DOUGLAS V. GIBBS<---------->RADIO<---------->BOOKS<---------->CONSTITUTION <---------->CONTACT/FOLLOW <----------> DONATE

Sunday, October 23, 2016

Trump's Gettysburg: Nailed It

By Douglas V. Gibbs
AuthorSpeakerInstructorRadio Host

I suppose we should ask, where was the Trump of Gettysburg during the three debates?  In his Gettysburg speech, in an iconic location, Trump unveiled what a Trump presidency would truly entail.  He laid out his political pledges, and labeled it a "Contract with the American Voter," giving us a plan modeled after the 1994 Republican 'Contract with America'.  It's time to drain the swamp in Washington, he explained, adding in a Lincoln-esque twist he plans to replace D.C. elites "with a new government of, by and for the people."
A Trump aide said the reason the Gettysburg Civil War battlefield site was chosen for this speech because it mirrored Trump's efforts because "Gettysburg was the moment when the war turned."

After his speech Donald Trump visited the National Military Park's battlefield memorial.

"It is a contract between myself and the American voter, and begins with restoring honesty, accountability and change to Washington," Trump said.

Included are six anti-corruption pledges, seven actions related to jobs and trade and five on immigration and the 'rule of law.' He ended his contract with a list of 10 bills he said he would try to quickly shepherd through Congress.
  • 1. Constitutional Amendment to impose term limits on members of Congress. 
  • 2. Hiring freeze on federal employees to reduce the workforce through attrition. 
  • 3. Requirement to eliminate two federal regulations for every new one. 
  • 4. Five-year-ban on White House and Congressional officials becoming lobbyists. 
  • 5. Lifetime ban on White House officials lobbying for foreign governments. 
  • 6. Complete ban on foreign lobbyists raising money for American elections. 
"Hillary Clinton is running against all of the American people, and all of the American voters," he said.

Trump also said that the was concerned about the possibility of rampant voter fraud that could keep him out of the White House, and other Republicans from winning their seats in Congress.

Citing Pew Research Center numbers, he said that "1.8 million dead people are registered to vote, and some of them are voting. I wonder how that happens!"

He also made mention of the 2.8 million people who are "registered in more than one state," and added that "14 per cent of non-citizens are registered to vote."

The most well received promises were Trump's pledge to repeal and replace the Obamacare medical insurance law and to end federal funding for sanctuary cities.

He listed his executive actions he has planned.
  • 1. Cancel Obama's 'unconstitutional' executive actions, memoranda and orders.
  • 2. Pick a conservative replacement for Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.
  • 3. Cancel all federal funding to 'sanctuary cities' that harbor illegal immigrants.
  • 4. Begin removing the 2 million criminal illegal immigrants from the U.S., and cancel visas to countries that won’t repatriate them.
  • 5. Suspend immigration from terror-prone regions where incoming people can't be properly vetted.
As for the wall between the United States and Mexico, the budget will get a line-item with a proposed piece of legislation that will fund its construction, "with the full understanding that the country of Mexico will be reimbursing the United States."

Tax cut promises were reiterated.  A 35 per cent tax cut for middle-class families with two children, and a reduced 10 per cent rate for American companies that bring overseas money back home.

Trump also reminded the audience of his grievances against the journalism profession and the parade of women who have accused him of unwanted kissing and groping.  The accusations date back years, and even decades, ago.

He said after the election, he plans to sue them.

"Every woman lied when they came forward to hurt my campaign. Total fabrication. The events never happened. Never," said Trump.

"All of these liars will be sued after the election is over."

He also said he would litigate against the Democratic Party for allegedly paying saboteurs to start fistfights at his campaign rallies.

When it came to jobs and trade, he laid out seven items.
  • 1. Renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement or withdraw from it. 
  • 2. Withdraw from the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
  • 3. Order the secretary of the treasury to label China a 'currency manipulator'.
  • 4. Use U.S. and international laws to end foreign trading abuses that unfairly impact American workers.
  • 5. Lift restrictions on the production of $50 trillion dollars’ worth of U.S. energy reserves including shale, oil, natural gas and coal.
  • 6. Approve the Keystone XL pipeline project and other 'vital energy infrastructure projects'. 
  • 7. Cancel billions in payments to U.N. climate change programs and use the money to improve U.S. water and environmental infrastructure.
The pieces of legislation Trump said he would be pushing for:
  • 1. 'Middle Class Tax Relief And Simplification Act': Economic plan designed to grow the economy 4 per cent per year and create 25 million new jobs. Involves tax cuts, trade reform, regulatory relief, lifting restrictions on energy production, and encouraging companies with offshore funds to bring them back to America.
  • 2. 'End The Offshoring Act': New tariffs on goods brought into the U.S. by American companies that relocate jobs outside the U.S.
  • 3. 'American Energy & Infrastructure Act': Uses public-private partnerships and tax incentives to generate $1 trillion in infrastructure investment over 10 years.
  • 4. 'School Choice And Education Opportunity Act': Redirects education dollars to allow parents to choose any public, private, charter, magnet, religious or home school; ends the 'Common Core' federal standards; and expands vocational and technical education.
  • 5. 'Repeal and Replace Obamacare Act': Replaces the Affordable Care Act with health savings accounts, removes barriers to purchasing health insurance across state lines, allows states to manage Medicaid funds and speeds up drug approval inside the Food and Drug Administration.
  • 6. 'Affordable Childcare and Eldercare Act': Provides tax deductions for childcare and elder care and incentivizes employers to provide on-site childcare services.
  • 7. 'End Illegal Immigration Act': Funds a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border, 'with the full understanding that the country of Mexico will be reimbursing the United States'; establishes 2-year mandatory minimum federal prison sentence for illegally re-entering the U.S. after deportation, 5-year mandatory minimum for felons who illegally re-enter, and 5 years for coming back after multiple deportations; increases penalties for overstaying visas.
  • 8. 'Restoring Community Safety Act': Creates a Task Force On Violent Crime, increases federal funding of police forces and boosts federal support for anti-gang prosecutions.
  • 9. 'Restoring National Security Act': Eliminates the federal defense 'sequester' to restore military funding, guarantees veterans the option of private health care if VA facility wait times are long, institutes new defenses against cyber-attacks, and establishes new immigration screening based on 'values'.
  • 10. 'Clean up Corruption in Washington Act': Enacts new ethics reforms affecting politicians and their staffers.
Trump will need a Republican Congress to make these things happen, so the race for the White House isn't the only important election on November 8.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Saturday, October 22, 2016

Banning Trump Rally - Join Me!

Douglas V. Gibbs
AuthorSpeakerInstructorRadio Host

Election 2016 needs you out there telling folks that Hillary belongs in Prison, and Donald Trump belongs in the White House.  Support the candidates we claim to stand behind.  Local Republican Clubs and Tea Party groups have been very active in doing what they can to get the word out. . . Vote for Trump, not Crooked Hillary.  Join us in getting out the word.

