Political Pistachio

Muslims Riot, Health Care, Climate Change, & Liberals, oh my! - Political Pistachio Radio Revolution

2009-11-22T17:41:00.000-08:00

Senate passes health care bill's first hurdle, and now it is time to debate. Al Gore's Global Warming Hoax being exposed bit by bit, Mammograms and Cervical Cancer Tests are just the beginning of Rationed Health Care, Muslims Riot in Greece, Kennedy Assassination Anniversary, and a whole lot more on the Political Pistachio Radio Revolution tonight at 7pm Pacific/10pm Eastern at BlogTalkRadio.com/PoliticalPistachio. Join us live, or catch the archive later.

Health Care Debate Passes Senate, begins after Thanksgiving

2009-11-22T16:50:00.000-08:00

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Without a vote to spare, the U.S. Senate voted on Saturday to open debate on health care legislation 60-39. The passage of the cloture vote does not guarantee passage of the bill in a later vote, but it does allow Senator Harry Reid, and the other hard left Democrats, to begin their persuasion techniques to convince the moderate Democrats to do more than simply vote for cloture, but to make government-run health care law.

The Senate bill claims it will extend health benefits to roughly 31 million Americans who are now uninsured (which is still short of their claim of 47 million uninsured), at a cost of $848 billion over 10 years, through a federal program, despite the fact that the U.S. Constitution gives the U.S. Government no authority to do so.

The House of Representatives recently approved its own health care bill by the narrow vote of 220 to 215, and the House bill is very similar to the Senate legislation, with a few differences that Democrats believe they can iron out.

In response to opposition, the argument by the Democrats is that "the Republicans had control of the Congress before, and they did not solve the health care crisis."

That's because there is no health care crisis - and the problems the industry does have is the result of government intervention in the form of regulations, and restrictions on the industry.

Interestingly enough, the left is already making preparations to ration health care, which is what will happen if a leftist health care proposal becomes law. Your choice will be taken away from you, and given to some Washington bureaucrat that knows nothing about you, medicine, or the liberty of choice. They will decide when and if you get care, and will rationalize their choices with arguments regarding your behavior, and false studies that make ridiculous findings such as the recent ones that proclaimed women no longer need mammograms until age 50 (so much for early detection), and that young women don't require cervical cancer screenings or their first pap test, until age 21, and that they should be screened less often than recommended in the past.

Interesting how for decades the Democrats demanded preventive medicine with HMO type plans, but once it looks like their government faction will be paying, suddenly preventive medicine is a no-no.

Furthermore, shouldn't people have a choice as to whether they wish to be tested earlier, or later, based on their own beliefs, or the advice of their doctor? Why should government be able to make those kinds of choices for you?

Even worse, with technology now able to determine someone's genetic disposition for disease, or defects, will government withhold care from those they believe will cost too much?

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Senate Votes to Open Health Care Debate - New York Times

A Ban on Genetic Discrimination - New York Times

Guidelines Push Back Age for Cervical Cancer Tests - New York Times

Mammogram Debate Took Group by Surprise - New York Times

International Climate Change Measures Are Delayed

2009-11-22T14:30:00.000-08:00

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Newsy has a new video that addresses Obama's inability to man-up to his campaign promises - in this case, entering into an international treaty that will allow a global body of governance to dictate to us our energy usage, buying habits, and freedoms so that we can save ourselves from our dying planet that s being ravaged by the scourge of Global Warming (or is it Climate Change?).

After watching the video, and reading the comments that suggested that health care legislation is more important than saving the planet, I left the following comment:

Man-made climate change fears are based on faulty scientific assumptions, just as the Democrat's health care proposals are based on faulty political assumptions. International global warming agreements are a step towards a strong, centralized international governing body which is designed to micro-manage the lives of individuals and the nations they reside in. I believe that such agreements are dangerous to both America's sovereignty, and our liberty as individuals.

Interesingly enough, conservatives like myself have been proclaiming for the last few years that the man-made global warming fears are based on false data, and the phenomenon of worldwide temperature change is a natural occurance, and cannot be altered by human intervention. One of the many causes of warming and cooling trends on a worldwide scall is sunspot activity (imagine that, the sun warming the Earth!), of which right now there are less (in fact none) sunspots and solar flares facing the Earth, and therefore the planet has now entered a non-warming trend. In fact, there are some scientists that suggest global warming stopped in 1998.

Despite the hysterical, maniacal rhetoric of British Prime Minister Gordon Brown (remember his "50 Days To Save The Planet" remark?), American Democrats led by Barack Obama, the United Nations Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and tree huggers everywhere, we are not in danger of drowning, killing off the polar bears, or growing crops in the Yukon. As conservatives have been saying all along, man-made global warming is a hoax, and climate change is a naturally occuring event. That being the case, now that science has proven itself to be wrong (imagine that, they can't predict if it will rain next week with any accuracy, but they expect us to believe them when they say weather patterns will go awry in 50 years if we do nothing about global warming!), it would be prudent to cease all attempts at global warming based legislation and international agreements.

The cold, hard facts are that Cap and Trade, and international climate change treaties, are going to go on as planned (because liberals are like pit bulls, once they sink their teeth in, they will rip, claw, lie, and force their way into our lives if given the chance), despite the reality of the error in what they believe regarding planetary weather patterns. The hysterics continue, and the panic has actually worsened among the environmentalist faithful. What the "Save The Earth" crowd doesn't seem to understand, however, is that they have been used like a herd of cattle being led to the slaughter, and they are leading us to our demise with an ignorant grin on their faces.

Politicians could care less if the data regarding climate change is accurate, or not. Their motivation has nothing to do with the environment. Climate change laws, especially on an international level, provides an opportunity for these hard left zombies to control and punish the people who are successful, while redistributing wealth to poorer nations (and their own gold-lined pockets). In other words, climate change is all about corruption, power, and controlling your lives.

Interestingly enough, despite all of the scientific data that the Earth has stopped warming, and that man-made climate change is a myth/hoax, the media is still trying to sell the hysteria, proclaiming in a piece filled with panicked terror just today that ". . . global warming accelerated since '97 Kyoto pact: 'We are in more trouble than we thought'." What that is called is a counter claim. However, it doesn't matter how much leftists claim the Polar Bears are going extinct even though their numbers have been steadily increasing over the last five decades, and it doesn't matter how much they claim increase carbon emissions doom the planet even though the data is backwards and it is actually warming that causes the increase in carbon amounts (thanks to our oceans and volcanoes, partly), the reality is that scientific truth says the hysterical global warming environmentalists are wrong, and just won't admit it because their gold-lined pockets, and thirst for more power is more important to them than the truth.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Copenhagen Climate Summit: Lowered Expectations or Impossible Task? - Newsy

There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998 - Telegraph U.K.

How global warming accelerated since '97 Kyoto pact: 'We are in more trouble than we thought' - Associated Press/Star-Tribune, Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota

New Documentary (Not Evil Just Wrong) Challenges Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' on Global Warming - Fox News

Svensmark: "global warming stopped and a cooling is beginning" – "enjoy global warming while it lasts" - Watts Up With That?

Thoughts Over Upcoming Thanksgiving, and Troops in Afghanistan

2009-11-22T12:06:00.000-08:00

A letter to my good friend, Cyber-Pastor Ed Boston, says a mouthful about our troops in Afghanistan, and our upcoming Thanksgiving prayers and wishes:

Dear Editor:

While I'm eating my Thanksgiving dinner with my family this year, I'm going to have a hard time enjoying it knowing that our President is willingly allowing our men and women in Afghanistan to die while waiting for him to make up his mind whether or not to give them the resources they need for survival.

I was heartsick while reading a chat room that is sometimes visited by soldiers currently serving in Afghanistan, ask us to please pray for their safety because each day things get worse, and they don't know when they are going to get the help they need. Pastor Ed Boston, Of Hope Wesleyan Church in Hope, IN works with deployed soldiers and veterans through an on-line ministry called Do The Right Thing. He has confirmed the stories and the concerns of those currently serving.

These brave men and women went where they were told to go and are doing their very best, so how deranged is it to send them there as sitting ducks while the elite politicians play golf in between paying off their friends for political favors.

There is something so seriously wrong with our government allowing the Secretary of the Treasury to get away with funnelling obscene amounts of money to his friends in the auto unions, not to mention the developing corruption story coming out of the Goldman Sachs relationship. Simultaneously, this administration is obsessed with taking over 1/6 of our economy through socialized healthcare! All the while, as if they are invisible, the President is completely ignoring our brightest and best who are literally dying in Afghanistan.

These same politicians campaigned on how Afghanistan was the war we "should" be in, and most Americans agreed with them, and yet they have absolutely no conscience at allowing these men to be slaughtered when it is within their power to protect them. It is beyond me how they sleep at night.

So we'll eat our Turkey and be grateful that we live in the greatest country on earth, but first I'll call and write to all of my legislators and plead with them not to sit down to their dinner until they have gotten our military the support they need, and stop sending our children to slaughter like the bird they are about to consume.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Muslims Riot in Greece After Koran is Ripped (Video)

2009-11-22T10:23:00.000-08:00

The Muslims are demanding an apology for the incident that resulted in the ripping in two of their holy book, the Koran. Though I can understand the disgust by anyone of any religion of the desecration of one's "holy book," the riots and violence are a sign of what Islam is really all about.

Could you imagine if Christians rioted every time the Bible was desecrated? In the Muslim countries the Bible is considered contraband.

No apology, Greece, you have been invaded too, and you need to treat these people as "enemy combatants."

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

History: Kennedy, Oswald and Johnson

2009-11-22T08:32:00.000-08:00

By Douglas V. Gibbs

On Nov. 22, 1963, 46 years ago today, President John F. Kennedy was assassinated by a gunshot to the head while riding in a motorcade in Dallas, Texas. The suspected gunman, Lee Harvey Oswald, was arrested, and a wave of speculation and conspiracy theories arose over Kennedy's death. Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson was sworn in as the President of the United States, also, on this date.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Free Nobel Peace Prize With Order Of Shrimp Tacos!

2009-11-22T03:59:00.000-08:00

Sometimes laughter is the best medicine when surrounded by political idiots.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Muslims Absent From America's Heritage

2009-11-22T01:14:00.000-08:00

Received by Email, originator or author unknown, but it brings about a lot of great points regarding Islam in America's History:

OBAMA said, in his recent Cairo speech: "I know,too,that Islam has always been a part of America's story. Oh yeah????

Dear Mr. Obama:

Were those Muslims that were in America when the Pilgrims first landed?
Funny, I thought they were Native American Indians.

Were those Muslims that celebrated the first Thanksgiving day?
Sorry again,those were Pilgrims and Native American Indians.

Can you show me one Muslim signature on the United States Constitution?
Declaration of Independence?
Bill of Rights?
Didn't think so.

Did Muslims fight for this country's freedom from England?
No.

Did Muslims fight during the Civil War to free the slaves in America?
No, they did not. In fact, Muslims to this day are still the largest traffickers in human slavery. Your own 'half brother' a devout Muslim still advocates slavery himself, even though muslims of Arabic descent refer to
black muslims as "pug nosed slaves." Says a lot of what the Muslim world really thinks of your family's "rich Islamic heritage" doesn't it Mr.Obama?

Where were Muslims during the Civil Rights era of this country?
Not present. There are no pictures or media accounts of Muslims walking side by side with Martin Luther King Jr.. or helping to advance the cause of Civil Rights.

Where were Muslims during this country's Woman's Suffrage era?
Again, not present. In fact, devout Muslims demand that women are subservient to men in the Islamic culture. So much so that often they are beaten for not wearing the 'hajib' or for talking to a man that is not a direct family member or their husband.
Yep, the Muslims are all for women's rights aren't they?

Where were Muslims during World War II?
They were aligned with Adolf Hitler. The Muslim grand mufti himself met with Adolf Hitler, reviewed the troops and accepted support from the Nazi's in killing Jews.

Finally Mr. Obama, where were Muslims on Sept. 11th, 2001?
If they weren't flying planes into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon or a field in Pennsylvania killing nearly 3,000 people on our own soil, they were rejoicing in the middle east. No one can dispute the pictures shown from all parts of the Muslim world celebrating on CNN, Fox News, MSNBC and other news networks that day. Strangely, the very "moderate" Muslims whose asses you bent over backwards to kiss in Cairo, Egypt on June 4th were stone cold silent post 9-11. To many Americans, their silence has meant approval for the acts of that day.

And THAT, Mr. Obama, is the "rich heritage" Muslims have here in America.

Pray for Obama. Psalm 109:8
"Let his years be few. Let someone else take his position"

Doug's Quote on Political Pistachio Radio About God and America

2009-11-21T21:17:00.000-08:00

During the afterglow of tonight's program on Political Pistachio Radio I began to talk about our faith in God, and the importance of having a God-centered outlook. I believe the creation of this nation was God-inspired, and that our Founding Fathers were deeply religious men. I also believe that our Constitutional Republic has biblical foundations. However, the most important part of all of this can be summed up in my quote at the end of the program where I said, "We have to remember where our salvation lies, and it is not in government."

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

The Dangerous Precedence of Kalid Sheikh Muhammed Being Tried in a Federal Court

2009-11-21T18:16:00.000-08:00

Muhammed is an enemy combatant caught in the field of battle, and by being tried in a civilian federal court is creates a dangerous precedence.

Also, the news of the week. . .

Join us live at 7pm Pacific, or catch the archive later, on BlogTalkRadio.com/PoliticalPistachio.

Gore's Global Warming Kool-Aid

2009-11-21T03:27:00.000-08:00

Get Liberty

John Wohlstetter Discusses "Sleepwalking Towards Armageddon" Tonight on Political Pistachio Radio

2009-11-20T18:15:00.000-08:00

Two-time guest on the Political Pistachio Radio Revolution, John C. Wohlstetter, is a Senior Fellow for Technology and Society at the Seattle-based Discovery Institute. As a Washington DC attorney, whose corporate career in telecommunications spanned 22 years, he became a Senior Fellow for the Discovery Institute in April of 2001. Wohlstetter's education includes degrees from the University of Miami, the Fordham University School of Law, and George Washington University.

John Wohlstetter publishes an online newsletter, "Bandwidth," for Discovery, focusing on telecommunications and also on national security implications of information technology. He has published online and in print for The American Spectator, and also for National Review Online, on subjects ranging from telecommunications to space policy and national security.

September 30, 2009, John gave a speech in Seattle, entitled "Nuclear Arms: Sleepwalking Towards Armageddon". The talk covered the history of the nuclear age, as well as illustrating the problems of nuclear proliferation & arms control.

His notes on the presentation can be found on his blog, as well as the link to the speech.

Letter From The Capitol - Nuclear Arms: Sleepwalking Towards Armageddon

Tonight during the second half of the Political Pistachio Radio Revolution, John joins us to discuss the presentation. Join the program live tonight at 7pm Pacific, or catch the archive later, at BlogTalkRadio.com/PoliticalPistachio.

Kalid Sheikh Muhammed Trial a Political Move

2009-11-20T12:21:00.000-08:00

By Douglas V. Gibbs

The Left is arguing that terrorists have been tried in federal court before because they don't get it. So, let me say this slowly and clearly: No enemy combatant caught in the field of battle has ever been tried in federal court, and what Holder and Obama are wanting to do with the 9/11 mastermind will set a dangerous precedent.

Also, remember, Obama and Holder have both said that Muhammed will be found guilty. The defendant's counsel can then argue that his client can't receive a fair trial, and the president and attorney general have already proclaimed it is a foregone conclusion that the defendant is guilty.

The judge could then dismiss the case, and the murderer of 3,000 Americans could walk free.

There is not sanity in the left's decision to bring the 9/11 suspects to New York for a federal trial. Therefore, it must be a political move. The purpose is something other than the conviction of the terrorists - and I believe it is the left's way of putting America, and Bush, on trial. In the long run it will backfire, and Obama's approval rating will continue to dive below 50%, and lower, as a result.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Mortgage Woes Worsen

2009-11-20T06:13:00.000-08:00

By Douglas V. Gibbs

I thought under Barack Obama we were going to see homes saved, and a massive program making sure that America got back on its feet. Instead, we are seeing late payments and foreclosures once again at a record high.

In fact, Obama's foreclosure prevention plan is helping very few. After all, how can a federal government being led by a bunch of buffoons administer it correctly, anyway?

None of Obama's programs and policies are working, and none of them will. The simple answer is that there are no good collective answers to individual problems. Government is not capable of taking care of the people. It is the individual that is best equipped to take care of himself. And if a home is lost, they move into an apartment, or back with family, or whatever, and then try again later. That is how a free society works.

Not one thing the Democrats have done has fixed anything, and big government solutions will never fix anything - because government is not the solution. Government is the problem.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Obama mortgage rescue: Only a few get lasting help - CNN Money

Democrats Over Republicans, in unemployment numbers

2009-11-20T00:04:00.000-08:00

According to Rasmussen Reports, 15.0% of Democrats in the workforce are currently unemployed and looking for a job. Among adults not affiliated with either major party, that number is 15.6% while just 9.9% of Republicans are in the same situation.

What does that say about who is willing to pick themselves up by the bootstraps, and who is waiting for the government to bail them out?

Something to be said for doing whatever it takes to survive, versus waiting to be waited upon. I suppose this is a good example of what happens to people's unwillingness to apply themselves after years and years of being trained to depend on government programs.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Democrats & Unaffiliateds More Likely To Be Unemployed Than Republicans - Rasmussen Reports

My Liberal Friend in France

2009-11-19T20:13:00.000-08:00

I've known Dan Bessie for a long time. He is a small publisher, and his father was one of the black-listed Hollywood Ten during the McCarthy era. As it turns out, Dan's father was in fact a communist, and in the case of Dan, the apple didn't fall far from the tree.

Dan and I sometimes Email back and forth in debate, and I thought I'd share some of it with you, or at least the latest round of debates.

----------------

In the first Email of this latest debate, Dan sent me a link to a cartoon that depicted today's outcry against Obama's socialist policies as simply a bunch of folks rebutting needed change and calling it socialist. The programs addressed in the cartoon are Public Schools, a public water system, Public Highways, public parks, and now public health care.

The federal government has no business being involved in any of those issues. Madison's veto of a Public Works Bill in 1817, for example, reminded us that from a Constitutional standpoint, the states have the responsibility to keep up the highways, not the federal government.

I also told Dan that, "every one of those public systems are unconstitutional. The federal government does not have the authority to run any of them. Each and every one of them are state issues. As for federally run health care, the idea that there is no public option is a lie. The states have a public option. Here in California it is called Medi-Cal. Therefore, when the Democrats proclaim there is no health care available to 47 million Americans, it is a lie. The push is not for giving people health care, but for the federal government to gain control of the system. That is where the danger lies. Thanks for the cartoon, it was humorous, but misses the point, as does most of the left."

Dan responded (and my answers to his response follow each question in red),

"I'm not going to get into a constitutional argument with you regarding states right, but let me ask you, honestly:

Would you want to not have Social Security? Biggest Ponzi Scam ever created.

Would you want to bring back child labor? Those laws would have passed regardless.

Would you want to end Medicare? It is bankrupt. States are allowed to have similar programs if the people so wish.

Would you want to end public schools? State function. Federal Government has no business in schools. children from private schools and home schooling score higher.

Would you want to close the national parks? Unconstitutional for federal government to snatch up land.

I could go on and on, but you get the point.

Dan's next response?

Thanks for your views, Doug... but you don't answer the questions. What you do instead, is rely on the mistaken belief that because, more than 200 years ago, a group of men got together and framed a Constitution, that therefore everything in it is holy writ, and must be obeyed to the letter.

What you ignore is the fact that our Constitution was written during a time of very particular circumstances; circumstances that are very very different than they are today. So instead of THINKING, you throw out catch phrases you've learned, heard from Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck or whoever, implying that the legislators of each state in the union are wise enough to enact laws and social welfare benefits so that everyone will have good medical care, education, safety and protection in their homes, and on and on.

It hasn't worked that way, unfortunately, and every social welfare gain Americans have come to enjoy has been won at the cost of enormous struggle and even death, with all those who try to retain their wealth and privilege using the power of the press and other media they have owned — as well as the judges and courts and laws and police that they have for the most part controlled — to retard or forestall that progress.

That those reactionary forces have been able to distort the thinking of good folks such as yourself, so that you become their servants, and help them to retain their privileged positions, instead of recognizing where your real interests lie, is, I think, terribly sad.

NOW.... (on just one of the points I raised), instead of simply accusing Social Security of being a "giant Ponzi scheme," how's about ANSWERING THE QUESTION: Do you want it to be dismantled? Would you rather NOT get Social Security benefits when they are due to you?

AND, if your answer is YES, what would you propose to replace it, to guarantee old age security for people when they retire?

I responded later to the Social Security Question:

It can't be dismantled because people have grown dependent upon it. That is how socialism works. Get the people hooked and it can't be taken away. As for me, I refuse to depend on it, and have been working on creating enough of a retirement for myself and my wife to not need the government program.

As for the rest:

Strong centralized federal government control is never a good idea. The Constitution was written to limit the size of the federal government, and was a very wise thing to do. Such thinking has resulted in the U.S. being a very prosperous nation for over 200 years. Systems as you propose have failed over and over for a reason. Liberty over government control, and a free market over government mandates. I believe in individualism, not collectivism - and I believe that way because of THINKING.

Dan then became apologetic, because remember, Liberals are sometimes terribly afraid to offend, and then goes on to distort history as the Left loves to do:

I sincerely apologize for suggesting that you weren't thinking. What I should have said is that you've let a lot of wrongheaded and distorted ideas INFLUENCE your thinking.

You point out that the U.S. has been a "very prosperous nation for over 200 years." Indeed it has. WITH a centralized federal government, mind you. But also with a lot of powers relegated to the states; powers that for years prevented (and in many cases continue to prevent) real progress for their citizens, because many states still have backward thinking governments in power.

The Constitution was framed as it was during the late 1700s because of very PARTICULAR conditions prevailing at the time of its adoption — not because the framers were opposed to a strong central government. The country had just come out of a revolutionary war, if you'll recall. Even getting the various territories that became states to hang together on BEHALF of that revolution was an enormous task. One third of the people living then were in favor of separating from England. Another third were in favor of remaining WITH England. And the final third didn't give a damn. That's history.

You also had the southern half of the country owning slaves. You had all kinds of different local and regional demands that had to be adjudicated in order for there to be cooperation. So compromises were made. In fact, if you'll recall, the division of certain rights to the federal government and certain rights to the states was called "The Great Compromise." If they had not had the problems they did during that period, there would have been no reason to UNITE the states, and thus name the country, THE UNITED STATES. There would probably have been no states, in fact, just one nation, with different departments or regions (like we have here in France... a strong central government, but also with lots of local autonomy in certain areas.)

Which system with strong central governments are you talking about that have failed? Sure, you can name a few.... Russia under Stalin, Germany under Hitler.... In terms of overall quality of life (which includes, of course, prosperity of the citizens), the latest ratings for the world's top countries are (from the best on down, and all of which, including the US, have been going strong, in spite of their many problems)....

Norway, Australia, Iceland, Canada, Ireland, Netherlands, Sweden, France (was #1 until recently, but has slipped because of high unemployment), Switzerland, Japan, Luxembourg, Finland, United States (#13), Austria, Spain, Denmark, Belgium, Italy, Liechtenstein, New Zealand. And guess what? ALL (except the U.S.) have one strong central government, and ALL (except the U.S. have strong, government-run health plans.

And who is THE highest rated country or countries in the world in terms of literacy? One guess: Cuba, Estonia and Poland (a tie for first). Second? Barbados, the tiny all black island in the Caribbean. (The US is #17). All with strong, centralized federal governments. (And yes, Cuba is still dictatorial).

Who is top rated in the world for health care? Now it's Japan (used to be France)... then come Switzerland, Italy, Norway, Sweden, France, Finland, Germany, Australia, Canada, Netherlands, Austria, Ireland, UK, Denmark, and .... ta da..... the U.S. (#16... and some rankings put the US as #37 !) Again, ALL with strong, centralized federal governments.

You want me to go on? I can if you like, but I think you get the idea.

If you want to have a genuine discussion, Doug, that would be fine with me. But you'd need to offer me reasoned thinking and examples, not just a series of catch phrases and vague platitudes, like "Strong centralized federal government is never a good idea."

----Well, time constraints don't give me a lot of time to respond to each individual point, so I responded to the ones that barked the loudest, keeping in mind to address the rest later:

The difference is that you believe in social welfare benefits, and I don't. I believe the individual should be the navigator of their lives. I believe that when government is given the kind of power that you suggest they should have, human nature dictates that those in power will become corrupt with that power, and the citizens will become complacent because of their dependency on government. The elitists in government become more powerful, and the citizen loses liberty - and actually do not mind because they think the government is taking care of them. We are all created equal, but what we do with what we have, the breaks we get, et cetera, is very different, and some will emerge as more successful as others. If those that were not successful don't like it, in a free society they have the option to keep trying. Such is the beauty of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

I do not believe the U.S. Constitution is outdated, or was written only for the circumstances of revolution. Limiting government's size and power is an ageless necessity, learned by the founding fathers from studying history. They took five months to write the document, so it was not a willy-nilly endeavor. Following it, we have prospered as the greatest nation on Earth for 233 years - so why would we want to change the American Form of Government? In fact, our biggest problems arise out of too much government interference.

State sovereignty is important because the state governments are more local to the people. Who better to govern local issues than local government? Why would I want a faceless bureaucrat in Washington making decisions about my region that he does not understand?

As for Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh, I hear this a lot from liberals. Funny thing is, I have no idea what those two say. Glenn Beck comes on at 2pm while I am at work, and 11pm while I am asleep. Rush is on from 9-12, also during which time I work. Therefore, I do not get the opportunity to hear what they say. I occassionally catch bits here and there, or see a You Tube, for for the most part, I don't catch their shows. Also, I watch very little, if any, television. So I don't watch the other voices either. I get all of my news from the local papers, LA Times, NY Times, internet, and my military friends and family. I have studied the U.S. Constitution extensively, and I spend a lot of time reading my Bible, and historical documents like Madison's Notes on the U.S. Constitution, the Federalist Papers, and books written by the folks that are guests on my radio show. My opinion is my own, and I derive all of my thoughts based on the facts that I gather.

As for the centralized government, it became moreso after 1913, and that is a part of what brought about the Great Depression. Then, FDR came along and forced his New Deal on the people, and the policies of FDR extended the depression. Many believe it was the war that pulled us out of the depression, but it was really the entreprenurial spirit of the American People after the war that did it. A Free Market Capitalistic Economy, when left alone by government, always produces prosperity.

During Carter, many of what is going on today was in force, and we wound up in a deep recession. Reagan's tax cuts and policies that reduced the burden on business pulled us out of the recession, and resulted in a prosperous period that lasted all the way through Clinton's years. The Democrats demonized Bush for the recent downturn, but if you look at it, during Bush's years consumer spending was up, the unemployment rate was breaking records below 5%, and despite an attack on the U.S. in 2001 (which normally would cause economic hardships), we prospered. The downturn resulted in decades of liberal policies, and government intervention in the markets through the GSE's and the CRA of 1977.

In 2004 Barney Frank and Maxine Waters, among other liberals, were arguing Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae can't fail when Bush and the Congressional Republicans were calling for new regulations, and warning that a mortgage crisis was on the horizon. Then, when the crisis happened, the Democrats blamed it on the Republicans, and sheep like the Obama voters believed it. If anyone parrots the media, it is the Democrat voters.

I appreciate your opinion, and I knew when I responded we would disagree. After all, you were heavily influenced by your father's politics. But if Marxist ideology is so good, why does it fail every time it is tried? Part of the answer is that it doesn't take into consideration human nature. Rather than being punished for succeeding, and rewarded for failure, humanity wishes to be incentivized. Taxing the rich and handing out welfare is punishing success and rewarding failure. Instead, why don't we back government off of businesses, create incentives for the poor to become more involved, and to work, and remove the over-regulation on businesses so that they can grow, which would result in a greater movement of products, and a creation of jobs?

Socialized medicine, cap and trade, and other liberal policies remove choice from the individual - and that means less liberty. In my opinion, that is not what America stands for. Folks like you criticize America's past, as if it embarrasses you. It is as if America's exceptionalism bothers you.

I see America as Reagan did - a shining beacon of freedom on the hill, for all to take advantage of if only they are willing to pursue it with hard work, and the American Spirit.

--- and there is still more to come.

Oh, and to answer another question that may be on a few minds, those dozen of you liberal readers of Political Pistachio that think every time I write about "that liberal" I am not usually talking about you. Your arrogance and narcissism is only surpassed by the liberals in power.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Obama and the National Anthem

2009-11-19T17:52:00.000-08:00

The More Things Change, the More They Stay The Same.

Remember when Obama refused to place his hand on his heart during the National Anthem?

This picture is from last Veteran's Day.

The man does not like America.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Obama Warns About U.S. Debt

2009-11-19T15:39:00.000-08:00

By Douglas V. Gibbs

It's the biggest set-up in history. Create debt, devalue the dollar, and then warn against doing so.

Is Obama sucking up to the Chinese, our biggest debtor?

Obama gave a warning about the need to contain rising U.S. deficits, saying that if government debt were to pile up too much, it could lead to a double-dip recession.
The unemployment rate at 10.2 percent is too high, and Obama is trying to figure out how to boost the economy, encourage job creation, reduce the deficit, and spend like a crazed politician all at the same time.

I have had nightmares that made more sense than this.

Be ready for hefty tax increases that will produce less revenue than expected because of further killing the economy.

And just in time for Christmas.

By next year we will all be a bunch of Tiny Tims and Bob Cratchets.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Obama: Too much debt could fuel double-dip recession - Reuters

Mammograms from 40 to 50 is the first sign of rationalized health care

2009-11-19T13:31:00.000-08:00

By Douglas V. Gibbs

A federal medical panel recommended this week against routine mammograms for women younger than 50. Their line of thinking is that it is not worth subjecting some patients to unnecessary biopsies, radiation and stress.

The American Cancer Association disagrees. The highest risk group for breast cancer is women between 40 and 50.

The independent panel, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, also recommended against teaching women to do regular self-exams and concluded that there is insufficient evidence to recommend that doctors do exams.

So they would rather wait until the cancer is set in before looking?

Could this be preparation for health care rationing that is inevitable should Obama's health care bill pass?

I wonder if later they will determine that breast cancer discovered in women in their 50s will cost too much to operate on because the women have lived past their years of productivity in the eyes of the government?

Welcome to socialized medicine where the cost to the government is more important than whether you live or die.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Mammograms and politics: Task force stirs up a tempest - Washington Post

Barack Obama: Breaker of Campaign Promises

2009-11-19T09:20:00.000-08:00

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Unrest has erupted among the Democrat Party base because their leftist champion, Barack Obama, can't seem to get anything done. His campaign promises have been either broken, or not fulfilled. One of the big ones, closing Guantanamo Bay, has been put off, and put off, and now, will be put off past the first of the year.

He "hopes" to close the facility sometime next year, but can't guarantee it.

No "change" there.

Obama is claiming that the process, and decision, is "hard."

Welcome to the presidency, panty-waste. This isn't some community organizer function where you just get a lot of folks to sit around talking over milk and cookies. Being president is a big people job, and the inexperienced, childlike Obama just can't hang. He is in way over his head, and he knows it.

Being a radical, surrounded by a bunch of hard-left radicals, doesn't help, either.

But, it could be worse.

It would be much worse if he "was" getting it done in relation to his crazy, irresponsible campaign promises.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Obama admits Guantanamo won't close by Jan. deadline - Washington Post

Government Health Care? Or a lump of coal?

2009-11-19T06:32:00.000-08:00

Capitol South

Democrat Math: Spend Fast, We Need To Lower The Deficit!

2009-11-19T04:10:00.000-08:00

POLITICO Breaking News:
------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- -----

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s health reform bill comes in at $849 billion, and will reduce the federal budget deficit by $127 billion in the first 10 years, the Congressional Budget Office says, according to a senior Democratic aide.

------------------------------

Okay, let me get this straight: Spend $849 billion to reduce our deficit by $127 billion? Do the leftists really by this idiocy? Well, Politico does.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Senate bill will cost $849 billion - Politico

Idaho's New Congressional Districts

2009-11-18T23:57:00.000-08:00

I write for a small newspaper in Idaho, the Central Idaho Post. The editor sent me the following, and I thought I'd share it with you.

-------------

Idaho's "new" Congressional districts

November 17, 2009 posted by Jay Howell in

government spending

stimulus

In addition to the money that Idaho has received under the federal stimulus plan, the state was apparently awarded a number of additional congressional districts…34 to be exact!

According to Recovery.gov, which bills itself as “the U.S. government’s official website providing easy access to data related to Recovery Act spending and allows for the reporting of potential fraud, waste, and abuse”, Idaho has been awarded $1,216,341,830 under the stimulus plan, which has to date “created or saved” 2,103 jobs. This is spread out over Idaho’s 36 congressional districts.

Wait a second…but Idaho only has two congressional districts, right? Any grade schooler studying Idaho civics can tell you that, but the folks at Recovery.gov apparently can’t. According to the site, stimulus funds went to Idaho’s 00th, 1st, 2d, 3d, 4th, 5th, 8th, 9th, 16th, 19th, 28th and 35th congressional districts. 1st and 2d districts aside, we find $3.9 million went to non-existent Idaho districts, where 39.2 phony jobs were “created or saved”.

According to watchdog.org, a total of 440 “phantom districts” nationwide were awarded $6.4 billion in order to “create or save” 30,000 phony jobs. Among some of the more interesting findings in the article is that North Dakota now has 99 congressional districts, and South Carolina’s 7th district received more than $27 million in stimulus funds, despite being retired in 1930.

A spokesman for the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board blamed faulty data from stimulus money recipients for the erroneous job “creation or salvation” numbers. So, all this begs the question, can we trust the government to tell us the truth about how our tax dollars are being spent under the stimulus plan?

The Idaho Freedom Foundation contacted Rep. Mike Simpson (R – 2d District) for his reaction. “This is a situation in which I am disappointed to be proven correct—I opposed the stimulus package because I didn’t think adding nearly a trillion dollars to our deficit would help our economy, and now we find that the data the Administration is putting out about the so-called ‘success’ of the bill is completely wrong,” said Simpson. “This is a prime example of what happens when government bureaucracy tries to justify itself. If a business put out this type of misinformation, it would be called fraud. With the Democrats planning to pass to bring up another stimulus bill before the end of the year, we need accurate information about what works—and what doesn’t work—to improve our economy.”

We asked Senator Jim Risch (R-ID) for his reaction to the story, and he gave us this statement, “The facts stated are clearly false, unreliable and should come as no surprise since unemployment rates are the highest in decades. As I said when the stimulus passed, this bill was nothing more than a wish list of pet projects and massive spending that has done little to quickly assist our economy and the families who still desperately need help. While a very limited number of infrastructure projects were appropriate, clearly they have not accomplished what the President promised. I strongly opposed the stimulus bill, I voted against it and I stand by that vote.”

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

New York Trial for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed

2009-11-18T21:06:00.000-08:00

Political Cartoon: Devil's Advocate
Get Liberty

46 Handshakes, but only one bow to Emperor Akihito

2009-11-18T20:30:00.001-08:00