DOUGLAS V. GIBBS             RADIO             BOOKS             CONSTITUTION             CONTACT/FOLLOW             DONATE

Friday, June 23, 2017

Four Republicans Hold Out for Full Repeal of Obamacare

By Douglas V. Gibbs
AuthorSpeakerInstructorRadio Host

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, despite the fact that four Republican members of the U.S. Senate say they oppose the GOP's bill, is still seeking a vote on the Republican Health Care Bill next week.  Rand Paul says the bill "sounds like Obamacare."  Democrats say the bill is a tax cut (wait a minute, when they were pushing the Affordable Care Act into place, didn't the Democrats argue it was not a tax?).  Elizabeth Warren went so far as to accuse the GOP bill of being "blood money".  Senator John Cornyn told Fox News this morning that "it's not a perfect bill," but what they have is based on "The art of the possible."

Remember, all of the Republicans demanded a repeal of Obamacare during the last 8 years of the reign of Obama, but now that they have full control and a supporting Republican President, they want to try and fix the health care law they proclaimed was "unconstitutional" and a law that has nothing good in it in the first place.

Some conservative members of the Senate are calling out their GOP colleagues.  Four dissenting Republican Senators say the Republicans are not seeking to repeal Obamacare, but to tweak what the Democrats unconstitutionally sought in the first place. Senators Mike Lee (Utah), Ron Johnson (Wisconsin), Ted Cruz (Texas), and Rand Paul (Kentucky) call the GOP bill "Obamacare lite," and wish to remove the federal government out of health care as much as possible, and give the power back to the States.

Ted Cruz denied the accusation he is an obstructionist. He said, "I have been clear from Day 1, I want to get to yes... but we've also got to get it right"

From a strict constitutional point of view, there are no expressly enumerated authorities granting to the federal government any allowance to meddle in the health care industry.  The Affordable Care Act was enacted by the Democrats so that it could eventually lead to the communist concept of a "single payer system."  Therefore, if the Republican Senators wish to abide by their oath to protect and defend the U.S. Constitution, only a full repeal of Obamacare, and a creation of laws releasing any federal control over the industry is permissible.

Ted Cruz's "Path to Yes" is essentially designed to follow along those ideas in regards to constitutionality, while it does allow for limited federal influence.

1. Consumer Freedom Option. Obamacare's insurance mandates caused premiums to skyrocket.  To fix that problem, the bill should add a provision that says that any insurance company that offers at least one plan that meets the mandates can also sell any other plans that consumers desire.

2. Real Flexibility for Medicaid. Each state should have full flexibility to design creative and innovative ways to provide care for our most vulnerable.  That flexibility should be automatic and codified in statute, not dependent on seeking waivers from an HHS Secretary who may have a different policy view.

3. Enact the "consensus" market reforms.  Specifically: (a) allowing consumers to purchase insurance across state lines; (b) expanding association health plans, so those in individual or small group markets can join together in large groups to get lower rates; (c) allowing people to pay health insurance premiums from health savings accounts, which lowers premiums immediately by letting them be purchased with pre-tax dollars; and (d) giving a bonus in federal medicaid matching funds to states that enact caps on punitive damages in medical malpractice lawsuits.

4. Reach a real agreement to rein in the long-term growth of Medicaid:  Every Republican campaigned on stopping the out-of-control debt that threatens our future.  If we squander this unique opportunity to implement meaningful entitlement reform - if we double the historic growth rate of Medicaid, as the current bill does - we would not be honoring our promises.  Instead, we should bend the cost curve downwards, enacting structural reforms to ensure long-term fiscal sustainability.

Which brings us back to John Cornyn's statement about "The art of the possible."

Ideally, the federal government should have no influence on health care whatsoever, and the system should be a purely free market system with no third party payer.  A patient/provider relationship would drive down the cost of health care, and increase the quality.  True competition always does.

However, currently the federal government meddles as much as it can in issues it has no business being involved in.  Over 85% of the federal government's activities are either unconstitutional, or inadvisable.  It took us over 200 years to evolve into the mess we are in, and it will likely take as long to get out of it (if we have the intestinal fortitude to carry out long term plans from generation to generation).

So, we must ask.  Is the GOP plan a betrayal, and should we applaud the four conservative constitutional Republicans for standing in the way of allowing Obamacare-lite to become law, or is the GOP plan a step in the right direction that we should embrace with the promise that it will continue to become smaller and smaller with each passing bill?

While I have never seen government voluntarily reduce their grip on our throats, a full reversal of federal intrusion into the health care industry seems unlikely as well.