I will be out there in my famous Star Spangled Banner tie, and with my "Hillary for Prison" sign.

• Saturday, October 22, 2016; 2:00-5:00 pm
San Gorgonio Pass Republican Women's Federated
Highland Springs/Ramsey Intersection
Near Food-4-Less
Banning, CA

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Constitution Radio: Convention of States

Constitution Radio with Douglas V. Gibbs, KMET 1490-AM, Saturdays at 1:00 pm Pacific

Constitution Radio with Douglas V. Gibbs on KMET 1490-AM at 1:00 pm Pacific (live). Catch the program online at KMET 1490-AM, or the podcast later on Sound Cloud.

Convention of States will have representatives on today's program. What's the difference between a Convention of States and a Con-Con? How did the mock convention go? Does the importance of a Convention of States increase with the election of a Hillary Clinton? Isn't a Convention of States the same thing as an Article V. Convention? How would such a convention be administered? How would it be protected against becoming a runaway convention?

In addition to the discussions with the guests, we will tackle the AllStar Collision Big Stories of the Week:

• Cyber Attack

• Embracing Communism

Conservative Voice Radio: On Now

Conservative Voice Radio, KMET 1490-AM, Saturdays at 8:00 am

Host: Douglas V. Gibbs, Round Table discussion with members of the Banning-Beamont-Cherry Valley Tea Party


- Project Veritas videos

- Election Treachery

- Beaumont Mello Roos Scandal

- Obamacare Insurance Bailouts

- North Carolina: Trump Office Firebombed

- Results of Appeasement

Mosul and Aleppo

By Douglas V. Gibbs
AuthorSpeakerInstructorRadio Host

The liberal left narrative is that fighting terrorism begets more terrorism.  The jihadists, according to progressive conventional wisdom, are angry we are in the Middle East, and that's why ISIS exists, and why terrorism has visited Europe, and other parts of the world.

The European Union's security commissioner Julian King said: "The reconquest of the northern Iraqi IS stronghold Mosul can cause violent IS fighters to come back to Europe.

"This is a very serious threat that we have to prepare for," he told German newspaper Die Welt.

That is not how Islam works.  Islam is all about the will of Allah.  Terror attacks are in Europe and other parts of the world because Islam is determined to dominate the world.  When their numbers increase, or they are successful in their battles, they increase their efforts.  When their numbers decrease, or they face a number of defeats, then it is seen that moving forward may not be in the will of Allah, so they step back.  In other words, appeasement of Islam, or gifting them as we did with the disastrous Iran deal, emboldens Islamic terror.  Winning military victories against them causes Islam to retreat.  Fight them over there so that we don't have to fight them here.

During the Iraq war we fought to gain Mosul, and now we have to fight to gain it again. . . well, according to Obama, through Iraq fighters we are regaining it.  If we had kept forces in place, and ensured nothing like ISIS could rise, we wouldn't be in this mess.  ISIS would not exist if we had won decisively, and then kept a significant presence.  Instead, we drew the war out for years, and then telegraphed to the enemy our departure.  It was a gift to the jihadists, and they were emboldened by it.

The geography makes regaining Mosul a difficult task.  Iraqi forces with the Kurds cannot simply surround the city.  U.S. officials suspect ISIS will retreat to the west into a region they already control, as the push into Mosul continues.  While the forces are receiving guidance from American advisers, we are being assured that no U.S. troops are on the ground.

In the process of coalition forces entering Mosul, ISIS is slaughtering people on the way out. ISIS rounded up and killed 284 men and boys as Iraqi-led coalition forces closed in.  Mosul is ISIS's last major stronghold in Iraq.

Those killed were used as human shields against attacks.  ISIS dumped the corpses in a mass grave at the defunct College of Agriculture in northern Mosul.  The victims -- some of them children -- were all shot.

The Iraqi military launched a large offensive early Saturday to retake Hamdaniya which is nine miles southeast of Mosul. Iraqi troops are also advancing toward Tal Kayf six miles north of Mosul.  Air support was provided by the U.S. and other coalition members.

Meanwhile, in Aleppo, Syria, a top United Nations human rights official called the weeks long bombardment and siege of rebel-held parts of the city "crimes of historic proportions."  The Syrian city is in ruins.  The UN official calls it a "Slaughterhouse."

A UN resolution calls for an end to the bombing of Aleppo by Russian and Syrian airstrikes.  According to news sources an overwhelming majority of civilian casualties have come from Russian and Syrian airstrikes.  ISIS must be held accountable, as well.  Without their reign of terror, the airstrikes would not be occurring.  Despite the denial. the rebel groups in the area the Obama administration has been supporting are associated and allied with ISIS.

Britain has accused Russia of not solving the situation, but making it worse.  A current cease-fire has calmed the skies momentarily, but is not allowing local residents to flee.  The United Nations special envoy for Syria, Staffan de Mistura said, "From what I hear, people to not want to leave their places, they do not want to become refugees, they want to stay in their place."

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Friday, October 21, 2016

Osama Bin Laden and the Clinton Foundation

Posted by Douglas V. Gibbs
AuthorSpeakerInstructorRadio Host

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

The American Voters Are Being Misled by Inaccurate Polling

By Capt Joseph R. John, October 21, 2016

By clicking on the below listed link, you will be able to read an accurate explanation for why the FOX News polls have not been very reliable over the last year, and why both the Rasmussen and the LA Times/UCLA polls have been much more reliable during the same period. The polling process being employed by FOX should be updated to improve the reliable and accuracy of its polling. 

The below listed E-mail provides statistics from accurate data compiled on Social Media, that supporters the more reliable process outlined in the above iPatriot article.  The below listed E-mail provides substantial popular support for Mr Trump and will contribute significantly toward verifying the reliability of weekly polls being taken by Rasmussen and the LA Times/UCLA.  The below listed information and the details in the above link, can defuse the left of center liberal media establishment drum beat that Hillary lead in the polls has been as much as 11% points ahead of Mr Trump standing.  Reporting those figures as accurate has been dishonest spin promoted by NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, The New York Times, The Washington Post, and other very liberal media outlets that are heavily in support for Hillary Clinton.  Unfortunately that misleading information has been also reported by the FOX News Network, because their polling results have not been accurate or reliable. 

The corrupt media has not been an objective source of news, nor has it exposed the incompetence and failed policies of the Obama administration for the last 8 years,    It has not been reliably reporting cold hard facts on both the Republican and Democrat primary campaign over the last year.  A very few examples of its failure to honestly report facts are: the failure to report that Robert Creamer who had 300 meetings at the White House (47 directly with Obama) fomented violence at Trump rallies, the dangers posed to the US by the Iranian Nuclear Weapons Agreement, how the US Armed Forces have been hollowed out and degraded by Obama over the last 8 years, the lies & violations of Federal Law associated with the Illegal Benghazi Gun Running Operation that led to the death of 4 Americans, the lies Obama told to get Obama Care passed & its complete failure, Obama’s violations of US Federal Immigration Laws for 8 years, and so much more. 

The left of center liberal media establishment that has been I n he tanks for Obama over the last 8 years, has now become an arm of the Clinton Presidential Campaign.  The media has been minimizing and covering up Hillary’s criminal violation of the National Security of the United States,  and that she should have been charged with, and has also been covering up that Hillary as Secretary of State approved the sale of 25% of the US’s uranium production to Vladimir Putin in negotiations by Bill Clinton. 

The below information in the below listed E-mail, and the information revealed by clicking on the above listed link will provide positive detailed information that would support the accurate information that Mr Trump is in a very close and competitive race for the Presidency of the United States and that information would energize his supporters.  This E-mail should be forwarded to as many voters as possible.

Copyright by Capt Joseph R. John.  All Rights Reserved.  The material can only posted on another Web site or distributed on the Internet by giving full credit to the author.  It may not be published, broadcast, or rewritten without the permission from the author.

Joseph R. John, USNA ‘62
Capt    USN(Ret)/Former FBI
Regional Chairman, Southern California, Veterans 4 Trump (Orange County, Imperial County, and San Diego County)
2307 Fenton Parkway, Suite 107-184
San Diego, CA 92108

Then I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, “Whom shall I send, and who will go for Us?” Then I said, “Here am I. Send me!”
-Isaiah 6:8

Icy Dinner with Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton

by Douglas V. Gibbs
AuthorSpeakerInstructorRadio Host

The venue was a New York charity dinner that is normally accompanied by various roast-style jokes when the candidates speak.  Hillary marched up to the line, and nearly crossed. . . for some, Trump did cross the line.  Crooked Hillary, he said, was "so corrupt she got kicked off the Watergate Commission."

The host went after both of them, but it was Trump that got the boos from the left leaning participants who seemed to dominate the congregation.  The jeers and boos continued as Mr. Trump discussed Clinton's emails, Wikileaks, and that the former secretary of state was "pretending not to hate Catholics," an apparent reference to 2011 emails from a current Clinton campaign spokeswoman that mocked Catholics and evangelical Christians.

Truth hurts, Democrats.  Quit booing and own your hate.

Timothy Cardinal Dolan sat between the two candidates, serving as a buffer between him, likely blocking worse vollies.  The crowd, when Trump was talking, was asking him to take the microphone from Trump.  The Democrats are fine with the Freedom of Speech, as long as you agree with them; otherwise, they want you silenced.

Clinton did laugh when Trump joked that she had bumped into him earlier in the night "and she very simply said `Pardon me"' -- an unsubtle reference to the Republican nominee's frequent declarations that his opponent should go to jail.

Clinton had a self-deprecating joke that was appreciated when she said she had taken a break from her "usual nap schedule" to attend and suggested that the audience should be pleased she's not charging her usual fee for speaking in front of potential donors.

The candidates did not greet each other or make eye contact when they entered and took their seats for the event at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel, though they did shake hands at the conclusion of the roast.  The situation, in fact, seemed downright icy.

Cardinal Dolan, sitting between them, called his seat "the iciest place on the planet."

Alfred E. Smith IV, the event namesake's great-grandson, also teased Clinton, noting that "titans of Wall Street" were in attendance, but told her to restrain herself from seeking donations and to "remember the children."

The Al Smith Dinner, named in honor of the former New York governor and 1928 Democratic presidential nominee, benefits charities supporting needy children in the Archdiocese of New York. Smith IV announced that this year's dinner had raised approximately $6 million.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Internet Wobbling Under Cyber-Attack

By Douglas V. Gibbs
AuthorSpeakerInstructorRadio Host

It is happening now. . . a major cyber-event against major players on the internet.

The attacked includes Twitter, Spotify and Reddit.  They have been rushed with hits, rendering them inaccessible.

Sites and services across the East Coast are working to recover from the attack, and now word is out that there will be a possible second wave of attacks.

Government officials have not released who they believe the culprits to be, but what is happening is an over-rush of sites, a flood of artificial traffic, causing distributed denial of service errors and essentially knocking the websites offline.  The attack is specifically against Dyn, an internet performance management company.

Domain host company Dyn said the attack started at 7:10 a.m. and lasted for more than two hours.

The attacks have affected Dyn's Managed Domain Name System infrastructure, which serves companies including Amazon, Twitter, Spotify, Reddit and

The Democrats and Obama, of course, blames Russia.  Trump likely thinks it is being caused by the Clinton Foundation.  I think it's a group of North Korean teenagers who live in their parent's basement, chewing on bark.

You know, there is a certain horror that accompanies this.  If you can't Tweet, you might be forced to engage in meaningful conversation with the people around you.

Oh, the horror of it all!

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Trump Rallies Up The Hill

Douglas V. Gibbs
AuthorSpeakerInstructorRadio Host

As the election of 2016 approaches, it is important that we vote, and that we support the candidates we claim to stand behind.  The local Republican Clubs and Tea Party groups have been very active in doing what they can to get the word out. . . Vote for Trump, not Crooked Hillary.  We invite you to join us to get out the word.  Be prepared to receive many honks of horns and support from drivers, as well as profanity and middle fingers from Clinton supporters.

The opportunities for you to participate this weekend will be in the San Gorgonio Pass, up the Hill from the Temecula Valley and Hemet/San Jacinto area.  There are two Trump Rallies going on this weekend.

• Friday, October 21, 2016; 2:00-5:00 pm
Banning-Beaumont-Cherry Valley Tea Party
Beaumont Ave Bridge over Interstate 10
Beaumont, CA

• Saturday, October 22, 2016; 2:00-5:00 pm
San Gorgonio Pass Republican Women's Federated
Highland Springs/Ramsey Intersection
Near Food-4-Less
Banning, CA

I plan to attend both events.

Prior to the latter event I will be on the air.  Listen to Constitution Radio on KMET 1490-AM from 1-2 pm as you drive to the event.  I will arrive directly from the studio around a quarter-after-two.

See you at the events!

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Thursday, October 20, 2016

Temecula Constitution Class: Legal Amendments Continued

The Legal Amendments
Temecula Constitution Class
Thursdays (except 2nd Thursday) at 6:30 pm
Faith Armory
41669 Winchester Road
Temecula, CA 92590

Constitution Class Handout
Instructor: Douglas V. Gibbs

Lesson 15

The Legal Amendments

Amendment IV

Warrants, Searches, and Seizures

The 4th Amendment to the United States Constitution was added as part of the Bill of Rights on December 15, 1791. It was written with the purpose of protecting people from the government searching their homes and private property without properly executed search warrants.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

What this means is that the federal government, in order to search a person's home, business, papers, bank accounts, computer or other personal items, in most cases, must obtain a search warrant signed by the proper authority, which usually means by a judge.

