Tuesday, September 25, 2018

Corona Constitution Class: Government Prohibitions

Tuesday Night, 6:00 pm, Corona Constitution Class, AllStar/CARSTAR Collision, 522 Railroad Street, Corona, CA

Here's the handout:

Constitution Class Handout
Instructor: Douglas V. Gibbs
Lesson 04
Legislative Prohibitions
Prohibitions to the Federal Government, and the States
- Prohibitions to the Federal Government
The Slave Trade and Immigration
The common misconception is that Article I, Section 9, Clause 1 is obsolete. The abolition of slavery in the United States made the clause obsolete, we are told. In reality, only a part of the clause is not longer in force. The clause addressed the Atlantic slave trade, and the migration of people into the United States. Slavery was abolished by Amendment 13 so the part of Article I, Section 9, Clause 1 that addresses slavery is obsolete. But is the part about migration still in force?
One could say that the "migration" portion of the clause is still in force because the 13th Amendment only addresses slavery. The standard belief among historians is that the entire clause is no longer in force.
The ramifications of this clause may indeed reach into today's issue regarding illegal immigration.
Why would the Founding Fathers include a mention of migration in a clause that is essentially geared toward the abolition of the importation of slaves?
The word "importation" in this clause applies wholly to slaves.
The word, migration, then, would seem to apply wholly to non-slaves.
The intention was that since the Constitution, as the contract that created our federal government, is a document that grants powers to the federal government, and that all authorities not expressly delegated, are reserved to the States, it was expected that immigration would remain as an issue that would be addressed by the States.
Other national governments prohibited migration as they saw fit, so the Founding Fathers determined that the new United States Government must have that same authority.
According to the clause, however, from the year 1808 Congress would possess the power to stop the importation of slaves, as well as the migration of people the Congress felt must be prohibited from entering this country as immigrants, through the Congress' power of legislation.
The Constitution was written specifically in regards to the federal government. All powers originally belonged to the States. Some of those authorities were granted to the federal government for the purpose of protecting and preserving the union. Therefore, all authorities regarding immigration originally belonged to the States, and before 1808 the States had sole authority regarding all immigration issues.
In Article I, Section 9, the federal government was given the opportunity to regulate immigration, but not until 1808. The reason for delaying the power to prevent migration were, to be simply put, to give the States twenty years to attract as many people as possible without Congressional regulatory consideration. After all, at this time in history we had immense and almost immeasurable territory, peopled by not more than two and a half million inhabitants. Therefore, migration was encouraged, especially of the kind of people that would bring a benefit to the new nation. The immigration of able, skilful, and industrious Europeans was encouraged.
Note that this clause gives the federal government the authority to prohibit certain persons from migrating into the United States, but it does not give the federal government the authority to dictate to the States which persons the States must admit inside their borders.
Habeas Corpus
Article I, Section 9, Clause 2 states that "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."
Habeas corpus is a legal term that means quite literally in Latin: "you may have the body." In legal terms, Habeas corpus is a writ that releases a prisoner from unlawful detention. Habeas corpus comes from British common law, and has historically served as an important legal instrument safeguarding individual freedom against arbitrary state action that includes detention without the due process of law.
A writ of habeas corpus is a summons with the force of a court order that demands a prisoner be taken before the court, and that the custodian present proof of authority, allowing the court to determine if the custodian has lawful authority to detain the person. If the custodian does not have authority to detain the prisoner, then the prisoner must be released from custody.
Habeas corpus is designed to protect citizens against any detention that is forbidden by law. The U.S. Constitution specifically includes the habeas procedure, and instructs the Congress not to suspend such unless the detainment is the result of a "Rebellion or Invasion," adding that "the public Safety may require it."
Normally, habeas corpus proceedings accompany questions of jurisdiction and authorities of the court that sentenced a defendant. The suspension of habeas corpus has recently become an issue regarding the detainment of terrorists, but one must ask if the public safety requires the suspension of habeas corpus in the case of terrorists, as prescribed in the Constitution. Secondly, one must consider that the Constitution applies to American citizens, so the question on whether or not Article I, Section 9, Clause 2 applies to captured combatants seems to be a moot point since it is obvious that the detained are not American Citizens, and therefore are not protected by Constitutional protections. Also, remember that Congress has the sole authority to make rules regarding captures on land and water as per Article I, Section 8, Clause 11.
Bills of Attainder
A Bill of Attainder is when the legislature declares the guilt of a person or group of persons, and punishes them without due process (the benefit of a trial).
In Britain, bills of attainder were used as a convenient way for the King to convict subjects of crimes and confiscate their property without the bother of a trial, and without the need for a conviction or indeed any evidence at all. Such actions were seen as tyrannical because often this power was used against political enemies, and the Founding Fathers did not wish to give the new federal government those same kinds of powers. Some states, prior to the Constitution, did use attainders against British loyalists, but the practice all but disappeared after the Constitution so specifically forbid the use of attainders by the U.S. Congress, and the States.
Prohibiting the use of bills of attainder serves a number of purposes. One purpose is that by disallowing the bills of attainder the separation of powers is reinforced. By disallowing bills of attainder, it literally forbids the legislature from performing a judicial function. Another purpose is in regard to the protection of the concept of due process, which was later reinforced by the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.
The true danger of a bill of attainder is that such a legislative act inflicts punishment without a judicial trial, and takes away the life, liberty or property of the target.
Ex Post Facto law
Ex post facto Law is literally retroactive law, or a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences (or status) of actions committed or relationships that existed prior to the enactment of the law. Ex post facto law could criminalize actions that were legal when committed, or in the case of amnesty laws, decriminalize certain acts or alleviate possible punishments. Generally speaking, ex post facto laws are seen as a violation of the rule of law as it applies in a free and democratic society. Ex post facto laws are expressly forbidden by the United States Constitution.
Direct Taxation
The U.S. Constitution originally forbade direct taxation upon the people by the federal government. Taxation of the people by the federal government could only be laid in relation to population. When the idea for the income tax came to fruition, an amendment (16th) had to be passed to allow for the direct taxation of the people without dependence upon the enumeration of the population.
Article I, Section 9, Clause 4 states that in addition to direct taxation, the federal government was forbidden from using Capitation. Capitation is a head tax. A Poll Tax is a kind of head tax. In the context of the period, any tax that singles out groups both directly and indirectly regardless of possession of lands or personal property is Capitation. Since Article I, Section 9 is a prohibitory section, the specific call by the Founding Fathers in that clause was that there shall be No Capitation, which included No Poll Tax.
In early New England, in keeping with traditions from the homeland, capitation (caput, meaning head), or poll taxes, were common. These taxes were levied as a way to manipulate the people for the "good of the government."
Alexander Hamilton, though condemning capitation taxes in his Federalist Papers writings, was in favor of "head taxes" for emergency revenue reasons. He felt that since sources for revenue were so few, if the government needed to expand for any reason, the ability to lay head taxes, or direct taxation, needed to be an option. However, most of the Founding Fathers disagreed, not only because of their belief that taxation must be indirect and small, but also because of their opinion that the federal government must remain limited to the few authorities granted to it by the U.S. Constitution.
Article I, Section 9, Clause 4 forbids Congress to lay a tax upon individuals except uniformly, and in proportion to the census provided for in Article I, Section 2, Clause 3, where this subject is first brought up. In other words, direct taxation was forbidden. What the federal government did was tax the States, based on proportion to the census, or enumeration. The States then taxed the people in order to pay the tax to the federal government. The method of taxation by the States was left up to each individual State. The federal government, in this way, used indirect taxation to tax the people.
As we have learned, the U.S. Constitution is not designed to necessarily tell the federal government what it can't do as much as it is designed to tell the federal government what few authorities it has. But the Founders felt this to be so important that in addition to not giving direct taxation to the Federal Government as an authority, they felt they must also spell it out that the Federal Government cannot tax in this manner in any form. This clause restricts the Congress a lot more because it is prohibitive. Article 1, Section 8 provides a list of "enumerated powers," but knowing that politicians would bend and twist meanings to gain more power, Article 1, Section 9 was designed to spell out some very specific things the Congress is prohibited from doing (such as direct taxation and capitation taxes).
Preference in Commerce
Article I, Section 9, Clause 6 states that "No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another."
This proposal was placed before the Constitutional Convention by the delegates from Maryland, their fear being that congressional legislation might prefer Chesapeake Bay ports of Virginia to those of their State. Under the Articles of Confederation, each State was free to impose duties and make regulations to the disadvantage of others, and it was desired that equality in commerce be maintained in the future. This also gives us a clue to the intentions of the Commerce Clause in Article I, Section 8. The Founding Fathers did not wish to give the Federal Government control over commerce, only the ability to ensure that commerce was maintained in an equitable manner in regards to the several States.
U.S. Treasury
Article I, Section 9, Clause 7 reads: "No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time."
This clause was inspired by the lessons learned in regards to merry old England. The Founding Fathers did not believe it should be in the power of the Executive alone, or of the legislature alone, to raise or spend the money at will. Article I, Section 7, Clause 1 requires that all bills for raising money must originate in the House of Representatives; but they must then pass the Senate and be signed by the President. In 1842 Congress began to make appropriations by joint resolution; but as that also must be approved by both Houses, and signed by the President, there is no real difference. Also, in the interest of transparency to the people, the records of all monetary transactions both of receipts and expenditures must be made available for public scrutiny.
Divided Allegiance
Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 reads: "No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State."
The Founding Fathers did not believe there should be any foreign influences in the affairs of our government.
This provision was taken from a provision in the first section of Article VI of the Articles of Confederation. It permitted persons holding office under a State to accept, with the consent of Congress, the objectionable gifts or distinctions; but the constitutions of at least two of the States at that time forbade them altogether. This republic, being a nation born as a result of the tyranny of a monarchy, should not grant titles of nobility, that much was easily understood. Nobility betrayed the trust and honor of the people through the use of prestige and favoritism. This was the kind of government that did not protect the liberties of the people.
Jefferson, as President, accepted from Alexander I of Russia a bust of that Emperor, which he said would be "one of the most valued ornaments of the retreat I am preparing for myself at my native home." He said that he had laid it down as a law of his official conduct not to accept anything but books, pamphlets, or other things of minor value; but his "particular esteem" from the Emperor "places his image in my mind above the scope of the law." However, without the consent of Congress, who was the final determining factor, he could not have accepted that gift.
In 1810 Congress proposed an amendment, the original Thirteenth amendment (some would call it the lost 13th Amendment because some records showed it was ratified, then suddenly disappeared - as explained below), to add a heavy penalty to this clause by this wording:
"If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive or retain any title of nobility or honor, or shall, without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding office of trust or profit under them, or either of them."
The people were told that the proposed amendment lacked the necessary ratifying votes. Ongoing research has shown that the proposed amendment was indeed properly ratified, the State Department WAS notified, and the amendment was on the books and records of the various States until at least 1876. From 1810 to 1812, twelve states ratified this amendment. The War of 1812 destroyed the library of Congress and these documents were thought destroyed, but in 1994 it was discovered they still exist after a chance discovery in Maine in 1983 made historians aware of the existence of the original 13th Amendment.
Indirect Taxation: An indirect tax is contrasted with a direct tax which is collected directly by government from the people. An indirect tax, for example, may increase the price of a good so that consumers are actually paying the tax by paying more for the products. Another example of indirect taxation is for one entity to tax another entity, and then the second entity taxing the people to recoup the taxes it paid.
Joint Resolution: A joint resolution is a legislative measure requiring approval by the Senate and the House and then is presented to the President for approval or disapproval. There is generally no legal difference between a joint resolution and a bill. Laws enacted by virtue of a joint resolution are not distinguished from laws enacted by a bill. Constitutional amendments are passed by joint resolutions, which are instead presented to the States for ratification. Resolutions are often temporary in nature.
Questions for Discussion:
1. How was immigration regarded by the Founding Fathers?
2. Why is Habeas Corpus so important?
3. If the Founding Fathers disagreed with divided allegiance, what would they think of dual citizenship?
Articles of Confederation, March 1, 1781; http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/artconf.asp
Larry Schweikart and Michael Allen, A Patriot's History of the United States; New York: Sentinel (2004).
Madison's Notes on the Constitutional Convention, Avalon Project, Yale University: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/debcont.asp
The Original 13th Article of Amendment; American Patriot Friend's Network:
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/13th.htm Thomas J. DiLorenzo, Hamilton's Curse; New York: Three Rivers Press (2008).
- Prohibitions to the States
The articles in the U.S. Constitution all apply to the federal government unless otherwise noted. Article I, Section 10, notes otherwise. Each clause begins with the words "No State shall," making Article I, Section 10 prohibitive to the States.
Article I, Section 10, Clause 1 begins by disallowing the States to enter into any treaty, alliance, or Confederation. The goal was to keep the union intact, have all dealings with foreign governments go through the federal government, and to ensure there was no divided loyalties among the States. Treaties and alliances are external issues.
The disallowance of the States entering into a confederation was the argument used against the Confederacy during the American Civil War. President Lincoln considered the southern states seceding and joining into a confederation to be unlawful, partly due to this clause in the Constitution. However, by seceding, the States no longer fell under the jurisdiction of the Constitution, making the Confederacy a legal arrangement.
No State could grant letters of Marque and Reprisal, or coin money. These authorities were granted to the federal government in Article I, Section 8. States were not allowed to coin money so that they would not use currency as a means to gain an unfair advantage over each other in relation to interstate commerce.
Article I, Section 10 prohibits the States from emitting bills of credit. Bills of credit take two forms. Bills of credit are receipts for currency, such as a treasury note, and bills of credit can be items of credit such as bonds. What this means is that the States could not issue paper money, nor could States issue instruments of debt. In other words, the States were not allowed to borrow money. Today, all but two States of the union are in debt. The State deficits are in violation of the U.S. Constitution.
The States were also disallowed from passing bills of attainder, ex post facto law, or passing any law that would impair the obligation of contracts. The States, as the federal government, could not issue any title of Nobility. Ex post facto law has become a large concern in recent politics. Ex post facto law is retroactive law. By disallowing the passage of ex post facto law, the States (just like the federal government) cannot constitutionally pass laws retroactively. A gun legal at the time of purchase cannot be made retroactively illegal. Immigrants who entered the State illegally cannot be made retroactively legal. A tax cannot be retroactively imposed, creating a sudden large balance of tax due.
States are allowed to tax imports or exports, but only with the consent of Congress. Because States are tasked with having their own inspection laws, any costs necessary for executing those inspection laws may be recouped through imposts or Duties without the consent of Congress.
"The net produce of all duties and imposts, laid by any State on imports or exports, shall be for the use of the Treasury of the United States." In other words, the States cannot over tax imports and exports. They are only to charge taxes necessary to cover their costs, such as "executing inspection laws." Any net produce, or what would be considered "profit" in the private sector, goes to the U.S. Treasury. All of the States inspection laws, or other laws regarding imports and exports, are also subject to revision and control by the Congress.
Having a military is also forbidden to the States in time of peace, except with the consent of Congress. However, if a State is invaded, or the State feels they are in imminent danger, they are allowed to form a military. Currently, 23 States have State Defense Forces, or "State Militias." In recent years, State Defense Forces have proven vital to homeland security and emergency response efforts.
Questions for Discussion:
1. What does the various prohibitions to the States have in common?
2. How do the prohibitions to the States relate to concepts like the Tenth Amendment?
21st-Century Militia: State Defense Forces and Homeland Security, Heritage Foundation: http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/10/The-21st-Century-Militia-State-Defense-Forces-and-Homeland-Security
Madison's Notes on the Constitutional Convention, Avalon Project, Yale University: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/debcont.asp
UNITED STATES v. COMSTOCK (No. 08-1224), Clarence Thomas Dissenting Opinion (State Sovereignty): http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-1224.ZD.html(2010)
Copyright: Douglas V. Gibbs, 2015

Resistance Ruining Democrat Hopes

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

When Donald Trump became the Presidential nominee for the Republican Party, the Democrats began an out-of-their-mind temper-tantrum strategy that defies all logic.  When Trump nominated Neil Gorsuch to the U.S. Supreme Court, they went nuts.  When he nominated any of his appointees, allegations of racism, sexism and sexual impropriety exploded.  While it worked with candidate Judge Roy Moore, for the most part their attacks have not pulled off what they want.

So, they increased the insanity when Brett Kavanaugh was nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court.  There is no strategy.  There are no political tactics involved.  It's all about desperation, and striking out.

It's a Bolshevik-style resistance that isn't sitting well with a large swath of Americans.

The Senatorial hearing regarding Kavanaugh began with radical agitators screaming in the back of the room, and protesters in the street.  Senators Kamala Harris and Cory Booker made fools of themselves as they tried to delay the procedure.  But, since those tactics didn't do the job to scare Kavanaugh off, or make President Donald Trump withdraw the nomination (like spineless Republicans would do in the past), the attacks increased, and the political madness got louder.

Now, as expected, sexual allegations have emerged.  The problem for the Democrats is, however, that not only has Kavanaugh denied ever having any sexual contact with anyone (and that he was a virgin throughout high school, and for many years later), witnesses that may have been able to corroborate accuser Christine Blasey Ford's story are saying it didn't happen.  The Democrats, however, don't believe in due process, or the idea that there is a presumption of innocence until proven otherwise.  They are lining up to say they believe Ford's story.

"If at first you don't succeed," is the Democrat Party's motto, "get nastier."

A second accuser has emerged.

This one's name is Deborah Ramirez, and like Ford, she's a Democrat Party operative, and nobody is corroborating her story.  In fact, everyone who knows, or has known Brett Kavanaugh, is saying the judge is a stand-up guy, a moral person, and that all of these allegations are way outside the realm of his normal operating procedures.

Now, a third accusation is on the barbie.

Kavanaugh says these are smears.  Nothing less.

Notice how the Democrats and the media are silent about an easier to prove sexual assault case surrounding one of their own, Keith Ellison.

The madness being portrayed by the Democrats is not their finest hour, or the media's, and they are ruining any hope in the future of doing what they've done in the past.

In truth, in their maniacal frenzy to not lose what little hold they thought they had on the American political system after Obama, they are throwing out any hopes of future infiltration.

Let's think hypothetically, for a moment, and enter the mind of the Democrat.

When Donald Trump first emerged, the #NeverTrumper crowd, both Democrats, and conservative #NeverTrumpers, said that Donald Trump is not a Republican.  A friend of mine from New York City told me, "The guy's a Democrat.  Everybody knows it."

JASmius, a former writer for Political Pistachio, and a former co-host on my radio program, is still waiting for Trump to take off his sheep's outer-covering and proclaim, "Fooled all of you, now it's time to institute Democrat policies."

What if JASmius was correct.  What if the original plan of Trump was to get into the White House as a Republican, and then go lefty on us?

It wouldn't be the first time.

George W. Bush claimed to be a conservative, but more often than not, he wasn't.  Daddy Bush was worse.  Both of them are globalists.

What about Gorsuch and Kavanaugh.  What if they were the next Justice David Souter?  Souter was a George H.W. Bush appointee.  Souter claimed to be a Republican.  But his judicial opinions often said otherwise.

Justice Anthony Kennedy is another case of being a Republican nominee, but turning out to, quite often, jump ship and rule with the hard left progressive judges.  Remember, Kennedy was a President Ronald Reagan nomination.

What if Gorsuch and Kavanaugh were capable of finding themselves somehow sympathizing with the liberal lefties?

The liberal left has literally ruined any possibility of that.  They have literally thrown Trump, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh into the arms of conservatism (if they weren't conservative, already).

If the Democrats ever thought in their empty little brains that defection by someone like Trump, his judicial nominees, or anyone else that might have been straddling a fence, was possible, their antics have killed the possibility.  Infiltration, thanks to a myriad of straight-jacket moments being provided by the Democrat Party and their minions, can only be achieved now by their own extremists.  Even moderates like Senator Susan Collins is saying that the Democrats have gotten . . . well . . . a little on the ridiculous side.

In truth, voters are the same way, and every time the Democrats pull this garbage, they are sending more voters in our direction.  The Democrats have no argument.  All they have are temper tantrums.

And, to be honest, Republican voters aren't the only ones shaking their heads and thinking, "Wow, these Democrats sure have lost their mind."

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Monday, September 24, 2018

Trump's Accomplishments Keep Piling Up

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

Donald J. Trump may go down in history as among the greatest, most effective U.S. Presidents in the country's history.

The List of Accomplishments is still growing: 
  • Almost 4 million jobs created since election.
  • More Americans are now employed than ever recorded before in our history.
  • We have created more than 400,000 manufacturing jobs since my election.
  • Manufacturing jobs growing at the fastest rate in more than THREE DECADES.
  • Economic growth last quarter hit 4.2 percent.
  • New unemployment claims recently hit a 49-year low.
  • Median household income has hit highest level ever recorded.
  • African-American unemployment has recently achieved the lowest rate ever recorded.
  • Hispanic-American unemployment is at the lowest rate ever recorded.
  • Asian-American unemployment recently achieved the lowest rate ever recorded.
  • Women’s unemployment recently reached the lowest rate in 65 years.
  • Youth unemployment has recently hit the lowest rate in nearly half a century.
  • Lowest unemployment rate ever recorded for Americans without a high school diploma
  • Under my Administration, veterans’ unemployment recently reached its lowest rate in nearly 20 years.
  • Almost 3.9 million Americans have been lifted off food stamps since the election.
  • The Pledge to America’s Workers has resulted in employers committing to train more than 4 million Americans. We are committed to VOCATIONAL education.
  • 95 percent of U.S. manufacturers are optimistic about the future—highest ever.
  • Retail sales surged last month, up another 6% over last year.
  • Signed the biggest package of tax cuts and reforms in history. After tax cuts, over $300 billion dollars poured back in to the U.S. in the first quarter alone.
  • As a result of our tax bill, small businesses will have the lowest top marginal tax rate in more than 80 years.
  • Helped win U.S. bid for the 2028 Summer Olympics in Los Angeles.
  • Helped win U.S.-Mexico-Canada’s united bid for 2026 World Cup.
  • Opened ANWR & Approved Keystone XL and Dakota Access Pipelines.
  • Record number of regulations eliminated.
  • Enacted regulatory relief for community banks and credit unions.
  • Obamacare individual mandate penalty GONE.
  • My Administration is providing more affordable healthcare options for Americans through association health plans and short-term duration plans.
  • Last month, the FDA approved more affordable generic drugs than ever before in history. And thanks to our efforts, many drug companies are freezing or reversing planned price increases.e reformed the Medicare program to stop hospitals from overcharging low-income seniors on their drugs--saving seniors hundreds of millions of dollars this year alone.
  • Signed Right-To-Try Legislation.
  • Secured $6 billion dollars in NEW funding to fight the opioid epidemic.
  • We have reduced high-dose opioid prescriptions by 16% during my first year in office.
  • Signed VA Choice Act and VA Accountability Act, expanded VA telehealth services, walk-in-clinics and same-day urgent primary and mental health care.
  • Increased our coal exports by 60%; U.S. oil production recently reached all-time high.
  • United States is a net natural gas exporter for the first time since 1957.
  • Withdrew the United States from the job-killing Paris Climate Accord.
  • Cancelled the illegal, anti-coal, so-called Clean Power Plan.
  • Secured record $700 billion dollars in military funding; $716 billion next year.
  • NATO allies are spending $69 billion dollars more on defense since 2016.
  • Process has begun to make the Space Force the 6th branch of the armed forces.
  • Confirmed more circuit court judges than any other new administration.
  • Confirmed Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch; Nominated Judge Brett Kavanagh.
  • Withdrew from the horrible, one-sided Iran Deal.
  • Moved U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem.
  • Protecting Americans from terrorists with the Travel Ban, upheld by Supreme Court.
  • Issued executive order to keep open Guantanamo Bay.
  • Concluded an historic U.S.-Mexico Trade Deal to replace NAFTA. And negotiations with Canada are underway as we speak.
  • Reached a breakthrough agreement with the EU to increase U.S. exports.
  • Imposed tariffs on foreign Steel & Aluminum to protect our national security.
  • Imposed tariffs on China in response to China’s forced technology transfer, intellectual property theft, and their chronically abusive trade practices.
  • Net exports are on track to increase by $59 billion dollars this year.
  • Improved vetting & screening for refugees, and switched focus to overseas resettlement.
  • We have begun BUILDING THE WALL. Republicans want STRONG BORDERS and NO CRIME. Democrats want OPEN BORDERS which equals MASSIVE CRIME.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Sunday, September 23, 2018

Threat of China

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

While the mainstream media has always tried to convince us that the Chinese are the good communists, the reality is, there is no good communism.  China has been reminding us of that, and is rising to become an enemy that it is getting harder and harder for the their allies among the liberal left progressives to hide.

A friend of mine, a woman who left Communist China twenty years ago, says that the greatest danger in the world is China.  Another tells me that the communists are becoming desperate because a desire for Western culture is slowly moving through the Chinese population.  The leadership is concerned.  Opposition to communism may be on the horizon.

Therefore, China is taking no chances.

They have switched on their Social Credit System, something that uses a sprawling, technological mass surveillance network that is designed to the likes of which the world has never seen. The plan is to have it in full swing by 2020.  The surveillance system is designed to control and coerce the the citizenry.  It is a gigantic social engineering experiment that some have called the "gamification of trust".

How much Science Fiction did you read when you were younger?  I read a lot of it, and my favorite books are the ones about a dystopian future where the last remnants of liberty must find a way to overcome a massive tyranny.  The Chinese project comes right out of those books, except the nightmare is more massive and intricate than anything any sci-fi writer could create in my hall of books.

The system assigns an individual a trust score.  Each and every citizen gets one.  Businesses too.  Your trust score can go up, and down, and the higher your trustworthiness, the more you will be allowed to roam free.  But, you know how trust can be.  Trust can be easy to lose, and difficult to earn.

Lose points on your trust score, and the tightness of the iron fist grips tighter.

The System uses China's technological infrastructure of about 200 million CCTV cameras.

Never mind big-brother.  China's communists will be something worse.  They know they have to crack down, so their ever-watchful eyes will use facial recognition systems, and cross-checks with financial, medical records, and legal records.

The Chinese are ready to make sure that there is no revolution in that country calling for liberty.

Society will be managed, and controlled through an algorithmic governance that would make Silicon Valley blush.

Points will be awarded for being a good communist citizen, such as paying bills on time, engaging in charity, and properly sorting your recycling.  Better scores result in positive reinforcement.  You know, like training a dog.  Do as the master wants and gain access to perks, like better credit facilities, cheaper public transport, and even shorter wait times for hospital services.

Be a good citizen, and get your little treat.

Negative reinforcement, however, will also be used.  Break the rules, like paying your bills late, committing infractions like jaywalking or smoking in non-smoking areas, and you will be punished by the communist state.

Technology.  Techno-tyranny.  Australian newscast outlets describes it as a "digital dictatorship". 

Lose trust points, and the guilty citizen will incur financial penalties and even travel restrictions.  Investigative journalist Liu Hu learned the hard way.  He says the social credit system destroyed his career after he was blacklisted for making accusations of government corruption.

Branded "dishonest", he had access to rail travel suspended, and his social media accounts – comprising some 2 million followers – were reportedly shut down, effectively making his job impossible.

Remember the movie "The Net"?

This is worse.

And the Chinese people are simply going along with the tyranny.  They know no different, except what little they've tasted of liberty through illegal news from The West.

"Their eyes are blinded and their ears are blocked. They know little about the world and live in an illusion."

Individuals aren't the only ones subject to this iron fist'd communist tyranny.  Companies in China are also being graded, even those from other countries.  Some are already feeling the coercive aspects of the controversial system, which some fear could "interfere directly in the sovereignty of other nations".

Another danger to Chinese communist control is the emerging church.  While communism is atheistic, Christianity does exist in the country.  China's only goal has been to make sure they pledge their loyalty to The Communist Party.

Recently, the Chinese government did exactly that.

China's Catholic Church has reaffirmed its loyalty to the country's ruling Communist Party, while also welcoming a landmark deal struck with the Vatican on appointing new bishops.

The Vatican signed an agreement giving it a long-desired and decisive say in the appointment of bishops in China, which originally had been out of the Vatican's hands.  China's around 12 million Catholics have been split between an underground Church swearing loyalty to the Vatican and the state-supervised Catholic Patriotic Association.

The Catholic Church in China said it would "persevere to walk a path suited to a socialist society, under the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party."

What the agreement did was open the opportunity for the underground Catholics to reveal who they are, just as the communists have planned.

Christian extinction in China may be soon to follow.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Democrats: Hypocritical, Evil Faith in Godless Socialism

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

The great deceiver and the great counterfeiter.  If you don't know who I am talking about, you might as well close the page and go back to your life of blind challenges.

The liberal left Democrats stand against everything right.  They raise taxes, making it harder for the poor to survive, and then say they are for the poor.  They increase regulations, killing small business, which gives the corporations less competition, and then claim they are for the little guy and are against the great big corporations.  They claim they want you to be free to do what you want (by supporting all kinds of bizarre groups), and then pass laws to limit soda intake, straws, water usage, and any other government control they can muster.

A friend of mine recently told me, we need to quit saying this is a battle between the right and the left, and understand this is a battle between right and wrong.

Immigration, for example.  The liberal progressive commie Democrats, in their push to make every place a sanctuary for illegal aliens, have convinced themselves that breaking in and entering, stealing from residents, and bringing into the country with them those who do not have the best for America in their soul is the moral and right thing to do.  They (illegal aliens) should be, according to the liberal Democrats, able to drive, able to vote, and given citizenship without any questions asked.

Let's change the scenario and see if their argument still makes sense.

They have convinced themselves that if someone breaks in and enters a home, stealing from the homeowners their food in the fridge and overtaking the spaces of their dwelling, and bringing people into the house who wish to destroy the hard work the family has labored over the years to make it their home, is the moral and right thing to do.  Then, after breaking into the house, they demand to be admitted into the family, be in the will for when the parents pass away, eat the food when they damn well please, and to bring whoever into the house they want since they are now a part of the family, even if the person wishes to kill or rape any of the original family members.  And they want you to believe this is the moral and right thing, and if you have any inkling against it, it's because you are racist, and you hate people.

Meanwhile, while we are wrestling with illegal immigration, and the crime and loss of jobs (and murders of citizens) the situation brings with it, we have Americans, youngsters who have been trained in socialism and how to be radical agitators by Marxists in our public school system, banding together in the name of Antifa for the purpose of forming an army to cause a civil war.  These ungrateful pukes are going beyond agitation and are preparing for black shirt tactics, and a Bolshevik-style revolution.

The illegal aliens, by percentage, largely agree with the Antifa pukes who are pushing a communist revolution.  The Democrats have refused to speak out against this, because Antifa is their militant arm.  For the Democrats, it began with the KKK, long ago. Now, their militant force of chaos are groups like Antifa, and Black Lives Matter.

The real enemy of the progressive commie Democrats, however, is God.  So, they do everything they can to stand against The Creator.  If He Created the sexes, then with transgenderism they must destroy God's Creation - even if it takes on a psychological madness that could destroy our culture, and people's lives.  It doesn't matter to them, as long as they get the votes, and silence their God-fearing opposition.  They don't care about the destruction they are causing.  The Democrats don't even care if their drive to normalize gender-confusion leads to massive suicides by these poor pawns in the Marxist game the liberals are playing.  They don't care as long as they advance themselves politically.  Besides, it's a natural marriage, because the tactics used by homosexuals and transgenders to normalize their bizarre behavior is radical, tyrannical, and exactly what the Democrats want.  In the end, remember, the ends justify the means, and anything is game, just as long as the opposition is silenced, and ultimately annihilated.

Karl Marx once said that the "meaning of peace is the absence of opposition to socialism."  The Democrats, and their allies, agree.  Political speech is being targeted, not only through political correctness, but by eliminating such speech on campuses, silencing any conservative or Christian speech in social media, and by shaping the message to fit the Marxist plan through the online search engines like Google.

How can our republic (not democracy) survive this kind of assault?

To be honest, the only thing holding them back from taking the final steps toward tyranny and bloody revolution is the fact that the right to keep and bear arms is still considered an individual right, and the fact that Donald J. Trump has decided to stand up to them, and fight them with fire.  Despite their attacks, science has proven that Trump is of sound mind and sound body, and the reality is, it's looking like he may go down as one of the best Presidents of the United States this country has ever seen.  He's created a historical scenario that has North Korea ready to rejoin the free world and turn its back on communism, and in a recent visit by the South Korean President to North Korea, the crowds were chanting "unification".

The economy is doing so well, even CNN is willing to admit Trump deserves some credit.

That all said, the rise of President Trump, and the strong conservative messaging that is out there right now, is only a short reprieve.  The anti-American progressive commies are regrouping. Preparing.  Inserting Satanic messages of doom (largely through entertainment).  They are getting so desperate that Obama is snapping at people during speeches, and one minion professor went so far as to shoot himself in the arm.

Insanity?  I think "Evil" might be a more appropriate word.

The liberal progressive commie Democrats are pulling out all of the stops.  Stay vigilant.  Stay focused on God and preserving American ideals.  And, my friends, do what you can to stay sane, because the other side isn't.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Saturday, September 22, 2018

Project Veritas: Deep State Deeper than you want to believe

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

I received the following email from Project Veritas . . . a.k.a. James O'Keefe:
Dear Friend, 
Strzok, McCabe, Comey. The list goes on.
The Deep State has strangled the Department of Justice (DOJ).
When I saw this happening, I knew that we had to investigate.
Today, Project Veritas exposed the Department of Justice. 
Our investigation found several revelations:
  • DOJ employee claims that her colleagues discuss how to resist President Trump from the inside, including "slowing what they do." She is not concerned about repercussions and brags, "at the DOJ, we can't like get fired. 
  • Rogue agents reportedly using DOJ resources to target political opponents; run their license plates; and target them at their homes. 
  • Employees leaking confidential informationat the Department of Health and Human Services to undermine the administration.

But the roots of the Deep State run deep. There is more to uproot and unmask.
What we are being told is that the deep state is deeper, and more sinister, than many people are willing to admit. They are desperate. Willing to do anything to stop this turn around ushered in by the Tea Party, and President Donald J. Trump.  In short, the communists who have been working to fundamentally change America into something the Framers of the Constitution never dreamed of are getting vicious.  The ends justify the means to these people, no matter how dirty, how deceptive, or how illegal their activities really are.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Political Action this Week begins with Cromnibus

Posted by Douglas V. Gibbs

After the completion of the latest Constitution Radio with Douglas V. Gibbs program, during which we had as guests Tim Donnelly (Candidate for Congress, District 8), Harry Ramos (Candidate for Murrieta City Council, District 2), and Judge Steven Bailey (Candidate for California State Attorney General), let's turn our attention to the business at hand coming up.

In the Pass Area the Banning-Beaumont-Cherry Valley Tea Party worked with other groups to hold a rally for Kimberlin Brown-Pelzer for Congress at the Farms' House Restaurant parking lot in Banning until 5:oo pm on Saturday.

On September 25, 2018, the Riverside County Board of Supervisors are attempting to enact GPA 1227, a change the General Plan that would change the status of Rural Communities to Urban. Citizens are organizing and requesting protest letters to be sent to the Supervisors and to attend the Board of Supervisors Meeting on Tuesday, September 25th at 9:00 am. The Riverside County Board of Supervisors meeting will be at 4080 Lemon Street in Riverside.

The push to advise Murrieta voters of how bad the raise in the city's sales tax is only beginning.

In Washington, the U.S. Senate passed the “cromnibus” to fund the government through December 7, and it is a spending nightmare. The House will vote on the legislation next week.  Contact your Congress Critter now to urge them to vote against this monstrosity.  Don't know who your Congressman is?  https://www.house.gov/representatives/find-your-representative

The cromnibus maintains last year’s bloated spending levels, lacks conservative policy riders, and is the culmination of a failed appropriations process this year which consistently blocked conservative priorities.  In short, the establishment of liberal progressive crazies, and their Democrat-light colleagues in the GOP, are up to their same old bloated unconstitutional spending tricks again.  Had Congress worked with our President, and passed President Trump’s recession package earlier this year, the fake “savings” they claim is funding the cromnibus would have been returned to the American people instead of funneled into other federal programs.  Federal spending is running rampant as Congress scrambles to finish as many appropriations bills as possible before federal funding expires on September 30.

Monday the Judge Kavanaugh hearings continue.  Senator Grassley of the Senate Judiciary Committee continues to handle the allegations against Judge Kavanaugh with leadership and strength. He has offered the opportunity for Judge Kavanaugh’s accuser Christine Blasey Ford to make her case, and I hope the GOP realizes who she is, and what she is, and points out her connection (through her brother) to the fake Russian Dossier put out by Fusion GPS.  Christine Blasey Ford is a dirty Democrat Party scoundrel operative and she is being used in this as a part of the deliberate effort to discredit the Judge’s character and delay the confirmation.

Also, in your area there are plenty of things to do. Are you being active?  Do you have a "Yes on Prop. 6" sign in your yard so that you can play a part in repealing the California killing Gas Tax?  I volunteer at the Temecula Riverside County GOP Headquarters on Monday, Thursday and Friday.  Stop by, get a sign, and information on your Republican Candidates.

And, don't forget, my Constitution Study Groups are in full swing.  Join us, and learn how to right the ship.

Tuesdays, 6:00 pm, Corona Constitution Class, AllStar/CARSTAR Collision, 522 Railroad Street, Corona, CA

Wednesdays, 6:00 pm, Temecula Constitution Class, Riverside County Republican Party HQ, 28120 Jefferson Ave., Temecula, CA (tucked between the cigar shop, and the tattoo shop)

As for local clubs, don't forget the Murrieta-Temecula Republican Assembly (www.mtra.club), and the Banning-Beaumont-Cherry Valley Tea Party (www.bbcvteaparty.com) who meets Tuesdays for breakfast, 8:00 am, at the Farms' House Restaurant, 6261 Joshua Palmer Way, Banning.

Finally, I will be speaking for about 10 minutes about our Natural Rights at the Temecula Valley Republican Women's Federated on October 16 in what I am hoping will become a continuing series of talks.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Constitution Radio: Donnelly, Ramos, and Bailey

Constitution Radio with Douglas V. Gibbs
KMET 1490-AM, Saturdays 1:00-3:00 pm  (miss the program?  No problem.  PODCAST)

Call in Live: 951-922-3532


Tim Donnelly, Candidate for Congress, California's 8th District.

I left a message asking Paul Cook, the incumbent that Donnelly is trying to unseat . . . he never called me back.  Donnelly says Cook was a NeverTrumper.

Harry Ramos, Candidate for Murrieta City Council, as well as an officer with the California Republican Hispanic Assembly and the NAACP.

Steven Bailey, Candidate for California Attorney General.

Alan Myers, Forensic Accountant to talk about the Federal Reserve's dangerous game.

then, if we can squeeze them in ...

CARSTAR/AllStar Collision Big Stories of the Week:

⇛ Chaos


⇛ Socialism




⇛ Tyranny




⇛ Surveillance


⇛ Deception








⇛ Lemmings




⇛ Insanity





⇛ Obstruction