The truth is, history has proven time and time again that if you let the market do its thing, and completely remove governmental interference, the market prospers.  However, the political class has established so many goodies for voters that to pull the rug out from under them could create a situation where people could suffer under the new rules, thus establishing a permanent opposition to constitutional laws that seek to reduce federal influence on issues like health care.  We must also remember to argue in favor of State Sovereignty.  While the federal government as no authority over health care, the States do.  If the States want to have safety nets, programs to care for those who can't afford care, or even socialized medicine as is being proposed in California, they have the authority to do so.  As Cruz offers, the federal GOP plan should be to ween America off of federal control, and return many of those controls back to the States where they belong.  At least then, if the consequences are a bad thing, it only hurts that State, and not the entire country like with what we saw regarding Obamacare.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Fires Continue to Rage in Utah and Big Bear, California

By Douglas V. Gibbs
AuthorSpeakerInstructorRadio Host

My wife and I were in Big Bear Lake just a few weeks ago.  The Big Bear area is a collection of mountain communities over the Inland Empire vernacular region in Southern California.  While up there, aside from enjoying local shopping and views of the lake, we had a couple of great meals, and I decided to take a look at a few of the home listings in the area, I noticed two things.  One, the lot sizes are pretty small.  While I would prefer owning acreage, I was told that because of the National Forest surrounding the area the lots remain under an acre (and the larger the lot and/or the closer to the lake, the more the likelihood the property approaches a million dollars, or exceeds a million).  Second, the fuel for a fire looked pretty hefty.  A better than usual rain and snow season resulted in an incredibly lovely growth of vegetation. . . which also provides even more fuel for a fire.

As the West, especially the southwestern United States, faces Summer's triple digit heat, the fires have emerged, one of which is burning in Big Bear.

The fire in Big Bear has been burning for a week, and so far has burned 1,562 acres just north of Big Bear Lake.  The area has experienced mandatory evacuations, and so far the blaze is 35% contained.

A part of the challenge has been that the wooded area is rocky and steep.  Hundred-year-old trees that had held boulders in place on hillsides are now gone, adding a new dimension as firefighters not only have to fight the fire, but watch their every step and listen for rolling, burning logs or tumbling rocks in the darkness.

Overnight winds helped with the firefighting by pushing the fire back into itself, slowing its spread.

The temperatures are expected to remain high, and wind speeds are also going to be increasing.  Combined with dropping humidity the conditions ahead pose additional challenges for the more than 1,200 firefighters battling the fire.

The cause of the fire remains unknown, but an investigation is underway.

In Utah, almost 28,000 acres have been torched.  Evacuations of neighborhoods and the evacuation of fire crews in some areas, have taken place.  Authorities state the fire is only 5 percent contained, down from the previous 15 percent, which means the fire crews have been losing ground against this massive blaze.

Fire officials report that reality dictates that in order to make major progress crews need to be placed in extremely unsafe conditions.

As with the Big Bear fire, temperatures are high, the wind gusts are blowing, and the terrain is challenging.

Homes have been damaged in Utah's Brian Head fire, but the number has not yet been confirmed.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Charges Against Planned Parenthood Exposure Dropped

by Douglas V. Gibbs
AuthorSpeakerInstructorRadio Host

A California State Court dismissed almost all of the criminal charges filed by pro-abortion forces against David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt, the pair who exposed with undercover videos the fact that Planned Parenthood has been selling body parts of aborted babies.

California Attorney General Xavier Becerra filed 15 felony charges against Daleiden and Merritt.  Becerra stood to gain from his attack against the pro-life advocates since he has financial connections to the Planned Parenthood abortion company that the two pro-life Advocates exposed in the videos for selling body parts such as fetal brains and livers.  Therefore, for Becerra, it was not only a political choice as a Democrat, but a personal vendetta designed to protect his ill-investments.

The San Francisco Superior Court dismissed 14 of the 15 bogus criminal counts.  The one remaining charge is one count of conspiracy to invade privacy.

Daleiden and Merritt are not out of the woods just yet.  Becerra can still go back on the attack because the court dismissed the charges with leave to amend, which means that Becerra could re-file the charges with additional evidence against the pair.

“We will now turn our attention to dismissing the final count. Sandra Merritt did nothing wrong. The complaint by the California Attorney General is unprecedented and frankly will threaten every journalist who provides valuable information to the public. This final count will also fall,” said Matt Staver of the Liberty Counsel who is defending the case.

A similar set of charges were levied against Daleiden and Merritt in Houston. Those charges were also eventually dropped due to the bogus nature of them.

As with the legal attacks against President Trump's executive orders, the liberal left's pro-abortion forces are using the courts for their own political advances, and are disregarding the rule of law.  From a constitutional point of view, woe is America when the rule of law means nothing because the Democrats seek to instead advance their anti-constitutional and anti-morality policies through the manipulation of the law, and the rule of men.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Obama and Trump: A Visual Comparison

Posted by Douglas V. Gibbs
AuthorSpeakerInstructorRadio Host

Just Sayin'

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Thursday, June 22, 2017

Ramadan, Islamic Terror, and Who the Media Blames

by Douglas V. Gibbs
AuthorSpeakerInstructorRadio Host

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Religions of Hate: Islam, Democrat Party

by Douglas V. Gibbs
AuthorSpeakerInstructorRadio Host

Islam: 250 Christian Kids ‘Kneaded in a Dough Mixer’

Oldest child just 4 years old, U.N. scolded for ignoring genocide

Democrats: 30% of Illegal Alien Minors Have Gang Ties

Nearly 30 percent of the illegal immigrant children the U.S. is holding in its dormitories have ties to criminal gangs, the government revealed Wednesday, suggesting that the Obama-era surge of Central Americans has fed the country’s growing problem with MS-13 and other gangs.

