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

Friday, August 26, 2016

Conservative Tactics versus Alinsky

By Douglas V. Gibbs
Author, Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host

“The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.” ― Sun Tzu, The Art of War.

IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE VICTORY, the resistance must employ a series of actions against the oppressors.  These strategies are a combination of various tactics that are designed to take the power away from the statists.  Power is powerless without action, and in order to act, one must have a quiver full of tactics.
            According to Saul Alinsky, the tactics we may employ begins with the senses.  Be visible to the opposition, raise a clamor to deceive the enemy regarding your numbers, and if your organization is small, stink up the place.
            Rule number one: Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.
          In a discussion with a successful candidate for city council, I asked what was among his most successful tactics.  He told me that his campaign had limited money, so he searched out the addresses of the existing city council members, key members of the staff, and any newspaper reporters in his city.  Once he discovered their addresses, he blanketed their immediate neighborhoods with flyers and signs in the yards of their neighbors.  They did not know that his flyers and signs were not appearing throughout the rest of the city, but for all they saw, his name was all over where they lived.  They asked each other, and each said to the other, “Yes, my neighborhood is filled with his flyers and signs, too.”  The reporters, after hearing this, and noticing that in their own neighborhoods, the candidate had covered much ground, wrote about the incredible campaign the candidate was having, and how his name was everywhere.  The free publicity in the newspapers, and the other candidates talking about him out of fear in earshot of the public, gave the candidate just the boost he needed to win.  While everyone thought he had launched a massive campaign that covered the entire city, none of them ever realized that he had raised zero funds, and had little of his own money to spend on his campaign.  The signs and flyers they saw was but a small percentage compared to the other candidates, but the strategic locations made his opponents believe he was well-funded, and that his election to office was inevitable.  He didn’t have to have a massive campaign.  He only needed to convince the right people that he had a massive campaign.
            Imagine if we used this tactic in the form of boycotts.  Two-thirds of this country identify as Christians, and surely a large percentage of those people consider themselves conservatives.  If these people were to threaten boycotts against movies, products, or cancel subscriptions, the impact would be tremendous.  As with all of our tactics and strategies, however, if we don’t utilize our numbers, the tactic will not be successful.
            Rule number two: Never go outside the experience of your people.
            There is an unwritten rule in golf.  Don’t play the other guys game.  Play your own game.  The moment you begin to try to drive the ball in a manner similar to your opponent, hitting the ball harder than you are accustomed, the end result will be disaster every time.  If your game is one hundred yards, one hundred yards, pop it up on the green, and putt it in one or two strokes, then so be it.  Play that game.  This is not to say that you should not work to improve your game, but never play beyond your capabilities.  In the end, patience, and sticking to what you know, will bring you victory.
            Going beyond one’s capabilities often leads to confusion, fear, and retreat.  Then, communication collapses.
            One way Republicans go outside their experience is when they try to reach out to minorities.  Identity politics is generally something that white conservatives are opposed to, so they are unable to reach out to minorities without seeming disingenuous.  We use terms like “color blind” and the liberal left uses our use of such phrases to ridicule the Right.  Rather than go outside our experience, why don’t we use the tools available to us.  There are many minorities who are conservatives who would love to do the heavy lifting in that department.
The scene emerges on the television screen.  It’s a fine day in America, perhaps a scene at a park, or the street corner of a busy community, and a black man walks up to the camera saying, “I used to vote Democrat, but then I realized their policies are detrimental to the opportunities for black people.  Now, I vote Republican.”
            Rule number three: Wherever possible go outside the experience of the enemy.
            If going beyond the experience of your own group can be damaging to your own efforts, than surely forcing the enemy to reach beyond their experience will cause them the same confusion.  Creating confusion, fear, and retreat in the opposition is a desired outcome.
            During the American Revolution, the experience of the minutemen was their own landscape, and they used it to their advantage.  They took shots at the British from behind the trees, around the edges of hillsides, and in the case of Lexington and Concord, used these tactics to literally chase the British forces all the way back to Boston Town.
            Saul Alinsky provides another military example, but used General Sherman in his example.
            “General William T. Sherman, whose name still causes a frenzied reaction throughout the South, provided a classic example of going outside  the enemy's experience. Until Sherman, military tactics and strategies were based on standard patterns. All armies had fronts, rears, flanks, lines of communication, and lines of supply. Military campaigns were aimed at such standard objectives as rolling up the flanks of the enemy army or cutting the  lines of supply or lines of communication, or moving around to attack from the rear. When Sherman cut loose on his famous March to the Sea, he had no front or rear lines of supplies or any other lines. He was on the loose and living on the land. The South, confronted with this new form of military invasion, reacted with confusion, panic, terror, and collapse.”
            Alinsky goes on to explain in the next paragraph that “It was the same tactic that, years later in the early days of World War II, the Nazi Panzer tank divisions emulated in their far-flung sweeps into enemy territory, as did our own General Patton with the American Third Armored Division.”
            Social issues pose such an opportunity for us.  They are winning issues, and the liberal left have no answer to the truth.  They have us convinced that we must shy away from the social issues, but with a country that is three-quarters Christian, is just makes sense to hammer away on these issues.  The trick is not deciding whether or not to talk about the social issues, but discovering how best to fashion our arguments.
            Rule number four: Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules.
Alinsky explains, “You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity.”
            This is a common tactic used by the statists, especially when it comes to battling the social issues.
            We need to be pointing out when anti-gun advocates are arrested for illegal gun smuggling, tax cheats advocate for higher taxes, and climate change defenders fly in big jets, drive fossil fuel burning cars, or live in homes that have larger carbon footprints than most industrial cities.
            Rule number five: Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.
            Ridicule can be defeated by logic, and truth.
            A liberal left homosexual used to frequently comment on my blog, Political Pistachio.  He would pick apart my writing, make fun of my mistakes if I made any, and would ridicule me as much as possible.  Knowing that I am a Christian, he would also try to pick apart my writing by questioning my Christian values.  Usually, logic, statistics, and appropriate Bible verses worked wonders against his attacks.  Nonetheless, statists are determined creatures, and the attacks became so ferocious that I began to do what I could to block him from commenting on my site.  His day job involves computers, and he would always find a way around my attempts to block him.  The attacks against my “book of rules,” and attempts to “ridicule me into silence” didn’t stop until his boyfriend died, and the grief drove him from participating in the blogging community.
            The difficulty with rules four and five, as provided by Saul Alinsky, is that “conservatives” do not know how to turn these tactics around and against the statists.  We are moral people by nature, and so we cannot bring ourselves to fight dirty like the statists do.  So, we continue to bring knives to a gun fight, and then wonder why we keep losing.
            Every human being has a weakness, a book of rules of their own, and like us, they cannot be one hundred percent in line with their book of rules at all times.  We simply need to discover what those rules are, and pay attention so that we can call them out for betraying those rules.
            This goes back to my statement a few chapters ago about how the death of Lavoy Finicum was an opportunity wasted for our side.  The statists claim to be peace-loving, but they shot a man dead because he dared to oppose them.  The continuous accusations of “murderers” and “freedom killers” should have been so loud that the public sat up and took notice.  How is it that the liberal left is so successful in doing this, and we are not?  We say all of the time that we need to learn how to use their own rules against them, but when the opportunity arises, our good nature holds us back because we don’t want to hurt anyone’s feelings.  We cower when we should be on the offensive.
            When I was younger, I did not like to fist fight, but if the other person was intent on hurting me, the rules went out the window.  They had to, for the sake of survival.  For us, logic and truth usually prevails – if we are willing to wield those weapons.
            Rule number six: A good tactic is one that your people enjoy.
