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

Tuesday, January 24, 2017

Corona Constitution Class: Legislative Prohibitions, The States

Tuesday Night, 6:00 pm

AllStar Collision
522 Railroad St.
Corona, CA 92882

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The common misconception is that Article I, Section 9, Clause 1 is obsolete.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 Slavery was abolished by Amendment 13 so the part of Article I, Section 9, Clause 1 that addresses slavery is obsolete.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 The standard belief among historians is that the entire clause is no longer in force.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;

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:

The Original 13th Article of Amendment; American Patriot Friend's Network: 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:

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

UNITED STATES v. COMSTOCK (No. 08-1224), Clarence Thomas Dissenting Opinion (State Sovereignty): (2010)

Copyright: Douglas V. Gibbs, 2015

Auto Accomplishments

By Douglas V. Gibbs
AuthorSpeakerInstructorRadio Host 

On my cell phone, I was noticing as I type in certain words the phone will recommend the next word for me. Sometimes that function can be quite handy, and sometimes it can be politically skewed. I decided to play around with it a little, and when I typed Obama the first word to come up after that in the center was "accomplishments". When I entered Trump's name the word to come up in the middle was "was," and then the next word was "accused". The attempt to influence opinion of the public goes all the way across the board from cartoons to movies to the media to even the words that your phone recommends when you are typing on the little keyboard. Even with Obama gone, the liberal-left is trying to convince you that the failed president did okay. 

(entered using my phone. . . )

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary.

Monday, January 23, 2017


By Douglas V. Gibbs
AuthorSpeakerInstructorRadio Host 

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary


Posted by Douglas V. Gibbs
AuthorSpeakerInstructorRadio Host

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Obama Puts Progressive Goals Above Due Process

By Douglas V. Gibbs
AuthorSpeakerInstructorRadio Host 

I really don't care what Obama does here on out.  He's out of the White House, after all.  But, I believe the following article copied here for you to see needs to be talked about because all liberal left Democrats are of the following mindset.  So, while this is about something written by Obama, understand that it resembles the leftist narrative, and is believed across the board by the Democrats.

In Revealing Article, Obama Puts ‘Progressive Goals’ Before Due Process

In a lengthy article, President Barack Obama only mentioned mens rea reform once and said it could "undermine public safety and harm progressive goals." 
On Jan. 5, President Barack Obama published in the Harvard Law Review a 56-page commentary expressing his personal views on criminal law and justice, entitled “The President’s Role in Advancing Criminal Justice Reform.” 
One glaring omission stands out: The article all but forgets the crucial need for mens rea (latin for “guilty mind”) reform to reverse the erosion of due process in federal criminal law. Thus, the commentary ignores the erosion of due process protections that are supposed to be afforded to honest Americans when it comes to enforcing criminal laws. 
Mens rea is the fundamental principle that distinguishes between an accident and a crime.
In his expansive commentary, Obama briefly mentions that there are “important structural and prudential constraints on how the president can directly influence criminal enforcement.” But it omits mens rea as one constraint on the executive power to enforce the criminal law. 
On the importance of this rule of criminal law, the United States Supreme Court said in Morissette v. United States (1952): “The contention that an injury can amount to a crime only when inflicted by intention is no provincial or transient notion.” 
Far from it. The court continued, it “is as universal and persistent in mature systems of law as belief in freedom of the human will and a consequent ability and duty of the normal individual to choose between good and evil.” 
In his commentary, Obama only mentions mens rea once (and in a footnote at that), calling it a “proposal … that could undermine public safety and harm progressive goals.” 
Obama could not be more mistaken on the role for mens rea in our criminal justice system.
I hope he disappears, and stays on the golf course.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Sunday, January 22, 2017

A Snowy Future's Past, the Future of Man-Made Climate Change Hysteria

By Douglas V. Gibbs
AuthorSpeakerInstructorRadio Host 

One of the most gratifying actions by Donald Trump's administration for me was that sharply at noon on Inauguration Day they removed all references on the White House's website of man-made climate change.  The liberal left uses words like "denier" to catalog their opposition regarding their man-made climate change hoax.  They argue that folks like me believe that climate change does not exist.  Their argument is false on that, too.

Climate Change does exist, but it is a natural phenomenon.  Science has shown that the Earth has gone through swings in temperatures a number of times in history.  Science has also shown that it is a natural occurrence initiated by a number of factors, the primary one being the Sun.

Denying the liberal left's argument about what began as man-made global warming is easy when one looks at the natural evidence, and the fact that they keep changing their argument to fit the weather of the day.

The recent hysteria began as global warming, and the claim that man-made emissions of carbon dioxide was the sole cause.  Never mind that there is evidence that they've not only been manipulating their data so as to make sure they get the answers they want, but that core samples show that historically the rise and fall of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere lags behind temperature fluctuations on a global scale.

It wasn't very long ago that the liberal left had made the opposite claim.  In the seventies we were being told that man-made pollution was sending the Earth into a new ice age.  Hollywood was in on the scam, too.  One such production included Paul Newman.  Quintet's story takes place during a new ice age. The film begins with a wide view of our apocalyptic future where the world has become a blank, frozen, seemingly deserted tundra.

So we were freezing, then warming, and now because they really don't know what they are talking about, the liberal left changed it to a general term to support whatever happens: Climate Change.

The problem is that the younger generation is too young to remember the switch, plus they've been pumped full of hysteria their whole lives by indoctrination centers called the public school system.

I am hoping the Trump administration's move to strike the hoax from the website is a start, not the end, to their actions to pull us out of the idiotic climate change hoax.

Time will tell.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Record Breaking Waves Slam Northern California Coast

By Douglas V. Gibbs
As a swell moved in from the west, big waves pounded the Northern California coast on Saturday. 
The National Weather Service (NOAA) buoys recorded waves from 20 to 30-plus feet between Cape San Martin to the south and Point Arena to the north. 
Monterey Bay recorded the largest waves it has seen in 30 years with the swell reaching 34.12 feet at one point. The previous record was 32.8 feet in 2008.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Not So Fast on Term Limits

By Douglas V. Gibbs
AuthorSpeakerInstructorRadio Host 

The idea of term limits for Congressional members has been a popular topic of late, and one that President Donald Trump touched on during the presidential campaign season of 2016.  In the Articles of Confederation the Founding Fathers put in place term limits, limiting representatives to three one-year terms in any six-year period.

When it came time to write the U.S. Constitution a decade later, however, the framers decided to leave term limits out of the American System.  They had once agreed with them, and tried them, but found that term limits did not curb corruption as they had hoped, and instead limited good men who could do great things if they only had the time.  Term limits also made the citizens less interested in being informed because the bad ones would be gone in a few terms, anyway.

James Madison wrote that term limits might actually lead to government dysfunction. He wrote that frequent elections were a better check on power than forcing legislators out of office by law.

In other words, the best term limits are those applied by the voters who, if informed and virtuous, will vote out the problematic representatives, and retain those who are beneficial and abide by the U.S. Constitution.

The better check against corruption in government, argued the anti-term limits forces in the Constitutional Convention (according to Madison's Notes), are regular elections by the people.  And, as seen under the Articles of Confederation, restrictions of the terms of legislators created their own problems.

In Federalist Paper #53 James Madison explained that the higher proportion of new representatives swept into office due to term limits could lead to poor decisions and corruption from a wave of inexperienced legislators.

He wrote, the “greater the proportion of new members, and the less the information of the bulk of the members, the more apt will they be to fall into the snares that may be laid for them.”

In other words, inexperience equals gullibility.

This is not to say that in all instances term limits are not a good thing.  The 22nd Amendment limits the President to two terms.  The restriction on the President of the United States is necessary to protect us from an ever-expanding executive branch becoming a permanent position as we would see in a monarchy.

In the City of Murrieta back 2010 the voters enacted term limits that calls for no more than two consecutive terms.  This disallows candidates from using the incumbent label after two terms, since they have to take at least a two year break before running for office again.

At the State level in California, however, term limits has been disastrous, forcing popular legislators out of office, and enabling Marxists to fill the positions with ease.

The rise of Donald Trump, and the unpopularity of Congress, is likely to reignite the conversation regarding term limits, since the voters are beginning to feel like they need to reassert their authority to throw the bums out of Congress.  Rather than institute an already failed system of term limits, why don't they just do their job and actually throw the bums out?

Besides, term limits don't address where the real professional politicians exist.  The staffers, and other non-elected bureaucrats, don't have to worry about the wrath of the voters, or any term limit rule changes.  They go from politician to politician, advising him or her on the way things are done in Washington, and reading bills for them and explaining it to them so that the Congress Critters don't have to read them for themselves.  Are we supposed to be so naive to believe that the bureaucrats don't have an agenda?  Are they being honest with the politicians they are working with?

Staffers and non-government agencies actually run the government.  In a sense, the administrators make up a phantom fourth branch of government.  So, while we think we should be all in for term limits, how about we not chase after the symptom, and go straight to the source of the problem in Washington?  How about we target the permanent political class that few people even think about?  They are ignored or unseen because they reside safely behind the curtain, behind the scenes, and out of sight.  If we instill term limits, the bureaucrats would actually be emboldened, because they would no longer need to deal with salty politicians aware of their games, giving them more power because convincing a Congress of newbies to do as they are told would be much easier.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Douglas V. Gibbs Interviews Tea Party Members at Inauguration Viewing Party

Posted by Douglas V. Gibbs
AuthorSpeakerInstructorRadio Host 

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Deadly Storm Sweeping Through The South

By Douglas V. Gibbs
AuthorSpeakerInstructorRadio Host 

The massive storm moving through the southern United States is a killer.  The deadly storm has caused, according to the latest reports, at least 11 fatalities, and has injured about 23 people.  The severe weather struck southern Georgia early Sunday, following within hours of a 4:00 am tornado that struck Mississippi in which four people were killed. In Mississippi the tornado tore a 25-mile long path through the State, with winds above 135 miles per hour.

The tornado slammed through numerous mobile homes before dawn on Sunday where at least 5 were confirmed dead.  Survivors are still being searched for.

Roughly half of the 40 mobile homes in the park were destroyed.  In one case it was estimated the home moved about 100 yards, placing it in the middle of nearby Highway 122.

Tornado warnings continue to be issued, with severe weather expected throughout Sunday.

Other States facing severe weather and "intense and long track" tornadoes including heavy winds and large hail include northern Florida and the southeastern corner of Alabama.  The storm is expected to also affect South Carolina in the evening.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Feminist Protesters at Trump Inauguration Leave Trash and Signs in the Street

Posted by Douglas V. Gibbs
AuthorSpeakerInstructorRadio Host 

Apparently, the liberal left feminists don't love the planet as much as they claim. . .

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Hating America through Anti-Trump Movement

By Douglas V. Gibbs
AuthorSpeakerInstructorRadio Host 

Tools. Mindless and obedient automatons.  Those are the most accurate words that come to mind when it comes to the foaming-at-the-mouth liberal left hysteria movement following the election and inauguration of President Donald J. Trump. The liberal left loons believe the ridiculous and obviously erroneous propaganda being spouted by the liberal media, Democrat politicians, and completely out-of-their-mind entertainment lefties, and like good little minions the Hillary Clinton supporting screaming-heads are acting out in a violent and vulgar manner against the election and inauguration of President Donald J. Trump. In truth, they remind me more of petulant children who didn't get their way because a knowing parent who understands the folly of their demands decided otherwise, than they do of anyone with any common sense or common decency.

My son, after attending a film at the local mall in Temecula, California, last night, came home to tell me about the twenty-somethings running around with desecrated America flags (shredded and torn) in the space between the mall and the movie theater shouting profanities about Trump, and anyone who supports his couple-days-old presidency.  Fresh out of high school, or likely in college, these children refuse to do their own research and instead have taken the hysterical leftist teachings of their educators to heart.  Through media and the entertainment industry, they have been taught to be angry, and to lash out when they don't get their way.  So, like hypnotized lackeys, they are out there making fools of themselves with their idiotic, and immature, rants and failed attempts at Saul Alinsky-style agitation.  A lifetime of indoctrination by a leftist educational system has done its damage.  Recent polls show the younger millennials leaning towards supporting communism, even though they really don't understand what the Marxist philosophies are really all about, and have no clue about the massive failure, and murderous atrocities, of Marxism not only in the Soviet Union, Cuba and Venezuela, but in places where the media has been more successful in hiding or glossing over the truth such as China, southeast Asia, and Central America.

The moronic and mindless temper tantrums are not only being seen committed by members of the younger generation who, fortunately, does not represent everyone in their age group, but also among the remainder of the liberal left progressive socialist commie bastard community.

A women's march in Washington D.C. has become nasty (as per Ashley Judd), and included Madonna throwing around the F-Bomb on live television, and she recommending that the White House be blown up (imagine if such things had been said after Obama first took office - the perpetrators would have been investigated for making terrorist threats against "The One").  Liberal left progressive socialist commie (peace, love, dope) tolerance, however, also emerged when they found out among their feminist ranks were pro-lifers.  Those who dare to speak out against the wholesale slaughter of innocent babies were thrown out of the orgy of hate.  How dare they disagree with the feminists on the satanic ritual of killing innocent and defenseless babies in the womb.

Among the protesters were also those who displayed ISIS flags, and beheading videos - a clear message encouraging the overthrow of the United States Government - again, activities that would have not been tolerated, and would have been investigated for treason, had it been right-of-center ralliers when Obama took office in 2008 (by the way, there were no disgusting displays of violence and hate by conservatives back then - and the few photos that the liberal left tried to provide as evidence to the contrary were quickly dismissed as Democrat Party and leftist infiltrators trying to make the Tea Party, and other conservative groups, look bad).

In California, the Democrats aren't satisfied with the Trump win, either, and believe they must double down on their indoctrination of the younger generations in public schools.  Enter, stage left, AB-155, which is explained as being a piece of legislation that would have teachers instructing students on how to recognize "fake news". . . in other words, teach them how to recognize and reject dissent against the liberal left totalitarian message.

While they won't admit it, what the liberal left Democrats want is for the liberal left's version of Hitler's Youth to emerge.

The anti-Trump freak-out even has the leftists trying to use Homeland Security to take over elections so that they won't lose another one in the future.  The Democrats truly desire to silence all dissent, and move America towards a tyrannical one-party system.

The leftist establishment is calling Trump illegitimate, and the Electoral College flawed - words they would have had no stomach for during the reign of Barack Obama.  When Republicans challenged Obama's claim of being a Natural Born Citizen, when Republican politicians worked to counter Obama's unconstitutional actions, or when claims that the Obama victories were the result of tampering with the ballots (with evidence to boot) and illegal aliens voting (and Obama actually called on illegals to vote in the 2016 Election) emerged, the Republicans and Conservatives were called anti-American.

Donald J. Trump won the 2016 presidential election.  When Obama won in 2008 and 2012 the right-of-center folks were not happy, but they were not cussing on live television, burning things, rioting, calling for blowing up the White House, saying things that might encourage an assassination attempt, or acting in a manner that is downright treasonous (such as shredding or burning the American Flag).  They rallied, formed a Tea Party to hold their own politicians accountable as well, and worked within the laws to create a movement that would bring about the election of a candidate that would work to return us to the American System.

Democrats seem not to understand that kind of decency, or fair play.  They are like the bully in the schoolyard lashing out against everyone because he has gotten to the point that he believes his own bull, and is so corrupt he could cheat at solitaire and not understand how it could possibly be cheating.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Elise Richmond, KNEWS, Welcomes Douglas V. Gibbs

National Popular Vote and the Electoral College

Renowned Constitutionalist Douglas V. Gibbs will be a guest during the first segment on KNEWS RADIO - Click here to LISTEN LIVE this Sunday 9am-11am

94.3 KNews FM 970, 1140, 1250 AM in the Desert Communities

Go to

CALL IN NUMBER : 760-864-NEWS (760-864-6397)

Saturday, January 21, 2017

Constitution Radio: Inauguration, and Day One of the Trump Administration

Posted by Douglas V. Gibbs
Author, Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host
Constitution Radio with Douglas V. Gibbs KMET 1490-AM,
Saturdays, 1:00 pm ... if you miss the program, listen to the archived podcast HERE.

You can catch past episodes of Constitution Radio with Douglas V. Gibbs on my YouTube Page, You can catch the audio podcast recent episodes of Constitution Radio with Douglas V. Gibbs, at
As always, today I will be joined by co-host Alex Ferguson (

Here's today's AllStar Collision Big Stories of the Week. . .
  • WiliLeaks Releases Evidence Hillary Clinton Bribed Republicans in an Attempt to Destroy Trump
  • CNN Incites Violence and Call for Assassination
  • Trump Allies Revealed

  • Day Zero
  • Day One

Trump's Notable First Day

By Douglas V. Gibbs
AuthorSpeakerInstructorRadio Host 

The Trump Inauguration attracted a large crowd.  Despite the liberal left's polls, Trump is actually a very popular President going into office.  The liberal left media and Democrats, however, will kick it up a notch as compared to how they attacked George W. Bush, when it comes to their attempts to obstruct and demonize Trump.  While calling themselves tolerant, the Democrat Party supporters have shown intolerance, and the inability to accept anything other than their own ideology in a position of power.  Conservatives rallied during the Obama presidency in hopes of helping someone like Trump to emerge from the ashes of our country's destruction under liberalism, but you did not see the kind of violence and obstructive temper tantrums from Republicans like you are now seeing from the liberal left.