Federal officials refused even to guess at the true scope of the problem, telling the Senate Judiciary Committee that they can give only small snapshots of what they see. But they said the devastation on communities across the country is clear: killings and chaos, particularly among other immigrants — both legal and illegal.

Islam:  Paris' Next Top Terrorist Attack

And, once again, France has been hit with terrorism. This is what happens when the Muslim population in a country approaches 10%, and the likelihood for your country to suffer from Islamic terrorism is at high risk because you can't seem to understand that the terrorists are threaded throughout the migrant populations you keep flooding your countries with.

According to the Associated Press, the terrorist in France has been on the radar of French authorities for a while. Today, he rammed "a car carrying explosives into a police vehicle in the capital's Champs-Elysees shopping district, prompting a fiery blast. France's anti-terrorism prosecutor opened an investigation. No police officers or passers-by were hurt, the Paris police department said. The media and dhimmi Europeans say that it is unclear why the attacker drove into police, though officials said the incident was apparently deliberate."

The motive is unclear?

One word. Islam.

Democrats:  Johnny Depp slams Donald Trump at Glastonbury and asks: 'When was the last time an actor assassinated a president?'

"I think [Donald] Trump needs help," he said. "There are a lot of dark places he could go."
Democrats:  Elise Jordan Says Defending Trump ‘Like Hugging a Suicide Bomber’

MSNBC’s Craig Melvin asked Jordan about the president’s tweets, noting “it would seem as if the president may have been lying all along about the existence of these tapes.”

“No, he’s just wasting — he wasted the country’s collective time speculating over whether these tapes existed or not,” Jordan said. “It’s a sad day when you cannot depend on the president’s word.”

“My advice would just be to Republicans who do cozy up to him — it’s like hugging a suicide bomber.”

“He blows you up in the process with him,” she added.

Democrats:  30 GOP Congressmen Have Been Attacked or Threatened Since May

A total of 30 Republican members of Congress have either been attacked or revealed that they were the victim of a death threat since the beginning of May.


Part of the reason the democrats and the Muslims get along so well is because they have so much in common.

  • Seek a totalitarian state where any opposition is silenced
  • Are willing to seek violence in the streets to get their way
  • Hate Christians
  • Hate Israel
  • Leaders followed or attended Marxist systems of education
  • Agree with high taxes
  • Believe government gives rights
  • Communities they are in control of become crap-holes to live in
  • Blame others when someone kills in their name
  • Preaches tolerance in public, teaches hate and division in private
  • Calls for no borders, but demands safe spaces
  • Worship a pedophile and a pervert (In one case, Muhammad, in the other, Bill Clinton)
I am sure the list could go on and on if I let it. . .

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Temecula Constitution Class Needs You!

As the students have gained knowledge, they have left the class to put into practice what they have learned. . . but we've had no replacements.  If you have been considering coming to the Temecula Constitution Class, tonight is the night to start.  It's free, you get a free handout and pocket constitution, and you get to fellowship with like-minded Americans.

See you tonight.  America needs you to be informed about the U.S. Constitution.

Temecula Constitution Class, Thursday Night at 6:30 pm at Faith Armory, 41669 Winchester Road 
Constitution Class Handout
Instructor: Douglas V. Gibbs

Lesson 6: Powers of the Executive Branch
Article II, Section 2
Commander in Chief
Section 2 of Article II establishes the President as the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States.
This allows for the President to wage war, if necessary, without Congressional approval. However, if Congress does not agree with the President's actions, they can pull the funding, which would force a discontinuation of the use of the military for whatever operations the President chose them to operate.  In the Articles of Confederation, the powers to wage war, and to declare war, were listed as separate authorities, although in the Articles of Confederation both powers were granted to the Congress.
There were extensive debates over war powers. In fact, when the founders were debating over war powers in regards to Article I during their assembly on August 17, 1787, they considered giving to Congress the power to "make war."  A number of reasons brought up during that debate convinced the delegates to give Congress the power to declare war, instead.  This decision left the power to make war with the President, as Commander in Chief.
When the Framers of the Constitution were creating the executive branch, the President they had in mind was George Washington.  He was, in their eyes, the perfect President.   The executive branch was fashioned around Washington's personality, and abilities.  The expectations were that the presidents to follow Washington would be similar to Mr. Washington in their level of sacred honor, humility, and ability to properly apply the war powers as necessary, while refraining from becoming involved in foreign entanglements that did not directly affect the United States of America.
Among Washington's strengths was that he was a great general.  It became apparent that the President would need to be a strong military leader.  However, the consideration that an executive may take that power and abuse it was in play.  Therefore, a number of checks and balances against the power of the executive branch were put into place.
Part of the reason the power to make war was given to the President, and not Congress, has much to do with the time period.  One must consider that when the members of Congress were at home in their districts, it could be as far as the southernmost State of Georgia.  Considering the lack of technology, members of Congress could not just get on a plane, or take a drive, to get to Washington, D.C., quickly.  Even the time it may take to get the messages out to the members of Congress could take longer than the time needed to begin necessary war maneuvers.
When it came to war powers, the need was for the Commander in Chief to be quick, decisive, and take care of business as needed.  However, if we have a President acting in a tyrannical manner, launching military operations when it is not necessary, aside from the ability to electorally vote the President out of office, the Congress has two ways to check his behavior.
First, Congress can pull funding.  If there is no money, the troops must be brought home.  Second, the Congress has the power to impeach the President if he is becoming tyrannical, or is doing things that he shouldn't (maladministration).
One concern that has arisen in today's political environment, largely as a result of the change in the dynamics of our political system by the 17th Amendment in 1913 that changed the Senate from being the voice of the States, to an assembly directly voted into office by public vote, is if both Houses of Congress are in collusion with the President.  A White House administration with both Houses of Congress working with the President could be a recipe for disaster in regards to the rule of law, creating an opportunity for those three parts of the federal government to collude against the people, which would inevitably lead to the rise of an unchecked oligarchy.
In the cases of the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, or Libya, the President had every right to launch those operations.  That is not to say the decisions were correct, or in the best interest of our country, but that the President had the constitutional authority to wage war in those theaters without his actions being accompanied by a congressional declaration of war.
When it came to foreign entanglements, the Founders preferred America to stay out of such conflicts unless American interests were directly influenced.  George Washington in his farewell address is actually quite clear on the subject.
Congress holding the power to declare war does not mean that the President must ask Congress for permission before waging war.  In today's world it would seem to be the reasonable thing to do, and I believe it would be the proper thing to do, but as far as the Constitution is concerned, congressional approval for a military action is not necessary.
A reference used to support the concept of "no war without a declaration" is The War Powers Act of 1973.  The War Powers Act was simply a piece of legislation, and did not change the authorities of the President when it came to his war powers.  The War Powers Act is unconstitutional.  Only amendments can change the authorities granted to the President of the United States.
The two Barbary Wars, the first two international wars the United States found herself engaged in, were waged by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison.  Jefferson's engagement against the Muslim States of the Barbary Coast was fought from 1802 to 1805, after Jefferson refused to continue paying a tribute to the Barbary Pirates for safe passage through the Mediterranean Sea.  Hostilities were reignited in 1815, during Madison's presidency.  Both wars were undeclared, waged by Jefferson and Madison without a declaration of war from the Congress, but Congress did appropriate funding for both campaigns.
            Calling forth the Militia
The President of the United States is not supposed to be all powerful, or the final decision maker in the federal government.  The American System of government is full of checks and balances.  Even as the Commander in Chief, if he is abusing his power as the head of military operations, Congress can defund war efforts, or impeach the President.
In Article II the Constitution states that the President is the "Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual service of the United States."  Some have argued that means he is only Commander in Chief when "he" is called into service to do so, which is accomplished by a declaration of war.  That is an erroneous opinion.
As Commander in Chief, the President may engage the Army and Navy in war operations as necessary.  This power of Commander in Chief does not extend to the militias at the President's whim.  The President is only the Commander in Chief of the Militia of the several States, when the militia is called into actual service of the United States.
The distinction was established so that the President could use military forces against foreign enemies if a quick and decisive decision was necessary, but not against the States, or the American people.  The standing army is not for domestic use to suppress insurrections, or repel invasions.  That is what the militias are for, and the militia can only be put into action by Congress, or State leadership.  The President does not control the militias, nor does he determine when they go into action.  His only relationship with the militias only emerges when they are called into actual service of the United States by the United States Congress.  Then, and only then, the President serves as Commander in Chief over the militias.
Article I, Section 8 states that "Congress shall have power to provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel invasions."
States cannot call their militia into action "unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay." (Article I, Section 10)
