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

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

Remember when you were a little kid and at Thanksgiving you would make turkeys by tracing your hand on construction paper, and dress up as pilgrims and Indians to celebrate the early friendship of the new Americans and the natives that already lived in North America?

For forty years kindergartners in the Claremont Unified School district have done something similar, dressing up as pilgrims and Indians as one school visits another to share a feast.

Today, however, when the kids planned to meet for this tradition, due to the complaint of a single parent, the children's parents were ordered to not allow their children to wear their hand-made costumes, and instead wear their school spirit shirts for the festivities.

The complaining parent, Michelle Reheja, claimed the event was "demeaning" and "inappropriate." Whe wrote to the school board, "I'm sure you can appreciate the inappropriateness of asking children to dress up like slaves (and kind slave masters), or Jews (and friendly Nazis), or members of any other racial minority group who has struggled in our nation's history."

That's right, this college professor claimed that a simple child's depiction of the traditional tale of two peoples giving thanks over a shared meal was a stereotype that would never be allowed of other racial, ethnic or religious groups. "There is nothing to be served by dressing up as a racist stereotype," she claimed.

When word got out that both the Condit and Mountain View campuses were going to be ordered to cancel the event by the school district, infuriated parents argued over the matter at a heated school board meeting. In the end, the decision was to hold the event, but without the costumes. A memo was sent out at the end of last week confirming the decision.

The parents, however, decided that political correctness wasn't going to ruin the fun, or the lesson, for their children, and 90% of the parents dressed their kids up in the costumes anyhow.

In addition to sending their children to school in costume today, the parents also plan to keep their children home tomorrow, costing the district attendance funds to punish them for modifying the event in an apparent bowing down to a single politically correct parent.

One parent declared, "She's not going to tell us what we can and cannot wear. We're tired of [district officials] cowing down to people. It's not right."

During the event Michelle Reheja staged a protest outside with a dozen other University of California colleagues. They held signs, and shouted their anger, calling the parents of the children that dressed up, "haters." At one point the protesters got into shouting matches with some parents.

The children did not know of the protest. They were inside, enjoying a Thanksgiving meal, and sharing with their classmates the opportunity to give thanks.

Abraham Biggs, a 19 year old from Florida, committed suicide on a video site called Justin.tv on Wednesday of last week. During the episode the people in the chat forum egged him on. The video continued to feed into the internet until police and medical personnel broke into Abraham Bigg's room and blocked the camera.

The broadcaster expects the users to report any unsuitable content, and has therefore washed their hands of any wrong doing.

Investigators also have determined that none of the viewers are at fault criminally. They may have been cracking jokes in the forum as the teen was dying from an overdose of pills, but they didn't kill the boy, they didn't tell him to do it, and they didn't believe it was real.

It is my opinion that the viewers had a duty to do whatever they could to stop it - but they didn't - and each one of them had a part in Abraham Bigg's death because all they did was watch, and do nothing.

Please note that I am not crying out for government regulation to make sure this never happens again. Government is not capable of preventing it from ever happening again. I am expecting individuals to take responsibility for their actions . . . or inaction, so that this happens rarely, and hopefully never again. Otherwise, we are opening ourselves up to said government intervention and control.

Saturday Night Political Pistachio Radio welcomed Walid Shoebat and Dr. Kenneth Hill as guests on the highly acclaimed internet Blog Talk Radio show.

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

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

Listen to the conversations on Political Pistachio Radio with Walid Shoebat and Dr. Kenneth Hill on the Media Player below.

Loki, a 20 year student of the U.S. Constitution, and Douglas V. Gibbs of Political Pistachio spend two hours discussing the Obama Birth Certificate question in the first of two episodes on this issue. If you missed the show live, listen to the archive on the Blog Talk Radio Media Player below:

Tonight on Political Pistachio Radio after Founding Truth at 7pm Pacific/10pm Eastern: Walid Shoebat, former Palestinian Terrorist, joins us to explain why Muslims are happy about the Obama win, and why Israel is worried. Will we see vitriolic anti-Semitism in America?

And, also tonight, in the second hour of the show: Is the Fairness Doctrine coming? Will we see the sudden rise of an Orwellian America? Truth Squads? Thought Police? Political Censorship? Dr. Kenneth Hill will explain the real threats on the horizon, and how the Fairness Doctrine will open the door for all of them!

Catch it all tonight on the Political Pistachio Revolution - Conservative Commentary

Last Sunday on Political Pistachio Radio an explosive episode that has attracted thousands of listeners regarding Obama's Birth Certificate aired. During that episode, a number of Constitutional questions arose from the relationship of the 14th amendment with Article 2 to who becomes president should Barack Obama be found to be ineligible.

Philip J. Berg's case is heading to the Supreme Court, and the Obama Camp claims they have a Constitutional argument out of it. Do they? Did the 14th amendment change the meaning of Article 2? If Obama is in fact ineligible, who becomes president? Will there be a special election? What if the decision comes down before January 20th? What if the decision comes down after January 20th?

Tune in to Founding Truth tonight at 5pm Pacific/8pm Eastern to find out!

After the episode you may also go to Blog Talk Radio for the archive of the show.

Faced with a possibility of being unable to approve the $25 billion bailout plan for the big three auto-makers in the U.S., the United States Senate decided to punt.

U.S. automakers have had low sales, and have been producing products unable to compete with foreign competition. General Motors claims that without the bailout they will go into bankruptcy, and that will cause a tidal wave of economic troubles way beyond what we are currently experiencing.

The federal emergency loan plan, however, stalled in the Senate. The lawmakers in both parties are refusing to take the lead, fearful that the blame will land in their lap should the plan not work. Also, the more conservative Republicans are proclaiming it is a bad plan, just as the other bailout was, and want no part of sending this nation into a socialist direction more so than what it already has gone.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., killed the plans for a vote, and has proclaimed it is up to Bush's team to act, now.

Many lawmakers in both parties believe that bankruptcy of the automobile manufacturing companies might be a better option, and more appropriate, since they have done little to complete with foreign competition, and adjust their products and work forces for the 21st century.

The Big Three have argued that bankruptcy would devastate their companies.

The plan to bailout the auto industry, in my opinion, is typical liberalism. Punish the successful while providing rewards for failure. The American auto industry has failed, and has refused to do what it takes to compete (coupled with the stringent government regulations of the industry, high fees, and tax structure). If the Big Three fail, other companies, like Toyota or Honda, will pick up the slack, pick up many of the workers, and see the opportunity for growth in the absence of the American vehicles. Then, perhaps, a new American company will form - one that has learned the lessons of the failed industry before it.

Will their failure add to the already difficult economic situation in America? Yes. But how will it help the economy if failed businesses are given the capital to continue in their failing ways?

The United States of America was founded on the idea that we are all individuals. We became the land of opportunity where any individual in this nation may have the opportunity to succeed. But as much as you have the freedom to succeed, you have the freedom to fail, too.

Failure, however, is not to be rewarded. When someone fails, it is expected that they "pull themselves up by the bootstraps" and try, try again.

With the recent bailouts and promises of redistribution of wealth, the liberal dream of punishing success and rewarding failure seems to be coming into reality.

The "Big 3" American car makers are demanding a piece of the bailout pie for failing. They are hoping for a $25 billion bailout for producing substandard products, and mismanaging their corporations.

This is how the government seems to work. Tax punitively any company making a profit, and demonize them as greedy and evil, while writing big bailout checks to the losers because their failure just can't be permitted.

Could you imagine if the car makers were making a profit, but the oil companies were failing? Would the automakers be villains, and would the government be cutting checks to the oil companies?

Rewarding failure, and penalizing success, is not the American way - and this socialization of American industries is nothing short of the De-Americanization of America.

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

Also, read my article: Attacked by Protesting Gay Activists on my Carried By Christ blog.

Today I received word that for the safety of the drivers of the big rigs all "Yes On 8" signs on the back of the trailers must be removed. Too many drivers are being attacked by supporters of "No On 8," and in the latest incident a bottle was thrown at one of the drivers.

One of the arguments in support of Gay Marriage before Proposition 8 won in California was that it won't affect those of you that have a moral obligation to attempt to preserve the sanctity of marriage. "Gays," they said, "only want to have the opportunity to marry. It will not affect you, or your children."

In California the voters approved Proposition 8 which amends the state constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman. Had Prop. 8 lost, the proponents of the proposition would have accepted it and planned for the next attempt through the voters to define marriage as between a man and a woman - and the Gay Community would have proclaimed victory and cried out that they had the will of the people on their side. . . but the homosexual community lost, and they became violent.

After church on Sunday, leaving the parking lot, on the sidewalk Gay Rights Activists slammed their hands on cars, screamed "haters" and profanity, and were flipping us off as we tried to pull out on the street.

Why has the Gay Agenda become an image of thuggery and anarchy?

Is it because Christians, Mormons, and other folks who support preserving traditional marriage, rejected justifying their immoral activity. The gays, who said that gay marriage would not affect us, have decided that either I denounce my faith and turn my back on thousands of years of Biblical teachings, or else I deserve to be painted with profane language, and injured through violent means.

Remind me again who the haters are?

I have not removed the "Yes On 8" sticker on the back of my rig but will out of respect to the company and their concern over the safety of the drivers - and I will place that "Yes On 8" sign/sticker on the back of my personal truck. I will not have my freedom of speech removed by a bunch of violent people bent on moving our society into a direction of degradation.

I would not expect an "Honesty Club" to be forced to admit liars into their ranks, so why should Gays be able to defile the Institution of Marriage, a union blessed by God? And why should I be forced by them to turn my back on my faith because of their violent tantrums?

Homosexuality is a wrong behavior, just as any other behavior (take your pick: lying, cheating, stealing, violent, disruptive, etc.) And it is a behavior that is having adverse affects on our society, and can cause harm to the development of children in our society by them being exposed to such activities.

Political Vindication also had their experiences with the Propostion 8 foes HERE, and have an interesting piece about Christians chased out of a neighborhood in San Francisco while a times trying to physically molest them in the process HERE, all the while shouting "Shame on you."

Shame on us for trying to uphold moral values? Shame on you for trying to force your immorality upon society through violent force and thuggery.

-------

Luke 21:12 - . . . they will lay their hands on you and persecute you. . .

Luke 21:16-17 - You will be betrayed even by parents and brothers, relatives and friends; and they will put some of you to death. And you will be hated by all for My name's sake.

Isaiah 5:20,21 - Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter! Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes and prudent and shrewd in their own sight!

1 Timothy 4:1-3 - Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron, forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.

Romans 1:26-27 - For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.

Micah 3:1-2 - Is it not for you to know justice? You who hate good and love evil.

When Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson asked Congress for $700 billion for distressed assets, the Democrats in Congress jumped with glee at the opportunity to expand government farther into the private sector, and ultimately into our individual lives. As far as Pelosi, and friends, are concerned, any intrusive, big government plan or program is good to them. Unfortunately, George W. Bush joined them in the approval of a massive socialist push into the American Economy, and ultimately, the nationalization of the Mortgage Industry.

The Democrats were excited about the opportunity to stick more government into your lives because they believe it is government's obligation to "do for you." They are like a nanny running around with giant pillows in their hands ready to throw them under your butt when you are ready to fall - unfortunately, in order to do that, your individual freedoms must be compromised, and the Capitalism that has made this nation so prosperous must be placed six feet under.

George W. Bush, though more reluctant in approving the bailout, used different reasoning than his liberal counterparts. His core belief system is not one of government control, I don't believe, though he has proven not to be a fiscal conservative as evidenced by his ability to spend more than a drunken Democrat during the last eight years. His reasoning for the bailout, however, was coupled with the thought that without it, the economy would falter - AND - it would open up an opportunity to worldwide cooperation on an economic level. That's right, Dubya did it for reasons akin to Globalism.

Now that the Congressional Democrats have experienced bailout fever, they desire to provide bailouts for everyone. The American Auto Industry, guilty of falling behind because they produce inferior products, is slated for a bailout. Credit companies are poised for assistance as well (so go out to dinner and charge it on the credit card! You may not have to pay the bill after all!). Even struggling cities like Atlanta and Philadelphia, all manned by left-of-center leadership, are begging for a piece of the bailout pie as well.

What is the lesson?

I guess it is okay to live beyond your means and finance your life up to your eyeballs - after all, if you can't pay for what you promised to pay for, the government will come along and bail you out too. As for you folks that did the right thing and budgeted and did not over-extend your credit? Sorry, you are out of luck - dig deep into your pockets and pay your taxes so that all of the screw-ups can get a check from the government!

Now, I know on the surface many of you are ready to say that a bad economy is to blame for the perceived need of such a Marxist strategy. A roughed up economy, coupled with decreased consumer spending, I agree, played no small role. But, the real culprit across the board is bad management - in the industries affected, and in the government's handling of regulatory intrusion, as well as the governmental demand to offer credit to folks that had no business getting it in the first place.

Capitalism is self adjusting. Over regulating (I didn't say to strip all regulations, by the way, for those of you who think that de-regulation caused the problems) stifles the growth of business. Business growth needs to be encouraged, not punished with increased business taxes, increased capital gains taxes, and the existence of any estate taxes. Individual drive for success and business growth is what moves an economy, not government checks.

And before you proclaim that Barack Obama is above any notions of bailouts, remember that he wants to provide the ultimate bailout to the entire world in the form of his Global Poverty Bill which would redistribute the wealth from the ashamedly wealthy United States to the rest of the poor world in nations where they have refused to embrace the Capitalism that has made this nation prosperous in the first place.

If a progressive taxation against the successful, and redistributing such monies down to the "less fortunate" is such a great idea, then how come it has failed every time it has been attempted?

Change? The Liberal Left's plans are nothing new. They are only a re-try of old, worn-out, failed policies that has sent us into recessions each time they were tried; and has destroyed other nations when they attempted to use such Marxist ideals.

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

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

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

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

Sound familiar?

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

And Obama said, "Let there be utopia, and there was."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The question, then, is why?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For News on the Tea Fire in California GO HERE.

Many Conservatives are proclaiming that Sarah Palin should run for President in 2012, and that she would be a shoe-in to win.

Perhaps.

Realize that in 2012 there will be a crowded field of Republicans, and they will range from moderates to Conservatives without a doubt.

Since Palin recieved so many attacks about her experience (while Obama didn't with less experience) it would seem reasonable that if she desires to run on a national ticket she ought to secure some "Washington" experience.

Considering that the sorry piece of fodder, Ted Stevens (if he pulls off the win - which is looking bleak), will probably lose his Senate seat anyway as they cart him off to prison, many folks think that Palin should enter the special election for that seat (if Stevens was somehow able to win that seat back) and get some "Senate Experience." Then what would the media have to say about her experience? Governor and Senator - with more Senate experience by then than Obama had going into this last race.

Personally, I think the Liberal Left fears that possibility.

Some Conservatives have claimed that they don't want Palin in the Senate. They are afraid that her appeal, being the candidate that can relate to the average American, will be diminished by allowing the sludge of Washington to flow through her veins.

Understand this: Sarah Palin would change the Senate more than the Senate would change her.

But, I don't think Stevens will win the election, so "Senator Palin" will probably not happen. I am surprised the felon even ran for office. But that is fine. Governor Palin, with more governorship experience, will be fine. After all, Mitt Romney and Bobby Jindal are governors too - though from more populous states - and they seem to already be the front runners for the presidential run in four years.