            The difference between the statists and the constitutionalists is that they enjoy destruction, deception, and being agitators.  The “conservative” minded people are not fond of these kinds of tactics.  But, that does not mean that Alinsky’s rule number six cannot be taken advantage of.  Why can’t we be creative?  I hold Constitution Classes at a gun shop.  What about fundraisers at gun ranges?  One time a group I am associated with went to a Ted Nugent concert.  Some of the more elderly members of the group weren’t so sure about if they enjoyed it by the time it ended, but it was definitely a great chance for us to spend time together.
On Constitution Day my group will have a picnic at the Independence Hall replica at Knott’s Berry Farm in Buena Park, California.  It’s a great way to get out the message, and an opportunity to reach out to curious onlookers.
Tea Party rallies have been among the most enjoyable events I have attended, as well.  Standing up to city council members with the force of many members of my group behind me is something I enjoy.  Standing against statism can be enjoyable, and it is those enjoyable events that keep us focused, and coming back for more.
            Among the most enjoyable was a situation regarding an underground bunker in the City of Menifee, California.  A resident with about an acre and a half of land decided he wanted to build an underground bunker.  He said it was for the safety of his family.  Considering that Southern Californians constantly live in fear of the next big earthquake, and at the time the San Onofre nuclear power plant was still active, it made all of the sense in the world.  The bunker was not going to just be a cement box covered with dirt and grass, either.  This bunker was going to be an engineered living space equipped with bedroom, living facilities, and much more.
            As a good citizen, the landowner went to the city to get his permits, and it turned out that there were no ordinances on the books regarding underground bunkers.  So, the resident was required to make a request directly to the city council.  When he went before the council, one of the members was missing, and the four in attendance said, “No.”  They accused him of being some kind of survivalist, or wanting the bunker to hide guns, or molest little boys.
            Word got back to me about the situation from the company who had been hired to build the bunker.  The local business, at the time, was an advertiser on my radio show, as well.  So, I told them to send out emails, have the landowner do the same, and I would also do so, that we were going to swarm the city council at the next meeting and demand they reconsider.  Faced with large numbers, they would like give in and do was we say.
            As I drove to the location after work the day of the city council meeting, I was imagining in my mind fifty citizens standing firm in support of the property owner, demanding that he be allowed to build his bunker.  When I got to the location, the number was at least double that, with the auditorium, lobby, and nearby parking lot packed with supporters of the man who wanted to build an underground bunker.
            A number of people, including myself, gave our presentations to the council during public comments, and the arrogance of the councilmembers was no longer present.  The councilman who had been missing from the previous meeting motioned that they revisit the issue, and it was on the agenda for the next meeting – at which they voted to allow the man to build his bunker.
            That was a tactic I enjoyed, as did everyone else that was present.  Making a difference, and standing up against tyranny has a special enjoyment that goes with it.
            Rule number seven: A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.
The various meats and vegetables on the table at the feast must always be changing.  New crises and new opportunities to stand against statism must always be sought out.  If a group becomes nothing more than a club that meets, eats, and complains, they lose their effectiveness.  If new challenges are constantly arising, and new opportunities are being sought out, the warriors remain interested, and fresh.
Rule number eight: Keep the pressure on with different tactics and actions, and utilize all events of the period for your purpose.
Remember the candidate who strategically placed his flyers and signs where the opposition would see them?  If we keep the pressure on, and are constantly at various events, gatherings, and media opportunities, the same nervousness is planted.  “They’re everywhere,” will become a common exclamation of fear.  Keep the pressure on, and you keep them guessing.  We want them to worry, we want them to think we are coming for them, and by keeping the pressure on, the statists will begin to believe we are bigger than we are – and as a result we will become bigger than we are.
Unfortunately, conservatives fail on this one all of the time.  We ease up when we should push harder, or when the liberal left attacks back, we get offended, and let it go.
Rule number nine: The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.
This is why the republicans continuously fold under the threat of a government shutdown.  They know the threat, and so they shy away from the action.  You know how it goes.  If the GOP causes a government shutdown, the republicans get blamed for it.  If the democrats causes a government shutdown, the republicans still get blamed for it.  So, the Right shies away from confrontation because the threat of the consequences by the democrats is enough to scare the conservatives away from it.  Until we match leftist tactics with our own, and are willing to throw down with them when they pull their garbage, we will continue to be beaten.  Rather than cower in the corner, it is time to match them blow by blow.  It is time to set aside being well-behaved, every once in a while, and make some noise.  I am not talking about burning down bridges, but I am suggesting that we learn to rattle bridges, and shake bushes.  We may be surprised by how many frightened liberal left rabbits come running out, and away.
Rule number ten: The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.
Unceasing pressure is essential to the success of our efforts.  I suppose you could call it a game of political chicken, but we also have to remember that to every action there is a reaction – and if we can get the statists to react foolishly, it will be a point in our favor.  But, even then, the constant pressure must remain, causing them to react, and react, and react, until finally they either give in, or move in our direction.
The pressure must be applied through every outlet possible; internet, social media, radio, television, print ads, letters to the editor, and so on and so forth.  Eventually, even the uninformed will begin to take notice.
Rule number eleven: If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counterside.
Alinsky says that every positive has its negative, and I suppose the opposite could also be true.  Slinging mud is effective, and as in chess, you must go on the offense to win.  The problem is, conservatives spend more time refuting attacks, and going after their own for stepping out of line, that we never go on offense.  If we are playing defense all of the time, in the end, we will lose to a check-mate.  Sure, we have to defend sometimes, but we should be attacking relentlessly.
Rule number twelve: The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.
Republicans believe this means they must always have a replacement ready for liberal left policies.  Often, the constructive alternative is not another big government policy, but repeal, and then working back towards constitutional limits and State sovereignty.
The Affordable Care Act is a great example, here.  The rallying cry of the Republican Party regarding Obamacare has been “repeal and replace.”  After all, they will tell us, we have to have a “constructive alternative.”  From a constitutional viewpoint, replacing an unconstitutional federal intrusion into health care with a different unconstitutional federal intrusion into health care just doesn’t seem constructive, as an alternative.  The alternative, in the case of the Affordable Care Act should be “less federal government interference,” and a stronger patient/provider relationship.
Rule number thirteen: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.
Polarization comes easy for collectivists and statists.  They have a good portion of the population believing that anything right-of-center is automatically racist, sexist, against the poor, and in the pockets of the wealthy.  The reality is, the opposite is true.  The Right, however, seems to have a problem polarizing the Democrats.  Why not point out how the Democrat Party is hostile towards Christianity, military veterans, southerners, success, entrepreneurs, and whites?  Why didn’t we spend more time polarizing the Democrats of struggling over whether or not to keep God on their platform, or Michelle Obama’s exclamation about how she was proud of the country for the first time in her life because it looked like Barry was going to win?  We seem to recognize the target, but we can’t seem to freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.
We tend to be too nice to fight.  That has got to stop.
These tactics we discussed are simply ones provided by Saul Alinsky in his book, Rules for Radicals.  How many other tactics can we create to achieve victory?
Tactics without action are meaningless.  Sitting on the couch complaining is not an effective strategy.  And out tactics cannot be simply defensive in nature.  As we engage the enemy in this fight, we must be on the offense.  We must take the fight to them, and use their own tactics against them.
Tactics change with the calendar.  When Alinsky wrote Rules for Radicals, he had no idea regarding the technology that was on the horizon.  Twitter and Texting were definitely not words they were using fifty years ago.  So, while Alinsky’s list is a good one, and something we can use to plan our resistance against statism, we must be creative enough to come up with our own, as well.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Thursday, August 25, 2016

Federal Supremacy: Temecula Constitution Class



After a long day yesterday, I have been down and out in recovery mode. . .

However, after a day of silence on the website, I will be teaching tonight in Temecula:

We are taught by the academics and the politicians that government has a hierarchy. All federal laws supersede all State laws. All State laws supersede all county and city laws. According to the Constitution, that is not necessarily true. . .
Temecula Constitution Class:
Article VI. - Federal Supremacy

Tonight at 6:30 pm the Temecula Constitution Class will be meeting at Faith Armory, 41669 Winchester Road just on the west side of Jefferson Ave.
Constitution Class Handout
Instructor: Douglas V. Gibbs
douglasvgibbs@reagan.com

www.politicalpistachio.com
www.douglasvgibbs.com
www.constitutionassociation.com


Lesson 11

Debt and Supremacy

Prior Debt

Article VI begins with "All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation."

The first clause of Article VI legally transfers all debts and engagements under the Articles of Confederation into the new government. This is not only the debts and engagements by the United States Government under the Articles of Confederation, but also includes all debts of each of the several States. After ratification of the Constitution, each and every State would be debt free, and all debt would be held by the federal government. This condition, according to the Constitution, would be the last time the States would legally be in debt. In Article I, Section 10, the Constitution forbids the States from issuing bills of credit.

Alexander Hamilton, the first Treasury Secretary, suggested that the United States should remain in perpetual debt. Maintaining a perpetual debt, he explained, would be a mechanism that could assist in holding together the union, since States would be unlikely to secede when they are responsible for a part of the national debt.

Thomas Jefferson disagreed with Hamilton. He recognized the necessity to maintain the ability to borrow, and the need for credit, but found a national debt to be a potentially dangerous proposition.

"Though much an enemy to the system of borrowing, yet I feel strongly the necessity of preserving the power to borrow. Without this, we might be overwhelmed by another nation, merely by the force of its credit." -- Thomas Jefferson to the Commissioners of the Treasury, 1788.

"I am anxious about everything which may affect our credit. My wish would be, to possess it in the highest degree, but to use it little. Were we without credit, we might be crushed by a nation of much inferior resources, but possessing higher credit." -- Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1788.

"Though I am an enemy to the using our credit but under absolute necessity, yet the possessing a good credit I consider as indispensable in the present system of carrying on war. The existence of a nation having no credit is always precarious." -- Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1788.

"I wish it were possible to obtain a single amendment to our Constitution. I would be willing to depend on that alone for the reduction of the administration of our government; I mean an additional article taking from the Federal Government the power of borrowing. I now deny their power of making paper money or anything else a legal tender. I know that to pay all proper expenses within the year would, in case of war, be hard on us. But not so hard as ten wars instead of one. For wars could be reduced in that proportion; besides that the State governments would be free to lend their credit in borrowing quotas." -- Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1798.

"I sincerely believe... that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity under the name of funding is but swindling futurity on a large scale." -- Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816.

"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks...will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.... The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs." -- Thomas Jefferson in the debate over the Re-charter of the Bank Bill (1809)

"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies." -- Thomas Jefferson

"... The modern theory of the perpetuation of debt has drenched the earth with blood, and crushed its inhabitants under burdens ever accumulating." -- Thomas Jefferson



The Supremacy Clause

Article VI, Clause 2: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

Perhaps one of the most misunderstood and misapplied clauses of the U.S. Constitution, the Supremacy Clause has been used in line with the concept of Federal Supremacy. Federal Supremacy is a concept our first Chief Justice, John Jay, believed in. During his stint on the Supreme Court Jay worked feverously to establish broader powers for the courts, and to transform the federal government into a national government. He quit the Supreme Court after failing, pursuing an opportunity to be governor of New York.