Though the President is tasked with "faithfully executing the laws of the United States" as stated in Article II, Section 3, and he can do so with executive departments such as I.C.E., and the Border Patrol, the actual call for the militia (National Guard, State Militias, unorganized militia) to protect the border is the responsibility of Congress, and State leadership.
            Executive Departments and Agencies
Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 indicates the President may "require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective offices."  This part of this clause is a good indication that the Founding Fathers felt the President should consult others when making decisions, especially those familiar with the departments in question.
The existence of the different executive departments is constitutional, as long as they are established to handle constitutional duties of the federal government, and their powers are limited within constitutional allowances.  Originally, there were only four executive departments (and five if you separate the War Department and Department of the Navy); the War Department, the State Department, the Department of the Treasury, and the Department of Justice.  The Department of the Navy served as a separate department until 1947, but worked closely with the Department of War.
There are many departments in the executive branch that are unconstitutional, and should not have even been established.  The Education Department, for example, is unconstitutional in its current form because there is no place in the Constitution that gives the federal government the authority to regulate, or be involved in, education.  Therefore, as per the 10th Amendment, education is a State issue. 
The Energy Department and the Environmental Protection Agency are also unconstitutional.  The federal government has no authority to regulate those issues.  However, if those departments did not regulate, but only kept studies and records of those issues, then the existence of those agencies may be acceptable.
The executive branch can have departments and agencies that study issues not authorized by the Constitution to fall under the federal government, but they cannot have any regulatory power because any federal laws regarding those issues are not constitutionally authorized to the United States Government.  Regulations are directly connected to laws, and laws must be constitutional in the first place in order to be considered the supreme law of the land.
Despite these agencies not being legally allowed to regulate unconstitutional law, agencies like the EPA are doing just that.  In fact, the EPA is regulating independently, literally legislating through regulations.  In other words, the EPA, as well as other agencies, have been enacting their own regulations without the benefit of a law being on the books, revealing the danger of having unconstitutional departments and agencies.
This is not to say we should not have the various departments and agencies of the executive branch.  Some of them are constitutional, and absolutely necessary.
Correction of federal unconstitutionality can be sought through concepts known as Republic Review, and nullification.  By using a convention of delegates from the several States to determine the unconstitutionality of particular laws, actions, or departments of the federal government, the States can be encouraged to work together to nullify the unconstitutional regulations set forth by the various federal agencies.  The States have the authority to take care of their own business, and if a federal agency tries to regulate an issue that falls under the State's powers, the States have the right to ignore that regulation.
A common belief is that if we do not have these various federal agencies regulating things like food, energy, and actions against the environment, people will just act in ways that are unacceptable and dangerous.  The opposition to the Constitution will tell you that we need the federal government to make sure that our food is safe, energy is used properly, and corporations are not polluting our fragile environment.
Local issues are supposed to be handled at the local level, and the people, through their States, are more than capable of properly regulating these issues as necessary, but in a manner that is consistent with the local opinion of the electorate.
The Founding Fathers did not trust a large, centralized, national government, hence, the reason the Framers only granted to the federal government authorities regarding external issues, and the power to act as a mediator between the States in the case of disagreement. 
            Reprieves and Pardons
The President is also given the power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.  This was one of the first functions President Gerald Ford took advantage of when he took office after President Richard Nixon resigned, pardoning Nixon so that no criminal cases could be brought against him.  No impeachment procedure had ensued, so Ford was constitutionally allowed to grant the pardon.  It has been suggested that is why Nixon resigned.  If he had not resigned, and was impeached, the next President would not have had the authority to pardon him.
The President is granted the ability to make treaties and to nominate members to the executive branch, Supreme Court, and other offices not expressly provided for in the Constitution.  Agreement and consent of two thirds of the Senate is necessary for any treaty, or nomination for that matter, to become effective.  The advise and consent powers granted to the United States Senate was a way of disallowing the executive branch from mirroring the centralized British Model of unilateral control under the king.  The authority also gave the States the allowance to approve or disapprove any action by the President by requiring that the Senate concur with two-thirds vote.
The purpose of giving advise and consent powers to the U.S. Senate refers us back to the original dynamics of the United States government.  The Senators in the U.S. Senate were appointed by the State Legislatures before the appearance of the 17th Amendment in 1913.  The Senate was the States' representation in the federal government.  The Senators were the voice of the States.  Treaties, appointments, and other executive functions, though executed by the President, requires approval by the Senate.  The States, as with the granting of powers to the federal government in the first place through the articles of the Constitution, had the power to approve or disapprove the President's actions through the U.S. Senate in a manner much like parents grant permission to their children before a child can perform a particular action.  After all, the Senate was the voice of the States, and it was the States that created the federal government in the first place.
This was an important check upon the executive branch by the States.
The executive branch requiring the consent of the U.S. Senate for some of its actions reminds us of the amendment process.  As with treaties and appointments by the executive branch, amendments must be approved, or ratified, by the States.  In the case of amendments, however, the vote is three-quarters of the States in order to ratify.
The federal government, be it through amendments, or executive actions, needs the permission of the States.
Remember, the States once held all powers.  It was the States that provided the authorities to the federal government so that it may exist, and function.  The States had original authority over all powers, and decided to grant a few authorities to the federal government so that it may operate in a necessary manner - specifically for the purpose of protecting, preserving, and promoting the union.
The States gave permission to the federal government to function in a manner prescribed by the Constitution.
An opponent to the originalist viewpoint of the Constitution once said to me, "You have it all wrong.  The federal government tells the States what to do."
