"Ever notice these things didn't happen when respect of God was taught in schools?"
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Aurora's Dangerous Gun-Free Zone
Aurora, CO’s Strict Gun Laws Didn’t Help Anyone But The Killer
Purdue student and Young America’s Foundation Intern Scholar Hillary Cherry provides her thoughts on the Colorado shooting, stressing the importance of protecting our Second Amendment rights:
A masked gunman opened fire yesterday on one of the 3,700 midnight showings of The Dark Knight Rises, leaving 12 dead, 50 injured, and one in custody. Liberals everywhere are wasting no time to use this massacre in an effort to push gun control and gut the Second Amendment.
Mayor Bloomberg asks the Obama administration for stricter gun laws following Colorado shooting. Comedian DL Hughley tweeted, “Aurora is 13yrs and 13 miles from Columbine! Since the 60s over 500,000 ppl have bn killed by guns in the US we have no right 2 b shocked!”
How will stricter gun laws bring an end to criminals having guns, when the laws against murder have not been able to stop them from killing innocent people?
Continue Reading on cnsnews.com
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Obama's National Security Leaks
Feinstein: National Security Leaks Coming from White House 'Ranks'
Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-CA), Chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, on Monday said the White House appears to be responsible for leaking classified national security information.
‘‘I think the White House has to understand that some of this is coming from their ranks,’’ Feinstein said at a World Affairs Council forum, according to the Associated Press (AP).
MORE
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Constitutional Design
By Douglas V. Gibbs
The United States Constitution is the agreement between the States to create a federal government. The document was written as a result of four months of debates in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania in 1787 by delegates from twelve of the original thirteen States. The Constitution was an agreement between the States to form a federal government for the purpose of protecting, preserving, and promoting the union of States. A constitution existed before the U.S. Constitution, and it was called the Articles of Confederation. The government under the Articles of Confederation, however, was too weak to protect the union of states, so the founders met in May of 1787 to fix the Articles of Confederation, and if necessary, form a whole new government with the writing of a new constitution.
At that convention it was apparent to the delegates that the new government, and the Constitution they were about to write, had to be unique, like the new United States of America. They knew that the United States was exceptional, meaning that this country is different from all of the others around the world. However, America was exceptional long before the United States became a nation. The conditions through which the American Colonies emerged contributed to the exceptional nature of the United States of America.
Alexis de Tocqueville in 1831 and 1832 recognized the exceptional nature of the United States, but was astonished by America when he visited the States because among the elites in Europe there was an anti-American sentiment that was sometimes also believed by members of the general populace. Word had it that the United States was a horrible place steeped in poverty, and a government unable to properly function because it represented the people. When Alexis de Tocqueville visited the United States, however, the truth turned out to be very different from the criticisms of America by the political ruling classes of Europe.
Sigmund Freud said, “America is a great mistake.” Alexis Tocqueville discovered that not only was America not a mistake, but it was something very special. America was an exceptional nation.
Clearly, American Culture is different from any other culture in the world. As revealed in our founding documents, and the example provided by the everyday lives of Americans, we are a culture that holds dear our individual rights, and liberty, while keeping a watchful eye on a potentially intrusive government.
The early history of America set the tone for our exceptionalism. Historically, America was diverse, rugged, and a land of individual opportunity. For this, the United States was blessed with an incredible influx of immigrants who came to this nation desiring the opportunity to participate in the freedom, and exceptionalism, that America had to offer.
The United States also made its share of mistakes, but rather than sink into despair, this country rose above those dark points in history, correcting the nation’s course, and becoming greater because of those momentary storms of history. The strengths of our civil society has been different because we have achieved our prosperity through self-governance, where the local governments handle the local issues, and the centralized federal government is tasked only with the complexities of protecting, preserving, and promoting the union.
We cherish our personal freedom, and as a result, the community better benefits.
To understand the Character of Americanism that led to the principles contained on the pages of the United States Constitution, it is important to understand why the British Colonies emerged in the manner that they did. King James watched the rise, and the decline, of the Spanish Empire, and learned that empires in the New World can be expensive. So, armed with this knowledge, Great Britain did not approach the New World as conquerors like the Spanish. Instead, the colonization of America by the English became an investment opportunity for private companies, as well as an opportunity for a new start for families. Riches were available in the New World, and with the hard work of individual investors, the hope of becoming a wealthy property owner awaited those willing to take the chance. King James offered charters. The success of the colonies would also mean a new revenue source for the British monarchy. Failure would result in a financial loss for the investors, not The Crown. At that point the entrepreneurial spirit of America was born.
In 1607 the first English colonists arrived at Jamestown. As I mentioned before, the English colonization of North America was very different from that of the Spanish. The lessons of military conquest, and the financial expenses of empire, convinced the English monarchy to use different tact when colonizing the Atlantic Coast. Rather than conquer, adventurers were encouraged to invest in the New World. English colonists cultivated tobacco, and other crops, for wealth. They produced crop surpluses for export to the Old World, making the English colonies profitable in a potentially unlimited manner.
Taking gold and silver from the New World could only work as long as more gold and silver remained. Spain’s cost to maintain the empire, however, left the Spanish with less remaining as far as profit went. King James I did not wish to create yet another high risk, and expensive, system of colonization, so England’s colonization of the New World on the outskirts of Spain’s New World empire (where Spain could not defend the lands she claimed to rule) was encouraged by a system of investment by various companies with ambitions to reap riches, while benefiting England both overseas and at home.
English colonists were not soldiers filled with the desire of conquest and gold, but families filled with the desire of a new start, property ownership, and riches through farming and trade.
Jamestown, however, failed to yield a profit for the Virginia Company, so after two decades of struggling to survive, the royal government took over operations.
The colonists endured Indian attacks, disease, and starvation with little assistance from the homeland. Bickering among themselves left the colonists with unplanted crops, and shrinking food supplies. In 1607 the local Indians began to bring corn to the colony for barter, which assisted in feeding the colonists, and stocking the Indians with Old World goods they desired. However, the corn was not enough, and in 1610 only 60 of the previous 500 settlers remained alive. These early struggles, however, had an important impact on the English colonies that the Spanish never encountered. The struggles, with limited help from England, instilled a spirit of survival, self-reliance, and independence into the English colonists. From the very beginning the virtues of hard work, and personal responsibility, were important for the sake of survival. Without these characteristics, which were taught to the colonists through their struggles, the English colonies would never have survived. The promised riches of the New World had not materialized at that point, however, but only because a cash crop had not emerged as had been hoped for.
Tobacco, and later cotton, became those cash crops, which became growing industries that attracted droves of English indentured servants to work in the fields.
Colonizing by offering charters had paid off. The English colonies were prospering, and they did so with little interference from the English government. The colonies were self-sufficient, yet England was profiting from the burgeoning farming industries. The only thing holding back the promise of increasing profit to ever higher possibilities was the lack of labor. English arrivals were limited in numbers, and the indentured servants, after seven years of service, were striking out on their own. The southern colonies needed a new work force that was less expensive, not likely to strike out on their own, and capable of increasing in number quickly. The labor-intensive nature of the tobacco crop opened up the eventuality of slave labor.
The charter system was a large part in creating the American virtue of self-reliance. In the southern colonies the promise of riches through property ownership and cash crops encouraged more Englishmen to arrive seeking their fortune. To the north, however, new colonies were being established with a different goal in mind. North of the Chesapeake region, colonies were emerging based on the desire for religious freedom.
The Pilgrims landing at Plymouth Rock in 1620 is the tale we are most familiar with. The Pilgrims were separatists. Though the Pilgrims’ roots were with the Puritan Church, they endeavored to separate themselves from the Puritan Church, as well as British mainstream society.
These early northern colonies were theocracies, but the strong hold by the Church splintered as more and more colonists moved into the frontier. New strains of Protestantism emerged in the frontier lands to the west of the colonies, and the Puritan Church’s influence lessened with each new settlement to the west. In the colonies the Puritan churches divided and subdivided as well. The Christian founding of these settlements is undeniable, but neither is the diversity of the religious beliefs of the early colonists.
Quakers flocked to Pennsylvania where William Penn was determined to live in peace with the Indians, and all other religious denominations. Penn’s first principle of government was that every settler “enjoy the free expression of his or her faith and exercise of worship towards God.” Pennsylvania tolerated all Protestant sects, as well as Roman Catholics. The government did not compel settlers to attend church services (as in Massachusetts), or pay taxes to maintain a state-supported church (as in Virginia). Pennsylvania was the first of the northern colonies to practice true religious freedom, aside from Rhode Island which had begun to advocate freedom of religion when Roger Williams had been banished by the Puritans in the early 1630s.
The colonies, from the beginning, were separate, self-sufficient, independent entities. Each colony had its own unique culture, its own religion, and even its own political system. The individual colonies were like siblings that fought against each other constantly, while coming to each other’s aid when they felt it was necessary. The American Revolution taught the newly independent states that if they were to survive, they would need to continue to function as a union. It took uniting together as a single force to defeat the British, and it would take being united as a country to survive as a nation.
More than 200 years have passed since the Constitutional Convention in 1787. The Founding Fathers of the fledgling United States of America provided the framework for the creation of the U.S. Government, and debated for four months over what authorities the federal government should be granted. The central government was designed to protect, preserve, and promote the new union of sovereign states, while being limited in its authorities in order to preserve the basic rights of the individual states, and the American people. The previous constitution, The Articles of Confederation, was too weak, granting the United States Government with virtually no powers, and was unable to field an armed force to put down Shays’ Rebellion in 1786. The new federal government needed to be a stronger system than the old confederation.
With the monarchy gone, the form of government that would protect state sovereignty, while protecting the union, became a matter of debate. Many forms of government were examined, and ultimately the framers decided upon a Republic. They had already tried a Confederation, and the United States Government under the Articles of Confederation had proven to be too weak under such a system. A Unitary government was out of the question, for the “Top down from a single ruling point” style of government was too much like the monarchy the United States had just won their independence from. A pure democracy was a dangerous thing as well. A democracy was just not stable enough, and it was believed that if the people were left to their own devices, the democracy would deteriorate into “mob rule,” and would ultimately become so unstable that an oligarchy would take over the government. History had proven time and time again that democracies destroy themselves, and become tyrannies after the system breaks down.
The U.S. Constitution was a product of heavy debate, compromise, and serious research of past republican forms of government. Anticipating the intensity of the debates, and the constant changes of mind by the participants, the convention was held in secret, with the doors and windows closed, so as not to concern the people about their quarreling leaders.
What emerged from the intense debates during the Constitutional Convention was a republic that uses democratic processes to elect the members of the representative government. The new federal government was a far more complex form of government than had been provided by the Articles of Confederation. To protect against the excess of democracy a system of limits, checks, and balances was devised. Three branches of government were established, and even the power of the vote was divided as to diminish power in any one location. The House of Representatives were voted in by the voting public. The Senators of the U.S. Senate were appointed by the state legislatures. An electoral college was devised so that the President would be indirectly voted into office. The members of the judiciary were to be appointed.
The U.S. Constitution became the law of the land.
The first words of the Constitution is We The People. The Constitution was written for We The People, to protect our rights, to protect our freedoms, to protect our union of States.
The Preamble is the introduction of the U.S. Constitution. The opening paragraph of the founding document holds no legal authority. The Preamble serves to establish who is granting the authority to create a new federal government, and the reasons for the decision. We The People of the United States are the granters. In other words, the States, which were the embodiment of the people, were creating the federal government, and granting authorities to it so that it may function in a manner necessary to protect, promote, and preserve the union of States. The concept became known as federalism.
The most important reason for the formation of the federal government, the main purpose for the creation of the U.S. Constitution, was “in Order to form a more perfect Union.” A union already existed under the Articles of Confederation. A confederation, however, is a weak form of government, and proved to be too weak to protect the union. Therefore, the founders realized that they needed to form a more perfect union, one with more authorities, while still remaining fairly limited in its power and scope. The federal government was created for the sake of the union.
The union, at the time of the writing of the Constitution, was fragile. The States, as colonies, or as states shortly after the American Revolution, never got along too well. They had their own cultures, religions, and laws. They fought over turf, commerce, and anything else you could think of. The States were much like siblings, fighting over everything under the sun; but when it came down to brass tacks, they were united when it came to defending each other.
The bickering between the States created an atmosphere that placed the cohesion of the union at risk. Therefore, when it came to creating a more perfect union, it was understood that one of the tasks of the federal government would have to be to ensure the States got along, too.
Sometimes, when I ask somebody what they believe to be the main reason for the writing of the U.S. Constitution, more often than not the response is, “To protect our rights, liberty, and property.” Though protecting our rights, liberty, and property are among the reasons that the Constitution was written in the manner that it was, those are not the reasons for the creation of the founding document, and thus not the reasons for the creation of the federal government.
As indicated in the Preamble, the primary reason for the Constitution is The Union. However, by creating a federal government, the Founding Fathers realized that they were opening up the potential for the governmental system to become a tyranny. Therefore, in order to protect the rights, liberty and property of the people (more specifically to “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity”), the federal government needed to be limited in its authorities by the rule of law. The law of the land in which the governmental system is limited to, in the case of the United States, is the U.S. Constitution.
When studying the language used in Article I, Section 1, the original intent by the Founding Fathers in regards to legislative powers becomes apparent.
The first word in the first section of Article I is the word “all.” The fascinating thing about the word “all” is that it means, as shocking as it may seem, “all.”
The following words are “legislative powers.” Legislative powers are the ability to make law, modify law, repeal law, and anything else that has to do with affecting law.
The next word is “herein,” which strangely enough means “here in,” as in “here in this constitution.”
The word “granted” follows “herein.” “Granted” is defined as “to give,” or “to allow,” or more specifically “to legally transfer.” If powers are granted, then there must be a “grantor,” as well. As we learned in our discussion regarding The Preamble, the “grantor” in this case is the States.
“Shall be” is definitive. In other words, the word “shall” does not mean “ought to,” or “maybe.” “Shall” means that “it is,” or “it will be.”
“Vested” is much like “granted.” Vested is a legal transfer of something, or in this case, an allowance to have legislative powers at the federal level.
The Congress of the United States is the legislative branch of the federal government, and this clause indicates that not only will the Congress be granted all legislative powers given to the federal government, but that the branch of government consists of two houses; a Senate and House of Representatives.
So let’s review. All legislative powers, according to this clause, are granted to the Congress by the States for the purpose of making law, modifying law, or repealing law. The powers are herein granted, which means that the laws must fall within the authorities granted by the text of the U.S. Constitution. In other words, laws made must remain consistent with the “powers herein granted.”
When one considers this clause, it becomes clear that when members of the judiciary legislates from the bench, or the President issues an executive order to modify a law, such action is unconstitutional. After all, “all legislative powers” were granted to the Congress, not to the judicial branch, or the Executive branch.
Since all legislative powers belong to the Congress, it would also then be reasonable to consider any regulations by federal departments that are not in line with laws made by the Congress that are in line with the authorities granted by the Constitution to be unconstitutional as well. Once again, all legislative powers belong to the Congress, therefore any “legislative actions” by regulatory agencies are not in line with the original intent.
Once again, we must be reminded of who gave the federal government those powers herein the Constitution in the first place? Those powers that the federal government has were “granted” by someone. The authorities the federal government enjoys were granted by the States. “We The People of the United States” granted those powers to the federal government. Therefore, if the federal government acts in a manner that is not consistent with the contract between the States and the U.S. Government, the States have the option to ignore those unconstitutional actions by the federal government. This action of ignoring unconstitutional law is the States’ way of being the final arbiters of the Constitution. The term for this kind of action by a State is “nullification.”
The Constitution was designed to protect the union of states, from all enemies, foreign and domestic.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Blame Bush on Economy: Obama's Inconsistent Consistency
Obama to Bush in 2003: "Fix Up the Economy," $300 Billion Deficit "Recklessness"
Give Barack Obama points for consistency: he has always blamed Bush for the economy, even when it was humming along. In April 2003, Obama, then a state senator, attacked George Bush’s “attack on working families.” He called on Bush to “fix up the economy first” before he did anything else, like tax cuts. (Chinta Strausberg, “Obama to Bush: Fix up U.S. Budget First,” Chicago Defender, April 15, 2003).
Obama was particularly incensed by those tax cuts, telling the Chicago Defender, “If you don’t make $300,000 or more, you won’t benefit from this tax break.” He continued: “In the meantime, the tax cuts will create perpetual deficits and further depress an already bad economy. It will also prevent the funding of education programs, the job training programs that could put people back to work.”
MORE
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Give Barack Obama points for consistency: he has always blamed Bush for the economy, even when it was humming along. In April 2003, Obama, then a state senator, attacked George Bush’s “attack on working families.” He called on Bush to “fix up the economy first” before he did anything else, like tax cuts. (Chinta Strausberg, “Obama to Bush: Fix up U.S. Budget First,” Chicago Defender, April 15, 2003).
Obama was particularly incensed by those tax cuts, telling the Chicago Defender, “If you don’t make $300,000 or more, you won’t benefit from this tax break.” He continued: “In the meantime, the tax cuts will create perpetual deficits and further depress an already bad economy. It will also prevent the funding of education programs, the job training programs that could put people back to work.”
MORE
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Monday, July 23, 2012
California's War Over Red Light Cameras
By Douglas V. Gibbs
In California the war over Red Light Cameras at traffic intersections is being waged city by city, to the point that lawsuits are emerging in an attempt to stop the citizens from petitioning their local governments for a redress of grievances. Cities like Murrieta claim the cameras reduce accidents, and provides much needed revenue for the city. The real interests lie in the private companies that maintain the camera systems, who are willing to do anything to protect their profit source, including going after citizens who dare challenge them.
The Red Light Cameras in Murrieta have proven to not necessarily translate into safer intersections. In reality, the cameras compromise safety, while generating little revenue for the city, and providing huge profits for the company maintaining the cameras. In the case of Murrieta, the company is American Traffic Solutions (ATS), and their interest in the four cameras in the Southern California city is not about safety, but giving out as many tickets, at nearly $500 a pop, as possible.
The City of Murrieta pays $58,200 per quarter for the camera lease and maintenance. The cost for the three police personnel running the program annually is 47,299.20. After subtracting those costs from the revenues received by the program, the net revenue annually for the city is about $18,149. This does not take into consideration the costs to the city in regards to any accidents caused by the cameras.
As for the identity of ATS, the company is located out of state in Arizona, which means the profits on the cameras are going out of the State. In September of 2008, the same month he invested $5 billion in Goldman-Sachs, Warren Buffet invested $58 million in ATS for one-third share, which means Buffet receives a share of Murrieta's $483 per ticket from the cameras.
As for the three main red light runners according to reports? Emergency vehicles (which, of course, is necessary), drunk drivers, and distracted drivers - none of which will be deterred by cameras. What the cameras do accomplish is making drivers more paranoid, and willing to slam on their brakes while the light is yellow.
Reports claim Red Light Cameras have little impact on the occurrence of automobile accidents, and rear-end accidents actually increase when Red Light Cameras are present.
The constitutionality of these cameras is also a concern. The cameras are in violation of the 5th Amendment because when ticketed motorists receive their ticket in the mail a photograph accompanies the ticket. By paying the ticket they are agreeing the photograph is of them, which means the motorist is expected to self-incriminate by accepting the photograph is indeed them. No burden of proof has been placed upon the ticketing agency.
Red Light Cameras also violate the 6th Amendment by not allowing the ticketed to confront the witness against them. In court no law enforcement personnel needs to show up. An inanimate device is the accuser.
There are alternatives for safer intersections in the City of Murrieta, rather than the presence of the continuously recording cameras (Big Brother, anyone?). The yellow-light time can be increased to the maximum time allowed, the city can add an all-red clearance interval, traffic signals can be made more visible, and the city can re-time traffic signals so that the signals are synchronized - which would reward drivers obeying the speed limit.
The war over the Red Light Cameras in California has resulted in 50 California cities removing Red Light Cameras from their cities due to an increase in accidents, as well as the excessive cost of the programs. In Los Angeles, for example, the cost of pursuing motorists who refused to pay the penalty on the ticket made the program so costly that no revenue was achieved. In addition to the 50 cities abandoning the program, in June of 2012, the California State agency Caltrans, District 8, no longer allows Red Light Cameras in their right of way. Caltrans has instructed Riverside and Victorville to remove cameras in State right of way because of the high accident rates as a result of those cameras.
In Murrieta, the person behind an initiative on the ballot designed to ban the cameras from the city's intersections is Diana Serafin. For her efforts, she is being taken to court for petitioning for a ban of the cameras, and the individual bringing the lawsuit against her says he does not know where the funding for his legal costs is coming from. The argument behind the lawsuit? The lawsuit argues that state law dictates that only the City Council, not voters, has the authority to change traffic laws, and thus to remove the cameras - thus stripping the citizen the right to petition their government for a redress of grievances.
The lawsuit was filed by Steve Flynn, chairman of Murrieta's Public Safety and Traffic Commission in the mid-2000s, and someone who was instrumental in the effort to install red-light cameras in the city.
Flynn has said he is not concerned about who the anonymous party is that is bankrolling the effort, and has simply said he was approached by attorneys asking him to serve as the public face for the case.
There is no doubt by those that support Diana Serafin that the money behind Flynn's case is coming from ATS, in the hopes of protecting their cash cow in Murrieta.
ATS has denied involvement, claiming they are not a party to the litigation.
ATS was a party to paying the costs of a similar lawsuit in Washington state last year, and in that case the Washington Supreme Court ruled that voters can't ban red-light cameras by ballot initiative.
"The cameras are not about safety. The cameras are about money," Serafin said. "The cameras don't stop accidents. Extend yellow lights, make all the lights red for four seconds, there's your safety. In this economy, people are sick about paying the roughly $500 for a ticket you can't fight in court."
The city, while supporting the presence of the cameras and claiming they make intersections safer, has indicated they are neutral when it comes to the lawsuit. Murrieta City Manager Rick Dudley said in an interview that city leaders had "absolutely nothing" to do with the case, nor do they know who is behind the effort.
Serafin, in a phone conversation with me a few weeks ago, said that what the lawsuit is attempting to do is strip citizens of their First Amendment Right to petition their government for a redress of grievances, a right the California State Constitution also protects.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Studies Show. . . - BanTheCams
Murrieta: Questions Raised Over Red-Light Lawsuit's Backers - North County Times/Californian
Murrieta: Lawsuit Seeks to Block Traffic Camera Initiative - Press Enterprise
Battle Over Red-Light Cameras in Murrieta - KABC 7 Los Angeles
Lawsuit Targets Murrieta Red-Light Camera Initiative - Murrieta Patch
In California the war over Red Light Cameras at traffic intersections is being waged city by city, to the point that lawsuits are emerging in an attempt to stop the citizens from petitioning their local governments for a redress of grievances. Cities like Murrieta claim the cameras reduce accidents, and provides much needed revenue for the city. The real interests lie in the private companies that maintain the camera systems, who are willing to do anything to protect their profit source, including going after citizens who dare challenge them.
The Red Light Cameras in Murrieta have proven to not necessarily translate into safer intersections. In reality, the cameras compromise safety, while generating little revenue for the city, and providing huge profits for the company maintaining the cameras. In the case of Murrieta, the company is American Traffic Solutions (ATS), and their interest in the four cameras in the Southern California city is not about safety, but giving out as many tickets, at nearly $500 a pop, as possible.
The City of Murrieta pays $58,200 per quarter for the camera lease and maintenance. The cost for the three police personnel running the program annually is 47,299.20. After subtracting those costs from the revenues received by the program, the net revenue annually for the city is about $18,149. This does not take into consideration the costs to the city in regards to any accidents caused by the cameras.
As for the identity of ATS, the company is located out of state in Arizona, which means the profits on the cameras are going out of the State. In September of 2008, the same month he invested $5 billion in Goldman-Sachs, Warren Buffet invested $58 million in ATS for one-third share, which means Buffet receives a share of Murrieta's $483 per ticket from the cameras.
As for the three main red light runners according to reports? Emergency vehicles (which, of course, is necessary), drunk drivers, and distracted drivers - none of which will be deterred by cameras. What the cameras do accomplish is making drivers more paranoid, and willing to slam on their brakes while the light is yellow.
Reports claim Red Light Cameras have little impact on the occurrence of automobile accidents, and rear-end accidents actually increase when Red Light Cameras are present.
The constitutionality of these cameras is also a concern. The cameras are in violation of the 5th Amendment because when ticketed motorists receive their ticket in the mail a photograph accompanies the ticket. By paying the ticket they are agreeing the photograph is of them, which means the motorist is expected to self-incriminate by accepting the photograph is indeed them. No burden of proof has been placed upon the ticketing agency.
Red Light Cameras also violate the 6th Amendment by not allowing the ticketed to confront the witness against them. In court no law enforcement personnel needs to show up. An inanimate device is the accuser.
There are alternatives for safer intersections in the City of Murrieta, rather than the presence of the continuously recording cameras (Big Brother, anyone?). The yellow-light time can be increased to the maximum time allowed, the city can add an all-red clearance interval, traffic signals can be made more visible, and the city can re-time traffic signals so that the signals are synchronized - which would reward drivers obeying the speed limit.
The war over the Red Light Cameras in California has resulted in 50 California cities removing Red Light Cameras from their cities due to an increase in accidents, as well as the excessive cost of the programs. In Los Angeles, for example, the cost of pursuing motorists who refused to pay the penalty on the ticket made the program so costly that no revenue was achieved. In addition to the 50 cities abandoning the program, in June of 2012, the California State agency Caltrans, District 8, no longer allows Red Light Cameras in their right of way. Caltrans has instructed Riverside and Victorville to remove cameras in State right of way because of the high accident rates as a result of those cameras.
In Murrieta, the person behind an initiative on the ballot designed to ban the cameras from the city's intersections is Diana Serafin. For her efforts, she is being taken to court for petitioning for a ban of the cameras, and the individual bringing the lawsuit against her says he does not know where the funding for his legal costs is coming from. The argument behind the lawsuit? The lawsuit argues that state law dictates that only the City Council, not voters, has the authority to change traffic laws, and thus to remove the cameras - thus stripping the citizen the right to petition their government for a redress of grievances.
The lawsuit was filed by Steve Flynn, chairman of Murrieta's Public Safety and Traffic Commission in the mid-2000s, and someone who was instrumental in the effort to install red-light cameras in the city.
Flynn has said he is not concerned about who the anonymous party is that is bankrolling the effort, and has simply said he was approached by attorneys asking him to serve as the public face for the case.
There is no doubt by those that support Diana Serafin that the money behind Flynn's case is coming from ATS, in the hopes of protecting their cash cow in Murrieta.
ATS has denied involvement, claiming they are not a party to the litigation.
ATS was a party to paying the costs of a similar lawsuit in Washington state last year, and in that case the Washington Supreme Court ruled that voters can't ban red-light cameras by ballot initiative.
"The cameras are not about safety. The cameras are about money," Serafin said. "The cameras don't stop accidents. Extend yellow lights, make all the lights red for four seconds, there's your safety. In this economy, people are sick about paying the roughly $500 for a ticket you can't fight in court."
The city, while supporting the presence of the cameras and claiming they make intersections safer, has indicated they are neutral when it comes to the lawsuit. Murrieta City Manager Rick Dudley said in an interview that city leaders had "absolutely nothing" to do with the case, nor do they know who is behind the effort.
Serafin, in a phone conversation with me a few weeks ago, said that what the lawsuit is attempting to do is strip citizens of their First Amendment Right to petition their government for a redress of grievances, a right the California State Constitution also protects.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Studies Show. . . - BanTheCams
Murrieta: Questions Raised Over Red-Light Lawsuit's Backers - North County Times/Californian
Murrieta: Lawsuit Seeks to Block Traffic Camera Initiative - Press Enterprise
Battle Over Red-Light Cameras in Murrieta - KABC 7 Los Angeles
Lawsuit Targets Murrieta Red-Light Camera Initiative - Murrieta Patch
Sunday, July 22, 2012
Benjamin Franklin Regarding Entitlement Programs
"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it." --Benjamin Franklin
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Netanyahu: Syrian Assad Regime Will Go
By Douglas V. Gibbs
When it comes to the fate of the Assad regime in Syria, with the occurrence of violence in Syria, it is only a matter of time before the current government falls. In an interview with Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday, Israel's Prime Minister Netanyahu said that the current Assad Regime in Syria will go - it is just a matter of when.
Netanyahu also indicated that Israel hopes not to have to get involved, but the presence of weapons capable of mass destruction, like chemical weapons, in Syria are unacceptable. Israel prefers that action against Syria will not be necessary, but making a move against Syria will happen if the need arises. Such a military operation, be it a joint maneuver with the United States, an international force, or by Israel alone, may happen if the regime collapses. The reality of taking action will be necessary upon the collapse of the Assad regime because in such a scenario, the weapons sites would become unprotected, and open to access by groups that would use such weapons against Israel, and countries in the west. Securing the weapons is a common concern, and nobody wants to see such weapons fall into the hands of terror groups. Therefore, though Israel is not seeking to take action, as far as Netanyahu seemed to be concerned according to the interview with Chris Wallace on Fox News, Israel does not preclude the possibility, either.
These concerns arise because the civil war that has erupted in Syria has come to a point where massacres by the Syrian government seem to be common place, the Muslim Brotherhood is forming a political party in Syria hoping to take advantage of the chaos (as they have in Egypt, Yemen, Libya and Tunisia), and the Arab Spring in the Middle East has opened up the opportunity for Islamist regimes to gain control of a number of countries beyond just the ones that have experienced regime changes up to this point in time. The decades of instability is coming to a head, and the times demand that nations outside the chaos pay attention, and take action if necessary. The Middle East is unstable, and Israel realizes that her presence in that rough neighborhood means that she will have to take action to defend herself.
The situation in Syria is especially unique because while the Muslim Brotherhood, and other terrorist organizations, are vying for control, the various sects are battling it out as well.
While a call for intervention may seem reasonable, however, we must look at the dismal record of intervention in the Middle East by well intentioned operations. Successes in the Middle East are rare and far between, and usually only last as long as the foreign forces remain in place to enforce peace. Sometimes, as in the case of U.N. forces in Africa, the occupation is even more of a detriment, than a benefit. The question then arises, should the United States get involved, and in what manner should the U.S. intervene?
The unfortunate answer is that there is no answer. Military involvement definitely has its drawbacks, as does sitting back and letting the region burn. We must remember, as well, that our ally, Israel, is sitting in the middle of it, surrounded by hostile peoples and regimes just waiting to gain the opportunity to move against the tiny Jewish nation. Could our involvement in Syria inflame the hostilities against Israel and The West, or quell the fires of hatred? Could our unwillingness to get militarily involved in the region hang Israel out to dry, or dampen the willingness of these Islamists to take action against Israel and The West?
In the end, the best strategy in this particular circumstance may be to follow the Founding Fathers' notion that we not get involved in foreign entanglements as long as we are not directly affected. The worry about an interruption of oil production from the Middle East is simply more reason for us to drill domestically. If the region ignites, and Israel needs our assistance and calls on us to help her, then at that time it would be perfectly reasonable to get involved in a limited manner. If Americans become targets, and are killed as a result of the chaos, then a full response is warranted. Until then, it may be best to wait, watch, and listen.
We will know when it is time. Until then, it is best for us to allow the Assad regime to fall, and for the various groups to duke it out in Syria, while we observe with a watchful eye, and a ready hand should the need arise.
There is a season for all things, and right now the season grows dark in Syria. We must Wait, Watch, and Listen.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Netanyahu on Dangerous Times in the Middle East - Fox News Sunday
Syrian Muslim Brotherhood to Launch Political Party - Breitbart
Syrian Chaos: Terrorists to Blame for Uprising - KIAH 39
Israel to Defend Against Syrian Chaos: PM - Global Times
Damascus Chaos Strikes Fear in Assad's Alawite Bastion - Reuters
Syrian death toll tops 19,000, Say Activists - Guardian U.K.
When it comes to the fate of the Assad regime in Syria, with the occurrence of violence in Syria, it is only a matter of time before the current government falls. In an interview with Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday, Israel's Prime Minister Netanyahu said that the current Assad Regime in Syria will go - it is just a matter of when.
Netanyahu also indicated that Israel hopes not to have to get involved, but the presence of weapons capable of mass destruction, like chemical weapons, in Syria are unacceptable. Israel prefers that action against Syria will not be necessary, but making a move against Syria will happen if the need arises. Such a military operation, be it a joint maneuver with the United States, an international force, or by Israel alone, may happen if the regime collapses. The reality of taking action will be necessary upon the collapse of the Assad regime because in such a scenario, the weapons sites would become unprotected, and open to access by groups that would use such weapons against Israel, and countries in the west. Securing the weapons is a common concern, and nobody wants to see such weapons fall into the hands of terror groups. Therefore, though Israel is not seeking to take action, as far as Netanyahu seemed to be concerned according to the interview with Chris Wallace on Fox News, Israel does not preclude the possibility, either.
These concerns arise because the civil war that has erupted in Syria has come to a point where massacres by the Syrian government seem to be common place, the Muslim Brotherhood is forming a political party in Syria hoping to take advantage of the chaos (as they have in Egypt, Yemen, Libya and Tunisia), and the Arab Spring in the Middle East has opened up the opportunity for Islamist regimes to gain control of a number of countries beyond just the ones that have experienced regime changes up to this point in time. The decades of instability is coming to a head, and the times demand that nations outside the chaos pay attention, and take action if necessary. The Middle East is unstable, and Israel realizes that her presence in that rough neighborhood means that she will have to take action to defend herself.
The situation in Syria is especially unique because while the Muslim Brotherhood, and other terrorist organizations, are vying for control, the various sects are battling it out as well.
While a call for intervention may seem reasonable, however, we must look at the dismal record of intervention in the Middle East by well intentioned operations. Successes in the Middle East are rare and far between, and usually only last as long as the foreign forces remain in place to enforce peace. Sometimes, as in the case of U.N. forces in Africa, the occupation is even more of a detriment, than a benefit. The question then arises, should the United States get involved, and in what manner should the U.S. intervene?
The unfortunate answer is that there is no answer. Military involvement definitely has its drawbacks, as does sitting back and letting the region burn. We must remember, as well, that our ally, Israel, is sitting in the middle of it, surrounded by hostile peoples and regimes just waiting to gain the opportunity to move against the tiny Jewish nation. Could our involvement in Syria inflame the hostilities against Israel and The West, or quell the fires of hatred? Could our unwillingness to get militarily involved in the region hang Israel out to dry, or dampen the willingness of these Islamists to take action against Israel and The West?
In the end, the best strategy in this particular circumstance may be to follow the Founding Fathers' notion that we not get involved in foreign entanglements as long as we are not directly affected. The worry about an interruption of oil production from the Middle East is simply more reason for us to drill domestically. If the region ignites, and Israel needs our assistance and calls on us to help her, then at that time it would be perfectly reasonable to get involved in a limited manner. If Americans become targets, and are killed as a result of the chaos, then a full response is warranted. Until then, it may be best to wait, watch, and listen.
We will know when it is time. Until then, it is best for us to allow the Assad regime to fall, and for the various groups to duke it out in Syria, while we observe with a watchful eye, and a ready hand should the need arise.
There is a season for all things, and right now the season grows dark in Syria. We must Wait, Watch, and Listen.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Netanyahu on Dangerous Times in the Middle East - Fox News Sunday
Syrian Muslim Brotherhood to Launch Political Party - Breitbart
Syrian Chaos: Terrorists to Blame for Uprising - KIAH 39
Israel to Defend Against Syrian Chaos: PM - Global Times
Damascus Chaos Strikes Fear in Assad's Alawite Bastion - Reuters
Syrian death toll tops 19,000, Say Activists - Guardian U.K.
Disarming Innocent People Does Not Protect Innocent People
One of the first things Hitler did once he came to power was to require that all firearms be registered. Once the firearms were registered, that meant the government knew where all the guns were, and then the Nazis proceeded to confiscate all of the weapons. This was nothing new. History shows that whenever a tyrannical system takes over a country, it accompanies the disarming of the general public.
The Second Amendment in the United States was written precisely so that the government would fear the people. Keeping the public armed was deemed by the Founding Fathers to be "necessary to the security of a free State." The States were secure against foreign enemies by the American military, but who would protect the States from that military should a despot gain control of the federal government? That is why the Second Amendment, which is directly pointed at the federal government, says that the right to keep and bear arms "shall not be infringed." That means that our right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed in any way, shape, or form by the federal government. That means no federal restrictions, no federal registration requirements, and no federal bans on any kind of firearm. If any laws regarding guns are necessary, that is something that can be administered at the State level. Each State is different, so the needs regarding regulations over guns would vary from State to State.
I have always found it interesting that people like Obama supports the ban of assault weapons, yet it is those very kind of firearms that are used to protect his own family.
The United Nations is currently working on some treaties that are designed to compromise an individual's right to own guns. On August 27 the negotiations regarding a small arms treaty will be in motion, a treaty of which the initial intent is to combat the illicit international trade of small arms by tightening the regulation of, and setting international standards for, the import, export and transfer of conventional weapons (which would include assistance by the United States to arm - for their protection - States like Israel and Taiwan). As with any leftist move, however, a deeper control of small arms within the sovereign borders of treaty participants is in the works as well. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has indicated that she will push for this treaty to be ratified by the U.S. Senate once President Obama signs it. Since, according to Article VI. of the U.S. Constitution, treaties are also the supreme law of the land, this treaty in a legal sense, will supersede the 2nd Amendment. Do not be fooled. Once these treaties are in place, as they did in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, the authorities will begin rounding up and confiscating legally acquired and legally owned guns in the United States.
After confiscation the only people with guns will be law enforcement, government agents, the military, and the criminals which will be thrilled that now all of their targets are unarmed.
In Germany the confiscation of firearms by the Nazis did not protect the citizens from tyranny. The action enabled the tyranny to gain full control. The same was true in the Soviet Union, Communist China, and Cambodia under Pol-Pot.
By disarming the citizenry political leaders guarantees virtually no opposition to their tyrannical deeds.
Unfortunately, gun violence does exist, but it is not the guns that cause that violence, but the people behind the firearms. In Britain and Australia, after enacting strict gun control measures, the occurrences of violent crime shot up. The criminal element no longer feared that their victims might be armed.
Evil people, criminals, gang members, members of drug cartels, and so on and so forth are not people interested in laws or in keeping existing laws. They ignore them as if they do not exist. So how would a gun ban alter their behavior, or keep them from gaining access to a firearm?
By disarming the citizenry political leaders guarantees virtually no opposition to their tyrannical deeds.
Unfortunately, gun violence does exist, but it is not the guns that cause that violence, but the people behind the firearms. In Britain and Australia, after enacting strict gun control measures, the occurrences of violent crime shot up. The criminal element no longer feared that their victims might be armed.
Evil people, criminals, gang members, members of drug cartels, and so on and so forth are not people interested in laws or in keeping existing laws. They ignore them as if they do not exist. So how would a gun ban alter their behavior, or keep them from gaining access to a firearm?
By restricting guns in the hands of law abiding citizens we will welcome more crime, and the rise of a tyrannical governmental system. Our woes when it comes to shootings, like the recent one in Aurora, Colorado, are not the fault of inanimate objects. In fact, if that theater had not been a gun-free zone, and one of the patrons with a concealed-carry permit was packing, the gunman would have been stopped immediately, and lives would have been saved. In other words, the strict gun laws in that area enabled a higher death count.
On average, murder rates in States banning concealed-carry are higher than in States having the most liberal carry laws.
The lessons of history are clear. Disarming the population leads to the rise of a governmental system intent on enslaving the populace. A disarmed population is without power, reduced to obedience to the government, no matter how tyrannical it becomes.
Disarmament does not equal peace and safety - it actually facilitates the exact opposite.
The lessons of history are clear. Disarming the population leads to the rise of a governmental system intent on enslaving the populace. A disarmed population is without power, reduced to obedience to the government, no matter how tyrannical it becomes.
Disarmament does not equal peace and safety - it actually facilitates the exact opposite.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Erasing Joe Paterno - The Statue Comes Down
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Jerry Sandusky was a disgusting human being who, after due process, has been put away for his molestation of little boys. Joe Paterno, one of the great football coaches in history, according to reports, enabled it. In the interest of protecting the football program (though I am not sure how protecting a pedophile shielded the football program) he covered up information, and refused to ensure Sandusky was brought to justice. Before Paterno passed away he indicated that he did in fact send the information regarding Sandusky's activities to his higher-ups, and they were the ones who refused to take action - and he somehow felt at that point he could wash his hands of it.
In the end, we may never know fully exactly what happened, but as far as the legal system is concerned, Paterno allowed the pedophilia by Sandusky to continue, making JoePa complicit in what happened.
As a result, to remove that stain from the university's image, the Penn State University leadership has decided to remove the famed statue of Joe Paterno that resided outside the Penn State football stadium.
Jerry Sandusky was a disgusting human being who, after due process, has been put away for his molestation of little boys. Joe Paterno, one of the great football coaches in history, according to reports, enabled it. In the interest of protecting the football program (though I am not sure how protecting a pedophile shielded the football program) he covered up information, and refused to ensure Sandusky was brought to justice. Before Paterno passed away he indicated that he did in fact send the information regarding Sandusky's activities to his higher-ups, and they were the ones who refused to take action - and he somehow felt at that point he could wash his hands of it.
In the end, we may never know fully exactly what happened, but as far as the legal system is concerned, Paterno allowed the pedophilia by Sandusky to continue, making JoePa complicit in what happened.
As a result, to remove that stain from the university's image, the Penn State University leadership has decided to remove the famed statue of Joe Paterno that resided outside the Penn State football stadium.
Paterno has gone from saint to distant memory, for burying child sex abuse allegations against a retired assistant.
As the statue was being removed a large group of students watched, chanting, "We are Penn State."
The statue was erected in 2001 in honor of Paterno's record-setting 324th Division 1 coaching victory and his "contributions to the university."
Penn State President Rod Erickson said the decision to have the statue removed and put into storage was made because the iconic statue "has become a source of division and an obstacle to healing."
The statue was erected in 2001 in honor of Paterno's record-setting 324th Division 1 coaching victory and his "contributions to the university."
Penn State President Rod Erickson said the decision to have the statue removed and put into storage was made because the iconic statue "has become a source of division and an obstacle to healing."
"I believe that, were it to remain, the statue will be a recurring wound to the multitude of individuals across the nation and beyond who have been the victims of child abuse," Erickson said.
Paterno's name will remain on the campus library.
Paterno's name will remain on the campus library.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Penn State Takes Down Joe Paterno Statue - CBS News
Thomas Sowell: Are Race Riots News?
When I first saw a book with the title, "White Girl Bleed A Lot" by Colin Flaherty, I instantly knew what it was about, even though I had not seen the book reviewed anywhere, and knew nothing about the author.
That is because I had encountered that phrase before, while doing research for the four new chapters on intellectuals and race that I added to the revised edition of my own book, "Intellectuals and Society," published this year.
That phrase was spoken by a member of a mob of young blacks who attacked whites at random at a Fourth of July celebration in Milwaukee last year. What I was appalled to learn, in the course of my research, was that such race riots have occurred in other cities across the United States in recent years -- and that the national mainstream media usually ignore these riots.
Where the violence is too widespread and too widely known locally to be ignored, both the local media and public officials often describe what happened as unspecified "young people" attacking unspecified victims for unspecified reasons. But videos of the attacks often reveal both the racial nature of these attacks and the racial hostility expressed by the attackers.
Are race riots not news?
That is because I had encountered that phrase before, while doing research for the four new chapters on intellectuals and race that I added to the revised edition of my own book, "Intellectuals and Society," published this year.
That phrase was spoken by a member of a mob of young blacks who attacked whites at random at a Fourth of July celebration in Milwaukee last year. What I was appalled to learn, in the course of my research, was that such race riots have occurred in other cities across the United States in recent years -- and that the national mainstream media usually ignore these riots.
Where the violence is too widespread and too widely known locally to be ignored, both the local media and public officials often describe what happened as unspecified "young people" attacking unspecified victims for unspecified reasons. But videos of the attacks often reveal both the racial nature of these attacks and the racial hostility expressed by the attackers.
Are race riots not news?
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Saturday, July 21, 2012
Americans Joining Disability Now Outpacing Americans Finding Jobs
Disability has become just another entitlement, another tool for abuse. . . As the Democrats desire. Once more Americans are dependent upon the government than those that are self-reliant, the liberal left believes they will be in power in perpetuity. . .
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Americans Joining Disability Now Outpacing Americans Finding Jobs - The Weekly Standard
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Americans Joining Disability Now Outpacing Americans Finding Jobs - The Weekly Standard
Police Entering James Holmes' Booby-Trapped Apartment
Police Prepare to Enter Massacre Suspect's Booby-Trapped Apartment
URGENT: Local and federal authorities set to enter James Holmes' apartment believed to be booby-trapped with explosives and may contain jars filled with accelerants. Holmes was identified as the suspect in the Aurora, Colo., movie theater massacre that left 12 dead and 58 hospitalized.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Pamela Geller of Atlas Shrugs on Constitution Radio with Douglas V. Gibbs
Today on KCAA 1050 AM - KCAAradio.com - at 2:00 pm Pacific catch Constitution Radio with Douglas V. Gibbs. Today's guest is Pamela Geller of Atlas Shrugs to discuss her fight to educate America about the insidious Islamization of America, Obama's war on America, her recent win in court regarding her ads on buses, being banned from speaking at recent events, and the threats she has received against her because of her efforts.
After the interview we will give away a Prying1Books vintage book to the first listener that answers our Constitution Quest Question of the Week.
Then JASmius will join me for the:
5 Big Stories of the Week, July 21, 2012
5. Obama Wipes Out Welfare Reform
http://www.humanevents.com/2012/07/13/obama-wipes-out-welfare-reform/
4. Michele Bachmann Criticized for Accusations that Huma Abedin and Keith Ellison have ties to Muslim Brotherhood
http://politicalpistachio.blogspot.com/2012/07/gops-gives-heat-to-michele-bachmann.html
3. Russia and China veto U.N. Resolution calling for Sanctions against Syria’s President
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/russia-china-veto-syria-sanctions-resolution-un-145327991.html
2. Aurora Dark Knight Shooter
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/james-holmes-aurora-shooting-suspect-med-school-dropout-loner-neighbors-article-1.1118501
http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2012/07/james_holmes_the_joker_colorado_shooting_dark_knight_rises_batman.html
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/fbi-police-says-suspect-apartment-booby-trapped-150431578.html
http://patdollard.com/2012/07/leftist-media-lies-tries-to-claim-aurora-shooter-was-tea-partier/
1. Obama to Small Businesses: You Didn’t Do That On Your Own
http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2012/jul/15/picketvideo-obama-if-youve-got-business-you-didnt-/
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-ad-accuses-romney-launching-false-attack-quoting-obama_648762.html
Elizabeth Warren said the same: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20110042-503544.html
So did Karl Marx: http://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/1194861-grundrisse-foundations-of-the-critique-of-political-economy-penguin-cl
U.N. Gun Treaty Threatens Peace and Safety
While everyone is distracted by Justice Roberts' antics in the Supreme Court ruling over Obamacare, the Supreme Courts' ruling over Arizona's immigration law, the presidential campaign, and a myriad of other political happenings, the international leftists are working to destroy civilization as we know it with a draconian gun treaty that will chew up and spit out the 2nd Amendment.
The average liberal progressive will argue that the democrats, and Barack Obama, have not made any moves towards gun control. They will ask you to state evidence, and Fast and Furious still doesn't count to these people.
The U.N. Arms Trade Treaty is evidence enough of the liberal left's attempt to take away our right to bear arms.
Obama has indicated a number of times he is a big gun control guy, but like the rest of the democrats, he wants to do it without being very open about it. He has realized he can't do it through American laws, so he is figuring the best way to circumvent the Constitution regarding gun rights is through international intrusion.
Article VI of the U.S. Constitution is clear. Treaties are the Supreme Law of the Land just like the Constitution, and any laws made in pursuance of the Constitution. That means that a properly ratified treaty can indeed supersede the Constitution.
The problem for the democrats is that there are enough pro-gun democrats that even with a lame duck Congress at the end of the year they may not be able to get the Senate to ratify a gun control treaty. . . therefore, I think they will deem it valid, and bypass the Senate completely.The gun control democrats have been working on this for a while. Fast and Furious was their final attempt to do this without calling on international control over guns, but now that they have decided to work openly with the international leftists, it turns out the plans of the American liberal left mirrors that of the United Nations left - and the plan is nothing new.
The Obama administration is currently negotiating the final details of the new global agreement through the United Nations, claiming the arms trade treaty and the small arms treaty are necessary to fight terrorism, insurgency, and international crime syndicates. They believe taking guns out of the hands of people will eliminate gun violence, when in reality crazies always find a way to get their hands on firearms, and crazies also love their victims unarmed. Statistics at Gun Facts shows that whenever a government tightens their grip on gun control laws, or eliminates the right to bear arms, violent crime goes up.
The George W. Bush administration voted against a similar resolution in 2006. The Obama administration strongly supports the enactment of an anti-gun treaty. In January 2010, U.S. representatives joined with those of 152 other countries in endorsing a U.N. Arms Treaty Resolution to draft a blueprint for enactment in 2012. This activity is planned to be completed by July 27, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has pledged to push hard for Senate ratification.
The beginnings of this global treaty, however, may not be something recent, but a blast from the past, or more specifically, from back in the sixties. This U.N. treaty reads like a 1961 State Department memorandum. The memorandum in 1961 explains how the United Nations will oversee “complete disarmament” of the American people under the ruse of preventing war.
Anti-gun activists blame guns, all guns, for the threat posed by terrorists, insurgents and “international crime syndicates.” They have decided that all guns are involved in illegal activity on a global scale and should therefore be controlled and regulated by a global authority. To the international progressives, it couldn't possibly be because the terrorists, insurgents and international crime syndicates are evil, and with or without gun control will find a way to spread their madness.
The eventual plan is to take firearms out of the hands of all law-abiding citizens, and only manufacture firearms for the purpose of keeping the U.N. Peace Force armed, as if the so-called benevolence of the United Nations can be trusted.
Who is watching the watchers?
Does that one world government conspiracy theory still sound like a theory?
The memorandum doesn't stop with the plan to disarm citizens. It also calls for the elimination of national borders, destroying national sovereignty, and creating a world army to replace national armies to enforce the global dictates of the United Nations.
Does that one world government conspiracy theory still sound like a theory?
The small arms treaty and arms trade treaty, combined with the Rights of the Child treaty, Law of the Sea Treaty, Agenda 21, and a number of other insidious treaties, along with a number of past treaties we have already been willing to bow to, strip the United States of its sovereignty and its power to decide its own laws.
With Libya, Obama already has proven to us that to him the approval of the international community is more important to him than the approval of Congress, or the American People.
With Libya, Obama already has proven to us that to him the approval of the international community is more important to him than the approval of Congress, or the American People.
The U.N. Gun Treaty, if not stopped, will ultimately result in the destruction of the 2nd Amendment, and our right to keep and bear arms. With as many gun owners there are in this country, the ultimate result will not be the silent compliance by the American populace the leftists are expecting. Stopping this treaty, then, is also an attempt to stop the occurrence of blood in the streets.
Be involved, tell your representatives your dissatisfaction with international intrusion upon our gun rights. If we fail, violence will come to the streets of America.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
UN Gun Grab Follows State Department Plan - Prison Planet
Heritage Action on Sinking of the Law of the Sea Treaty - Heritage Foundation
GOP's Gives Heat to Michele Bachmann Over Her "Ellison has ties to Muslim Brotherhood" Remarks, Ellison Denies Ties
Representative Michele Bachmann was among the favorites of the Conservatives during the early months of the 2012 Presidential Primary. Now, it is being reported by Politico that conservatives "have their knives out for Rep. Michele Bachmann" over her willingness to point out the infiltration of the Muslim Brotherhood into American politics.
Politico is wrong. They don't even know what conservatism is. The ones that have their knives out for Bachmann are not the conservatives. It is the Republican Party, and more specifically those that have lined up with the party establishment, that are angry with her.
I am willing to wager (not that I am normally a betting man) that most Conservatives agree with her on this one.
Bachmann's accusations range from indicating that Keith Ellison, Congressman from Minnesota, has ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, to the top aid of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Huma Abedin, having those very same ties.
The accusations against Abedin comes from a handful of letters to intelligence and national security agencies by her raising questions about her association with the Muslim Brotherhood. In response, the liberal media has requested that she be removed from the Intelligence Committee, because of her access to highly classified information.
So, they are saying that if someone raises questions about Islam, they have to be removed? That if concern is shown, and a request to look into connections is made, the person must be removed? I wonder if the media and political establishment did the same to anyone raising questions about Nazis during World War II.
Republicans are angry over Bachmann's comments, and Senator John McCain has gone so far as to call her words “sinister accusations.”
Senator Scott Brown, the moderate republican from Massachusetts that was voted in primarily for his willingness to stand against Obamacare, not for any non-existent conservative ideals, said, “Representative Bachmann’s accusations about Secretary Clinton aide Huma Abedin are out-of-line. This kind of rhetoric has no place in our public discourse.”
Democrat Representative Keith Ellison, a Muslim who served in the state Legislature with Bachmann in St. Paul, said it’s not personal, but Bachmann is out of line.
“It’s not right to question the loyalty of fellow Americans without any evidence,” said Ellison, whose district is based in Minneapolis. “I object when people do that.”
Bachmann has said her letters “are unfortunately being distorted.”
Bachmann's accusations did not stop with just Huma Abedin, however. She has also indicated that Congressman Keith Ellison himself has ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. In fact, in an interview with Glenn Beck, Bachmann said that Ellison has a "Long History" with the Muslim Brotherhood.
Walid Shoebat, a former Muslim that speaks out against the evil of Islam, confirmed that Huma Abedin does indeed have a connection to the Muslim Brotherhood, and in the Muslim Community that fact is common knowledge.
In the case of Keith Ellison, he has denied any involvement with the Muslim Brotherhood, and is calling for Bachmann to admit she is wrong.
The Washington Post says that Bachmann's accusations are in the "squalid tradition of McCarthyism."
Looking back on history, especially after Russia released a number of documents from that era, it has turned out McCarthy was right.
In a more recent interview with Glenn Beck, Bachmann discussed the growing influence of the Muslim Brotherhood in Washington, DC and the attacks on her in the wake of her calls for an investigation
Bachmann stated the real concern is not her questions to the intelligence community, but the growing influence of radical Islamism in our government, and military.
Her letters in question were signed by three members of the intelligence committee, herself, Lynn Westmoreland from Georgia, Tom Rooney from Florida and two members of the judiciary committee, Trent Franks of Arizona and Louie Gohmert of Texas all signed onto a letter.
In the recent interview with Glenn Beck, Bachmann said, "We asked numerous questions of the federal government because a letter was sent ‑‑ well, let me just back up. After the Fort Hood tragedy, a report was issued that said the real problem in our government is that we are not teaching FBI agents or our military to recognize radical Islam. So that’s what we need to do. We need to teach about it."
Instead of taking heed to her warnings and recommendations, the American political system is beside itself. How dare she claim that the religion of death is anything but peaceful as they claim they are. It's not like they'd lie about it, or anything, right?
Videos: Michele Bachmann says Keith Ellison has "long history" with Muslim Brotherhood - Stillwater Patch
Bachmann alleges Ellison has ties to Muslim Brotherhood - StarTribune
The Dark Muslim Brotherhood World of Huma Abedin - FrontPage Magazine
Ellison to Bachmann: "Just admit you're wrong." - Minnesota Public Radio
Michele Bachmann's baseless attack on Huma Abedin - The Washington Post
Communism: McCarthy Was Right - Rense
Requiem for Senator Joseph McCarthy - World Net Daily
Friday, July 20, 2012
Optimistic About Freedom
"I rejoice in a belief that intellectual light will spring up in the dark corners of the earth; that freedom of enquiry will produce liberality of conduct; that mankind will reverse the absurd position that the many were, made for the few; and that they will not continue slaves in one part of the globe, when they can become freemen in another." --George Washington, draft of First Inaugural Address, 1789
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)