The issuance of a warrant must accompany reasonable belief that a crime has been committed and that by searching the premises of a particular location, evidence will be found that will verify the crime. The government officer does not have to be correct in his assumption, he just has to have a reasonable belief that searching someone's private property will yield evidence of the crime. The task of determining whether or not the officer's assumptions are a reasonable belief falls on the judge who is considering issuing the search warrant.

The concept that citizens must be protected from unreasonable searches and seizures goes back into English history. The British Crown was known for performing searches and seizures that were unlawfully conducted. Often, these searches were conducted by the king's representatives.

The British government saw the American Colonies as a source of revenue. As a result, taxation against the American colonies was a continuous practice, in the hopes of generating as much money from the colonists as possible. The colonists resented this and engaged in substantial smuggling operations in order to get around the customs taxes imposed by the British government.

The King responded to the Colonist's smuggling activities by using writs of assistance, which were search warrants that were very broad and general in their scope. British agents, once obtaining these writs, could search any property they believed might contain contraband goods. They could enter someone's property with no notice and without any reason given. Tax collectors could interrogate anyone about their use of goods and require the cooperation of any citizen. Searches and seizures of private property based on very general warrants became an epidemic in colonial America.

In 1756, the Massachusetts legislature passed search and seizure laws outlawing the use of general warrants. The friction created between the Royal Governor and the people of Massachusetts grew with each passing moment.

In 1760 James Otis, a Boston lawyer, strongly objected to these arbitrary searches and seizures of private property and consequently resigned his position with the government, and then became the lawyer for a group of over 50 merchants who sued the government claiming that the writs of assistance were unjust.

James Otis represented these merchants for free. His speech condemning British policies, including writs of assistance and general search warrants, was so powerful and eloquent, that it was heard of throughout the colonies and catapulted him to a place of leadership in the swelling tide of disillusionment toward Great Britain.

Twenty-five year old John Adams, who would become the second president of the United States some time later, was sitting in the courtroom and heard Otis' famous speech that served as a spark that led to igniting the American Revolution.

The 4th Amendment, a part of The Bill of Rights, became law on December 15, 1791.

The 4th Amendment applies only to the federal government. State constitutions are written similarly, and States also have laws that are consistent with the intention of the 4th Amendment. The 4th Amendment provides protection from illegal search and seizure by federal government officials, but not by private citizens. So, if an employer unreasonably searched your possessions at work, the 4th Amendment would not have been violated, but local laws may have been.

In recent history The PATRIOT Act was seen as a breach of the 4th Amendment because it allowed the federal government to pursue a number of strategies in their search for terrorists that includes warrantless phone taps, access to phone logs, and monitoring of online communications such as email. The debate still goes on regarding the constitutionality of The PATRIOT Act, with both sides presenting reasonable arguments, ranging from the constitutional necessity of the law for the purpose of "providing for the common defense," to the argument that the authorities offered by the law allows the federal government to unconstitutionally intrude on the right to privacy of all Americans.

The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2014 builds on the powers seized by the federal government through the PATRIOT Act, allowing unrestricted analysis and research of captured records pertaining to any organization or individual "now or once hostile to the United States." The definition of "hostile to the United States" is broad, and can include political opposition. Under NDAA 2014 Sec. 1061(g)(1), an overly vague definition of captured records enhances government power and guarantees indefinite surveillance.

The Internal Revenue Service is another arm of the federal government that routinely violates the 4th Amendment, doing so under the auspice of ensuring all taxes are paid.

Search Warrant - The Search Warrant specifically requires that the government demonstrate to a judge the existence of probable cause of criminal activity on the part of the person whose property the government wishes to search. The Fourth Amendment commands that only a judge can authorize a search warrant.

Writs of Assistance - British search warrants that were very broad and general in their scope. British agents, once obtaining these writs, could search any property they believed might contain contraband goods.

Questions for Discussion:

1. What actions by the British prior to the American Revolutionary War inspired the Founding Fathers to include this amendment in the Bill of Rights?

2. How would our legal system act if Search Warrants were not considered necessary?

3. How does the Fourth Amendment influence today's thinking regarding government actions, such as with The PATRIOT Act?


How Congress Has Assaulted Our Freedoms in the Patriot Act by
Andrew P. Napolitano, Lew

Joseph Andrews, A Guide for Learning and Teaching The Declaration of
Independence and The U.S. Constitution - Learning from the Original Texts Using Classical Learning Methods of the Founders; San Marcos: The Center for Teaching the Constitution (2010).

Paul A. Ibbetson, Living Under the PATRIOT Act: Educating a Society;
Bloomington, IN: Author House (2007)

Philip B. Kurland and Ralph Lerner, The Founder's Constitution -
Volume Five - Amendments I-XII; Indianapolis: Liberty Fund (1987).

Amendment V

Due Process and Eminent Domain

Due Process

The majority of the Fifth Amendment provides additional reinforcement to the concept of due process. The language of this Amendment was designed to assure those who feared the potential tyranny of a new centralized government created by the United States Constitution that the federal government would be restrained in such a way as to ensure that the government did not perpetrate bloodshed against its citizens.

The first part of the 5th Amendment reads: "No person shall be held to answer for a capital crime, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury. . ."

The 5th Amendment attests to the Founding Father's understanding that this is a nation of property owners. As a republic of property owners, when in jeopardy of legal trouble, our rights and properties must be safeguarded. Therefore, an American Citizen in the American legal system has a right to a jury, as well as a right to the presentation of evidence. Conviction is not reached with a majority vote, either. Conviction requires a unanimous agreement among all of the members of the jury. These concepts reinforce the concept that one is innocent until proven guilty (A concept found in the Book of Deuteronomy, Chapter 19, Verse 15), and that the United States of America is a Republic. Mob rule is not allowed, for as the amendment provides, a person cannot be held until given the opportunity of due process.

Not all persons, however, are awarded this opportunity. The next part of the amendment reads: ". . . except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger. . ."

The military does not fall under the U.S. Constitution. Personnel serving in the armed forces are governed by the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Instead of a civilian trial, a military service member is normally afforded a court martial. If a civilian trial is deemed appropriate by the U.S. Military, a service member can still stand trial in a civilian court, but the military has the authority to decide whether or not the member shall stand such a trial.

Having a sense of independence, individuals must be protected, then, from the tyrannical trappings of a governmental system that may try to use the judiciary against them (as the King of England had done often). The protective mechanism, or the rule of law, would be the U.S. Constitution and clauses like the 5th Amendment, which were designed to provide protection to the populace from unfair legal practices.

One such protection is provided in the next part of this amendment: ". . . nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life and limb. . ."

Protection against Double Jeopardy enables us not to be continuously tried for the same offense, which was a technique often used in some parts of Europe during the eighteenth century. The idea was that if a person was prosecuted enough, either they would weary of the process and break down, or the defendant would become unable to financially continue, hence unable to defend themselves.

The next part of the amendment serves as a large influence on today's Miranda Rights. The section reads: ". . . nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property."

Miranda Rights are named after the U.S. Supreme Court case, Miranda v. Arizona (1966). Miranda Rights are a warning given advising the accused of their right to remain silent, their right to an attorney, and the right to an appointed attorney if they are unable to afford counsel - prior to conducting a custodial interrogation. From the 5th Amendment: ". . .nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." Miranda Rights exist to secure the 5th Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination, and to make the individual in custody aware not only of the privilege, but also of the consequences of forgoing it. The judicial opinion from the Miranda v. Arizona case also indicated that in order to protect the person's life, liberty or property with the due process of law, the individual must have the right to an attorney. With a lawyer present the likelihood that the police will practice coercion is reduced, and if coercion is nevertheless exercised the lawyer can testify to it in court. The presence of a lawyer can also help to guarantee that the accused gives a fully accurate statement to the police and that the statement is rightly reported by the prosecution at trial.

The words of the Founders continues to resonate today as the majority of the American people seem to firmly agree with the Founding Father's insistence that no one should be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. We can take satisfaction that most of our fellow citizens in our republic still hold these truths to be self-evident.

Eminent Domain

The provisions of the 5th Amendment are there to keep our courts honest, and the powers of the government constrained. The last phrase of the 5th Amendment, however, is considered too general by many, and it has been used in a manner by the federal government that is extremely troublesome, because it gives the government the right to take property if there is just compensation.

How is just compensation determined? Is it based on the market value of the property? How does the government officials involved in eminent domain calculate the non-intrinsic value? How do they compensate for the value on which nobody can put a price?

Just compensation was intended to be based on what the property owner deemed to be just. If the property owner did not deem the offer to be just compensation, then the government, from a constitutional viewpoint, is out of luck.


Capital Crime - A crime for which the punishment is death. Punishment for a Capital Crime is called Capital Punishment.

Double Jeopardy - The act of putting a person through a second trial for an offense for which he or she has already been prosecuted or convicted.

Due Process - The essential elements of due process of law are notice, an opportunity to be heard, the right to defend in an orderly proceed, and an impartial judge. It is founded upon the basic principle that every man shall have his day in court, and the benefit of the general law which proceeds only upon notice and which hears and considers before judgment is rendered. In short, due process means fundamental fairness and substantial justice.

Eminent Domain - The power to take private property for public use by a State, municipality, or private person or corporation authorized to exercise functions of public character, following the payment of just compensation to the owner of that property.

Grand Jury - A group of citizens convened in a criminal case to consider the prosecutor's evidence and determine whether probable cause exists to prosecute a suspect for a felony. At common law, a group of persons consisting of not less than twelve nor more than twenty-four who listen to evidence and determine whether or not they should charge the accused with the commission of a crime by returning an indictment. The number of members on a grand jury varies in different States.

Infamous Crime - A crime which works infamy in the person who commits it. Infamous crimes tend to be classified as treason, felonies, and any crime involving the element of deceit.

Just Compensation - The value of a property deemed to be just by the property owner.

Miranda Rights - A warning given advising the accused of their right to remain silent, their right to an attorney, and the right to an appointed attorney if they are unable to afford counsel - prior to conducting a custodial interrogation.

Mob-Rule - A government ruled by a mob or a mass of people; the intimidation of legitimate authorities; the tyranny of the majority; pure democracy without due process.

Republic - Form of government that uses the rule of law through a government system led by representatives and officials voted in by a democratic process. The United States enjoys a Constitutional Republic.

Rule of Law - The restriction of the arbitrary exercise of power by subordinating it to well-defined and established laws; Laws of Nature and of Nature's God; self-evident standard of conduct and law.

Questions for Discussion:

1. How is property rights affected by Due Process?

2. Why do military members not fall under the protections of the U.S. Constitution?

3. Why is protection against Double Jeopardy important?

4. What was the inspiration for our Miranda Rights?

5. Who determines if compensation for one's property is just?

6. How is Eminent Domain being used for environmental reasons?

7. Is Eminent Domain constitutionally in force if a property is rezoned for environmental conservation, forcing the value of the property to be reduced due to the fact that it can no longer be developed?

8. Is it constitutional for government to use Eminent Domain for the use of the land by private development projects?


Definition of Due Process, Family Rights Association:

Joseph Andrews, A Guide for Learning and Teaching The Declaration of
Independence and The U.S. Constitution - Learning from the Original Texts Using Classical Learning Methods of the Founders; San Marcos: The Center for Teaching the Constitution (2010).

Philip B. Kurland and Ralph Lerner, The Founder's Constitution -
Volume Five - Amendments I-XII; Indianapolis: Liberty Fund (1987).

U.S. Supreme Court case, Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436 (1966)

Amendment VI

Personal Legal Liberties

The 6th Amendment affords criminal defendants seven discrete personal liberties. "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."

Rights afforded in all criminal prosecutions are set forth in this amendment. The word "all" at the beginning of this amendment establishes a special characteristic regarding this article of the Constitution. The Constitution applies only to the federal government, unless it states otherwise. The 6th Amendment, by providing the word "all" in the regard to cases, establishes that this amendment is not only to be applied to the federal courts, but to the State, and lower, courts as well.

As for the rights afforded to the accused:

Speedy Trial

The concept of a speedy trial was an English concept of justice. A speedy trial allows for conditions that disallow the powerful from abusing the court system, forcing defendants to languish in jail for an indefinite period while awaiting their trial. Ensuring a speedy trial minimizes the time in which a defendant's life is disrupted and burdened by a criminal proceeding, and reduces the likelihood of a prolonged delay impairing the ability of the accused to prepare a defense.

Historically, when trials are postponed or drag out for long periods of time, witnesses disappear, and evidence is often lost or destroyed. Memories of the incident in question are also not as reliable as time passes.

A person's right to a speedy trial arises after the arrest, indictment, or otherwise formal accusation of a crime.

Public Trial

The right to a public trial was inherited by the Americans from Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence. Public criminal proceedings would operate as a natural check against malevolent prosecutions, corrupt judges, and perjurious witnesses. A trial that is out in the open also aids the fact-finding mission of the judiciary by encouraging citizens to come forward with relevant information.

The right to a public trial is not absolute. Persons who may disrupt proceedings may be banned from attending the trial because they present a substantial risk of hindering a trial. A disallowance of the media attending falls under the concept of "potential disruptions," but otherwise, under normal circumstances, both the public and media have a qualified First Amendment right to attend criminal proceedings. The right to a public trial does not require the presence of media, and because courtrooms have limited seating, judges may attempt to maintain decorum. For media, with today's technology, the media does not have to be in the courtroom to see or hear the proceedings of the case.

Right to Trial by an Impartial Jury

A part of the effort in achieving an impartial jury is the process of determining who will serve on the jury through a series of questions and observations, in an effort to eliminate biased jurors. The concept of protecting the defendant from a biased jury can be traced back to the Magna Carta in 1215. In the United States, the requirement for a trial by an impartial jury does not apply to juvenile delinquency proceedings, or to petty criminal offenses, which consist of crimes punishable by imprisonment of six months or less. In Great Britain, and Canada, a jury is not required for cases with potential penalties of two years or less, and the concept of an impartial jury is not entertained in the same way as in the United States. Canada and Britain choose jurors randomly, and then in an open court the jurors for a specific case are selected from the jury panel by ballot. A juror may be challenged once in the box for bias, but an extensive process to eliminate possible biased jurors before selection through a series of questions and observations is not normal practice.

The Sixth Amendment entitles defendants to a jury that represents "a jury of the defendant's peers," which means the jury should be a fair cross section of the community. From the jury pool, the presiding judge, the prosecution, and attorneys for the defense are allowed to ask members of the jury pool a variety of questions intended to reveal any latent biases, prejudices, or other influences that might affect their impartiality. The presence of even one biased juror is not permitted under the Sixth Amendment.

It is possible that the potential bias of a juror may be affected by sources outside the courtroom, so jurors are instructed to not consider newspaper, television, and radio coverage before or during trial, and are instructed not to discuss the trial with even family members, when evaluating the guilt or innocence of the defendant.

Jurors are not permitted to begin deliberations until all of the evidence has been offered. Deliberations do not begin until after the attorneys have made their closing arguments, and the judge has read the instructions. Premature deliberations have shown the potential, historically, to create early biases, or a juror may form a preconceived notion that they will then compare all evidence to, which they may have entertained as a result of premature deliberations.

Notice of Pending Criminal Charges

The 6th Amendment guarantees defendants the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against them. Defendants must receive notice of any criminal accusations that the government has lodged against them through an indictment, information, complaint, or other formal charge. Defendants may not be tried, convicted, or sentenced for a crime that materially varies from the crime set forth in the formal charge.

The requirement by the 6th Amendment to inform a defendant of the nature and cause of the accusation is an attempt by the Founding Fathers to create fundamental fairness that was not necessarily present in civil and criminal proceedings in England and the American colonies under English common law. Receiving notice of pending criminal charges in advance of trial permits defendants to prepare a defense in accordance with the specific nature of the accusation. In tyrannies, defendants are all too often incarcerated without being apprised of pending charges until the trial begins. Requiring notice of the nature and cause of the accusation against a defendant eliminates confusion regarding the basis of a particular verdict, which in turn decreases the chances that a defendant will be tried later for the same offense.

Confrontation of Witnesses Against Him

The 6th Amendment requires that defendants have the right to be confronted by witnesses who offer testimony or evidence against them, as well as the opportunity to subject them to cross-examination.

Today's courts have established rules that are enforced at the discretion of the judge who forbids questioning that pursues areas that are irrelevant, collateral, confusing, repetitive, or prejudicial. Defendants are also forbidden to pursue a line of questioning solely for the purpose of harassment.

Compulsory Process for Obtaining Witnesses In His Favor

The 6th Amendment recognizes a defendant's right to use the compulsory process of the judiciary to subpoena witnesses that may be favorable to the defense. Courts may not take actions to undermine the testimony of a witness who has been subpoenaed by the defense. Any law that attempts to establish particular persons as being incompetent to testify on behalf of a defendant is not allowed.

Defendants can also testify on their own behalf, a right not afforded in the American Colonies, or Great Britain, prior to the United States dissolving the political bands connecting them to the Crown. Common law presumed all defendants to be incompetent to give reliable or credible testimony on their own behalf. The vested interest in the outcome of the trial, it was believed, would taint the testimony of the defendant. The 6th Amendment does not require, a defendant to testify on his own behalf, but does not prohibit it, either.

Right to Counsel

The 6th Amendment states that criminal defendants have a Right to Counsel. A defendant's right to counsel does not become an issue until the government files formal charges. However, in the 5th Amendment a person has the right not to be compelled to be a witness against himself, allowing him to remain silent until he has counsel present.

In many instances, defendants have the inability to obtain counsel be it because of financial or other reasons. The 6th Amendment, by listing that assistance of counsel for his defense is a right, has compelled the government to institute a program where counsel can be assigned to a defendant if the person is unable to afford counsel, or obtain counsel for any other reason. In the occurrence of a defendant unable to afford counsel, the trial judge appoints one on his behalf. If it turns out that the defendant has financial resources previously unknown to the court, he may be required to reimburse the government for a portion of the fees paid to the court-appointed lawyer.

Defendants are not required to have counsel. Defendants have a right to counsel. Defendants also have the right to decline the representation of counsel and proceed on their own behalf. Defendants who represent themselves must present a waiver of the 6th Amendment right to counsel before a court will allow them to do so. The waiver must reveal that the defendant is knowingly making the decision, and understands the potential consequences.

Questions for Discussion:

1. Why is having a speedy trial so important in a free society?

2. How does a public trial better enable the fact-finding mission of the trial?

3. How is the concept of an impartial jury different in the United States than it is in other countries?

4. Why is it important for a defendant to be able to confront the witnesses against him?

5. How is a defendant's right to counsel enabled in today's court system?


Joseph Andrews, A Guide for Learning and Teaching The Declaration of
Independence and The U.S. Constitution - Learning from the Original Texts Using Classical Learning Methods of the Founders; San Marcos: The Center for Teaching the Constitution (2010).

Philip B. Kurland and Ralph Lerner, The Founder's Constitution -
Volume Five - Amendments I-XII; Indianapolis: Liberty Fund (1987).

Amendment VII

Right of Trial by Jury in Civil Suits

"In suits at Common Law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law."

The 7th Amendment guarantees the right to a jury trial in most civil suits heard in federal court. Remember, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, apply only to the federal government unless the document states otherwise. The 7th Amendment serves to preserve the historic line separating the province of the jury from that of the judge in civil cases by separating cases that should have a jury in federal court, from those that are smaller cases, and may not require a jury. During the time the amendment was ratified, a case requiring a jury was one where "the value in controversy" exceeded twenty dollars. The cutoff in the court system today is $75,000. Any disputes that involve amounts less than $75,000, in fact, will not even be handled in a federal court.

State courts don't have to honor this provision in the 7th Amendment, and often don't. People bringing a suit do not have to have a jury trial. Individuals can waive their right to a jury trial if they so choose.

The 7th Amendment also expressly forbids federal judges to re-examine any "fact tried by a jury" except as allowed by the common law. This means that no court, trial or appellate, may overturn a jury verdict that is reasonably supported by the evidence.

Prior to the Declaration of Rights in 1689, English judges served the King of England. These judges showed bias towards the King, resulting in unfair rulings. Judges in the American colonies were also biased towards the king, and when King George III got rid of trials by juries in the Colonies, the colonists viewed the decision as more kindling for the fire of independence that had been blazing in the pubs, churches and meeting halls of the Colonies. The Bill of Rights applied what the Framers learned under the rule of Britain to the American System. In the American courts the Framers believed it was important to have a fair court system, so the right to have a trial by jury is mentioned a number of times, and is a fundamental part of the United States legal system.

Together with the due process clause of the 5th Amendment and the right to an impartial jury enumerated in the 6th Amendment, the 7th Amendment guarantees civil litigants the right to not just a jury, but to a jury who is not biased for any reason.
Bill of Rights - The first ten amendments of the U.S. Constitution; a formal summary of those rights and liberties considered essential to a people or group of people.

Declaration of Rights - Enacted in 1689, the English Bill of Rights is one of the fundamental documents of English constitutional law, marking a fundamental milestone in the progression of English society from a nation of subjects to a nation of free citizens with God-given rights. The evolution began with the Magna Carta in 1215.

Questions for Discussion:

1. What historic line does the 7th Amendment preserve?
2. Must the States abide by the 7th Amendment?
3. Can a person bringing suit waive the right to a jury trial?

Amendment VIII

Excessive Bail, Cruel and Unusual Punishment

The 8th Amendment reads, "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

As a nation founded on honorable Judeo-Christian principles, the United States legal system is expected to be fair and just. This means that Americans should insist upon a due process that protects individuals from excesses and abuses by the judicial system. Such expectations include that no individual should be singled out, or treated differently, in the eyes of the courts. A fair and equitable judicial system includes no excessive bails or fines, or cruel and unusual punishment, for one person while others guilty of similar crimes do not receive similar treatment.

Today's definitions attempt to set a limit on where "excessive" or "unusual" lies. When a harsh penalty is applied for a crime, even when it is similar to the punishment received by others for the same crime, challenges are launched regarding if the penalty matches the crime. These challenges are fine, and an important part of the American judicial system seeking to adjust itself in regards to its fairness, but the debates during the Federal Convention and State ratification conventions did not focus so much on where the line between excessive and not excessive, or unusual as opposed to usual, exists as much as are the bails, fines and punishment consistent with the bails, fines and punishment consistent with others guilty of the same.

Questions for Discussion:

1. In the context of the time period during which the 8th Amendment was written, what was meant by "cruel and unusual punishment?"
2. How has the original definition of "cruel and unusual punishment" changed since the founding of the United States?
3. How does the 8th Amendment apply the concept of uniformity to cases?
4. Why would the Founding Fathers see the need to enumerate the right of an individual to be protected from cruel and unusual punishment?


Joseph Andrews, A Guide for Learning and Teaching The Declaration of
Independence and The U.S. Constitution - Learning from the Original Texts Using Classical Learning Methods of the Founders; San Marcos: The Center for Teaching the Constitution (2010).

Philip B. Kurland and Ralph Lerner, The Founder's Constitution -
Volume Five - Amendments I-XII; Indianapolis: Liberty Fund (1987).

Copyright 2015 Douglas V. Gibbs

Stolen Election Hypocrisy

Posted by Douglas V. Gibbs
AuthorSpeakerInstructorRadio Host


“It’s been a year and now we’ve finished our last debate and I’m feeling relieved and very grateful,” Clinton said.

“But I just wanted to come back and say hello. Some of you have been on the trail the whole time. No more debates.

“No more naps,” she said as her face cringed.

After taking a couple questions, she was asked about the Project Veritas videos appearing to show Democratic National Committee operatives bragging about triggering violence at Donald Trump rallies.

“I know nothing about this. I can’t deal with every one of his conspiracy theories."

Al Gore, speaking from the White House the week after having lost the general election, explains why he refused to concede the race:
"The effort that I have underway is simply to make sure that all of the votes are counted, and when the issues that are now being considered in the Florida Supreme Court are decided, that will be an important point. But I don't want to speculate what the court will do."
Even after facing a number of lower court losses, Gore said he remained optimistic.

Last week Hillary agreed he 'won' 2000... 

While Gore tried to stress the importance of voting he referenced his loss to George W. Bush in 2000. As the crowd begins chanting “YOU WON! YOU WON!” Watch Mrs. Clinton smile and nod in agreement.

Hillary 2002: Bush 'Selected, Not Elected'... 

At a private fund-raiser in Los Angeles for Democratic Sen. Jean Carnahan of Missouri, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton told the crowd that President Bush merely had been "selected" president, not elected, Newsweek reports in the current issue. "You know, I'm a fan of Clintonomics," she told the crowd while standing from a perch on the staircase of movie producer Alan Horn's art-filled Bel Air home, "and this administration is destroying in months our eight years of economic progress." Though she and her husband had raised more money than any other Democratic political team this year, Clinton said, Bush's machine has raised far more "to try to ruin the reputations of our candidates or, if they can't, to depress the turnout" by making campaigns unpalatably nasty. "But, you know, you have got to hand it to them," Clinton said with what sounded like a rueful appreciation. "These people are ruthless and they are relentless."

Over the past couple of weeks, Donald Trump has ramped up complaints that the election process is rigged in favor of Hillary Clinton. Many have been quick to dismiss his claims and have been acting like he’s crazy for saying as much.

On Tuesday, President Obama lashed out at the GOP nominee during a press conference at the White House, saying that Trump’s gripes are historically unprecedented and that he should stop “whining.”

“I have never seen in my lifetime or in modern political history any presidential candidate trying to discredit the election process before votes have even taken place,” he said.

Obama’s memory must be pretty short, so I’ve compiled this list to remind him — and everyone else — of eight times liberals claimed an election was or would be stolen.

Kerry Thinks Bush Rigged 2004! 

Theories that the Bush administration rigged the 2004 election are widespread on the Internet, with Robert Kennedy Jr. among the most notable figures to promote this view. Elements of the conspiracy include purging Democratic voters from the rolls, engineering long lines at Democratic precincts, and even deliberately rigging computerized vote machines to take votes from Kerry and give them to Bush. Theories mostly focus on the state of Ohio, which would have won Kerry the presidency had he cobbled together 120,000 additional votes.

But the supposed evidence of Bush’s theft is full of holes, and rigorous investigations of the evidence have found no evidence of systematic fraud, relegating these theories firmly in the realm of the conspiratorial. Evidently, though, it’s a conspiracy the Secretary of State at least partially buys into.

JOE SCARBOROUGH (CO-HOST): What was [Trump's] exact quote?

MIKA BRZEZINSKI (CO-HOST): He said I will leave you in suspense.

WILLIE GEIST (CO-HOST): He said I will look at it at the time and keep you in suspense.

HAROLD FORD JR.: So that means he is not willing to say I will accept the outcome.

SCARBOROUGH: No, what that means is he will look at it at the time. I love everybody saying -- I woke up to these screaming headlines saying, "Donald Trump will not respect election results." He actually said I will look at it at the time. I'll see.

FORD JR.: Has there ever been a presidential candidate to say that?

SCARBOROUGH: If there are voting irregularities, then any presidential candidate, anybody --

MIKE BARNICLE: What would you have said? What would your response be to that question?

SCARBOROUGH: I'd say yeah, I'll certainly respect the outcome of the election. I of course would want to make sure that's fair. I will want to make sure that it's fair, it's on the up and up.

BARNICLE: Well, he didn't say that.

SCARBOROUGH: Yeah but you know what? This is an example the media got something they can absolutely freak out about and claim that he is an agent of Vladimir Putin and destroying democracy in America. And it's just another example of the media having to find a little phrase and freak out. When as a Republican I have listened to Democrats talk about the only two times we won the White House in like 800 years that we stole both elections. I had to sit through Fahrenheit 911 and a lady was sobbing violently behind me on the Upper West Side about the election being stolen from George Bush and I patted her halfway through. I go, it's all right, it's all right, ma'am. It's all right. It's all a lie anyway. Democrats have been whining for 16 years, they are still writing articles about how Bush stole the elections in 2000 and 2004. So this holier than though attitude about, "this is the first time anyone has suggested that the election is not a sacrosanct process," it's a joke. So you guys bathe in that hypocrisy if you want to, I'd just like to hear how the debate went. Go ahead, bathe.

Pat Caddell told Breitbart News Daily SiriusXM host Alex Marlow on Thursday, “Selective memory is exactly the point” when it comes to the mainstream media’s reaction to Republican nominee Donald Trump suggesting he would wait and see before accepting the election results on November 8.

More than two out of every three U.S. citizens in a recent poll say they are very or somewhat concerned about the security of the nation's electoral system.

The Economist/YouGov poll was conducted amid Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump’s recent claims that the November election is “rigged.”

Seventy-two percent of respondents said they were very or somewhat concerned about the security of the electoral system while just 21 percent were either not very concerned or not concerned at all.

As more and more Texans turn to mail-in ballots to cast their votes in presidential elections, concerns continue to grow over how secure the process is.

The ballots — geared to make it possible for overseas residents, people in the military and senior citizens to make their vote count — are now at the heart of a growing controversy about voter fraud, even prompting an “integrity tip hotline,” because they allow people to vote from their homes without any ID or verification of identity.

State officials have been in Tarrant County investigating an issue with mail-in ballots from this year’s primary election, but some say the problem with these ballots goes deeper than that. At issue are concerns about “vote harvesting,” in which people fill out and return other people’s ballots.

Read more here:

A federal judge on Thursday rejected the Florida Democratic Party's request to let people cast a ballot during early voting even if their registration application hasn't been verified.

U.S. District Judge Mark Walker said there is no evidence that state officials are dragging their feet in verifying applications.

A federal judge has ordered voter registration in Virginia reopened through midnight tomorrow due to a failure of the state's registration website earlier this week.

U.S. District Judge Claude Hilton issued the order Thursday morning, saying it would "make amends" for the state's site being down beginning at mid-afternoon Monday, which was the last day to register under Virginia law.

"I think you're entitled to some relief [for] people who had trouble on the last day," Hilton said during a brief hearing in his Alexandria courtroom.

Virginia residents will now be able to register through the restored site, as well as in person at county or city registrar's offices and by mail postmarked by Friday, Virginia Commissioner of Elections Edgardo Cortes told reporters. Mail-in applications submitted earlier this week will also be processed to allow voting in next month's election, he said.

A civil rights group, the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, sued late Tuesday to reopen the registration period, including as plaintiffs some individuals who said they tried to register through the site Monday and failed. They were seeking a new, 72-hour registration period, saying it was needed to notify all those who might have tried to register online without success.

On election day, voters in Pennsylvania will be touching the lighted buttons on electronic vote counters that were once seen as the solution to messy paper ballots.

But in the event of a disputed election, this battleground state — one of the few that relies almost entirely on computerized voting, with no paper backup — could end up creating a far bigger mess.

Stored in a locked warehouse near downtown Harrisburg, the 1980s-era voting machines used by Dauphin County look like discarded washing machines lined up in rows. When unfolded and powered up, the gray metal boxes become the familiar voting booth, complete with a curtain for privacy.

Much may rest on the reliability and security of these aging machines after an unprecedentedly combative presidential campaign that is ending with Donald Trump warning repeatedly of a “rigged election” and his refusal at Wednesday’s debate to commit to accepting the results on Nov. 8.

In the latest Wikileaks Podesta documents John Podesta actually says it is OK for illegals to vote if they have a driver’s license.

Trump says the system is rigged.
Then we see this email the next day.
John Podesta: I think Teddy’s idea scratches the itch, is pretty safe and uncomplicated.
On the picture ID, the one thing I have thought of in that space is that if you show up on Election Day with a drivers license with a picture, attest that you are a citizen, you have a right to vote in Federal elections.

A former television reporter from Arkansas is accusing Bill Clinton of groping her in 1980 in a new interview with Breitbart News.

Leslie Millwee alleges that the former president groped her on three separate occasions while she worked as a reporter for a television station in Fayetteville, Ark. At the time, Clinton served as the state's governor.

Millwee’s interview was published the same day as the final presidential debate between Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton and Republican nominee Donald Trump. She gave the video interview to Breitbart News, the conservative site formerly led by Trump’s campaign CEO, Steve Bannon.

Madonna is pledging to perform oral sex on voters who cast their ballots for Hillary Clinton.

The pop queen, known for her shocking antics, made the remark Tuesday while opening for comedian Amy Schumer in New York.

“If you vote for Hillary Clinton,” Madonna told the crowd at Madison Square Garden, “I will give you a blow job.”

“And I’m good,” the 58-year-old “Like a Virgin” singer, an outspoken supporter of the Democratic presidential nominee, said to cheers from the audience.

“I’m not a tool. I take my time,” Madonna boasted.

Madonna has made a point of rooting on the former secretary of State’s White House bid, posting several pro-Clinton messages on Twitter.

With her opponent dogged by accusations of sexual assault, Hillary Clinton had strong odds as she entered the third presidential debate on Wednesday.

Only one thing seemed to threaten her chances of victory: her smile.

The Democratic candidate faced a flood of insults as she took to the stage at the University of Las Vegas, with many viewers confessing they were 'creeped out' by her stubborn grin.

Hundreds took to Twitter to describe her smile as 'scary' and 'creepy'.


-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary