Bankrupting America

Bankrupting America

The American Century Dictionary defines Bankrupt as “Legally declared insolvent.” Insolvent is defined as “Unable to pay one’s debts.”

The majority of Democrats, and a surprising number of Republicans, believe that the Obama Administration is on the right course to save the nation’s financial system. The same Democrats that screamed bloody-murder over George W. Bush’s spending habits, spending sprees that I also was in grave disagreement with, are now proclaiming that not only will President Barack Obama’s massive budget proposal not bankrupt the country, but that deficit spending into the trillions of dollars is what is necessary to save us from a looming sequel of The Great Depression.

Republican House Representative John A. Boehner, the House minority leader, said recently in defense of his idea to freeze government spending that, “We simply cannot afford to mortgage our children and grandchildren’s future to pay for this big government spending spree.”

Imagine, if you will, and I will use myself as a hypothetical example, that I had hit some hard times. Investments were going sour, logging and construction downturns placed a burden on my financial well-being, and my wife and I were no longer able to go out to fine places to eat, or attend entertainment venues that we would normally frequent. Cooking at home takes work, after all, and tightening our belts and curbing our spending habits would take away from our ability to participate in a lifestyle we have been enjoying for years.

So, one night I sit down with my wife and say, “You know, the way to help our economic situation is to create in influx of cash so that we can get things moving again. That way, with all of that extra cash, we can go out and buy the things we feel we need to buy, and not have to spend so much time worried about trying to juggle the bills.”

She decides to agree in this world of fantasy, and so we max out our credit cards and get more of those little plastic devils so that we can use them for whatever we desire. After all, we need to fix the infrastructure of our lives by buying new cars, adding on to the house, building an additional structure on our property on the Oregon Coast, and pulling out our driveway and replacing it with new concrete – oh, heck, its free money, we might as well lay interlocking bricks. That way, it is more appealing to guest that visit too.

Eventually, the credit cards become too much for us to manage. But, hey, no problem, the 80 acre place in Oregon is paid off, and even with the slow down in real estate it is worth more than one can shake a stick at, so we can just borrow against the property. We’ll set up an account that allows us to write checks, that way the equity is fully available, and always at our fingertips.

During the time period of all this money flowing in we go out, buy new cars, and live it up. Those around us proclaim, “Gosh, even with the economic difficulties this nation is facing, the Gibbs’ family is doing well. I wonder how they do it?”

What is that you say? Eventually I will have to pay back all of that money I created by financing myself up to my eyeballs? No problem, the creditors will stay off my back just long enough for me to die of old age, and then my kids can worry about it. No worry. They’ll figure something out.

Obviously, the high deficit world I created in the above scenario would be a foolish way to run my household. As a business owner, trying to fix an ailing business by going into deeper debt would be foolish as well. So I ask this: If it is the wrong thing to go deeper into debt to create an influx of funds, and if it is wrong to just leave the worries of it to my children and grandchildren, as an individual or business owner, then why would it be the right thing to for the United States Government?

Historically, raising taxes and increasing government spending creates more harm than it helps. Lyndon B. Johnson and Jimmy Carter are great examples of that. And don’t give me this “Obama is cutting taxes” bull, either. Taxes are being raised in ways that we don’t even recognize them as such. Fees and licenses and fines for regulatory disobedience are all taxes, in my book. Even the simple little Business License is a city business tax, even though the word tax is not present. While quacking like a duck, even though the animal has a name tag that says hyena, does not make a duck suddenly a hyena. Eventually, the Democrat’s spending, led by Barack Obama, is going to get so massive, and it is already beyond the abilities of the top 5% to shoulder the full burden, that Obama will tax as Democrats always tax – massively along all points of the economic spectrum. Uh, that means you, too. You will all feel the pain of an Obama Administration frantically trying to gather more funds after everything begins to collapse further.

Early during the last century a recession loomed on the horizon, and Presidents Harding and Coolidge were fiscal conservatives that adhered strictly to the U.S. Constitution. As the economic times were becoming more difficult, as they are now, Harding, and then Coolidge later, cut federal spending and cut taxes. As a result, people were able to do more with more, and their incomes rose, increasing revenue while stimulating the economy. The boom years of the 1920’s followed.

President Hoover, a fitting predecessor to the socialist stylings of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, was not anything like his fellow fiscally conservative Republicans. Hoover, as Roosevelt would later, piled up big deficits to support huge public-works projects. Federal spending soared during the final years of the roaring 20’s and into the early 1930’s. In fact, federal spending increased by more than 50%, the largest increase in federal spending ever recorded during peacetime.

Public projects Hoover decided to undertake included the San Francisco Bay Bridge, the Los Angeles Aqueduct, and the Hoover Dam. Yes, I know these are wonderful projects that we benefit from to this day, and the world is a better place with them, but was this the best thing to do as the nation was entering into The Great Depression? Sure, Hoover became very popular with the labor forces that participated in the projects who were convinced by government to refrain from cutting wages as the economy fell. But was it government’s responsibility to correct the market? Or was it the fault of central planning, protectionism (like the Smoot-Hawley tariff), and central banks like the Federal Reserve System controlling the economy (that became known as the New Deal later) that caused the economic upheaval, and extended it well into the 1940s?

Like with the Obama Administration, where the market seems on the surface to have failed, the government stepped in to protect the common citizen, increasing spending to do so, therefore creating debt – and in Obama’s case, writing checks on money that doesn’t even exist, and in turn devaluing the dollar.

I know that the Liberal anti-truth machine is even now rewriting history, proclaiming that Hoover, contrary to popular opinion and factual historical text, was actually trying to balance the budget by cutting spending, and it was those actions that caused The Great Depression. Robert H. Frank of the New York Times even goes so far to “lie,” I mean “say,” that Hoover not only actually cut spending, but that there is a consensus out there among economists that cutting spending is a huge mistake.

Do you hear that? Balancing the budget, cutting spending, and essentially being responsible with the American Citizen’s tax money is a bad thing? Putting less on the credit cards will harm us? Mortgaging America into bankruptcy so that our children and grandchildren in their lifetimes could never pay it back in full is the right thing to do to stimulate the economy? Are they insane?

Owing more than you have coming in, in other words, deficit spending, is a one way ticket to bankruptcy. It was wrong when George W. Bush did it, and it is wrong now. The Free Market is self-correcting. The people know best, not the government. The size of government has been steadily increasing over the last twenty years under the very moderate Bush Family, Bill Clinton, and now Obama (with a short spurt of a balanced budget that created a surplus that was engineered by the House Republicans led by Newt Gingrich during the nineties, of which The Left loves to give the credit to Bill Clinton on). If an increase in the size of government is such a good thing, and if deficit spending is what helps the economy grow, then tell me: After all of these years of deficit spending and a constant expansion of the federal government, why is it that we are in this financial mess? Could it possibly be that the seems of our economy are busting loose because of government intervention in the Free Market? Could it possibly be that the Free Market is trying to adjust after a decades of artificial manipulation by the United States Government? And since when is ever financing ourselves into oblivion a reasonable thing to do?

The Obama Administration, and the village idiots that populate the U.S. Congress, are bankrupting us. And what is most concerting about it is that a large segment of the U.S. population is actually greeting this destruction of the American financial system with thunderous applause, and mindless approval. Our founding fathers, President Harding, and President Coolidge would be disappointed. We have truly lost our way, and the Pied Pipers of Washington are leading us to a cliff. It is essential that we turn this around with fiscal conservatism, or else in the end, like the rats in the river, we will be drowning as a result of our own stupidity.

Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Five Myths About the Great Depression by Andrew B. Wilson

When ‘Deficit’ Isn’t a Dirty Word by Robert H. Frank

Advertisements

Israel Moves Into Gaza

Israel Moves Into Gaza with Troops and Tanks

Israel sent thousands of troops, backed by tanks and helicopter gunships, into the Gaza Strip as they lauched a ground offensive in Gaza last night. This action follows a week of airstrikes into Gaza that were aimed at stopping rocket and missile attacks against Israel from the Muslim controlled region. Since 2005, after Israel withdrew from the Gaza Strip, relinquishing full control to the Palestinians (and eventually to the terrorist group, Hamas) 6,500 rockets and missiles have been fired into Israel, primarily targeting civilians, killing indescrimitantly.

Hamas, while living up to the “Death To Israel” chant you hear often coming from the lips of Islamists, has used women and children as shields while proclaiming to the world that Israel is in fact the aggressors. Palestinians, and the rest of the Muslim world, continuously remind us that they are committed to Israel’s destruction, will never recognize Israel as a nation, and will never end the violence against the Jewish State; yet the moment Israel responds with military actions against the continuous onslaught of violence against them, the Muslim world (and liberal left media alike) screams out that Israel’s response is an unbelievable display of disproportionate aggression.

You’d think, if you believe what you read in the newspapers and news magazines, or even kind of believe what you hear on the alphabet news channels, that the Palestinian casualties in a few days of Israeli strikes are astronomical when compared to the deaths of Israelis over any period of time, when in reality the constant pounding of Israel by her neighbors has taking its toll – and the toll has become such that Israel has finally taken action.

Could you imagine if Mexico, declaring that the Southwest United States belonged to them (as the Muslims have declared regarding the Jewish lands), decided to start lobbing rockets into San Diego, San Antonio, and Yuma? How long do you think it would take before the United States took action? Would Americans then be crying out once America took action to stop the attacks? Would the U.S. response be seen as disproportionate? Would we sit still if Mexico or Canada suddenly declared that they were committed to our destruction as a nation, and were willing to use any violence necessary to destroy us? Would we stand for even a single attack against our soil? If you are not sure of the answers to those questions, remember how you felt on September 11, 2001 when the Twin Towers fell.

And here is the real kicker. If any nation other than Israel fights a war and loses, that nation simply lost a war. But Israel, surrounded by the enemy, and existing in a world filled with nations that desire their destruction, must win every war – for to Israel, to lose a war is to cease to exist.

Published in: on January 5, 2009 at 12:38 am  Leave a Comment  
Tags: , , , , ,

Heroes Weekend

Taking Chance Home on Political Pistachio Radio —- Tonight at 7pm Pacific

The first weekend of 2009 is Heroes Weekend on The Political Pistachio Radio Revolution. Tonight the account of Valor, Honor, and Respect – Marine Lieutenant Colonel Strobl escorting the remains of Lance Corporal Chance Phelps home – and also information on the movie starring Kevin Bacon that takes this story into the theaters.

Monica Brown, Silver Star Recipient – The tale of bravery and heroism in Afghanistan —- Sunday Night at 7pm Pacific

Monica Brown is the second woman since World War II to receive the Silver Star. She’s an Army Medic that risked her own life to save the lives of a pair of critically wounded paratroopers. Her story received the spotlight when 60 Minutes interviewed her. Tonight we will discuss her story in this second installment of Heroes Weekend on the Political Pistachio Revolution.

The links above are to listen live, or to catch the archive later – Political Pistachio Radio

Barry and Rod

Obama Connection to Rod Blagojevich?


Friend, and political ally, of Barack Obama – Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich – was indicted for operating a bribery scheme that specifically was designed to sell Barack Obama’s U.S. Senate seat to the highest bidder. Such a political corruption scandal has Obama’s political foes asking about connections between Barack Obama and the Illinois governor – after all, it was Obama’s Senate seat that caused the stir in the first place.

The scandal carries with it the typical degree of illegality and corruption one expects to see out of Illinois politics – after all, the corruption of Chicago area politicians is well known, and dang near legendary. In fact, Blagojevich is the 4th of the last seven governors to find himself behind bars.

Interestingly, after bail was paid, Blagojevich went back to work as if nothing had happened, and then refused to resign after many people of both parties asked him to do so. Even President-Elect Barack Obama recommended that Blagojevich step down. One comes to the conclusion that he is either very arrogant, or lacks a conscience, or both.

Immediately, after the scandal broke, Barack Obama said he had no contact with the governor, or Blagojevich’s office – this coming only a month after Obama’s advisor, David Axelrod, said otherwise in an interview on Fox News Chicago. Axelrod, of course, later issued a retraction, claiming that he was mistaken.

But here is what interests me: Obama’s vacant Illinois Senate seat was to be filled by an appointment by the Illinois Governor, Blagojevich, and surely Barack Obama would have kept tabs on the status of the choice. Also, considering the close ties Obama had with Blagojevich, you would have thought they had at least had a conversation here and there, regardless of whether or not the exchange was regarding the U.S. Senate seat. The suggestion that Barack Obama has not talked to Governor Blagojevich since the election, to be honest, seems ludicrous.

In fact, I fully expected that they had been in contact, and I would not have been saying “ah ha!” had that come out after this scandal. The fact that Obama is claiming there has been absolutely no contact with Blagojevich, or his office, sends up many more red flags, than if Obama had said something like, “Yes, we’ve been in contact, but I was not aware of, nor did Rod say anything about, trading favors for my vacant Illinois Senate seat.”

But that is the way Barry works. The moment a scandal, or a connection that may make him look bad, crosses the horizon, he detaches any and all connections to that person. But does it seem reasonable that the person who left a senate seat open would have absolutely no contact with the person tasked with filling the seat? Would it seem reasonable that something as exciting as being elected President of the United States would not prompt Barack Obama and Rod Blagojevich to at least have a chat about it?

Unlikely.

Published in: on December 18, 2008 at 1:48 am  Comments (1)  
Tags:

Mankind’s God Complex

Mankind’s God Complex

It is interesting how humanity is constantly striving to become god-like. This is nothing new. In the biblical story of the Garden of Eden the temptation by the serpent offered that by eating the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge Adam and Eve would become more like God because they would gain the knowledge of right and wrong, thus giving them the knowledge of things God understood that, up to that point, they did not comprehend.

In reality, in the story of Adam and Eve, the serpent did not lie to the first humans. They did not need to be lied to in order for the deception to take place. The truth only had to be presented in a way to elicit a certain response, or action. It was an enticement to become more like God. Who wouldn’t want that?

The whole point of the Tree of Knowledge was obedience, but most folks miss the whole point.

One thing is for sure, however. Mankind has always strived to be more like God.

In today’s society the key word for this constant human struggle to be more like God is “Spirituality.” Some claim we are heading into a new age of enlightenment where the next step in human evolution is about to be upon us. Others say humans are multi-dimensional beings, and our dreams are actually contact by ourselves in other dimensions. One person once told me, for example, that if we dream we are flying it may mean that we are a bird in another dimension.

But these same people find a Judeo-Christian God something too difficult to believe in.

There are also those that believe in the power of the mind, and that the human mind is so powerful it is in complete tune with the rest of the body in ways that could lead to miracles. This may be a belief that stems from a story about Sigmund Freud in which he dreamed about having cancer, he interpreted the dream as something else, failing to recognize the opportunity to cure himself. He then subsequently died of the very cancer he dreamed he had. Some believe it was the cancer cells communicating with him, warning him.

I am not saying that dreams are random brain sequences, there may be a meaning to some dreams. Dreams, after all, played a significant role in many stories in the Old Testament of the Holy Bible. But once again, deception does not have to be a complete lie.

But to stay on point, the whole idea that humanity is progressing to perfection is a product of the Theory of Evolution. This movement, coincidentally, is populated by people who are also anti-Christian. The idea of progression to perfection is hardly compatible with the Biblical idea that we are all sinners and unworthy of God’s love.

Progression to perfection makes sense on the surface. After all, we seem to become more advanced as a species with each generation. Our understanding of the world, and universe around us, increases with the passing of each cycle. So, with such constant progression, it would seem logical that eventually we will progress to a god-like state. And with that kind of thinking, it would seem that since Christians are diametrically opposed to such a human-centered ideology, those that support progressivism would see it as a necessity to eliminate the obstacle to human advancement towards perfection. Specifically, Christianity, and religion as a whole, would be seen as a hindrance to humanity’s evolution – especially those that dare to believe in a Christian God.

But are we truly progressing?

In physics there is the Chaos Theory which says in the most simplistic terms that whenever something is left alone it will have the tendency to move toward a condition of chaos, rather than order. Progressive evolution, however, proclaims the opposite. The liberal idea of human evolution progressing toward perfection is essentially saying that our species is moving from chaos to order. But if naturally we tend to go from order to chaos, isn’t the idea of progression toward perfection in complete opposition to the logic of science?

For that matter, isn’t the entire theory of Evolution itself in direct opposition to the Chaos Theory? And if we are indeed moving from order to chaos as physics would profess, how did things begin in a state of order in the first place?

For many, the logical conclusion is that there was a creator, a designer, a blueprinter, who set everything in motion in perfect order. However, since that creation, we have been slowly progressing, or should I say “regressing,” toward a state of chaos. Toward confusion. Toward disorder.

Anarchy, when standards and morals and order are abandoned, is often the result of such a deterioration.

Without order, without standards, humanity has the tendency to do the wrong thing – “naturally” the wrong thing.

The natural tendency of humans to do the wrong thing is confirmed, from a Christian standpoint, in the New Testament Book of Romans. Romans 3:23 “For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” Humanity, however, does not want to accept that. Humanity does not desire to accept the fact that we are a flawed being headed towards catastrophe should we abandon the standards of order given to us in the form of Godly morals and principles. We would prefer, it seems, to be arrogant and believe that we are able to move in the opposite direction of nature, move in the opposite direction of science, and move in the opposite direction of common sense – that we are somehow progressing toward perfection, and a god-like state, in an opportunity as a species to be, well, more like God.

As a species we have become so dead-set on our evolution toward perfection that agendas have been created to ensure it happens. These political agendas are designed to control you, herd you, and point you in the direction of progressivism – as San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom would say, “Whether you like it, or not.”

But as I said earlier, there is only one thing that stands in the way of this agenda: Religion – and more often than not, Christianity. In order to become more like God, they must eliminate the belief in the true God. In a sense, the secular humanists are attempting to eliminate the competition.

And for those of you that are religious, but are not necessarily Christian, understand this: The desire of the liberal left secular humanists to eliminate, subdue, or control Christianity will not stop at Christianity. You, my friends, will be next.

The fate of one will eventually become the fate of all.

Secular Humanism, the religion of humanity, is on the rise. The agenda? Perfection. Order. And the elimination of anybody that gets in the way.

 

Published in: on December 17, 2008 at 6:00 am  Leave a Comment  
Tags: , , ,

Recession? Or Not?

When a Recession is not a Recession, but merely the possible beginnings of one

Last Spring I optimistically believed that, due to a few positive construction industry signs, the housing market would possibly rebound from its downward spiral. A short burst of activity, spurned on by the industry builders intentions to close their books on projects by the end of the year encouraged a slight, but short, increase in the sales of new homes in some areas around the country. The quick rise of hope, however, was short lived, and immediately afterward the numbers dropped lower than they had been in the months previously.

I never believed the short, but sweet, activity in construction and the real estate market would eventually become a new boom, or that the housing part of the overall economic picture would ever be what it was during the previous housing boom that came crashing down a few years ago. In fact, I am sure there is nobody that truly believes that we will ever reach that level of growth in the real estate market again. I did, however, hope that the activity I saw at that time could possibly be an indication that the bottom had been reached, and a new steady rise of consumer spending in the housing industry may stop the hemorrhaging.

Earlier this year I also indicated in a couple articles that I believe we are not in a recession, nor would we go into a recession should the government stay out of the way and allow the free market to adjust itself naturally as designed by our founding fathers. That is how Capitalism works. Ups and downs historically have created a roller coaster ride of statistics that, through the natural adjustments of the market, partly due to the habits of the consumer, would never allow the system to plunge into a deep depression as long as outside entities such as the government decide to refrain from manipulating the market in order to save us from such an economic catastrophe.

A number of liberals have been sending me messages and comments calling me an idiot and a liar because, as you have probably noticed, the economic downturn has been steadily worsening, and based on my articles of optimism, and the liberal subjectivity and misunderstanding of the written pieces, I obviously (to them) did not know what I was talking about. They have erroneously assumed that optimism considering a possible turn-around on the horizon must mean that I was somehow predicting a one hundred percent increase in the economy, and a return to the glory days of a robust economic engine.

Of course their attacks are an example of a very typical liberal attitude – always looking for that “Gotch’ya” moment.

I, like any other normal human being, understand that nothing is ever “for sure,” first of all. Secondly, if these smear merchants of the fringe left were to read what I wrote carefully, rather than with subjective intentions, they would have noticed I repeatedly indicated that we would be fine economically without government intrusion. Capitalism is a self-correcting system, with mild highs and lows that are exaggerated whenever artificial manipulation by government bodies are applied. In short, any government intrusion through bailouts or over-regulation, regardless of the wonderful intention to save us from economic disaster, is literally turning us headlong into economic woes that even Jimmy Carter couldn’t create.

Contrary to what the biased media and liberal Democrats are telling you, this is not the worse downturn since the Great Depression, and the Republicans are definitely not at full fault for the current financial difficulties this nation is facing.

However, if the government doesn’t step aside right now and get out of the way of the American Free Market, if the weakest links of the economic system are not allowed to fail and fade away or be engulfed by larger and stronger institutions in their corner of the industry, and if the consumer (and government) doesn’t stop living beyond their means while gladly accepting government welfare checks, we will be in for an economic disaster beyond imagining.

On the horizon are worse things than a housing downturn, credit crunch, and rising oil prices, should the current move towards more government involvement in the economy continue.

But are we currently in the worse economic pickle since the Great Depression, as the Democrats and Barack Obama proclaim, and ran their campaign on as they crammed unwarranted change down the throats of the unassuming voter?

Let’s take a look at the numbers and decide from there.

When it comes to economic statistics, most will tell you the true indicator of a recession is the Gross Domestic Product, or GDP. This number is the output of goods and services produced by labor and property located in the United States. And the Gross Domestic Product did indeed decrease in the third quarter of 2008. . . but this hardly makes for a recession. Aside from a meager 0.2 drop in the fourth quarter of 2007, the last time we have experienced a negative percentage change of the GDP was -1.4 during the third quarter of 2001 – a number nearly triple the -0.5 we experienced last quarter. Negative numbers also appeared during the first quarter of 2001 and the third quarter of 2000. Some may say that those were a residual effect from the Clinton years.

If you compare the third quarter of 2008’s drop of -0.5 of the GDP to the -3.0 of the last quarter of 1990, or the -2.0 of the first quarter of 1991, the current strain seems to be a minor hiccup. The numbers after the end of Jimmy Carter’s mismanagement of our economy are even more alarming (-7.8 1980 2nd QTR, -0.7 1980 3rd QTR, -3.1 1981 2nd QTR, -4.9 1981 4th QTR, -6.4 1982 1st QTR, -1.5 1982 3rd QTR). Judging by the GDP, this is hardly a recession, and hardly the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. However, in order to convince the people that the Republicans were bad guys, and “Change” was the only thing that could save us, the Democrats had to paint the economy as gloomily as they could.

Some folks quote the unemployment numbers as being an indication of a recession, and that unemployment is spiraling out of control worse than any year since the Great Depression. The current 6.5 unemployment rate seems high if you compare it to the numbers over the last 10 years, even though the percentages remain within a point or two of each other all the way through that period. During the Great Depression unemployment rates topped over 20%, and in some years nearly reached 25%, well above the current 6.5%. In 1975 the unemployment rate was 9.0, in 1982 it reached over 10%. Once again, though the unemployment rate is higher than it has been in the last five years (and among the highest over the last ten years), it is hardly as high as it has been before, and hardly at a point that it will take major government influence to save us from disaster.

My point, I believe, is clear. The media and the liberal left created hysteria about the economy being the worst it has been since the Depression, and they did so soley for political reasons. It turns out that not only is this liberal information not true, if anything, our economy is only experiencing a minor bump in the road and has been essentially healthy over the last eight years of President George W. Bush. However, the bailouts, increases in taxes (business taxes, capital gains taxes, estate taxes, etc.) that Obama has suggested, and other government manipulation can (and will if put into place) send us into an economic direction that could prove to be exactly what the Democrats were swearing we were in the midst of already.

As Ronald Reagan proved after the recessionary years that followed the disastrous Jimmy Carter presidency, Fiscal Conservatism can not only change the direction of the economy, but lead us into years of prosperity. This is why it is so important that we begin now in planning to place Conservative Republicans (not moderates) into Congress in 2010 (as happened in 1992). The last time that happened, during the early 90’s, the budget was balanced and the country returned to a few years of economic prosperity. However, if we do not inject fiscal conservatism back into the government, and get liberal government out of the way of Capitalism and the Free Market, then what we are seeing now will continue to worsen, until finally we will wind up in a full blown recession with the Democratic Leadership fumbling around searching for excuses and opportunities to blame someone other than themselves.
Published in: on December 1, 2008 at 2:16 am  Leave a Comment  
Tags: , , , , ,

Will Santa Claus Be Out Of A Job By 2012?

Economic Expert Predicts By 2012 Less Toys Will Be Bought For Christmas – – – So That People Can Buy Food!

As the current economic downturn worsens, and experts predict under Obama’s leadership we will see an increase in job loss, crippling taxes, and an increase in the homeless numbers, the basic elements of survival will take precedence over luxuries like Christmas presents. Steve Shenk says that it is a reasonable possibility that Santa Claus may be out of a job by 2012 because Americans will have too many other priorities. . . like eating.

Steve Shenk, the director of eFoods Direct, is my guest tonight on Political Pistachio Radio. He will explain how, under the ever-increasing economic strain, we can take control of our budgets and fulfill our most basic elements of survival in a smarter and more economically way.

Published in: on November 29, 2008 at 8:36 pm  Leave a Comment  
Tags: , , ,

Walid Shoebat on World Reaction to Obama; Dr. Kenneth Hill on The Fairness Doctrine

Saturday Night http://www.blogtalkradio.com/politicalpistachio Political Pistachio Radio welcomed http://www.shoebat.com Walid Shoebat and http://www.assaultonliberty.com Dr. Kenneth Hill as guests on the highly acclaimed internet Blog Talk Radio show.

Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran, Syria, and other Muslim countries and organizations are excited about an Obama Presidency, but Al Qaeda has responded in a negative tone. . . Why? And what is the fate of Israel in this new world of Obamaism? These answers, and more, are provided by Walid Shoebat on http://www.blogtalkradio.com/politicalpistachio Political Pistachio Radio.

The Democrats are pushing to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine claiming it is about preserving the right of equal time for opinions on the airwaves. Dr. Kenneth Hill, however, says that the Fairness Doctrine is about “Shutting down the much more popular conservative programming that obviously resonates more with the American Public. . . this law is The Censorship Doctrine.”

Listen to the conversations on Political Pistachio Radio with Walid Shoebat and Dr. Kenneth Hill at www.blogtalkradio.com/politicalpistachio.

Published in: on November 24, 2008 at 4:04 am  Leave a Comment  
Tags:

It’s About Conservative Principles, Stupid!

It’s About Conservative Principles, Stupid!


Human Nature dictates that it is more comfortable to be in a crisis and blame others, than to be in a comfort zone and look inward. People tend to not like to look at themselves. It is much easier to ignore the decisions one has made in their life, and blame others for their predicament instead.

I have accused the Liberal Left many times of ignoring human nature, and that is exactly what they do. However, human desire is hardly ignored by The Left. During this last election, the human desire for any change during a crisis, whether that crisis is real or not, was not ignored at all. During the Obama Campaign, the Democrats were banking on Human Desire to takes its course, and elect the next president on emotional impulse, rather than principles that best serves this nation.

Obama’s Health Care plan took advantage of the human desire to have access to health care, no matter what the cost. However, Obama’s Health Care Plan ignores human nature when it comes to the human tendency to take advantage (to the point of over doing it) of what seems to be a freebie, even if it is not from a taxation point of view. Barack Obama proclaims that his Universal-style government health plan is completely voluntary. If you have good health insurance, you can keep it. His plan only supplies government paid (taxpayer paid) health care to those who can’t afford such plans (mostly illegal aliens). But, as his alleged birth state of Hawaii has proven, such a plan is doomed to fail.

Why did Hawaii’s health plan, similar to Obama’s in all ways except that it specifically targeted children, fail? Because those who already had health care plans dropped them for the government freebie, which in turn bankrupted the government plan, and after seven months Hawaii had to kill it and proclaim the plan to be a failure. Oh, the idea had a noble ring to it: “Hawaii lawmakers approved the health plan in 2007 as a way to ensure every child can get basic medical help. The Keiki (child) Care program aimed to cover every child from birth to 18 years old who didn’t already have health insurance — mostly immigrants and members of lower-income families.”

Sound familiar?

But hey, like with all of his other socialist ideas, Obama’s attitude is that failed policies need not fail with his messiah-like touch involved. Obamaism will succeed because he will make it so.

And Obama said, “Let there be utopia, and there was.”

As stated earlier, Obama and the rest of the liberals, do not take into account human nature when it comes to their programs – that is why their neo-socialism/neo-Marxism is doomed to fail, and by the end of the Obama presidency America will be begging for “Change.”

The Democrats, however much they ignore human nature when it comes to governing, definitely recognized the potential of human desire when it came to campaigning.

“Crisis” is an important component to bring about change, and change – any change – can be instituted once humans believe they are caught up in a teeth gnashing crisis.

Knowing this, the Democrats created crisis when they launched their “hate Bush” campaign five years ago, and hammered away at it until they believed that most Americans felt that George W. Bush is the worst president this country has ever seen. Of course, like with any leader, I do not agree with many things Dubya has enacted, but having disagreements with a politician doesn’t automatically make him the “worst ever” as a result. If that was the case, every president that has ever been elected (and one that wasn’t) has been the worst ever. Heck, I even disagreed with Ronald Reagan a couple times!

Unfortunately, the Republican Leadership got sucked into the “crisis hysteria” as well, and began to believe there must be something wrong with the Republican Brand under the constant deluge of attacks, and often lies, from the Liberal Left Democrats. As a result, the GOP decided it would be prudent to move leftward and become a party of moderates (but sometimes call it conservatism hoping that some of the base may actually believe them).

The Republican Party, in that sense, began to think like the Democrats, and placed Party (and winning the next election) over and above their principles.

Conservatism isn’t about power, control, big government, or any of the other things that seems to define today’s liberalism or moderate Repubicans. Conservative Principles are about down-sizing the size of the federal government, practicing fiscal responsibility, supporting family values, providing a strong defense, encouraging individual rights and responsibility, keeping taxes and government spending down, and adhering to the United States Constitution.

How can the Republican Party proclaim to be a party of conservatives when government spending has skyrocketed under the control of a Republican President (that convinced many that he’s a Conservative), earmarks by Congress just as rampant among the GOP as it is with the Democrats, and a national border left wide open during a time that providing a strong defense has become crucial? How can the Republicans claim to support family values when scandals like Senator Larry Craig’s Bathroom Stall antics crop up, or politicians with an “R” after their name, like California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, say things like “The fight for gay marriage is not over in California?”

The image above at the top of this article is the 2008 Election Map by counties. Looks like a Republican landslide, doesn’t it? Fact is, the population centers elected Barack Obama for president, while the Conservatives of this nation stayed home and let it happen. As for the other voters, the Democrats saw that their “Bring the troops home from Iraq” plan was losing, and were able to make the economy the number one issue going into the election – and then turned Obama into a tax cutting conservative to win!

It turns out that people did not flock to the voting booths in record numbers as the mainstream media had expected, and by percentage the voter turnout was virtually the same as 2004. However, African-American and Hispanic Voter turnout was up, while White voter turnout was down. Registered Democrats voter turnout increased by 2.6 points from 28.7 percent in 2004 to 31.3 percent in 2008 while Republican turnout declined by 1.3 percentage points to 28.7 percent.

In short, Republicans stayed home while non-Republicans flocked to their voting locations.

The question, then, is why?

The Republican Party erroneously put the party first. Winning the election became more important than sticking to Conservative Principles. A moderate, well known to buck the GOP and leap across the aisle to hang out with Democrats, was the Republican offering. The GOP has become more and more convinced that moving left will win elections for the party, rather than sticking to “believing is something.” Therefore, the GOP is being seen by the voters as being a party that essentially stands for nothing. Many conservatives stayed home to punish the Republicans. Now, among the moderates, I am hearing rumblings of how they can brand the Republican Party to appeal to the younger crowd, and the minorities – – – that they must move further to the left in order to win the next election!

In a word, the Republican Party Leadership is now populated by idiots. You don’t abandon your principles to gain a handful of votes from voters that have no principles of their own, or maintain leftist leanings. You stick to your principles, you proclaim your principles, and you explain how your conservative principles are good for all Americans. Then, when people understand that Conservatism is not the lies the left puts out, but the idea that not only should one group not be punished for being successful, but that all people should be encouraged to reach such success in this nation of opportunity, people will vote for the party because they wish to vote for the principles the party stands for.

The Republican Party lost this election because it turned its back on Conservative Principles, and allowed the Democrats to proclaim “crisis” successfully, and herd the people in the direction of Socialism. The Republican Leadership believes the lies put out by the left, and reacts to the ridiculous accusations put out by the left, and like cowards abandoned their Conservative Principles under the pressure.

If abandoning Conservative Principles is the recipe for success in elections, then show me the overwhelming success of moderates across the nation?

The two most popular governors in America, at this moment, are Republicans that cling to their Conservative Principles, Sarah Palin of Alaska and Bobby Jindal of Louisiana. The last landslide election win by Republicans for President was Ronald Reagan in 1984 – a campaign run on strict Conservative Principles.

America is the greatest nation on this earth, not the nation to blame for the world’s ills as the Democrats paint it out to be. Fiscal Conservatism, as it did in the 80’s, can lead us back to economic prosperity. Peace can be maintained in the world with a strong American Military that sends fear down the spines of every dictator and madman abroad. Our moral compass can be righted again with legislation that protects the unborn, protects marriage, and continues to encourage families to be the backbone of this nation. But this can only be achieved if the Republican Party returns to its base. Politics should not be about winning elections and gaining or holding power. It’s about Conservative Principles, and sticking to what is right. It is about doing what is best for this nation. It is about standing up for the American Way.

————

For News on the Tea Fire in California GO HERE.

Published in: on November 15, 2008 at 5:18 pm  Leave a Comment  
Tags: , , , , , , ,

Barack Hussein Obama and the Logan Act

Barack Obama and His Merry Band of Felons, Violating The Logan Act

The Logan Act is a Federal Law forbidding American citizens not authorized by the President to correspond or meet with foreign governments with the intent of influencing conduct. Violation of the act, which passed in 1799, is a felony, punishable under federal law with imprisonment of up to three years.

There have been no convictions or prosecutions under the Logan Act. The Text of the Act is as follows:

Private correspondence with foreign governments.

Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply himself, or his agent, to any foreign government, or the agents thereof, for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.

During the Vietnam War when Jane Fonda went to Hanoi to meet with the enemy she was guilty of violating the Logan Act. During the Vietnam War when John Kerry secretly met with enemy leaders in Paris, he too was in violation of federal law.

Nancy Pelosi visiting the Syrian leader, and Jimmy Carter’s visits to the Middle East talking down America were both in violation of the Logan Act as well.

And now we have running for president, his Lord the Democratic Messiah, Barrack Hussein Obama. During his recent trip to Iraq it is alleged that Obama tried to negotiate with Iraqi leaders to delay the troop withdrawal (of course he wants credit for any troop withdrawal, and if troops begin withdrawing under the flag of victory now, then if he became president it would look as if he was simply continuing to do what George W. Bush had already begun). Word has it that nobody has been willing to follow Obama’s plans of delaying the troop withdrawal.

Notice, the Logan Act has been violated a number of times (surprise! by the liberal left!) yet never with indictments. And the cases I have mentioned above are only the tip of the ice berg. I personally believe that Democrats routinely violate the Logan Act, well knowing that nobody will be willing to prosecute, and even if the GOP tried to launch an investigation, the Republicans would probably not be able to make a charge stick.

The McCain campaign, however, is making sure the Democrats know that The Right has noticed what they are up to.

The Obama Camp has responded to it as well, denying the report that Barry has had secretly urged the Iraqis to postpone a deal to withdraw US troops until after November’s election.

Now that is what I call a patriotic president, right? – After all, his wife, Michelle, loves this country – becoming proud of America for the first time in her life when Barack received a political promotion.

Published in: on September 22, 2008 at 3:19 am  Comments (4)  
Tags: , , , , , ,