Chief Justice John Marshall spent his 36 years on the Supreme Court attempting to establish, and expand federal supremacy, and largely succeeded. Marshall is embraced by statists as the one to develop federal supremacy in his opinion of the Mcculloch v. Maryland case in 1819 where the Court invalidated a Maryland law that taxed all banks in the State, including a branch of Alexander Hamilton's creation, the national Bank of the United States. Marshall held that although none of the enumerated powers of Congress explicitly authorized the incorporation of the national bank, the Necessary and Proper Clause provided the basis for Congress's action. Marshall concluded that "the government of the Union, though limited in its power, is supreme within its sphere of action."

During the 1930s, under Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the Court invoked the Supremacy Clause to give the federal government broader national power. The federal government cannot involuntarily be subjected to the laws of any state, they proclaimed, and is therefore supreme in all laws and actions.

The legally, and commonly, accepted definition, as a result of the courts and the persistence of, regarding the Supremacy Clause, is that all federal laws supersede all State laws.

The commonly understood definition of the Supremacy Clause is in error. To understand the true meaning of this clause, one must pay close attention to the language used.

If the federal government has a law on the books, and the law was made under the authorities granted by the States in the United States Constitution, and a state, or city, passes a law that contradicts that constitutional federal law, the federal government's law is supreme based on The Supremacy Clause. However, if the federal law is unconstitutional because it was made outside constitutional authority, it is an illegal law, and therefore is not supreme over similar State laws.

An example of the federal government acting upon the assumption that all federal law is supreme over State law is when the medical marijuana laws emerged in California in 1996 after the passage of Proposition 215. Though I do not necessarily agree with the legalization of the casual recreational use of marijuana, and believe "weed" should be heavily regulated like any other pharmaceutical drug if being used for medicinal purposes, the actual constitutional legality of the issue illustrates my point quite well.

California's law legalizing marijuana for medicinal purposes was contrary to all federal law that identified marijuana as being illegal in all applications. Using the commonly accepted authority of the federal government based on their definition of the Supremacy Clause, federal agents began raiding and shutting down medical marijuana labs in California. However, there is no place in the U.S. Constitution that gives the federal government the authority to regulate drugs, nor has there been an amendment passed to grant that authority to the federal government. From a constitutional point of view, then, the raids on medical Marijuana labs in California were unconstitutional actions by the federal government.

The Supremacy Clause applies only to federal laws that are constitutionally authorized. Therefore, federal drug laws are unconstitutional. As a result, California's medical marijuana laws are constitutional because they are not contrary to any constitutionally authorized federal laws.

Language plays an important part in the Constitution, and The Supremacy Clause is no different. The clause indicates that State laws cannot be contrary to constitutionally authorized federal laws. For example, Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 states that it is the job of the U.S. Congress to establish an uniform rule of naturalization. The word "uniform" means that the rules for naturalization must apply to all immigrants, and to all states, in the same way. If a state was to then pass a law that granted citizenship through the naturalization process in a way not consistent with federal law, the State would be guilty of violating the Supremacy Clause.

In the case of Arizona's immigration law, S.B. 1070 in 2010, the argument by the federal government that Arizona's law is contrary to federal law was an erroneous argument. Assuming, for just a moment, that the federal government has complete authority over immigration (which is not true since immigration is one of those issues in which the federal government and the States have concurrent powers), Arizona's law would then need to be identical to federal law. And in most ways, the Arizona law was similar to federal immigration law. The only difference was that Arizona's law disallowed racial profiling.

The federal government's argument when the United States Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against the state of Arizona in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona on July 6, 2010, was that the law must be declared invalid because it interfered with the immigration regulations exclusively vested in the federal government. Therefore, a State cannot enforce immigrations laws if the federal government decides not to, nor can a State pass law regarding an issue that the federal government has sole authority over. In this way, Arizona was considered to be acting "contrary" to the federal government.

Article I, Section 9, Clause 1, and Article I, Section 10 in the final clause, provides that States hold concurrent authorities regarding immigration, and securing the border. Therefore, the federal government's argument that they held sole authority over the issue was in error.

Eric Holder, when he filed the lawsuit in the U.S. District Court also acted unconstitutionally because in Article III, Section 2, the Constitution states that all cases "in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction." Since the case was the United States v. Arizona, the case, constitutionally, could only be filed with the United States Supreme Court.

The language in Article VI, Clause 2 reveals clearly that only laws made under the authorities granted to the federal government have supremacy. Article VI, Clause 2 reads, "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

The clause establishes three things as being potentially the supreme law of the land. First, "This Constitution." Second, "Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof." And Third, all Treaties made, or which shall be made."

"This Constitution" is the supreme law of the land. Understanding that first part of the clause is easy.

The second one has a condition attached to it. "Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof."

In pursuance thereof? In pursuance of what?

Of "This Constitution."

Therefore, if a law is not made "in pursuance" of "This Constitution," then the law is an illegal law, and cannot possibly be the supreme law of the land. Unconstitutional laws are not the supreme law of the land, which reveals that all federal laws are not the supreme law of the land. Illegal law made outside the authorities granted by the Constitution of the United States cannot legally be the supreme law of the land.

After "pursuance thereof" in the clause, a semicolon is used. The semicolon separates "Treaties" from the "Laws of the United States." The separation by the semicolon means that "in pursuance thereof" applies to "Laws of the United States," but not to "Treaties." This means that treaties not in line with the principles of the Constitution can be accepted as the supreme law of the land.

The concern over treaties was not great, because the Senate was the voice of the States, and the States are the final arbiters of the Constitution. If the States are willing to ratify what would be considered an unconstitutional treaty, they must be given the chance. Therefore, "in pursuance thereof" does not apply to treaties.

The importance of this part of the Supremacy Clause revealed itself during Jefferson's Louisiana Purchase in 1803. As discussed in Article I, Section 8, Clause 17, the federal government does not have the authority to buy or own land unless it is purchased from a State, by the consent of the State legislature, for the purpose of needful buildings. The details of the Louisiana Purchase did not fit Article I, Section 8, Clause 17's requirement. To get around that, President Thomas Jefferson negotiated the Louisiana Purchase with France through treaties. Since treaties were ratified by the States through the Senate, it kept the States involved in the process, and made the purchase the law of the land even though technically it was not constitutional.

Oath or Affirmation to Support This Constitution

Article VI, Clause 3 indicates that all elected officials are bound to support the Constitution by oath or affirmation. An oath is to God, and an affirmation is not a sworn oath to God. This was offered because the Founding Fathers recognized that not everyone believed in God, and that there were some religions that believed swearing to God to be a sin.

The final clause of Article VI also states that there shall be no religious test to serve. This was not the case inside the States. This was a provision only required of the federal government. At the State level, established churches, and religious tests were the norm. The Danbury Baptists in Connecticut appealed to President Jefferson because they felt they were being mistreated by the Puritans. The Baptists felt they were being treated like second class citizens in a State dominated by the Puritan Church. Jefferson replied that the federal government could not help them. It was a State issue.

Alexis de Tocqueville observed when he visited the United Sates in the 1830s that religious freedom had truly come to The States. In America, the politicians prayed, and the pastors preached politics, yet neither controlled the other. He concluded America's greatness was a result of the good in America, coining the term American Exceptionalism.

Terms:
Concurrent Powers - Government powers shared by the State and the federal government.

Exceptionalism - The condition of being exceptional or unique; the theory or belief that something, especially a nation, does not conform to a pattern or norm.

National Bank - In the United States, a bank chartered by the federal government authorized to issue notes that serve as currency; a bank owned and administered by the government, as in some European countries.

Oath - A solemn sworn declaration, or promise, to a deity (God), to fulfill a pledge.

Supremacy Clause - Clause in the Constitution that indicates that all federal laws, and treaties, passed under the authorities granted by the Constitution, are the Supreme Law of the Land

Questions for Discussion:
1. What was the common opinion by the Founding Fathers regarding a perpetual national debt?

2. What limitations on national debt did the Framers of the United States Constitution consider?

3. It is a common belief in today's society that all federal laws are supreme to all State and municipal laws. Why is this belief wrong?

4. How does the Supremacy Clause enable Nullification?

5. Why does the Constitution offer the opportunity for both oaths, and affirmations?

Resources:


John Taylor, New Views of the Constitution of the United States; Washington City: By Way and Gideon
(1823)

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).

Madison's Notes Constitutional Convention, Avalon Project, Yale
University: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/debcont.asp

Philip B. Kurland and Ralph Lerner, The Founder's Constitution -
Volume Four - Article I I, Section 8, Clause 5 to Article VII; Indianapolis: Liberty Fund (1987)

Sam Cornell, The Other Founders: Anti-Federalism and the
Dissenting Tradition in America, 1788-1828; Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press (1999)

Copyright: Douglas V. Gibbs, 2015

Learn More About Douglas V. Gibbs












Wednesday, August 24, 2016

Pamela Geller on Daily Ledger. . . Muslim Refugees and Terrorism

By Douglas V. Gibbs
AuthorSpeakerInstructorRadio Host

Okay, he calls her "Pam" at one point.  She's "Pamela."  Otherwise, great video.  Some of what she said on the Daily Ledger she also said last Sunday at the American Freedom Alliance event I attended.



-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Biased Schools

By Douglas V. Gibbs

According to Fox News, a Pennsylvania political science professor, Gettysburg College Prof. Kathleen Iannello, says she will not even try to treat Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton and GOP choice Trump equally because, in her mind, Trump is a “lightning rod for promoting further hate.”

Further hate?  How?  It seems to me I never heard the media, or anyone else, call Trump racist or a hate-monger until he decided to run against Democrats.

What has he said that is racist or hateful?  That we should enforce immigration laws (though, he did say recently he is considering a softening of those laws which does make me nervous. Does he think he must move to the center to win?  That's what killed the last two GOP candidates for President. . . the strong words and stances is what got him where he is at), or that we should ban Muslims from coming into the country because we can't tell the good from the terrorists?  That's not racism. That's national security.

When asked by The College Fix if her stance would be fair to students who might not share her politics, Iannello said it would.

“I can assure you that all students will have a voice in my classes,” she told the site.

Really?  With her statement about Trump, I doubt it.

"Sure," I am sure she is thinking, "be honest about your politics.  I dare you."

“Professor Iannello means well and is a decent teacher, but she preaches her liberal propaganda way too much in class,” read a 2008 entry on Ratemyprofessor.com, adding, “she is not open to new ideas and is very closed-minded on her beliefs.”

Other entries described her as “intimidating if you lean right” and a person who gives “conservatives a hard time.” “If you’re a right-winger, be prepared to walk into a brick wall whenever you enter the classroom,” one review states.

That's not the only garbage going on at our campuses.  The College Fix has a whole slew of shocking stories. . . 

Public university hosts blacks-only student retreat – to promote inclusion

WHITE PRIVILEGEAccused of being Eurocentric, Roger Williams U. hires social justice expert to help lead campus

Princeton HR department: Don’t use word ‘man’

Public university to host whites-only student retreat on ‘white privilege’

Latino students booted from online support groups for expressing conservative views

Just to name a few.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Hillary: Corrupt and Pathological Liar

By Douglas V. Gibbs
AuthorSpeakerInstructorRadio Host

On September 8 Trevor Loudon will be revealing his film, "The Enemies Within."  I've seen a pre-screening of it.  It's tremendous, and will shock you.

His film, however, isn't the only video recognizing the corruption and lies of Hillary Clinton.

How about this one:



Or how about the one that shows Hillary, and the Democrats, truly want to confiscate all guns?




Alex Jones doubles down proving Hillary seeks a total gun ban . . .






Or how about all of this?

AP BOMBSHELL ROCKS CAMPAIGN

STATE FOR SALE

Trump hammers Clinton for 'Third World'- style corruption...

RALLY AUSTIN, TX...

Hillary & Huma: Many Troubling Questions...

Influence Peddling, Corruption...


FLASHBACK: 'Foundation' donors include dozens of media organizations, individuals...

Feds Stonewalled Blockbuster AP Report For 3 Years...

Huma's private jet journey...

Hillary Clinton is bad for America.  Vote your conscience.  Vote Logically.  Vote for the candidate that does not want to destroy the U.S. Constitution.

Trump.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

The Shock Polls Media Doesn't Want American Voters To See

By Capt Joseph R. John, August 22, 2016

The below listed UCLA/LA Times poll, which began on July 4, 2016, the results of which is the type of information that the left of center liberal media establishment doesn’t want American voters to see.  That poll reveals the naked truth about the true standing of the presidential race between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. 

In that poll, Hillary is losing despite the fact that her campaign has been spending hundreds of millions of dollars on TV ads attacking Donald Trump in key battle ground states; in this particular poll Donald Trump has a 2% lead over Hillary (he is not losing by between 8-10% reported daily by the liberal press).  Donald Trump has not spent one cent on TV ads in key battleground states. The dishonest left of center liberal media establishment has consistently refused to report the results of the below listed poll to the American voters, ever since July 4, 2016. 
Donald Trump’s support from Black Americans rose to 12.8%, and his support from Hispanic Americans rose to 36.5%---more of a percentage of support by minorities than either Mitt Romney or John McCain received during their respective presidential bids.  At this same period in August 1988 in the Vice President George Bush versus Gov Michael Dukakis presidential race, Vice President Bush was down by 16 percent, but he subsequently won the election in November with 53% of the vote. 
The Republican Political Ruling Class has been violating President Reagan’s rule, “Do not to speak ill of another Republican”, their vocal criticism lays bare their fear that if Donald Trump is elected, he would destroy their cozy relationship with the Democrat Political Ruling Class, and with K Street lobbyists, who have been betraying the American people for the last 8 years---Washington DC needs a wrecking ball to shatter the rampant corruption.

The American liberal press, TV Networks, Hollywood leftists, and a relatively small, but vocal, number of Never Trump Republicans, by repeatedly attacking
Donald Trump, continue to violate President Reagan’s rule, are actually supporting Hillary’s election, by trying to undercut Mr Trump’s appeal. 

The press continues to cover up, every one of Hillary repeated violations of National Security Regulations over a 4 year period, where over 1000 classified messages were transmitted on a unclassified server; over the years enlisted military personnel, who didn’t have the support of a dishonest Attorney General protecting them, went to jail for violating National Security Regulations for, in some cases, for violating rules for just one classified message-----not for destroying 33,000 messages. 

The press has been covering up Hillary’s illegal destruction of 33,000 messages that were transmitted on her unauthorized unclassified server in her home, that foreign governments and WikiLeaks have hacked—some of those ,messages are so highly classified that the Congress and the American people will never know what was in them. 

For 4 years the dishonest press has covered up Hillary’s personal responsibility for refusing to provide adequate security for the US Mission in Benghazi, despite the fact that the US Ambassador pleaded directly to Hillary, 6 times, for adequate security saying his life was being targeted.  Hillary’s repeated refusals, led directly to the death of 4 Americans in Benghazi.  Then she flagrantly lied to the nation and to the families of those 4 dead Americans by saying, a u-tube was responsible for a demonstration that went bad, when she knew the attack on the US Mission was a planned commando attack by over 125 Radical Islamic Terrorists. 

The most damaging action against the United States that Hillary took, while she was Secretary of State, was to provide her signature approval to give Putin’s Russian Nuclear Energy Agencies control of an America company, Uranium One, and with it, 20% of all of the United States Uranium reserves.  

While she was Secretary of State, Hillary’s criminal money laundering operation, funneling hundreds of millions of dollars in donations from foreign government and foreign companies into a Canadian off shore bank; some of those funds were subsequently funneled into the Clinton Foundation US accounts; it was reported that only 4% of those funds ever went to charities.

If Hillary were ever elected, she professes on the stump, that she would continue Obama’s destructive and anti-American policies – the same disastrous policies that have brought in over 900,000 Muslim refugees from the Middle East and resettled them in 185 cities without letting the FBI vet them to determine if they have terrorist ties, would continue Obama’s tax and spend policies that are aimed at destroying the Free Enterprise System that built the most effective economic engine in the history of mankind, increased the threat of terrorism in the homeland where there have already been 86 terrorist attacks by Radical Islamic Terrorist on Obama’s watch that the press continues to covers up, where the FBI now has over 1000 ISIS terrorist investigations underway in all 50 states, continue to use Common Core to force feed Socialism into the fabric of the education of our youth in undergraduate education, continue the division and murderous conflict along racial lines that America hasn’t seen since the early 1950s, maintain a constant flood of illegal aliens to enter the US thru the wide open southern border, and bring in hundreds of thousands of unassimilable Muslim refugees into the American homeland from the most radical places on earth.

The Republican leadership in Congress, by their legislative action and failure to act, have revealed their true colors over the last 8 years.  They’ve demonstrated that they are only doing what is in their best interest, not what is in the best interest off the American people.  They have voted to allow the national debt to rise $20 trillion, sat on their hands while Obama hallowed out the US military, provided federal funding for over 300 lawless sanctuary cities that disobey federal laws,  refused to use the power of the purse to stop Obama’s lawless immigrations policies, allowed the Department of Health and Human Services to threaten to withhold education funding to all 50 states if they don’t employ their Common Core Curriculum to indoctrinate America’s youth in Socialism, and for 8 years have refused to pass legislature to close the wide open southern border thru which drugs, illegal aliens, and terrorist freely enter. 

For 8 years the Republican leadership in congress has not only betrayed the Republicans who put them in office, they repeatedly betrayed the Republican Conservative Caucus in Congress by working against them, and side with Democrats on the other side of the isle, in order to frustrate hundreds of Conservative Congressmen, to pass legislature that is not in the best interest of the American Free Enterprise System, nor in the best interest of American citizens. 

The Republican Party will never be the same after this election, and Senator Ted Cruz, Senator Lindsey Graham, Gov John Kasich, Gov Jeb Bush, and Gov Mitt Romney have forever destroyed any presidential ambitions they may still have.


Copyright 2016, Capt. Joseph R. John. All Rights Reserved. This material can only be 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 permission from the author   Joseph R. John, USNA ‘62
Capt     USN(Ret)/Former FBI
Chairman, Combat Veterans For Congress PAC
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
______________________________________________

Obama to Louisiana Flood Victims: Don't be Racist

By Douglas V. Gibbs
AuthorSpeakerInstructorRadio Host

The photo-op President visited Louisiana posing for photographs more than spreading reassurance. At one point, he told the flood victims he’s watching to make sure city and State officials don’t engage in racial discrimination.

Radio Host Mark Levin called the "guidance" proposed by President Obama, "perverse" and "sick."

The proposal was offered in a 16-page guidance issued Tuesday by the Obama administration and the Justice Department.

“Like these people are sitting by their computers and reading this crap!” Levin exclaimed. “Or opening their mailbox — they’re not getting mail! They’re drowning!”

This “phony” president must not be observing what’s going on in Louisiana, Levin said, “where whites are saving blacks and blacks are saving whites. Because that’s what Americans do!”

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Tuesday, August 23, 2016

Major Earthquake Slams Italy

By Douglas V. Gibbs
AuthorSpeakerInstructorRadio Host

An early morning earthquake originally measuring 6.4, but was downgraded to a 6.2 magnitude, has slammed central Italy.  Reports say six are dead.  Though it hit lightly populated areas, the damage was extensive.  Witnesses say that many people are trapped under rubble, and in the small town of Amatrice, half the town has been destroyed.

Television stations showed images of rubble-strewn streets in a number of towns. The facades of some old stone buildings had collapsed, leaving the inside rooms exposed.

Residents of Rome, 105 miles away from the epicenter, were woken by the quake, which rattled furniture and swayed lights in most of central Italy.

There were 17 aftershocks in the three hours following the initial quake, the strongest measuring 5.5, the Italian seismic.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Reminder: No Corona Constitution Class tonight

We will be back next week...

Clinton Foundation Money as Hillary Served as Secretary of State

By Douglas V. Gibbs
AuthorSpeakerInstructorRadio Host

Surprisingly, the Associated Press has this story.

Here's the first couple paragraphs. . .

More than half the people outside the government who met with Hillary Clinton while she was secretary of state gave money - either personally or through companies or groups - to the Clinton Foundation. It's an extraordinary proportion indicating her possible ethics challenges if elected president.

At least 85 of 154 people from private interests who met or had phone conversations scheduled with Clinton while she led the State Department donated to her family charity or pledged commitments to its international programs, according to a review of State Department calendars released so far to The Associated Press. Combined, the 85 donors contributed as much as $156 million. At least 40 donated more than $100,000 each, and 20 gave more than $1 million.

Finish Reading Here

They do try to scrub it all clean with statements about how it "technically" wasn't illegal, but, well, you know, the Hillary Clinton corruption runs deep.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

A Conversation with Never-Trump

By Douglas V. Gibbs
AuthorSpeakerInstructorRadio Host

JASmius is a friend who used to write daily on Political Pistachio, and co-hosted my radio programs with me.  After he decided to become "Never Trump" and I believed he was writing on my website leftist-style hit pieces against the Republican Candidate for President of the United States in 2016 (which was being seen as a reflection of my position on the issue) we mutually ended the writing and radio relationships.  My advice to him was that he could write about his disdain for Mr. Trump, but I wanted it written with journalistic integrity that he felt would betray his position and force him to sugarcoat his disdain for the GOP Candidate.

Since the separation I have left all of his posts on my website, and have tried to say little or nothing about the "falling out."  However, after writing a piece on his new website challenging my notions about the split, and poking at me a little on Facebook, the conversation about if to be Never Trump, or not to be Never Trump, has emerged once again.  So, when asked about my stance on a piece that appeared on Laura Ingraham's site, recently, I responded.

Perhaps Mr. JASmius has gotten bored.

Here's the exchange:


Douglas V. Gibbs Politics is the art of the possible, right? Ingraham's team misses the point, as does never trumpers. Hillary, as Rumsfield would say, is a known known. Her destructive policies are in collusion with the Muslim Brotherhood, Saudi Arabia, the Democratic Socialists of America and Communist Party USA. The body count is rising and people have noticed the Left's mafia-style activities. Time is running out for the leftists. Trump, while far short of what I would desire in a candidate, reminds me of the mule in Asimov's Foundation series... Not in the sense of being a tyrant, but in the sense of being a disrupter that was not planned for in the calculations. Obama and Hillary are manifestations of a carefully planned plot that may be disrupted by what Pamela Geller calls a brass-knuckle fighter. Mr. Trump may not be my first choice when it comes to constitutional integrity, but in comparison to Hillary Clinton who seeks to decimate the Constitution, he is.
LikeReply111 hrsEdited
Jim Sondergeld "Politics is the art of the possible"? THAT's all you can say to one of Trump's biggest boosters taking a big, Hillaryesque Cleveland steamer on constitutional originalism and the closest thing in the GOP to a hardcore champion of it - and, ultimately, you, or at least the man you used to be? No, my friend, it is you who are missing the point, because you've heaved it overboard undercover of a fusillade of contrived Hillaryphobia - contrived because I know that, deep-down, you know that Trump is just as bad as she is, but the Trumplicanism of your students in which you're marinating has clouded your judgment.
LikeReply2 hrsEdited
Jim Sondergeld Three questions: (1) Is there anything Trump could do to disearn your "benefit of the doubt"? (2) What would that be? and (3) How has he possibly not done it already? Heck, he's already guaranteeing Hillary's election.
LikeReply3 hrsEdited
Douglas V. Gibbs You see the election as Satan vs. a clone of Satan. Perhaps Persephone vs. Hades would be more accurate. I see it as a woman who is Stalin, Lenin, Alinsky, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, and the Star Wars Galactic Emperor all rolled into one versus a billionaire that is pissed off at the Democrats, perhaps he's even hurt by them because he thought they were deeper than ideology, and a guy who is slowly evolving politically and is realizing a conservative world out there he didn't even know existed... He's brash, talks before he thinks, hasn't really thought about many of the issues before... But he's seen a glimpse of what I know about the Clintons, Obama, and the machinery behind the Marxist Revolution being conducted by the Democrat Party. So, to get me to where you are regarding Trump, to answer your three questions, it would have to come out that he is in cahoots with them, a willing communist participant in the communist takeover of the United States of America. It is definitely something I would not put past the anti-America conspirators, but if Hillary Clinton wins, it's end-game, no matter who her opponent is. Done. She will have no problem wrapping it all up and doing the things people have feared Obama would do (martial law, reeducation camps, internment camps for her opposition, etc.). And with Supreme Court picks jumbling around in her pocket, the Constitutional republic will be no more. The Congress would become a voiceless and ignored advisory council, and every action by her would be considered constitutional by her obedient court system. The country would become a one party system, and the global communist apparatus would be all but fully in place. With Trump, no matter how infinitesimal the chance as you may believe, that he is an okay guy, or can win this election, we have a chance to avoid "end-game" ... for now. I never surrender, and refusing to vote for Trump is to surrender America into the hands of a more than century old enemy because I couldn't get over his lack of constitutionality. We've had two, maybe three, presidents since 1900 that had a fair grasp on the Constitution. I am not going to suddenly flip out that Trump has some constitutional deficiencies as the enemy stands at the doorway with their hand on the door knob. I think you underestimate the true danger Hillary represents. However, it's not too late. The red pill is still lying on the table, if you dare.
LikeReply1 hr
Jim Sondergeld In short, you're seeing what you want to see: a ridiculously exaggerated Mephostophelean caricature of Hillary Clinton and purblind, unadulterated wishcasting, utterly and completely unsupported by any evidence or proof, of Trump's non-existent "evolution", both of which you have to use to blind yourself to how much alike, and how completely unacceptable, both candidates are. And the irony, as always, is that Trump's mission, or at least effect, has always, from day one. been the discrediting of constitutional conservatism and the election of Hillary Clinton. And you won't even criticize a Trump flack's denigration of veneration for the Founding Document. "Sad" doesn't begin to describe it.
LikeReply1 hrEdited
Jim Sondergeld "If you ask me, Ingraham and Kozak, caught in their populist wave, have forgotten what it is to be a conservative. Individualism is the name of the game. The document that I do have a fondness for, I have have a fondness for because it protects me fromthe monstrosities that occur from overreaching powers, be they from an individual or a populist mob.

"We're not worshiping the constitution. It's a thing. Conservatives especially have much loved stories that warn us against worshiping "things." But what we are doing is standing by it as diligently as our imperfections allow, especially against men who love the idea of completely ignoring it."

LikeReply1 hr
Douglas V. Gibbs You remind me of the Time Magazine editors who made Adolf Hitler the Man of the Year. They believed him to be a "moderate" Nazi, a misunderstood man, and in no ways capable of what he was capable of and would eventually prove he was capable of. The story of Hillary Clinton, and the Democrat Party Machine as it is connected to communism, socialist organizations, and Muslim interests is well documented, but is disregarded by the establishment and the mainstream media as being a load of conspiratorial crap - because they are complicit. The system hasn't revealed who they are because they are the system. You have decided to listen to co-conspirators who are telling you there is no conspiracy as they participate in the cover-up of the conspiracy by telling you what they are telling you. Granted, some are just hapless fools who can't see the mountains of proof because they are too busy poking at Trump's anthill. And I totally get the danger of "populism" as the left has labeled Trump's rise. We are not a democracy, but we seem to have forgotten how to act like a republic. Populism is dangerous, or can be. Modernism and populism combined to give us the fascists of the early twentieth century. I get it. We must keep the republic, and not focus on keeping some kind of suicidal democracy. Yes, true, all of it. Keeping the republic takes work, and it will take steps that we may not have time for to reclaim the republic as we hope we can. Fact is, if Hillary gets elected, the clock runs out of time. The Marxist Revolution in America, of which the Clintons are a big part of, is all well supported by a mountain of evidence, and proof, that has emerged in the writings of a variety of people, and is still emerging as we communicate. In fact, I was happy to see that Trevor Loudon's film, "The Enemies Within" captures the details of the construction of the Marxist Revolution in America quite well, revealing how the dots are connected, and who is really behind the Democrat Party push for power. Dinesh D'Souza is another voice who has been presenting evidence. We can go into Cleon Skouson's writings, Thomas J. DiLorenzo, A. Ralph Epperson, and existing records you can look up at your local library. The proof exists, and in fact the evidence of the Clinton Machine's communist and Muslim ties are presented quite well in the research by Trevor Loudon in his book, "The Enemies Within" (of which the film is named after). That all said, for me it is simple. Trump is a man who I am not sure would be a good President. I hope he would be, and as I saw Glenn Beck once say, if Trump turned out to be a good president, he'd be the first to apologize for his doubts. The reality and logic of it all, if we are willing to stop a moment and take a look, tells us that with Trump there is a chance to hold off, hold back, and maybe even disrupt the plans of the Marxist Revolution being waged in this country by the Democrat Party. Obama nearly killed this country. We have been set back a century, to a time before the conservative movement really got rolling. Hillary Clinton is something worse. Her connections, dealings and corruption is written plainly in large, bold words on the wall, and you tell me, "I can't be sure the writing is there, and I can't vote for Trump because he may have written 'Trump was here' on some corner that I can't see" as the writing continues to multiply in front of your face about who the Democrats have become, and what they want to do to this country. Then, on top of that, the one chance, no matter how slight it may be, to stick a monkey wrench in the works of what the Democrats have been working towards, Donald Trump, has become your target, instead. The enemy is standing in front of you, threatening to kill all that is near and dear to us, and you are foaming at the mouth with rage and leftist-style hit pieces against Trump. "Never Trump" means "Embrace Hillary". There is no third choice. It is one or the other. Complaining about it, and screaming that the two-party system sucks, or that we can't accept either of them, does not change the fact that it is one, or the other. To not make a choice is to choose Hillary. Simple. Trump may be a lot of things, but he is not the Mephostophelean caricature you make him out to be. Does he deserve criticism? Sure. He's far from perfect. But, I will take the less than perfect bumbling billionaire who is in the midst of an evolution as a political chess piece who actually loves this country and his family over the Marxist and Muslim connected traitor, Benghazi murderer, and pathological liar who holds disdain for this country, and is a part of an active Marxist Revolution to fundamentally change America forever. To me, the logic is obvious. Pick the guy who you may not be a fan of, who is probably not the best we could have, but overall is a good guy and loves this country, or a woman who is everything evil and detrimental to the U.S. Constitution and the liberty this nation was founded upon. And remember, you were the guy angry with the anti-Romney crowd last time because they didn't see him as a perfect candidate. Is that not a load of hypocrisy? Come on, man, you are smarter than this. Don't be a blind tool of the Marxist Revolution, believing all of the propaganda they have put out through the media, and the establishment. You are better than that. The Constitution is no more than ink and paper if we don't take a stand to defend it. . . and Hillary Clinton's aim is to utterly destroy it. A vote against her is a vote against a woman who hates the Constitution as it was originally written and intended. Trump may not be what we had hoped for as an opposition candidate, but to not vote for him is to vote for her. That is the unfortunate truth. She is so bad, the Democrats are so deeply connected with socialists, Marxists and Muslim organizations and nations (Loudon counts over a hundred in the House of Representatives and about twenty in the Senate who have direct ties to socialist and communist organizations) that to vote for her would literally be to vote for our own destruction, end-game, and would be literally a leaping forth along the final steps to the final spot on Tytler's Cycle. . . Bondage. We have become Godless, apathetic, complacent, and uninformed, and now in our current condition as a culture you wish to vote against the one last pebble of resistance against the woman who wishes to slam the final nail in the coffin of liberty home? Not I. To hopefully stumble and interrupt the Marxist Revolution, I must vote against Hillary Clinton. . . and that means a vote for Donald J. Trump.
LikeReplyJust now

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary