God and the Constitution

Jefferson said the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. We are working on turning this nation back to a Constitutional government that is limited as the Constitution demands. God is an important part of that equation.

Tonight, guest Doug Tjaden of Chain of Liberty will join me in tackling this important topic. Join us tonight at 7pm Pacific/10pm Eastern live, or on archive later, on BlogTalkRadio.com/PoliticalPistachio.

DeMint's Term Limits Proposal

Get Liberty

The Lord Holds The Reins

By Douglas V. Gibbs

I believe that our lives are a direct result of the decisions we make. I believe prayer changes things, but that God is not like a genie in a bottle where you just go around asking Him for selfish things. God always answers prayer, but sometimes He says "no," and sometimes he says "wait." I used to believe God gave us nudges every once in a while, but for the most part stayed out of the way. With events of my recent life, however, I have realized He has both hands on the reins, and has been directly involved in my life.

As I seek Him, however, the world is turning away.

I found a great description of our current days in the book of 2 Timothy. The third chapter reads:

1 You should know this, Timothy, that in the last days there will be very difficult times. 2 For people will love only themselves and their money. They will be boastful and proud, scoffing at God, disobedient to their parents, and ungrateful. They will consider nothing sacred. 3 They will be unloving and unforgiving; they will slander others and have no self-control. They will be cruel and hate what is good. 4 They will betray their friends, be reckless, be puffed up with pride, and love pleasure rather than God. 5 They will act religious, but they will reject the power that could make them godly. Stay away from people like that!
6 They are the kind who work their way into people’s homes and win the confidence of[a] vulnerable women who are burdened with the guilt of sin and controlled by various desires. 7 (Such women are forever following new teachings, but they are never able to understand the truth.) 8 These teachers oppose the truth just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses. They have depraved minds and a counterfeit faith. 9 But they won’t get away with this for long. Someday everyone will recognize what fools they are, just as with Jannes and Jambres.

Sound familiar?

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

The Destruction of America

How Obama and the Democrats are destroying America from the inside with their radical, leftist policies. Join us tonight for the discussion, or catch the radio program later on archive, at BlogTalkRadio.com/PoliticalPistachio.

Obama: The President Who Never Works

By Douglas V. Gibbs

On the radio they were discussing how Barack Obama will be stopping by Alaska on his way to Asia, for his first presidential trip to that part of the world. He is the most traveled president, they were commenting, visiting 16 countries, so far, since the beginning of his presidency ten months ago.

If you will recall, last month it was reported that Obama's golf habit was also a record for a new president, with him having played more golf in his first nine months than Bush did during his entire two terms.

Since Obama is the most traveled president, and the most golfed president, it makes one wonder: "When is he ever in the Oval Office doing work?"

I guess that's what his henchmen (and women) are for, which means that Pelosi and Reid have more power than most people realize.

Typical Marxist Oligarchy: The many ruled by the few, and a figure-head that is not really worth much more than a few speeches, appearances, and golf games.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Obama swings it to play even more golf than Bush (and all in less than a year in office) - U.K. Daily Mail

Obama's No. 1 -- most foreign travel by first year president - McClatchy DC

Fort Hood: Media Blinders

Get Liberty

Obama Hiding From Commitment - Afghanistan

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Remember how when Barack Obama was a Senator and all he did was vote "present"? He did so because he didn't want to take a position, and then it come back to bite him later. Barack Obama is a hard left Marxist, but when he can, he tests the political winds, and is careful not to commit himself one way or another - just in case.

Afghanistan is no different for him.

I believe that Obama wants nothing more than to place a timetable on Afghanistan, and be out of the entire Middle East as soon as possible. However, he ran on the premise that Afghanistan is the good war, and that Iraq was the bad war, so he has a certain amount of obligation to remain in Afghanistan. He's torn between wanting to pull all out, and sticking to his campaign rhetoric.

Now, he is in a very difficult position, politically. His generals are asking for more troops, and he would like to listen to his military advisors because one of his greatest criticisms of Bush was that Dubya didn't listen to his generals. But, Obama does not agree with McChrystal and gang that Afghanistan should receive more troops. For politics-sake, he can't do the opposite, but he can't do what they want - so he does both.

In a sense, Obama is voting "present." He is not doing what his generals want, but is claiming that his strategy incorporates "the best elements" of the "proposals" he's been receiving.

It is funny, isn't it? The guy who claimed to be something different is politics as usual, more worried about his popularity than doing what he believes to be the right thing.

That makes him a coward that hides from commitment.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Gates Says Afghan Plan Will Mix Various Proposals - New York Times

When Obama Admitted His Muslim Connections, Over and Over and Over

Notice when asked about Fort Hood shooting how Obama searches for words other than terrorist, or terrorism. . .

North Korea Threatens South

By Douglas V. Gibbs

As trouble erupts in Pakistan, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and other Muslim nations, the other trouble spot, North Korea, has refused to remain silent. In the latest news across the Pacific Ocean, North Korea threatened South Korea with punishment for a skirmish between warships.

The event that led to the dispute occurred Tuesday when, after seven years of no clashes, the Koreas accused each other of violating border lines. The skirmish resulted in heavy damage to a North Korean ship, while the South Korean ships received little or no damage.

One North Korean officer is said to have been killed. No deaths were reported by the South.

North Korea has stated that the South will receive consequences for their actions, heating up an already fragile situation in that region.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

N. Korea Threatens South With Punishment Over Clash - Fox News

Obama's Out of Control Unemployment Rate

And these people want us to trust them with our health care?

Lou Dobbs Says "Goodbye" to CNN

By Douglas V. Gibbs

A plank owner is a service member that is a part of the crew of a ship when the vessel is commissioned. Lou Dobbs is a plank owner of the Cable News Network.

CNN launched in 1980, and Lou Dobbs was aboard from the beginning, only missing a two year stint from 1999 to 2000 after a disagreement with then CNN President Rick Kaplan.

Lou Dobbs has received a lot of praise and criticism for his views, but the ratings numbers don't lie. As a financial reporter he did well. As a political commentator his show outdraws Chris Matthews, and Campbell Brown. His desire to pursue new opportunities (one wonders if Fox News is on that list of opportunities) led him to make this decision, along with the desire to more freely express his opinions.

The writing was on the wall. As CNN and MSNBC has motored leftward at a high speed, it was only a matter of time before a non-radical like Lou Dobbs would jump off the sinking leftist ship.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Lou Dobbs leaving CNN for 'new opportunities' - Yahoo News

One Last Thank You on Veteran's Day

Veteran's Day and a Roomful of Marines

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Considering my proximity to the Camp Pendleton Marine Corps Base, I knew that when I went into a local restaurant for a Veteran's Day lunch being offered free of charge to active duty military and veterans, the place would be packed. The venue did not disappoint, and late lunch with my wife was also a late lunch with a roomful of proud United States Marines.

After a considerable period of time outside, our names were called, and my wife and I settled into a booth along a wall that gave me ample view of the entire restaurant. Tables of high and tight haircuts graced the room. The conversation was constant, and the faces were smiling. Some had just returned from overseas, while others were preparing to depart. They knew what was coming in the terms of the fight against terror, but they didn't care at that moment. Lunch with their brothers and sisters, both active and retired, was all that was important at that moment.

My wife was surprised, but I was not. A military man can hardly pass up an opportunity to join family with friends over a good meal - and Veteran's Day provided just the excuse.

For veterans like myself, however, Veteran's Day has a different flavor than it does for those on active duty. Active Duty Personnel see Veteran's Day as a day to thank those that went before them, and to prepare for what is ahead of them. Veterans, however, spend no time patting ourselves on the back. We are too much in awe of the fine young fighting force of today. As a veteran I sat at my table soaking in the stories, and shaking as many hands as possible. I removed my U.S. Navy Veteran hat for my meal, but proudly replaced it on my head as we walked out of the restaurant, nodding and winking at my new brothers and sisters - those ready to join those engaged in combat overseas.

America has thrived, and risen at a rate beyond past civilizations. As America has grown and prospered, our elite fighting force has made the speed bumps unnoticeable. Liberty has been protected, and has spread, thanks to the men and women serving past and present in the United States Armed Forces.

I felt honored to share the room with all of those Marines. I felt fortunate to be considered a part of the fraternity of fighting men and women. I felt blessed knowing that our freedoms are in the hands of those fine folks.

America is in good hands, as it has always been.

God Bless America, and God Bless the United States Military.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Money is not like Energy, How Democrats Are Destroying Our Economy

By Douglas V. Gibbs

As a kid you learned in science class that energy never increases or decreases in amount, it simply transfers. The sun provides energy for the plant to grow, then the energy transfers into the animal when the plant is eaten. Later the animal releases the energy in its activities, and waste. The waste, then, transfers the energy into the ground for the plant to use, and et cetera. So, the idea is, if energy increases in one location, somewhere else there is less energy.

The politicians, leftists of the Democrat Party in particular, seem to think that money is like energy. If someone becomes wealthy, then there must be somebody at the bottom doing without. Money, however, is not like energy. Someone becoming successful does not take away from somebody at the bottom. For each success there is not a non-success.

Money is created when value is created. When a car comes rolling off of an assembly line the value of that vehicle is added to the economy. With that additional value money increases as well. Therefore, what increases the wealth of a nation is production and manufacturing.

Opportunity arises in America because the ability to produce is available to all of its citizens. This is the point of conservatives; don't limit the successful, but make the opportunity for all to become successful available. With more success comes more jobs, and a vibrant economy. The goal, then, should be to make it as easy as possible for citizens to reach a level of success.

Government, and those that wield its power, seem to think that success is finite, and that such power should only belong to them. They have convinced the populace that all of those rich business people have taken away the money that belongs to the poor, and that anyone who makes a big profit is the enemy. What they don't get is that there is plenty of wealth and success to go around, if the government would just step out of the way and allow the free market to do its bidding.

The successful, also known as the wealthy, have figured out how to use the market to their advantage. As a result of their success, they have grown large businesses that add value to the economy through manufacturing, production, transporting, or providing goods. From their successes rises other businesses, like the service oriented ones. Through that process, in order to assist them in their endeavor of creating goods, or providing services, jobs are created. When the business grows, more value is fed into the economy, and more jobs are created. Successful people then become "economy builders" and "job creators."

Leftists have determined it is unfair that those rich people are doing so well, and that there are some that are not. So, their strategy to make things better for the folks at the bottom is to take away from the economy builders, and heavily regulate their activities. Unable to grow, and with less money to expand, they produce less products, and hire less people. So tell me: How is that good for the folks at the bottom?

Meanwhile, upstart businesses, the possible wealthy folks of the future, are unable to get their new entrepreneurial attempt off the ground because government has buried them in fees and regulations, leaving us with less opportunities for a economy building, job creating business to participate in the market. Once again: How is that good for the folks at the bottom?

One of the tools for encouraging economic growth is cutting taxes, and not just cutting taxes for certain groups, but cutting taxes all the way across the board. We experienced evidence of how well cutting taxes works in the eighties when Reagan cut taxes, and we not only pulled out of a recession caused by Jimmy Carter's leftist policies, but we experienced an economic boom of prosperity unseen in America for a long time. That period of prosperity, directly influenced by Reagan's tax cuts, showed us how less taxes for folks means a lot to our economic participants.

When the rich receive tax cuts, most of them will use some of that money for their endeavors, be they investments, or a business they own. The market, with this new money, enjoys an increase in production, therefore pumping more value into the economy. As production rises, prices drop, and consumerism rises. With the increased demand for the less expensive product more people are needed to produce the products, so jobs are created. The company, then, enjoys a greater profit, and the lowered taxes wind up resulting in increased revenue because of the success of the business sector.

The tax cuts for the middle class and the poor is where the extra money comes from that encourages the consumerism to rise. As money in their pockets increases with the tax cuts, and the prices come down on products they always hoped to be able to purchase because of the tax cuts on the wealthier business owning individuals, the middle class and poor begin to spend more money. Also, as some of these people become more involved in the consumer end of things, some of those folks take the extra money from lower taxes (and hopefully relaxed regulations) to start a new business, some of which will become intricately involved in the market by adding value to the economy, and ultimately creating jobs, as well.

Higher taxes, government regulations, and the government take-over of sectors of the private industry kill these opportunities. Pumping money into the system without production as a companion, as the Obama Administration is doing now, creates inflation. Inflation kills economies.

The result of inflation is a rise in prices. By continuing inflation, the government will then be able to confiscate wealth, and destroy the Capitalist System. Soviet Communist leader Lenin stated that inflation was the perfect tool to destroy the free market, and serve as an income redistribution system.

Makes you wonder if Obama is driving up the debt, and creating inflation with his influx of fiat money into our system, by design.

Rather than utilizing Capital Goods in acquiring or producing Consumption Goods, the government is trying to force the system to follow its direction. In a society that needs goods to consume, of which are produced in the free market by profit-driven incentive, with government involved the production of goods becomes forced. Rather than the creation of goods in an economic environment wherein the individual is encouraged to produce the maximum quantity of goods for profit, the government desires to force the production of goods or services with the worker doing so because it is "good for the common good." Though I cannot disagree that a vibrant economy is good for the common good, it is the individual hope for increased profit that motivates the worker to produce Consumption Goods, not a deep-down belief they they ought to.

Big Government then takes it a step farther, hoping to enforce fairness and equality. The idea, in order to achieve this equity, is to redistribute wealth from the wealthy to the poor (when in reality it redistributes wealth from the people to the government). After all, remember, they argue that money is like energy, and if the wealthy are rich, it must be because it was taken away from the poor - and of course, how unfair is it that some have succeeded, and others didn't? The process, ultimately, is the use of government to divide wealth, and distribute it in the manner the government believes to be the most fair. But, as is consistent with human nature, government will cut a bigger piece of the pie for themselves, and their power will increase as the opportunities of the citizens decrease.

Liberal Leftists see profit as a bad thing. They also believe their template is what's best, and if anyone tries to take a separate individual path, they must be punished. That is why Democrats are punitive in their thinking. For example, in the Health Care Bill that is making its way toward the Senate, there is a provision that punishes citizens for not having health care. The punitive actions by the government against people who don't get health insurance can be a fine, or jail time.

Conservatism believes the best way to build an economy is to incentivize, rather than being punitive. It would be more beneficial to individual freedom, and the market, if the health insurance products were allowed the freedom to be sold across state lines, and if the products were built in ways that the consumers desire. By loosening the restrictions placed on the industry by government, with the incentive of profit, the insurance companies will become more competitive with each other and it will drive prices down. In the case of providing catastrophic coverage, payments by the patients themselves will become more common, so doctors, in an effort to compete for more patients (profit-driven once again) will increase quality and decrease the cost to the consumer.

All economic models, be they Health Insurance, the auto industry, banks, or other goods or service oriented businesses, best function on a model of less government intervention, profit incentive, and competition against businesses of like-nature.

In short, the answer to recessions, inflation, and job creation is less government involvement. Government is not the solution. Government is the problem. The housing crash was caused by government manipulation of the market, and our problems now are being caused by the government taking control of the private sector while pumping money into the system without value from production and manufacturing entering the market too. Money is not like energy. There is enough for all of us to be successful - but there won't be if the government keeps siphoning it all for themselves, and takes control of every aspect of our economy.

Government intervention of this kind is unsustainable, and if leftist policies continue to run our economy, the ultimate result will be a collapse. And if there is a collapse of that kind of magnitude, complete government control in the form of a totalitarian system will follow.

Money may not be like energy, but power is, and once the government transfers all of the power to themselves, the individual citizens will be left with none.

We are all created equal, but what we do with our opportunities is our own individual business.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Pelosi’s Obamacare: Pay up or pay fines, jail time - You Decide Politics

Muslims like Hasan are like Nazis in the Military

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Nidal Malik Hasan killed more people than the DC Sniper who was put to death tonight for his crimes, but Hasan will probably get a slight hand-slap because everyone is too afraid to upset the Muslims.

Hasan injured thirty people, and killed 13, and did so with pre-meditation. Washington was quick to dismiss the word terrorism before the investigation was even launched. As the facts have emerged, Nidal Hasan has been proven to be a Muslim who contacted a radical imam months ago. On a website Hasan compared suicide bombers with soldiers who fall on grenades to save their fellow troops, and civilians. In a lecture Hasan spoke in terms consistent with Jihadism, and spoke often in such a manner. He told classmates and professors he was a Muslim first, holding to Shariah before the U.S. Constitution. He called the war on terror a war on Islam. He wore the day of his shooting robes similar to those worn by suicide bombers on the day of their mission. The radical Muslim community praises Hasan as a hero.

Nical Malik Hasan gave every sign possible, short of writing "I am an Islamic Jihadist" on his forehead, that he was a dangerous Islamic terrorist capable of doing what he did. The signs were there, but nobody took action, and nobody said anything.

Why?

Could it be that Political Correctness killed those people?

Meanwhile, Barack Obama stood at a podium in Texas voicing that nobody knows why people snap. The press is trying to blame post-traumatic syndrome, when the guy has never seen combat. The Left is trying to find any excuse except the obvious. Janet Napolitano in the United Arab Emirates spoke to Muslims to calm their fears that there might be anti-Muslim backlash. Some in the media are even claiming the poor guy was under stress for being targeted by intolerant folks about his Muslim faith (I've been in the military, and I find that one hard to believe, actually). They wish to make him out to be a victim, when the guy is a cold blooded killer that did what he did because he believes the ideology of Islam demands such actions from him.

Political Correctness is killing America, and our ability to defend ourselves is null and void at this point.

Let's be clear on this. Hasan is an Islamic Jihadist, and whether or not he had connections to al-Qaeda, this was a terrorist attack on a military base, conducted by a Muslim Jihadist that infiltrated our military and undoubtedly did so with such an attack among his plans.

Obama thinks playing nice-nice to the Islamists will keep us safe. This guy was not poverty stricken, received a good education, and was an officer in the U.S. Military. I don't know how much more nice-nice you can get. Yet, he killed unarmed American troops mercilessly while on the grounds of a United States military installation. And he did so screaming "Allah Akbar," as does suicide bombers as they carry out their terrorist activities.

The argument by the left is that we must protect the moderate Muslims - the peaceful Muslims - the non-radical Muslims.

Peaceful Muslims are non-violent despite Islam, not because of it. And if a worldwide caliphate was in force, there would be no such thing as a moderate Muslim. They would all be dancing in the streets with the death of an infidel, if the Muslims were the majority.

Muslims in the U.S. Military during a time of war against the Islamic Jihad is like having Nazis in our military during World War II.

Could you imagine if such a situation happened during World War II?

An American Soldier, an officer, opens fire upon fellow soldiers on a base stateside during the Second World War, and it not only turns out he is a Nazi, but that the warning signs that he followed the enemy ideology was there all along.

"But what about the peaceful Nazis?" would argue the appeasers. "We don't want anybody to mistreat the Nazis who are not violent, do we?"

Insane. The idea of such a scenario is completely insane. Yet, that is what we have going on in today's military. An Islamic Jihadist opened fire on a military base, every sign available points to him being an Islamic Jihadist, and everyone is trying to find a different explanation so that we don't upset the Muslims.

It's like a nightmare, and the idiots of the Left just don't get it. Islamists wish to either convert you, or kill you, and they don't care who was appeasing them. If you are a non-Muslim, they will see you as the enemy - Period. Having Muslims like Hasan in the U.S. Military is like having Nazis in the U.S. Military during World War II - it is insane, and extremely dangerous to the well-being of the National Security of this nation.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Army Ignored Warning Signs From Fort Hood Shooter, Former Classmate Says - Fox News

Janet Napolitano Talks about “Backlash” in United Arab Emirates - VDARE Blog

"A person behind counter stood up, and he said, 'Allah Akbar!' And just opened up on everybody" - Jihad Watch