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

Tuesday, September 27, 2016

Final Amendments: Corona Constitution Class

Tuesday Night Constitution Class at AllStar Collision, 522 Railroad St, Corona, CA 92882.  We begin at 6:00 pm.
Constitution Class Handout
Instructor: Douglas V. Gibbs
Lesson 21

Final Amendments
Amendment 22: Presidential Term Limit

The 22nd Amendment was passed in 1951.  It was designed to ensure no president could seek a third term. Though the Constitution did not limit the number of terms a president could serve prior to this amendment, many consider the fact that George Washington chose not to seek a third term as evidence the Founding Fathers recognized two terms should be the expected standard.
George Washington's popularity would have easily enabled him to be President for the rest of his life, and many even tried to encourage him to be king.  However, Washington saw himself as no different than everyone else, and recognized the presidency as a privilege to serve.  He felt that more than two terms opened the opportunity for abuse of power by an Executive, which would hinge on the idea of a monarchy.
Following George Washington, James Madison and James Monroe also adhered to the two-term principle.  No Presidents afterward sought a third term, with the exceptions of Ulysses S. Grant, Theodore Roosevelt, and Franklin Delano Roosevelt.  No President achieved a third term until FDR.
Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1940 became the only President to be elected to a third term.  World War II has often been cited as the reason.  The public was not fond of the idea of a change in Commander in Chief during such a crucial event in history.  In 1944, while World War II continued to rage, Roosevelt won a fourth term.  He died before he could complete it.
The 22nd Amendment was proposed and ratified during the Truman presidency.
The failure of the Founding Fathers to establish a term limit on the President in the early articles of the United States Constitution aligns with a prevailing opinion the Framers held that term limits were the responsibility of the voter.  Their belief hinged on a reliance on the people and the Electoral College, and that electorally a third term would be prevented, unless a third term was absolutely necessary.
Under the 22nd Amendment, the only President who would have been eligible to serve more than two terms would be Lyndon B. Johnson.  LBJ was the Vice President of the United States at the time of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, and after serving the remainder of JFK's term, Johnson had only been President for fourteen months.  The 22nd Amendment provides that "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once."
Questions for Discussion:
1.  Why do you think the Founding Fathers believed two terms were adequate for the President?
2.  What is the cited reason for Franklin Delano Roosevelt's continued re-election as President?
3.  How could an unlimited allowance of terms for President be dangerous?
Resources:

Andrew M. Allison, Jay A. Perry, and W. Cleon Skousen, The Real
George Washington; New York: National Center for Constitutional Studies (2010)
Catherine Drinker Bowen, Miracle at Philadelphia: The Story of the Constitutional Convention, May to September 1787; Boston: Atlantic
Monthly Press (1966)
Donald Porter Geddes (ed.), Franklin Delano Roosevelt - A Memorial;
New York: Pitman Publishing Corporation (1945)
James Srodes, On Dupont Circle: Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt and
the Progressives Who Shaped Our World; Berkeley: CounterPoint Press (2012)
James Thomas Flexner, Washington: The Indispensible Man; Boston:
Back Bay Books (1969)
John Morton Blum, The Progressive Presidents: Theodore Roosevelt,
Woodrow Wilson, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Lyndon B. Johnson; New York: W.W. Norton & Co. (1982)
Willard Sterne Randall, George Washington: A Life; New York: Henry
Hold & Co. (1997)
Amendment 23: Washington, D.C., Receives Electoral Votes

The rallying cry during the American Revolution, as we have been taught, was "No taxation without representation."  Yet, despite that famous call for revolution, after the United States became a nation, there were those who were taxed without representation in the United States Government.  The most famous case was Washington, D.C.  The movement for representation for Washington, D.C., led to the proposal, and ratification, of the 23rd Amendment.
Washington, D.C., is a ten mile by ten mile section of land donated by Maryland and Virginia to serve as the seat of government.  The land was easy for those two States to let go of because it was undesirable.  While it is popular to say that Washington, D.C., sits on swampland, it is actually a tidal plain, land that was a mix of thickly wooded slopes, bluffs and hills, crop land, and several major waterways.  The location was chosen by George Washington because of its central location between the northern and southern States as a compromise between Alexander Hamilton and northern States who wanted the new federal government to assume Revolutionary War debts, and Thomas Jefferson and southern States who wanted the capital placed in a location friendly to slave-holding agricultural interests.
The District was not supposed to be a city in the sense that we see it today.  The District of Columbia was not supposed to have a population, for the creation of the district was for the sole purpose of being the seat of the United States Government.  The Congress was given full power over the functioning of the city, and the inhabitants were supposed to only be the temporary visitors of government officials, or employees.  The Founding Fathers envisioned Washington, D.C., to be the seat of the federal government, and a vibrant commercial center.
As time passed, Washington, D.C., attracted residents, eager to partake in the opportunities offered in the way of government jobs.  The incoming population largely consisted of Free Blacks prior to the beginning of the American Civil War, and after the abolition of slavery in the District in 1850.  After the War Between the States, the growth of Washington, D.C.'s population exploded.
John Adams, the second President of the United States, did not like Washington, D.C.  He viewed it as hardly being a city at all, and nothing more than a clump of dirty buildings, arranged around "unpaved, muddy cesspools of winter, waiting for summer to transform them into mosquito-infested swamps." 
As the population of Washington, D.C., grew during the twentieth century, it became glaringly apparent to the residents that their taxation did not accompany representation.  At one point, "Taxation without representation" became such a rallying cry that Washington, D.C., license plates even held the phrase.
After the cries for representation reached a crescendo, the Twenty-Third Amendment was proposed and ratified, allowing the citizens in Washington, D.C., to vote for Electors for President and Vice President.  The amendment was ratified in 1961.
Since Washington, D.C., is not a State, the District is still unable to send voting Representatives or Senators to Congress.  However, Washington, D.C., does have delegates in Congress that act as observers.
The amendment restricts the district to the number of Electors of the least populous state, irrespective of its own population.  That number is currently three.
Terms:
Seat of Government - The location of the government for a political entity.  The seat of government is usually located in the capital.
Commercial Center - A central location of commercial activity; an environment for commerce, or business activity.
War Between the States - The Civil War was fought from 1861 to 1865 after Seven Southern slave States seceded from the United States, forming the Confederate States of America.  The "Confederacy" grew to include eleven States.  The war was fought between the States that did not declare secession, known as the "Union" or the "North", and the Confederate States.  The war found its origin in the concept of State's Rights, but became largely regarding the issue of slavery after President Abraham Lincoln delivered the Emancipation Proclamation.  Over 600,000 Union and Confederate soldiers died, and much of the South's infrastructure was destroyed.  After the War, Amendments 13, 14, and 15 were proposed and ratified to abolish slavery in the United States, and to begin the process of protecting the civil rights of the freed slaves.
Questions  for Discussion:
1.  Why was the location of Washington DC chosen to be at a central position between the northern and southern States?
2.  Why was Washington DC only supposed to be the seat of government?
3.  What was the encouragement for people to take up residency in Washington DC?
4.  How did the Twenty-Third Amendment satisfy the demand by the districts residents that they be afforded representation?
5.  How is Washington DC's representation limited?
Resources:

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)
Larry Schweikart and Michael Allen, A Patriot's History of the United
States; New York: Sentinel (2004)
Smithsonian, Washington, D.C., History and Heritage, (2007)
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/travel/destination-hunter/north-america/united-states/east/washington-dc/washingtondc-history-heritage.html
Amendment 24: Poll Taxes and Open Primaries

The 24th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution ratified in 1964 made it unconstitutional for a State to use payment of taxes as a requirement to vote in national elections.  Few blacks could vote in States using poll taxes as a requirement to vote because they had little money.  The poll tax to vote in these states was $1.50.  After the ratification of the 24th Amendment a number of districts continued the practice of requiring a poll tax in order to vote.  A woman named Evelyn T. Butts decided to take the poll tax issue to court.  In October 1965, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear Evelyn T. Butts' appeal.  In 1966 the Supreme Court of the United States declared poll taxes unconstitutional in accordance with the 24th Amendment.
A poll tax is a uniformed tax levied on every adult in the community, called a capitation tax by the Founding Fathers.  Poll taxes have their roots in ancient tax systems and have been criticized as an unfair burden on the poor.  Historically, in the U.S., poll taxes were enacted in the South as a prerequisite for voting, disfranchising many African-Americans and poor whites.
One argument regarding the article claims the spirit of the 24th Amendment also disallows closed primaries by leaving out of the process independent voters.  As a result, a number of States have been passing laws enabling their States to make their election primaries open to all voters.  In an open primary you can vote for anyone you want regardless of party affiliation during the primary election.  Some proponents of open primaries contend closed primaries are unconstitutional - a violation of the 24th Amendment.
General discontent with the two-party system has emerged in American society.  A party system, however, is a natural result of human nature.  Every issue is divided by those who support the issue, and those that oppose it.  As human beings, we tend to gravitate toward those who think like ourselves (birds of a feather flock together), and parties ultimately form out of that natural tendency to organize.  Once the groups form, they become organizations, appoint leadership positions, and a political party is born.  Political parties are the natural result, fueled by our own human nature, of this kind of political organization.
In a party system such as ours, to allow voters to cross party-lines in the primaries can be dangerous because it opens up the potential for unethical voting techniques that are designed to injure the other party.  Open primaries allow members of opposing parties to vote in their opponent's primary in the hopes of affecting the outcome, and putting the weaker candidate on the ballot so that their own party has a better chance to win.  If both parties of a two party system is doing such, the result will always be the two weakest candidates facing off against each other.  Open primaries nullify the whole point of the primary elections, and often result in the best candidates not being elected.
Not all States have primaries, and the rules for choosing candidates for a particular party varies from State to State - as it should.  Some States have caucuses, which are meetings of the members of a legislative body who are members of a particular political party, to select candidates.  The choosing of the delegates varies from State to State.
States are given the authority to make their own election rules, and maintain the elections in their State, according to Article I, Section 4 of the United States Constitution, and reinforced by Article II.  This is why the Florida-Chad controversy in 2000 should have never resulted in the federal courts, or even the State courts, getting involved.  According to the Constitution, the decision on what to do regarding the controversy in Florida in 2000 should have remained with the State Legislature.
Some supporters of open primaries contend that closed primaries are in violation of the 24th Amendment because limiting who can vote in a primary by party membership is a poll tax as per implied law.
By strict definition, a poll tax is a tax, which would be a monetary amount expected as a prerequisite for voting.  Closed primaries do not impose a monetary tax, and therefore are not in violation of the 24th Amendment, based on the language of the amendment.  One may suggest the 24th Amendment implies that no action can be taken to close any election to any person - but primaries are simply party oriented.  People who couldn't vote in the primary would have been able to by joining a political party, and regardless of the ability to vote in the primaries, will be able to vote in the general election, and therefore are not being declined the opportunity to participate in the electoral process.

Terms:

Capitation - Head tax; a direct tax on each person.
Caucuses - A meeting of the members of a legislative body who are members of a particular political party, to select candidates or decide policy.
Closed Primary - A primary election in which only party members may select candidates for a general election.
Implied Law - Legal concept serving as a legal substitute for authorities expressly granted by the United States Constitution; an agreement created by actions of the parties involved, but it is not written or spoken, because they are assumed to be logical extensions or implications of the other powers delegated in the Constitution.
Open Primary - A primary election in which voters, regardless of party may select candidates from any party for a general election.
Poll Tax - A tax levied on people rather than on property, often as a requirement for            voting.
Primary Election - An election in which party members or voters select candidates for a general election.
Tax - A compulsory monetary contribution to the revenue of an organized political community, levied by the government of that political entity.
Two-Party System - A form of political system where two major political parties dominate voting in nearly all elections, at every level; a political system consisting chiefly of two major parties, more or less equal in strength.
Questions for Discussion:
1.  How did poll taxes disallow some people from being able to vote?
2.  What is the difference between open primaries, and closed primaries?
3.  Why is the existence of a two-party system inevitable in a political system like ours?
4.  Who prescribes the times and manner of elections?
5.  How was the "hanging chad" controversy mishandled?
6.  What are the advantages and disadvantages of open primaries?  Closed primaries?
Resources:
Congressional and Presidential Primaries: Open, Closed, Semi-Closed,
and "Top Two", Fair Vote: http://www.fairvote.org/congressional-and-presidential-primaries-open-closed-semi-closed-and-top-two#.T01VzPGPWHM

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)

Tom Spencer, American-style primaries would breathe life into
European elections (2004): http://www.europeanvoice.com/article/imported/american-style-primaries-would-breathe-life-into-european-elections/49725.aspx

Ware, Alan. The American Direct Primary: Party Institutionalization and
Transformation in the North (2002), the invention of primaries around 1900: http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=105149213
Amendment 25: Presidential Disability and Succession

The 25th Amendment, Section 1, reads, "In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President."
Section 1 of the 25th Amendment is clear, concise, and to the point.  After nearly two centuries of questions regarding if the Vice President actually became President in the case of the removal, death or resignation of the President, or was to merely act as President if such an instance would arise, the 25th Amendment sought to clarify without question the confusion that haunted Article II, Section 1, Clause 6, and the 12th Amendment.
When President William Henry Harrison became the first U.S. President to die in office in 1841, Representative John Williams had previously suggested that the Vice President should become Acting President upon the death of the President.  Vice President John Tyler concurred, asserting that he would need to succeed to the office of President, as opposed to only obtaining its powers and duties.  Though Tyler took the oath of President (precedent for full succession was established, becoming known as the "Tyler Precedent"), nothing was done to amend the Constitution regarding the procedure.
When President Wilson suffered a stroke in 1919, no one officially assumed the Presidential powers and duties, and the office of President essentially remained unmanned during the remainder of Wilson's second term.
It was clear that a set of guidelines needed to be established.
In 1963, a proposal enabling Congress to enact legislation establishing a line of succession by Senator Kenneth Keating of New York based upon a recommendation by the American Bar Association in 1960 surfaced, but it never gained enough support.
On January 6, 1965, Senator Birch Bayh proposed in the Senate, and Representative Emanuel Celler proposed in the House of Representatives, what would become the 25th Amendment.  Their proposal provided a way to not only fill a vacancy in the Office of the President by the Vice President, but also how to fill the Office of the Vice President before the next presidential election.
The line of succession the 25th Amendment establishes is as follows:
If the President is removed from office, dies, or resigns, the Vice President immediately becomes President.  Prior to the 25th Amendment there was no provision for Vice Presidential vacancies.  Under Section Two of the 25th Amendment the President nominates a successor who becomes Vice President if confirmed by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress, which occurred when President Richard Nixon appointed Gerald Ford to be his Vice President, after Spiro Agnew resigned as Vice President of the United States.
In Section 3 of the amendment, if the President provides a written declaration to the President Pro Tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives that "he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President."
Section 4, which has never been invoked, enables the Vice President, together with a majority of either the leading officers of the Executive Department, or of "such other body as Congress may by law provide", to declare the President disabled by submitting a written declaration to the President Pro Tempore and the Speaker of the House of Representatives.  If the President is unable to discharge his duties as indicated, the Vice President would become Acting President.
If the President's incapacitation prevents him from discharging the duties of his office and he himself does not provide a written declaration, the President may resume exercising the Presidential duties by sending a written declaration to the President Pro Tempore and the Speaker of the House.  If the Vice President and the officers of the Cabinet believe the President's condition is preventing him from discharging the duties of President, they may within four days of the President's declaration submit another declaration that the President is incapacitated.  If not in session, the Congress must, in this instance, assemble within 48 hours.  Within 21 days of assembling or of receiving the second declaration by the Vice President and the Cabinet, a two-thirds vote of each House of Congress is required to affirm the President as unfit.  If such actions are satisfied the Vice President would continue to be Acting President.  However, if the Congress votes in favor of the President, or if the Congress makes no decision within the 21 days allotted, then the President would resume discharging all of the powers and duties of his office.

Questions for Discussion:

1.  Why do you think there was no line of succession clearly defined prior to the 25th Amendment?
2.  Why do you believe nobody took on presidential powers after President Wilson's stroke in 1919?
3.  How does a President's incapacitation affect the overall functioning of government?
4.  Would a President's incapacitation influence government functioning differently in a time of war?

Resources:

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)
Understanding the 25th Amendment, Law.com,
http://constitution.laws.com/american-history/constitution/constitutional-amendments/25th-amendment
United States Constitution and Citizenship Day: 25th Amendment,
http://www.usconstitutionday.us/p/25th-amendment.html
Amendment 26: Voting Age

The 26th Amendment establishes the voting age at the age of 18, rather than 21 as it was previously.  The amendment was proposed in 1971, in an attempt to respond to student activism against the Vietnam War.  Originally, President Nixon had signed a law making the voting age 18, but a number of States challenged the law, and under pressure the amendment was proposed and ratified.
The slogan, "Old enough to fight, old enough to vote," which surfaced as far back as World War II, had finally become a worn-out enough slogan that the majority began to support it.  Arguments of various viewpoints regarding the wisdom of this amendment continue to this day, but one thing is clear, the original argument of "Old enough to fight, old enough to vote," was a ruse.
The Democrat Party was in trouble, and desperate for votes.  President Nixon was wildly popular.  The 1972 election was coming, and the Democrats needed to find a way to gain more votes, and to gain them fast.
The college-aged population was protesting against the war.  The younger generation, molded by left-leaning public school teachers, and leftist college professors, were ripe for the picking, but most of them were too young to vote.  The Democrats knew that if the protesting students could vote, they would vote for the Democrat candidate for president, and give the Democrats a fighting chance to gain seats in Congress.  The push for the 26th Amendment, though in part about "old enough to fight, old enough to vote," was in reality an attempt to gain more votes for the Democrats.  However, despite the ratification of the amendment in time for the election allowing people as low as the age of eighteen to vote, Richard Nixon still won the election in 1972 by a landslide.
Questions for Discussion:

1.  How has the inclusion of voters over 18 and under 21 influenced politics?
2.  Was the "old enough to fight, old enough to vote" campaign a new campaign?
3.  Did he political strategy being the 26th Amendment succeed?
4.  Why do you suppose the Democrats targeted the vote of the younger generation?

Resources:

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)
Larry Schweikart and Michael Allen, A Patriot's History of the United
States; New York: Sentinel (2004)
Old Enough to Fight, Old Enough to Vote, Nixon Foundation,
http://blog.nixonfoundation.org/2014/06/old-enough-fight-old-enough-vote/
Repeal the 26th Amendment! by Anne Coulter, Townhall,
http://townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/2010/11/10/repeal_the_26th_amendment%21
Youth Vote: Dems' Secret Weapon 40 Years in the Making? by Carl M.
Cannon, Real Clear Politics, http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/03/25/youth_vote_dems_delayed_time_release_capsule.html
Amendment 27: Congressional Salaries

The 27th Amendment prohibits any law that increases or decreases the salary of members of the Congress from taking effect until the start of the next set of terms of office for Representatives.  Ratified in 1992, the proposal remained in waiting for 203 years after its initial submission in 1789.
The reason for ratification was anger over a Congressional pay raise.  Wyoming became the last State to ratify the amendment.  Four States (California, Rhode Island, Hawaii, and Washington) ratified the amendment after the required number of States was met.
A battle over whether or not cost of living increases are affected by this amendment continues to this day.  Currently, cost of living increases take effect immediately, without a vote.
Questions for Discussion:
1.  How does the 27th Amendment protect against corruption?
2.  Why do you think it took so long to ratify the amendment?
3.  Is Congress voting itself raises still a concern among voters?
Resources:
Amendment XXVII: Congressional Compensation, United States
History, http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h924.html
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)
Members of Congress Haven't Had a Raise in Years, by Jesse Rifkin,
USA Today, http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/08/15/congress-pay-salaries/2660545/
Notes on the 27th Amendment, Constitution of the United States
"Charters of Freedom", http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_amendment_27.html
Understanding the 27th Amendment, Laws.com,
http://constitution.laws.com/american-history/constitution/constitutional-amendments/27th-amendment
Copyright 2015 Douglas V. Gibbs

Lester Holt's Bias in the Debate

Posted by Douglas V. Gibbs
AuthorSpeakerInstructorRadio Host



-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Hillary Clinton: Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire. . . the video

Posted by Douglas V. Gibbs
AuthorSpeakerInstructorRadio Host



-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Monday, September 26, 2016

Calling to Matt Heckman Show to discuss First Presidential Debate

http://www.talkshoe.com/tc/91616


Description: Join Matt Heckman and a panel tonight as we discuss the aftermath of the presidential debate.
Hosted by: MisterMattyH78 
Phone Number: (724) 444-7444

Thoughts about the first Presidential Debate

By Douglas V. Gibbs
AuthorSpeakerInstructorRadio Host

Note: this is not a transcript, it is a quick paraphrase as the event progressed.  I added in bullet points, which are  my own insertions and commentary.

Question #1 - Job Creation

Hillary Clinton: Raise national minimum wage, equal pay for equal work for women, profit sharing with employees, paid family leave, raise corporate taxes.

Donald Trump: Jobs fleeing country because of our policies.  We have to stop it.  Mentioned Carrier Air Conditioning going to Mexico.  Reducing taxes from 35% to 15% for companies.

Hillary Clinton: Trade is important.  We need smart and fair trade deals.  Tax system need to reward work.  Trump's is trickle-down economics.  That is not how to grow economy.  Then attacks him for his "fortunate" upbringing.  "Thinks if you help wealthy people it helps the economy.  I don't agree with that."

Donald Trump: Renegotiate trade deals.  Secretary Clinton have not been making good deals for years.  What's happened to our jobs and economy is theirs.  Jobs leaving in bigger numbers than ever.  Stop them from leaving by taxing overseas products coming into the country.

Clinton:  Worse collapse because of Bush tax policies.  Donald rooted for the housing collapse.  We have come back from that abyss.  We can not go back to policies that caused it in the first place.  His tax plan would blow up the debt, and disadvantage middle class families.  My plan creates 10 million more jobs because we will be making investments in things like clean energy.  Create more solar panels, creating more jobs.

Trump: I believe in all forms of energy, but we are losing in energy.  You can't do what Clinton wants to do in $20 trillion in debt.  Give companies incentives to stay here and expand.  You've been at this for 30 years, and you are just now coming up with solutions?

  • Hillary Clinton says she supports the Middle Class.  Raising national minimum wage, likely to $15 per hour, increases in the end cost of living.  Eventually, lower wage earners will be no better than they were before as cost of living increases, but Middle Class who got no raise will have to deal with higher cost of living.  She said Equal Pay for Equal Work for Women, but contradicts herself later in an attack on Trump saying that Trump was sexist for saying, "women don't deserve equal pay unless the do as good a job as a man."  Isn't that "equal pay for equal work"?  Which is it, Hillary?
  • Raising corporate taxes as Hillary suggests has historically hurt job growth and economic growth. Taxes, like wages, are a cost of doing business, and if the cost goes up, it is passed on to the consumer, or the business will depart from the hostile location. . . likely out of the country.
  • Clinton attacked the concept she calls "trickle down economics."  Poor people don't make jobs, the wealthy do.  Without creating an environment for business creation and growth, but instead creating obstacles that hinder creation or expansion (such as regulations and higher taxes), the economy cannot grow.
  • While Trump talks about renegotiating trade deals, and I agree to a point, the true way to bring companies back to the United States is to create a less hostile environment against doing business.
  • Clinton blamed collapse on Bush tax policies, when in reality it was a housing bubble created by leftist policies (Community Reinvestment Act) that legally forced lenders to pursue high risk lending.  In 2003 a Republican Congressional hearing warned the bubble was going to burst, and that Fannie and Freddie needed to be reeled in, but Democrats accused the Republicans of being racist and fear-mongers.  Then, when it collapsed, blamed it on Republicans when it had been policies in place by Carter and Clinton that created the bubble in the first place.
  • Clinton vowed to chase green energy, which is what Obama chased and it caused major economic failure.
  • Trump zeroed in on the debt, which is a large part of the problem.

Clinton: I have been thinking about this.

Trump: Yeah, for 30 years.

Clinton then touted her husband's economic record.

Clinton: Trade is not the only factor.  I know how to really work to get new jobs.

  • As a businessman Trump has more experience creating jobs than Clinton does as a bureacrat.  That said, the best government policy for creating jobs is to get out of the way and let the Free Market create jobs.  Clinton's job creation arguments seemed to surround government jobs, and fantasy jobs in the green energy industry we have already seen to be a huge failure.

Trump: You haven't done it in 30 years.  Your husband signed NAFTA, which is one of the worst things.  Manufacturing down 30, 40, sometimes 50 percent.  Now, you support Trans-Pacific Partnership, changed when you heard what I said about it.

Clinton: I was against TPP after it was negotiated.

Trump:  You said it was the gold standard.

Clinton:  Not true.

  • Hillary Clinton was one of the politicians involved in writing the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement.

Trump:  Is it President Obama's fault?  Because he's pushing it.

Clinton: We need strong growth, fair growth.

Trump:  You have no plan.  You are going to approve one of the biggest tax increases in history, driving businesses out.  My tax cuts biggest since Ronald Reagan.  You are going to regulate these businesses out of existence.  I am cutting regulation.  New companies cannot form, and going out of business, and you want more regulations.


  • Correct Constitutional Answer: Jobs are created when government gets out of the way.  Federal government has no authority to interfere with the free market.  Reduce/Remove federal regulations, reduce/remove corporate taxation, return reins to the States.  History has shown, despite Hillary's claim, that tax cuts actually increase revenue, because business growths, wages increase, and profits rise.

Question #2: Tax raise and cuts on wealthy

Trump:  I am calling for major jobs, because the wealthy create jobs.  Great thing for middle class when companies expand.  Money will come back from overseas.  Clinton won't allow that because the taxes are so high.  They are leaving to get their money, because they can't bring it here because of bureaucratic red tape.

Clinton:  By the end he's going to blame me for everything.  Trump saying crazy things.  I support bringing money back from overseas.  You have the Trump loophole.  It would make an advantage for your family, your business.  Trumped up trickle down.  Trickle down did not work.  It got us into the mess we got into in 2009.  Smart people know that.  I don't think top down works in America.  Make college debt free.  Broad-base inclusive growth.  Not more advantages for people at the very top.

  • When you hear Hillary Clinton begin to call Trump crazy, or attack him personally, it's because he is beating her in the arena of ideas.
  • College debt free?  First, how do you pay for it.  Also, college also fits the supply and demand model.  Because Democrats have been subsidizing education, and making sure everyone gets a bachelor's degree, it is now nearly worthless because there are so many of them.  The number of bachelor's degrees exceed the number of jobs available for them.  While I appreciate education, government interference with education, and making college so easily accessible is devaluing the worth of education. . . just as the Democrats are doing to the dollar.

Trump: Typical politician.  People like Hillary have made bad decisions.  We are in a big fat ugly bubble, and we have a fed doing political things by keeping the interest rates low.  When Obama leaves to play golf permanently, we are in trouble.

Question added: Tax Returns

Trump: No problem.  I have provided a 104 page report.  I have $694 million.  That's the kind of thinking this country needs.  Who's negotiating these trade deals.  Bureaucratic hacks.  I will release them as soon as the audit is done.  I get audited almost every year.  I will release mine when she releases her emails that have been deleted.  Why did she delete 33,000 emails?

Clinton: You just saw an example of bait and switch.  Everyone has released their tax returns.  Why won't he release while under audit?  Maybe he's not worth as much as he says he is.  Maybe he's not as charitable as he says he is.  Maybe he doesn't want the people to know he hasn't been paying taxes to the federal government.  There might be something terrible he is trying to hide.  American people deserve to see, and I don't think he ever will because there is something he's hiding.  Who does he owe money to?

  • Accusations without evidence.  That is what the Democrats do.  Remember the left's battle cry: "The nature of the evidence is irrelevant; it's the seriousness of the charge that matters." You simply need to make a harsh, totally unfounded charge, and that's good enough against Republicans

Question: Emails

Clinton: It was a mistake.

Trump: More than a mistake.  It was done purposely.  When you have your staff taking the 5th so that not prosecuted, the man who set up the server taking the 5th.  Check out my financial disclosure, says more than tax returns.  It's about time this country had someone running it that has some idea about money.  All this debt, but infrastructure like a third world country.  $20 trillion in debt and we're a mess.  $6 trillion in Middle East.  Politicians like Secretary Clinton that caused this problem.  We don't have the money because we have squandered the money.

  • As a military veteran, if in my job I had done a fraction of what Hillary did regarding emails, I'd still be in Leavenworth, if not executed for treason.

Clinton: And because you are not paying taxes.  Campaign manager said you've built businesses on the back of little guys.  You've stiffed people.

  • Remember, Democrats are more worried about getting more tax money out of people, than they are about controlling unconstitutional spending.

Trump:  Maybe they didn't do a good job.

  • Would you pay someone if they did a crappy job?  Clinton is suggesting that doing enough to get a participation trophy is enough to get paid.  Life requires quality, as well.

Clinton: Don't they deserve some kind of apology?  Worked for you, and you refused to pay them.  You've taken business bankruptcy six times.  Sometimes what is good for business is very bad for government.

Trump:  I built and unbelievable company.  But, on occasion, we used certain laws that are there.  We were within the laws of the nation, and my obligation is to do well for my companies and employees.  What about tens of thousands who love me?  In Washington DC, we are opening old post office under budget and ahead of schedule.  That's what the government should be doing.  The government has no idea on what to do, and how to buy.

  • A question I'd like to ask any Democrat: "What have you produced in the private sector?"  And, that does not include government jobs, which produce very little, if anything.

Question: America's Direction - Race Relations

Clinton: Race still an issue.  Affects education, and how people are treated in the criminal justice system.  We need to restore trust between communities and the police, make sure police using best training, techniques, well prepared, use force only when necessary.  Everyone should be respected by the law, and respect the law.  I am calling for criminal justice reform.  Good police want reform.  We need to work towards that, and get guns out of the hands of people who should not have them.  We have to tackle the plague of gun violence.

  • Hegelian Dialectic.  Step One, Create a Problem (Racism); Step Two, Create Opposition (Black Lives Matter); Step Three, Create Solution (More Big Government).  Racial problems going on right now is a creation of the Democrat Party, and liberal left policies. . . by design.  Dependence upon government is another version of slavery.
  • We have a culture problem created by democrats.  Notice, problems are in cities where democrats are in charge.  Black community, I have a question.  After 50 years of voting Democrat, what have they done for you?
  • Reform of the criminal justice system by Clinton means a federalization of the police, which is unconstitutional, dangerous, and a very authoritarian idea that places liberty at an extreme risk.

Trump:  She doesn't want to say "law and order."  If we don't have it, we don't have a country.  I have the endorsement of the Fraternal Order of Police, and a large percentage of police groups.  Inner-cities, African Americans and Hispanics living in hell in our cities, thousands of shootings this year, like a war-torn country.  We have to stop the violence.  In Chicago, thousands of people have been killed, almost four thousand since Barack Obama has been in office.  Perhaps stop and frisk like Guiliani did.  Many cases the gangs with guns are illegal immigrants.  Our police are often afraid to do something. African American communities are filled with crime.

Host argued about stop and frisk.  Said it was unconstitutional.  Trump said no, it was not continued by new mayor after leftist judge ruled.

  • Stop and Frisk is not unconstitutional, and the federal courts have no legal jurisdiction to rule on it.  There is no authority granted in the Constitution allowing federal government any say over internal police matters or procedures, therefore, federal courts have no authority to take the cases.

Trump:  We need law and order, and we need law and order in the inner-cities.

Clinton: I heard Donald say this at his rallies.  He paints such a dire and negative picture of black communities.  We should be supporting and lifting up.  Right ways, and ways that are ineffective.  Stop and frisk unconstitutional, and ineffective.  Crime is down, we don't want to see it creep back up.  Too many young black American and Hispanics in jail for non-violent offenses, of which a white would not have.  Common sense gun safety measures needed, keep military style guns off the streets, pass prohibition anyone on terrorist watch list from buying guns.

  • Clinton accuses Trump of painting a dire and negative picture of black communities.  So, to coddle sensitivities we must lie?  The reality is what reality is.  The problem is being caused by liberal left policies.  And, as Ben Watson of the New Orleans Saints said, the problem is not a skin problem, it's a sin problem.
  • Terrorists will still get guns, whether they can get them legally, or not.  Notice the shootings in Australia and Europe.
  • Military style guns?  If citizens weren't allowed to have "military style guns" during the American Revolution, we would have lost.  If citizens were allowed to have "military style guns" in Germany, the Nazis would never have gotten as far as they did.

Host: Are police implicitly biased racially?

Clinton: We all are.  We need to ask hard questions about why we are feeling that way.  We will put money in budget to deal with implicit bias.  Police chiefs admit it is an issue.  They need assistance, federal government can provide that assistance.

  • Clinton just called everyone racist.  However, it is Democrat Party opinion that only whites can be racist, therefore, in her statement, the "we" is "all white people."  Quite a broad brush, but I suppose when you are a member of the political party of racism, slavery, and the KKK, it comes natural.
  • Are there some members of the police force who are biased?  I suppose.  But, it is not rampant.  Besides, look at the facts.  In Charlotte it was a gun-wielding suspect with a long list of priors shot by a black cop with a black police chief.  The rioters, it turns out, were mostly from out of the area.  70% arrested had out of State IDs.  Charlotte was nothing about racial injustice, and everything about a culture that has been severely damaged by liberal left policies.
  • Again, Hillary is suggesting we have a federalization of the police forces around the country.

Trump:  Agree.  Watch list?  Shouldn't be able to buy a gun.  You were the one that brought up super-predator about young black youth.  It was a terrible thing to say.  Stop and frisk takes guns away from gangs that use them.  New York City stop and frisk brought down number of murders.  Stop and frisk had a big impact on crime in New York City.  African American community let down by politicians.  Abused and used in order to get votes by Democrats.

Question: Natural Born Citizen

Trump:  I got him to present birth certificate.  I want to get on to the important things.

Host: Continues on with birther question.

Trump:  Nobody has been caring about it, I was the one to get him to produce a birth certificate.  Hillary Clinton fought it too.  Just like she can't bring back jobs, she can't produce.

Clinton: Just listen to what you heard.  He tried to put the whole racist birther lie to bed, but it can't be dismissed that easily.  He has been behind this no evidence lie that our first black president was not eligible.  He did it to bring people into his fold.  Donald started his career in 1973 being sued for racial discrimination because he would not rent apartments to blacks.  He was sued twice.  He has a long record of engaging in racist behavior, and the birther lie was a hurtful one.  As Michelle Obama said, "When they go low, we go high," and Obama went high.

Trump:  In your debates with Obama you treated him with great disrespect.  You were after him.  Your campaign sent out pictures of him in certain garb.  You try to act holier than though, but it doesn't work.  As for the lawsuit, when I was young, we were sued.  We settled the suit with no admission of guilt.  They sued many people.  Like your nasty commercials.  I settled that lawsuit with no admission of guilt.  In Palm Beach, Florida, I opened a club and really got great credit for it, with no discrimination.  It's a tremendously successful club.  I've been given great credit for what I did.

  • Hillary called it a "racist birther" position.  Nothing racist about it.  It was just a matter of eligibility.  As for Donald Trump and the revealed Obama birth certificate, the truth is, Obama is still ineligible.  It's not as much about where he was born, but whether or not both parents were citizens at the time of his birth, and by Obama's own admission, his father was not a citizen at the time of his birth.

Question: Securing America - Cyber attacks

Clinton:  Cyber warfare among biggest challenges facing next president.  Done mostly for commercial reasons, but increasingly we are seeing cyber attacks from states, like Russia.  Russia has used cyber attacks against all kinds of organizations in the U.S.  Trump praises Putin, but Putin is behind hackings.  This is one of their preferred methods to wreak havoc and collect information. We are not going to sit idly by when actors go after our information.  We will defend the citizens of this country, and Russia needs to understand this.  That's why I was shocked when Trump invited Putin to hack into American systems.

Trump:  I was endorsed by over two hundred admirals and generals to lead this country.  I was endorsed by ICE, first time ever.  By border patrol agents.  I'll take the generals and admirals over the political hacks any day.  Look at the mess we are in.  We are in a bigger mess than we should be.  Maybe it was Russia, maybe China, maybe someone sitting on their bed and weighs 400 pounds.  Sanders was taken advantage of.  Under President Obama we've lost control over things we had control over.  ISIS beating us at our own game.  We need to be tough on cyber warfare.  Security aspect is tough, and maybe it's hardly doable, but we are not doing the job we should be doing.

Clinton:  I have a plan to go after ISIS online.  We are making progress, our military is assisting in Iraq, soon we'll be able to push ISIS out of Iraq.  I will do everything I can to take out ISIS leadership.  We've got to defeat ISIS.

Host: Over there.  What about American citizens conducting attacks on American soil.  How do you prevent homegrown attacks?

Trump:  We will take out ISIS.  Obama and Clinton created a vacuum the way they got out of Iraq.  She's been trying to take them out, but they wouldn't have even been formed if they'd left some troops in Iraq.  We should have taken the oil, because then ISIS wouldn't have formed.  Oil is their primary source of income.

Clinton:  I hope fact checkers turning up volume.  Donald supported invasion of Iraq.  He supported attack in Libya.  Larger point, George Bush made agreement about when troops left Iraq.  Iraqi government would not give agreement to leave troops in Iraq.  How about preventing attacks in the United States?  We need an intelligence surge, looking for every scrap of information.  From Europe.  From the Middle East.  Donald is dismissive of that.  We are working with our friends in the Middle East, Muslim majorities, while Trump is insulting Muslims.  Alienated and pushing away.

Trump:  If we've been working with them so many years. . . we have a mess.  Iran deal, country ready to fall under sanctions, and now a major power with Iran deal.  NATO.  28 countries aren't paying their fair share.  They should be paying us by treaty, and contract.  NATO could be obsolete because they do not focus on terror.  Now they are opening a major terror division, and I think that's great.  I am all for NATO, but they have to focus on terror also.  We have to get NATO to go into the Middle East with us, and knock the hell out of ISIS - when they formed from the vacuum created by Obama and Clinton, and you named the date, that's incredible - you were there when they were an infant, and you are going to stop them?  I did not support the war in Iraq.  Hannity remembers I was totally against the war before it started.  He used to have fights with me.  We should have never been there.  It destabilized the Middle East.  I have better judgement than Hillary, and a better temperament.  Behind a blue screen Clinton was out of control.  Has a temperament out of control.

Clinton:  NATO, as a military alliance, an attack on one is an attack on all.  They went to Afghanistan with us.  With respect to Iran, Iran was weeks away from a nuclear bomb because of Bush administration.  I voted for every sanction as a Senator against them.  Tough sanctions drove them to the negotiations table, and the deal stopped their bomb building.  Trump would taunt Iran, blast their boats out of the water.  We must do everything we can to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons, and Trump's cavalier attitude would let them.  He should not have his fingers anywhere near the nuclear codes.

Trump:  Nuclear weapons greatest problem, not global warming.  We defend Japan, Germany etc, they don't pay us.  We provide a service, and we lose a fortune.  All I said is that it is possible that if they don't pay their fair share we can't defend them.  They may have to defend themselves, or help us out.  As far as nuclear, it is the single greatest threat this country has.

Question: Obama proposed changing policy of first use.

Trump:  Russia has been expanding, they have newer systems, we are not keeping up with other countries.  I would not certainly do first strike.  If it happens, we have to be prepared.  China is powerful, can go into North Korea.  Iran is one of their biggest trading partners.  Horrible deal with Iran should have included they do something in respect to North Korea and Yemen.  One of the great giveaways of all time.  Cash for hostages, or at least it looks that way.  One of the worst deals made by any country in history.  Will lead to nuclear problems.  Netanyahu is not a happy camper.

Clinton: Words matter, and they matter when you are president.  I want to reassure our allies that we have mutual defense treaties, and we will honor them.  This campaign has caused worries among leaders around the globe, but I want to assure them that our word is good.  We should look at the entire global situation.  I would rather deal with putting a lid on their program.  What would Trump have done?  The deal has been successful, giving us access to facilities in Iran we never had before.

Trump:  Hillary will tell you to go to her website about how to defeat ISIS, when we should have stopped them in the first place.  I want to help our allies, but we are losing billions and billions of dollars.  We cannot be the policemen of the world without them paying for our services.  All of the things she's been talking about could have been taken care of, and hasn't, and won't.

Question: Trump said Hillary doesn't have the look, is first woman to get nomination.

Trump: She doesn't have the stamina.

Clinton: As soon as he travels to 112 countries and negotiates deals or spends 11 hours testifying in front of congress, he can talk to me about stamina.

Trump:  She has experience, but bad experience.  Iran Deal giving Iran 150 billion back.

Clinton: He tried to switch from looks to stamina.  He has called women pigs. . .etc, women don't deserve equal pay unless the do as good a job as a man.  Then went into rumor accusations. . .

Trump:  Where did you find this?  She's hitting me with tremendous commercials.  I've said tough things about Rosanne O'Donnell.  Spending millions on ads against me that are not nice, and not true.

Final Question:  Accept outcome of election?

Clinton: I support our democracy.  I will respect the outcome of this election.  It's up to you, not up to us.  Get out to vote as if your future depends upon it.

Trump:  I want to make America Great Again.  We are troubled.  800 that were supposed to be deported became citizens by mistake.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Saturday, September 24, 2016

The Soros Plan to Stop Trump: Overseas Voting

By Douglas V. Gibbs
AuthorSpeakerInstructorRadio Host

The very fact that the globalists and the establishment hates, and is fearful of, Donald Trump as President of the United States helps me with my willingness to vote for the billionaire businessman in the next presidential election.  The reality is, however, I don't believe people realize how diabolical the effort to stop Mr. Trump truly is.

Realizing there may not be enough votes stateside to elect Hillary Clinton, as Trump rises in the polls, the Democrats and their global allies are going beyond cemeteries to find liberal left votes.  In fact, they are crossing the seas and entering the international realm in the hopes of drumming up enough votes to get Hillary "cough cough" Clinton into the White House.

There are more than 8 million mostly unregistered “global citizens” and “progressive” Americans living abroad, and the leftist establishment is going to do what it can to ensure they also vote in the 2016 U.S. election for President of the United States.

No surprise that George Soros has a hand in it.  The initiative was launched in London in the United Kingdom by ‘Avaaz’, a registered U.S. charity and one the world’s largest and most powerful activist groups which is also - wait for it, wait for it - linked to globalist billionaire George Soros.

Oh, by the way, it is illegal for registered U.S. charities to work with or for presidential candidates.  Avaaz gets away with it, though, because leftists are treated as if they are above the law.  A spokeswoman for Avaaz denied any connection to the Hillary campaign when quizzed. Campaigners with Avaaz, however, were recorded shouting, “Vote for Hillary!” during a demonstration, an obvious violation of the law in my opinion.

88 per cent of Americans living abroad did not register to vote in the last presidential election.  Avaaz says “this massive untapped voting block” is much more likely to be “progressive” because “56 per cent of us [in the UK] have masters degrees” and overwhelmingly donated to Democratic candidates in the last three presidential primaries.  Well, living in socialist countries with leftist mindsets probably doesn't hurt, either.

In a press release, Avaaz references a new Oxford University study that found “America’s overseas voters… could decide the US presidency in 2016”. When combined, the potential 8 million voters around the world, “would make up the 13th largest state”, they say.

One official for the charity said, “We are a charity in the United States, we are governed by American law, and we are not allowed to coordinate with any candidate.  But, we are absolutely allowed to advocate for our position.  And our position is that Trump is a global threat”.

Talk about falling into lock step with the biased American media.

Her argument was that Avaaz was not working for Hillary, which would be illegal, but was instead dedicated to issues like climate change and opposing nuclear weapons, and therefore must oppose Mr. Trump and his policies, which implicitly means backing Hillary.

“Whether it’s banning Muslims or building walls, the man sows division wherever he goes, and that’s part of the reason Avaaz wanted to make sure everyone, everywhere can help stop Trump”, the woman added.

According to POLITICO, Mr. Soros has committed around $25 million to assisting Hillary Clinton and Democratic Party causes at this election cycle.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Unconstitutional Supreme Court Judicial Review

Posted by Douglas V. Gibbs
AuthorSpeakerInstructorRadio Host



My comment regarding this video:

The debate is a short one since you laid out the truth so nicely. Let's add a little more, however. Judicial review, the power of judicial supremacy you discussed so eloquently, is not a power granted to the courts, but was taken (seized) through judicial opinion beginning with John Marshall's in 1803's Marbury v. Madison. Judicial review's presence and growth led to our current system of case law. Here's the thing. Our Constitution is a social contract, and as a contract it does not fall under case law. It falls under contract law... Which is, essentially, a matter of "either it's in there, or it's not." Then, when we talk about our worthless Congress, we can go right back into Article III, to the Exceptions Clause, to discover that Congress has the power through legislation to make null and void any unconstitutional ruling by the court. Do you hear that, my friends? The Exceptions Clause establishes that Congress has power to be a check against the courts! And, then of course, the States also, beyond their voice in the Senate (of which their equal suffrage was taken away in violation of Article V. by Amendment 17 in 1913) have the authority to nullify unconstitutional rulings because in the end the contract-makers, the States, are the ultimate final arbiters of the United States Constitution.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Constitution Radio: JASmius Strikes Back

Today's episode of Constitution Radio with Douglas V. Gibbs on KMET 1490-AM which airs every Saturday at 1:00 pm Pacific is being invaded by Never Trump.  JASmius returns (triumphantly?) to guest host Constitution Radio as Douglas V. Gibbs and Alex Ferguson attend the Combat Veterans for Congress endorsement gala in San Diego.

Warning: JASmius and Doug disagrees on the Trump Presidency. . . and now you have a chance to hear what JASmius has to say about the GOP Candidate as the November 2016 Presidential Election draws near.

Topics will include Trump, why he is not a fan of Trump, and why you should jump over to his side on Trump.

I have asked he regularly remind folks that he and I are not in agreement.

Should be a hell of a show.

Combat Veterans for Congress Gala Event

Today, September 24th, the Combat Veterans For Congress are hosting a Patriotic Gala Event in at the San Diego Marriott Mission Valley, 8757 Rio San Diego Drive, San Diego, California 92108, to introduce the endorsed Combat Veterans For Congress to the National Press Corps.  Dr. Ben Carson will be the Keynote Speaker this year.  Douglas V. Gibbs and Alex Ferguson of Political Pistachio and KMET 1490-AM will be in attendance as members of the press, this year.

Articles will be forthcoming, as will be a discussion about this event next Saturday on Constitution Radio with Douglas V. Gibbs.

Larry Elder is the Master of Ceremonies, and speakers include Ben Carson and Sheriff Arpaio.  We will likely have an opportunity to interview these persons.

So, stay tuned. . .

Cascade Mall Seattle Shooting. . .

Posted by Douglas V. Gibbs
AuthorSpeakerInstructorRadio Host

UPDATE: GUNMAN ON RUN AFTER KILLING 4 WOMEN, MAN IN MACY'S...

MALL TERROR...

SCREAMS...


-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary