Tuesday, June 26, 2012
Obama Team Desperate for Votes, Calls for Mandatory Voting
Desperation: Obama Surrogate Calls to Make Voting Mandatory - Breitbart
Peter Orszag, former head of the Obama Office of Management and Budget, is desperate. With even Roll Call recognizing that President Obama is fighting an uphill battle for re-election, Orszag is floating a trial balloon: mandatory voting. His call for forced voting comes in an op/ed for Bloomberg News:
The U.S. prides itself as the beacon of democracy, but it’s very likely no U.S. president has ever been elected by a majority of American adults.
MORE
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Christian Bloodbath Planned by Muslims
300 suicide bombers plan Christian bloodbath |
They're recruiting an army of suicide bombers with one target in their sights: Christians. Calling it "revenge for Muslims killed," the goal is to make July the "bloodiest month yet." Click here to read the full article. |
Godfather of Global Warming Theory Abandons Hysteria-Makers
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Among his observations to the Guardian:
(1) A long-time supporter of nuclear power as a way to lower greenhouse gas emissions, which has made him unpopular with environmentalists, Lovelock has now come out in favour of natural gas fracking (which environmentalists also oppose), as a low-polluting alternative to coal.
As Lovelock observes, “Gas is almost a give-away in the U.S. at the moment. They’ve gone for fracking in a big way. This is what makes me very cross with the greens for trying to knock it … Let’s be pragmatic and sensible and get Britain to switch everything to methane. We should be going mad on it.” (Kandeh Yumkella, co-head of a major United Nations program on sustainable energy, made similar arguments last week at a UN environmental conference in Rio de Janeiro, advocating the development of conventional and unconventional natural gas resources as a way to reduce deforestation and save millions of lives in the Third World.)
(2) Lovelock blasted greens for treating global warming like a religion.
“It just so happens that the green religion is now taking over from the Christian religion,” Lovelock observed. “I don’t think people have noticed that, but it’s got all the sort of terms that religions use … The greens use guilt. That just shows how religious greens are. You can’t win people round by saying they are guilty for putting (carbon dioxide) in the air.”
(3) Lovelock mocks the idea modern economies can be powered by wind turbines.
As he puts it, “so-called ‘sustainable development’ … is meaningless drivel … We rushed into renewable energy without any thought. The schemes are largely hopelessly inefficient and unpleasant. I personally can’t stand windmills at any price.”
(4) Finally, about claims “the science is settled” on global warming: “One thing that being a scientist has taught me is that you can never be certain about anything. You never know the truth. You can only approach it and hope to get a bit nearer to it each time. You iterate towards the truth. You don’t know it.”
It is funny. The global warming nuts say that consensus proves global warming to be the truth. Was that the case when the consensus was that the world was flat? Or that oil is a fossil fuel (evidence building that oil is abiotic)?
Science is not about consensus, but about the pursuit of truth.
Over global warming, the claim of consensus, and the hysteria that accompanies it, has even turned off James Lovelock, the man known to be the godfather of global warming. He, in an interview on MSNBC, admitted that even he had been a bit of an “alarmist” about climate change.
Lovelock uses a New Age idea, and formulated the Gaia theory, which supposes that the Earth operates as a single, living organism.
Lovelock uses a New Age idea, and formulated the Gaia theory, which supposes that the Earth operates as a single, living organism.
His theories were a large influence on the development of global warming theory.
As time has passed, global temperatures have not gone up in the way computer-based climate models predicted. Lovelock admits “the problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago.”
As time has passed, global temperatures have not gone up in the way computer-based climate models predicted. Lovelock admits “the problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago.”
Though still a proponent that humanity must lower its greenhouse gas emissions, he says it’s now clear the doomsday predictions, including his own (and Al Gore’s) were incorrect.
In the interview, to my knowledge, he did not address the idea that global temperature changes are a natural phenomenon, largely influenced by sunspot and solar flare activity.
In the interview, to my knowledge, he did not address the idea that global temperature changes are a natural phenomenon, largely influenced by sunspot and solar flare activity.
The problem is, these scientists are motivated by money, and fear losing government funding if they admit they are in error. Global warming scientists have, according to emails, manipulated the data to make sure it comes out in favor of their claims. Lovelock states that he is unlike those scientists, willing to revise his theories in the face of new evidence.
Among his observations to the Guardian:
(1) A long-time supporter of nuclear power as a way to lower greenhouse gas emissions, which has made him unpopular with environmentalists, Lovelock has now come out in favour of natural gas fracking (which environmentalists also oppose), as a low-polluting alternative to coal.
As Lovelock observes, “Gas is almost a give-away in the U.S. at the moment. They’ve gone for fracking in a big way. This is what makes me very cross with the greens for trying to knock it … Let’s be pragmatic and sensible and get Britain to switch everything to methane. We should be going mad on it.” (Kandeh Yumkella, co-head of a major United Nations program on sustainable energy, made similar arguments last week at a UN environmental conference in Rio de Janeiro, advocating the development of conventional and unconventional natural gas resources as a way to reduce deforestation and save millions of lives in the Third World.)
(2) Lovelock blasted greens for treating global warming like a religion.
“It just so happens that the green religion is now taking over from the Christian religion,” Lovelock observed. “I don’t think people have noticed that, but it’s got all the sort of terms that religions use … The greens use guilt. That just shows how religious greens are. You can’t win people round by saying they are guilty for putting (carbon dioxide) in the air.”
(3) Lovelock mocks the idea modern economies can be powered by wind turbines.
As he puts it, “so-called ‘sustainable development’ … is meaningless drivel … We rushed into renewable energy without any thought. The schemes are largely hopelessly inefficient and unpleasant. I personally can’t stand windmills at any price.”
(4) Finally, about claims “the science is settled” on global warming: “One thing that being a scientist has taught me is that you can never be certain about anything. You never know the truth. You can only approach it and hope to get a bit nearer to it each time. You iterate towards the truth. You don’t know it.”
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Green Drivel Exposed: Godfather of Global Warming Lowers the Boom on Climate Change Hysteria - Toronto Sun
The Father of Gaia Says The Global Warming Warnings Have Become Too Alarmist - Invester's Business Daily
Abiotic Oil Means That Peak Oil Is A Lie - Political Pistachio
Not Letting Arizona Enforce Immigration is to Take Away Arizona's State Sovereignty
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Yesterday the United States Supreme Court ruled on Arizona's Immigration Law, and all sides think they have won something.
But when a State is sued for enforcing laws on the books, and for flexing its authorities on a concurrent issue, it places the very sovereignty of the State in danger.
Before I discuss this, I want you to remember that the federal court system has no constitutional authority to strike down State laws (or any law, for that matter). According to Article I, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, all legislative powers are granted to the Congress. By striking down a law, the courts are acting legislatively, and therefore unconstitutionally.
Now, that said, the United States Supreme Court, yesterday, struck down Arizona's requirement for aliens to carry registration papers. They struck down the law's application of criminal penalties for employing illegal aliens, and the authorization of warrantless arrests for deportable crimes. However, all eight present justices voted to allow the mandatory immigration check requirement to go into effect.
What happened was that a federal court dictated to a State what it can and can't do regarding an issue it has authority to pursue. This means that once again the federal government has again worked to silence the States, and tell them they don't have say over anything. . . especially if the States try to do something contrary to the federal government.
That's the argument. Sure, the immigration law in Arizona mirrors the federal law, and Arizona is simply enforcing immigration laws that the federal government refuses to enforce. Therefore, the federal government has determined that Arizona is acting unconstitutionally for daring to enforce existing laws on the books.
The argument surrounds the Supremacy Clause.
First of all, the word "contrary" in that clause is about legislation. Arizona's legislation is not contrary to the laws on the books at the federal level. Secondly, the Supremacy Clause only applies to federal laws that fall within constitutional authority.
The Constitution addresses immigration four times in its text. In Article I, Section 8 the Congress is given the authority to "establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization." That one is about what happens after they are here, not before.
The Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment demands full allegiance to the United States.
What is coming next, especially when this ruling immediately follows Obama's amnesty by fiat, will be a myriad of lawsuits.
The only sanity from the case came from Antonin Scalia's dissenting opinion in the Arizona case. He said, "If securing its territory is not within the power of Arizona, we should cease referring to it as a sovereign State. I dissent."
I agree.
I wonder if the States would have originally joined the union if they knew that down the road their sovereignty would be treated like this.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Supreme Court Arizona Immigration Ruling: Justices Clear Key Part - Politico
U.S. Immigration Laws vs. Other Countries - One Old Vet
Jefferson, Thomas, 1743-1826 . Notes on the State of Virginia - University of Virginia Library
1794 Letter from Washington to Adams - TeacherWeb
U.S. Immigration Laws vs. Other Countries - One Old Vet
Jefferson, Thomas, 1743-1826 . Notes on the State of Virginia - University of Virginia Library
1794 Letter from Washington to Adams - TeacherWeb
Desperate Obama Seeking Oversees Donors
Obama taps overseas donor pool
Obama is tapping Americans abroad more than any other presidential campaign.
The all-consuming hunt for donors has led President Barack Obama’s campaign to England. And France. And China.
Obama is tapping the network of American citizens living outside the 50 states more than any other presidential campaign has before, with more than a dozen bundlers who have pledged to raise as much as $4.5 million.
The article continues by saying it is all legal because they are Americans he is pursuing. But don't you remember the evidence that Obama was taking in foreign money in 2008?
Love E-Commerce
Here's the first one:
1. Customers can buy anytime and anywhere. After you are fast asleep and thinking that no more business can be generated, guess again. At their convenience, consumers can browse your site, discover new things and buy them. You wake up the next day, go to work and learn that ten percent of your total revenues were generated over night via e-commerce!Read the entire article: 6 Reasons to Love E-Commerce
Monday, June 25, 2012
The Swelling Middle East
--- Syrian Military Says it downed a Turkish Fighter Jet
--- U.S. Will Help Turkey Hold Syria 'Accountable' for Jet Shoot-Down, Says Obama Spokesman
--- Saudi Arabia Plans to Fund Syria Rebel Army
--- TARGET: SYRIAN WMD: U.S. Concerned Israel May Launch Attacks On Syrian WMD Sites
--- Russia Warns Against Issuing Ultimatums to Iran
--- Putin Warns Israel: Don't Rush to Strike Iran
--- Hillary Clinton Tied to New Muslim Brotherhood President: Radical Links Run Through Secretary of State's Chief of Staff
Explosive things are about to come out of the Middle East. . .
Who do you want answering the phone at 3:00 AM?
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
--- U.S. Will Help Turkey Hold Syria 'Accountable' for Jet Shoot-Down, Says Obama Spokesman
--- Saudi Arabia Plans to Fund Syria Rebel Army
--- TARGET: SYRIAN WMD: U.S. Concerned Israel May Launch Attacks On Syrian WMD Sites
--- Russia Warns Against Issuing Ultimatums to Iran
--- Putin Warns Israel: Don't Rush to Strike Iran
--- Hillary Clinton Tied to New Muslim Brotherhood President: Radical Links Run Through Secretary of State's Chief of Staff
Explosive things are about to come out of the Middle East. . .
Who do you want answering the phone at 3:00 AM?
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Illinois Attorney General Ignores the Law Regarding Gay Marriage
Who cares about the law? These people take it upon themselves to force their will on the people of America, and will ultimately force the churches to conform as well. . .
Illinois AG refuses to uphold law banning gay 'marriage'
CHICAGO (AP) - Twenty-five Illinois couples were prepared for a long legal fight when they joined lawsuits challenging the state's ban on gay marriage. Turns out they won't get one - at least not from the attorneys who would normally be responsible for defending the state's laws.
Illinois AG refuses to uphold law banning gay 'marriage'
CHICAGO (AP) - Twenty-five Illinois couples were prepared for a long legal fight when they joined lawsuits challenging the state's ban on gay marriage. Turns out they won't get one - at least not from the attorneys who would normally be responsible for defending the state's laws.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Michael Reagan: Emperor Obama behaving as if separation of powers is something to be swatted away
It's Nice to be Emperor
If you don't like something or want to get something done, you don't let little things like the Constitution get in your way. For more than three years Emperor Obama has been behaving as if the separation of powers is a pesky fly to be swatted away whenever it becomes too annoying.-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
What would George Washington Say About Obama Ordering Military Gay Pride Celebrations?
"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indespensible supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism who should labor to subvert these great Pillars of human happiness -- these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere Politician, equally with the pious man ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. ... [L]et us with caution indulge the opposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that National morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle." --George Washington (1796)
Let us also remember what John Adams said about the U.S. Constitution:
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." --John Adams
Or perhaps Samuel Adams said it best:
"The sum of it all is, if we would most truly enjoy the gift of Heaven, let us become a virtuous people; then shall we both deserve and enjoy it. While, on the other hand, if we are universally vicious and debauched in our manners, though the form of our Constitution carries the face of the most exalted freedom, we shall in reality be the most abject slaves." --Samuel Adams
It is our choice. It must be a choice. If we abandon our Godliness for the debauchery of sexual perversion, all other destructive tendencies will follow. Rome collapsed from within, because of the civilization's inability to remain moral. As the morality broke down, so did the representative nature of the political institution, and what remained were tyrants and despots who drove the empire into the ground.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
The Envelope Never Stops Being Pushed
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Pushing the envelope is a term used figuratively to mean "stretching the boundaries." Once a group begins pushing the envelope, it becomes a never ending need for more and more. The standards and morals of society are tossed aside, and collapse looms on the horizon.
Be it sexual behavior, or governmental intrusion in the lives of the citizens, the only way to stop the stretching of boundaries is to purposely stop the downhill slide down the slippery slope.
What is sad is most of these devastating assaults on our liberty and stability of our culture are either in the name of the common good, or claiming to be a "constitutional right," when they are nothing of the sort.
Let's take a look at some of the signs of the never-ending traveling envelope:
--- Diabetes doctors: NYC big-soda ban is just a start
Does a fork or dinner knife pose an unacceptable danger to President Barack Obama?
One wouldn’t think so, given the hundreds of lunches and dinners he’s attended ranging from state dinners to political fundraisers to run-of-the-mill stops on the rubber-chicken circuit.
However, at one such lunch Friday afternoon, guests heard an unusual announcement that they needed to hand over their silverware for security reasons.
“It’s very important that you use your utensils as soon as possible,” National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials board member Raquel Regalado told about 1000 delegates at the group’s annual conference.
Regalado hurried the diners to finish up their salads and pre-cut chicken breasts, saying that the Secret Service required that there be no knives at the tables and that the forks be rounded up before Obama entered the room.
Pushing the envelope is a term used figuratively to mean "stretching the boundaries." Once a group begins pushing the envelope, it becomes a never ending need for more and more. The standards and morals of society are tossed aside, and collapse looms on the horizon.
Be it sexual behavior, or governmental intrusion in the lives of the citizens, the only way to stop the stretching of boundaries is to purposely stop the downhill slide down the slippery slope.
What is sad is most of these devastating assaults on our liberty and stability of our culture are either in the name of the common good, or claiming to be a "constitutional right," when they are nothing of the sort.
Let's take a look at some of the signs of the never-ending traveling envelope:
--- Diabetes doctors: NYC big-soda ban is just a start
Doctors treating the casualties of the global obesity epidemic say an unpopular proposal to limit soda portions in New York City should be just the beginning of stricter regulation of unhealthy foods.
Public opinion polls show a majority of Americans oppose New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg's plan to limit single servings of sugary drinks to 16 ounces (0.45 kilograms) at restaurants and other public venues.
Many view the measure as unwelcome government intervention in their daily diets.
But exasperated diabetes specialists say people need even greater protections from a food industry that keeps enticing them with ever-bigger portions, as more than two-thirds of the country's adults are now overweight or obese. Excess weight contributes to health problems from diabetes to hypertension.
"We're spending billions of dollars for drugs to cure the problem after the problem happens, instead of preventing the problem," said Dr. Bryce Palchick, a general practitioner in Pittsburgh.
Public opinion polls show a majority of Americans oppose New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg's plan to limit single servings of sugary drinks to 16 ounces (0.45 kilograms) at restaurants and other public venues.
Many view the measure as unwelcome government intervention in their daily diets.
But exasperated diabetes specialists say people need even greater protections from a food industry that keeps enticing them with ever-bigger portions, as more than two-thirds of the country's adults are now overweight or obese. Excess weight contributes to health problems from diabetes to hypertension.
"We're spending billions of dollars for drugs to cure the problem after the problem happens, instead of preventing the problem," said Dr. Bryce Palchick, a general practitioner in Pittsburgh.
--- White House rebukes guests who flipped bird at Reagan portrait
White House guests Zoe Strauss, right, and Matty Hart, left, are seen flipping off a portrait of Ronald Reagan on June 15, 2012. Philadelphia publisher Mark Segal, center, is shown giving a thumbs-up. (Philadelphia Magazine)
The White House on Friday rebuked two visitors who were photographed last week at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue flipping the middle finger below a portrait of the late President Ronald Reagan.
The guests had been invited to a reception last Friday marking gay pride month. The images of them -- with both middle fingers raised, pointing up toward Reagan -- were first published by Philadelphia Magazine.
The White House did not approve.
"While the White House does not control the conduct of guests at receptions, we certainly expect that all attendees conduct themselves in a respectful manner. Most all do," Shin Inouye, a White House spokesman, said. "These individuals clearly did not. Behavior like this doesn’t belong anywhere, least of all in the White House."
Photographer Zoe Strauss and Matty Hart, national director for public engagement at the group Solutions for Progress, had posted the images of themselves to Facebook.
Hart, under his, wrote simply: "F--- Reagan."
--- You can pray... just not to Jesus
There is a crack down going on in one North Carolina police department. Have patrols been stepped up? No. Are gangs being disbanded? No. Are the cops getting tough on crime? No. However, what is changing is that volunteer chaplains in the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department (CMPD) will no longer be able to invoke the name "Jesus" when they pray, and it has some people up in arms.
As reported by WSOC TV 9, "chaplains have been told that they cannot invoke the name of Jesus in prayers at public events."
"When I heard this I was sad," said Pastor Terry Sartain, who has been a chaplain with CMPD for seven years.
Sartain said he learned of the policy when he got a phone call before a recent promotion ceremony saying he could not use Jesus' name in his invocation.
"I asked if I could withdraw, because Jesus is the only thing I have to bless people with," Sartain said.
Of course, one person interviewed for the news story, an ACLU member named Jim Gronquist, said the policy was long overdue.
--- Secret Services Confiscates Cutlery at Obama Event
White House guests Zoe Strauss, right, and Matty Hart, left, are seen flipping off a portrait of Ronald Reagan on June 15, 2012. Philadelphia publisher Mark Segal, center, is shown giving a thumbs-up. (Philadelphia Magazine)
The White House on Friday rebuked two visitors who were photographed last week at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue flipping the middle finger below a portrait of the late President Ronald Reagan.
The guests had been invited to a reception last Friday marking gay pride month. The images of them -- with both middle fingers raised, pointing up toward Reagan -- were first published by Philadelphia Magazine.
The White House did not approve.
"While the White House does not control the conduct of guests at receptions, we certainly expect that all attendees conduct themselves in a respectful manner. Most all do," Shin Inouye, a White House spokesman, said. "These individuals clearly did not. Behavior like this doesn’t belong anywhere, least of all in the White House."
Photographer Zoe Strauss and Matty Hart, national director for public engagement at the group Solutions for Progress, had posted the images of themselves to Facebook.
Hart, under his, wrote simply: "F--- Reagan."
--- You can pray... just not to Jesus
There is a crack down going on in one North Carolina police department. Have patrols been stepped up? No. Are gangs being disbanded? No. Are the cops getting tough on crime? No. However, what is changing is that volunteer chaplains in the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department (CMPD) will no longer be able to invoke the name "Jesus" when they pray, and it has some people up in arms.
As reported by WSOC TV 9, "chaplains have been told that they cannot invoke the name of Jesus in prayers at public events."
"When I heard this I was sad," said Pastor Terry Sartain, who has been a chaplain with CMPD for seven years.
Sartain said he learned of the policy when he got a phone call before a recent promotion ceremony saying he could not use Jesus' name in his invocation.
"I asked if I could withdraw, because Jesus is the only thing I have to bless people with," Sartain said.
Of course, one person interviewed for the news story, an ACLU member named Jim Gronquist, said the policy was long overdue.
--- Secret Services Confiscates Cutlery at Obama Event
Apparently, the Obama administration who says they are the party of understanding and racial tolerance can't trust Hispanics with pointy objects if King Obama is in the room.
Does a fork or dinner knife pose an unacceptable danger to President Barack Obama?
One wouldn’t think so, given the hundreds of lunches and dinners he’s attended ranging from state dinners to political fundraisers to run-of-the-mill stops on the rubber-chicken circuit.
However, at one such lunch Friday afternoon, guests heard an unusual announcement that they needed to hand over their silverware for security reasons.
“It’s very important that you use your utensils as soon as possible,” National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials board member Raquel Regalado told about 1000 delegates at the group’s annual conference.
Regalado hurried the diners to finish up their salads and pre-cut chicken breasts, saying that the Secret Service required that there be no knives at the tables and that the forks be rounded up before Obama entered the room.
--- Eye for an eye, hair for hair? Judge orders Price woman to cut off daughter's ponytail in court
The mother of a 13-year-old girl says she has filed a formal complaint against a juvenile court judge who told her he'd cut her daughter's sentence if she cut off the girl's ponytail in his courtroom.
"She definitely needed to be punished for what had happened," Valerie Bruno told the Deseret News. "But I never dreamt it would be that much of a punishment."
Bruno's daughter, Kaytlen Lopan, was referred to 7th District Juvenile Judge Scott Johansen's court in March for an allegation of assault. Lopan and a friend endeared themselves to a 3-year-old girl at McDonald's in Price and then used scissors to cut several inches of hair from the little girl's head, according to Price police.
"It was beautiful, it was long, it had natural curl, and now it's cut up to here," said the victim's mother, Mindy Moss, gesturing to her jawline.
--- Supreme Court throws out FCC fines for cursing, nudity
The mother of a 13-year-old girl says she has filed a formal complaint against a juvenile court judge who told her he'd cut her daughter's sentence if she cut off the girl's ponytail in his courtroom.
"She definitely needed to be punished for what had happened," Valerie Bruno told the Deseret News. "But I never dreamt it would be that much of a punishment."
Bruno's daughter, Kaytlen Lopan, was referred to 7th District Juvenile Judge Scott Johansen's court in March for an allegation of assault. Lopan and a friend endeared themselves to a 3-year-old girl at McDonald's in Price and then used scissors to cut several inches of hair from the little girl's head, according to Price police.
"It was beautiful, it was long, it had natural curl, and now it's cut up to here," said the victim's mother, Mindy Moss, gesturing to her jawline.
--- Supreme Court throws out FCC fines for cursing, nudity
The Supreme Court unanimously threw out fines and sanctions Thursday against broadcasters who violated the Federal Communications Commission policy regulating curse words and nudity on broadcast television.
and we saved the worst for last:
--- San Diego students watch gay porn, masturbate in class
and we saved the worst for last:
--- San Diego students watch gay porn, masturbate in class
This is what public government schools have devolved into.
As a class exercise, students in a 7th-grade class at Bell Middle School in Paradise Hills — a neighborhood in the southeastern area of the city of San Diego, California — watched porn videos, with some students openly masturbating.
Ashley McGlone reports for the San Diego Union-Tribune, June 15, 2012, that the incident, which took place in May, began as a “sexual orientation test” created by students in an English class.
According to written testimonials from 22 students in the all-boys class, the “test” had students wear gym shorts while watching “particular” (gay) porn videos on their cell phones. Whoever became aroused was labeled gay. Some boys masturbated openly in class, but the teacher Ed Johnson didn’t do anything, even when other students complained.
As a class exercise, students in a 7th-grade class at Bell Middle School in Paradise Hills — a neighborhood in the southeastern area of the city of San Diego, California — watched porn videos, with some students openly masturbating.
Ashley McGlone reports for the San Diego Union-Tribune, June 15, 2012, that the incident, which took place in May, began as a “sexual orientation test” created by students in an English class.
According to written testimonials from 22 students in the all-boys class, the “test” had students wear gym shorts while watching “particular” (gay) porn videos on their cell phones. Whoever became aroused was labeled gay. Some boys masturbated openly in class, but the teacher Ed Johnson didn’t do anything, even when other students complained.
Because Groping children and nuns at the airport is apparently not enough tyranny
House bill extends TSA intel sharing to mass transit
The Transportation Security Administration already shares intelligence it collects with airports. Now a House bill would expand TSA's intel sharing to local mass transit systems as well.
Rep. Jackie Speier (D-Calif.), the bill's sponsor, said the legislation is a "common sense approach" to fighting terrorism. The House passed the bill May 30 and the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs is now considering the bill.
In an interview with The Federal Drive with Tom Temin and Emily Kopp, Speier said the bill creates "fusion centers," where TSA can provide intel to local law enforcement and emergency management officials.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
The Wrap Dress Lady Is Global
Read the entire article:
A Designer Brings 'Best Friends' to China
Email of the Week: Obama Offered Ice Cream
THE COW AND THE ICE CREAM
ONE OF THE BEST THEORIES OF WHY OBAMA WON THE ELECTION
From a teacher in the Nashville area:
"We are worried about 'the cow' when it is all about the 'Ice Cream. 'The most eye-opening civics lesson I ever had was while teaching 3rd grade. The last Presidential election was heating up and some of the children showed an interest. I decided we would have an election for a class president. We would choose our nominees. They would make a campaign speech and the class would vote. To simplify the process, candidates were nominated by other class members. Wediscussed what kinds of characteristics these students should have. We got many nominations and from those, Jamie and Olivia were picked to run for the top spot.
The class had done a great job in their selections. Both candidates were good kids.
I thought Jamie might have an advantage because he got lots of parental support.
I had never seen Olivia's mother.
The day arrived when they were to make their speeches.
Jamie went first.
He had specific ideas about how to make our class a better place.
He ended by promising to do his very best.
Everyone applauded and he sat down.
Now is was Olivia's turn to speak.
Her speech was concise. She said, "If you will vote for me, I will give you ice cream." She sat down.
The class went wild. "Yes! Yes! We want ice cream."
She surely would say more. She did not have to.
A discussion followed. How did she plan to pay for the ice cream? She wasn't sure. But no one pursued that question. They took her at her word.
Would her parents buy it or would the class pay for it...She didn't know.
The class really didn't care. All they were thinking about was ice cream...
Jamie was forgotten. Olivia won by a landslide.
Every time Barack Obama opened his mouth he offered ice cream and 51.4 % of the people reacted like nine year olds.
They want ice cream.
The other 48.6% percent know they're going to have to feed the cow and clean up the mess."
This is the ice cream Obama promised us!
Remember, the government cannot give anything to anyone that they have not first taken away from someone else.
Did you vote for the ice cream?
THAT, MY FRIEND, IS HOW OBAMA GOT ELECTED, BY THOSE WHO WANT EVERYTHING FOR FREE!
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Sunday, June 24, 2012
Video: A Summer Night For Human Rights
I left the radio studio at KCAA after my show Saturday at 3:00 pm, high tailed it to Inglewood to pick up my buddy, the Online bookseller, Paul, and his lovely wife, and then we got to the conference with more than half an hour before the event began. I was impressed, considering I drove all the way in from San Bernardino, and the event was in Manhattan Beach.
When I registered for this event Pamela Geller of Atlas Shrugs indicated she was a fan of mine and was looking forward to seeing me.
That was pretty cool.
When I got there, found her, and told her who I was, the way we began to talk you would think we could have gone to a coffee shop and sat down and talked for hours. But, alas, she was surrounded by people eager to talk to her, so we kept it short. I got a chance to talk to her a little more after the event, but again it was very short. She promised to be on my radio program in the near future.
I got a chance to talk to my old friend, Walid Shoebat, for a moment, and he commented that he had not heard from me in a long while. As with Pamela, he told me he wanted to join my radio program sometime soon. He was the most energetic speaker, but all of them were inspiring. These former Muslims speak out against Islam under the threat of losing their very lives.
Rather than tell you about the event, I would rather you watch it on the video below.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
When I registered for this event Pamela Geller of Atlas Shrugs indicated she was a fan of mine and was looking forward to seeing me.
That was pretty cool.
When I got there, found her, and told her who I was, the way we began to talk you would think we could have gone to a coffee shop and sat down and talked for hours. But, alas, she was surrounded by people eager to talk to her, so we kept it short. I got a chance to talk to her a little more after the event, but again it was very short. She promised to be on my radio program in the near future.
I got a chance to talk to my old friend, Walid Shoebat, for a moment, and he commented that he had not heard from me in a long while. As with Pamela, he told me he wanted to join my radio program sometime soon. He was the most energetic speaker, but all of them were inspiring. These former Muslims speak out against Islam under the threat of losing their very lives.
Rather than tell you about the event, I would rather you watch it on the video below.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
A Good and Moral Country, Anchor Babies, And Emotions
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Emotions have their place. I have my sensitivities. As a good and moral country, we are very emotional about doing the right thing, and that is good when those emotions accompany rational thinking, and reasonable policies that remain within the realm of common sense, and the law.
Last Thursday Night I made members of my Constitution Class angry when I tried to prove a point on how easily one can allow emotions to cloud one's judgment.
After discussing the Ninth Amendment, which indicates that just because a right is not enumerated in the Constitution it does not mean the federal government can stomp all over it (they are your rights, so protect them!); and the Tenth Amendment, which indicates that authorities not expressly granted to the federal government, and not prohibited to the States, are State powers, we began to talk a little bit about citizenship. The questions that arise over citizenship reveals that often people get the rules for citizenship, and natural born citizenship, confused. Citizenship centers largely around allegiance, and Natural Born Citizenship, in addition to using the importance of allegiance, adds the inheritance of citizenship by the parents (father in early times) to the whole mix.
The discussion turned to illegal aliens. The argument that many constitutionalists make regarding anchor babies, is that the Citizenship Clause in the 14th Amendment clearly defines as citizenship relying on the child, when born, being "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States.
In today's language, the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction" has come to mean primarily "the territory in which authority may be exercised." Therefore, when reading the citizenship clause, people assume that since the children of illegal aliens born on American Soil were born within the borders, or on the territory, of this nation, they are automatically American Citizens.
When studying the Congressional Records, the debates, and statements by the two primary authors of the 14th Amendment (Senators Howard and Trumbull), we find that the definition of "subject to the jurisdiction" meant something entirely different. The writers of the clause meant it to mean "not subject to any foreign power."
A woman in the class began to become concerned about her own citizenship. She stated that her father was born in the Panama Canal Zone, and her Grandfather was born in Bermuda. Both became residents of the United States, and her father claimed to be an American citizen, but the true records were hard to come by. After a series of questions, however, which established that at her birth her parents were loyal to the United States, along with the fact that her mother was a citizen at the time of her birth, and assuming her grandfather came legally to the United States, we determined she most probably has nothing to worry about.
Then I launched into what I called "gray area."
During the early half of the twentieth century, migrant workers commonly crossed the border, worked in agriculture, received their paychecks, and saved the money for the purpose of using it to bring their families legally to the United States. Though the migrant workers illegally crossed the border to work the fields, they also were polite, abiding by the other American laws, and were doing it for the purpose of legally coming to the United States with their families. Today's illegal alien is different. They often do not follow our laws, and quite often come to this country with their hand out expecting free healthcare, welfare privileges, and exhibit little or no respect for American society or culture.
But what about those few that do? What about those few children who, by no fault of their own, were brought to this country illegally, grew up here, attended our schools, have a full allegiance to our country, and consider themselves subject to no other foreign power? Would it not seem reasonable to give them a pathway to remain members of our society?
One participant in my Constitution Class said, "Doug, this is not you. I can't believe what I am hearing."
I continued. "This is a good and moral country, so shouldn't we try to be fair to those that do desire a life in America, and are willing to be loyal to this nation?"
The grumbling got louder.
My attempt to get these folks to look at the issue from an emotional point of view wasn't working. They were set in what they believed, and were unwilling to twist and bend the law for the sake of emotions.
I then threw in Mitt Romney's words to a Latino group earlier this week.
"Do you really agree with Romney that we should staple green cards to diplomas?"
I responded, "Isn't that what The Left says we should do? Shouldn't we feel bad for these people and do the right thing?"
Reality, unfortunately, makes it impossible to do such a thing. As much as we may emotionally desire to show compassion, how can you guarantee that only those with full allegiance to the United States would receive the opportunity? What about the law? By doing such a thing would we not be condoning the breaking of American Law? And with the border remaining as porous as it is, would that not be an invitation to more people wanting to cross the border in the hopes of taking advantage of such a program?
The answer lies in securing the border, and enforcing current laws. If employers are required to use E-Verify to ensure their workers can work legally in the United States, and if law enforcement are allowed to verify legal residency as in the case of the Arizona immigration law, what will happen is what we are seeing in the States that are actively enforcing immigration law - the illegal aliens will deport themselves.
As for those kids that were raised as Americans, but technically are not, there may be an answer in the future regarding them, which will mostly likely need for them to exit the country and then re-enter legally through the immigration system.
As a good and moral country, the emotional answer is not the best answer. As a good and moral people it is our responsibility to follow the laws we have in place as a nation. It is not in our best interest to ignore our laws, twist our laws, or for our President to bypass the Law of the Land and Congress to accomplish amnesty through an unconstitutional executive order. It's just not the right thing to do.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Exclusive: Are Children Born of Illegal Immigrants US Citizens? - Family Security Matters
Myth #13: Anchor Babies are American Citizens - Political Pistachio
Anchor Babies and the 14th Amendment - Political Pistachio
Obama's Amnesty by fiat - naked lawlessness - Washington Post
Obama's Executive Order Amnesty is a Useless Political Ploy - The Hayride
Obama Administration to Stop Deporting Some Young Illegal Immigrants - CNN
Dream Act: Obama Passes Amnesty by Executive Order - Tea Party Tribune
Romney's Promises to Ease the Path to a Green Card - US News and World Report
Emotions have their place. I have my sensitivities. As a good and moral country, we are very emotional about doing the right thing, and that is good when those emotions accompany rational thinking, and reasonable policies that remain within the realm of common sense, and the law.
Last Thursday Night I made members of my Constitution Class angry when I tried to prove a point on how easily one can allow emotions to cloud one's judgment.
After discussing the Ninth Amendment, which indicates that just because a right is not enumerated in the Constitution it does not mean the federal government can stomp all over it (they are your rights, so protect them!); and the Tenth Amendment, which indicates that authorities not expressly granted to the federal government, and not prohibited to the States, are State powers, we began to talk a little bit about citizenship. The questions that arise over citizenship reveals that often people get the rules for citizenship, and natural born citizenship, confused. Citizenship centers largely around allegiance, and Natural Born Citizenship, in addition to using the importance of allegiance, adds the inheritance of citizenship by the parents (father in early times) to the whole mix.
The discussion turned to illegal aliens. The argument that many constitutionalists make regarding anchor babies, is that the Citizenship Clause in the 14th Amendment clearly defines as citizenship relying on the child, when born, being "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States.
In today's language, the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction" has come to mean primarily "the territory in which authority may be exercised." Therefore, when reading the citizenship clause, people assume that since the children of illegal aliens born on American Soil were born within the borders, or on the territory, of this nation, they are automatically American Citizens.
When studying the Congressional Records, the debates, and statements by the two primary authors of the 14th Amendment (Senators Howard and Trumbull), we find that the definition of "subject to the jurisdiction" meant something entirely different. The writers of the clause meant it to mean "not subject to any foreign power."
A woman in the class began to become concerned about her own citizenship. She stated that her father was born in the Panama Canal Zone, and her Grandfather was born in Bermuda. Both became residents of the United States, and her father claimed to be an American citizen, but the true records were hard to come by. After a series of questions, however, which established that at her birth her parents were loyal to the United States, along with the fact that her mother was a citizen at the time of her birth, and assuming her grandfather came legally to the United States, we determined she most probably has nothing to worry about.
Then I launched into what I called "gray area."
During the early half of the twentieth century, migrant workers commonly crossed the border, worked in agriculture, received their paychecks, and saved the money for the purpose of using it to bring their families legally to the United States. Though the migrant workers illegally crossed the border to work the fields, they also were polite, abiding by the other American laws, and were doing it for the purpose of legally coming to the United States with their families. Today's illegal alien is different. They often do not follow our laws, and quite often come to this country with their hand out expecting free healthcare, welfare privileges, and exhibit little or no respect for American society or culture.
But what about those few that do? What about those few children who, by no fault of their own, were brought to this country illegally, grew up here, attended our schools, have a full allegiance to our country, and consider themselves subject to no other foreign power? Would it not seem reasonable to give them a pathway to remain members of our society?
One participant in my Constitution Class said, "Doug, this is not you. I can't believe what I am hearing."
I continued. "This is a good and moral country, so shouldn't we try to be fair to those that do desire a life in America, and are willing to be loyal to this nation?"
The grumbling got louder.
My attempt to get these folks to look at the issue from an emotional point of view wasn't working. They were set in what they believed, and were unwilling to twist and bend the law for the sake of emotions.
I then threw in Mitt Romney's words to a Latino group earlier this week.
"Do you really agree with Romney that we should staple green cards to diplomas?"
I responded, "Isn't that what The Left says we should do? Shouldn't we feel bad for these people and do the right thing?"
Reality, unfortunately, makes it impossible to do such a thing. As much as we may emotionally desire to show compassion, how can you guarantee that only those with full allegiance to the United States would receive the opportunity? What about the law? By doing such a thing would we not be condoning the breaking of American Law? And with the border remaining as porous as it is, would that not be an invitation to more people wanting to cross the border in the hopes of taking advantage of such a program?
The answer lies in securing the border, and enforcing current laws. If employers are required to use E-Verify to ensure their workers can work legally in the United States, and if law enforcement are allowed to verify legal residency as in the case of the Arizona immigration law, what will happen is what we are seeing in the States that are actively enforcing immigration law - the illegal aliens will deport themselves.
As for those kids that were raised as Americans, but technically are not, there may be an answer in the future regarding them, which will mostly likely need for them to exit the country and then re-enter legally through the immigration system.
As a good and moral country, the emotional answer is not the best answer. As a good and moral people it is our responsibility to follow the laws we have in place as a nation. It is not in our best interest to ignore our laws, twist our laws, or for our President to bypass the Law of the Land and Congress to accomplish amnesty through an unconstitutional executive order. It's just not the right thing to do.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Exclusive: Are Children Born of Illegal Immigrants US Citizens? - Family Security Matters
Myth #13: Anchor Babies are American Citizens - Political Pistachio
Anchor Babies and the 14th Amendment - Political Pistachio
Obama's Amnesty by fiat - naked lawlessness - Washington Post
Obama's Executive Order Amnesty is a Useless Political Ploy - The Hayride
Obama Administration to Stop Deporting Some Young Illegal Immigrants - CNN
Dream Act: Obama Passes Amnesty by Executive Order - Tea Party Tribune
Romney's Promises to Ease the Path to a Green Card - US News and World Report
Liberals Keep Telling Me Republicans Are Racist...
Yet, the Republican Party was created to abolish slavery. . .
The KKK was created by the Democrat Party to suppress the vote through militant actions against White Republicans and Black voters. . .
Woodrow Wilson, a progressive democrat, segregated the armed forces. . .
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a republican sponsored bill, overwhelmingly supported by republicans, and filibustered against by democrats (including Al Gore, Sr.). . .
Entitlement programs send the message to blacks that they are not capable of pulling themselves out of poverty, so they must be slaves to the government, and democrats claim that is evidence they care about blacks. . .
Oh, and below is a great picture of some Great Republicans:
The KKK was created by the Democrat Party to suppress the vote through militant actions against White Republicans and Black voters. . .
Woodrow Wilson, a progressive democrat, segregated the armed forces. . .
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a republican sponsored bill, overwhelmingly supported by republicans, and filibustered against by democrats (including Al Gore, Sr.). . .
Entitlement programs send the message to blacks that they are not capable of pulling themselves out of poverty, so they must be slaves to the government, and democrats claim that is evidence they care about blacks. . .
Oh, and below is a great picture of some Great Republicans:
Martin Luther King, Jr.; Clarence Thomas, Alan Keyes, Condoleeza Rice, Allen West, Herman Cain
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
LoLo Jones, from poverty to the Olympics
LoLo Jones recently made news regarding her public announcement that she is still a virgin, and proud to be so. The olympian now is making news as a part of Team USA. She currently holds the American record for the 60 meter hurdles, and is a veteran of the Olympic Games. She was a participant in the 2008 Beijing games, but in the 100 meter hurdles tripped on the ninth hurdle, after having been favored to win that event.
LoLo is a perfect example of the American Dream. She used her talent, and hard work, to get out of poverty, and make a better life for herself. The above video is a fantastic piece explaining her childhood, and her rise from poverty.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Raising an Olympian: LoLo Jones - Yahoo!
Constitution Study Radio: Authorities Granted, and Not Granted
Constitution Study Radio: Lessons 3.2-3.4 Continued
- by Douglas V Gibbs
- in Politics Conservative
- 6:00 am Pacific, Or catch the archive later
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)