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

Friday, July 01, 2016

Yahoo! News Doubles Down on Leftist Racism Narrative

By Douglas V. Gibbs
AuthorSpeakerInstructorRadio Host

Talk about creative messaging.

The liberal left has convinced their uninformed automatons that all Republicans are racist, all conservatives are racist, all Trump supporters are racists, and all whites except non-liberal Democrat Party loyalists are racists.  They've received a lot of help with creative media coverage.  I saw one report on a local television station where they were discussing the violence at Trump rallies, of which nearly all of the violence has been caused by left-wing Democrat Party supporters (who, in many cases, were shipped in and paid), but the first video image was of a Trump supporter defending himself. . . however, creative editing made it look like the Trump supporter was the aggressor.  I had already seen the full video before the newscast, and picked up on the selective editing immediately.

Then, we've got Yahoo's news page I have a screenshot of up above.  Top-center, the biggest headline, is respected football coach Mike Ditka rejecting Trump's RNC invitation (and then in bold it says "joins growing list of athletes").  NFL athletes are mostly black, and we are led to believe that if the black athletes won't go, and Ditka has joined their ranks, it must be because Ditka doesn't want to be around all that racism.  And in case you don't pick up on that narrative, all of the rest of the headlines below it will lead you to the "racism" conclusion.

Then we have the four under Ditka, in a peculiar order.  "BET speech 'an attack on white people.'"  Stacey Dash made the accusation, but it must be false from the point of view of Yahoo's readers, because we know all white people are all racist. . . because right after the BET it says "Ku Klux Klan dreams of rising again."  Then, attached to the racism message Yahoo! is trying to support are two headlines of Trump.  No need to read them, because we all know Trump is racist, right?  Never mind that the left never considered him a racist until he decided to get into politics, and then run against Democrats.  But, just in case you do decide to read the headlines of the Trump stories, they read "Cities bill Trump for high-cost rallies," and "Trump makes awkward 'Mexican plane' joke."

Okay, with all of the racism already in front of us, the uninformed reader will figure the cities are billing Trump for high-cost rallies because of all of his alleged racist remarks. It couldn't possibly be the fault of the protesters, right?  Then, just in case you doubt he's a racist, the next headline tries to serve as evidence: "Trump makes awkward 'Mexican plane' joke".  Yeah, based on the headline, no need to read the article.  It says it all, right?  Trump is making Mexican jokes, so he must be a racist against Mexicans. . . not that there was any doubt by the leftists, since he wants to build that wall, and all.

Then, just to hammer home the racist message, below all of the racism narrative boxes is a headline that reads: "Woman Crowned 'Miss Hitler 2016' at Disturbing Neo-Nazi Pageant".  Yeah, big news for the front page about something that didn't even happen in the United States.  How convenient that it is right under the stuff that is there to convince you the whole damn world has gone racist!  Could it possibly be there to remind the readers once again the leftist Yahoo! News narrative, "white people are racist"?

What we see on Yahoo's page is a blatant attempt to lead the narrative, to lead the reader into believing the ridiculous racist accusations made by the Democrat Party.  Yahoo is trying to do their part.  The media as a whole is guilty.  They are doing everything they can, with special tactics and creative positioning of stories as we see in the image above, to keep the "all republicans are racists," "Trump is racist," "all non-democrat whites are racist" narrative alive and well.


-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Jesse Williams' BET Racist Speech

By Douglas V. Gibbs
AuthorSpeakerInstructorRadio Host

An anonymous reader sent me a blistering response to Jesse Williams' speech on BET, and asked if I would publish it.  I said yes, but thought nothing of it until I came across more information about what happened.  I don't watch Black Entertainment Television, I am not interested in watching the network, and I have always seen it as kind of racist in its own right.  You've heard the rebuttals, I am sure.  "What if there was a White Entertainment Television?  Why is one racist, and the other is not?"

The answer I get is that "Only white people are racist."  Never mind that the history of slavery knows no color and no geography.  Never mind that Muslims still practice slavery.  Never mind that the first slave owner in the history of the English Colonies on official record was a black man (Antonio Johnson) and he owned two white slaves, and one black slave.  Never mind that not a single American alive today has ever experienced the slavery that existed in The South because it is now a part of history, is behind us, and the issues surrounding slavery were addressed by a war where over 600,000 people died.

I have no stomach for blatant racism, and from what I have read, Jesse Williams' speech was about as racist as they get.  The accusation of racism, in my opinion, is usually a cheap shot by someone who is too uninformed to come up with real facts.  In the case of Williams' speech (as he flashed his blue eyes he got from his white parent), it was blatant racism.

Before I get to my reader's thoughts about Jesse Williams' speech, I want to give you a few other words. . . from actress Stacey Dash.

The actress, ever since coming out as a republican in liberal left dominated Hollywood, has received her share of criticism form the liberal left, and racist accusations from blacks who consider her a "sell-out."  Like me, she was not happy with Jesse Williams’ speech at the BET Awards last Sunday.

In a blog post on Wednesday, the 49-year-old bashed Williams’ speech, calling the entire BET network racist.

“I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: BET is keeping racism and segregation alive and this past Sunday’s awards show proves it,” Dash writes. “Particularly the speech given by Grey’s Anatomy star Jesse Williams, whose tirade after receiving the 2016 BET Humanitarian Award for his black activism was nothing short of an attack on white people.”

“You’ve just seen the perfect example of a HOLLYWOOD plantation slave!” Dash continues. “Sorry, Mr. Williams. But the fact that you were standing on that stage at THOSE awards tells people you really don’t know what your [sic] talking about. Just spewing hate and anger.”

Dash took issue with the 34-year-old actor’s words criticizing those speaking out against the Black Lives Matter movement.

“The burden of the brutalized is not to comfort the bystander. That’s not our job, all right? Stop with all that,” Williams said on Sunday. “If you have a critique for the resistance, for our resistance, then you better have an established record of critique of our oppression. If you have no interest – if you have no interest in equal rights for black people, then do not make suggestions to those who do. Sit down.”

“You my man are just like everyone else hustling to get money,” Dash responds. “But your cognitive dissidents has you getting it from THAT BYSTANDER whom YOU DON’T NEED. Yes. BLACK ENTERTAINMENT TELEVISION is WHITE OWNED.”

Dash also responded to Williams’ words on cultural appropriation.

Williams said, “We’ve been floating this country on credit for centuries, yo, and we’re done watching and waiting while this invention called whiteness uses and abuses us, burying black people out of sight and out of mind while extracting our culture, our dollars, our entertainment like oil, black gold, ghettoizing and demeaning our creations, then stealing them, gentrifying our genius and then trying us on like costumes before discarding our bodies like rinds of strange fruit.  The thing is, though, just because we’re magic doesn’t mean we’re not real.”

The Clueless actress says it’s actually Williams who’s “ghetto-izing” black culture.

“That chip on the shoulders of people like you will weigh you down and keep you from flying free,” Dash writes. “But true freedom is never free. You have to know how to fly. If anyone is making you feel this way it’s you. Living in a psychological prison of your own making. If anyone is GHETTO-IZING anyone, it’s people like you letting the BETs and other media outlets portray us in stereotypes.”

“GET over yourself and get on with it!” she adds.

As I wrote earlier, Stacey Dash is not the only person incensed by what Jesse Williams had to say as he accepted an award on BET.  Here's my reader's rant:

This is a rebuttal to Jesse Williams' speech on BET.  Mr. Williams just who in the hell do you think you are Dr Martin Luther King? I think not! Your name shouldn't be mentioned in the same breath as his. I'm a 50 year old white male and you sir should give back that award you so wrongly received for being a racist hypocrite. Your father is black and your mother is white.  The nerve of you! You have single handedly added another dark cloud to the unity of this country.  You might as well start promoting Isis.  Yes, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but your speech you gave just might be how Hitler and Stalin got their start.  Mobilize people might the exact words used.  Do you really know what its like to be black? .Maybe your father or grandparents or great grandparents do, but not you, I think. You talk about mobilizing against the system, the same system that let you be on the platform you're grandstanding on now.  You, sir, take what you can from the very same system like an acting part on television which allows you the benefits most Americans will never see.  Blacks have helped build this great country, hard working honest blacks - but the black man has also helped tear it down along with other races.  The only correct thing you said was about black mother's and grandmother's and great grandmothers who have raised honest hard working people with morals and values that represent the greatness of this country while some black fathers are busy being pimps and players that so many think they are. Black people have come a long way from slavery.  What their ancestors endured is incredible, but to say you're treated unfairly is a complaint all races live with. At present time we have a black President in office if you haven't notice, and your race has their own television network and awards show.  If the whites hosted an all white awards show the blacks would be up in arms! Blacks have great jobs throughout this country, government and DMV type jobs that I myself have applied for, but apparently was under-qualified.  Blacks already dominate professional sports and make millions doing it.  I gladly say you couldn't see a descent sporting event without a black athlete playing and if you want a good laugh in my opinion black comedians are the funniest.  There will always be something to complain about, but to say blacks are always being mistreated?  Well, get in line with all the other races or get on a plane and find a new country or start your own somewhere else.  Blacks can be President of the United States or a Hip Hop mogul or sports athlete millionaire's but you will always be under-employment as well as myself of the powerful Whites and Jews who own those sporting teams and run this Nation.  That, sir, will never change.  The powerful won't allow it.  The rich get richer, including rich blacks, but the powerful will always keep the power.  You talk about the deaths of blacks at the hands of law enforcement I say the hell with those people.  Plenty of people have died in wars fighting for this country, not stealing from it. If the police say freeze and put down the weapon, and you don't. . . you deserve to get shot dead no matter what race you are if you don't comply. You're not the only race who's been wronged before so if you want to mobilize, why don't you mosey on down to the homeless shelter or children's hospital and do some real work where all lives matter!   Hypocrite.  Keep your opinions to yourself, you're too young to have witnessed much of anything, anyway.

Editor's Note: that was a rant from a reader, not a writing by any member of the staff of Political Pistachio.

After Jesse Williams' speech, Justin Timberlake tweeted that he was inspired, and then was attacked for daring to say something. . . after all, he's white.  Timberlake later apologized.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Thursday, June 30, 2016

Temecula Constitution Class: Article III, Judicial Branch

Temecula Constitution Class, Article III, Judicial Branch. Last week we introduced the branch. Now we begin working through the text. . .

Remember, the text of these handouts come from my book, The Basic Constitution.

Temecula Constitution Class
Thursdays, 6:30 pm
Faith Armory
41669 Winchester Road
Temecula, CA  92590

Constitution Class Handout
Instructor: Douglas V. Gibbs

Lesson 08

Judicial Branch

Establish Justice

The United States Constitution was written to establish a federal government for the United States of America. Article III establishes the federal court system. Article I, Section 8 gives the Congress the power to "constitute tribunals inferior to the supreme Court." Given the power to establish these courts, Congress also has the authority to do away with any of these inferior courts. This power of Congress is repeated in Article III, Section 1 during the first sentence.

When reading Article III, one must keep in mind the fact that the article was specifically written to affect the federal court system, not the state courts. The authorities contained within this article, and the restrictions thereof, are to be applied to the federal courts, not the state courts. One must also bear in mind, as one reads this article, the additional limits placed on the federal courts by the 11th Amendment. No case against a state by citizens of another state, or by the citizens or subjects of a foreign state, shall be heard by a federal court.

