A few snowflakes does not make a snowstorm. A few puddles does not mean there will be massive flooding. But, unfortunately, a few bad apples can ruin a barrel. On the same token, if you see the tip of the iceberg, it may be possible there is a whole lot more from where that came from.

"Walter Reed" has become synonymous with what people believe to be a failing Military Hospital and Veterans Administration system. It doesn't matter if the connections exist between Walter Reed and any other medical facility in or out of the system. People automatically assume that if an Army Hospital is capable of a breakdown in command and proper leadership, the entire military hospital network, including Veteran's Affairs - in their minds, is a listing ship ready to take a nose dive into the bowels of Davey Jones' Locker. However, nothing could be from the truth. Overall, the military hospitals are top notch facilities manned by military personnel doing all they can to take care of their own. Veteran's Affairs, though it can sometimes become a bureaucratic nightmare, is a fairly stable system with a handful of loose bolts that are constantly being searched out and tightened.

The political game is not much different. When George W. Bush, and a few wayward Republicans, determined that the best way to save the Free Market System was to inject government money, which always includes government regulation and control, any member of The Right that later criticized the Obama Administration for their massive budget and bailout plans was immediately reminded of the socialism injected into the system by the so-called Compassionate Conservative President Bush. As if all folks on The Right have to join into lock-step with anything Dubya did, and to say anything to the contrary is hypocritical.

The political minefield is full of such explosive traps. And I agree with many Democrats that George W. Bush wasn't the greatest president ever to walk God's green Earth. But, because there are a few policies, including his spending tendencies, which is now being dwarfed by the current administration's gluttonous spending spree, that I disagree with, it does not mean that I must then draw a line in the sand and proclaim that Bush is the worst president ever, or that my Republicans are a bunch of screw-ups. In truth, the problem does not lie with Conservatism, anyway, but with Liberalism in the first place.

The Liberal Left is all about party, and all about increasing government involvement in our lives. They proclaim that all Democrats are the greatest beings to ever grace the presence of the United States, while all Republicans were stupid, misinformed oafs that somehow managed not to completely ruin the country. They proclaim, since the Democrats support government handouts to anyone that will take them, this somehow makes the Democratic Party the party that is in the corner of the poor, and therefore, Republicans must only be for the rich, and desire to fill the pockets of the rich with more cash while draining any remaining blood from the poverty stricken masses. This is simply not true.

On the same token, while Liberals proclaim the sainthood of their various historical Democrats, any facts that may not completely fit their mold is conveniently forgotten. John F. Kennedy is hailed as a great Democrat, yet his willingness to fight (using the United States Military) when the enemy stood on the doorstep, or his affinity for cutting taxes, is hardly ever mentioned by anyone on the left, and especially by the bias stricken mainstream media. Franklin Delano Roosevelt is, in the minds of many, the greatest thing to hit economic woes since sliced bread, when in reality if the numbers during the implementation of his New Deal (Raw Deal?) are closely scrutinized, he actually prolonged The Great Depression with his increased taxation, government spending, and creation of socialist programs akin to the practices of the rising enemy, communism. Nations that allowed the Free Market to correct itself maintained lower unemployment numbers, and pulled out of the depression earlier, worldwide.

Though the occasional Larry Craig, or Republican spending spree by the Bush Administration, does not define an entire GOP that is populated largely by Conservatives, a continual track record of tax and spending for the last century by the Democrats does give us a glimpse of what lies beneath the liberal iceberg.

Now that communism lies in disgrace with the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the Chinese decision to inject a little capitalism into their economy, of which the result has been massive economic growth, why is it that liberalism hangs on to the very ideals proven to fail?

Norman Thomas, six-time Socialist Party candidate for president said it best: "The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened."

This is because liberalism, socialism, or if you will - Marxism, is about control. Members of the Democratic Party could care less about the economic stability of the nation, when it really comes down to it. Their greed for power overshadows that, and they are already trying to figure out how they can stay in power during the next election cycle. This is why the Democrats act like classic liberals, but proclaim conservatism (like claiming to give tax cuts to 95% of the people when they have no intention of doing such a thing, and a simple change in income tax withholding is nothing of the sort).

The occasional misstep of a few Republicans is a perfect example of a few bad apples ruining the barrel. The problem with the Democrats is that the barrel is rotten from top to bottom. The Obama budget bill is way over budget, and some members of the left are now proclaiming that conservative bloggers are domestic terrorists, and now to make sure you stay in goose-step with the Liberal takeover of America, H.R. 1388 is moving forward to put into place a compulsory (yet called voluntary - talk about Orwellian Double Speak) civilian national security force requiring community service (in a special uniform) of young Americans. Some would call it Obama's version of The Brown Shirts.

Liberty, unfortunately, usually dies under the guise of security, and is greeted with thunderous applause. The blizzard has arrived, and the onslaught of Liberal Socialism is more than just a few snowflakes.

American Daily Review is one of the premiere conservative web magazines on the world wide web. In the two month period since its launch it has already nearly surpassed over 100,000 hits. Notable writers from around the net are joining the site as contributors. War has been declared against the mainstream media, and the conservative alternative known as American Daily Review is on the front line.

In reality, the story behind this up and coming star of the conservative internet brigade began with a few phone calls. John Barnhart, the Executive Director behind American Daily Review asked a few people attached to Conservative Solutions (aka Let's Get This Right) what they thought about his idea for a new site geared at Christian Conservative Commentary, and a site that would ultimately go to battle against The Daily KOS and Huffington Post. The folks over at Conservative Solutions listened carefully, understood John's desire to be networked with sites like theirs, yet independent, and his desire to find people with the same talent and fire in their belly as he.

They recommended that John contact me, Douglas V. Gibbs of Political Pistachio.

Our early phone conversations last August began the birthing process of American Daily Review. Slowly, we designed the site, and John became the technical brains behind the outfit. When the site launched January 17, 2009, immediately ADR received a plethora of hits. With the superior content provided by myself, John, and a host of other contributors, the readers began to return for more, and tell their friends.

Now, American Daily Review has become a major force in the battle to return this country to its Conservative roots.

Tonight, live on the Political Pistachio Radio Revolution, John Barnhart, Executive Director of American Daily Review, joins the show to discuss the evolution of American Daily Review, and the issues Conservatives are confronting today as the Liberal Left Democrats dominate our government, and are steering this nation headlong into a socialist mistake.

Join the show live at 7pm Pacific, or catch the archive later: HERE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Five Myths About the Great Depression by Andrew B. Wilson

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

In Obama's dream world he is articulate, suave, masterful, intellectual, and can turn rain into sunshine. His flock of followers swoon in his presence. Two town hall meetings in Los Angeles and nearby Orange County distributed tickets for the meetings within 90 minutes to the ravenous crowd - some people camping out a couple days in order to be in line early enough to score these precious golden tickets. Barry is the first sitting president to be interviewed on a late night television show, last night appearing on Jay Leno's Tonight Show. Barack Obama is a rockstar, messiah, and president all rolled into one to these people. He can do no wrong, especially when compared to those idiots George W. Bush and Sarah Palin. Right?

Unfortunately, for those few folks that are still rabid believers out there that have lost all objectivity when it comes to President Obama, he is more like a professional wrestler than a leader of the free world. His public persona is a false image generated by members of his staff, and a, to borrow a word from Bernie Goldberg, "slobbering" media. When his words are chosen carefully by his staff, and when he has somebody else's words flashing in front of him on his teleprompter, usually Obama comes across as a smooth character. However, in his unguarded moments the true Obama emerges, and he becomes a gaffe machine, and an insensitive oaf. Of course, while campaigning, Obama's numerous gaffes were never reported by his adoring press. They found ways to either bury the data, or avert the public's attention to false accusations against Sarah Palin.

Success using these shameful tactics were easy for the mainstream media, after all, for they already had eight years experience demonizing George W. Bush. Of course they would never say anything that may be anything other than flattering about Barack Obama.

Case in point: Remember when Obama and crew gave the thoughtless gift of 25 DVDs to British Prime Minister Gordon Brown? Well, it turns out that not only was the gift thoughtless, but it is useless too. Obama and friends failed to realize that DVDs in America are considered Region 1, and only play on North American Video Players. Britain is region two. So, when Brown tried to play one of his new DVDs from Obama, they didn't play.

Better still in showing Obama's idiocy is his recent non-teleprompter moment on Jay Leno's Tonight Show where he compared his sorry bowling game to the Special Olympics.

Well, so much for Obama being a brilliant academic. Time and time again he keeps on proving he's a bigger idiot than the leftist media tried to make Bush and Palin look like.

Could you imagine if George W. Bush had done either of the above? The media would have had a field day with it. But Obama's latest gaffe was on national television in front of a live audience, and not a peep. . . well, okay, a few peeps, but you know what I mean.

Oh, and if you missed it, here it is:



Ironically, it is Down Syndrome Awareness Day tomorrow. And I am appalled that the Left criticized Palin for birthing little Trig because of his handicap, or that Obama would senselessly say such a thing as he did last night on television, and hardly get called on it. I taught at a school for the mentally retarded (as it was called back then) when I was much younger for a few years, and these kids were hardly anything but the neatest, most loving, enthusiastic people you'd ever meet.

Barack Obama, you should be ashamed of yourself - and your automatically generated apology from someone else's mouth in the White House is hardly an acceptable enough apology.

Earlier this week the blogosphere was on fire about how President Obama was going to require our heroes to pay for their treatment at Veteran's Affairs facilities. In the face of the outcry, Obama has decided to drop the budget proposal requiring private insurance payments for the treatment of these military veterans.

Currently, however, the practice of requesting payment from private insurance companies is already in place. However, the insurance companies have the option to deny payment without as much as a peep from VA.

For those that proclaim that Veteran's Affairs is a perfect example of universal health in action, they forget that the payment for that care was paid for by the service of these fine military veterans. Payment as been paid in blood, and it is the least the United States can do in return.

Obama's actions of trying to demand payment for Veteran care, even after the payment in blood paid by our fine military men and women show me how little respect he has for our heroes. How could any sitting president make such a demand unless he had little or no respect for the service provided by these military heroes?

Obama's decision to rescind his decision came shortly after heads of Veteran Service Organizations met White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel voicing their concerns. President Obama scrapped the plan while he was on Air Force One heading to California to appear on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno.

Sky News is reporting that President Obama, not realizing that he was reading Irish Prime Minister Brian Cowen's line on the teleprompter, thanked himself for his presence and speech.

This followed the Prime Minister's own teleprompter mistake when he began to read a part of Obama's speech.

I have a simple question for inquiring minds: If someone snuck in the words, "We're screwed, and I'm an idiot" on a teleprompter, is Obama so teleprompter dependent that he would read the words first before realizing what he said?

Just a thought.

As President Barack Obama readies himself for appearances in California, and an appearance on Jay Leno's Tonight Show, he is quite upset over the AIG bonuses being handed out - almost to the point of it being a temper-tantrum. He, and Chris Dodd, and I suppose the rest of the Liberal Little Rascals, regardless of contractual terms, and a little thing called The Dodd Amendment, have vowed to put into action plans to try and stop the sinister bonus plans of the evil Darth AIG.

Never you mind that the contract for these bonuses was agreed upon long before any government bailout began to take shape. Do you think these guys in line to receive these bonuses are a little upset at the uproar from Washington D.C.? Of course they are. But what did they expect would happen when the government bailed out AIG, and basically stuck their long nailed claws into the workings of the failing company? Fact is, if you receive government money for anything, and that goes for you folks out there in internet land, as well, it opens up the opportunity for the government to dictate the terms of your business, or your lives, or your health care, or whatever it is they placed dollar signs into.

The AIG bonuses are essentially retention pay, paid to the executives in an effort to convince the talent not to jump ship when the vessel begins to list, or even if it gets nowhere near an iceberg, or endangers a swimming polar bear, but desires to hang on to the talent executives anyhow. Had the all-powerful, Obamacized, Government just let AIG fail like any other poorly run business, the contracts under bankruptcy law would be void, the rats would have jumped overboard, and the world would be without one more failed, and poorly managed, business entity.

All-knowing liberal bureaucrats, however, are convinced that if AIG fails, we are heading headlong into another great depression. After all, they will argue, AIG is interwoven into the entire financial market, and their failure would initiate a domino-effect that would topple financial institution after financial institution, shoving us over a high cliff and into the deep chasm of a horrendous depression that only Franklin Delano Roosevelt's reincarnation, The Great and Powerful Ozbama, could possibly pull us out of.

I was a banker for four years, and a financial agent for two years. I experienced the Savings and Loan debacle. The entire Savings and Loan Industry collapsed, and we didn't wind up in a severe depression. We had a short slow down, and then years of prosperity because the "losers" of the financial world were out of the way so that successful entities could grow and prosper in their place.

Failed businesses are like sick Caribou that limp along and slow down the herd. The healthy caribou don't help them along, or slow down for them. They let them fall, let the wolves eat them, and then the strong, up and coming businesses (err, uh, animals) strengthen the herd.

What is really interesting about this is how "suddenly" the Democrats are up in arms over this, like it is some kind of surprise. The reality is that the Democrats knew all along that these bonuses were coming. These bonuses were the whole reason for The Dodd Amendment which, in the stimulus bill, allows all bonuses contractually agreed upon before February 11 to be awarded. And, of course, AIG is one of the main reasons for that amendment. Senator Chris Dodd, after all, is the largest single recipient of 2008 campaign donations from AIG, along with other politicians, including, but not limited to, Barack Obama, the all-so moderate John McCain, and Hillary Clinton.

Now that these bonuses has surfaced, however, the uproar is more than the Democrats expected, so to cover their butts, and probably also to deflect attention away from Obama's injection of socialism into America, they are acting as if they are angered and appalled by the very audacity of AIG's executive's greed.

After all, the Democrats don't need any more bad publicity, right?

Maybe they are just too stupid to eliminate "mark to market" rules, which will enable some immediate economic growth (of course if they do relax the "mark to market" rules, the temporary jolt to the economy will be proclaimed far and wide as being the result of Obama's brilliant policies - then the whole thing will slump again because of a lack of incentive to invest). Or perhaps they refuse to recognize historical facts like how in 1938 the U.S. unemployment rate was 19%, while the rest of the world (which wasn't pumping government money into the problem like FDR was) was at 11%. Presidents Harding and Coolidge met with a recession and cut taxes while cutting federal spending, resulting in the boom years of the 1920's. Hoover, a big spender and tax hiker (despite the "R" after his name) led us into the Great Depression with his policies (and the assistance of the unconstitutional Federal Reserve Bank), and Franklin Delano Roosevelt worsened it with his socialist programs and "tax and spend" policies.

In the end, Obama's policies will actually prolong this economic downturn, followed by a number of relapses with the introduction of each new "stimulus" package. Throwing stimulus plans at the depression in the 1930's didn't help, and they won't help today.

As for that Obama temper tantrum over the AIG Bonus Bonanza? He's just trying to throw the watch dogs off the scent. And Obama and his ilk will do what they do best to get that bonus money back - they will tax it and tax it and tax it some more.

Take that, you wealthy people.

Now, where is that next townhall meeting or television appearance for Obama? Jeez, he's trying to be a rock star, and the duties (though ill-performed) of the presidency keeps distracting him.

I am not one to believe that black helicopters are hovering in the skies above choice locations around the United States, or anywhere else in the civilized world. But, the desire for a One World Government by certain powerful groups, I believe, is fast becoming a reality. Christian scholars recognize that the rise of such global governance is a probable symptom of a rapidly arriving end times scenario that will followed by a great and terrible period of tribulation. The United States, however, in my past humble opinion, placed too much importance of sovereignty and liberty to ever allow such a global system of cooperative governments to ever become a reality any time soon.

Global Governance was once considered to be the simple babblings of whacked-out conspiracy theorists. My first memories of mutterings of such a rising system of a worldwide power included groups like the Illuminati, Tri-Lateral Commission, and the Bildebergs. Years ago a friend gave me a book titled "The Unseen Hand" by A. Ralph Epperson, and I read the nearly 500 page book in a weekend, astonished by the extent some people would go in believing that a bunch of men in black suits with black brief cases shadowed by a fleet of black helicopters were somehow poised to control the world with a sinister global government, and that the people of the world would somehow blindly accept it without a peep of opposition.

At the time, I considered it one of the funniest things I had ever heard, to be brutally honest. Oh, don't get me wrong, I believed that a one-world government was on the distant horizon, but I didn't believe it would materialize during my lifetime, and it would probably not begin to take shape until the rise of the Christian prophesied anti-Christ was eminent.

I had the occasional inclination that the United Nations may play a part in the creation of a global governance system, and that it was remotely possible during my lifetime. Perhaps someday in the future the rapid moral degradation of the United States would allow her to birth the coming global leader during a period of great upheaval that would rise from the chaos of a desperate planet searching for peace and safety. A European Union, which was not a reality at the time I was considering these things, was foreseen by many - some considering it to be the face of a new Roman Empire. At the time, however, few intellectuals truly believed the grand European experiment would attract more than eleven nations, nor become more than a desperate attempt by Europe to remain economically competitive with the United States and Japan. As for the possibility of a preview of an anti-Christ cult of personality, I believed that the people of the world would not be so foolish as to suddenly drop to their knees for a single charismatic personality. A New World Order was not something that could make its appearance during the near future because, as far as I was concerned, the United States was far too financially stable to warrant the need for a system that would essentially place all nations of the world on identical footing, and in the position to need to be dependent upon a grand global system.

Such a global system would require full cooperation among the nations of the world. A Super European Union, I suppose. A sudden joining of forces by the nations of the world would probably be preceded by some kind of global threat. An environmental catastrophe, a global meltdown of the financial structure, and a common enemy that would force the world into another World War would be needed to allow the people of the world to cry out for the dangers of global governance.

At the time environmentalists were simply old hippies who were looking for a new target to protest since the Vietnam Conflict had been recently abandoned, and was now no longer a current event. They needed a new cause to follow. A new movement. A new reason to become involved. However, unless some cataclysmic episode like the sun expanding, or some unexpected space or atmospheric catastrophe created a sudden, apocalyptic environmental nightmare, a global environmental event was not seen as anything possible on the horizon. It would need to be created in order to exist, suggested some scholars.

A global financial crisis was not likely either, many wrongly assumed. Even with the downturn in the late 70's and early 80's, the United States remained financially strong and stable. The U.S. economic system would need to be dropped to its knees for any kind of global financial system to emerge. Sure, some speculated that a global currency may arise from the advent of electronic banking, making national currencies eventually obsolete, but no nation would voluntarily let their economies become a puzzle piece in a global financial masterpiece, right?

As for an enemy that could plunge the world into a World War, that was considered to be highly unlikely. The world learned hard lessons about dictators after World War I and II, and would never allow something like the rise of Naziism and fascism to happen again. Sure, at the time the Communist threat from China and the Soviet Union were a reality, but the Soviet System was corrupt, and sure to collapse sometime in the near future. And as expected by many conservatives, shortly after those thoughts of mine emerged Ronald Reagan engineered a strategy that indeed made the Iron Curtain fall. During Reagan's successor's presidency the Soviet Union collapsed and the Berlin Wall was torn down. So much for the possibility of a worldwide threat from the Soviet Union. Aside from China (who many considered to be "the good communists"), the only people that seemed to be a thorn in the side of the United States was a few radical Muslims in Iran, but surely the people of that ideology were not organized enough to pose any real threat. Islam, as far as I was concerned, was a problem to be monitored, but would probably never be anything more than a constant irritation to the Free World. Besides, why would they jeopardize the good thing they had going with oil?

Amazingly, many of those theories that I once thought to be laughable have become headline stories in today's rapidly changing world. And those global threats that I was not sure would ever transpire? All it took were a few manipulations, a few lies, and a lot of hysteria to bring them about. The man-made hysteria of Global Warming and the Global Economic Crisis (which is grossly overstated) created by liberal policies over the last thirty years (and really set in motion even before that) have satisfied the first two criteria needed to set into motion the emergence of a one world government. As for that global enemy that would jeopardize peace and safety, nobody ever realized that the same radicalism that handcuffed the Carter Administration by taking hostages in Tehran in 1979 would develop the ability to strike at the United States on September 11, 2001, killing 3,000 Americans, and plunging the world into a World War under the name of The Global War on Terror.

How quickly the worldwide political atmosphere changed - and right into the hands of those dreaming of global solutions administered by a global governing body. It was almost as if it was engineered. As if an unseen hand slammed shut the progress of liberty, and opened a Pandora's Box of globalism - mixed with the sudden acceptance of radical socialism.

Interestingly, rather than battle against the possibility of a global system in order to protect its sovereignty, the United States has opened its borders, joined the worldwide frenzy, and is leading the charge towards a one world government. It is almost as if the powers that be in the United States are welcoming the possibility of an international governing body.

Barack Obama, as the proverbial feces hits the fan, appeared on the world stage in the nick of time. A man of the world with a love for international agreements and treaties. An international code of conduct exists, according to Obama, and it is time for the United States to fall in line with the rest of the nations of the world. The pieces for a global government are falling into place, and the elitists of the United Nations and the American Democratic Party are poised to lead the charge.

Sovereignty and Liberty is dying while accompanied by the roar of thunderous applause by the people who voted Barack Obama into office.

Voices like mine are hardly a concern of these people. They have control of both parties, now. Like the Democrats, the Republican Party has been infiltrated by globalists and socialists. Though a few Conservatives remain in the GOP, many Conservatives are prepared to write of the Republicans as well. After all, it was the George Herbert Walker Bush that coined the term New World Order among American politicians.

Washington has proclaimed that the greatest threat to our nation is the failure of the Free Market and all of the Capitalist Pigs that have been running it. Nationalizing our banks and currently private industries are the subject of political conversation. As Islamic Jihadists cross the borders in record numbers, the concern is on the warring drug cartels in Mexico whose violence is spilling across the border. While Constitutionalists and Originalists are being considered as domestic terrorists, the Democrats are printing fiat money and spending it on endangered rats in San Francisco, AIDS in Africa, and abortions worldwide.

Russian and Chinese scholars are watching America's downward spiral towards hardcore Marxism and are shaking their heads. They have written us off. We are rapidly heading for the great dustbin of history. The Worldwide socialists are already counting their chickens, and preparing for a world dominated economically by socialist Europe, Russia, and China.

Only one thing stands in the way of total internal collapse here in the United States. Reaganism. Conservatism from the fiscal point of view. A Conservative takeover of the Republican Party.

War has broke out, and Obama is leading the charge to destroy America - and it is up to us to stop him.

United We Stand, Combined We Kick Butt.

The conspiracies are conspiracies no more. Global oppression is knocking on America's door. Every hiccup is a crisis, according to the Left. Every crisis deserves a global remedy, they say. A Great Crisis presents a wonderful opportunity for change.

Until conservatism grabs hold of the reins and steers America back in the direction of the U.S. Constitution, the plan for a one world government will continue to march forward, and alter our world as we know it. The enemy has arrived and are overtaking us from within. We have seen the enemy, and indeed, the enemy is us.

At an exclusive Hollywood party on Christmas Eve, an A-list star dies of an apparent overdose. A detective holds a protesting core group of Hollywood insiders for questioning. The group, consisting of an A-list director, a top agent, a movie star, a media mogul, a writer, a wannabe actress, a studio head, and others, begin a deep and profound discussion on the meaning of life, including the existence of God.

Live Fast, Die Young is currently being hailed as one of the best Christian movies of the year. The film was directed by Tim Chey, the force that was also behind "Impact: The Passion of the Christ."

During the first hour of the Political Pistachio Radio Revolution tonight, Director Tim Chey returns to the program to discuss his newest movie, and the socio-political impact of Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ worldwide.

In the second hour of tonight's program my guest will be Adam Bitely of NetRight Nation and Americans for Limited Government.

Tune in Live at 7:00 pm Pacific (or catch the archive later) HERE.

For eight years the Democratic Party proclaimed that George W. Bush was a failure, and that they wanted him to fail because they did not agree with any of his policies. I disagreed with a number of George W. Bush's policies, but I never wanted him to fail. I recognized that in his policies that I agreed with, such as the war against the Islamic Jihad, success was not only preferable, but necessary.

Now the shoe is on the other foot. President Barack Obama does not have a single policy that runs in line with conservative principles, yet expecting failure is somehow not the right thing to do, according to The Left. They proclaim that by indicating one expects Obama to fail, and in turn, wants him to fail because none of his policies are good for the country, it somehow means that one desires America to fail as a nation.

Fear of America failing is the very reason it is hoped that Obama's policies will not succeed.

Conservatives, for some reason, get nervous when liberals point fingers at them and accuse them of being insensitive or unfair. It is as if folks on the right hear the leftists spew such drivel, and then ask themselves, "Am I?"

It is like when your kids come crying to you because one of the neighbor kids called them stupid. The child comes to you crying because for that split moment, because someone said so, they assume it may be possible they are stupid after all. Of course, as a loving parent, you reassure them that not only are they not stupid, but the person calling them stupid is wrong for even daring to say such a thing. When the child grows older, they reason that people who tend to accuse people of such things are usually more guilty of what they are accusing, themselves.

Likewise, whenever the liberal left proclaims that conservatives are being stupid, others on the right come running up to assure the left that such actions by the conservatives are irrational.

Why?

Newt Gingrich, as much as I respect the guy, pulled that one recently, essentially calling Rush Limbaugh irrational for wanting the president to not succeed. Somehow, Newt seems to think that by desiring Obama not to succeed, that means one does not wish the country to succeed.

So, that brings to mind the question, is it right to hope that the Obama Administration fails? Is proclaiming that liberalism is a failure, and will fail every time it is injected into U.S. policy, like hoping that America will fail?

Such thinking is fusing together the hopes for the nation with its occupying force.

Do you think that it was wrong for non-Nazis to wish for Nazism to fail in Germany during the early 20th Century? Should have free people in Russia not desired that communism fail because that was like wanting their country to fail?

What is irrational is giving an ideology known to fail every time it has been used in history the benefit of the doubt. The policies of Barack Obama are failed policies time and time again. History shows that socialism is a failed ideology, no matter how it is applied. Much wiser for their own path to destruction, Russian intellects are now predicting an American collapse should Obama's policies continue on to fruition.

It is not only appropriate for conservatives to voice that Obama's policies are destined to fail, and will bring down America as they do - it is our duty to do so.

-- Political Pistachio, Conservative Commentary

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

Russian Scholar Predicts U.S. Collapse

George W. Bush is gone, and the Liberal Left no longer has someone to point their derangement syndrome of hate at. The Republican Party, for the most part has no leader, they say, and they are in a desperate need to find one. That way, the Democrats can make that person their new target.

A "Progressive Agenda" organization, Americans United For Change, along with a large portion of the Liberal Left, have decided that after Rush Limbaugh's electric speech at CPAC, he must be the new target - which, in their eyes, makes him the Leader of the Republican Party. Their ad linked in the previous sentence makes their proclamation that Rush is the new target, loud and clear. Even the Democratic Party is jumping on the band wagon of attacking Rush Limbaugh with their I'm Sorry Rush letter.

I suppose the Democrats think they need to punish Rush Limbaugh for being such a solid voice for conservatism. After all, that is what the liberal left is all about, isn't it?

Obama has said that he desires to punish companies who leave America, rather than give them incentive to come back. Obama is out to punish the rich for being successful by hitting them with higher taxes, rather than give them incentive to grow their businesses and spend their money on goods and services. Obama wants to punish any CEO that receives a golden parachute while saving failed companies with government money, and then punishing the CEOs that remain with a limit in wages. How about he just let the market take care of itself?

Oh, that's right, Capitalism is the enemy. Does that make us Capitalist Pigs in the eyes of The Left? Perhaps the Democrats should change the name of their party to the Soviet Party.

When it comes to Rush Limbaugh, however, it is funny that the leftists have turned on him like they did Bush. It is a typical lefty tactic. They strike out at a figure, demonize him or her, and then the moderate and liberal Republicans turn away from that figure fearful of upsetting the screaming and yelling liberals. Conservatives, however, stick to their guns, and don't let the Dem's tactics dictate to them what to do. And of course, then the Dems proclaim the party is divided, and in shambles.

They did it to "W," Sarah Palin, Joe the Plumber, Tom Delay, Newt Gingrich, and the list goes on and on. In reality, George W. Bush kept this country safe, and though I did not agree with a lot of what he did in office, I do not believe he was the oaf the liberals made him out to be. Sarah Palin was demonized as being stupid, a book burner, and religious zealot, etc. Of course, every last item was a lie - but when it comes to the Democratic Attack Machine, the truth doesn't matter. If an accusation is made, that is as good as a conviction as far as they are concerned. Just ask Joe the Plumber and Tom Delay on that one.

But there is a couple of problems with their latest anti-Rush tactics. I know they think they have struck gold by pinning Rush Limbaugh down as the GOP leader - but first of all, they have definitely bitten off more than they can chew on this one. Rush Limbaugh is hardly a lightweight, and he is used to this type of treatment anyway, and always comes out on top. Secondly, trying to make Limbaugh the leader of the GOP proves how little they know about conservatism.

Sure, out of fun, and since he's an entertainer, Rush is going to play along - proclaiming himself the leader just as the Democrat Party and Liberal Left (one and the same?) hopes. And Rush is indeed the leader of the talk radio circuit. That is clear. For decades he has been a major voice for conservatism, and he is the father of modern talk radio, and one of the reasons AM radio remains on the dial. However, Rush Limbaugh is hardly the leader of the GOP.

In fact, I can never recall there ever being a leader of the Republican Party.

Conservatives don't think that way. We don't proclaim someone leader and then blindly follow every little thing that so-called leader does. That is a liberal trait. George W. Bush is a fine example. He proclaimed he was a compassionate conservative, but his conservatism was hardly the Reagan conservatism that most Republicans appreciate. Most Conservatives, when they saw the word "compassionate" in front of the word "Conservative," recognized it for what it was - a proclamation that Bush believed is throwing taxpayer money at problems, on some occassions. Disgruntled Conservatives spoke out against Bush's amnesty plans, medicare supplement programs, the idiotic "No Child Left Behind Act," and almost every Republican (especially conservative Republicans) were aghast when Bush's stimulus plans were unveiled. The Democrat's said Bush was the leader of the party, but unlike the Democrats, and the way they swoon over everything Obama says and does, conservatives have minds of their own and expect their principles and the basics of the policies put forth to have something in common with conservative ideals.

The Liberal Left, of course, ignored all this. After all, demonizing Bush wouldn't be very successful unless they made sure that anyone that agreed with anything that Bush did were seen as "Bush-bots," therefore further encouraged to distance themselves even farther from "W."

Now, they are trying to do the same thing with Rush. In fact, according to Politico dot com, this began last October. What kind of people schemes to bring someone down, hoping that it will destroy a party as well?

Well, whatever the Left does, it is always underhanded and unethical, and eventually, the American People will recognize the deja vue (Remember Carter's years?). Many Obama voter are beginning to recognize the nightmare already. Many leftists in the media, for example, are already beginning to recognize that Obama's economic plans are destined to fail, and drop this nation deeper into recessionary times.

But you see, Obama's economic package has nothing to do with the economy. It is all about gaining more governmental control while the Democrats are at the helm, and punishing anyone that Obama believes deserves it. And at the rate he's going, eventually all of us will feel Obama's wrath. That is what Obama is all about. He uses government to punish, rather than encourage and reward.