If that was the case, then why would the President need to get the consent of the U.S. Senate to make treaties, and two-thirds of the Senators present have to concur?  Why would the President's nominations need to be interviewed and approved by the Senate?  And with that in mind, remember that before the 17th Amendment in 1913, the Senate was the voice of the States.
The executive can do very little without the Senate's approval.
War Powers seems like an exception on the surface, but even the authority to make war has its checks by Congress.
For the most part, it is up to the people and the States through Congress to ensure the President does not act in a manner unbecoming of the office.
This check is designed to protect us from tyranny.
Imagine how different the appointment hearings of Supreme Court justices have become, now that the Senate is no longer the representation of the States, anymore.  The questions are probably very different than they otherwise would be.  Now, the House and the Senate are really not a whole lot different.  They are both voted in by the popular vote.  Before 1913, the Senate was the voice of the States.
I wonder how the questions posed to the Supreme Court nominees would be different if the Senate still belonged to the States.  Perhaps the questions would be more in line with protecting State sovereignty.  Surely the concerns of the States would be behind much of the questioning.
The 17th Amendment changed the dynamics of our government.  One of the reasons our federal government is constantly acting unconstitutionally is because it is now structured unconstitutionally.  The people voting for the Senators, rather than the Senators being appointed by the State legislatures, is not in line with what was originally intended.  With the voice of the States removed, the government cannot function as intended because the proper checks and balances are not in place.  The 17th Amendment introduced ideology into the Senate, and removed one of the checks necessary to protect us against a federal government constantly seeking to become more expansive.
            Recess Appointments
The final clause of Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution states: The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.
This clause refers to what is called a recess appointment.  A recess appointment is the appointment of a senior federal official (department head, judge, etc.) by the President while the U.S. Senate is in recess.  As the voice of the States in the federal government, the Senate must confirm all appointments of senior federal officers before they assume office.  However, while the U.S. Senate is in recess, and during the early years of this nation that meant they could be a few days ride away, the President can make a recess appointment without Senate confirmation.  However, the appointment only remains in effect until the next session.  A recess appointment must be approved by the Senate by the end of the next session of Congress, or the position becomes vacant again.
Remember, the House of Representatives and the Senate were originally made up very differently from each other.  The Representatives go to Washington to serve their district, and to act in accordance with the will of the people in their district, making the House of Representatives literally the voice of the people in the federal government.
The Senate was made up of Senators appointed by the State legislatures.  The Senators represented the States, and they made up the State coalition of the federal government.  It was through the Senate that the States had representation in the federal government, and could ensure, along with the House of Representatives, to provide a series of checks against the executive branch.
Part of the way to control power is to divide it.  Then, after you divide the power, divide it again.  Then, make the powers of the separate branches different from each other, that way they do not collude together against the people, or other branches of government.
One of the fears of the Founders was that the branches would collude together in an effort to take away individual freedoms.
By requiring the Senate to confirm appointments by the Executive, it kept a leash on the Executive.  Even in a recess appointment, when the President could appoint without confirmation by the Senate, confirmation would still eventually be needed or else the seat became vacant again.  This kept the Executive from surrounding himself with a group of cronies the States did not approve of.
Advise and Consent Powers - Treaties, appointments, and other executive functions, though executed by the President, requires the advise by, and the approval of, the Senate.
Collusion - Conspire together.
Foreign Entanglements - Unnecessary involvement with other nations.
Ideology - A set of political or economic ideas that forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy.
Impeachment - To charge with misconduct.  Formal process that may lead to removal of an official accused of unlawful activity; impeachment does not mean the removal from office, though removal from office is often the result of impeachment proceedings.
Militia - An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers; a military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency; the whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service.
National Government - Any political organization that is put in place to maintain control of a nation; a strong central government that does not recognize the individualism or local authorities of the smaller parts, such as states, of the nation.
Nullification - State power to ignore unconstitutional federal law.
Nullify - See Nullification.
Oligarchy - Government by a few powerful persons, over the many.  A state governed by a few persons.
Recess Appointment - The appointment of a senior federal official (department head, judge, etc.) by the President while the U.S. Senate is in recess.
Republic Review - A convention of delegates representing the several States in order to audit the laws, actions, and composure of the United States federal government; a review of unconstitutional characteristics of the federal government based on the amendment ratification concept that if it takes three-quarters of the States to ratify an amendment, a quarter (plus one) of the States determining a law, action or department of the federal government to be unconstitutional allows the States to nullify the item.
United States Senate - The House of Congress in which each State enjoys equal suffrage of representation, with two Senators per State.  The appointment of Senators was originally by their State legislatures, creating a natural check and balance between the House of Representatives, and the U.S. Senate.  The appointment of Senators was changed to the popular vote of the people by the 17th Amendment in 1913.
War Power - Power exercised in the prosecution of war.
Questions for Discussion:
1.  What is the difference between the power to Wage War, and the power to Declare War?
2.  What is meant by "Commander in Chief?"
3.  Why should, or shouldn't, the United States engage in foreign entanglements?
4.  Why is the War Powers Act of 1973 unconstitutional?
5.  How can the States protect against a President abusing his war powers?
6.  When are State Militias under State authority, and when are they under federal authority?
7.  When is the President the Commander in Chief over the State Militias?
8.  Regulatory Agencies are constitutional, but their regulations must conform to what authorities granted?
9.  What is the difference between impeachment, and being removed from office?
10.  When are recess appointments allowed?
11.  What is a pro-forma session?
Joseph Andrews, A Guide for Learning and Teaching The Declaration of Independence and The U.S. Constitution - Learning from the Original Texts Using Classical Learning Methods of the Founders; San Marcos: The Center for Teaching the Constitution (2010).
Madison's Notes Constitutional Convention, Avalon Project, Yale University:
Copyright Douglas V. Gibbs 2015