In other words if citizens of a State sues a State, or foreign government sues a State, the case can't go to the federal courts. The highest that case can go is the State Supreme Court. These limitations placed upon the court system by the 11th Amendment were proposed by the people (House of Representatives) and the States (Senate), and finally ratified by the States, in order to better control a federal court system that was attempting to compromise State Sovereignty. Judges, the lesson of the 11th Amendment shows us, are not the wielders of the rule of law. They are not the powerful men of honor when it comes to the law. The guardians of the rule of law are the people, and the States. The courts had proven that they can become an enemy of the law, proclaiming that their rulings are the rule of law, but as the 11th Amendment reminds us, the judges are merely men, and their system is the rule of man attempting to manipulate the law through their rulings. For their bad behavior, the people and the States judged them, and further limited them with a new constitutional amendment.

Good Behavior

The conventional understanding of the terms of federal judges is that they receive lifetime appointments because no time restriction is placed upon them in the Constitution. The only limitation on term placed upon the judges can be found in Article III, Section 1 where the Constitution states that judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, "shall hold their offices during good behavior." Conventional wisdom dictates that bad behavior is defined as unlawful activities.

The definition of bad behavior is not limited to only illegal activities. Judges take an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the United States Constitution, which is the Law of the Land. Bad behavior, then, from the point of view of the Founding Fathers, may also include unconstitutional actions, or failure to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution.

Impeachment by Congress may be used if a judge acts in bad behavior. If a judge refuses to attend the hearing at the behest of the United States Senate, the federal marshall may be used to retrieve the judge, and compel them to stand before Congress to answer for their bad behavior. Congress is the check and balance against the courts, not the other way around.


The powers of the federal courts "shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority."

The federal courts, in other words, may hear all cases that fall within their authority. These cases are regarding those in which the federal government has authority, be it by laws passed within the authorities granted to the federal government by the Constitution, or regarding issues related to treaties made that have been signed by the President and ratified by the U.S. Senate. The courts may not hear cases that are regarding issues not within the authorities of the federal government.

A recent example would be the flurry of federal court rulings against State laws defining marriage as between a man and a woman. In California, the State's attempt to protect the government definition of marriage was with Proposition 8. The proposition changed the State Constitution to read that marriage is between a man and a woman. Marriage is not an issue that falls under the authorities of the federal government as expressly granted by the Constitution, nor is the issue of marriage prohibited to the States. Therefore, as per the authorities granted, and not granted, in line with the 10th Amendment, the government authority over marriage is reserved to the States. Since the issue of marriage is a State issue, the case should not have gone beyond the State Supreme Court. The federal courts hearing the case regarding Proposition 8, or any of the State laws regarding marriage, are acting unconstitutionally. The governors of these States, whose marriage laws were overturned by an activist federal court system, have the right to disregard all rulings by the federal courts on this issue. The action of ignoring the rulings is a type of nullification, and States have the right to nullify unconstitutional laws or actions by the federal government..

Other limitations have been placed upon the federal courts as well. The 11th Amendment changed the intent of Article III. As limited as the courts were supposed to be, the Founding Fathers realized the courts weren't limited enough, and as a result, the 11th Amendment wound up being ratified in 1795. The 11th Amendment was encouraged by a federal case called Chisolm v. Georgia (1793).

Chisolm v. Georgia (1793)

An increasing problem with federal intrusion on the States via the federal court system culminated in the case of Chisholm v. Georgia in 1793, which eventually led to the proposal, and ratification, of the 11th Amendment. A citizen of South Carolina sued the State of Georgia for the value of clothing supplied by a merchant during the Revolutionary War. After Georgia refused to appear, claiming immunity as a sovereign state, as per the Constitution (Article III, Section 2) the federal courts took the case. The judges in the court system tended to embrace a nationalist view of the federal government, and their nationalist point of view encouraged the judges to deem that in the Chisolm v. Georgia case, Georgia was not a sovereign state, therefore the Supreme Court entered a default judgment against Georgia. What ensued was a conflict between federal jurisdiction and state sovereignty that reminded the anti-federalists of their fears of a centralized federal government consolidating the states, and destroying their right to individual sovereignty.

Realizing that the clause in Article III gave the federal courts too much power over state sovereignty, Congress immediately proposed the 11th Amendment in order to take away federal court jurisdiction in suits commenced against a State by citizens of another State or of a foreign state. This is the first instance in which a Supreme Court decision was superseded by a constitutional amendment, and evidence that the founders saw the legislative branch, and the States, as being a more powerful part of government over the federal judiciary.

The 10th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America states that the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, or prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. The federal courts are included in that, as being a part of the United States federal government. As a result of the nature of how federal authorities are granted, the federal court system can only hear cases that fall within the constitutional authorities for the federal government.

When one understands the importance of protecting state sovereignty, and that the courts are supposed to be very limited in their scope and power, Article III becomes much simpler to understand.

As stated earlier in this section, the first sentence of Article III, Section 2, reads: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States (which are only supposed to be passed if they are within the authorities granted by the Constitution), and Treaties made . . .

Notice the phrase, "arising under this Constitution." If the case is not involving the federal government as one of the parties, or is not regarding an issue that falls under the authorities of the U.S. Constitution, the federal courts can simply not take the case. The State Supreme Court, in those cases, is the highest court the case can go to.

Judicial Review

Federal judges maintain that the federal courts have the power of judicial review, or the power to determine the constitutionality of laws. In response to the judicial urgings for the powers to judge the extent of the federal government's powers, in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison warned us that giving the federal government through its courts the power of judicial review would be a power that would continue to grow, regardless of elections, putting at risk the all important concept of the separation of powers, and other much-touted limits on power. The final arbiters of the Constitution are not the courts, argued the Founding Fathers who supported the foundation of limiting principles of the U.S. Constitution. The power of the federal government must be checked by State governments, and the people. The States and the People are the enforcers and protectors of the U.S. Constitution.

In today's society it is commonly accepted that one of the roles of the federal court system is to interpret the Constitution, and issue rulings determining the constitutionality of laws. The Constitution does not grant this authority. The power of Judicial Review was given to the courts by themselves.

The first attempt to establish "Judicial Review" as an authority to the federal court system was through the Judiciary act of 1789, but the authority allowing the United States federal courts to hear a civil case because the plaintiff has alleged a violation of the United States Constitution, federal law, or a treaty to which the United States is a party, was limited to only the United States Supreme Court. The lower federal courts, at this point, were not allowed hear cases questioning the federal government's "federal question jurisdiction." Anti-federalists, and Jefferson Republicans immediately railed against the legislation, arguing that legislation cannot determine authorities granted.

The Federalists, in an attempt to allow the lower courts to wield the power of judicial review, briefly created such jurisdiction in the Judiciary Act of 1801, but it was repealed the following year. Unable to establish the federal court system as the final arbiters of the United States Constitution through legislative means, the Federalists turned to the courts themselves to drive into place the controversial authority.

During John Adams' final moments in the presidency, he appointed a whole host of "midnight judges" (appointing 16 Federalist circuit judges and 42 Federalist justices of the peace to offices created by the Judiciary Act of 1801) in the hopes of retaining federalist control of the courts as Jefferson's Democratic-Republicans gained control of the Congress, and Jefferson himself accepted the presidency.

Thomas Jefferson's Democratic-Republicans were appalled by the appointment of the Midnight Judges, recognizing the stacking of the courts as a desperate attempt by the Federalists to try and continue Federalist influence despite their election loss. In Jefferson's view, the Federalists "retired into the judiciary as a stronghold . . . and from that battery all the works of Republicanism are to be beaten down and destroyed."

While Adams was still in office, most of the commissions for these newly appointed judges were delivered. However, unable to deliver all of them before Adams' term expired, some of them were left to be delivered by the incoming Secretary of State, James Madison. Jefferson ordered them not to be delivered, and without the commissions delivered, the remaining new appointees were unable to assume the offices and duties to which they had been appointed to by Adams. In Jefferson's opinion, the undelivered commissions were void.

One of those appointed judges was a man named William Marbury. He sued, and the case worked its way up to the Supreme Court. After all of the dust settled, on February 24, 1803, the Court rendered a unanimous (4-0) decision that Marbury had the right to his commission, but the court did not have the power to force Madison to deliver the commission. Chief Justice Marshall wrote the opinion of the court, and in that opinion he wrote that the federal court system has the power of judicial review. Rather than simply applying the law to the cases, Marshall decided, based on case law and precedent, that the courts have the authority to determine the validity of the law as well. This opinion, however, went against all of the limitations placed on the courts by the Constitution.

One of the most obvious fundamental principles of the Constitution is the limitations it places on the federal government. The Constitution is designed not to tell the federal government what it can't do, but to offer enumerated powers to which the authorities of the federal government are limited to. The powers are granted by the States, and any additional authorities must also be approved by the States through the ratification of any proposed amendments. It takes 3/4 of the States to ratify an amendment. The congressional proposal of an amendment, with the ratification of that amendment, in the simplest terms, is the federal government asking the States for permission to a particular authority.

The power of Judicial Review, or the authority to determine if laws are constitutional, was not granted to the courts by the States in the Constitution. The courts took that power upon themselves through Justice Marshall's opinion of Marbury v. Madison.

The federal courts are a part of the federal government. The Constitution was designed to limit the authorities of the federal government by granting only a limited number of powers. Judicial Review enables the federal government, through the courts, to determine if the laws that the federal government made are constitutional. In other words, the federal government, through Judicial Review, can determine for itself what its own authorities are.

The idea that the federal court system has the authority to interpret the Constitution, and can decide if a law is constitutional or not, is unconstitutional, and is simply an attempt by those that believe in big government to gain power, and work towards a more centralized big federal governmental system.

Original Jurisdiction

In Article III, Section 2, Clause 2 the Constitution reads: "In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction."

What this means is that in all of those above listed cases, the federal appellate courts cannot take the case. Such cases must bypass the federal appellate system, and go straight to the Supreme Court. Since one of those stipulations is in regards to cases "in which a State shall be a Party," that means that the case "U.S. v. Arizona" where the federal government sued Arizona to block the State's immigration law, was unconstitutional. It was unconstitutional for the inferior federal courts to hear the case. The Supreme Court had original jurisdiction. Therefore, when the district court ruled in July of 2010 on the case, and struck down parts of the Arizona immigration law, not only did that court not have jurisdiction to hear the case in the first place, but the very act of striking down portions of the law was unconstitutional. After all, Article I, Section 1 grants the legislative branch all legislative powers, and those powers would include the ability to strike down law. The courts were not vested with any legislative powers, and therefore cannot strike down laws, or portions of laws.

Trial by Jury

Article III, Section II, Clause 3 sets up the right to a trial by jury, except in the cases of impeachment.

This clause also requires that a trial must be held in the state where the crime was committed. If the crime was not committed in any particular state, then the trial is held in such a place as set forth by the Congress.


Article III, Section 3 defines treason, as well as the granting of the power by the Congress to declare the punishment. When the Constitution says that "no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attained," it means that the punishment cannot be inherited or passed down (corruption of blood), nor shall the person be denied due process (attainder).

Corruption of blood also means that all inheritable qualities are destroyed, and the Founding Fathers did not believe this English practice should be an American one.

No forfeiture meant that despite treason, the properties of the person could not be forfeited to the government. The property would remain as property of the individual, or remain with family. Even when it came to the despicable act of treason, the founders believed that the individual should be able to retain certain rights.


Corruption of Blood: Punishment inherited or passed down, all inheritable qualities are destroyed.

Judicial Review: The unconstitutional authority of the federal courts to review law, interpret the Constitution regarding laws, and then determine the constitutionality of laws.

Original Jurisdiction: In the Constitution the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction on some cases, which means the case must proceed directly to the Supreme Court, and the high court must make a determination on whether or not to accept the case.

Treason:Levying war against the States, or adhering to the enemies of the States, giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

Questions for Discussion:

1. How would life in the United States be different if there was no federal court system?

2. Why did the Founding Fathers limit the authorities of the federal courts?

3. How has Judicial Review changed our system of government?

4. Why do you think the Supreme Court has Original Jurisdiction over some cases?

5. In what ways is the presence of a Judicial Branch important?


Draft of the Kentucky Resolutions (Jefferson's Draft), Avalon Project, Yale University:

Madison's Notes Constitutional Convention, Avalon Project, Yale University:

Virginia Resolution - Alien and Sedition Acts, Avalon Project, Yale University:

Copyright: Douglas V. Gibbs, 2015

When a Movement Became a Worldwide Revolution

By Douglas V. Gibbs
AuthorSpeakerInstructorRadio Host

I joked the other day about how my services as a constitutionalist are in high demand.  "Obama has been good for business."  Every time Obama opens his mouth, people want to buy guns, kick the establishment in the groin, and learn more about the U.S. Constitution.

The leftward march of American politics, via the presidency of Barack Obama, the arrogance of people like Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, and the elitism of the Clintons as Hillary embarked upon her own run for the White House, has gotten Americans pretty fed up.  What has angered them even further is that to combat the frightening escapades of liberal left socialism in America the voters gave the Republican Party the House of Representatives in a decisive vote in 2010, and the Senate in 2014. . . yet the GOP has done less to defeat the statists of the Democrat Party than expected.  We also got rid of John Boehner, but in response, as I write this, The House of Representatives is working on a vote on a gun control package with Speaker Paul D. Ryan giving in once again on provisions we just can't give to the federal government.  Sometimes it seems like the Republicans are working with the Democrats in their quest to destroy the American System, and prepare America to join the union of internationalists in a deeper globalist orgy of power than we are already witnessing.

In the 2016 Presidential Campaign the anti-establishment sentiment launched the campaigns of Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump into a trajectory not expected by political experts.  The unlikely rise of Trump has gone so far that he is now the presumptive Republican nomination as we approach the GOP Convention in Cleveland.  His followers say that Trump's run is more than a campaign.  It's a movement.

The movement by people who are fed up with the control by an elite ruling class that believes they are above the law, and above the people, is spreading. . . all the way across the pond.

Brexit (British Exit) from the European Union is just another sign that the movement is spreading.  The leftists of the EU have been rejected.  The statism of globalism is being rejected.  Sovereignty is being embraced.  Worldwide, the movement is becoming a revolution.  Europe's response?  Time to create a more powerful superstate - after all, they don't trust NATO's ability to protect them, anymore.  Germany is taking a leadership role in the new European Union, though being careful not to remind people of its Nazi past. Leftist puppet-master and globalist George Soros is calling for a thorough reconstruction of the European Union in order to save it.  Meanwhile, Mexico's leaders are calling for a North American integrated superstate.

Thomas Massie, a Republican Congressman out of Kentucky is leading a charge to try and get the United States out of the United Nations.  The anti-establishment wave slammed into Iceland where a political novice won their presidency with only 39% of the vote.  Trump, being the anti-establishment candidate in the U.S. Election and the guy who threw his support behind Brexit may very well see benefits in his race from the Brexit vote.  Trump's arguments, and the arguments by Brexit supporters, are definitely similar.  For one thing, from the globalist point of view, the movement is definitely turning the world upside down, as well as a show of how stable Britain may be as compared to the European Union.  One writer calls what is going on "Cold Anger" - an anger that perceives deception, and takes action without lashing out violently.  Still, the powerful force of cold anger can be comparable to that of a raging hurricane.

We just don't believe their lies, anymore (not that I ever did).  The hypocrisy of the liberal left Democrats, and their leftists colleagues around the world, is becoming more and more apparent thanks to the internet (part of the reason they are trying to gain control of it) and the new alternative media that goes with it.  The presumptive Democrat Party candidate for President of the United States is Hillary Clinton, a woman known for her elitism and "I'm above the law" attitude, a known liar, and a woman being investigated by the FBI for treasonous activity that stems from Benghazi to her private email server.  Even more telling is that the Democrats are doing all they can to protect their golden girl, Hillary Clinton.  The State Department has refused to release Clinton Foundation emails during an investigation against Hillary Clinton involving her emails.  The Benghazi report also shows how the Democrats have done all they can to not cooperate, and protect Obama and Clinton.

Anti-Gun United States Senator Jamilah Nasheed has just been arrested with a loaded gun and extra clips while drunk in Ferguson.  This echoes nicely the hypocrisy of the Democrat's call for gun control when last year California State Senator Leland Yee was busted on arms trafficking and corruption charges in an FBI sweep.  Yee had a long legislative record of fighting for stronger gun control laws. Twenty-six of the Democrats who participated in the recent House of Representatives sit-in to support gun control are gun owners.

In New York, pro-abortion activists screamed and yelled their opposition to an organization being given funds by a city to enable a free car seat program for needy babies.

In New Jersey police were called to an elementary school because a third grader had made a comment about the brownies being served to the class during their end of the school year party that another student exclaimed was "racist."  The parent of the child said of the episode, "He said they were talking about brownies. . . . Who exactly did he offend?"  The student stayed home for his last day of third grade, traumatized by the accusation of racism over his innocent comment.

Fox News was attacked by the Democrats on the Federal Election Commission who voted in secret to punish Fox News' sponsorship of a Republican presidential debate.  The punishment was blocked by all three Republicans on the commission, resulting in a 3-3 tie vote and no action.  The accusation was that by hosting a GOP debate, Fox News was guilty of making a contribution to the candidates.  It stemmed from one of the candidates that had been left out of a debate filing a complaint to the FEC, charging that Fox was essentially making a contribution to the 17 candidates by letting them have a voice in the debate.

CNN did the same thing, but there is no indication that they faced a complaint.

Thanks to the policies of the Obama administration, an ideology that has declared war on the United States, Islam, has had the freedom to conduct their invasion not only without any obstruction, but actually with assistance by the United States Government. One of the most dangerous bombmakers and recruiters in the terrorist world is out of prison and now living in an southeastern European country that is a hub of Islamic terrorism. But he didn't escape. He was freed from U.S. custody on the orders of Barack Obama. President Barack Obama is planning to increase the number of refugees admitted to his nation, and is calling on countries like Australia to follow suit, despite fears that terrorists will use refugee flows to infiltrate Western nations. Thanks to Obama's policies, Hamtramck, Michigan has been given the nickname “Shariatown” now that the four out of the six City Council positions have been filled by members of the Islamic faith, and policies that mimic Sharia Law are being implemented throughout the city. New York Judge Carolyn Walker-Diallo, a Black Muslim woman took oath as a civil court judge in New York while swearing to abide by the U.S. Constitution placing her hand on the Holy Quran, and while wearing a hijab.

Professors in U.S. universities found to have conservative viewpoints are being investigated for their dissenting opinion. Professors in U.S. universities who make anti-republican statements to their students in class are still teaching, and in fact are being given pay raises. The University of Arizona hopes to kick off the fall 2017 semester by offering a master’s degree in transgender studies. California Democrats are pushing Senate Bill 1146, which would force Christian colleges and universities to no longer be allowed to require students attend chapel services or require them to profess a relationship with Jesus Christ, saying that doing so is discrimination against students based on their gender identity, gender expression or sexual orientation.  For merely being a conservative, or Trump supporter, republicans face attacks by protesters at events, and even ridicule by employees of a restaurant where they choose to have a meal.  There has also been a very real push by Democrats to put into place punishment for those who refuse to believe in man-made climate change.  The message?  Don't you dare even breath a word of dissent against the Left or you will be attacked, jailed or fined. . . but attacks against anyone right-of-center is fair game.

We have a generation of people who have bought into the propaganda of the liberal left so much that they crumble if they think the've been offended, and a majority of Democrats that believe Obama has done a fine job and that he should serve an unconstitutional third term as President of the United States.  The Obama administration knows they have fooled a majority of people considered to be "minorities" and so they are doing what they can to spread that demographic around the United States, using a kind of modern busing to integrate neighborhoods, and turn "white conservative" neighborhoods into a Democrat Party supporting region.

If you dare breath a word against, you will be labeled a racist, and likely be considered such a hateful person that you may wind up on a watch list.

Meanwhile, Seventh Circuit Judge Richard Posner sees “absolutely no value” in studying the U.S. Constitution because “eighteenth-century guys” couldn’t have possibly foreseen the culture and technology of today.  In a recent op-ed for Slate, Judge Posner, a senior lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School, argued that the original Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the post–Civil War amendments “do not speak to today.”

“I see absolutely no value to a judge of spending decades, years, months, weeks, day, hours, minutes, or seconds studying the Constitution, the history of its enactment, its amendments, and its implementation (across the centuries — well, just a little more than two centuries, and of course less for many of the amendments),” he wrote.


We need to learn how to fight the war the way patriots would fight the war, not the way tyrants fight it. Their tactics work well for the liberal left because statism is a collectivist game, and it comes naturally to them. We are not collectivists, so their strategies and tactics are not fully compatible with what we stand for. Some facets of their attack may be something we can integrate into our battle plan, but overall, their ideology is completely foreign to the concepts of liberty, and constitutionalism, therefore their blueprint for war is not for us - so for those of you saying we need to learn from the left to know how to fight them. . . not necessarily.

Our plan of attack will seem, sometimes, to implement elements of the opposition’s game plan, but ours must follow more closely what we have been provided through the rule of law by the Founding Fathers and divine Providence.  Ours must take into account how we got here. Education is a key aspect of a successful military operation, and if you don’t know your enemy, your efforts are destined for defeat.

James Madison told us that “A well-instructed people alone can be permanently a free people.” Education must be the bedrock of our efforts. Understanding how our system is supposed to properly function, and understanding how the statists brought us to this moment in history, is paramount. Fighting the good fight is a noble thing, but if you don’t understand the enemy, nor understand the weapons you have available to you, the fight will become nothing more than an exercise in futility.

Beyond two centuries the United States has been the land of liberty. Forces exist that are determined to fundamentally change our system of freedom into a system of bondage. Every culture harbors those who believe themselves to be a ruling elite, smarter than the average person, and entitled to control through the hell-bound concept of government mandated good intentions and the common good. Thomas Jefferson called a system under the control of the ruling elite "a tyranny." Many of the framers of the Constitution called it "utopianism." Today, we call this kind of tyranny statism, socialism, communism, totalitarianism, oligarchy, and fascism. Jean Jacques Rousseau called it the "General Will."

The philosophies of Rousseau were among the catalysts that brought about the French Revolution that emerged shortly after the Americans fought their own Revolutionary War. As a supporter of big government, Rousseau championed the concept of The General Will, an idea designed by statism to "ensure the public good." Nationalists of the time believed that the lowly, uninformed people were unable to properly maintain society. As instructed by the writings of Plato, the liberal left believes central government power is absolutely required. According to their belief system a ruling elite is needed to ensure society operates smoothly, and operated in the best interest of the people in the way they define it.

Big Government statists believe in the existence of the public interest in terms of collectivism, placing the "good of the community" over the rights of the individual. These policies tend to benefit small, but powerful, special interests at the expense of the rest of the society, but are put into place by the ruling elite because in their opinion the public doesn't understand any better, and must be forced to understand, and comply.

One may argue that all of those mandates were indeed for our own good. The good mayor banning large sodas, or the governor banning trans-fats were only looking out for the interests of the people. He wanted to protect people’s “freedom from” the consequences of their actions. But, at what point does government making law to protect you from yourself become tyranny? At what point does “freedom from” interfere with a person’s “freedom to?”

Leftists are collectivists, and collectivists hate individualism; be it the individualism of people, or of the States  These people wish to dissolve the American people (and ultimately the people of the world) into a homogeneous mass, and eliminate their voluntary choices for the perceived good of the community.

Any system is generally defined as a group of independent, but interrelated elements, that make up the whole. By definition, if the components of a system are divided, or working against one another, they are really not a part of a functioning system, after all. The order of things consist of meaning and purpose, and all of us have profound connections to the systems we are a part of. When you have order the harmony of the related systems is a beautiful thing. When systems have order we live happily, with the Blessings of Liberty. Statists, however, do not believe that such order is achievable by individual participation, but that participation must be carefully measured and controlled by a ruling elite. Without that elite in control, inserting its definitions of what a good society is, they believe that such a system can only whittle away into chaos.

Benjamin Franklin recognized that systems must achieve order, but rejected the rule of man through concepts like collectivism. Order must be something achieved not because a people are forced to be, but because they desire to be as a result of their morality. He said, "Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom."

John Adams recognized the same, indicating that "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

Among the ingredients the Founding Fathers recognized as being necessary for an ordered society to be successful, without a ruling elite dictating to the people how to live their lives, resides a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence. A moral society is a system established under the rule of law, and because of the society being virtuous, it is capable of remaining under the rule of law. Historically, the rule of law attained the most success when it has been based on biblical principles. The law of the land was written in the form of a constitution, and the maintenance of the system was achieved through a government strong enough to protect, preserve and promote liberty, while limited through a system of checks and balances, and a representative government.

Those who support the idea of a ruling elite consider such systems of liberty to be dangerous, and view the concept of individualism as a danger to the proper functioning of any system. In the opinion of the statist, the American System has achieved success as a society despite "psychotic individualism."  True "equity" and "fairness," it is believed by these people, cannot be achieved unless the ruling elite is given full control of the entire functioning of the system.

To achieve that kind of control, however, the statists must destroy the existing system, and erase the memory of liberty from the minds of the inhabitants. They must convince the citizenry that liberty is slavery, and turn them against the system created by the Founding Fathers so that the people will embrace bondage, and gladly raise the red flag of statism themselves.

In short, we must achieve a foundation of being a virtuous people, individuals, enjoy a free market, and be well informed.  Without those ingredients in place, our system is doomed to fail, be it at the hands of tyrants, or the destructive power of disorder.

This is why the forces of tyranny target morality, and individualism. The leaders of the new tyranny are the old vanguards of revolutionary change. They seek a destruction of god, and individualism of all kinds.  They push for pure democracy, where the rule of law is no longer a concern, because the rule of man is in charge. 

The revolution has begun, but we did not start it. The coup has already taken place in Washington, and the enemy has gained control of the heart of the republic. They have manipulated and gained full control of the networking lines of communication and halls of education. They have erected an iron curtain, and they have disguised it as the common good. They are darker than the shadows, and crueler than the dungeon keepers. It is these dark followers of people like Saul Alinsky that we battle against, and it is the same purveyors of false utopia that brought down Greece and Rome, and the same enemy that the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution to protect us against. They recognized the enemy, and warned us that if we did not remain informed and vigilant, that it would take a bloody revolution to restore the republic.

We face an enemy as old as humanity, and as dark as Lucifer himself. Now is no time to be timid. Now is the time for action, so that we may send a message to our grandchildren's grandchildren that when their future was on the line, we took action, we were willing to fight the good fight, and we were willing to preserve liberty with our lives, fortunes, and sacred honor on the line.

It all begins with education, and constitutional actions required to keep the republic.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Fast and Furious Guns In Paris

By Douglas V. Gibbs
AuthorSpeakerInstructorRadio Host

ISIS is not only using guns given to them by the Obama administration through the Syrian Rebels gun-running operation (which is also tied to Benghazi), but now we are finding out that guns used in the Paris, France attack by persons claiming to be attached to ISIS were possibly guns the Obama administration gave to Mexican Drug Cartels in the Fast and Furious guns scandal.  The report comes from information garnered from a report filed by a case agent regarding the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco Firearms and Explosives (ATF) where the path of a gun used in the Paris attacks was traced back to a Phoenix gun owner who sold it illegally, “off book.”  

In other words, Obama has been arming the enemy time and time again, through various routes.

The Phoenix gun owner that the weapon was traced back to has allegedly violated two federal regulations, selling one weapon illegally and possessing an unregistered automatic.  But, because likely it was a part of the Fast and Furious gun-walker program, or because the Fast and Furious program was going on in the area and the federal government didn't want to bring attention to it, no enforcement or prosecutorial action was taken against the individual. The federal government kept a distant eye on the situation, and purposely kept the gun owner’s identity quiet.

Judicial Watch asked an ATF spokesman, Corey Ray, at the agency’s Washington D.C. headquarters, about the possible connection, and he told Judicial Watch that “no firearms used in the Paris attacks have been traced” by the agency. When asked about a Report of Investigation (ROI) filed by a case agent in the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco Firearms and Explosives (ATF) where the ROI report links the weapon used in Paris to Phoenix, Ray said “I’m not familiar with the report you’re referencing.” Judicial Watch also tried contacting the Phoenix ATF office, but multiple calls were not returned.

How disturbing does the treasonous activities of the Obama administration have to be before Americans, all Americans, finally scream "ENOUGH!"  The liberal left ideology is going beyond merely attempting to destroy the American System as it was forged by the Founding Fathers.  Now, what we are seeing is a continuous arming of our enemies that is costing the lives of Americans, and innocents abroad.  

This administration, and the democrats fighting to take Obama's place in the White House, believe they are above the law.  The Constitution and the rule of law means nothing to these people.  Your right to life and liberty is the last thing they care about.  This lawless administration has been committing treason under our noses, and for some reason the uninformed public is accepting their lies and fraud as nothing to worry about.

All the while, this administration is doing all it can to unconstitutionally expand gun control, which is intended to eventually result in the confiscation of every firearm owned by law-abiding citizens.  This means that he and his cronies are handing illegal firearms to terrorists who want you dead, as they try to disarm you so that you may not be able to defend yourself against terrorism, or a domestic enemy like a tyrannical federal government.

And, through the TPP, the Obama administration is attempting to enable the leftists who are pushing for a global system of governance to be able to supersede U.S. law.  The global courts and laws would override any decision we make in our own country.  This is something even worse for America than the overregulated European Union that Britain just narrowly escaped from.

The enemy is not at the gates.  The enemy has both hands on the helm, and is steering America towards disaster!

There are solutions, and they have been given to us by the U.S. Constitution.  The military leaders see the collision course we are on, conservatives see the diabolical disaster being planned for our country.  Do you see it?

Obama is waging warfare against Americans.  They are using political correctness, insane social issues, and psychological warfare designed to desensitize us, dehumanize us, and demoralize us.  It is coming from all directions for a reason.  They are poking us in the chest, and hoping for a reaction so that they can claim we are the aggressors, and we should be detained.

The tyrants are killing liberty, and they are seeking a global superstate that the United States is defenseless against - and a party to.  We see it.  We feel it.  But do we know what to do about it?

While the Obama administration is trying to purge this nation of those defending the U.S. Constitution from an originalist perspective, we continue to stand firm.  Veterans, Christians, Tea Party members, Constitutionalists, and other patriotic Americans are being watched closely by this administration.  We are considered potential domestic terrorists, while the real terrorists get a pass after shooting and killing people in places like San Bernardino and Orlando.

Rallies, demonstrations and protests help, but we also need to be using the other tools available to us for keeping the republic. . . but if we don't know the Constitution, we can't stop this.  Without the United States Constitution, and being a godly nation, we are not capable of even understanding what liberty is.

The movement is becoming a revolution, but we must be willing to fight it.  Knowledge will enable us to be better warriors.

The liberal left believes they have turned the corner.  There's no stopping them, they believe.  They are gong for broke with their lawlessness and brazen acts of treason.

The only way to stop them is with a united front populated by a knowledgeable public.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Final Chance for Tickets: Constitution Association Anniversary Dinner

July 9's Constitution Association Anniversary Dinner  being held in Wildomar, CA (southwest Riverside County between Murrieta and Lake Elsinore) is almost upon us. . . 

Trevor Loudon of "The Enemies Within" and G.R. Mobley of the "We the People" series of books and the coiner of "Republic Review" headline an incredible list of speakers (John L. Hancock, Alan Myers, and Janette Chun of Birth Choice of Temecula), Father Josiah Trenham will give the invocation, the food is being catered by a very popular local steakhouse, RJ's Sizzlin' Steer (Tri-Tip or Chicken Breast, rice pilaf, bar-b-que baked beans, dinner roll, salad and tea from them - Lemonade, coffee, soda and dessert from us), and the chance to buy a ticket has almost expired.  This weekend will be your last chance to buy tickets online at $35, Tuesday July 5 is the last day we are selling tickets directly for $25, and only a limited number will be available at the door on the day of the event for $40.  Don't wait, this is your final opportunity to make sure you are a part of this historic event.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Wednesday, June 29, 2016

Hillary's Huma Abedin Spilling the Beans?

Posted by Douglas V. Gibbs

Headlines from Drudge Report Opens Up a Can of Worms. . .

By the way, remember that Huma Abedin is married to Anthony Weiner.  Put their names together, and it says "Weiner A bed in".

Just an observation.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary


The old Hitler / Stalin conflict revisited as Gramsci / Leninist and Neo-Nazi rumble in Sacramento.

Opinion by Allan McNew

It should be clear to everyone that the riot had two sides which clashed with weapons such as clubs and knives, and that while one was permitted for a rally the other side showed up to physically rout the first from the location.

Everyone has some idea of what white supremacists are because every time one (or someone alleged to be one) sticks his head up the media extensively covers some activist group loudly deploring it, but who was behind the Sacramento riot, and even more so the activists behind the anti-Trump vigilantes instigating near-riots at Trump rallies, was unclear.

Before I heard anything else from the media, there was something about the Mexica Movement being involved, which probably has some truth to it due to a couple of guys at the event wearing T-shirts emblazoned “MEXICAN. NOT LATINO NOT HISPANIC” which is a primary component of Mexica Movement racial blather. Their slant is that “Latino”, “Hispanic” and “mestizo” is a social construction of “European invaders who raped and murdered” their ancestors. They claim to be “indigenous” (denying that the vast majority of their Spanish/Indian mixed blood ancestors migrated to the US post 1849, and not in any great numbers until after 1910). However, other raza ideology branches have a similar statement, with the emphasis that “Latino” and “Hispanic” denote “vendidos”, sellouts against the brown ethnic nationalist cause.

Then I heard the narrative by Yvette Felarca, activist middle school teacher and apparent spokesman for the group “By any means necessary”, or BAMN. That perked my ears, because the phrase “by any means necessary” is a pervasive part of Brown Beret raza rhetoric, and this BAMN group appears to be a primary organizer of opposition to the TWP and GS Skinhead rally.

However, on further investigation it turns out that BAMN is an academic activist organization around since 1995 or so dedicated to – get this – organizing K-12 and college students for ideological activism. The same people who participated in organizing a large group to aggressively confront and physically mix it up like a street gang against a permitted free speech event, vile as the free speech may be, are primarily public school teachers. The rational is probably “hate speech violence” is the same as physically applied violence, so objectionable speech must be countered with a wielded club. And, BAMN probably borrowed what eventually became their name from the Brown Berets. The multitudinous Raza groups swim in the same swamp, and quite a few of the swimmers are accredited educators.

BAMN spokesman, middle school teacher Yvette Falarca: “They need to go, and we succeeded in driving them out.” Bamn website headline: “NO “FREE SPEECH” FOR FASCISTS! Mass, militant demonstration shuts down Sacramento Neo-Nazi rally!”

Another group which organized with BAMN for the Sacramento riot is Antifa, short for Anti Fascist Front. At this time, I don't have much info on that group. Here's a link for them organizing the counter protest:

In no particular order, some links concerning the issue:

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary