<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>CNNews.US</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.cnnews.us/news/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.cnnews.us/news</link>
	<description>Citizens&#039; Network News - Grassroots Growing!</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 21 Apr 2013 23:08:45 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>All Men Are Created Equal, said the slaveowners</title>
		<link>http://www.cnnews.us/news/2013/04/21/all-men-are-created-equal-said-the-slaveowners/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=all-men-are-created-equal-said-the-slaveowners</link>
		<comments>http://www.cnnews.us/news/2013/04/21/all-men-are-created-equal-said-the-slaveowners/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 21 Apr 2013 23:08:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Douglas Gibbs</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.cnnews.us/news/?p=1221</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[According the Declaration of Independence, &#8220;All men are created equal.&#8221; How could the founders say that &#8220;All men are created equal&#8221; when slavery was so prominent? Samuel Johnson, a respected English writer, and celebrated moralist, made the same observation.  He asked the Americans, &#8220;How is it that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty among the drivers of negroes?&#8221;[1] Were America&#8217;s founders hypocrites? An important piece of evidence challenging that charge is Article I, Section 9, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution.  The clause addressed the Atlantic Slave Trade, reading: &#8220;The Migration or importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight. . . &#8221; The intention was that since the Constitution, which created our federal government, is a document that grants powers to the federal government, and that all authorities not expressly delegated are reserved to the States, slavery would remain an issue addressed by the States.  The federal government, based on the limiting principles in place, could not legislate regarding slaves once they were in the States. According to Article I, Section 9, Clause 1, in 1808 Congress would possess the power to stop the importation of slaves, but not before. In March of 1794, Congress prohibited the use of any U.S. port or shipyard for the purpose of fitting out or building any ship to be used for the import of slaves.  This law halted the slave trade, until after 1800 when Georgia and South Carolina reopened their international slave trade, and in eight years, introduced about 100,000 new slaves from Africa.  In 1800, Congress amended the 1794 act by dramatically increasing fines for illegal American participation in the slave trade, and gave informants a right to the entire value of any ship condemned under the law.  The 1800 amendment prohibited any American citizen or resident alien from voluntarily serving &#8220;on board any foreign ship or vessel . . . employed in the slave trade.&#8221; American sailors found on slavers were now subject to a $2,000 fine.  Another law passed in 1803 imposed more fines for people who brought newly imported slaves into states that banned the international slave trade.[2] In December 1806, Thomas Jefferson reminded the nation that on January 1, 1808, the constitutional suspension of congressional power on this issue would finally expire as per Article I, Section 9, Clause 1.  Jefferson said America was ready to &#8220;withdraw from all further participation in those violations of human rights which have been so long continued on the unoffending inhabitants of Africa, and which the morality, the reputation, and the best interests of our country have long been eager to proscribe.&#8221;[2] No law by Congress to completely outlaw U.S. participation in the Atlantic Slave Trade could take effect until January 1, 1808, but Jefferson urged Congress to act before that date, so that legislation would be in place immediately.  Congress complied, writing and [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.cnnews.us/news/2013/04/21/all-men-are-created-equal-said-the-slaveowners/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Easy Money</title>
		<link>http://www.cnnews.us/news/2013/03/24/easy-money/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=easy-money</link>
		<comments>http://www.cnnews.us/news/2013/03/24/easy-money/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 24 Mar 2013 21:43:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Douglas Gibbs</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[culture]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[economy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[morality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[society]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.cnnews.us/news/?p=1219</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&#160; The early colonists to America were families not trained in the art of survival.  Yet, knowing the dangers, they crossed the ocean and landed on a foreign shore where the landscape was yet to be tamed.  Some didn&#8217;t even survive the arduous journey across the Atlantic.  In Jamestown, of the first 500 brave spirits to try their hand in a new land, only 60 survived. &#160; Separated by an ocean from Europe, the American Colonies had to learn to produce for themselves.  Some of it came from trial and error, and some of it came from knowledge passed to them by the local Indians.  All of it came from hard work, self-reliance, and acting responsibly.  From the very beginning the Spirit of Americanism was there.  This nation would become a beacon of freedom because of the hard work ethic of the people, for in this land of opportunity, if one worked hard enough, persistent enough, and long enough, anything was possible. &#160; Fathers taught their sons the importance of a hard day&#8217;s work, and the government was restrained by the Constitution so that the people could keep more of what they earned.  As a result, we prospered.  Anyone could be an entrepreneur if they dared fight that fight.  Others were content with being an employee.  Others became farmers and service providers.  Inventions began pouring out of this nation.  Innovation was abound.  The opportunities in this nation provided incentive to &#8220;go for it,&#8221; and many did. &#160; Success is not an easy thing to achieve, and not everyone makes it.  Only 2% of new businesses survive in the long run.  Some of those failed entrepreneurs hang up their dreams and become an employee somewhere, while others try, try again.  It is your choice to go for it, or not.  It is your choice to learn from the failures, or quit.  It is your choice to make money for yourself, or make money for someone else.  That is the freedom of America.  And it doesn&#8217;t matter where you started, the economic classes are not fixed.  We don&#8217;t have a caste system. Dr. Ben Carson is a great example of that, becoming a successful neurosurgeon after very humble beginnings.  Like Carson, and Herman Cain, there is a number of other successful professionals and business owners in this nation that became who they are not because of government, but because of the American Spirit. &#160; Since some people do not reach the upper heights of success, and therefore never come close to achieving any kind of wealth, there are those out there who believe we have a failed system, and that it is unfair.  They see failures in a society as proof that the system must somehow be slanted towards a lucky few.  They believe also that money is finite, so if there is someone at the top reaching the pinnacle of success, someone is suffering at the bottom because of it (hence, the phrase, &#8220;The rich get richer, and the poor get [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.cnnews.us/news/2013/03/24/easy-money/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Nullification Against Gun Control</title>
		<link>http://www.cnnews.us/news/2013/03/22/nullification-against-gun-control/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=nullification-against-gun-control</link>
		<comments>http://www.cnnews.us/news/2013/03/22/nullification-against-gun-control/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 22 Mar 2013 23:27:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Douglas Gibbs</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Core Principles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tea Party]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[constitution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[guns]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nullification]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[second amendment]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.cnnews.us/news/?p=1216</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&#8220;Shall not be infringed.&#8221;  Those words are an order to the federal government.  The central government shall not infringe, in any way, against the fundamental right of keeping and bearing arms.  The Second Amendment is clear.  For the purpose of having a militia that is in good order so that it may protect the States against tyranny, be it foreign, or domestic, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. When breaking down the language of the Second Amendment, one realizes that the amendment applies only to the federal government.  The reason?  &#8221;A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State.&#8221;  Necessary to the security of a free State.  A free Massachusetts, a free Virginia, a free Pennsylvania, a free Michigan, a free Alaska, a free California, and so forth. Free from what? Free from the tyranny of an oppressive federal government. And who is to protect the States? A well regulated Militia. Who is a well regulated Militia? Some will argue that the 2nd Amendment does not apply to our current society because the militia is a thing of the past. The National Guard now serves as the organized militia envisioned by the Founding Fathers, but an unorganized militia also exists, like the one that fought the Revolutionary War. Title 10 of the United States Code provides for both &#8220;organized&#8221; and &#8220;unorganized&#8221; civilian militias. While the organized militia is made up of members of the National Guard and Naval Militia, the unorganized militia is composed entirely of private individuals. United States Code: Title 10 – Armed Forces, Subtitle A – General Military Law Chapter 13 – The Militia: Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. (b) The classes of the militia are - (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia. Other than age, health, gender, or citizenship, there are no additional provisions for exemption from membership in the unorganized militia. While it is doubtful that it will ever be called to duty, the United States civilian militia does legally exist. What about the part about the militia being well-regulated? Looking at the Revolutionary War, the first thing we notice about the militia was that it was not in very good order.  Some of the patriots had no shoes.  The muskets were not the same sizes. In the 1828 edition of Webster&#8217;s Dictionary, the second definition, after the one about weights and measures, was [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.cnnews.us/news/2013/03/22/nullification-against-gun-control/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Sarah Palin&#8217;s Defiance</title>
		<link>http://www.cnnews.us/news/2013/03/18/sarah-palins-defiance/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=sarah-palins-defiance</link>
		<comments>http://www.cnnews.us/news/2013/03/18/sarah-palins-defiance/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 18 Mar 2013 02:28:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Douglas Gibbs</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Core Principles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tea Party]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[conservative]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cpac]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[palin]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[speech]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.cnnews.us/news/?p=1212</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[When Sarah Palin was the governor of the State of Alaska, before she was asked to be McCain&#8217;s running mate, she was among the most popular governors in the country.  Her style, and adherence to strict conservative principles, were among the reasons I predicted she would be the Vice Presidential candidate in the 2008 Election. During those early days of the campaign, when eight or ten candidates remained in the race, there were others that pushed for Sarah Palin to be chosen as the candidate for Vice President, as well.  I interviewed some of them on my radio program, and wrote often about the campaign to make Palin the next Vice President of the United States.  The enthusiasm rising up was a welcomed change.  When Palin was picked to be the running mate, after the less-than-conservative (domestically, anyway) presidency of George W. Bush, and a very moderate (if not downright liberal) presidential candidate in John McCain, it was a relief to see a bold conservative on the ticket. Then, the politics of personal destruction, used in the same way that Kennedy launched against Robert Bork decades before, was catapulted at Palin.  Lie after lie, and attack after attack, was fired in Palin&#8217;s direction.  The accusations of being a book burner, a secessionist, or unable to put together two thoughts in a reasonable manner, were all a bunch of crap, but each of the attacks hit their mark.  Even the ridiculous notion that Palin said she could see Russia from her house was used to damage her.  She never said she could see Russia from her house.  Tina Fey did impersonating Palin on Saturday Night Live.  But, the uninformed masses, and even some of the sort-of-informed folks, believed the idiocy.  Sarah Palin&#8217;s name became mud, and today one of those men that helped her reach the level of McCain&#8217;s running mate contacted me, asking to remove his name from any articles I wrote about Palin, because he is trying to get a job and he believes being so closely associated with Palin back then can hurt his chances for new employment. I did as he asked, but I also wrote him that my principles are stronger than that, and I am not going to abandon mine as easily as he was willing to abandon his. Now, Sarah Palin is a joke to democrats, and a pariah to republicans.  The true conservatives, however, still hold her in high esteem.  We still recognize her as a force to be reckoned with.  Though she has stepped out of the political limelight as a candidate, and her time at Fox News has ended, she continues to be involved, acting in defiance of all of the attacks, and in defiance of the ill aura cast upon her by the liberal left. This year&#8217;s Conservative Political Action Conference included Sarah Palin as one of the speakers, and she hit the Obama administration in ways conservatives had only hoped for, going after the democrat&#8217;s push for gun control, [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.cnnews.us/news/2013/03/18/sarah-palins-defiance/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>14</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Classical Centrist</title>
		<link>http://www.cnnews.us/news/2013/03/04/classical-centrist/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=classical-centrist</link>
		<comments>http://www.cnnews.us/news/2013/03/04/classical-centrist/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 04 Mar 2013 05:01:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Douglas Gibbs</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Core Principles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[conservatism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[constitution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[declaration of independence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[founding fathers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[liberalism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[political spectrum]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[politics]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.cnnews.us/news/?p=1210</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[By Douglas V. Gibbs Listeners to my Constitution Radio program on KCAA 1050 AM on Saturdays at 2:00 Pacific often email me to ask questions about things I say on the show.  One of the most common questions is my reference to myself as a Classical Centrist. What is a Classical Centrist? To understand my self-proclaimed political designation, one must understand the political spectrum we use here in the United States, and the political climate we seem to find ourselves in. In France, during the approach of the French Revolution, which followed the American Revolution by a mere decade, a battle raged against the monarchy, and the established church.  In the legislative assembly those that supported no change, keeping the monarchy, and the powerful State Church, sat on the right side of the meeting hall.  Those that were calling for change, for a secular society that would replace the existing system, and influenced by the Enlightenment sat on the left side of the hall.  It is this model of a political spectrum that most left-of-center people use.  Therefore, religiosity is automatically a rightwing thing.  Fear of change, if not refusal to change, is also considered by these people to be to the right.  Those calling for change, and secularism, are considered to be automatically on the left. Other influences have also guided this European political spectrum. Since it was decided that communism, for example, was on the far left because of its system of change, and because it was atheist in manner, and Adolf Hitler claimed his system to be the opposite of communism, fascism is considered to be rightwing.  It didn&#8217;t matter that Nazism is also socialist in nature.  Because Hitler said it was the opposite of communism, it was assumed that it was, even though he stood for stronger government involvement in the lives of the citizens &#8211; just like communism. In America, a different political spectrum arose after the forging of this nation.  The United States did not have a monarchy, nor was an established religion allowed to emerge through the federal system.  The limiting principles of the Constitution were the opposite of the European systems, making the founders quite liberal for the time period as they demanded change, yet the new system was nothing like the calls for change in Europe. Then, when the founders created the federal government through the Constitution, they did something very fascinating. They took an old world idea of a central government, and took a uniquely American angle by only allowing the central government to handle external issues, while leaving all internal issues to the States, and local governments. What emerged was a political spectrum that determined what was to the left and to the right based on the amount of government.  To the far right, or zero percent government, is anarchy.  To the far left, or one hundred percent government, is totalitarianism. Based on that model, systems with stronger control over the citizens through an overpowering political system all reside [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.cnnews.us/news/2013/03/04/classical-centrist/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>6</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Obama&#8217;s Dr. Ben Carson Problem</title>
		<link>http://www.cnnews.us/news/2013/02/24/obamas-dr-ben-carson-problem/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=obamas-dr-ben-carson-problem</link>
		<comments>http://www.cnnews.us/news/2013/02/24/obamas-dr-ben-carson-problem/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 24 Feb 2013 12:52:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Douglas Gibbs</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Core Principles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ben carson]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[conservatism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[healthcare]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[liberalism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[national prayer breakfast]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[obamacare]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.cnnews.us/news/?p=1207</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Democrat Party has hoisted Barack Obama up as some kind of liberal, god-like, superhero.  Barry has been very happy to fill the britches of such a false god, but as some kind of anti-hero that, armed with his arrogance, can destroy federal budgets with a single bound.  To the horror of Republicans, even no-nos like gun control and stomping all over freedom of religion has proven to be areas this president is willing go after.  Like every cloud-skipping false-prophet, however, Barry Sotero has his own kind of Kryptonite. In the case of Barack Obama, the thing that can bring him down, make him falter in mid-air, and drop him miserably to his political knees, is anyone that is willing to articulate American values, and do it in his face. While the Republicans run around in circles trying to figure out a way to co-exist with the democrats, and their presidential messiah, Dr. Ben Carson took a stab into the side of Barack Obama, and his ultra-liberal policies, with a single speech at this year&#8217;s National Prayer Breakfast.  Obama&#8217;s balloon began to whistle as the air came rushing out of his ego.  How dare this man embarrass our king, err, uhh, messiah, err, uhh, president like this.  How dare he! Dr. Ben Carson is not your typical (as the liberal left sees the world) white, racist, right-wing, extremist, religious-nut, gun clinging, Bible-thumping, conservative maniac.  In fact, Dr. Carson isn&#8217;t even a white republican.  He, to the amazement of the democrats, is an honest, God-fearing, common sense, American that was willing to simply take Obama to the mat, and expose Barack Obama for the leftist ideologue, and coward, that he really is. After Dr. Carson&#8217;s speech, a giant sigh released somewhere in the conservative stratosphere.  &#8221;Yeah,&#8221; the TEA Party folks, and the Constitutionalists, and the conservatives cried out.  &#8221;That is what I have meant all along!  I just didn&#8217;t know how to say it.&#8221; Dr. Carson doesn&#8217;t even really consider himself a conservative.  In fact, I am sure that on some issues he may not be one hundred percent in line with the conservative narrative.  But, conservative or not, he articulated conservatism in such a manner that Barack Obama, the democrats, and the liberal media did not know how to respond, at first. Common Sense sometimes does that to people. Well, the liberal left can&#8217;t have somebody walking around making their favorite son look bad.  As they did with Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, and Mitt Romney, they have got to make Dr. Benjamin Carson look like a fool.  They know, in their dark little hearts, that they need to do all they can to stop this guy before he does something, or says something else, really damaging to their collectivist cause. And Dr. Benjamin Carson being black, but viewing himself not as a race, but as an American, makes it all the more difficult. The liberal media immediately took up the task. The liberal left is in absolute hysterics over Dr. [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.cnnews.us/news/2013/02/24/obamas-dr-ben-carson-problem/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>What Our Society Has Become</title>
		<link>http://www.cnnews.us/news/2013/02/11/what-our-society-has-become/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=what-our-society-has-become</link>
		<comments>http://www.cnnews.us/news/2013/02/11/what-our-society-has-become/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 11 Feb 2013 02:24:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Douglas Gibbs</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[communism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[liberalism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[marxism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[statism]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.cnnews.us/news/?p=1204</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Today&#8217;s democrats are often called &#8220;socialists&#8221; by their opposition, and though that is probably true, what today&#8217;s progressive liberals truly are is something worse.  These people are statists, which are people who believe that only the ruling elite understand how a society should be run, and that it is up to them to engineer that society so that eventually it becomes a peaceful utopia equipped with equality, fairness, and a share-and-share alike attitude.  Heaven on Earth, I suppose you could say.  Samuel Adams called the concept &#8220;utopianism.&#8221;  Karl Marx called it communism.  In order to achieve this wonderful world of peace and understanding, the statists need to convince the people to stop thinking like individuals, and for them to put the overall collective above their own personal needs and desires.  The people must be taught to act in a manner that is good for the community, through governmental programs and policies.  The problem for the social engineers is, people often have a tendency to want to hang on to pesky little things like individualism, self-reliance, personal responsibility, freedom, and their own pursuit of happiness.  To transform a society, the ruling elite realizes they must do what the military does during boot camp.  The individuals must be torn down to nothing, and then rebuilt in a manner acceptable to the body politic.  In this way, the members of society become a homogeneous mass of followers willing to do as they have been programmed.  The human mind cannot believe that a fellow human being, or group of human beings, could possibly have such a sinister plan in the works for them.  Their disbelief that such evil could exist enables them to block out the possibility of tyranny, ridicule anyone that dares to verbalize such ridiculousness, and then they believe the propaganda thrown at them.  The follower of the mighty central government accepts all of these policies that would normally be seen as tyrannical, believing that they are actually intended for the well-being of the society, for the common good, and that they are necessary for the sustainable development of our future as a species.  Our current culture has been engineered through an onslaught of indoctrination through education, media, and entertainment.  We have become willful idiots who are unable to grasp onto any truth beyond what we have been taught.  The information age has quickened the process, and the ruling elite has taken advantage of the technology to finish the programming of Americans begun over a hundred years ago at the dawn of the progressive era.  The truth is still out there.  The last remnants of that truth, and anyone willing to spread that truth, however, are under fire.  The last vestiges of Americanism are being called &#8220;out-dated,&#8221; &#8220;antiquated,&#8221; and are being accused of possessing an inability to be utilized in our progressive, advanced, and complicated society.  The United States Constitution, and its concepts of limited government, State sovereignty, liberty, and a political system governed by the people is being tossed aside as nothing more [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.cnnews.us/news/2013/02/11/what-our-society-has-become/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>5</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Media Still Blaming &#8220;Anti-Islam Video&#8221; for Middle East Riots on 9/11/12</title>
		<link>http://www.cnnews.us/news/2013/02/11/media-still-blaming-anti-islam-video-for-middle-east-riots-on-91112/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=media-still-blaming-anti-islam-video-for-middle-east-riots-on-91112</link>
		<comments>http://www.cnnews.us/news/2013/02/11/media-still-blaming-anti-islam-video-for-middle-east-riots-on-91112/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 11 Feb 2013 01:59:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Douglas Gibbs</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[consulate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[embassy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[innocence of muslims]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[islam]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Middle East]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Muslim]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[riots]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[video]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.cnnews.us/news/?p=1202</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I am constantly searching for important news items to bring to the Political Pistachio readers, and while combing through an email from the New York Times, I came across this headline and summary: Egypt Court Orders Block on YouTube Access By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS A Cairo court ordered the government to block access to YouTube for 30 days for carrying an anti-Islam film that set off deadly riots last year. The riots at the American Embassy in Egypt, as well as the so-called &#8220;protests&#8221; in Benghazi, Libya, which resulted in the deaths of four Americans, erupted on September 11, 2012, a date that was also the anniversary of the World Trade Center attacks on America.  In the United States, after that horrible series of terrorist attacks, we adopted the phrase, &#8220;We will never forget.&#8221;  Based on the violence that occurred on September 11, 2012 around the Middle East, apparently neither did the Muslims.  Al-Qaeda became the target after the attacks in 2001.  The effort expanded into a war in Afghanistan and Iraq, which also included a search for Weapons of Mass Destruction that Iraq shipped off to Syria before our arrival.  The search for the infamous Osama bin Laden gained the attention of the world, and in the Muslim nations made bin Laden a kind of Islamic hero.  The longer long-bearded terrorist evaded American forces, the more popular he became.  Finally, during the first term of President Barack Obama, Osama was located in Pakistan, and brave Navy SEALs went in to take out the notorious terrorist leader.  The narrative by the liberal democrats was that after all of those wars, and deaths by war, under George W. Bush, it took a democrat, Barack Obama, to capture bin Laden.  With the death of Osama bin Laden, the War on Terror was over, we were told.  No more would al-Qaeda be a major threat, because the wonderful American Leader Barack Obama had removed the vicious head from the dangerous al-Qaeda terror group.  Like a snake without its head, al-Qaeda was perceived as being nothing more than a wriggling body in the desert with no teeth remaining to do any damage to anybody.  All was supposed to be well in Wonderland.  With the War on Terror over, al-Qaeda falling apart because the great and wonderful Obama had slain Osama bin Laden, and with the United States reaching out to the Muslim countries with a giving hand and a friendly smile, all was well in the world.  As far as the democrats were concerned, the Muslims had no reason to hate us anymore.  Then, riots erupted around the Middle East on September 11, 2012 at U.S. Embassies and Consulates.  American Flags were being pulled down and burned, shots were being fired, and Muslims were shaking their fists at America.  The anger being exhibited by the Muslims against America did not fit the liberal left&#8217;s narrative.  The followers of Islam were not supposed to hate us anymore.  The federal government had done all that it [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.cnnews.us/news/2013/02/11/media-still-blaming-anti-islam-video-for-middle-east-riots-on-91112/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Debt Ceiling and the 14th Amendment</title>
		<link>http://www.cnnews.us/news/2013/01/15/debt-ceiling-and-the-14th-amendment/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=debt-ceiling-and-the-14th-amendment</link>
		<comments>http://www.cnnews.us/news/2013/01/15/debt-ceiling-and-the-14th-amendment/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 15 Jan 2013 17:42:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Douglas Gibbs</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Core Principles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tea Party]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[14th amendment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[debt ceiling]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[debt limit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[economy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[federal spending]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fiscal cliff]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[gdp]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[obama dictator]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[shall not be questioned]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[validity of debt]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[washington]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.cnnews.us/news/?p=1199</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In June of 2012, Nancy Pelosi proclaimed that the 14th Amendment makes the federal Debt Limit unconstitutional.  According to the House Democrat Leader, Barack Obama could avoid the whole debt-ceiling showdown with Republicans by simply invoking the &#8220;obscure constitutional provision&#8221; in the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution. According to Pelosi, the statutory borrowing limit is inconsistent with Section 4 of the 14th Amendment, which states that &#8220;the validity of the public debt of the United States &#8230; shall not be questioned.&#8221;  Her suggestion comes a year after Bill Clinton said he&#8217;d use the 14th Amendment if he were Obama in a 2011 speech. I wonder if she would have felt the same way during the presidential term of George W. Bush?  Remember, Senator Obama, and much of the rest of the Democrat Party, were voting against the debt limit raise, back then.  In fact, Barack Obama&#8217;s exact words regarding the desire by the Bush administration to raise the debt limit in 2006 were, &#8220;. . . raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that &#8216;the buck stops here.&#8217; Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.&#8221; The Summer of 2012 debt-ceiling fight went on without the use of the 14th Amendment, and the GOP compromised way beyond what they should have, but the fact that there was at least a fight over federal spending eased the minds of a few Americans. Conservatives were proclaiming that the federal deficit, and the economic woes the United States was facing, to be a spending problem, not a revenue problem. Fast-forward to January of 2013, after a horrendous fiscal cliff deal that raises taxes $41 dollars for every $1 cut in spending (and the spending cuts are not really cuts, just reductions in what&#8217;s planned to be spent in the future, which will never actually be reduced), another debt-ceiling showdown is on the horizon.  Representative Nancy Pelosi, true to her 2012 form, is calling for using the 14th Amendment, once again.  This time, however, she has other democrats, and the liberal media, jumping on the band-wagon too! Surprisingly, President Barack Obama recognized how ridiculous the call for using the 14th Amendment was, and said through his Press Secretary, Jay Carney, &#8220;This administration does not believe that the 14th Amendment gives the President the power to ignore the debt ceiling – period.&#8221;  However, Barack Obama has added that there will be no haggling over the debt ceiling, either, laying blame for all of the spending on Congressional Republicans. During all of this political theater, nobody stopped to ask if the call to use [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.cnnews.us/news/2013/01/15/debt-ceiling-and-the-14th-amendment/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>18</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Wrong Side of History, Right Side of Reality</title>
		<link>http://www.cnnews.us/news/2013/01/06/wrong-side-of-history-right-side-of-reality/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=wrong-side-of-history-right-side-of-reality</link>
		<comments>http://www.cnnews.us/news/2013/01/06/wrong-side-of-history-right-side-of-reality/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 06 Jan 2013 15:22:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Douglas Gibbs</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Core Principles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tea Party]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[constitution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[democrat]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[founding fathers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[history]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ideology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[political parties]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[republican]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.cnnews.us/news/?p=1197</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[There is an old saying: &#8220;History is written by the winners.&#8221;  That is not always necessarily so.  History is often written by the well funded, the most devious, and in today&#8217;s society, whoever controls media and the education system.  History, however, can be discovered if one is willing to look, and for America, our history has always flowed through the United States Constitution. An old liberal friend, who I have battled with Online for years upon years, told me recently that he believes that there is no longer a Republican Party and a Democrat Party. Instead, we have a political machine.  Tom may be right.  I really don&#8217;t buy into the right/left paradigm in the ways that many folks believe.  There is a left versus right war going on, but the establishment has blurred the lines, and have now hijacked that battle for their own use. A listener of my radio program, and reader of my website, in Orlando, Florida constantly sends me emails explaining to me how he thinks the system is broken.  The two parties are both traitors to the nation, and ultimately have the same goal: an all powerful political establishment that enslaves the populace, and shreds the principles this nation was founded upon.  He is right, to a point.  I only hold on to hope that the Republican Party will get its act together because I am naturally an optimist, and I don&#8217;t believe we have reached the point of no return, just yet. Commenters that oppose my conservative commentary constantly leave little messages in my comments section.  Though I don&#8217;t &#8220;approve&#8221; their comments often because of the belittling nature of them, I do read them all.  Among those messages of late have been attacks on my ability to recognize the political theater as it is.  They tell me I am on the wrong side of history, and my failed prediction that Romney would win the election was evidence of that. Early on in the election season of 2012 I commented that if Mitt Romney won the nomination, he had the greatest chance of losing the election over all of the candidates.  The key to winning was not pulling in the vote of various groups, but to energize the conservative base in America.  I still believe that this nation is largely conservative, and that conservatives outnumber liberals (those in the middle not withstanding) four-to-one.  The problem is those that hold conservative values don&#8217;t vote because they see little difference between the candidates, or they vote democrat because they don&#8217;t recognize the danger of voting for the more liberal candidate, nor has there been a Republican candidate out there that can properly articulate the conservative message. The fact is, liberalism (I use that term only because that is the one we currently have available) has infiltrated both parties, controls the democrats to the point of Marxism, and controls the republicans to the point that the Party of Reagan has literally neutered itself.  In return, the parties have [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.cnnews.us/news/2013/01/06/wrong-side-of-history-right-side-of-reality/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>14</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