The Killing of Otto Warmbier Reveals Reality of Leftism

Posted by Douglas V. Gibbs
AuthorSpeakerInstructorRadio Host

Leftism always ends in starvation and/or murder (be it among the citizenry, or by government forces).


Venezuela has shown us this, and North Korea has shown us this. Detroit shows us this. California is on its way.

How long after California institutes its utopian schemes that the whole State will look like Detroit, and the people will be begging for a roll of toilet paper and just a small morsel of food like in Venezuela?

Otto Warmbier shows us how unacceptable leftism is.  His death shows us what leftism becomes if it is allowed to reach the outer limits of its logical conclusion.  Even worse, while he was imprisoned and facing the inevitable path to death, the liberal left in America mocked him.

Comedy Central’s Larry Wilmore began one of his shows with an eight-minute festival of mockery that accepted the North Korean regime’s version of events, mocked Warmbier’s anguished tears, and even posted a graphic calling him an “ass” — based on the initials of a fictional fraternity.

And the crowd laughed.

Huffington Post?  They attacked the kid too.  And, after Warmbier's death, mocked him some more.  How dare he make the Democrat Party's Marxist brothers in North Korea look bad...

click on image to go to the NewsBusters' Story

La Sha wronte: "What a mind-blowing moment it must be to realize after 21 years of being pedestaled by the world simply because your DNA coding produced the favorable phenotype that such favor is not absolute. What a bummer to realize that even the State Department with all its influence and power cannot assure your pardon. What a wake-up call it is to realize that your tears are met with indifference. As I’ve said, living 15 years performing manual labor in North Korea is unimaginable, but so is going to a place I know I’m unwelcome and violating their laws. I’m a black woman though. The hopeless fear Warmbier is now experiencing is my daily reality living in a country where white men like him are willfully oblivious to my suffering even as they are complicit in maintaining the power structures which ensure their supremacy at my expense. He is now an outsider at the mercy of a government unfazed by his cries for help. I get it."

What?  Did she really compare life in the United States to a North Korean labor camp?

The Democrats have created a false narrative that astounds.  As my good friend Arkady, who grew up in the Soviet Union, once told me about an experience he had with a "poor person" in America complaining about being in poverty.  He told her, "You have change on the counter, a full meal on the table, a car in the driveway and a television in the living room.  And you think you have it hard?  In my family we had one pair of shoes, and they were dad's so that he could go to work."

The liberal left in America believe the North Korean refugees are liars, and Warmbrier had it coming because he was white.  They mock because they don't want you to realize that North Korea is America's future, someday, if we continue down the path of leftism.  History proves it.  Time after time, in history, leftism never stops progressing towards total government control, and every time the control is reached, conditions like Venezuela happens, genocide like under Stalin happens, hunger and fear like in North Korea happens.

The National Review tells us that there was also a mocking story on Salon's website (since deleted), and there were multiple mocking tweets.  And, as the writer at National Review wrote, "These outlets, while undeniably leftist, are hardly fringe. Larry Wilmore is a much-celebrated, mainstream liberal comic. The Huffington Post is one of the most trafficked websites in America. Citing these outlets is hardly like pulling up an obscure online pamphlet from a five-person revolutionary cell in Brooklyn."

Yesterday I had a person cut me off on the roadway, not allowing me to move over to the right lane, speeding up and slowing down to keep me out of their lane, and then finally when I rolled down my window, they screamed at me expletives and made references to my "racist" Tea Party bumper sticker in my window.  Roadway middle fingers and profanity is a norm here in California if you dare let it out that you are not a hard-left Democrat socialist.  I adjust and move on.  I could really care less about the idiots, but the reality is that the liberal left does not see our division in this country as a simple difference of political opinion.  It is a war that they are willing to cause harm to the opposition regarding.

In Santa Monica a pro-Trump activist was stabbed nine times for daring to disagree with the leftist agenda.

A recent terrorist attack in Michigan by leftist allies that perform Islamic jihad has been hardly covered by the biased media, CBS News Scott Pelley blamed the Republicans for the shooting at the Congressional Baseball Practice in Virginia.

The radicals mix with the liberals, and the liberals empower the radicals, because they are one and the same.

Snowflakes are burning down campuses in the name of Democrat Party leftism, free speech is being pushing into "safe zones" due to Democrat Party leftism, Republicans and their allies are being physically attacked by Democrat Party leftists, Black Lives Matter is spreading hate and racism in the name of Democrat Party leftism, and the death of Otto Warmbier at the hands of the communists in North Korea was mocked and it was said he had it coming by the shouting fanatics of Democrat Party leftism.

We, the Patriotic Americans who love the Constitution and defend liberty have been told this is a political disagreement, and we believe that muck.  In reality, the left uses war tactics, war strategies, and war language.  They are willing to commit acts of war, and champion those who wish to kill us.  This is not a political disagreement, this is a war, and until conservatives understand that, the liberal left will continue to become more vicious and more dangerous.

It's time to take all of this seriously.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

House Resolution 257 and Senate Resolution 118 Criminalizes "Freedom of Speech"

By Capt Joseph R. John, June 21, 2017: Op Ed # 356

The Muslim Brotherhood and CAIR, International Terrorist Organizations, have managed to get Senate Resolution 118 and House Resolution 257 introduced into the House and Senate.  If those resolutions are passed into law, that law will “Criminalize Freedom of Speech”. 

The Founding Fathers gave Americans “Freedom of Speech “ in the US Constitution; CAIR and the Muslim Brotherhood are trying to “Criminalize Freedom of Speech.”   

Those resolutions are part of the Muslim Brotherhood’s sinister plan to replace the US Constitution with Sharia Law, through a back door method of passing various laws that chip away at the precepts of the US Constitution.  Those International Terrorists know Patriotic Americans would never knowingly replace the US Constitution with Sharia Law. 

There is absolutely no need for this proposed new law since the current laws and civil rights laws already prohibits violence, threats of violence, discrimination against “all” individuals, and hate crimes.  The resolution conveniently protects Muslims but “Excludes Christians”. 

How could members of the House and Senate be so foolish as to pass those destructive resolutions that would undermine the US Constitution and would be the beginning of the Muslim Brotherhood success in slowly destroying the foundation upon which the Republic was created, the US Constitution---this law is a subtle attack against Christians and law enforcement. 

We are asking ever person who receives this E-mail, especially members of the US Armed Forces on active duty, Christian Clergy, members of Law Enforcement, and the 22 million Veterans in the United States who raised their right hand, and swore to “Protect and Defend the US Constitution”, to aggressively oppose those two Resolutions.  Please ask them to oppose this proposed law, and vote against any Senator or Congressmen “in both parties” who votes for this proposed anti-US Constitution and pro-Sharia Law resolutions.   

Americans should be concerned about those resolutions, especially the part of the House Resolution, which urges the establishment of an "interagency task force led by the Attorney General ... on the development of effective strategies and efforts to detect and deter hate crime in order to protect minority communities."  This is an attempt to suppress law enforcement and opposition to Sharia Law.

This resolutions were engineered by CAIR and The Muslim Brotherhood are designed to silence any America who speaks up to opposes what we are seeing happening in England today.  The goal is to “criminalizing speaking out against Radical Islamic Terrorism” resulting in arrest and being criminally charged in court.  The net result is that CAIR would make an example of any American who speaks out, and to suppress all Americans from ever speaking out against the Muslim Brotherhood and CAIR programs again (like opposing the indoctrination of students in Islam and Sharia law in Public Schools).

Please pass this E-mail on to every member in your address book, ask them to contact their Senators and Congressmen to oppose this proposed new law, whose details are discussed in the below listed article.

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

Joseph R. John, USNA ‘62
Capt    USN(Ret)/Former FBI
Chairman, Combat Veterans For Congress PAC
2307 Fenton Parkway, Suite 107-184
San Diego, CA 92108

Then I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, “Whom shall I send, and who will go for Us?” Then I said, “Here am I. Send me!”
-Isaiah 6:8
by Judith Bergman  June 20, 2017
  • The law already prohibits violence and threats of violence, and law enforcement authorities are supposed to prosecute those -- intimidation, destruction, damage, vandalism, simple and aggravated assault. What "hate crimes" are not already covered by the law?
  • Why would the House of Representatives find it necessary to make such redundant statements, if not in order to redefine the concept of a hate crime? Perhaps by including "hate speech"? The current resolution includes most of the major ethnic and religious minorities in the United States, so it will have a far better chance of passing, as it will more easily fool Representatives into thinking that the contents of the resolution are harmless.
  • Would it not be appropriate for the politicians sponsoring and voting for these resolutions first of all to find out what drives the organizations responsible for drafting them? The Investigative Project on Terrorism has authored a damning 88-page report about the Muslim Public Affairs Council. American politicians do not seem to have taken much interest in it.
On April 4, 2017, the US Senate passed Senate Resolution 118, "Condemning hate crime and any other form of racism, religious or ethnic bias, discrimination, incitement to violence, or animus targeting a minority in the United States". The resolution was drafted by a Muslim organization, EmgageUSA (formerly EmergeUSA) and the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC). On April 6, 2017, EmgageUSA wrote the following on their Facebook page: