From the Declaration of Independence:
In other words, if there is something wrong, those that can take action have the responsibility to take action.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Friday, November 23, 2012
Declaration of Independence: Revolution is a Right and Responsibility
In other words, if there is something wrong, those that can take action have the responsibility to take action.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Joke: An SEIU Union Captain Walks Into A Bar. . .
tton and two beers in front of him.
The union captain doesn’t have to be an Einstein to know that this guy is a Republican. So, he shouts over to the bartender so loudly that everyone can hear, “Drinks for everyone in here, bartender, but not for the Republican.”
Soon after the drinks have been handed out, the Republican gives him a big smile, waves at him, then says, “Thank you!” in an equally loud voice.
This infuriates the union captain. So he once again loudly orders drinks for everyone except the Republican. As before, this does not seem to bother the Republican. He continues to smile, and again yells, “Thank you!”
The union captain once again loudly orders drinks for everyone except the Republican. As before, this does not seem to bother the Republican. He continues to smile, and again yells, “Thank you!”
The union captain asks the bartender, “What the hell is the matter with that Republican? I’ve ordered three rounds of drinks for everyone in the bar but him, and all the silly ass does is smile and thanks me. Is he nuts?”
“Nope,” replies the bartender. “He owns the place.”
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Thanks
ČonserVapidiä Ŝarokä's
Constitution Study Radio Discusses Roe v. Wade
| 11/23/2012 9:30 AM | Constitution Study Radio - 25 Myths: #3 Roe v. Wade and Myth #4 Judicial Review |
Podcast also available at above link.
Thanksgiving was a grand event at my sister's house, and I did not go to bed until after midnight. Therefore, I changed the original air time from 6:00 am to 9:00 am.
Thanksgiving was a grand event at my sister's house, and I did not go to bed until after midnight. Therefore, I changed the original air time from 6:00 am to 9:00 am.
My wife, working retail at the mall for now, knew that parking would be darn-well impossible on Black Friday, so she asked me to take her to work. My return time would be right at 9:00 am, so I decided to change the time to 9:30 am.
So, for those of you wondering about the changes, that's why. As for you archive podcast listeners, this doesn't concern you much at all.
Hope you enjoy the show.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Thursday, November 22, 2012
Gun Control Causes Violent Crime To Go Up - Example? Washington DC
In 1976, Washington DC passed a major gun control law, banning people from owning guns in their homes. The murder rate in Washington DC went up 134%. . . While the national rate for murder dropped 2%. Safe to assume the criminal element in Washington DC never got the memo.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Thanksgiving and Football
Happy Thanksgiving - Praise the Lord for His Goodness, and enjoy the four days of constant football!
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Islam Takes Advantage of Ceasefire
Hamas emerges with major gains from hits bloodiest battle with Israel in 4 years
Hamas has emerged from battle with the triumphal sense of a hard-won game change: By stopping its offensive when it did, Israel's hard-line government seems to have grudgingly accepted that the Islamic militant group cannot soon be dislodged from power in Gaza.
Hamas dared rocket the Tel Aviv and Jerusalem areas, then stared down threats of a ground invasion to wipe out the group — emerging with its rule intact, world figures rushing to the region to put out the fire and key Muslim countries openly on its side. In the rush of diplomacy, Hamas also succeeded in overshadowing its main Western-backed Palestinian rival.
Still unclear is whether the Egyptian-brokered truce can deliver the promised end to Gaza's stifling blockade.
On Thursday, the first full day of calm after eight days of fighting, the contrast in mood couldn't be sharper.
Gazans celebrated the cease-fire with fireworks, Hamas militants flaunted their weapons in the streets and a Hamas political leader, Khalil al-Haya, taunted Israel at a victory rally, saying "you can't invade us."
Israel's mood was subdued, with some glad a costly ground invasion had been averted, but others disappointed by the inconclusive end of the offensive. Unlike in previous military campaigns against Hamas, Israel had set the bar low from the start, saying it only wanted to end to Gaza rocket fire, not topple the Islamists in charge of the Palestinian territory since they seized it from their rival Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas in 2007.
Read more at Fox News
---------
Egypt President Morsi grants himself far-reaching powers
CAIRO – Egypt's president on Thursday issued constitutional amendments that placed him above judicial oversight and ordered the retrial of Hosni Mubarak for the killing of protesters in last year's uprising.
Mohammed Morsi also decreed immunity for the Islamist-dominated panel drafting a new constitution from any possible court decisions to dissolve it, a threat that had been hanging over the controversial assembly.
Liberal and Christian members withdrew from the assembly during the past week to protest what they say is the hijacking of the process by Morsi's allies, who they saw are trying to push through a document that will have an Islamist slant marginalizing women and minority Christians and infringing on personal liberties. Several courts have been looking into cases demanding the dissolution of the panel.
The Egyptian leader also decreed that all decisions he has made since taking office in June and until a new constitution is adopted and a new parliament is elected -- which is not expected before next spring -- are not subject to appeal in court or by any other authority. He also barred any court from dissolving the Islamist-led upper house of parliament, a largely toothless body that has also faced court cases.
The moves effectively remove any oversight on Morsi, the longtime Muslim Brotherhood figure who became Egypt's first freely elected president last summer after the Feb. 11, 2011 fall of autocrat Hosni Mubarak. They come as Morsi is riding high on lavish praise from President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton for mediating an end to eight days of fighting between Israel and Gaza's Hamas rulers.
Read more at Fox News
HAMAS VIOLATES CEASE-FIRE; 70% OF ISRAELIS OPPOSE IT
I want to stick with the weapons smuggling for a minute - I actually pulled this to post last night and did not get to it.
The flow of weapons into the Gaza Strip continues, according to sources familiar with the Palestinian resistance logistics, despite the ongoing Israeli assault on the Strip and Syria’s compromised role as a conduit for weapons.As the conflict enters its sixth day, Hezbollah and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard units specialized in smuggling weapons from Syria, Lebanon, Iran, Sudan, and other countries into the Gaza Strip are on high alert.
These weapons usually begin their journey in Iranian or Syrian ports. From there, they head to Sudan, where they are transported to the Sinai in Egypt and end up in Gaza.
Hamas has emerged from battle with the triumphal sense of a hard-won game change: By stopping its offensive when it did, Israel's hard-line government seems to have grudgingly accepted that the Islamic militant group cannot soon be dislodged from power in Gaza.
Hamas dared rocket the Tel Aviv and Jerusalem areas, then stared down threats of a ground invasion to wipe out the group — emerging with its rule intact, world figures rushing to the region to put out the fire and key Muslim countries openly on its side. In the rush of diplomacy, Hamas also succeeded in overshadowing its main Western-backed Palestinian rival.
Still unclear is whether the Egyptian-brokered truce can deliver the promised end to Gaza's stifling blockade.
On Thursday, the first full day of calm after eight days of fighting, the contrast in mood couldn't be sharper.
Gazans celebrated the cease-fire with fireworks, Hamas militants flaunted their weapons in the streets and a Hamas political leader, Khalil al-Haya, taunted Israel at a victory rally, saying "you can't invade us."
Israel's mood was subdued, with some glad a costly ground invasion had been averted, but others disappointed by the inconclusive end of the offensive. Unlike in previous military campaigns against Hamas, Israel had set the bar low from the start, saying it only wanted to end to Gaza rocket fire, not topple the Islamists in charge of the Palestinian territory since they seized it from their rival Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas in 2007.
Read more at Fox News
---------
Egypt President Morsi grants himself far-reaching powers
CAIRO – Egypt's president on Thursday issued constitutional amendments that placed him above judicial oversight and ordered the retrial of Hosni Mubarak for the killing of protesters in last year's uprising.
Mohammed Morsi also decreed immunity for the Islamist-dominated panel drafting a new constitution from any possible court decisions to dissolve it, a threat that had been hanging over the controversial assembly.
Liberal and Christian members withdrew from the assembly during the past week to protest what they say is the hijacking of the process by Morsi's allies, who they saw are trying to push through a document that will have an Islamist slant marginalizing women and minority Christians and infringing on personal liberties. Several courts have been looking into cases demanding the dissolution of the panel.
The Egyptian leader also decreed that all decisions he has made since taking office in June and until a new constitution is adopted and a new parliament is elected -- which is not expected before next spring -- are not subject to appeal in court or by any other authority. He also barred any court from dissolving the Islamist-led upper house of parliament, a largely toothless body that has also faced court cases.
The moves effectively remove any oversight on Morsi, the longtime Muslim Brotherhood figure who became Egypt's first freely elected president last summer after the Feb. 11, 2011 fall of autocrat Hosni Mubarak. They come as Morsi is riding high on lavish praise from President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton for mediating an end to eight days of fighting between Israel and Gaza's Hamas rulers.
Read more at Fox News
----------
HAMAS VIOLATES CEASE-FIRE; 70% OF ISRAELIS OPPOSE IT
Hamas has already violated the cease-fire negotiated by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood government. According to sources within Israel, air raid sirens sounded in the city of Beer Sheva as the cease-fire went into effect at 9 p.m. local time, and rocket attacks were reported elsewhere across the south.
In addition, as reported by Israeli blogger Jameel at "The Muqata," a new poll released by Israel's Channel 2 indicates that 70% of Israelis oppose a cease-fire, and only 24% support one. (The poll was conducted before today's announcement of a cease-fire agreement.) 64% of Israelis believe a cease-fire will not last. A smaller majority, 58%, believes that Operation Pillar of Defense strengthened Israel's deterrent; 15% say it is weaker.
The cease-fire agreement came as Israel scored hit after hit on Hamas terror infrastructure, including Iranian-made long-range rockets--but also shortly after a terror attack on a bus in Tel Aviv for which Hamas claimed responsibility. The timing may allow Hamas to claim a political and strategic victory, especially as its rockets reached the outskirts of Tel Aviv and Jerusalem for the first time during the week-long conflict.
In addition, as reported by Israeli blogger Jameel at "The Muqata," a new poll released by Israel's Channel 2 indicates that 70% of Israelis oppose a cease-fire, and only 24% support one. (The poll was conducted before today's announcement of a cease-fire agreement.) 64% of Israelis believe a cease-fire will not last. A smaller majority, 58%, believes that Operation Pillar of Defense strengthened Israel's deterrent; 15% say it is weaker.
The cease-fire agreement came as Israel scored hit after hit on Hamas terror infrastructure, including Iranian-made long-range rockets--but also shortly after a terror attack on a bus in Tel Aviv for which Hamas claimed responsibility. The timing may allow Hamas to claim a political and strategic victory, especially as its rockets reached the outskirts of Tel Aviv and Jerusalem for the first time during the week-long conflict.
Read More at Breitbart
------------
How Hamas Gets Weapons
I want to stick with the weapons smuggling for a minute - I actually pulled this to post last night and did not get to it.
The flow of weapons into the Gaza Strip continues, according to sources familiar with the Palestinian resistance logistics, despite the ongoing Israeli assault on the Strip and Syria’s compromised role as a conduit for weapons.As the conflict enters its sixth day, Hezbollah and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard units specialized in smuggling weapons from Syria, Lebanon, Iran, Sudan, and other countries into the Gaza Strip are on high alert.
These weapons usually begin their journey in Iranian or Syrian ports. From there, they head to Sudan, where they are transported to the Sinai in Egypt and end up in Gaza.
But such units have other routes they can use to reach Gaza.
Sources say the communication lines between the Resistance in Lebanon and various groups in Gaza, especially Hamas remain open and active.
Resistance factions are currently assessing the damage inflicted on the long-range missile arsenals Israel claims to have destroyed in the raids following the assassination of Hamas military chief Ahmad al-Jaabari.
But it seems that the Palestinian resistance learned its lessons from the 2008 aggression against Gaza and the 2006 war on Lebanon, since a large number of ‘strategic’ arsenals are still safe.
But it seems that the Palestinian resistance learned its lessons from the 2008 aggression against Gaza and the 2006 war on Lebanon, since a large number of ‘strategic’ arsenals are still safe.
Sources told Al-Akhbar that the focus is now on transporting large quantities of long-range missiles, considerable numbers of which have already reached the Strip since the beginning of the Israeli assault.
The strategies for smuggling arms to occupied Palestine have evolved over time. The most notable development came in the 1990s, when Hezbollah decided to create a special unit for the operation. ...
Following the withdrawal of Israel from the Gaza Strip in 2005, resistance factions began increasing their stockpile of weapons.
The strategies for smuggling arms to occupied Palestine have evolved over time. The most notable development came in the 1990s, when Hezbollah decided to create a special unit for the operation. ...
Following the withdrawal of Israel from the Gaza Strip in 2005, resistance factions began increasing their stockpile of weapons.
The biggest difficulty facing the importation of weapons were the Egyptian and Jordanian regimes, which control the borders with Palestine.
Thus a communications channel connecting representatives from the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, the Syrian army, Hezbollah, and Hamas was set up to coordinate the supply of arms.
Additional channels included other Palestinian resistance factions, such as Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), and some members of the al-Aqsa Martyrs and the Salaheddine brigades, as well as the PFLP-General Command.
Since 2005, the weapons transfer units have succeeded in sending numerous types of light and medium weapons, mortars, medium and long-range missiles, as well as several types of ammunition and materials that can be used to manufacture rockets and bombs.
They also worked on transferring hundreds of fighters from Gaza to Syria and Iran, where they were trained on military tactics and the use of special equipment such as anti-armor and anti-aircraft weaponry.In other words, whatever weapons Israel destroyed have already been, or will soon be, replaced. Especially now that Egypt has a more cooperative government than the Mubarak regime. And that makes this 'cease fire' look even worse.
Ceasefire Facade
By Douglas V. Gibbs
According to the mainstream media, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has brought peace to the Middle East. The reporting by the press says that a ceasefire is now in place between Israel and Hamas around the Gaza Strip, and it is all because of Hillary.
Talk about giving her a way out of the Benghazi mess.
Missiles continued to fly for a while after the ceasefire, but now the parties have stopped fighting. . . giving Hamas a chance to reload.
Ceasefires in the Middle East are a joke. The Islamic nut-cakes in the region don't want peace. They are using this ceasefire to get ready for the next attack, and Israel knows it. Islam believes that Israel must be wiped off the map. They refuse to recognize Israel's right to exist. The ceasefire is simply a momentary pause in a war that will not end until Israel is destroyed, or Islam ceases to exist. Until then, the war between Muslims and Jews will never end.
The problem is that the international left views Israel as the problem. They figure if Israel was simply removed from the picture, Islam would be happy, and peace would ensue.
Islam is a barbaric, totalitarian system using the guise of religion to expand globally. It is worse than Nazism, communism, and any other ism you can come up with. They will not rest until they have waged enough war to force their laws upon all nations. Islam calls itself a religion, but it is a political movement aiming at world domination by force.
Yet, the world sees Israel as the problem?
This ceasefire is temporary. As history reminds us, the Muslims will be shelling Israel again, very soon. The war will continue until Islam is defeated militarily. Until then, there will be no peace in the Middle East.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Gaza Cease-Fire Largely Ends Rockets - Yahoo! News
Twelve Rockets Hit Israel after Truce: Police - France 24
Hamas says Israel Failed in its Goals, thanks Iran - France 24
There is no Ceasefire - FrontPageMag
According to the mainstream media, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has brought peace to the Middle East. The reporting by the press says that a ceasefire is now in place between Israel and Hamas around the Gaza Strip, and it is all because of Hillary.
Talk about giving her a way out of the Benghazi mess.
Missiles continued to fly for a while after the ceasefire, but now the parties have stopped fighting. . . giving Hamas a chance to reload.
Ceasefires in the Middle East are a joke. The Islamic nut-cakes in the region don't want peace. They are using this ceasefire to get ready for the next attack, and Israel knows it. Islam believes that Israel must be wiped off the map. They refuse to recognize Israel's right to exist. The ceasefire is simply a momentary pause in a war that will not end until Israel is destroyed, or Islam ceases to exist. Until then, the war between Muslims and Jews will never end.
The problem is that the international left views Israel as the problem. They figure if Israel was simply removed from the picture, Islam would be happy, and peace would ensue.
Islam is a barbaric, totalitarian system using the guise of religion to expand globally. It is worse than Nazism, communism, and any other ism you can come up with. They will not rest until they have waged enough war to force their laws upon all nations. Islam calls itself a religion, but it is a political movement aiming at world domination by force.
Yet, the world sees Israel as the problem?
This ceasefire is temporary. As history reminds us, the Muslims will be shelling Israel again, very soon. The war will continue until Islam is defeated militarily. Until then, there will be no peace in the Middle East.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Gaza Cease-Fire Largely Ends Rockets - Yahoo! News
Twelve Rockets Hit Israel after Truce: Police - France 24
Hamas says Israel Failed in its Goals, thanks Iran - France 24
There is no Ceasefire - FrontPageMag
Obama Thanksgiving Resolution Leaves Out God. . . Again
By Douglas V. Gibbs
According to Steven Ertelt of LifeNews.com, this year is the 4th straight year that Obama's Thanksgiving Resolution Doesn’t Thank God - the fundamental reason why Thanksgiving is observed in the first place.
In 1789, President George Washington issued a proclamation that set forth the main reason for Thanksgiving, saying, “Now therefore I do recommend and assign Thursday the 26th day of November next to be devoted by the People of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being, who is the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be. That we may then all unite in rendering unto him our sincere and humble thanks – for his kind care and protection of the People of this Country previous to their becoming a Nation.”
President Abraham Lincoln, who made Thanksgiving a national holiday, also understood the religious context upon which it was founded.
“It has seemed to me fit and proper that they should be solemnly, reverently, and gratefully acknowledged, as with one heart and one voice, by the whole American people. I do therefore invite my fellow-citizens in every part of the United States, and also those who are in foreign lands, to set apart and observe the last Thursday of November next as a day of thanksgiving and praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the heavens,” he wrote.
But, to President Obama, Thanksgiving is about food and football, according to his official remarks as distributed by the White House.
“For us, like so many of you, this is a day full of family and friends; food and football. It’s a day to fight the overwhelming urge to take a nap – at least until after dinner,” Obama said.
In other the third paragraph of the Thanksgiving message, Obama moves on to politics.
“That’s especially important this year. As a nation, we’ve just emerged from a campaign season that was passionate, noisy, and vital to our democracy. But it also required us to make choices – and sometimes those choices led us to focus on what sets us apart instead of what ties us together; on what candidate we support instead of what country we belong to,” he said.
Obama eventually mentions blessings and later, in passing, says, “Because there but for the grace of God go I.” The rest of the message is a nice one about helping the hurricane victims, honoring our troops, and bringing Americans together. But nowhere in the text is there an actual thanks to the Lord for his blessings on the nation or a recognition that that is the reason for Thanksgiving.
Perhaps he needs to become more familiar with the writings of George Washington, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin, and less familiar with the writings of Saul Alinsky and Karl Marx.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Divisive Thanksgiving, Thanks to Obama and the liberal democrats
The Associated Press came out with a story about how Thanksgiving is not so good this year, with the partisan politics going on, and all. In fact, the title of the piece reads: "Voting for Obama Keeps Families Away From Each Other For Thanksgiving."
My grandmother used to go home and leave everyone at the table speechless if anybody brought up Bill Clinton, and spoke about him in a negative manner. I had a friend in the Navy that refused to speak politics because any nasty words about Jimmy Carter upset him too much. My "I Read The Constitution for the Articles" T-Shirt has elicited a number of middle fingers and foul language pointed towards me when I wear it in public.
But all of that was supposed to be over, wasn't it? In 2008 Obama ran a campaign on unity. There are no red states and blue states, he told us - there is only the United States.
So why the division?
Thanksgiving, according to the AP, is supposed to be about togetherness. Instead of family joy, the Thanksgiving table this year is a battleground.
The divide between the left and the right has been exposed, and political banter has become more than mere discussion.
I am expecting food fights, to be honest.
Arguing politics through email, or on facebook, is one thing, but now the families have to sit together, look into each other's eyes, and play out the political game.
In some cases, things are so bad that some families are forgoing the normally festive gathering.
In my family, everyone knows where I stand, and most of them are right there with me. But there is the cousin in San Francisco who is a hard left Gnostic who has actually stopped talking to me because I am "Too lost to spend time talking to," and my brother who has outlawed Fox News in his house. Interestingly enough his son is a clone of me, right down to his love of history, and the Constitution. The kid is a regular conservative dynamo. The political battles in that household gets interesting. Today, I am taking my nephew a Constitution Quest T-Shirt.
In some cases, things are so bad that some families are forgoing the normally festive gathering.
In my family, everyone knows where I stand, and most of them are right there with me. But there is the cousin in San Francisco who is a hard left Gnostic who has actually stopped talking to me because I am "Too lost to spend time talking to," and my brother who has outlawed Fox News in his house. Interestingly enough his son is a clone of me, right down to his love of history, and the Constitution. The kid is a regular conservative dynamo. The political battles in that household gets interesting. Today, I am taking my nephew a Constitution Quest T-Shirt.
I am figuring politics will come up, and when the subject brushes across the Thanksgiving dinner table, my brother will excuse himself to go have a cigarette.
Some families, however, will not handle the time together so easily. The ardent Obama supporters pretty much hate conservatives, and those that reject the socialism the democrats are trying to force upon this nation sees the current political atmosphere as a war against the founding of this nation. If ever there was a recipe for fireworks, this year's Thanksgiving is heaping with it.
God help us if religion is brought up, too.
God help us if religion is brought up, too.
Thanks, Obama, and the liberal democrats, for dividing America.
Enjoy the turkey, or the tofu, depending on where you stand.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Thankful for all of You who support my efforts
On Thanksgiving, I am thankful for you.
As you can see in the image, Political Pistachio has been enjoying over 1,500 hits per day, and around the election was averaging between 1,700 and 1,800. I want to thank all of you that visit Political Pistachio, listen to my radio show, and attend my Constitution Classes and public speaking engagements. The growth of what I do has been tremendous and I am thankful for each and every one of you. The battle to get this nation back on its original course is a tough one, but it can be done bit by bit. We owe it to our posterity to keep up the good fight. . . even if we don't see the fruit of our efforts during our lifetime. Liberty is always worth fighting for. Doing the right thing is always the right thing to do, regardless of whether it is popular, or not, or if the opposition seems to be gaining ground. The liberal left may have been winning some battles of late, but in the end the truth will win out. Tyranny must be stopped. We owe it to our children, grandchildren, and all future Americans.
Keep up the good fight, and thank you for your support.
Here's links to all I do:
Political Pistachio Blog: www.politicalpistachio.com
Constitution Class Online: www.blogtalkradio.com/politicalpistachio
Links to Constitution Study Radio for Entire Class Through the Constitution: http://constitutionstudyradio.blogspot.com/2012/11/constitution-study-radio-through.html
Constitution Class Temecula: http://temeculaconstitutionclass.blogspot.com/
Public Speaking Events: http://constitutionpublicspeaker.blogspot.com/
KCAA 1050 AM Constitution Radio with Douglas V. Gibbs: www.douglasvgibbs.com , kcaaradio.com , kcaaradio.celestrion.net/kcaa-podcasts/gibbs/
Constitution Letter Newsletter: http://www.douglasvgibbs.com/newsletter.php
Facebook: www.facebook.com/douglasvgibbs
Twitter: https://twitter.com/douglasvgibbs
George Washington: Thanksgiving Proclamation
[New York, 3 October 1789]
By the President of the United States of America, a Proclamation.
Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor-- and whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness.
Now therefore I do recommend and assign Thursday the 26th day of November next to be devoted by the People of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being, who is the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be-- That we may then all unite in rendering unto him our sincere and humble thanks--for his kind care and protection of the People of this Country previous to their becoming a Nation--for the signal and manifold mercies, and the favorable interpositions of his Providence which we experienced in the course and conclusion of the late war--for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty, which we have since enjoyed--for the peaceable and rational manner, in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national One now lately instituted--for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed; and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and in general for all the great and various favors which he hath been pleased to confer upon us.
and also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech him to pardon our national and other transgressions-- to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually--to render our national government a blessing to all the people, by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed--to protect and guide all Sovereigns and Nations (especially such as have shewn kindness unto us) and to bless them with good government, peace, and concord--To promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the encrease of science among them and us--and generally to grant unto all Mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as he alone knows to be best.
Given under my hand at the City of New York the third day of October in the year of our Lord 1789.
Go: Washington
I find it noteworthy that the language in this proclamation is as such that if a politician in today's political landscape was to utter similar language, he or she would be chastised for being a religious right kook, or criticized for betraying what the liberal left considers to be the separation of church and state. Obviously, Washington's definition of statesman, and religious freedom, was different than that of today's secularists.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Rush Limbaugh: The Real Story of Thanksgiving
The REAL STORY OF THANKSGIVING
"Well, let's allow our real undoctored American history lesson to unfold further. If our schools and the media have twisted the historical record when it comes to Columbus, they have obliterated the contributions of America's earliest permanent settlers, the Pilgrims. Why? Because they were a people inspired by profound religious beliefs to overcome incredible odds. Today, public schools are simply not teaching how important the religious dimension was in shaping our history and our nation's character. Whether teachers are just uncomfortable with this material or whether there's been a concerted effort to cover up the truth, the results are the same. Kids are no longer learning enough to understand and appreciate how and why America was created.
"The story of the Pilgrims begins in the early part of the seventeenth century The Church of England under King James I was persecuting anyone and everyone who did not recognize its absolute civil and spiritual authority. Those who challenged ecclesiastical authority and those who believed strongly in freedom of worship were hunted down, imprisoned, and sometimes executed for their beliefs. A group of separatists first fled to Holland and established a community. After eleven years, about forty of them agreed to make a perilous journey to the New World, where they would certainly face hardships, but could live and worship God according to the dictates of their own consciences. On August 1, 1620, the Mayflower set sail. It carried a total of 102 passengers, including forty Pilgrims led by William Bradford. On the journey, Bradford set up an agreement, a contract, that established just and equal laws for all members of the new community, irrespective of their religious beliefs. Where did the revolutionary ideas expressed in the Mayflower Compact come from? From the Bible.
"The Pilgrims were a people completely steeped in the lessons of the Old and New Testaments. They looked to the ancient Israelites for their example. And, because of the biblical precedents set forth in Scripture, they never doubted that their experiment would work. But this was no pleasure cruise, friends. The journey to the New World was a long and arduous one. And when the Pilgrims landed in New England in November, they found, according to Bradford's detailed journal, a cold, barren, desolate wilderness. There were no friends to greet them, he wrote. There were no houses to shelter them. There were no inns where they could refresh themselves. And the sacrifice they had made for freedom was just beginning. During the first winter, half the Pilgrims – including Bradford's own wife – died of either starvation, sickness or exposure. When spring finally came, Indians taught the settlers how to plant corn, fish for cod and skin beavers for coats. Life improved for the Pilgrims, but they did not yet prosper!
"This is important to understand because this is where modern American history lessons often end. Thanksgiving is actually explained in some textbooks as a holiday for which the Pilgrims gave thanks to the Indians for saving their lives, rather than as a devout expression of gratitude grounded in the tradition of both the Old and New Testaments. Here is the part that has been omitted: The original contract the Pilgrims had entered into with their merchant-sponsors in London called for everything they produced to go into a common store, and each member of the community was entitled to one common share. All of the land they cleared and the houses they built belong to the community as well. Bradford, who had become the new governor of the colony, recognized that this form of collectivism was as costly and destructive to the Pilgrims as that first harsh winter, which had taken so many lives.
"He decided to take bold action. Bradford assigned a plot of land to each family to work and manage, thus turning loose the power of the marketplace. That's right. Long before Karl Marx was even born, the Pilgrims had discovered and experimented with what could only be described as socialism. And what happened? It didn't work! Surprise, surprise, huh? What Bradford and his community found was that the most creative and industrious people had no incentive to work any harder than anyone else, unless they could utilize the power of personal motivation! But while most of the rest of the world has been experimenting with socialism for well over a hundred years – trying to refine it, perfect it, and re-invent it – the Pilgrims decided early on to scrap it permanently. What Bradford wrote about this social experiment should be in every schoolchild's history lesson if it were, we might prevent much needless suffering in the future."
Now, I'm going to cease and desist at this point because I don't want to get started and have to interrupt myself for a commercial break with the passage from Bradford in his journal about the decision to scrap socialism, this common share business, and he turned everybody loose, and this new social experiment, forerunner to capitalism, is profoundly detailed in his journal.
Here now, in its entirety, the William Bradford journal, what he wrote about the social experiment after abandoning what essentially was socialism shortly after the Pilgrims had arrived in the United States or in the new world:
"'The experience that we had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years...that by taking away property, and bringing community into a common wealth, would make them happy and flourishing – as if they were wiser than God,' Bradford wrote. 'For this community [so far as it was] was found to breed much confusion and discontent, and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For young men that were most able and fit for labor and service did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men's wives and children without any recompense...that was thought injustice.' Do you hear what he was saying, ladies and gentlemen? The Pilgrims found that people could not be expected to do their best work without incentive. So what did Bradford's community try next? They un-harnessed the power of good old free enterprise by invoking the under girding capitalistic principle of private property. Every family was assigned its own plot of land to work and permitted to market its own crops and products.'"
Not just use themselves and not just send to a common store but they could market. They could grow as much, they could sell it for what they could get for it, and the incentive was clear to do as much as possible on both sides. "And what was the result? 'This had very good success,' wrote Bradford, 'for it made all hands industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been.' Bradford doesn't sound like much of a Clintonite, does he? Is it possible that supply-side economics could have existed before the 1980s? Yes. Read the story of Joseph and Pharaoh in Genesis 41. Following Joseph's suggestion (Gen 41:34), Pharaoh reduced the tax on Egyptians to 20% during the 'seven years of plenty' and the 'Earth brought forth in heaps.' (Gen. 41:47) In no time, the Pilgrims found they had more food than they could eat themselves. So they set up trading posts and exchanged goods with the Indians. The profits allowed them to pay off their debts to the merchants in London. And the success and prosperity of the Plymouth settlement attracted more Europeans and began what came to be known as the 'Great Puritan Migration.' Now, let me ask you: Have you read this history before? Is this lesson being taught to your children today? If not, why not? Can you think of a more important lesson one could derive from the Pilgrim experience?
"Guess what? There's even more that is being deliberately withheld from our modern textbooks. For example, one of those attracted to the new world by the success of Plymouth was Thomas Hooker. Thomas Hooker established his own community in Connecticut, the first full-fledged constitutional community, perhaps the most free society the world had ever known. Hooker's community was governed by the fundamental orders of Connecticut, which established strict limits on the powers of government. So revolutionary and successful was this idea that Massachusetts was inspired to adopt its body of liberties. The body of liberties included ninety-eight separate protections of individual rights, including no taxation without representation, due process of law, trial by a jury of peers, and prohibitions against cruel and unusual punishment. Now, those no doubt sound familiar to you and they should because these are ideas and concepts that led directly to the U.S. Constitution and the U.S. Bill of Rights."
"Nevertheless, the Pilgrims and the Puritans of early New England are often vilified today as witch burners and portrayed as simpletons. But to the contrary, it was their commitment to pluralism and free worship that led to these ideals being incorporated into American history, and our history books purposely conceal the fact that these notions were developed by communities of devout Christians who studied the Bible and found that it prescribes limited representative government and free enterprise as the best political and economic systems. Now, there's only one word for this, folks. It's censorship. There was a time when every schoolchild did learn these basic lessons of the American culture. Now these truths are being and have been systematically expunged from history books in favor of liberal social studies clap trap," and the chapter goes on. "This brings us to our Founding Fathers, the geniuses who crafted the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution.
"These were men who shook up the entire world by proclaiming the idea that people had certain God-given freedoms and rights and that the government's only reason to exist was to protect those freedoms and rights from both internal and external forces -- and that simple, yet brilliant, insight has been all but lost today in liberalism's relentless march toward bigger, more powerful, more intrusive government," and that's why I wanted to add to the reading today the George Washington First Thanksgiving proclamation in 1789. Thanksgiving was about thanking God for bounty and freedom and opportunity and blessings. Thanksgiving is a time we celebrate the Pilgrims realizing the best way to enjoy prosperity in a new world that was foreign to them. Yes, there was cooperation with the Indians and, yes, the Indians did extend the handshake of freedom when we arrived by teaching the Pilgrims how to farm and so forth, but after that, all the bounty that was created by the first settlers were shared with the Indians.
There was no wiping them out. There was no infiltration. There was no introduction of various diseases and -isms like environmental wackoism or sexism or racism or any of this, as have been attached in recent multicultural curricula to the so-called white Europeans who invaded this pristine land and destroyed the goodness and the oneness that the Indians enjoyed with this land. That's what's being taught today. What is not being taught today is the devotion to God that these people had, but the failure of a socialist compact to adequately provide for the residents of the first colony and how William Bradford himself saw it was failing almost from the outset and devised a new compact which was basically capitalism and unfettered competition, and incentive, and then it was Katie bar the door. All of these things are part of the original Thanksgiving, and even when I go back and remember my days in school, I was not taught this. I was not taught the involvement and the references to God.
I was not taught that the Pilgrims had all this bounty after awhile and shared it with the Indians. It was quite the opposite. The purpose of teaching Thanksgiving when I was a kid was to tell all of us just how wonderful the Indians were and how well they treated us when we arrived because we were basically inept and incompetent. I enjoy passing this story along every Thanksgiving because we've been doing it here since I published and wrote the book, and the book is actually 1993. It came out in November of '93. By the end of the year, it had sold two million copies, and since then, I guess this is our 11th year now of reading the real story of Thanksgiving, and it always reaches new people. Every year we do it, people who have never heard it before are amazed. Now, if I was able to find it and get the true story, it's out there, but it's not in conventional history textbooks that you'll find in many of the public schools.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Wednesday, November 21, 2012
Turkey Pardons Turkeys
He almost looks like a priest the way he's holding his hand in that manner. . .
Messiah and Priest?
Oy.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
I WAS WRONG!
On Election Day 2012 there were so many things that went wrong. Like a number of conservatives, I expected a landslide win for Mitt Romney. The Massachusetts Governor, for the most part, ran a satisfactory campaign. Sure, there were a few things I wish he would have hammered a little harder on, but overall, he ran an acceptable campaign - especially when you consider he was running against the most destructive presidency in the history of this country (save for perhaps Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and Lyndon B. Johnson). I thought that no Republican voter in their right mind would stay home in 2012. Heck, I figured, as with Reagan, there would also be a lot of cross-party voting where Democrats, sick of the arrogance and failures of Barack Obama, would vote for Romney as well. Sure, there was fraud by the democrats, but I figured the margin of victory by the GOP would be even greater than the number of stolen votes by the liberal left. In local elections, nationwide, the Republican Party cleaned up, but in the national election, a combination of fraud, and a population more and more dependent upon the federal government, added up to the reelection of Barack Obama.
I was wrong because I believed Americans would stand up for freedom. I was wrong because I believed the voters recognized the destructive forces at work in Washington, and would do whatever it took to end the madness. I was wrong because I had faith that Americanism continues to live, and that people still believe socialism is the enemy of liberty in America. I was wrong, but I don't believe it is over.
Do you want to read the rest? It is available in the Constitution Letter newsletter. . .
Subscribe HERE.
Tools From the Founders To Save A Nation from Tyranny
By Douglas V. Gibbs
The roots of tyranny have always been present in the United States. Alexander Hamilton, during George Washington's Presidency, used an anti-Constitutional concept called "Implied Powers" to convince Washington, and the Congress, that a centralized national bank, not unlike what later became the Federal Reserve, was constitutional. In 1803, Chief Justice John Marshall in his written opinion of theMarbury v. Madison case, introduced the concept of judicial review, bypassing the Constitution, Congress, and the States by giving to the courts a new power to interpret the Constitution, and act legislatively from the bench when the courts strike down a law. Under the Presidency of John Adams the Congress approved the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798. One of the four acts allowed the federal government to take action against anyone who dared to speak out against the administration. At one point, a member of the House of Representatives, Matthew Lyon, was jailed for saying of the administration in a written essay, "ridiculous pomp, foolish adulation, and selfish avarice"
Tyrannical behavior by the federal government was not something the founders never encountered, and in fact some of them participated in.
During the Constitutional Convention in 1787 the decision in regards to the new Constitution was to grant the government only certain powers, and allow the rest of the authorities to be reserved to the States. Despite all of the checks and balances, however, many of them doubted the nation would survive. The experiment of self-governance under a republican form of government was risky, but tyranny was always knocking on the door. In fact, Thomas Jefferson believed that a bloody revolution would need to be waged about every twenty years just to keep the government from stomping upon the liberty of the citizens. He said, "And can history produce an instance of a rebellion so honourably conducted? I say nothing of it's motives. They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. God forbid we should ever be 20. years without such a rebellion. . . The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it's natural manure."
Which brings us to the first tool on our tool belt for taking back this country: A bloody revolution.
A bloody revolution is a last resort, but one that the founders knew may be necessary. It is this tool on our tool belt that is the reason for the Second Amendment. Our right to keep and bear arms is not as important for hunting, and protecting our private property, as it is for protecting the people from a tyrannical government. If the people are armed, tyranny normally remains at bay. Among the first actions by tyrants like Hitler was to disarm the people. If the people are not armed, they cannot fight against the tyranny.
The second tool for taking back this country is a peaceful revolution. The TEA Party is a part of that method, and has done well so far. However, the propaganda and devious tactics of the liberal left has outgunned the TEA Party and conservative movement. Either, the push back needs to be stronger, or more people need to be educated about the power we have as citizens to take back our country.
The third tool for taking back this country is nullification. The States, according to Jefferson, Madison, and a number of other founders, have the right to nullify unconstitutional laws. The second clause of Article VI., best known as the Supremacy Clause, states that "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land. That would mean that any laws not pursuant of the Constitution are not the supreme law of the land, and are null and void. Thomas Jefferson addressed this act of nullification available to the States in his draft of the Kentucky Resolution in 1798. In short, the States do not have to implement unconstitutional laws. They can "nullify" those laws, because they are null and void. Remember, the States gave some of their powers to the federal government to create the federal government, and it was their delegates at the convention writing the Constitution. That makes the States the "Contract Makers," and in turn, the final arbiters of the Constitution. It is their call, not the courts', on if a federal law is unconstitutional, and if the State legislature believes the law to be unconstitutional, the State can simply refuse to implement it through nullification. In history, often the State legislature will pass a piece of legislation indicating that the State is nullifying a particular law.
The fourth and final tool on the tool belt of Americans for taking back our country is the Article V. Convention. An "Article V. Convention," can completely shake the foundations of our governmental system, and steer the federal government back into the restraints of the U.S. Constitution.
Article V. is the section of the Constitution that explains the amendment process. The allowance for Congress to propose amendments was actually an after-thought, and only added during the final days of the Constitutional Convention. Originally, only the States were going to be allowed to propose amendments. The anti-federalists feared that by granting the authority to Congress to propose amendments, the federal government would work to completely re-write the Constitution. However, it was argued that the fail-safe to that was the fact that the States would still be needed to ratify the proposed amendment.
The call for an Article V. Convention is nothing new. 49 States have called for an Article V. Convention through the submission of over 750 applications. The convention, however, has never taken place because the Congress will not set a time and place (their only task regarding an Article V. Convention), for fear of the people proposing amendments, and the States ratifying them, which would ultimately cut the federal government out of the process. Centralized systems do not like it when individual states and people get involved in a process they think is only their domain.
Despite being a statist, Alexander Hamilton wrote Federalist 85 brilliantly, in defense of the Article V. Convention. He argued that if the federal government did become tyrannical, the Article V. Convention was the fail-safe device the States had to reign the out-of-control federal government back in.
Article V. Conventions were offered as a method for the people and the States to stop the rampage of a tyrannical government. An Article V. Convention gives the people and States a way to combat a federal system that ignores the Constitution, treats it as if it does not exist, or invalidates it through judicial means. An Article V. Convention is not only something we need not fear, but one of our primary tools to combat against a tyrannical federal system. An Article V. Convention is our means of changing the Constitution through amendments so that we may give power back to the States, and protect state sovereignty.
Changing the Constitution by amendment is not an easy process on purpose. Amendments must be ratified by 3/4 of the states. The federal government does not like that process because they think it limits their power (and they are correct). This is why the federal government is doing as it pleases regardless of the authorities granted by the Constitution. They wish to keep the States out of the picture. Taking power without the benefit of an amendment makes the State legislatures irrelevant. Those that support big government plan to do their worst as they are now, through ignoring the law, and invalidating the original intent of the U.S. Constitution through the judiciary whenever possible.
They fear the Article V. Convention because such a convention is the people's way of forcing the federal government to behave in accordance to the limiting principles of the Constitution. Despite some arguments that these conventions can be dangerous, be advised that an Article V. Convention is not a way for the corrupt politicians and judges to re-write the Constitution. Only amendments can be proposed in such a convention, and those proposed amendments are still required to be ratified by the States.
One of the amendments that could be a key in turning this nation around would be an amendment to repeal the 17th Amendment.
To understand the 17th Amendment, we need to go back in history to understand how our political system was originally set up. The Founding Fathers included a number of checks and balances during the creation of the federal government in the hopes of creating enough safeguards to protect the people from an ever expansive, tyrannical central government. The separation of powers between the branches of government was an integral part of these checks and balances. However, not all of the checks and balances put in place were obvious.
The dynamics of the federal government were set up to prevent any part of government from having access to too much power.
The people, just like the government, were not fully trusted. To prevent the danger of too much power residing in any part of government, power needed to be divided as much as possible so as to keep it under control. Too much power in the hands of anybody has the potential of being a dangerous proposition - and that includes in the hands of the people.
This nation is not a democracy. All of the voting power was not given to the people. Even the voting power was divided so as to ensure the republic was protected from the mob-rule mentality of democracy.
The vote of the people, or the people’s full and unquestioned voice in government, was, and still is, manifested in the U.S. House of Representatives. Then, and now, the representatives were voted into office directly by the people. Each representative represents a district. The members of the United States Senate were not voted in directly by the people. The U.S. Senators were voted in by an indirect vote of the people.
The Senators were appointed by the State legislatures. The State legislators are voted into office by the people of the State. Therefore, during the early years of this nation, the Senators attained office by an indirect vote of the people through their State legislatures.
The State’s interests needed to be represented in the U.S. Congress. The States had that representation through the Senate by being able to appoint their Senators.
Since the Senators were appointed by the State legislatures, the Senators looked at the political atmosphere in a different manner than the members of the House of Representatives. Since the members of the House of Representatives are directly voted into office by the people, their concerns are more in line with the immediate concerns of the people, no matter how whimsical those concerns may be.
The Senate functioned in a very different manner because when the Senators were appointed they were expected to abide by the wishes of the State legislatures: State’s Rights, State Sovereignty, protecting the States not only from a foreign enemy, but from a domestic enemy, should the federal government become the potential tyranny that the Founding Fathers, and especially the Anti-federalists, feared a central government could become.
Remember, the federal government exists because the States let it. The powers derived by the federal government were granted to it by the States. The federal government is not supposed to be able to do much of anything without the permission of the several States. The Senate was the representation of the States so that the States could ensure the federal government remained within its authorities.
The States having representation in the federal government through the U.S. Senate is also another way that checks and balances were applied to the system. The House of Representatives represented The People, and the Senate represented The States. Through this arrangement, it gave The People the ability to check The States, and The States the ability to check The People, and together they checked The Executive. The dynamics of our government through this arrangement was a built in check and balance.
The States could not get too far without The People approving of it. The People could not get much done without The States agreeing with what they were trying to do. The Executive Branch could get little done without both The People and The States approving of it. However, if the President did not like what The People and The States were trying to accomplish, he could veto the bill. However, if The People and The States felt the legislation was important enough, they could override that veto with 2/3 of a vote in both Houses. That is how the government is supposed to work.
Looking at it in another way, a bill would be approved by both the People and the States before it went to the President to become law. This gave the executive and both parts of the legislative branch the opportunity to approve or disapprove potential laws. The 17th Amendment eliminated the States from that process.
In 1913, the Seventeenth Amendment changed the appointment of the Senators from that of the State legislatures to that of the vote of the people.
The damage caused by the ratification of the Seventeenth Amendment was that it makes the United States more like a democracy and less like the Republic the founders originally intended.
The people wanted the government to be more like a democracy, and they got it with the Seventeenth Amendment.
Karl Marx once stated that “Democracy is the road to socialism.”
Progressivism was on the rise in the United States during those early years of the 20th Century, and the statists knew that one of their main obstacles was the voice of the States. The Seventeenth Amendment was one of the vehicles the statists used to begin the process of silencing the States, with the ultimate goal of making them irrelevant in regards to the running of the federal government.
The statists did not reveal their true intentions. If they had proclaimed that they desired the ratification of the Seventeenth Amendment so that they could proceed in their quest to change the United States into a socialist system, the people would have rejected it. Instead, they used a populist argument. “It is for the will of the people. You deserve a Senate voted into office by the democratic will of the people. If you directly vote for the Senators, they will be more apt to act in line with the will of the people. After all, the States are corrupt, and they can’t be trusted. You people, in the interest of democracy, deserve to be able to vote for the Senators yourselves.”
That was essentially the argument.
Sound familiar?
As a result, the whole system was turned on its head. The entire dynamic of our government system changed.
This division of voting power was put into place because the Founding Fathers knew that should the people be fooled while they completely controlled the vote, a tyranny could ensure that it was voted into the three primary parts of government: the executive, the House of Representatives, and the U.S. Senate. Once that tyranny had control of those three parts of government, the judicial branch would be sure to follow.
The founders knew that should the uninformed electorate vote in a tyranny, while caught up in some kind of cult of personality, it would spell the beginning of the end of the United States as we know it.
The Founding Fathers knew that democracy of that kind would destroy the system, so they divided the power of the vote. The voting power was divided, partly through the creation of the Electoral College, so as to protect us from the excesses of democracy.
Watching what is going on now, the goals of the people behind the Seventeenth Amendment have been reached. The Seventeenth Amendment, combined with the creation of the Federal Reserve, and the implementation of an income tax, was all a part of a scheme to change the American System into a model of socialism through the guise of democracy.
Thomas Jefferson said, “Democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those that are willing to work and give to those who would not.”
John Adams said, “While it lasts, Democracy becomes more bloody than either an aristocracy or a monarchy. Democracy never lasts long; it soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There is never a democracy that did not commit suicide.”
Thomas Jefferson said, “A democracy is nothing more than mob-rule, where 51% of the people may take away the rights of the other 49%.”
James Bovard said, “Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.”
A friend of mine adds that a republic is “two wolves and a well-armed sheep contesting the vote.”
Benjamin Franklin, after asked what the founders created in the Constitutional Convention, replied, “A republic, if you can keep it.”
With freedom comes responsibility.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
The roots of tyranny have always been present in the United States. Alexander Hamilton, during George Washington's Presidency, used an anti-Constitutional concept called "Implied Powers" to convince Washington, and the Congress, that a centralized national bank, not unlike what later became the Federal Reserve, was constitutional. In 1803, Chief Justice John Marshall in his written opinion of theMarbury v. Madison case, introduced the concept of judicial review, bypassing the Constitution, Congress, and the States by giving to the courts a new power to interpret the Constitution, and act legislatively from the bench when the courts strike down a law. Under the Presidency of John Adams the Congress approved the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798. One of the four acts allowed the federal government to take action against anyone who dared to speak out against the administration. At one point, a member of the House of Representatives, Matthew Lyon, was jailed for saying of the administration in a written essay, "ridiculous pomp, foolish adulation, and selfish avarice"
Tyrannical behavior by the federal government was not something the founders never encountered, and in fact some of them participated in.
During the Constitutional Convention in 1787 the decision in regards to the new Constitution was to grant the government only certain powers, and allow the rest of the authorities to be reserved to the States. Despite all of the checks and balances, however, many of them doubted the nation would survive. The experiment of self-governance under a republican form of government was risky, but tyranny was always knocking on the door. In fact, Thomas Jefferson believed that a bloody revolution would need to be waged about every twenty years just to keep the government from stomping upon the liberty of the citizens. He said, "And can history produce an instance of a rebellion so honourably conducted? I say nothing of it's motives. They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. God forbid we should ever be 20. years without such a rebellion. . . The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it's natural manure."
Which brings us to the first tool on our tool belt for taking back this country: A bloody revolution.
A bloody revolution is a last resort, but one that the founders knew may be necessary. It is this tool on our tool belt that is the reason for the Second Amendment. Our right to keep and bear arms is not as important for hunting, and protecting our private property, as it is for protecting the people from a tyrannical government. If the people are armed, tyranny normally remains at bay. Among the first actions by tyrants like Hitler was to disarm the people. If the people are not armed, they cannot fight against the tyranny.
The second tool for taking back this country is a peaceful revolution. The TEA Party is a part of that method, and has done well so far. However, the propaganda and devious tactics of the liberal left has outgunned the TEA Party and conservative movement. Either, the push back needs to be stronger, or more people need to be educated about the power we have as citizens to take back our country.
The third tool for taking back this country is nullification. The States, according to Jefferson, Madison, and a number of other founders, have the right to nullify unconstitutional laws. The second clause of Article VI., best known as the Supremacy Clause, states that "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land. That would mean that any laws not pursuant of the Constitution are not the supreme law of the land, and are null and void. Thomas Jefferson addressed this act of nullification available to the States in his draft of the Kentucky Resolution in 1798. In short, the States do not have to implement unconstitutional laws. They can "nullify" those laws, because they are null and void. Remember, the States gave some of their powers to the federal government to create the federal government, and it was their delegates at the convention writing the Constitution. That makes the States the "Contract Makers," and in turn, the final arbiters of the Constitution. It is their call, not the courts', on if a federal law is unconstitutional, and if the State legislature believes the law to be unconstitutional, the State can simply refuse to implement it through nullification. In history, often the State legislature will pass a piece of legislation indicating that the State is nullifying a particular law.
The fourth and final tool on the tool belt of Americans for taking back our country is the Article V. Convention. An "Article V. Convention," can completely shake the foundations of our governmental system, and steer the federal government back into the restraints of the U.S. Constitution.
Article V. is the section of the Constitution that explains the amendment process. The allowance for Congress to propose amendments was actually an after-thought, and only added during the final days of the Constitutional Convention. Originally, only the States were going to be allowed to propose amendments. The anti-federalists feared that by granting the authority to Congress to propose amendments, the federal government would work to completely re-write the Constitution. However, it was argued that the fail-safe to that was the fact that the States would still be needed to ratify the proposed amendment.
The call for an Article V. Convention is nothing new. 49 States have called for an Article V. Convention through the submission of over 750 applications. The convention, however, has never taken place because the Congress will not set a time and place (their only task regarding an Article V. Convention), for fear of the people proposing amendments, and the States ratifying them, which would ultimately cut the federal government out of the process. Centralized systems do not like it when individual states and people get involved in a process they think is only their domain.
Despite being a statist, Alexander Hamilton wrote Federalist 85 brilliantly, in defense of the Article V. Convention. He argued that if the federal government did become tyrannical, the Article V. Convention was the fail-safe device the States had to reign the out-of-control federal government back in.
Article V. Conventions were offered as a method for the people and the States to stop the rampage of a tyrannical government. An Article V. Convention gives the people and States a way to combat a federal system that ignores the Constitution, treats it as if it does not exist, or invalidates it through judicial means. An Article V. Convention is not only something we need not fear, but one of our primary tools to combat against a tyrannical federal system. An Article V. Convention is our means of changing the Constitution through amendments so that we may give power back to the States, and protect state sovereignty.
Changing the Constitution by amendment is not an easy process on purpose. Amendments must be ratified by 3/4 of the states. The federal government does not like that process because they think it limits their power (and they are correct). This is why the federal government is doing as it pleases regardless of the authorities granted by the Constitution. They wish to keep the States out of the picture. Taking power without the benefit of an amendment makes the State legislatures irrelevant. Those that support big government plan to do their worst as they are now, through ignoring the law, and invalidating the original intent of the U.S. Constitution through the judiciary whenever possible.
They fear the Article V. Convention because such a convention is the people's way of forcing the federal government to behave in accordance to the limiting principles of the Constitution. Despite some arguments that these conventions can be dangerous, be advised that an Article V. Convention is not a way for the corrupt politicians and judges to re-write the Constitution. Only amendments can be proposed in such a convention, and those proposed amendments are still required to be ratified by the States.
One of the amendments that could be a key in turning this nation around would be an amendment to repeal the 17th Amendment.
To understand the 17th Amendment, we need to go back in history to understand how our political system was originally set up. The Founding Fathers included a number of checks and balances during the creation of the federal government in the hopes of creating enough safeguards to protect the people from an ever expansive, tyrannical central government. The separation of powers between the branches of government was an integral part of these checks and balances. However, not all of the checks and balances put in place were obvious.
The dynamics of the federal government were set up to prevent any part of government from having access to too much power.
The people, just like the government, were not fully trusted. To prevent the danger of too much power residing in any part of government, power needed to be divided as much as possible so as to keep it under control. Too much power in the hands of anybody has the potential of being a dangerous proposition - and that includes in the hands of the people.
This nation is not a democracy. All of the voting power was not given to the people. Even the voting power was divided so as to ensure the republic was protected from the mob-rule mentality of democracy.
The vote of the people, or the people’s full and unquestioned voice in government, was, and still is, manifested in the U.S. House of Representatives. Then, and now, the representatives were voted into office directly by the people. Each representative represents a district. The members of the United States Senate were not voted in directly by the people. The U.S. Senators were voted in by an indirect vote of the people.
The Senators were appointed by the State legislatures. The State legislators are voted into office by the people of the State. Therefore, during the early years of this nation, the Senators attained office by an indirect vote of the people through their State legislatures.
The State’s interests needed to be represented in the U.S. Congress. The States had that representation through the Senate by being able to appoint their Senators.
Since the Senators were appointed by the State legislatures, the Senators looked at the political atmosphere in a different manner than the members of the House of Representatives. Since the members of the House of Representatives are directly voted into office by the people, their concerns are more in line with the immediate concerns of the people, no matter how whimsical those concerns may be.
The Senate functioned in a very different manner because when the Senators were appointed they were expected to abide by the wishes of the State legislatures: State’s Rights, State Sovereignty, protecting the States not only from a foreign enemy, but from a domestic enemy, should the federal government become the potential tyranny that the Founding Fathers, and especially the Anti-federalists, feared a central government could become.
Remember, the federal government exists because the States let it. The powers derived by the federal government were granted to it by the States. The federal government is not supposed to be able to do much of anything without the permission of the several States. The Senate was the representation of the States so that the States could ensure the federal government remained within its authorities.
The States having representation in the federal government through the U.S. Senate is also another way that checks and balances were applied to the system. The House of Representatives represented The People, and the Senate represented The States. Through this arrangement, it gave The People the ability to check The States, and The States the ability to check The People, and together they checked The Executive. The dynamics of our government through this arrangement was a built in check and balance.
The States could not get too far without The People approving of it. The People could not get much done without The States agreeing with what they were trying to do. The Executive Branch could get little done without both The People and The States approving of it. However, if the President did not like what The People and The States were trying to accomplish, he could veto the bill. However, if The People and The States felt the legislation was important enough, they could override that veto with 2/3 of a vote in both Houses. That is how the government is supposed to work.
Looking at it in another way, a bill would be approved by both the People and the States before it went to the President to become law. This gave the executive and both parts of the legislative branch the opportunity to approve or disapprove potential laws. The 17th Amendment eliminated the States from that process.
In 1913, the Seventeenth Amendment changed the appointment of the Senators from that of the State legislatures to that of the vote of the people.
The damage caused by the ratification of the Seventeenth Amendment was that it makes the United States more like a democracy and less like the Republic the founders originally intended.
The people wanted the government to be more like a democracy, and they got it with the Seventeenth Amendment.
Karl Marx once stated that “Democracy is the road to socialism.”
Progressivism was on the rise in the United States during those early years of the 20th Century, and the statists knew that one of their main obstacles was the voice of the States. The Seventeenth Amendment was one of the vehicles the statists used to begin the process of silencing the States, with the ultimate goal of making them irrelevant in regards to the running of the federal government.
The statists did not reveal their true intentions. If they had proclaimed that they desired the ratification of the Seventeenth Amendment so that they could proceed in their quest to change the United States into a socialist system, the people would have rejected it. Instead, they used a populist argument. “It is for the will of the people. You deserve a Senate voted into office by the democratic will of the people. If you directly vote for the Senators, they will be more apt to act in line with the will of the people. After all, the States are corrupt, and they can’t be trusted. You people, in the interest of democracy, deserve to be able to vote for the Senators yourselves.”
That was essentially the argument.
Sound familiar?
As a result, the whole system was turned on its head. The entire dynamic of our government system changed.
This division of voting power was put into place because the Founding Fathers knew that should the people be fooled while they completely controlled the vote, a tyranny could ensure that it was voted into the three primary parts of government: the executive, the House of Representatives, and the U.S. Senate. Once that tyranny had control of those three parts of government, the judicial branch would be sure to follow.
The founders knew that should the uninformed electorate vote in a tyranny, while caught up in some kind of cult of personality, it would spell the beginning of the end of the United States as we know it.
The Founding Fathers knew that democracy of that kind would destroy the system, so they divided the power of the vote. The voting power was divided, partly through the creation of the Electoral College, so as to protect us from the excesses of democracy.
Watching what is going on now, the goals of the people behind the Seventeenth Amendment have been reached. The Seventeenth Amendment, combined with the creation of the Federal Reserve, and the implementation of an income tax, was all a part of a scheme to change the American System into a model of socialism through the guise of democracy.
Thomas Jefferson said, “Democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those that are willing to work and give to those who would not.”
John Adams said, “While it lasts, Democracy becomes more bloody than either an aristocracy or a monarchy. Democracy never lasts long; it soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There is never a democracy that did not commit suicide.”
Thomas Jefferson said, “A democracy is nothing more than mob-rule, where 51% of the people may take away the rights of the other 49%.”
James Bovard said, “Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.”
A friend of mine adds that a republic is “two wolves and a well-armed sheep contesting the vote.”
Benjamin Franklin, after asked what the founders created in the Constitutional Convention, replied, “A republic, if you can keep it.”
With freedom comes responsibility.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
George Washington: Country's Honor
"We have therefore to resolve to conquer or die: Our won Country's Honor, all call upon us for vigorous and manly exertion, and if we now shamefully fail, we shall become infamous to the whole world. Let us therefore rely upon the goodness of the Cause, and the aid of the supreme Being, in whose hands Victory is, to animate and encourage us to great and noble Actions." --George Washington, General Orders, 1776
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
al-Qaeda Terror Plot Stopped in Los Angeles
FBI: 4 CALIF. MEN ARRESTED ON TERRORISM CHARGES AFTER PLOTTING TO KILL AMERICANS, ENGAGE IN ‘VIOLENT JIHAD’
Federal authorities say four Southern California men have been charged with plotting to kill Americans overseas and in the United States by joining al-Qaida and the Taliban in Afghanistan.
FBI spokeswoman Laura Eimiller says the defendants are under arrest for plotting to bomb government facilities and public places.
According to the federal complaint unsealed Monday during initial appearances, 34-year-old Sohiel Omar Kabir introduced two other California men to the radical Islamist doctrine of Anwar al-Awlaki, a deceased al-Qaida leader.
Finish reading at The Blaze
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
James Clapper Decided to Cut Terrorism Out of Benghazi Talking Points
By Douglas V. Gibbs
The Headline at Hot Air references the headline at CBS: “Office of the DNI” cut al-Qaeda and terrorism references from Benghazi talking points
The evidence that Benghazi was a straight out lie, and cover-up, is piling up. Now, we know who purposely eliminated terrorism from the talking points so that the video could be erroneously blamed for the 9/11 violence in the Middle East to hid the national security failures of the Obama administration.
The evidence that Benghazi was a straight out lie, and cover-up, is piling up. Now, we know who purposely eliminated terrorism from the talking points so that the video could be erroneously blamed for the 9/11 violence in the Middle East to hid the national security failures of the Obama administration.
James Clapper is the person being pegged with changing the CIA talking points to not include any mention of terrorism, or al-Qaeda. However, the report does not necessarily state it was Clapper, but simply someone in his office.
The presence of mortars and RPGs, as well as coordinated fire and attack strategies in play, made it clear “almost immediately” to Petraeus and others in the CIA that this was much more than a spontaneous demonstration run amok. Susan Rice, however, carried out the lie, as did other members of the Obama administration, to complete the cover-up.
The presence of mortars and RPGs, as well as coordinated fire and attack strategies in play, made it clear “almost immediately” to Petraeus and others in the CIA that this was much more than a spontaneous demonstration run amok. Susan Rice, however, carried out the lie, as did other members of the Obama administration, to complete the cover-up.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Thanksgiving through the Eyes of Economic History
By Kevin Price
Thanksgiving is certainly one of my favorite holidays. As an adult with many children, Christmas has lost some of its charm and there are few things more enjoyable than getting fat and watching holiday specials (especially special football games). However, one of the things I do not enjoy is the propaganda my kids share with me about the "meaning" of Thanksgiving. They often tell me about how the Indians taught the Pilgrims how to grow food and that, in spite of a rough beginning, these early Americans enjoyed an abundant harvest. Essentially the Pilgrims were thanking the Indians for their generosity.
In reality, the colony's governor, William Bradford noted that "the experience that was had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years and that amongst godly and sober men, may well evince the vanity of that conceit of Plato's and other ancients applauded by some of later times; and that the taking away of property and bringing in community into a commonwealth would make them happy and flourishing; as if they were wiser than God. For this community (so far as it was) was found to breed much confusion and discontent and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For the young men, that were most able and fit for labor and service, did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men's wives and children without any recompense. The strong, or man of parts, had no more in division of victuals and clothes than he that was weak and not able to do a quarter the other could; this was thought injustice. The aged and graver men to be ranked and equalized in labors and victuals, clothes etc., with the meaner and younger sort, thought it some indignity and disrespect unto them. And for men's wives to be commanded to do service for other men, as dressing their meat, washing their clothes, etc., they deemed it a kind of slavery, neither could many husbands well brook it. Upon the point all being to have alike, and all to do alike, they thought themselves in the like condition, and one as good as another; and so, if it did not cut off those relations that God hath set amongst men, yet it did at least much diminish and take off the mutual respects that should be preserved amongst them. And would have been worse if they had been men of another condition. Let none object this is men's corruption, and nothing to the course itself. I answer, seeing all men have this corruption in them, God in His wisdom saw another course fitter for them." People didn't want to work, because they were not individually rewarded for their efforts. Bradford knew there had to be a better way.
The governor stated that "All this while no supply was heard of, neither knew they when they might expect any. So they began to think how they might raise as much corn as they could, and obtain a better crop than they had done, that they might not still thus languish in misery. At length, after much debate of things, the Governor (with the advice of the chiefest amongst them) gave way that they should set corn every man for his own particular, and in that regard trust to themselves; in all other thing to go on in the general way as before. And so assigned to every family a parcel of land, according to the proportion of their number, for that end, only for present use (but made no division for inheritance) and ranged all boys and youth under some family. This had very good success, for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been by any means the Governor or any other could use, and saved him a great deal of trouble, and gave far better content. The women now went willingly into the field, and took their little ones with them to set corn; which before would allege weakness and inability; whom to have compelled would have been thought great tyranny and oppression." It is interesting that the problems of “welfarism” was as great in the beginning of our country as it is today. A little incentive goes a long way. Bradford quickly remedied that problem, unfortunately I do not see our political leaders solving our situation today.
As a result of those changes, the Pilgrims went from hunger and famine in 1621 and 1622 to widespread abundance. The only difference was a simple change in policy that increased incentives to work and not be slothful. Incentives matter, we need political leaders that understand such today.
It is great to research economically smart ways of managing the holidays, a topic we cover often at US Daily Review. However, it is important to remember the historic importance of Thanksgiving so we can benefit from the lessons from it for years to come.
Frequently found on Strategy Room at FoxNews.com
Thanksgiving is certainly one of my favorite holidays. As an adult with many children, Christmas has lost some of its charm and there are few things more enjoyable than getting fat and watching holiday specials (especially special football games). However, one of the things I do not enjoy is the propaganda my kids share with me about the "meaning" of Thanksgiving. They often tell me about how the Indians taught the Pilgrims how to grow food and that, in spite of a rough beginning, these early Americans enjoyed an abundant harvest. Essentially the Pilgrims were thanking the Indians for their generosity.
In reality, the colony's governor, William Bradford noted that "the experience that was had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years and that amongst godly and sober men, may well evince the vanity of that conceit of Plato's and other ancients applauded by some of later times; and that the taking away of property and bringing in community into a commonwealth would make them happy and flourishing; as if they were wiser than God. For this community (so far as it was) was found to breed much confusion and discontent and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For the young men, that were most able and fit for labor and service, did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men's wives and children without any recompense. The strong, or man of parts, had no more in division of victuals and clothes than he that was weak and not able to do a quarter the other could; this was thought injustice. The aged and graver men to be ranked and equalized in labors and victuals, clothes etc., with the meaner and younger sort, thought it some indignity and disrespect unto them. And for men's wives to be commanded to do service for other men, as dressing their meat, washing their clothes, etc., they deemed it a kind of slavery, neither could many husbands well brook it. Upon the point all being to have alike, and all to do alike, they thought themselves in the like condition, and one as good as another; and so, if it did not cut off those relations that God hath set amongst men, yet it did at least much diminish and take off the mutual respects that should be preserved amongst them. And would have been worse if they had been men of another condition. Let none object this is men's corruption, and nothing to the course itself. I answer, seeing all men have this corruption in them, God in His wisdom saw another course fitter for them." People didn't want to work, because they were not individually rewarded for their efforts. Bradford knew there had to be a better way.
The governor stated that "All this while no supply was heard of, neither knew they when they might expect any. So they began to think how they might raise as much corn as they could, and obtain a better crop than they had done, that they might not still thus languish in misery. At length, after much debate of things, the Governor (with the advice of the chiefest amongst them) gave way that they should set corn every man for his own particular, and in that regard trust to themselves; in all other thing to go on in the general way as before. And so assigned to every family a parcel of land, according to the proportion of their number, for that end, only for present use (but made no division for inheritance) and ranged all boys and youth under some family. This had very good success, for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been by any means the Governor or any other could use, and saved him a great deal of trouble, and gave far better content. The women now went willingly into the field, and took their little ones with them to set corn; which before would allege weakness and inability; whom to have compelled would have been thought great tyranny and oppression." It is interesting that the problems of “welfarism” was as great in the beginning of our country as it is today. A little incentive goes a long way. Bradford quickly remedied that problem, unfortunately I do not see our political leaders solving our situation today.
As a result of those changes, the Pilgrims went from hunger and famine in 1621 and 1622 to widespread abundance. The only difference was a simple change in policy that increased incentives to work and not be slothful. Incentives matter, we need political leaders that understand such today.
It is great to research economically smart ways of managing the holidays, a topic we cover often at US Daily Review. However, it is important to remember the historic importance of Thanksgiving so we can benefit from the lessons from it for years to come.
------------
Kevin Price
Host
Price of Business on KTEK 1110, PriceofBusiness.com
Home of Bloomberg Radio on morning drive time.
Publisher and Editor in Chief, USDailyReview.com
Syndicated columnist whose articles appear on a variety of media outlets.
Follow Kevin on Twitter at http://Twitter.com/KevinPriceLive
Like his new Facebook page at
Kevin Price's Profile: http://www.google.com/profiles/PriceofBusiness
Tuesday, November 20, 2012
Iran Arming Hamas in Gaza
Iran Shipping More Weapons to Gaza
According to Iran, Gaza’s terrorists need more weaponry with which to fight Israel. Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast won’t say whether Iran is already shipping heavy weaponry to Gaza.
The current Hamas attacks on Israel have brought to the fore the question of Iranian nuclear development, especially since there have been rumors that Hamas will consider tipping its long-range rockets with chemical weapons.
MORE
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
According to Iran, Gaza’s terrorists need more weaponry with which to fight Israel. Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast won’t say whether Iran is already shipping heavy weaponry to Gaza.
The current Hamas attacks on Israel have brought to the fore the question of Iranian nuclear development, especially since there have been rumors that Hamas will consider tipping its long-range rockets with chemical weapons.
MORE
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Abortion was meant to be Extermination of a people
Abortion sheds innocent blood, but the original goals of Planned Parenthood had other evil goals as well...
Margaret Sanger was a celebrated progressive, and like most democrats, a racist.
"We don't want the word out that we want to exterminate the negro population. . . " - Margaret Sanger, Founder, Planned Parenthood
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Margaret Sanger was a celebrated progressive, and like most democrats, a racist.
"We don't want the word out that we want to exterminate the negro population. . . " - Margaret Sanger, Founder, Planned Parenthood
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Could Middle East Strife Over Gaza Be Leading To Israeli Strike Against Iran?
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Israel's Benjamin Netanyahu has vowed to protect Israel from its enemies, using whatever he can to do so. Could this mean that an Israeli strike against Iran may be possible?
According to Jennifer Griffin at Fox News, Israel may be targeting more than Hamas as it escalates its bombing campaign in Gaza and tries to eliminate the threat of increasingly lethal stockpiled rockets. Israel's real target may be Iran.
The escalation of fighting around Israel's borders may be a prelude to an Israeli military strike against Iran's nuclear program.
Since Iran has threatened to attack Israel through proxy forces such as Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon should Israel move against Iran, it seems reasonable that as those groups make Israel's life miserable, the Jewish nation should weaken those groups before moving on Iran.
“Our problem is not our border with Gaza,” Israel’s Ambassador the United States Michael Oren told Fox News on Monday. “Among the rockets being fired at us are the Fajr 5 rockets, which come directly from Iran. We know that Hamas terrorists have trained with the Iranians -- there's a strong connection.”
The Israeli military refers to the Fajr 5 rockets, with their longer range and 385-pound payload, as game changers.
“They are Iranian-made, and about 100 of them were imported into Gaza via Sudan, it appears,” Jonathan Schanzer, from the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, said. “When the Israelis learned of the existence of these rockets, all it took was one provocation on the part of Hamas for Israel to go in and wipe out those rockets and those launchers.”
The provocation came on Wednesday, when Hamas fired a guided anti-tank rocket at an Israeli military jeep inside Israel.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Israel's Benjamin Netanyahu has vowed to protect Israel from its enemies, using whatever he can to do so. Could this mean that an Israeli strike against Iran may be possible?
According to Jennifer Griffin at Fox News, Israel may be targeting more than Hamas as it escalates its bombing campaign in Gaza and tries to eliminate the threat of increasingly lethal stockpiled rockets. Israel's real target may be Iran.
The escalation of fighting around Israel's borders may be a prelude to an Israeli military strike against Iran's nuclear program.
Since Iran has threatened to attack Israel through proxy forces such as Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon should Israel move against Iran, it seems reasonable that as those groups make Israel's life miserable, the Jewish nation should weaken those groups before moving on Iran.
“Our problem is not our border with Gaza,” Israel’s Ambassador the United States Michael Oren told Fox News on Monday. “Among the rockets being fired at us are the Fajr 5 rockets, which come directly from Iran. We know that Hamas terrorists have trained with the Iranians -- there's a strong connection.”
The Israeli military refers to the Fajr 5 rockets, with their longer range and 385-pound payload, as game changers.
“They are Iranian-made, and about 100 of them were imported into Gaza via Sudan, it appears,” Jonathan Schanzer, from the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, said. “When the Israelis learned of the existence of these rockets, all it took was one provocation on the part of Hamas for Israel to go in and wipe out those rockets and those launchers.”
The provocation came on Wednesday, when Hamas fired a guided anti-tank rocket at an Israeli military jeep inside Israel.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Stand Firm
By Don Jans
After every election for as long as I can remember, the same arguments are made. The side that was elected lavishes themselves with self-aggrandizing statements and bloviates how the all-knowing American public has endorsed their ideas as the savior of mankind. The unelected side ridicules each other while just days and weeks before they were gushing over how wonderful each other’s ideas were and how well they enunciated these ideas. The sad truth is, an individual has won an election, but in most cases, regardless of party, the American way of life has again lost.
Today the pundits are discussing why their candidate lost what should have been a win like the 1980 election when Reagan beat Carter. So why did this happen? This election was lost for three reasons.
The first reason was the nominee, Romney. Romney is a very upstanding man with integrity and compassion for his fellow man, which is the exact opposite of his opponent who has consistently exhibited an absence of integrity. Nevertheless, the nomination of Romney immediately neutralized a major campaign issue; Obamacare. The public disliked and opposed it. Business leaders recognized the damaging impact it had already had and would continue to have on the economy and their businesses. The medical profession had talked about the damaging affect it was having and would have on the medical industry. The truly knowledgeable understood this law was not about medical care, but was about the government controlling another 20% of the nation’s economy. A major issue of the campaign was negated by Romney’s nomination.
The second major issue in the campaign should have been the economy. The policies that had been implemented by Obama were very similar to the policies implemented by Franklin Roosevelt. History records similar results. The unemployment rate for each was the same at the end of their first term as it was when they took office. In addition, they both governed through the use of executive order. It appears a major recession will follow Obama’s second inauguration just as one followed Roosevelt’s. And despite this weak record, the debate on the economy was controlled by Obama while Romney was on the defensive. The incredulous argument Bush was still responsible won the day, despite Barney Frank and Chris Dodd being the biggest contributors to the housing bubble that burst. The attack on the failed policies of the last four years was never made.
The third reason for the defeat was the failure by Romney to expose the failed foreign policies of the administration. Not only did the policies fail, but documented evidence showed how the administration blatantly lied and deceived for their own purposes, in spite of an ambassador and three other citizens being killed. The policy of appeasement has never been successful, and still many leaders including Chamberlin have tried it and then tried to defend it. Obama went beyond defending appeasement; he lied to the American public and coerced his surrogates to lie for him to conceal his failures until after the election. The truth of the attack was known by the administration within hours. This statement is supported by facts. Yet Romney ignored such a crucial issue; a failure of policy and a massive attempted cover-up.
Every leader of the Republican Party, including Boehner and McConnell, should have the grace and dignity to resign their leadership positions. They clearly have failed not only the party, but more importantly the America way of life.
What should be done? First, those in opposition to this Marxist/Progressive movement led by Obama must understand this movement. The Marxist/Progressives operate with the core belief that the ends do justify the means. The Marxist/Progressives will do and say anything to further their cause, including, but not limited to distortion, deceit and lying. If you question this statement, study prior campaigns, Supreme Court nomination hearings and debates on major legislation. The destruction of an opponent’s character is normal for them. This has always been true and will not change.
The opponents of the Marxist/Progressives have, on the other hand, been vague in their beliefs and core principles. The only recent exception to this has been Ronald Reagan. He understood what he believed and was neither ashamed nor apologetic about his beliefs. The same vicious tactics were employed against him, but he stood firmly and enunciated clearly his beliefs.
We see many examples in history where an individual with a strong and true set of values, and the courage of conviction of these values, can and will change the course of history. Lincoln was chastised by friend and foe while he held firm to his belief that our country should remain united. Churchill held firm to his belief that the free world could not afford to have Britain surrender to the Nazi’s despite the hardship of the constant bombardment of the enemy. Reagan knew he must publicly confront the Soviet Union to “tear down this wall” even though the professionals in his own administration warned against it.
The Marxist/Progressives understand and believe in their agenda. Obama promised he would fundamentally transform the United States. He was serious and has let nothing stand in his way to move us from a capitalistic society to a fair and just classless society as called for by Karl Marx.
We, who oppose this philosophy and recognize it for its failures, must do two things to successfully combat it. We must understand what it is. Do not listen to the popular pundits. In most cases they do not understand. You must learn and understand what Marxism really is, because it is destroying our American way of life. Learn the basics, and then expand your understanding. My book, for instance, explains Marxism in a simple and straight forward manner using Marx’s own words. After you understand the basics, I would suggest reading Marx. The most logical starting place would be to read the “Communist Manifesto.” If you are looking for a suggested rendition, email me. You should continue from that point reading his other works as well as reading about his life. You will soon recognize how imbedded this philosophy is in everyday America. PLEASE BECOME ENLIGHTENED.
Once we are on the path of enlightenment, we must hold firm to our convictions. This has not been the case since Reagan, and even today we hear pundits and experts explaining how we must change our values and core beliefs. Our values and core beliefs are correct. They have always resulted in prosperity and greater individual freedom. The Marxist/Progressive movement has always resulted in economic failure and loss of individual freedoms.
This very principle of being firm was ironically stated very effectively in a letter to Trotsky by a friend of his just before the friend committed suicide. The friend wrote, “You and I are bound to each other by decades of joint work, and, I make bold to hope, of personal friendship. This gives me the right to tell you in parting what I think you are mistaken in. I have never doubted the rightness of the road you pointed out, and as you know I have gone with you for more than twenty years, since the days of permanent revolution. But I have always believed that you lacked Lenin’s unbending will, his unwillingness to yield, his readiness even to remain alone on the path that he thought right in the anticipation of a future majority, of a future recognition by every one of the rightness of his path. Politically, you were always right, beginning with 1905, and I told you repeatedly that with my own ears I had heard Lenin admit that even in 1905, you and not he, was right. One does not lie before his death, and now I repeat this again to you…..But you have often abandoned your rightness for the sake of an overvalued agreement, or comprise. This is a mistake. I repeat: politically you have always been right, and now more right than ever. Someday the party will realize it, and history will not fail to accord recognition. Then don’t lose your courage if someone leaves you now, or if not as many come to you, and not as soon, as we all would like. You are right, but the guarantee of the victory of your rightness lies in nothing but the extreme willingness to not yield, the strictest straightforwardness, the absolute rejection of all compromise; in this very thing lay the secret of Lenin’s victories. Many a time I have wanted to tell you this, but only now have I brought myself to do so, as a last farewell.”
We conservatives know our principles bring prosperity and economic growth. We know our principles promote individual liberty and freedom over community and conformity, self-reliance over government reliance, greatness over mediocrity and independence over government regulation and control. Know your conviction and principles. Have the courage of your convictions. Hold firm to your convictions. Support those with the same convictions who also stand firm.
Don Jans, Author, Speaker and Radio Host
My Grandchildren’s America, by Don Jans
www.mygrandchildrensamerica.com
mygrandchildrensamerica@gmail.com
After every election for as long as I can remember, the same arguments are made. The side that was elected lavishes themselves with self-aggrandizing statements and bloviates how the all-knowing American public has endorsed their ideas as the savior of mankind. The unelected side ridicules each other while just days and weeks before they were gushing over how wonderful each other’s ideas were and how well they enunciated these ideas. The sad truth is, an individual has won an election, but in most cases, regardless of party, the American way of life has again lost.
Today the pundits are discussing why their candidate lost what should have been a win like the 1980 election when Reagan beat Carter. So why did this happen? This election was lost for three reasons.
The first reason was the nominee, Romney. Romney is a very upstanding man with integrity and compassion for his fellow man, which is the exact opposite of his opponent who has consistently exhibited an absence of integrity. Nevertheless, the nomination of Romney immediately neutralized a major campaign issue; Obamacare. The public disliked and opposed it. Business leaders recognized the damaging impact it had already had and would continue to have on the economy and their businesses. The medical profession had talked about the damaging affect it was having and would have on the medical industry. The truly knowledgeable understood this law was not about medical care, but was about the government controlling another 20% of the nation’s economy. A major issue of the campaign was negated by Romney’s nomination.
The second major issue in the campaign should have been the economy. The policies that had been implemented by Obama were very similar to the policies implemented by Franklin Roosevelt. History records similar results. The unemployment rate for each was the same at the end of their first term as it was when they took office. In addition, they both governed through the use of executive order. It appears a major recession will follow Obama’s second inauguration just as one followed Roosevelt’s. And despite this weak record, the debate on the economy was controlled by Obama while Romney was on the defensive. The incredulous argument Bush was still responsible won the day, despite Barney Frank and Chris Dodd being the biggest contributors to the housing bubble that burst. The attack on the failed policies of the last four years was never made.
The third reason for the defeat was the failure by Romney to expose the failed foreign policies of the administration. Not only did the policies fail, but documented evidence showed how the administration blatantly lied and deceived for their own purposes, in spite of an ambassador and three other citizens being killed. The policy of appeasement has never been successful, and still many leaders including Chamberlin have tried it and then tried to defend it. Obama went beyond defending appeasement; he lied to the American public and coerced his surrogates to lie for him to conceal his failures until after the election. The truth of the attack was known by the administration within hours. This statement is supported by facts. Yet Romney ignored such a crucial issue; a failure of policy and a massive attempted cover-up.
Every leader of the Republican Party, including Boehner and McConnell, should have the grace and dignity to resign their leadership positions. They clearly have failed not only the party, but more importantly the America way of life.
What should be done? First, those in opposition to this Marxist/Progressive movement led by Obama must understand this movement. The Marxist/Progressives operate with the core belief that the ends do justify the means. The Marxist/Progressives will do and say anything to further their cause, including, but not limited to distortion, deceit and lying. If you question this statement, study prior campaigns, Supreme Court nomination hearings and debates on major legislation. The destruction of an opponent’s character is normal for them. This has always been true and will not change.
The opponents of the Marxist/Progressives have, on the other hand, been vague in their beliefs and core principles. The only recent exception to this has been Ronald Reagan. He understood what he believed and was neither ashamed nor apologetic about his beliefs. The same vicious tactics were employed against him, but he stood firmly and enunciated clearly his beliefs.
We see many examples in history where an individual with a strong and true set of values, and the courage of conviction of these values, can and will change the course of history. Lincoln was chastised by friend and foe while he held firm to his belief that our country should remain united. Churchill held firm to his belief that the free world could not afford to have Britain surrender to the Nazi’s despite the hardship of the constant bombardment of the enemy. Reagan knew he must publicly confront the Soviet Union to “tear down this wall” even though the professionals in his own administration warned against it.
The Marxist/Progressives understand and believe in their agenda. Obama promised he would fundamentally transform the United States. He was serious and has let nothing stand in his way to move us from a capitalistic society to a fair and just classless society as called for by Karl Marx.
We, who oppose this philosophy and recognize it for its failures, must do two things to successfully combat it. We must understand what it is. Do not listen to the popular pundits. In most cases they do not understand. You must learn and understand what Marxism really is, because it is destroying our American way of life. Learn the basics, and then expand your understanding. My book, for instance, explains Marxism in a simple and straight forward manner using Marx’s own words. After you understand the basics, I would suggest reading Marx. The most logical starting place would be to read the “Communist Manifesto.” If you are looking for a suggested rendition, email me. You should continue from that point reading his other works as well as reading about his life. You will soon recognize how imbedded this philosophy is in everyday America. PLEASE BECOME ENLIGHTENED.
Once we are on the path of enlightenment, we must hold firm to our convictions. This has not been the case since Reagan, and even today we hear pundits and experts explaining how we must change our values and core beliefs. Our values and core beliefs are correct. They have always resulted in prosperity and greater individual freedom. The Marxist/Progressive movement has always resulted in economic failure and loss of individual freedoms.
This very principle of being firm was ironically stated very effectively in a letter to Trotsky by a friend of his just before the friend committed suicide. The friend wrote, “You and I are bound to each other by decades of joint work, and, I make bold to hope, of personal friendship. This gives me the right to tell you in parting what I think you are mistaken in. I have never doubted the rightness of the road you pointed out, and as you know I have gone with you for more than twenty years, since the days of permanent revolution. But I have always believed that you lacked Lenin’s unbending will, his unwillingness to yield, his readiness even to remain alone on the path that he thought right in the anticipation of a future majority, of a future recognition by every one of the rightness of his path. Politically, you were always right, beginning with 1905, and I told you repeatedly that with my own ears I had heard Lenin admit that even in 1905, you and not he, was right. One does not lie before his death, and now I repeat this again to you…..But you have often abandoned your rightness for the sake of an overvalued agreement, or comprise. This is a mistake. I repeat: politically you have always been right, and now more right than ever. Someday the party will realize it, and history will not fail to accord recognition. Then don’t lose your courage if someone leaves you now, or if not as many come to you, and not as soon, as we all would like. You are right, but the guarantee of the victory of your rightness lies in nothing but the extreme willingness to not yield, the strictest straightforwardness, the absolute rejection of all compromise; in this very thing lay the secret of Lenin’s victories. Many a time I have wanted to tell you this, but only now have I brought myself to do so, as a last farewell.”
We conservatives know our principles bring prosperity and economic growth. We know our principles promote individual liberty and freedom over community and conformity, self-reliance over government reliance, greatness over mediocrity and independence over government regulation and control. Know your conviction and principles. Have the courage of your convictions. Hold firm to your convictions. Support those with the same convictions who also stand firm.
Don Jans, Author, Speaker and Radio Host
My Grandchildren’s America, by Don Jans
www.mygrandchildrensamerica.com
mygrandchildrensamerica@gmail.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)