Skip navigation

Sign up | Lost password? | Help

Political Opera

Singing Political Pistachio

Iraq Tank Commander Nick Popaditch (The Cigar Marine) on Political Pistachio Radio!

Iraq Tank Commander Nick Popaditch (The Cigar Marine) on Political Pistachio Radio!





On The Radio Tuesday Night!

ONCE A MARINE - An Iraq War Tank Commander's Inspirational Story of Combat, Courage, and Recovery. Nick Popaditch appeared in an AP photo on April 9, 2003. The striking image was of the Marine tank commander smoking a victory cigar in his tank, the haunting statue of Saddam Hussein hovering in the background. "Gunny Pop" was immortalized forever as "The Cigar Marine." A year later he fought heroically in the First Battle for Fallujah and suffered head wounds that left him legally blind and partially deaf. The United States Marine Corps awarded him a Silver Star for his valor and combat innovation. Coming home, however, is when the toughest fight of his life began - a battle to remain the man and Marine he was. Join Political Pistachio Radio on Tuesday Night at 10:00 pm Eastern Time/7:00 pm Pacific for a riveting interview with Nick Popaditch, a Marine's Marine, a man who embodies everything noble and proud in the Corps' long tradition.

Russia Makes U.S. the Villian In Georgia, Communists Love Obama

Here in the United States the Communist Party USA has written a glowing editorial about Barack Obama.

Apparently, the Communists see a large number of similarities between their platform, and Obama's positions on the issues. As expected, the farther to the left the groups, the more they like Obama.

The Kremlin likes Obama too, apparently. In a recent radio newscast in Russia, a state-run broadcast I might add, the Russian populace was told the conflict in South Ossetia was part of a plot by Dick Cheney, the Vice-President, to stop Barack Obama from being elected president of the United States.

You see, the Russians and Obama have something in common. They both see America as a sinister force in the world. Forget the fact that it is the United States that is first to respond with aid whenever a disaster happens anywhere in the world. Forget the fact that it has been the United States Military that has preserved and protected liberty in the free nations around the world, and have been a large factor in keeping the peace overall. And when Russia says the war in Georgia is purely about the break-away provinces, never mind the fact that Russian forces currently control a third of Georgian territory (much more than the land occupied by the pro-Russian provinces).

Russia has a history of being an expansionist country, and despite all of their claims of democracy and a new system, Russia has reverted to the old habits of the Soviet years. Despite the new age of information transfer available to the citizens should they plug into the internet, the Kremlin is replaying the same old song and dance on government controlled media outlets in Russia.

And, of course, the Obama angle is getting plenty of positive play.

The Surprising Truth About Barry Soetoro (Obama)

The battle against "smear" tactics is present in any political campaign. More often than not for a candidate a smear is easily defended against because the tactic is so off-key and ridiculous that even a third grader can determine the illegitimacy of it. Usually, the strategy for handling smears is simply to produce evidence that states otherwise, or to make a statement that exposes the smear for what it really is. Barack Obama, like any other candidate, has been the victim of a number supposed smear tactics, some of which may very well be nothing more than smears, while others may have some credibility. The problem for Barack is, however, often the supposed smear turns out to be closer to the truth than expected by the accusers. And, more often than not, Obama's campaign does not provide proof to the contrary. Or, Mr. Obama himself utters statements that are shaky at best, and sometimes even confirms the alleged smear without him even realizing it. The so-called smear-tacticians proclaimed that Obama's church of twenty years was one of hate and anti-Americanism. Obama proclaimed that to be false. Then Reverend Wright and Father Pfleger said their peace, and suddenly Barack Obama was back-pedeling, and saying he was never at church when such anti-establishment things were said. When he realized nobody was buying it, Barry proclaimed in an interview that yes, Wright sometimes said things that were controversial, and things he did not agree with. He added, for confirmation he's like everyone else, I suppose, that "I don't think my church is actually particularly controversial," and that folks don't always agree with everything their pastor says. Part of what began the concept of religion, a man-made concept I have a serious problem with (religion is man-made, Faith in Christ is God-made), is because like-minded people tend to congregate together. If you don't agree with your pastor on something, you go out and find a church, or pastor, where you do fully agree, or you just stop attending religious services altogether. However, one basic universal principle of Christianity is that Jesus Christ is the only way to the Father. Christ says exactly this in the New Testament Book of John, Chapter 14, Verse 6: Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. This brings up the next alleged smear. Barack Obama's Christianity has become a topic of consideration. Barack, after slamming Mike Huckabee for wearing his faith on his sleeve in a political campaign, is now doing everything he can to convince the public that he is a devout practicing Christian. However, in line with his good friend Oprah Winfrey, Obama has continually stated that he believes there are "many paths to Heaven." Though there are many who "claim" to be Christian that claim the same, the above verse in the Book of John is quite clear in declaring that Jesus Christ is the Only Way. Call me what you may, I didn't decide personally "that's the way it is." I am simply pointing out the scripture that confirms it. If you have a problem with it, take up your beef with God. Amidst the questions about Obama's claim to Christianity is another bone of contention. Obama's possible ties to Islam have been the concern of many. Obama has said repeatedly that he is not a Muslim, nor has he ever been a Muslim. I honestly believe that Obama thinks he is a Christian, firmly believing that all it takes to be a Christian is to attend a church that says it is Christian (regardless of whether or not the doctrine is truly Biblical), read the Bible before you go to bed (even if you think some verses are obscure), be baptized, say a prayer every now and then, and maybe even have an on-going conversation with God that may or may not be performed while on his knees. I don't think he has a personal relationship with Christ, based on things that he has said, but in the end, that is between him and God, so we shall leave it at that. However, I do not like the fact that he lies and covers up bits and pieces of the "Are you Muslim" question. If he was Muslim at any point in his life, even when he was a young man and didn't have much control of how people listed him, why can't he just fess-up and admit it? I am sure the mainstream media won't give him too much grief, and I am sure folks will understand if he was a Muslim at one point, but decided not to be later. But he lies continuously, calls any accusation of anything regarding him in a manner other than magically messiah-like a smear tactic, and then later the evidence arises that he was full of crap all along. This makes him look worse than if he'd just been willing to say from the start something like, "Yeah, I was listed as a Muslim at a school in Indonesia when I was a kid, and my dad was a Muslim. But as I grew up I realized that's not what I wanted to be, so I decided to try to be a Christian," or perhaps anything along those lines. Instead, we get from Obama, "I am not, and never have been, a Muslim." Once again, let me indicate that his statement is a complete lie. Evidence? The evidence is in black and white, and shown below.

What does that document say? 1. Nama murid (The name of the pupil): Barry Soetoro 2. Tempat dan tanggal lahir (The place and date of birth): Honolulu, 4-8-1961 (August 4, 1961) 3. Bangai: a. Warga negara (Citizenship): Indonesia b. Ketarunan asing (Foriegn?): (blank) c. Saku bangra (The pocket?): (blank) 4. Agama (The religion): Islam 5. Alamat murid (Address of the pupil): M*** Dalson? R001/R003 6. Dari sekolah mana (dipiadahkan) dan kelas becapa (From what school (dipiadahkan?) and the class becapa): ? 7. a. Diterima disekedah inl tgl. (Date Accepted): 1-1-1968 (January 1, 1968) b. Ditermpatkan dikelas (Grade): I (First grade) 8. a. Nama grang tua Alah/Ibu (The name of the parents Mr/Ms): L. Soetoro M A (Lolo Soetoro) b. Pekerdjam (?) (name ibu dsi, haaja djika ajah sudah meninggal) (Name of the mother ? if died) c. Alamat (The address): M*** Dalson? R001/R003 9. a. Nama wali (The name of the guardian): (blank) (hanja diisi, djika orang tua murid tak ada, sudah man’nggal alah karena hal lain) (? was filled up, ? parents of the pupil were not available, already ? because another thing ) b. Pekerdjaan (???): (blank) c. Alamat (The address): (blank) 10. Meninggalkan sekolah ini. (Left this school) : (blank) a. Belam tamat. Keluar dari kelas (? was finished. Outside from the class): (blank) tanggal (The date) b. Temat, menerima idjarah tanggal (?, recieved ? the date): (blank) No. (blank) c. Melandjutkan sekolah ke (?? the school to): (blank) 11. Keterangan lsim (Information ???): (blank) Okay, it says he was born in Honolulu, so that may be some additional evidence to clear up the Birth Certificate fiasco. . . but it lists him as being an Indonesian citizen? I wonder what the current status of that citizenship is. His name is listed as Barry Soetoro. Does his birth certificate say Barry Soetoro? Did he ever legally change his name from Soetoro to Obama? And why did he later state in writing that his name was never any different than it is now? So apparently Barack Obama lied to the Illinois Supreme Court when asked to provide former names on the above document. Hmmmm, seems like "lying" is nothing new for Barack Obama. And notice on line four of the first document above his religion is listed as Islam. Wait, Barry, I thought you have "never been" a Muslim. I guess his Muslim step-father (oops, that makes two Muslim dads) considered the boy’s religion to be Islam. Hey, Barry, that's fine. If you aren't Muslim, we'll believe you, but don't lie to us and say you "never have been" Muslim. You see, Barack, in presidential candidates character is an important thing to voters, and your inability to tell the truth repeatedly (not to mention your uncanny ability to hold opposing positions on issues simultaineously) is hardly evidence of moral standards, common decency, or any semblance of strong character.

Why You're Wrong About The Right

Thursday, July 31, 2008

The Surprising Truth Behind the Myths About Conservatives


You know how it is. As Conservatives we are labeled every which way, and then some. We are, in the words and minds of the far-left, a conservative hodge-podge of Racists, Warmongers, Religious Extremists, and a group of stupid-intolerant-mean-selfish-greedy-extreme-out of touch jerks. If you are pro-life, then you must be a clinic bomber. If you don't support the myth of Man-made Global Warming, then you don't care about the planet and only recycle because it is either A: The Law, or B: Due to greed you recycle to get back your already paid redemption value. I have been called a homophobe, bigot, Islamophobe, extremist, and religious zealot. Fact is, the Left loves to target us with labels out of one side of their mouth, as they proclaim that labels are a bad thing out of the other side. I actually have a liberal commenter that specifically says that he refuses to use labels, but then constantly comments about me, and refers to anybody that agrees with me as "Your Side."

S.E. Cupp and Brett Joshpe are a couple young professionals living in Manhattan, and like other Rightwing Nutjobs (to use the Liberal Vernacular) have noticed the eruption of these common and offensive myths about conservatives. In their book, "Why You're Wrong About The Right," they tackle twenty of the most common and offensive myths about the Right. They interviewed dozens of experts and celebrities, drawing on their collective experiences to present a fresh view of the Right. The book's intention is to surprise, humor and educate - and it accomplishes all three.

Tonight, these two young Conservatives are my guests on Political Pistachio Radio. They will discuss their book, and discuss some of the stereotypes of the Right that have risen through pop-culture. Do Conservatives truly fit these mythical stereotypes? Or is the Left just jumping to conclusions?

Find out tonight on Political Pistachio Radio!


Episode Airs Live at 10 pm EST.

2nd Amendment Court Ruling

The Supreme Court and the Washington D.C. Gun Ban


Today a ruling by The U.S. Supreme Court was expected regarding whether the Washington D.C. handgun ban violates the Second Amendment. However, that long-awaited ruling was not released - so this potentially landmark decision will most certainly come tomorrow morning when the court is planning to issue the last of its rulings for the term.

The case, District of Columbia v. Heller, which was argued nearly four months ago, is the center of the decades-old debate over whether the Second Amendment grants individuals the right to own firearms.

The Washington Post has reported that Mayor Adrain M. Fenty is planning to hold a news conference at the John A. Wilson Building after the decision is announced.

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

Also, I will discuss this ruling, the implications of the ruling, and the Constitutional Amendment that grants our right to bear arms on Political Pistachio Radio on Thursday Night - see you there!

Memorial Day Tribute & Audio of Interviews at Anti-Illegal Immigration Rally in California

Memorial Day means more than bar-b-qued hamburgers and hot dogs. It is more than just a day off from work. Memorial Day is a time to thank those who have sacrificed their lives for this nation, and a time to thank those who are currently laying it all on the line everyday to keep this nation safe. These men and women are most deserving of our deepest respect and gratitude for all they have done on behalf of our great country.

It is my sincere hope that everybody takes the time to pay tribute to those heroes who have paid the ultimate sacrifice while protecting our freedom, and also recognize the tremendous sacrifices that our Veterans have made and our active duty troops are making everyday.

Simple words cannot convey my gratitude. As a veteran myself I understand the oath, and I understand the difficult journey. However, as a peace-time veteran, I will never fully understand the taste of freedom that graces the hearts and souls of our war-time veterans, and the brave men and women currently serving in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In fact, there are only two words that I can say that truly relay how I feel. They are simple words, insignificant by themselves, but filled with emotion and honor when placed together and delivered to a member of the United States Military.

Thank You.

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

Tonight on Political Pistachio Radio we will pay tribute to those fine members of the military, past and present, living and dead. I encourage the veterans that read this site and listen to the show to call in so that we may thank you personally.

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

The men and women that protect this nation serve in many more ways other than the military. Our Border Patrol is also an agency tasked with keeping us as a nation safe, not only from illegal immigrants who have broken the law to be here and are tapping into a system they have neither contributed to, nor have the legal right to access, but the Border Patrol also protects us from members of enemy Islamic factions and Mexican drug cartels. One out of three persons crossing the border along the San Diego county line are of Middle Eastern descent. The Drug Cartels in Mexico are at war with the government and each other, and that war is attempting to spill over into this country. The Border Patrol is our line of defense against both of these dangers. Unfortunately, our government, which is fast becoming a judicial oligarchy, has determined that if Border Patrol Agents do their job, their actions are punishable by prison.

Two Border Patrol agents, Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean, attempting to interrupt a cross-border drug smuggling operation, fired their weapons in self-defense at an admitted illegal alien, drug smuggler, Osbaldo Aldrete-Davila. The smuggler managed to escape across the border into Mexico, but he left his vehicle, loaded with more than 700 pounds of marijuana. It was another good bust. Rather than be congratulated for doing their job, the Border Patrol agents were charged with attempted murder, indicted, placed under house arrest for eight long months. The two agents were later sentenced to 11 and 12 years in federal prison, respectively, on charges of assault with a deadly weapon and for violation of the drug smuggler's civil rights. They remain in prison serving their unfair sentence that President George W. Bush could pardon, but won't because of his globalistic position, and lack of cajones against the liberal left which would lambaste him if he so dared.

Last Friday I attended a Free Ramos and Compean Sidewalk Rally in Irvine, California near where First Lady Laura Bush was autographing copies of the book she authored with Jenna Bush, "Read All About It!" While I was there I interviewed a number of the folks holding up signs and waving American Flags in support of our unjustly jailed Border Patrol Agents, Ramos and Compean. Tonight on Political Pistachio Radio, after the tribute to our American Military Heroes, past and present, I will play for you the audio of those interviews. Don't miss this broadcast! This will be a show you will remember for a lifetime.

Join us tonight at 10:00 PM Eastern Time on Political Pistachio Radio.

Below are photos I took from the Rally. The first is of the line waiting to meet Laura Bush. The last picture is of a woman born in South America who declares proudly she is an American, and she is the final, stirring interview you will hear tonight.









Cross-Posted on Heading Right, and various other members of the Political Pistachio Network.

Communism's List of 45, and how the Liberal Left and Islam has adopted it




The United States of America was founded on principles and values that have enabled this nation to become something exceptional. The United States, as a result of its moral values, and careful attention to freedom with responsibility, has become the greatest nation on the face of the earth. The Constitutional and Christian heritage of this nation has made America prosper, and become the nation that people from around the world desire to immigrate to. And now, the liberals would like you to join them as they try to change it.

Change for the sake of change is not positive change. Empty change, like the Obama campaign promises, is change that will place our fine nation in jeopardy, and in a position of vulnerability that we simply cannot afford.

This is not to say that some kind of change is not needed. The governmental system during the last century has slowly deteriorated through creeping incrementalism from a government for the people and by the people to a judicial oligarchy ruled by an appointed bench of judges. The governmental system has wandered away from its Constitutional beginnings, and is broken in many ways. Because of this deterioration, we do need to enact positive change. However, this kind of change, unlike the liberal left's change for the sake of change, will not come easily. Forces are already in place to combat such change. Any positive change worth having, complete with attacks from the left, is change we will have to fight for.

Americans, partially due to the disease of political correctness, and partially due to a society filled with individuals that won't take responsibility for their own actions or stupidity, and have learned to depend on the courts for justification of their errant ways, have been compromised by compromise. The consequences of our compromise are upon us. Society is scrambling to fix the decay with nanny-state legislation, and is willing to enact change, any change, for the sake of change. In the process of trying to correct the decay of our society and government, we are digging ourselves deeper into a pit of ruin.

Restoration of our once uncompromised republic is nearly out of sight and beyond our reach. The liberal left's quest for everyone to simply get along with one another has been used and abused to perfection. The liberal left has joined into lock-step (or should I say "goose-step") quite efficiently with the enemies of freedom and liberty, and they don't even realize it.

Or, perhaps they do.

In 1963 the communist goals for the take over of America from within were entered into the Congressional Record by Albert Herlong, Jr. Communist China and the Soviet Union were the enemy of the day. The generation enduring The Cold War at that time was the same generation that had fought the war against Nazi fascism in World War II, and that war with the axis powers was still fresh in their minds.

The communist invasion, however, would be different. They invaded us from within. However, due to the brilliance of President Ronald Reagan, The Cold War was won by The West. Therefore, we no longer had to worry about the fascist communist infiltration from within. . . Right?

A new enemy has emerged, recently. The new enemy, Islam, is an old enemy fueled by a violent ideology dating back to the seventh century. Islam has been observant during these many years, watching history, learning the best way to bring down The West. They have discovered that their best method is through the useful idiots of the liberal left, and their own fascist agendas that cling well to the list of 45 communist goals for bringing down America.

The threat of fascism through liberalism and Islamism is not as apparent as it was with Nazi Germany or fascist Japan. But the threat is alive and being used efficiently by today's Left. After all, fascism is a counterfeiter. It is a method of pointing fingers and using the art of misdirection. Liberals tell you that fascism can only come from the right. I say that this is yet another attempt to misdirect, and fool you to march to the voting booth in the wrong political direction.

Fascism comes from a position of popularity. It is a drug that comes upon the people without them even realizing it. It declares that it is for the good of the country, using creeping incrementalism to slowly indoctrinate the people. Fascism claims it is the wave of the future, that it is progressive, and that it represents much needed change that is a long time in coming. Fascism is exciting, young, and preaches that it is ready to fix whatever is broken by applying new ideas that the old, uptight and old-fashioned generations are not capable of.

Nazism, of course, is the best example of how fascism easily gains control over an unsuspecting populace. The Nazi Party in post-war Germany promised the people that Germany would rise to prominence from the ashes of World War I. The Nazi government would eliminate those at fault for the crushing defeat, clamp down on big business, and end the class struggle. 59% of Environmental Conversationalists joined the party, as did cultural elites, the youth, and the lower classes. Why not? After all, the Nazis portrayed themselves as on the side of progress, protecting the environment, protecting the poor, preaching unity, togetherness, and an end to division.

Sounds familiar, doesn't it?

Don't misunderstand me. I am not suggesting that if you are concerned about the environment, or desire that everybody just get along, that it automatically makes you a fascist. I am suggesting, however, that each of those desires, which are noble in their own right, can be used to stir up an uncompromising will to stamp out individual freedoms - and it begins with a nanny-state not much unlike the one that the liberal left is attempting to create as you read this.

Over the years the liberal elites have forged a plan for socialism that began to become apparent during the last century. After Franklin Delano Roosevelt's social programs the movement swung into high gear. The liberals have pioneered the reengineering of America by compromising the U.S. Constitution and promising a better life with their new and more intrusive government programs, such as socialized medicine.

Each election cycle produces grander socialist wealth redistribution policies, drawing more and more people into the grand scheme, quietly, and at the tiny little price of compromising our core principles, and individual liberties.

Our descent into a socialist nanny-state is alarming. So much so that the liberal left, upon reading this, will laugh and declare that I am being a typical right-wing nut, unable to fathom the larger picture.

The broad picture is that as the Democratic Party moves farther to the left, it is dragging the Republican Party to the left with it. As an American I am recognizing a recurring historical theme happening here in America right now. It occurred in Nazi Germany, Communist Russia, Cuba, and China. The battle lines have been drawn. What the liberal left is doing is simply no surprise because it has happened before.

This is where the list of 45 comes into play. If you will remember, the list of 45 was submitted to congressional record over 40 years ago. As you go through the list, think about how many of the goals the liberal left is trying to push on us in today's America. Also, keep in mind how many of them Islam is using as well. Realize that liberalism and Islam has made small changes, like in the first two, they have replaced the word "atomic" with the word "any."

And without further delay, here it is, The List of 45:

[From "The Naked Communist," by Cleon Skousen]

CURRENT COMMUNIST GOALS

1. U.S. acceptance of coexistence as the only alternative to atomic war.

2. U.S. willingness to capitulate in preference to engaging in atomic war.

3. Develop the illusion that total disarmament [by] the United States would be a demonstration of moral strength.

4. Permit free trade between all nations regardless of Communist affiliation and regardless of whether or not items could be used for war.

5. Extension of long-term loans to Russia and Soviet satellites.

6. Provide American aid to all nations regardless of Communist domination.

7. Grant recognition of Red China. Admission of Red China to the U.N.

8. Set up East and West Germany as separate states in spite of Khrushchev's promise in 1955 to settle the German question by free elections under supervision of the U.N.

9. Prolong the conferences to ban atomic tests because the United States has agreed to suspend tests as long as negotiations are in progress.

10. Allow all Soviet satellites individual representation in the U.N.

11. Promote the U.N. as the only hope for mankind. If its charter is rewritten, demand that it be set up as a one-world government with its own independent armed forces. (Some Communist leaders believe the world can be taken over as easily by the U.N. as by Moscow. Sometimes these two centers compete with each other as they are now doing in the Congo.)

12. Resist any attempt to outlaw the Communist Party.

13. Do away with all loyalty oaths.

14. Continue giving Russia access to the U.S. Patent Office.

15. Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States.

16. Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights.

17. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers' associations. Put the party line in textbooks.

18. Gain control of all student newspapers.

19. Use student riots to foment public protests against programs or organizations which are under Communist attack.

20. Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, policy making positions.

21. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures.

22. Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all forms of artistic expression. An American Communist cell was told to "eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings, substitute shapeless, awkward and meaningless forms."

23. Control art critics and directors of art museums. "Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art."

24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them "censorship" and a violation of free speech and free press.

25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.

26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy."

27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with "social" religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity which does not need a "religious crutch."

28. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of "separation of church and state."

29. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.

30. Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the "common man."

31. Belittle all forms of American culture and discourage the teaching of American history on the ground that it was only a minor part of the "big picture." Give more emphasis to Russian history since the Communists took over.

32. Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture--education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.

33. Eliminate all laws or procedures which interfere with the operation of the Communist apparatus.

34. Eliminate the House Committee on Un-American Activities.

35. Discredit and eventually dismantle the FBI.

36. Infiltrate and gain control of more unions.

37. Infiltrate and gain control of big business.

38. Transfer some of the powers of arrest from the police to social agencies. Treat all behavioral problems as psychiatric disorders which no one but psychiatrists can understand [or treat].

39. Dominate the psychiatric profession and use mental health laws as a means of gaining coercive control over those who oppose Communist goals.

40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.

41. Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents.

42. Create the impression that violence and insurrection are legitimate aspects of the American tradition; that students and special-interest groups should rise up and use ["]united force["] to solve economic, political or social problems.

43. Overthrow all colonial governments before native populations are ready for self-government.

44. Internationalize the Panama Canal.

45. Repeal the Connally reservation so the United States cannot prevent the World Court from seizing jurisdiction [over domestic problems. Give the World Court jurisdiction] over nations and individuals alike.

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

As an added note, I first came across this list at A Newt One, and have found a cataloguing of the list at Eeevil Conservative's site (well, she directed me to it when she heard of my interest in the list). Also, last Saturday, Snooper of A Newt One, and a panel of others, went through the first half of the list on Political Pistachio Radio. We will complete our commentary on the list this coming Saturday at 10:00 PM Eastern Time.

Playing With The Enemy Movie

Gary W. Moore is a humble man, calm and friendly, happy to discuss the life of his father. After all, the tale of his father is larger than life, and a story we can learn from - because it is a tale about second chances, but second chances in a direction that we don't always expect. Gary's father, Gene Moore, began his journey to the pages of Playing With The Enemy as a 15 year old baseball prodigy that was drafted by the Brooklyn Dodgers in 1940. The outbreak of World War II, however, demanded that the young phenom join the military. Gene Moore joined the United States Navy, and his tour began in North Africa where he played for the Navy baseball team to entertain the troops. The duty was not always easy, or away from danger, evidenced by the death of the center fielder when an explosion on the field took the young ballplayer's life. Later, as the war effort concentrated more on the theater in Europe, Gene Moore was sent on a secret mission to guard German POWs in Louisiana. These prisoners were very special, however, and their capture was a secret to the outside world for a tremendous reason. The submarine these German sailors were the crew of was the U-505 (now on display in Chicago, Illinois at the Museum of Science and Industry), inside which the United States procured the Enigma Machine and all of the code books that went with it, enabling us to stay on top of the changes in the code, and therefore assisting us in winning the war against Germany. During this time that Gene Moore guarded these prisoners, primarily out of his desire to play baseball (and perhaps a little boredom), Gene Moore and his fellow military baseball players taught the enemy soldiers how to play America's pastime. The story does not end there, however. Tragedy, and the storms of life that can crush dreams, and enable the birth of new ones, came to Gene Moore's life. It was then that he learned about second chances, and the importance of the unexpected things in life. This inspirational true story is being made into a film by Producer Gerald R. Molen via his WhiteLight Entertainment production company. Molen's and White Light Entertainment's credits include Schindler's List, Minority Report, Jurassic Park, The Lost World: Jurassic Park, Twister, Casper, Rain Man and The Flintstones. White Light Entertainment has to its credit 33 Academy Award nominations, 19 Academy Awards, including two for the best picture and a total box office collection of $4 billion from the 14 movies it has produced so far. The screenplay was written by WhiteLight director of development David Ranes and the author's son, Toby Moore, who's also set to portray his grandfather. The film is in production now and is slated to be released during the first quarter of 2009. I first met Gary W. Moore, the author of Playing With The Enemy, at a book signing in San Diego on October 1, 2006. A month later we got together in Pasadena, California after another book signing, and it was then that I realized I had made a wonderful friend. Since then, Gary W. Moore has appeared on my Political Pistachio Radio Show a number of times (April 7, 2007; June 16, 2007 with his publisher: Ted Savas; and January 26, 2008). And honestly, Playing With The Enemy is a great read, and a book that is not about World War II and Baseball as much as it is about the human spirit. As for the movie? Well, I hear there is going to be some great acting talents in the film, but the producer has not released the names, yet. However, when we know who those actors are that are in the film, you will find out about it on Political Pistachio, and of course at that time we will have Gary W. Moore return to Political Pistachio Radio to discuss the latest news regarding this blockbuster film. Also see Gary interviewed by CNN here, and the Fox affiliate in Milwaukee here.

Invested in Defeat: How the Liberal Left Misses The Big Picture





On the heels of an appalling cover of Time Magazine, which depicts the World War II Iwo Jima Flag Raising in an environmental, Global Warming manner, showing disrespect for the military, the fallen heroes that has fought to keep our nation free, and American history, the loony left is at it again with more over-the-top idiocy.

The societal turmoil over the conflict in Iraq is understandable, though misplaced. The liberal left, or at least the ones running around blocking the entrances of recruiting stations, or the ones disrupting congressional hearings, or the ones conducting their destructive protests in the streets with anti-American slogans and signs, have decided that the best way to protest against the violence of war is to conduct even more violent protests, but this time against Olympic torch runners. Why does a group so bent on stopping what they consider to be violence and hate resort to protesting in ways that promotes destruction and hate?

I agree that China is out of line, and needs to be dealt with, but where were these voices for the last sixty years regarding Chinese aggression? And what about Islam? There human rights record, especially against women and anyone not a devout Muslim, is atrocious. Why aren't they protesting the Islamic fascists for their crimes?

In regards to the Middle East, I recognize that it is a tragedy that our fine young men and women are dying on foreign soil. Like the majority of Americans, I want nothing more than for our troops to return home. But I also understand that we can't do that, not without finishing the job in Iraq and Afghanistan first. If we were to abandon the region, it would be a victory in the eyes of the enemy, thus encouraging them to promote another major terrorist attack against the U.S., and it sends the message to the world that we cannot be trusted to finish what we start.

We must remember, too, that the conflict in Iraq is but one battle of many in a much larger war against the Islamic Jihad. In the five years we have been in Iraq we have lost a little more than 4,000 soldiers. Tens of thousands of Iraqi's and insurgents have died, a vast majority as a result of in-fighting and foreign trained terrorists trying to seize control of Iraq and return it to a terrorist state. The total death toll in Iraq according to many liberal sites is slightly over 90,000. Of course, these numbers anger the liberal left. They anger me too. If the Islamic Jihad did not declare war on us, we would not have to lose our young men and women while fighting this war. The liberal left fails to recognize that the Holy War was declared against us! And they fail to see that in any other war we have participated in the death tolls were in the millions, not tens of thousands as in the case of the Global War on Terror. Also, we must realize that compared to the number of deaths we would have lost in more attacks against the U.S., of which we have not suffered because of us taking the fight to the enemy, this number is relatively small. Remember, 3,000 American lives were snuffed out in one single day by the Islamic Jihad on 9/11. Had we not responded, how many other attacks claiming thousands of innocent Americans would have followed 9/11?

The liberal left seems to think that the Islamic Jihad against The West is somehow America's fault, or it is a minor thing that we need not trifle with. The leaders of the Democratic Party, and the anti-war groups that receive the media's attention, have determined that if we simply pull out of the region all bye-gones will be bye-gones, war around the world will suddenly stop, and then we can all get together, hold hands, and skip through fields of posies singing "Imagine" by John Lennon, or kumbaya.

Yes, 4,000 American lives have been lost in this battle. Three-quarters of that number, 3,000 innocent civilians, were slaughtered in one day on September 11, 2001 by the Islamic Jihad.

The World Trade Center and Pentagon attack on 9/11 was committed by Islamists, even after the last half-dozen times that we Americans took up arms in defense of Muslims (Bosnia, Kosovo, Kuwait, etc.). The facts are that Islamic governments are savage dictatorships that force their people to live in poverty while they enjoy insanely wealthy lifestyles. These same wealthy leaders then openly blame the United States for their people's problems, breeding hate against The West in their religious schools, mosques, and government controlled media. Yet, as these leaders blame the U.S. for their problems, the United States has stepped in as the biggest financial supporter of poverty stricken Arabs.

Islamic governments pay families of homicide bombers for killing Americans and Israelis, and they consider pregnant women, babies, children, the elderly, and other non-combatant civilians to be legitimate targets. Our presence in Iraq has freed the oppressed Iraqis from that kind of indiscriminate killing by Saddam's government, as well as freeing the oppressed Iraqis from the iron grip of Saddam Hussein, additionally freeing Iraqis from the gang rape rooms and the filling of mass graves.

The liberal left demands that we pull out of Iraq and allow the country to fall into the hands of the Islamic terrorists, and their supporters (like Iran) . . . or even worse, some of them are demanding we hand over the situation to the United Nations, the same organization that scammed the poor people of Iraq out of the "food for oil" money so that they could get rich while the Iraqi populace suffered.

I am disgusted by the liberal left's investment in defeat, and their call for abandoning the region, and abandoning the people of Iraq.

But the liberal left, despite all of the progress caused by the surge, not only wants us to pull out of the region, but have decided that we have already been defeated in Iraq. Jonathan Steele, the author of Defeat: Why They Lost Iraq, actually states that Democrats should use the "Defeat" word. He states that though we have not been defeated on the battlefield, we have been defeated politically. . . yes, because of the Democratic sabatage! He states that because of the invasion now al-Qaeda is implanted in Iraq. . . they were already there, and Saddam was in close communication with al-Qaeda! War for oil? If we are there to take the Iraqi's oil, then after five years why haven't we? Why are gas prices through the roof?

And apparently appeasement isn't the avenue to take either. As Jimmy Carter was laying a wreath on Arafat's tomb, Hamas terrorists were attacking Israel! Jimmy Carter's traitorous meetings with the terrorist group, Hamas, grants legitimacy to the terrorist group, countering the national security interests of the United States. In fact, when any American citizen goes abroad and meets with America's enemies, and the enemies of our allies, it does damage.

But the idiocy of the left goes way beyond the protesters and Jimmy Carter. Believe it or not, their anti-Americanism gets worse! Remember when the movie, United 93, came out, and many people were saying that it was too early to put out such an emotion wrenching film? At that time there were many people upset by the release of the film because they felt there was still too much pain in people from the memories of that horrid day of September 11, 2001. Hollywood, or at least certain factions of it, has determined that, like the liberal left bloggers and politicians, the war is a farce, and we should pull out immediately. In fact, they have produced quite a few anti-war movies (Redacted, A Mighty Heart, Lions for Lambs, etc.), but none have done very well. So, the next plan of attack against the American War Effort against the Islamic Jihad has been put into place by these cowardly traitors. Now, for Hollywood, it is time to produce lowbrow and cringe-inducing comedies about the war against the Islamic Jihad, and even spoof comedies about that tragic day on 9/11/2001 as well.

These ill-conceived movies include an Osama bin Laden documentary by the "Super Size Me" maker, Morgan Spurlock; an absurdist slam against merchants of war featuring John Cusack; a zombie soldier flick with p0rn-star Jenna Jameson; a stoner movie about being imprisoned in and escaping Guantanamo Bay (Harold and Kumar); and believe it or not, a 9/11 parody by Uwe Boll, that literally makes fun of the day America was attacked. With the production of these comedies the post 9/11 movie goal by the liberal lefties of Hollyweird has reached an amazing new low.

Don't believe me? Watch this appalling first sequence of "Postal" by Uwe Boll:



"Postal" will be opening nationwide May 23 and is being billed as a "shock comedy." It will likely offend everyone except for Code Pink and the farthest fringe leftwing idiot. This outrageously offensive and tasteless film will hopefully result in Uwe Boll's movies being ignored by any audience here on out, but, unfortunately, that is unlikely.

As for Harold and Kumar's Escape from Guantanamo Bay? I don't find Guantanamo to be a joke. It is a serious facility being used to house serious war criminals. Even the lefties that find Gitmo Bay to be a location of torture will find the stoner movie about the prison out of line.

I can't even stomach discussing the remainder of the films being released soon. All I can say is this kind of trash, though perfectly legal in a free society such as ours, is tasteless and irresponsible. I hope America stays home when these films are released, and give them the same lack of audience as was given for the anti-war dramas recently released.

I may just go back and watch Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed again instead. At least that movie uses a little sense.

Feeding Trolls

On Political Pistachio and my other political blogs this crops up from time to time, and I promise myself that I won't let these freaks get under my skin, but there are about five of them on the internet that really get my hair to rise and somehow find a way to get under my skin. I also have about a dozen minor irritations that call themselves "liberal" e-mailing me as well (the now legendary Mudkitty being one of them).

If only all liberals were as easy to get along with as my good friend Sam, which is pictured behind me in the photograph on the right. When the discussion of Socialized Medicine (Government paid health insurance) came up, he says to me, "Doug, I can't believe you have a problem with free health care."

Okay, stop laughing.

I respond, "It is hardly free. It comes out of your tax dollars, and in Canada the citizens still need to buy health insurance to supplement their socialized care because the government only covers so much. Besides, don't you want to have a choice, rather than be controlled into only accepting whatever the government desires you to have?"

"Nah," he says, "I don't want to have to think about it. One less thing to worry about."

Then he says, "Besides, it'll give them something to spend money on other than this illegal war."

"How is our military operations illegal?" I asked.

"I don't know," says Sam. "That's what the news says."

I love ya, Sam, and we will always be friends, but sometimes you amaze me with your politically simple mind.

Well, Lance, Ollie, Caday5, Tom, Fred, and BallBuster are not nearly as simple minded. In fact, two of them, Caday5 and Tom, are on the constant attack and can be quite relentless (and ruthless). Lance and Fred are classic elitists, with Lance beginning his attacks by telling me it was my turn to be picked on. He blogged about me, commented on my WordPress Site and old FreeWebs site, and then fizzled into obscurity. I didn't even have to get rid of him. And Ollie and BallBuster have finally quit trying to jump my blocks and bans, though Ollie, from what I hear, continues to be a royal pain in the butt around the MySpace Conservative Sites.

Wait a second, Doug, did you say blocks and bans? Doesn't that make you a. . . (play dramatic music) - - - (pause for effect) - - - Coward?

Not really. In fact, I have never banned or blocked Caday5, because at least he debates me with his feet on the ground, and his brain out of his hindquarters (he comments on my Townhall Blog, if you were curious).

Every once in a while I will get a lewd comment on Carried By Christ, or a spam on my other Christian Blog. So far Political Pistachio News has remained free of attacks from the liberal leftinistas.

But why is it that I really don't allow the nastiest of the trolls to comment here (or on my other sites), and don't really find the desire to engage them?

I recognize that like all human beings, I am damaged, fallible, and absolutely capable of being mistaken. The internet is basically full of people (showing up as electronic pixels) that have their faults and their strengths, their convictions, their beliefs, and their failings. On blogs, a relatively new phenomenon for the most part, those that share common interests or common beliefs pour their diverse mass of thoughts into discussions much in a way friends gather to discuss their lives or opinions at a party.

If you have ever been to a party, then you know that parties often come with "party crashers." If the crashers behave themselves, and don't upset the locals, then more often than not they are tolerated and given the okay to remain at the gathering as long as they behave. If, however, the party crasher is disruptive, makes demands that they shouldn't, or simply upsets the person that is giving the party, it is completely within the realm of decency for the host to ask the "crashers" to leave. If the disruptive person (or persons) refuse to depart from the premises, it is completely within the rights of the host to either ask his or her friends to physically eject the disruptors, or for the local authorities to be contacted if things get out of hand. Now, imagine those party crashers that were ejected suddenly crying out, "You are infringing on my right to party! How dare you take my right to party away from me! By kicking me out of your party that makes you a coward!"

Asking a disruptive individual to leave is not the host being a coward. The host is keeping the party pleasant, and enabling the other party-goers the opportunity to continue to enjoy the gathering without the unnecessary disruptions of the offending party(ies). If the party crashers want to party the way they like to party, then they can go host their own party, or go be an ass at a party hosted by one of their friends. The party crashers ought not to create havoc someplace where such disruptive behavior should not have to be tolerated.

Now, imagine if the host said to the party crashers, "I don't like you here, you are disruptive, but have a sandwich and a beer."

Well, that would make no sense at all, would it? After all, if you felt the disruptive person was a problem and needed to leave, why would you feed him and offer him a drink?

Trolls are much like those party crashers, but sometimes can be worse. Not only do they crash the party, but they begin to make demands. Fred, a blogtalkradio troll, actually demanded once that I name contemporary artist on the spot (which, of course, was completely off-topic). He wasn't specific so I named a writer (writers to me are artists). He responded, "See, you can't," and then went on to snivel about him being educated and intelligent and how people like me can't even name contemporary artists. The question was not a question as much as it was a statement. Fred was making the statement that because he can name a contemporary artist and I couldn't, that somehow placed him on a higher level. It made him an elitist that I could never aspire to, in his opinion.

Many of these liberal trolls define their world by "I'm right" and you're either 100% with me or 100% against me. Problem is, when they start pulling this junk, since I am very strong on my convictions, I become sucked in by my own curiosity and confused fascination. Then the rules are tossed out the window, and they, like the party crashers, begin to ignore the wishes of the blogging community around them. They attack mercilessly, using tactics that I would never dream of using, and then when I disagree with them or make a statement in my defense, they choose to either take the disagreement as attack, or as some kind of level of stupidity. They respond to all opposing opinion with condemnation and quite often, profanity-laced anger.

Then, because of our fallible human nature, we take the bait, and the fireworks ensue. The civil disagreement becomes frustration and anger, and then it becomes attack and condemnation. The recipient of the troll attacks, or at least in my case last year, becomes a casualty (meaning I got kicked off quite a few blogrolls because of my "disgraceful troll problem" that was making the publisher of those blogrolls "sick."

It was then that I realized I had a duty to provide a safe and enjoyable environment for my readers and commenters. Problem is, the trolls at that time (Mudkitty and Tom) would not honor my request to cease and desist, so I began to moderate my comment section. That proved to be tiresome and time consuming. Then I decided to change over to Haloscan so that I could effectively "ban" the commenters. Mudkitty has remained banned and off Political Pistachio ever since, but Tom, being the computer genius that he proclaims he is, eventually figured out how to circumvent the ban and has returned to commenting on Political Pistachio (this, after telling me he would be honorable and abide by my "silly" ban). Now, I am back to moderating.

Honestly, this stupidity of attacking sites that disagree with you is a confusing thing to me. I visit liberal sites on rare instances, more often than not I do not comment. It's just bad form. I visit to see what the other side is saying. The blogger is entitled to his or her opinion on his or her blog, and if I don't like their opinion, then I am free to blog on the subject on my own site. This is honorable, in my opinion, and the way it should be. This way the community of my blog, and other blogs, does not wind up in confusion and shock because of the sudden war of words that erupts.

I will have to admit that when I see such interchanges in comment sections, or even find myself participating in such an interchange, it's an amazing thing to watch. People, knowing that they are nothing more than an electronic bundle of pixels, let out their dark side. You begin to see sides of people that you never suspected lurked beneath all the letters they've strung together on the internet. And when a momentary ceasefire emerges, the victim of the troll attack is left with asking themselves, "How do I both protect myself, my ideas and convictions while balancing my emotional reaction, and somehow walk away from the trolls who only want a fight and to get everyone riled up in the first place?"

Problem is, the trolls tend to use tactics that often creates problems within the community. Fred, for example, has only one goal in his attacks. His tactics are all designed to disrupt, and he admittedly thinks that his disruptions are nothing less than hilarious. I pointed this out to many, and battled him often before finally banning him from the chat room of my Political Pistachio Radio Show, and blocking him indefinitely in other chat rooms so that even if he is present, I cannot see what he is typing. One of my listeners told me on my instant messenger after one such battle between Fred and I that she didn't understand why I was such an ass to him. After all, he was only asking legitimate questions, and all I had to do was answer them honestly. Well, remember that Fred's questions, like most troll's questions, are not really questions, but are actually statements designed to create havoc. Anyway, weeks later that same person contacted me and told me that I had been correct from the start about Fred. Fred is a sick individual that will stop at nothing (and I mean nothing) to get a laugh at other's expense.

One tactic that trolls use, which Tom and Fred are both quite inept at, is to try to use bloggers against each other. Tom's latest attempt at this is having convinced Jennifer over at Conservative Chic with his one-sided (he posts what I say, but adds commentary that is in a very different direction of the context) and malicious posts that I am somehow cowardly because I don't put up with his garbage and have finally gone back to moderation just to keep him off my blog. Divide and conquer, right Tom? Pretty childish of you, to be honest. I thought you'd have a little more maturity than that.

That is how trolls play the game, and they are especially dangerous around newer bloggers or commenters (or commenters that are inherently passive and trusting). Newer commenters and bloggers tend to side with the troll, willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, especially when the old hands attempt to slap down the troll out of frustration. The more experienced, or less trusting, bloggers often know the history of the troll, and have often decided to take a stand to defend their community and hunt the troll until they've left the community or blog, or they simply ignore the troll altogether. Newer people, not knowing that the troll may be currently presenting the mask of the maligned victim in order to garner support and thus keep the battle going on longer, may openly side with the troll in an effort to defend their new community or blog from bullies. In the end, however, like my friend's dealings with Fred, the trusting blogger or commenter gets burned, or finally realizes that he or she has been had. By then, the damage is done, and the situation has gone way beyond the level of debate.

I realize that the term, troll, can be highly subjective. What some readers may characterize as trolling may be to others a legitimate contribution to the discussion, even if controversial. I understand that a simple opposing position may not necessarily be trolling - hence the reason I have not gotten rid of my argumentative commenter on my townhall blog, Caday5. I realize that I cannot always recognize a writer's motives. But, most controversial posts attract strong responses from those unfamiliar with the robust dialogue found in some online comment sections.

Unfortunately, sometimes I am not very skilled at using the most effective way to discourage a troll, which is to ignore him or her, because responding as I am here more often than not encourages a true troll to continue disruptive posts — hence the often-seen warning "Please do not feed the troll".

Frequently, someone who has been labelled a troll by a group may seek to redeem their reputation by discrediting their opponents, as does Tom. No matter how even-handed ... how just ... we try to be, the fact of the matter is, we are not perfect. We snap. We jump to conclusions. We get tired and cranky. But what separates us from the trolls is that we are able to step back and re-evaluate our behaviour. I try to learn from my mistakes, to learn when to stop reacting, and simply walk away from what I feel is trollish behavior.

Trolls seem to intrinsically need to be understood, which can make it difficult to walk away from that chance at communication, and possibly teaching the troll a bit about the truth. But some battles are won only when they aren't fought at all.

In the end, I prefer conversations with my buddy Sam - but, being the person that I am, I cannot let a few nasty nuggets by Tom the Neurotic Liberal to go unanswered, so watch for (in the near future) my response to posts (I will provide the links when I respond since he cries so much that I don't give him his due credit) called "Inherintly Dishonest," "Say What?" "A Giant Strawman," and the one that begins, "Doug bitched me out for posting a comment on his blog. . ."

November 2009
M T W T F S S
October 2009December 2009
1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30