the senses perceive. Without God, there is a coarsening of the society. And without God, democracy will not and cannot long endure.” – Ronald Reagan
29. “Faith gives the assurance that our lives and our history have a moral design.” – George W Bush
30. “Each day millions of our citizens approach our Maker on bended knee, seeking His grace and giving thanks for the many blessings He bestows upon us.” – George W Bush
Link
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
1. “Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion.” —George Washington
2. “We ought to be no less persuaded that the propitious smiles of heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right
which heaven itself ordained.” – George Washington
3. “The General hopes and trusts that every officer and man, will endeavor so to live, and act, as becomes a Christian soldier defending the dearest rights and liberties of his country.” – George Washington
4. “Let me live according to those holy rules which Thou hast this day prescribed in Thy Holy Word…direct me to the true object, Jesus Christ, the way, the truth, and the life. Bless, O Lord, all the people of this land.” – George Washington
5. “The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity. I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.” – John Adams
6. “We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion…Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other.” – John Adams
7. “We recognize no sovereign but God, and no King but Jesus!” – John Adams
8. “I have sworn upon the altar of god eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.” – Thomas Jefferson
9. “The reason that Christianity is the best friend of government is because Christianity is the only religion that changes the heart.” – Thomas Jefferson
10. “Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever.” – Thomas Jefferson
11. “I have always said and always will say that the studious perusal of the Sacred Volume will make better citizens, better fathers, better husbands… the Bible makes the best people in the world.” – Thomas Jefferson
12. “Before any man can be considered as a member of civil society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governor of the Universe. And to the same Divine Author of every good and perfect gift we are indebted for all those privileges and advantages, religious as well as civil, which are so richly enjoyed in this favored land.” – James Monroe
13. “While we assert for ourselves a freedom to embrace, to profess, and to observe, the Religion which we believe to be of divine origin, we cannot deny an equal freedom to them whose minds have not yielded to the evidence which has convinced us.” – James Monroe
14. “It is no slight testimonial, both to the merit and worth of Christianity, that in all ages since its promulgation the great mass of those who have risen to eminence by their profound wisdom and integrity have recognized and reverenced Jesus of Nazareth as the Son of the living God.” – John Quincy Adams
15. “The highest glory of the American Revolution was this: it connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity.” – John Quincy Adams
16. “My custom is to read four or five chapters of the Bible every morning immediately after rising. It seems to me the most suitable manner of beginning the day. It is an invaluable and inexhaustible mine of knowledge and virtue.” – John Quincy Adams
17. “I am profitably engaged in reading the Bible. Take all of this Book upon reason that you can, and the balance by faith, and you will live and die a better man.” – Abraham Lincoln
18. “We have forgotten God. We have forgotten the gracious hand, which preserved us in peace and multiplied and enriched and strengthened us, and we have vainly imagined, in the deceitfulness of our hearts, that all these blessings were produced by some superior wisdom and virtue of our own. Intoxicated with unbroken success, we have become too self-sufficient to feel the necessity of redeeming and preserving grace, too proud to pray to the God that made us.” – Abraham Lincoln
19. “The only assurance of our nation’s safety is to lay our foundation in morality and religion.” – Abraham Lincoln
20. “All must admit that the reception of the teachings of Christ results in the purest patriotism, in the most scrupulous fidelity to public trust, and in the best type of citizenship.” – Grover Cleveland
21. “A thorough knowledge of the Bible is worth more than a college education.” – Theodore Roosevelt
22. “The foundations of our society and our government rest so much on the teachings of the Bible that it would be difficult to support them if faith in these teachings would cease to be practically universal in our country.” – Calvin Coolidge
23. “The study of the Bible is a post-graduate course in the richest library of human experience.” – Hebert Hoover
24. “The fundamental basis of this nation’s law was given to Moses on the Mount. The fundamental basis of our Bill of Rights comes from the teaching we get from Exodus and St. Matthew, from Isaiah and St. Paul. I don’t think we emphasize that enough these days. If we don’t have the proper fundamental moral background, we will finally end up with a totalitarian government which does not believe in the right for anybody except the state.” – Harry Truman
25. “The rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God.” – John F. Kennedy
26. “Of the many influences that have shaped the United States into a distinctive nation and people, none may be said to be more fundamental and enduring than the Bible.” – Ronald Reagan
27. “Within the covers of the Bible are the answers for all the problems men face” – Ronald Reagan
28. “Without God, there is no virtue, because there’s no prompting of the conscience. Without God, we’re mired in the material, that flat world that tells us only what the senses perceive. Without God, there is a coarsening of the society. And without God, democracy will not and cannot long endure.” – Ronald Reagan
29. “Faith gives the assurance that our lives and our history have a moral design.” – George W Bush
30. “Each day millions of our citizens approach our Maker on bended knee, seeking His grace and giving thanks for the many blessings He bestows upon us.” – George W Bush
Link
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Monday, June 21, 2010
Dealing With The Oil Spill The Liberal Way
By: J.J. Jackson
Personally I am absolutely astonished that President Obama, the consummate leftist that he is, is allowing his public standing to be denigrated by not taking decisive action to solve the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico the way liberals deal with all issues presented to them. And by that I mean that I am amazed that he has not simply issued a piece of paper with his signature on it proclaiming the spill cleaned up and the crisis over. You know, just like liberals do with almost everything else.
Health insurance rates and coverage a problem? Nope! Just sign a law, unconstitutional as it may be, to fix it. Well, ok, not really fix it, but at least proclaim it fixed and hope everyone believes it. The economy faltering after years of bad policies that encouraged banks to make bad loans to bad candidates or have their businesses threatened? That's ok, just get a piece of paper promising billions of dollars for nebulous and ill defined things to create a few thousand very temporary jobs and deem the whole thing fixed.
But just because President Obama has not acted in the preferred method that liberals chose whenever a crisis, real or concocted, arises it dose not mean that he hasn’t dipped into the liberal bag of tricks with regards to the Gulf oil spill. After weeks of diddling, claiming that he and his administration were large and in charge, blaming BP for everything despite claiming that it was he and his administration that was in charge and finding every excuse in the world to get in the way of private companies and even foreign countries who had offered to help clean up the mess and even standing in the way of State governments trying desperately to deal with the problem President Obama finally decided to put his boot down.
He summoned BP to the White House and told them how things were going to be. This included getting BP to set up a $20 billion dollar fund to help sort out claims and costs of the clean up. Boy, that President of ours sure is swell huh? Now he is touting how he, and he alone, was able to make BP responsible financially for this mess. However, did you know that President Obama is not as all powerful as he wants you to believe?
The truth is that BP was already liable for the spill under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990. Under this act, passed before President Obama ever entered national office, BP was already liable fully for the containment and cleanup costs. Even so President Obama now wants America to believe that only by his grace is BP being held accountable.
BP should bear the cost of this disaster just incase any of you are thinking that I am going to defend that company and suggest that they should not be paying hand over fist the costs of the remediation and all legitimate claims of harm. But let us also remember that it was President Obama who refused to waive the Jones Act which prohibited foreign countries who offered help with advanced oil recovery technologies from sending vessels equipped to help the situation too. Then there is the fiasco over the fact that despite a 1994 plan requiring the government to use fire booms to contain and then burn the spill not a single such boom was in place to be used. This was all pre-approved but not done making everything worse. And then on top of that it took more than two weeks for approval to be granted for Louisiana to pile sand on the beaches to act as a barrier against the oil washing ashore. Two weeks! Why? Because bureaucrats needed to study the plan? My God, only a person with his head firmly up his posterior orifice would be doing so much to prevent further damage. Oh and let us not forget the Coast Guard mysteriously deciding that they had to inspect the skimmer barges and pull them out of service causing Governor Jindal to blow a gasket and get the story widely known that even more obstruction was occurring.
Meanwhile President Obama and his sycophants crow about how he is handling the situation and holding BP accountable. Yeah, the Great and Powerful Obama has spoken! His will be done! Even though the Oil Pollution Act, while it spells out BP’s liability, also directs the President to be helpful and not hinder efforts which this administration has clearly done. The law states:
“The President shall, in accordance with the National Contingency Plan and any appropriate Area Contingency Plan, ensure effective and immediate removal of a discharge, and mitigation or prevention of a substantial threat of a discharge, of oil or a hazardous substance ...”
But far from “ensuring effective and immediate removal of a discharge,” President Obama is getting the executive branch in the way. And when he is not getting in the way he is busy not doing pre-approved actions.
Now we are in a muddled mess because of this. BP is liable but the federal government has not been as helpful as it should have been, and is required to be by law, thus exasperating the situation causing damages to mount. President Obama summons the oil company to his left hand and coerces them into setting up a fund and exceeds his role as the Chief Executive of the federal government and acts like a Judge while assuming a role of the Judicial Branch by declaring BP’s liability to pay claims and how it shall be done.
We have actual courts for this and yes, while I realize that taking BP to court to recover damages is time consuming there is a reason for the process. That reason is so that by using the courts the awards are not arbitrary and based on claims that have not been vetted for their veracity. When mandates are made outside of the legal process invariably fraud and abuse skyrocket and money gets awarded where it should not be and for harms not real or at best exaggerated. Meanwhile that leaves less money to pay real claims. As individual citizens we certainly would not stand for our local Mayor deciding that we were liable for large sums of money to another resident of the same town simply because the claim that he was owed it from us was made would we? Heck no and we should not tolerate it from our President either.
The courts are there to make people whole from suffering when their rights are being trampled by the actions others. Circumventing that process violates a great deal of precepts of justice and puts America closer to a Latin American Banana Republic than a Constitutional one.
Meanwhile the oil still spills and States in the path of the slick fret about what is to come. My prediction as to what will be coming? More diddling, more finger pointing and more covering up for that diddling from the highest places within our government. We seem more worried about dragging BP up on a cross than letting them figure out how to plug the damn hole which continues to spew. We seem a lot more interested in obstructing efforts to clean the spill by any bureaucratic means possible. And we certainly don’t seem all that interested in getting to the bottom of how BP apparently received some very questionable waivers for activities under President Obama’s watch.
There will always be oil spills as long as we use oil. Some of them will be horrendous. And those companies responsible must pay to make those affected whole. But our government must not hinder efforts to contain the damage, make that damage worse and cost those companies more because of their own malfeasance. Because once they do they bear too much responsibility for additional costs and damages. And let's face it. We, the tax payers, cannot afford any more needless expenses.
=====================================
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 http://www.cafepress.com/rightthings. His weekly commentary along with exclusives not available anywhere else can be found at http://www.libertyreborn.com
Personally I am absolutely astonished that President Obama, the consummate leftist that he is, is allowing his public standing to be denigrated by not taking decisive action to solve the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico the way liberals deal with all issues presented to them. And by that I mean that I am amazed that he has not simply issued a piece of paper with his signature on it proclaiming the spill cleaned up and the crisis over. You know, just like liberals do with almost everything else.
Health insurance rates and coverage a problem? Nope! Just sign a law, unconstitutional as it may be, to fix it. Well, ok, not really fix it, but at least proclaim it fixed and hope everyone believes it. The economy faltering after years of bad policies that encouraged banks to make bad loans to bad candidates or have their businesses threatened? That's ok, just get a piece of paper promising billions of dollars for nebulous and ill defined things to create a few thousand very temporary jobs and deem the whole thing fixed.
But just because President Obama has not acted in the preferred method that liberals chose whenever a crisis, real or concocted, arises it dose not mean that he hasn’t dipped into the liberal bag of tricks with regards to the Gulf oil spill. After weeks of diddling, claiming that he and his administration were large and in charge, blaming BP for everything despite claiming that it was he and his administration that was in charge and finding every excuse in the world to get in the way of private companies and even foreign countries who had offered to help clean up the mess and even standing in the way of State governments trying desperately to deal with the problem President Obama finally decided to put his boot down.
He summoned BP to the White House and told them how things were going to be. This included getting BP to set up a $20 billion dollar fund to help sort out claims and costs of the clean up. Boy, that President of ours sure is swell huh? Now he is touting how he, and he alone, was able to make BP responsible financially for this mess. However, did you know that President Obama is not as all powerful as he wants you to believe?
The truth is that BP was already liable for the spill under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990. Under this act, passed before President Obama ever entered national office, BP was already liable fully for the containment and cleanup costs. Even so President Obama now wants America to believe that only by his grace is BP being held accountable.
BP should bear the cost of this disaster just incase any of you are thinking that I am going to defend that company and suggest that they should not be paying hand over fist the costs of the remediation and all legitimate claims of harm. But let us also remember that it was President Obama who refused to waive the Jones Act which prohibited foreign countries who offered help with advanced oil recovery technologies from sending vessels equipped to help the situation too. Then there is the fiasco over the fact that despite a 1994 plan requiring the government to use fire booms to contain and then burn the spill not a single such boom was in place to be used. This was all pre-approved but not done making everything worse. And then on top of that it took more than two weeks for approval to be granted for Louisiana to pile sand on the beaches to act as a barrier against the oil washing ashore. Two weeks! Why? Because bureaucrats needed to study the plan? My God, only a person with his head firmly up his posterior orifice would be doing so much to prevent further damage. Oh and let us not forget the Coast Guard mysteriously deciding that they had to inspect the skimmer barges and pull them out of service causing Governor Jindal to blow a gasket and get the story widely known that even more obstruction was occurring.
Meanwhile President Obama and his sycophants crow about how he is handling the situation and holding BP accountable. Yeah, the Great and Powerful Obama has spoken! His will be done! Even though the Oil Pollution Act, while it spells out BP’s liability, also directs the President to be helpful and not hinder efforts which this administration has clearly done. The law states:
“The President shall, in accordance with the National Contingency Plan and any appropriate Area Contingency Plan, ensure effective and immediate removal of a discharge, and mitigation or prevention of a substantial threat of a discharge, of oil or a hazardous substance ...”
But far from “ensuring effective and immediate removal of a discharge,” President Obama is getting the executive branch in the way. And when he is not getting in the way he is busy not doing pre-approved actions.
Now we are in a muddled mess because of this. BP is liable but the federal government has not been as helpful as it should have been, and is required to be by law, thus exasperating the situation causing damages to mount. President Obama summons the oil company to his left hand and coerces them into setting up a fund and exceeds his role as the Chief Executive of the federal government and acts like a Judge while assuming a role of the Judicial Branch by declaring BP’s liability to pay claims and how it shall be done.
We have actual courts for this and yes, while I realize that taking BP to court to recover damages is time consuming there is a reason for the process. That reason is so that by using the courts the awards are not arbitrary and based on claims that have not been vetted for their veracity. When mandates are made outside of the legal process invariably fraud and abuse skyrocket and money gets awarded where it should not be and for harms not real or at best exaggerated. Meanwhile that leaves less money to pay real claims. As individual citizens we certainly would not stand for our local Mayor deciding that we were liable for large sums of money to another resident of the same town simply because the claim that he was owed it from us was made would we? Heck no and we should not tolerate it from our President either.
The courts are there to make people whole from suffering when their rights are being trampled by the actions others. Circumventing that process violates a great deal of precepts of justice and puts America closer to a Latin American Banana Republic than a Constitutional one.
Meanwhile the oil still spills and States in the path of the slick fret about what is to come. My prediction as to what will be coming? More diddling, more finger pointing and more covering up for that diddling from the highest places within our government. We seem more worried about dragging BP up on a cross than letting them figure out how to plug the damn hole which continues to spew. We seem a lot more interested in obstructing efforts to clean the spill by any bureaucratic means possible. And we certainly don’t seem all that interested in getting to the bottom of how BP apparently received some very questionable waivers for activities under President Obama’s watch.
There will always be oil spills as long as we use oil. Some of them will be horrendous. And those companies responsible must pay to make those affected whole. But our government must not hinder efforts to contain the damage, make that damage worse and cost those companies more because of their own malfeasance. Because once they do they bear too much responsibility for additional costs and damages. And let's face it. We, the tax payers, cannot afford any more needless expenses.
=====================================
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 http://www.cafepress.com/rightthings. His weekly commentary along with exclusives not available anywhere else can be found at http://www.libertyreborn.com
Arizona Senator Kyl Told By Obama That Feds Will Not Secure Border
In final minute of this video Senator Kyl explains how President Obama told him that the White House has no interest in securing the border, otherwise "you all won't have any reason to support comprehensive immigration reform (amnesty)."
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
BP disaster makes contrarian case for more US offshore drilling
By Kevin J. Price
British Petroleum's (BP) environmental disaster off the Gulf Coast has dominated the news headlines for several weeks. Unfortunately, the media seems to have limited its focus on the oil spill and not on the ways it could have been prevented.
Since the disaster I have spoken to several energy industry leaders who have told me, on the basis of anonymity that BP has a reputations of being slack in the way they drill oil and its safety standards do not compare to what US companies enjoy. In fact, a similar accident on the part of a company from the US would have led to an immediate shut off because of the technological and safety standards. I have been told that BP is "impatient" with US companies because in its view the latter "are" slow in their processes and are "obsessed" with safety.
The economic case for increased domestic drilling is simple and with our current economic crisis, it is more important than ever. It will quickly lower gas prices by increasing future supplies. What most opponents of domestic drilling fail to realize is that the mere threat of increased production can lower prices. A simple debate on the subject has had the power to lower the price per barrel by over $30. This is without a vote and without new exploration. This is merely due to rhetoric. Imagine the impact once we increased drilling.
The national security argument makes perfect sense too. In 1970 we imported 24 percent of our oil. Today it is nearly 70 percent, and that number continues to grow. If foreign countries decided to stop supplying us, we would be in a true crisis. Security, as well as prosperity, is wrapped up in our energy future. The shrinking US oil supply is not because of scarcity, but because of poor policies on the part of the US government.
The disaster off the coast provides the moral and environmental case for domestic drilling. Increased US drilling is the "green" thing to do. For years we have been told by environmentalists that this planet is little more than a "big blue marble." Simply put, environmental disasters on any part of the planet has an adverse impact on the entire planet. If that is the case, who better than the United States to increase drilling? Right now, Cuba and Venezuela are eying off shore drilling opportunities near the United States. Some of these are very close to where BP's disaster took place. Regardless of how backward BP is, it is generations ahead of Cuba in technology. Do we prefer their technology, safety standards, and labor over that of the US? Any time the United States can take the lead on drilling; people, animals, and pristine environments are better protected compared to the means of any other country.
International waters -- in the Atlantic, Pacific, and Gulf Coast -- are very close to the shores of the United States. Do we want the pursuit of energy that can be found there to be done by the leader in technology and safety or by countries like Cuba, Venezuela, or even Great Britain? Drilling will happen, but by which countries? The BP disaster makes an eloquent case for the US to take the lead.
--------------------
British Petroleum's (BP) environmental disaster off the Gulf Coast has dominated the news headlines for several weeks. Unfortunately, the media seems to have limited its focus on the oil spill and not on the ways it could have been prevented.
Since the disaster I have spoken to several energy industry leaders who have told me, on the basis of anonymity that BP has a reputations of being slack in the way they drill oil and its safety standards do not compare to what US companies enjoy. In fact, a similar accident on the part of a company from the US would have led to an immediate shut off because of the technological and safety standards. I have been told that BP is "impatient" with US companies because in its view the latter "are" slow in their processes and are "obsessed" with safety.
The economic case for increased domestic drilling is simple and with our current economic crisis, it is more important than ever. It will quickly lower gas prices by increasing future supplies. What most opponents of domestic drilling fail to realize is that the mere threat of increased production can lower prices. A simple debate on the subject has had the power to lower the price per barrel by over $30. This is without a vote and without new exploration. This is merely due to rhetoric. Imagine the impact once we increased drilling.
The national security argument makes perfect sense too. In 1970 we imported 24 percent of our oil. Today it is nearly 70 percent, and that number continues to grow. If foreign countries decided to stop supplying us, we would be in a true crisis. Security, as well as prosperity, is wrapped up in our energy future. The shrinking US oil supply is not because of scarcity, but because of poor policies on the part of the US government.
The disaster off the coast provides the moral and environmental case for domestic drilling. Increased US drilling is the "green" thing to do. For years we have been told by environmentalists that this planet is little more than a "big blue marble." Simply put, environmental disasters on any part of the planet has an adverse impact on the entire planet. If that is the case, who better than the United States to increase drilling? Right now, Cuba and Venezuela are eying off shore drilling opportunities near the United States. Some of these are very close to where BP's disaster took place. Regardless of how backward BP is, it is generations ahead of Cuba in technology. Do we prefer their technology, safety standards, and labor over that of the US? Any time the United States can take the lead on drilling; people, animals, and pristine environments are better protected compared to the means of any other country.
International waters -- in the Atlantic, Pacific, and Gulf Coast -- are very close to the shores of the United States. Do we want the pursuit of energy that can be found there to be done by the leader in technology and safety or by countries like Cuba, Venezuela, or even Great Britain? Drilling will happen, but by which countries? The BP disaster makes an eloquent case for the US to take the lead.
--------------------
Kevin Price
Host, Price of Business, M-F at 11 am on CNN 650 and CBS Radio
Frequently found on Strategy Room at FoxNews.com
Syndicated columnist whose articles appear on a variety of media outlets.
His http://BizPlusBlog.com/ is ranked in the top 1 percent of all blogs by Technorati.
Kevin Price's Profile: http://www.google.com/profiles/PriceofBusiness
Host, Price of Business, M-F at 11 am on CNN 650 and CBS Radio
Frequently found on Strategy Room at FoxNews.com
Syndicated columnist whose articles appear on a variety of media outlets.
His http://BizPlusBlog.com/ is ranked in the top 1 percent of all blogs by Technorati.
Kevin Price's Profile: http://www.google.com/profiles/PriceofBusiness
Sunday, June 20, 2010
McDowell Wins U.S. Open of Golf
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Tiger Woods finished three strokes back, and Gregory Havret finished one stroke back, behind the winner of an exciting U.S. Open at Pebble Beach, Graeme McDowell. Graeme is a 30-year-old golfer from Northern Ireland who played steady golf throughout the tournament, and was especially consistent down the stretch during today's final round at the Pebble Beach Golf Links on the Monterey Peninsula in California. Graeme's win, which was achieved over a number of high-profile players, was testimony that in today's game of golf anybody can win. No lead is safe, no legend is a shoe-in.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Father's Day Special
Tonight on the Political Pistachio Radio Revolution, I will be discussing Father's Day. I will be giving my testimony about my fathers, what they have meant to me, and the importance of Dad as a part of the family unit. Join us live at 7:00 pm Pacific, or catch the archive later, at BlogTalkRadio.com/PoliticalPistachio.
Handing America Over To Mexico
By Douglas V. Gibbs
The violence by Mexican drug cartels has gotten so bad in parts of Arizona that the federal government has ceded a portion of the country to Mexico by disallowing Americans into the area for the sake of their safety.
A reconquering of America, piece by piece, has begun.
In our perverted system of immigration, breaking the law makes the federal government take ten steps back. By doing this, it encourages violence to spread, because the Mexican drug smugglers know that all they have to do is be even more violent to receive more concessions. Islam has figured out the same thing in Europe, where there are literally no-go zones in cities like London where the police won't even enter the Muslim zones, and Sharia law reigns supreme.
Our politically correct attitude of not wanted to rock the boat has left us defenseless to the violence of those that oppose liberty, and sanity.
The law is the law, and when the law is broken, the response is supposed to be to enforce the law, not retreat and allow more law breaking to continue.
The law is that entering the United States without inspection, or overstaying your allotted time, makes you an illegal alien, and for that, you shall be deported.
We have gotten so out of whack, that even when a woman wrote a letter asking for help from Obama concerning her illegal alien husband from Cameroon, and the authorities promptly arrested him and threw him into deportation jail, they were reprimanded for doing their job. The man from Cameroon is still set to be deported, but arresting the man was considered to be an improper tactic by the agency’s “fugitive operations” unit. Policy does not allow them to find and arrest Mr. Takoulo as they did, because they should not violate their standard practice of not using letters seeking help from elected officials as investigative leads. The handling of the case also conflicted with the Obama administration’s stated policy of arresting deportable immigrants only if they have criminal records.
He does have a criminal record! He's here illegally!
In both the cases of the man from Cameroon, and Mexican illegals, the words "civil rights" begin to get thrown around. And frankly, this is not about civil rights. The rights of the people in America are protected by the U.S. Constitution, and the right to be here accompanies the permission to be here. By breaking the law to get into this country, people are waving their rights to reside in this country, and with the loss of that right, deportation ought to soon follow.
America is expected by these people to be a nation without borders.
A nation without borders eventually ceases to exist.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
It Begins… Obama Gives Major Swath of Arizona Back to Mexico (Video) - Gateway Pundit
Illegal Is Arrested After Letter To Obama - Sweetness and Light
.jpg)
As the private sector shrinks, the public sector grows
By Kevin J. Price
I remember the liberal, and even Marxist, teachers and professors I had growing up who talked about how wonderful it was that Russia had "zero unemployment." "Zero unemployment," I thought, "that's amazing!" Little did I know then that the jobs many Soviets were doing was digging holes and refilling them, all at taxpayer expense. This approach of massive government control over private dollars did nothing but create a perennially stagnant and backward society and economy.
It appears that Barack Obama is taking a chapter out of the Soviets own handbook as he pursues a similar policy agenda in the United States. But unlike the Soviets, who saw the virtue of people "working" even if the jobs were worthless, this administration is paying people to simply live off the government.
Dennis Cauchon of USA Today points out that "Paychecks from private business shrank to their smallest share of personal income in U.S. history during the first quarter of this year, a USA TODAY analysis of government data finds." While the private sector's economic muscle was in decline, the government's was moving "full speed ahead." According to Cauchon, "At the same time, government-provided benefits — from Social Security, unemployment insurance, food stamps and other programs — rose to a record high during the first three months of 2010."
This crazy, upside economic world poses several problems for a free society. With all the incentives leaning towards idleness and all the losses in productive endeavors, the future looks dim. How will the growth of the public sector spending continue to expand with a rapidly shrinking private sector to support it? Candidate Obama pledged "no new taxes" for those who are not affluent. In his strange world, the affluent will wind up becoming anyone with a job.
Cauchon's column also notes the findings of the Bureau of Economic Analysis, which "reports that individuals received income from all sources — wages, investments, food stamps, etc. — at a $12.2 trillion annual rate in the first quarter." What are the key changes as far as public and private sector? Cauchon's states that, in the private sector, there was a "record-low 41.9% of the nation's personal income (that) came from private wages and salaries in the first quarter, down from 44.6% when the recession began in December 2007." As this area shrunk, we saw a rise on the government side as "individuals got 17.9% of their income from government programs in the first quarter, up from 14.2% when the recession started. Programs for the elderly, the poor and the unemployed all grew in cost and importance. An additional 9.8% of personal income was paid as wages to government employees."
What is the future of an economy that shifts so heavily to government dependence? The first thing that should come to mind is Greece, as our debt ratio quickly approaches the same levels they have suffered from for the last few years and is now resulting in that country dealing with riots as the government cracks down on previously unchecked social spending. Even if it does not lead to a completely bankrupt economy, it will clearly lead to one that is, simply put, less dynamic. Cauchon quotes economist David Henderson of the Hoover Institution who says that this shift weakens an economy when the "People are paid for being rather than for producing," he says. The "sci-fi" world of Obamanomics continues.
I remember the liberal, and even Marxist, teachers and professors I had growing up who talked about how wonderful it was that Russia had "zero unemployment." "Zero unemployment," I thought, "that's amazing!" Little did I know then that the jobs many Soviets were doing was digging holes and refilling them, all at taxpayer expense. This approach of massive government control over private dollars did nothing but create a perennially stagnant and backward society and economy.
It appears that Barack Obama is taking a chapter out of the Soviets own handbook as he pursues a similar policy agenda in the United States. But unlike the Soviets, who saw the virtue of people "working" even if the jobs were worthless, this administration is paying people to simply live off the government.
Dennis Cauchon of USA Today points out that "Paychecks from private business shrank to their smallest share of personal income in U.S. history during the first quarter of this year, a USA TODAY analysis of government data finds." While the private sector's economic muscle was in decline, the government's was moving "full speed ahead." According to Cauchon, "At the same time, government-provided benefits — from Social Security, unemployment insurance, food stamps and other programs — rose to a record high during the first three months of 2010."
This crazy, upside economic world poses several problems for a free society. With all the incentives leaning towards idleness and all the losses in productive endeavors, the future looks dim. How will the growth of the public sector spending continue to expand with a rapidly shrinking private sector to support it? Candidate Obama pledged "no new taxes" for those who are not affluent. In his strange world, the affluent will wind up becoming anyone with a job.
Cauchon's column also notes the findings of the Bureau of Economic Analysis, which "reports that individuals received income from all sources — wages, investments, food stamps, etc. — at a $12.2 trillion annual rate in the first quarter." What are the key changes as far as public and private sector? Cauchon's states that, in the private sector, there was a "record-low 41.9% of the nation's personal income (that) came from private wages and salaries in the first quarter, down from 44.6% when the recession began in December 2007." As this area shrunk, we saw a rise on the government side as "individuals got 17.9% of their income from government programs in the first quarter, up from 14.2% when the recession started. Programs for the elderly, the poor and the unemployed all grew in cost and importance. An additional 9.8% of personal income was paid as wages to government employees."
What is the future of an economy that shifts so heavily to government dependence? The first thing that should come to mind is Greece, as our debt ratio quickly approaches the same levels they have suffered from for the last few years and is now resulting in that country dealing with riots as the government cracks down on previously unchecked social spending. Even if it does not lead to a completely bankrupt economy, it will clearly lead to one that is, simply put, less dynamic. Cauchon quotes economist David Henderson of the Hoover Institution who says that this shift weakens an economy when the "People are paid for being rather than for producing," he says. The "sci-fi" world of Obamanomics continues.
----------------
Kevin Price
Host, Price of Business, M-F at 11 am on CNN 650 and CBS Radio
Frequently found on Strategy Room at FoxNews.com
Syndicated columnist whose articles appear on a variety of media outlets.
His http://BizPlusBlog.com/ is ranked in the top 1 percent of all blogs by Technorati.
Kevin Price's Profile: http://www.google.com/profiles/PriceofBusiness
Host, Price of Business, M-F at 11 am on CNN 650 and CBS Radio
Frequently found on Strategy Room at FoxNews.com
Syndicated columnist whose articles appear on a variety of media outlets.
His http://BizPlusBlog.com/ is ranked in the top 1 percent of all blogs by Technorati.
Kevin Price's Profile: http://www.google.com/profiles/PriceofBusiness
Illegal Alien Agenda
For those of you that doubt the agenda of the illegal aliens, and what they are willing to do to get it, read the sign carefully:
Well, at least it is not the La Raza Reconquista, this time.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Well, at least it is not the La Raza Reconquista, this time.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Saturday, June 19, 2010
U.S. Open Provides Thrills for Golf Fans
By Douglas V. Gibbs
One of the greatest games ever created, aside from baseball and American football, is Golf. What other sport allows you to compete in so many ways? You compete against your fellow golfers, the course, and your past scores. On top of that, it is a game that is intense, yet relaxing, while allowing you to chat, have a beer, or even have a smoke. What other sport offers that?
As much as I like to play golf, I also enjoy watching the game. Today, however, the U.S. Open was especially fun.
Tiger Woods is back, but with less of a roar. Young amateurs are making putts to be remembered, and the leaders are battling it out like the titans they are.
Best of all, though Tiger Woods is in the hunt, today was not the Tiger Woods' show. Today was all about the PGA, and the fun of the game.
The U.S. Open is being played in one of the most challenging courses in America. Pebble Beach even makes the best quiver a little. The question before it began was if Tiger Woods could handle the course on the Monterey Peninsula, or if his personal challenges (and self-imposed vacation from the game) have tamed him enough to allow Mickelson to take over the number one in the world spot. Even seven shots out of the lead, for Phil Mickelson, even the greatest challenges are attainable.
The leaders, Dustin Johnson and Graeme McDowell, don't seem to be overly concerned by the looming Tiger, the amazing amateurs, or the rising Mickelson. Nonetheless, the game for these players, from top to bottom, was filled with thrills that only PGA stars can provide.
Day Four is going to be a rocking time.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
A Rebellious Pistachio
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Before my years of dressing preppie, and listening to Heavy Metal (what a combination, huh?), and debating in favor of Conservatism in school debates, I was quite the dirty rascal.
Squeaky Clean is a life that nobody can maintain forever, I figured, and being a wild one was fun for a season. We are wired to be the opposite of righteous, it seems, and I grabbed rebellion by both horns, but secretly.
We all fall short of the glory, one might say. Nonetheless, we aspire to a regimen of standards, and as we stumble along the way we often build character through our experiences. How can one earn sea legs without navigating the roughest seas?
I am not suggesting that we pursue the tough roads of life, but I am suggesting that often it is those silly paths we take - the kind that 20-20 hindsight tells us we would have been better off without - that helps us become the wisdom filled old folks we are destined to become.
We see those silly kids, and we think, gosh, those kids are silly. But we are viewing them through the lenses of an older generation. This is not to say we should step aside and let the youth be run over by a Mack truck, but I do believe we have to give them a certain amount of room to grow.
The younger years are critical, so we instill in our little darlings the important foundation of values and principles. When they become teenagers, and often well into their twenties, and even (gulp) later in their lives, the rebellion of youth takes a hold of them. It is like they left their brains at the door, and went on a vacation to stupid-ville. The most painful part of that is we know there is nothing we can do about it. As parents we hold our breath, and simply hope our little darlings survive.
I admire those that come out the better for facing the trials and tribulations of a stormy youth. Some folks don't make it. Others fold inward. I, myself, was not happy with the basic scenery of a rebellious youth - I decided to return to the fountain a number of times, and it took dying on the highway to convince me that my folly was indeed folly, and that it wasn't only me that was at stake.
During the early teen years of my life I became a punk rocker. Loved the music, and I loved the rebellious nature of what it was all about. However, I feared my dad so much that I knew better than to openly act out in the punk rock fashion. So, the devious little youth that I was, I had two sets of clothes at one point. One that I went to school in, and another I wore when I hung out with Phil and Scott and the other punkers I hung out with. I literally had a few groups of friends, partly in hopes of leading my folks off my trail, and sniffing elsewhere instead.
Yeah, I know, the basic premise of punk rock was hardly in line with my Christian upbringing - but it is interesting what rebellion will do once it gets a hold of a cocky, mouthy, seeking attention young man. The stench of the music was the appeal. Heavy rhythms, caustic words, and an out of the box attitude was attractive in ways I could not explain.
One of my favorite bands, and there were many (thanks to KSPC on the Claremont Campus, which played nothing but Punk Rock back then), was The Sex Pistols. And Anarchy in the U.K. was one of my favorite songs by them. Little did my little mind understand what the words were really saying - then again, I wonder if Sid Vicious really got what he was singing too.
Anti-Christ, Anarchist, It is the Way to Be. . .
I suppose it made sense to them, after all, Johnny Rotten was not fond of politicians, Christians, or anything else, for that matter.
Well, despite the message, at the time, it was a lot of fun to slam into my friends until we were bruised and bloody, as we listened to The Sex Pistols. . . and much, much more.
I came across this video, and it brought back a lot of memories. So, without any further adieu, here is Anarchy in the U.K. with The Sex Pistols:
and God Save The Queen:
Well, at least I didn't get into the body piercing. . . or the drugs.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Could a Mosque at Ground Zero lead to Shariah Law for New York?
Walid Shoebat Joins the Political Pistachio Radio Revolution to discuss the erection of Mosques in the United States, and more specifically, the one planned two blocks from the site of the 9/11 terror attacks.
Walid Shoebat is a former Islamic terrorist that has converted from Islam to Christianity and has a lot to tell about his old lifestyle and the mindset of Muslims trying to build a mosque at ground zero in New York.
Born in Bethlehem, Walid's grandfather was the Muslim Mukhtar (chieftain) of Beit Sahour-Bethlehem (The Shepherd's Fields) and a friend of Haj-Ameen Al-Husseni, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and notorious friend of Adolf Hitler.
As a young man, he became a member of the Palestinian Liberation Organization, and participated in acts of terror and violence against Israel, and was later imprisoned in the Russian Compound, Jerusalem's central prison for incitement and violence against Israel.
After his release, he continued his life of violence and rioting in Bethlehem and the Temple Mount. After entering the U.S, he worked as a counselor for the Arab Student Organization at Loop College in Chicago and continued his anti-Israel activities.
In 1993, Walid studied the Bible to challenge to convert his wife to Islam. Six months later, after intense study, he realized that everything he had been taught about Jews was a lie. Convinced he was on the side of evil, he became an advocate for his former enemy.
Driven by a deep passion to heal his own soul, and to bring the truth about the Jews, Israel and the threat of fundamentalist Islam to the world, Walid shed his former life and his work as a software engineer and set out to tirelessly bring the cause against the evil of Islamic Fundamentalists to tens of millions of people throughout the world: churches, synagogues, civic groups, government leaders and media.
Walid has a unique insight into Islam, and the issue of terrorism, because his view is from the perspective of someone who was once a terrorist. Walid Shoebat has given lectures at Harvard Law School and Columbia University, and has also spoken at Oxford University UK, National Constitution Center, Capitol Hill, UCLA, USC, University of Georgia, Washington University, Penn State, and San Diego State University.
Little is known regarding the founder of the Ground Zero Mosque, Faisal Abdul Rauf or his views on Islam. Many view him moderate and others connect him to his father’s affiliation to the Muslim Brotherhood. While others object that this would be guilt by association. For that we searched Imam Faisal Abdul Rauf’s own words – in the Arabic and not what he says in English to the western media. It should shock every American to find out that Faisal Abdul Rauf stated to the popular Islamic media Hadiyul-Islam (www.hadielislam.com) on May 26, 2010 in an article by Sa’da Abdul Maksoud. In it he states that an Islamic state can be established regardless of the government being a kingdom or democracy. In another article titled “I do not believe in religious dialogue” should alarm the ardent skeptic on the mindset of the Islamic visionary who advocates establishing Islamic lobbies throughout the West. He also admitted that “[In the West] they have separation of church and state, this of course does not exist in any Muslim country. About 99% refuse to separate religion from state and many call for establishing an Islamic Caliphate.”
And regarding religious dialogue Abdul-Rauf stated “this phrase is inaccurate. Religious dialogue as customary understood is a set of events with discussions in large hotels that result in nothing. Religions do not dialogue and dialogue is not present in the attitudes of the followers regardless of being Muslim or Christian. The image of Muslims in the West is complex which needs to be remedied.” And when his view regarding an Islamic state he responded that “throughout my discussions with contemporary Muslim theologians that an Islamic state can be established in more than just in a single form or mold. It can be established through a kingdom or a democracy. The important issue is to establish the general fundamentals of Shariah that are required to govern. It is known that there are sets of standards that are accepted by [Muslim] scholars to organize the relationships between government and the governed.” When questioned on this, that “the current governments are unjust and do not follow Islamic laws” Abdul Rauf commented “new laws were permitted after the death of Muhammad, so long of course that these laws do not contradict the Quran or the Deeds of Muhammad…so they create institutions that assure no conflicts with Shariah.”
Walid Shoebat is the author of several bestselling books including “Why I Left Jihad,” “Why We Want To Kill You” and “God’s War on Terror.” Walid is an American citizen and lives in the USA with his wife and children, under this assumed name. Walid has spoken all over America and the world including Chile, Mexico, Canada, UK, and South Africa. He has appeared on national television also all over the world including CNN, CNN International, FOX News, ITN, RTE, NBC, CBS, The 700, ABC and ABC Australia. He has also been featured on BBC radio 4, 5 and the largest radio audience on the BBC World Service reaching 180 million people.
To Listen to tonight's show live, or to catch the archive later, tune in at BlogTalkRadio.com/PoliticalPistachio.
Gulf Oil Spill and Obama's Response Time
What Took So Long?
The funny thing about all of this is the Left said the same about Bush in Katrina (What took so long?), but because the disaster was within a State's jurisdiction, the federal government legally could do nothing until the State asked for assistance, and the "then" Democrat led leadership of the State of Louisiana denied federal assistance early on.
However, the oil spill is in U.S. waters, so their was no legal obstacle holding back the federal government. Obama did not respond simply because he decided not to. . . other things, like parties, concerts, and games of golf, were more important to him, apparently.
Also, note that in both cases, the oil spill and Katrina, Mississippi is not in the news. This is because Mississippi, in each instance, took responsibility and acted quickly, and on her own.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
The funny thing about all of this is the Left said the same about Bush in Katrina (What took so long?), but because the disaster was within a State's jurisdiction, the federal government legally could do nothing until the State asked for assistance, and the "then" Democrat led leadership of the State of Louisiana denied federal assistance early on.
However, the oil spill is in U.S. waters, so their was no legal obstacle holding back the federal government. Obama did not respond simply because he decided not to. . . other things, like parties, concerts, and games of golf, were more important to him, apparently.
Also, note that in both cases, the oil spill and Katrina, Mississippi is not in the news. This is because Mississippi, in each instance, took responsibility and acted quickly, and on her own.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Stakelbeck on Terror: For Obama, Call It Anything But Jihad
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Friday, June 18, 2010
Global Abortion, Father's Day Hero - Political Pistachio Radio Revolution
During Hour One, our guest will be Susan Yoshihara, Vice President for Research at the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute (C-FAM), and Director of the International Organizations Research Group (IORG). Ms. Yoshihara argues that as abortionists believe they are in the home stretch, science has tripped them up. The frustration on the part of abortion activists within the United Nations and other independent organizations materialized in their Women Deliver conference flop in Washington D.C. a week ago. Under the guise of "maternal health," the abortion groups aimed to drum up $12 billion in additional funding, while also drafting a formal relations government document that would fuel their march toward a worldwide promotion of "family planning." The facts, and science, has contradicted the abortionists, and now their agenda of murder is on the ropes. And as the reports emerge, women are turning against the abortionist agenda in droves.
Our second hour guest is New York Times bestselling author Brad Meltzer who commissioned a poll that found America's number one hero is. . .Dad! Says Meltzer of the results, "This shows the impact fathers still have in society. Heroes For My Son is his new inspirational book that highlights father-like heroes like George Washington, Mr. Rogers, and the Wright Brothers, all of whom have one common thread, fatherhood. And great news! The book is available now, just in the nick of time for Fathers Day!
Join us tonight as we enjoy two great interviews on the Political Pistachio Radio Revolution. Conservative News and Commentary
Listen live, or catch the archive later, at BlogTalkRadio.com/PoliticalPistachio.
Kobe's Great, but Not The Greatest
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Thursday night the Los Angeles Lakers defeated the Boston Celtics in Game 7 of the NBA Championship. The game was low scoring, close, and according to Shaquille O'Neal, what Kobe Bryant needed to become the greatest Laker ever.
Is Kobe better than Elgin Baylor and Jerry West?
Probably.
Is Kobe better than Wilt Chamberlain and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar?
Maybe.
Greater than Irvin "Magic" Johnson?
Not by a long shot.
Magic Johnson is the greatest player not named Michael Jordon ever to play in the NBA. Three MVPs, a bunch of championship rings, and great numbers in every category (can you say Triple-Double?), the numbers are indisputable. But what truly sets Magic apart from Kobe is the intangibles.
Johnson was a leader on and off the court in ways that Kobe Bryant will probably never be. Magic inspired people to be better on and off the court. Players on his team played better simply because of the presence of Magic. Fans and players around the league liked him, and recognized his qualities as a player, and a person.
Magic served as a reminder of what is cherished most about sports in America: Team, intensity in competition, fair play, love of the game, respect for others, pure talent, setting the tone and placing the bar high, and players capable of teaching, playing, inspiring, and garnering the affection of those around him all at the same time.
Thursday night the Los Angeles Lakers defeated the Boston Celtics in Game 7 of the NBA Championship. The game was low scoring, close, and according to Shaquille O'Neal, what Kobe Bryant needed to become the greatest Laker ever.
Is Kobe better than Elgin Baylor and Jerry West?
Probably.
Is Kobe better than Wilt Chamberlain and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar?
Maybe.
Greater than Irvin "Magic" Johnson?
Not by a long shot.
Magic Johnson is the greatest player not named Michael Jordon ever to play in the NBA. Three MVPs, a bunch of championship rings, and great numbers in every category (can you say Triple-Double?), the numbers are indisputable. But what truly sets Magic apart from Kobe is the intangibles.
Johnson was a leader on and off the court in ways that Kobe Bryant will probably never be. Magic inspired people to be better on and off the court. Players on his team played better simply because of the presence of Magic. Fans and players around the league liked him, and recognized his qualities as a player, and a person.
Magic served as a reminder of what is cherished most about sports in America: Team, intensity in competition, fair play, love of the game, respect for others, pure talent, setting the tone and placing the bar high, and players capable of teaching, playing, inspiring, and garnering the affection of those around him all at the same time.
Oh, and Magic could do some magical things with the basketball that just left you in awe.
I don't believe Kobe Bryant is capable of experiencing the intangibles. This is not to say that Kobe isn't a great player. He is talented, and has great numbers. Kobe will go down as one of the all-time NBA Greats. Kobe is truly great, just not the greatest.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
I don't believe Kobe Bryant is capable of experiencing the intangibles. This is not to say that Kobe isn't a great player. He is talented, and has great numbers. Kobe will go down as one of the all-time NBA Greats. Kobe is truly great, just not the greatest.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Thursday, June 17, 2010
The Pledge of Allegiance, Nationalism, and the U.S. Constitution
"I pledge allegiance to the Flag
Of the United States of America,
And to the Republic for which it stands:
One Nation under God, indivisible,
with Liberty and Justice for all"
The Pledge of Allegiance is a traditional oath of loyalty to the United States of America. It was written in 1892 by Francis Bellamy, a Baptist minister and socialist. Bellamy wrote it in the hopes the children of America would recite it and be encouraged with the Nationalism it was meant to represent. Then, as the children of America beamed with pride of nation and government, socialism would incrementally work its way into our form of government.
America, however, doesn't work that way. What was meant to be a national socialist salute became a patriotic pledge that resides close to our hearts.
Originally, a salute, similar to the Nazi salute, was used during the reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance. The salute was changed to a hand over heart gesture when Nazi Germany used a similar salute.
The phrase "under God" was added in 1954, by a bill signed into law by President Eisenhower on June 14, 1954 (Flag Day), a decision largely driven by the lobbying of the Knights of Columbus, as a means of differentiating America from the "godless" Communists of the USSR.
President Benjamin Harrison ensured Bellamy's Pledge was first used in public schools on October 12, 1892, during Columbus Day observances.
In 1923 the National Flag Conference called for the words "my Flag" to be changed to "the Flag of the United States", for the benefit of new immigrants. The words "of America" were added a year later. The United States Congress officially recognized the Pledge as the official national pledge on June 22, 1942.
In the 1940 the Supreme Court decision, Minersville School District v. Gobitis, it was ruled that students in public schools could be compelled to swear the Pledge. An outbreak of mob violence and intimidation against Jehovah's Witnesses erupted following the ruling because of the Witnesses belief that the Pledge was idolatry, therefore they would not recite it.
In 1943 the Supreme Court reversed its decision, ruling in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette that "compulsory unification of opinion" violated the First Amendment.
The Pledge of Allegiance, a socialist attempt to head America in the direction of tyranny, through the years came to be a patriotic recitation that many believe the Founding Fathers would be proud of.
Amazing how America, with our exceptional spirit of liberty, can even turn something originally created to destroy us into a beloved show of patriotism.
Key Words:
Allegiance: Loyalty to a person, cause, nation, etc.
Communism: Theoretical economic system characterized by collective ownership of property and the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.
Communist: Member of a movement or political party that advocates communism.
Idolatry: Worship of idols.
Loyalty: A feeling or attitude of devoted attachment or affection.
Nationalism: Devotion to one’s nation, love of one’s government.
Oath: A solemn formal declaration or promise, often calling on God. Something declared or promised.
Patriotism: Love of and devotion to one’s country.
Socialism: The stage in Marxist theory between Capitalism and Communism.
Socialist: An advocate of the theory of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
Utopianism: Social theory of principles of an ideally perfect place in its social, political, and moral aspects.
Special Thanks to for letting us use their classroom:
Faith Armory, 27498 Enterprise Cir. W. #2, Temecula, CA
Tonight at 6:00 PM we discussed the Pledge, and how it ties into the U.S. Constitution, and how Bellamy was not the first to push Nationalism - Alexander Hamilton did as well during the Constitutional Convention.
Of the United States of America,
And to the Republic for which it stands:
One Nation under God, indivisible,
with Liberty and Justice for all"
The Pledge of Allegiance is a traditional oath of loyalty to the United States of America. It was written in 1892 by Francis Bellamy, a Baptist minister and socialist. Bellamy wrote it in the hopes the children of America would recite it and be encouraged with the Nationalism it was meant to represent. Then, as the children of America beamed with pride of nation and government, socialism would incrementally work its way into our form of government.
America, however, doesn't work that way. What was meant to be a national socialist salute became a patriotic pledge that resides close to our hearts.
Originally, a salute, similar to the Nazi salute, was used during the reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance. The salute was changed to a hand over heart gesture when Nazi Germany used a similar salute.
The phrase "under God" was added in 1954, by a bill signed into law by President Eisenhower on June 14, 1954 (Flag Day), a decision largely driven by the lobbying of the Knights of Columbus, as a means of differentiating America from the "godless" Communists of the USSR.
President Benjamin Harrison ensured Bellamy's Pledge was first used in public schools on October 12, 1892, during Columbus Day observances.
In 1923 the National Flag Conference called for the words "my Flag" to be changed to "the Flag of the United States", for the benefit of new immigrants. The words "of America" were added a year later. The United States Congress officially recognized the Pledge as the official national pledge on June 22, 1942.
In the 1940 the Supreme Court decision, Minersville School District v. Gobitis, it was ruled that students in public schools could be compelled to swear the Pledge. An outbreak of mob violence and intimidation against Jehovah's Witnesses erupted following the ruling because of the Witnesses belief that the Pledge was idolatry, therefore they would not recite it.
In 1943 the Supreme Court reversed its decision, ruling in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette that "compulsory unification of opinion" violated the First Amendment.
The Pledge of Allegiance, a socialist attempt to head America in the direction of tyranny, through the years came to be a patriotic recitation that many believe the Founding Fathers would be proud of.
Amazing how America, with our exceptional spirit of liberty, can even turn something originally created to destroy us into a beloved show of patriotism.
Key Words:
Allegiance: Loyalty to a person, cause, nation, etc.
Communism: Theoretical economic system characterized by collective ownership of property and the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.
Communist: Member of a movement or political party that advocates communism.
Idolatry: Worship of idols.
Loyalty: A feeling or attitude of devoted attachment or affection.
Nationalism: Devotion to one’s nation, love of one’s government.
Oath: A solemn formal declaration or promise, often calling on God. Something declared or promised.
Patriotism: Love of and devotion to one’s country.
Socialism: The stage in Marxist theory between Capitalism and Communism.
Socialist: An advocate of the theory of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
Utopianism: Social theory of principles of an ideally perfect place in its social, political, and moral aspects.
Special Thanks to for letting us use their classroom:
Faith Armory, 27498 Enterprise Cir. W. #2, Temecula, CA
Tonight at 6:00 PM we discussed the Pledge, and how it ties into the U.S. Constitution, and how Bellamy was not the first to push Nationalism - Alexander Hamilton did as well during the Constitutional Convention.
University of California Irvine Moves to Suspend Muslim Groups
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Locally, UCI's problem with Muslim radical groups disrupting events, especially where Jewish speakers are involved, is a well known fact. The confrontations are normally disruptive, and edge on violence. In a recent example, Muslim Student Union members repeatedly disrupted a February speech by Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren as many as 10 times with yelled statements like, "Michael Oren, propagating murder is not an expression of free speech."
In all, 11 students were arrested and cited for disturbing a public event. Though the student group maintained that the disruptions were done by individuals and not organized by their group, a report cited internal Muslim Student Union e-mails and meeting agendas that indicated they planned a disturbance. Some of the students were not even from UC Irvine. A few of the students arrested had traveled from UC Riverside to participate in the disruptions of the speech by Ambassador Oren.
Just the fact that UCI is taken some form of action brings me to ask, "What took so long?"
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
UC Irvine seeks to suspend Muslim student group - Los Angeles Times
Locally, UCI's problem with Muslim radical groups disrupting events, especially where Jewish speakers are involved, is a well known fact. The confrontations are normally disruptive, and edge on violence. In a recent example, Muslim Student Union members repeatedly disrupted a February speech by Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren as many as 10 times with yelled statements like, "Michael Oren, propagating murder is not an expression of free speech."
In all, 11 students were arrested and cited for disturbing a public event. Though the student group maintained that the disruptions were done by individuals and not organized by their group, a report cited internal Muslim Student Union e-mails and meeting agendas that indicated they planned a disturbance. Some of the students were not even from UC Irvine. A few of the students arrested had traveled from UC Riverside to participate in the disruptions of the speech by Ambassador Oren.
Just the fact that UCI is taken some form of action brings me to ask, "What took so long?"
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
UC Irvine seeks to suspend Muslim student group - Los Angeles Times
Border Breaches by Mexican Government
By Douglas V. Gibbs
A recent shooting of a 15 year old illegal alien raised the question on whether or not the border patrol agent that fired his weapon crossed the border to do so, even if it was a few feet. Mexico seems overly concerned about America closing the border to illegal aliens into America, yet hold a very strict position that no American may cross into Mexico, especially if the person is a government agent.
Fact is, while expecting us to abide by their laws and wishes, Mexico has refused to abide by ours.
Mexico has, in fact, crossed the border numerous times, despite our laws saying they can't.
According to Jim Kouri of Examiner.com, Tom Fitton, president of public-interest group Judicial Watch, states that Mexico's President Calderon, after complaining about the possibility (despite the evidence to the contrary) that a border patrol agent may have crossed the Mexican border by a couple of feet, should have taken some time to explain why Mexican government officials, including members of the Mexican military, continue to flood across the border and attack U.S. Border Patrol agents.
On March 22, 2010, Fitton's group of legal experts obtained records from Customs and Border Protection (CBP) concerning Mexican government incursions and encounters along the U.S. border. The documents were incomplete and included huge gaps in the data, but nonetheless indicate an increase in the number of incursions in 2008 and 2009.
Analysis of the data by JW staff shows:
76 Mexican Government incursions from January 2008 to December 2009 (data missing from February 2009)
50 Mexican Government incursions in 2008 alone, which is double the number of incursions from the previous year
528 assaults against CBP agents from January – June 2008
11 assaults against National Guard troops from January – June 2008
By comparison, CBP statistics previously obtained revealed 25 incursions in Fiscal Year 2007. Overall, Judicial Watch has documented 226 Mexican government incursions between 1996 and 2005.
I wonder what would be Mexico's response if a flood of Americans entered Mexico, demanded the government help them settle by providing free entitlements and health care, demanded their kids be accepted in Mexico's schools with special programs specifically for Americans, and insisted that every government form also be in English? Would Mexico embrace the new "immigrants" with open arms?
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Mexican government border incursions on the rise - Examiner
A recent shooting of a 15 year old illegal alien raised the question on whether or not the border patrol agent that fired his weapon crossed the border to do so, even if it was a few feet. Mexico seems overly concerned about America closing the border to illegal aliens into America, yet hold a very strict position that no American may cross into Mexico, especially if the person is a government agent.
Fact is, while expecting us to abide by their laws and wishes, Mexico has refused to abide by ours.
Mexico has, in fact, crossed the border numerous times, despite our laws saying they can't.
According to Jim Kouri of Examiner.com, Tom Fitton, president of public-interest group Judicial Watch, states that Mexico's President Calderon, after complaining about the possibility (despite the evidence to the contrary) that a border patrol agent may have crossed the Mexican border by a couple of feet, should have taken some time to explain why Mexican government officials, including members of the Mexican military, continue to flood across the border and attack U.S. Border Patrol agents.
On March 22, 2010, Fitton's group of legal experts obtained records from Customs and Border Protection (CBP) concerning Mexican government incursions and encounters along the U.S. border. The documents were incomplete and included huge gaps in the data, but nonetheless indicate an increase in the number of incursions in 2008 and 2009.
Analysis of the data by JW staff shows:
76 Mexican Government incursions from January 2008 to December 2009 (data missing from February 2009)
50 Mexican Government incursions in 2008 alone, which is double the number of incursions from the previous year
528 assaults against CBP agents from January – June 2008
11 assaults against National Guard troops from January – June 2008
By comparison, CBP statistics previously obtained revealed 25 incursions in Fiscal Year 2007. Overall, Judicial Watch has documented 226 Mexican government incursions between 1996 and 2005.
I wonder what would be Mexico's response if a flood of Americans entered Mexico, demanded the government help them settle by providing free entitlements and health care, demanded their kids be accepted in Mexico's schools with special programs specifically for Americans, and insisted that every government form also be in English? Would Mexico embrace the new "immigrants" with open arms?
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Mexican government border incursions on the rise - Examiner
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)