The Trump Inauguration was classy, and well put together.  Trump's handling of it all was also top notch.  The elegance of the balls afterward, and the incredible speech he delivered to a massive crowd as the rain decided to stop for just a moment, was just the beginning.  In addition to the pomp and circumstance, some amazing things happened on day one of the Donald J. Trump presidency that ought to convince conservatives that Trump means business, and plans to take a conservative path, about what he said approaching this historical presidency:

President Trump returns bust of Churchill to Oval Office

Remember the stir created when President Obama insulted Britain by removing Churchill's bust because of his "anti-colonial" feelings?  Obama had replaced Churchill with a bust of Martin Luther King Jr.  There is no doubt that Martin Luther King was an important historical figure, and belongs in the White House, but you don't turn your back on an important ally by removing the legendary British prime minister from the West Wing... and in fact, entirely from the White House.

Trump has corrected that error, and Winston Churchill is back in the Oval Office.

Trump did not hesitate.  He did it on his first day in office.

Trump did not do it with fanfare, and in fact, didn't say anything about it.  He just did it.  Reporters who were present in the Oval Office Friday night to witness Mr. Trump signing executive orders noticed the Churchill bust had been returned to the Oval Office.

Mr. Trump did more redecorating, replacing Mr. Obama’s crimson drapes in the Oval Office with gold ones. He also added a bust of Teddy Roosevelt on one of the bookshelves, and swapped out some of Mr. Obama’s artwork in the presidential office.

All References to ‘Climate Change’ Deleted From White House Website

No time was spared.  The references to Climate Change were removed promptly at noon, as Trump's hand lay on a Bible, and he recited the oath of the presidency.  In fact, one page was wiped completely clean.  Now, when it comes to the science of temperature fluctuations, as far as the White House is concerned, it is no longer about politically influenced consensus, but instead is now all about real science, and the reality that while temperatures do change, it is a natural phenomenon, and not a man-caused disaster.

Every little mention of Climate Change is gone in every place it was mentioned before on the White House website, and those opposing the globalist claim of Climate Change were very excited about the move by Trump's administration.

Climate Depot statement: “Climate skeptics are thrilled that one of the very first visible changes of the transition of power between President Obama and President Trump is the booting of “climate change” from the White House website. Trump is truly going to make science great again and reject the notion that humans are the control knob of the climate and UN treaties and EPA regulations can somehow regulate temperature and storminess. Welcome to the era of sound science!”

Trump Signs Executive Order Curbing Obamacare

Barack Obama used executive orders to act unconstitutionally legislatively, so executive orders can be used to nullify Obama's executive actions over the last eight years.  Within hours after taking the oath of office, President Donald Trump took advantage of that reality, and signed an executive order that begins the process of chipping away at Obamacare, and curbing federal regulations.

White House press secretary Sean Spicer told reporters that the executive order's goal is “to ease the burden of Obamacare as we transition to repeal and replace.”

The new president’s goal is to repeal the Affordable Care Act.  Full repeal of Obamacare will require congressional legislation.

“Potentially the biggest effect of this order could be widespread waivers from the individual mandate,” Larry Levitt, a senior vice president at the Kaiser Family Foundation, told The Washington Post. Currently, individuals who do not have health insurance and do not qualify for an exemption must pay a $695 annual fee or up to 2.5 percent of annual household income.

“They’re very aware of the fact that the first job is to prevent the Affordable Care Act from doing more damage than it’s already done,” says Ed Haislmaier, a senior research fellow in health care policy at The Heritage Foundation. “As we saw with the premium increases in the fall, people who are buying individual or small employer coverage without a subsidy are getting hammered.”

Haislmaier cautioned, however, that the executive order is “the beginning of the process.” The order states that it’s the goal of the administration to repeal the law, but there is still a lot of work to do regarding the process of ending the unconstitutional federal law.

Also, in Article II, the Constitution states it is the job of the executive branch to "faithfully execute the laws of the United States," so, until the law is repealed, Trump's team must still ensure that the law is being efficiently implemented.  In the meantime, as repeal moves into the picture, Trump's administration may take all actions consistent with the law to minimize the unwarranted economic and regulatory burdens of the act, and prepare to afford the States more flexibility and control to create a more free and open healthcare market.

◾President Trump earlier Friday signed paperwork commissioning James Mattis as Secretary of Defense and John Kelly as Secretary of Homeland Security.

General James Mattis was sworn in to run the Pentagon and General John Kelly took a similar pledge to run the Department of Homeland Security.

"Every action we take will be designed to ensure our military is ready to fight today and in the future. Recognizing that no nation is secure without friends, we will work with the State Department to strengthen our alliances," Mattis said in a statement after he was sworn in.

"Further, we are devoted to gaining full value from every taxpayer dollar spent on defense, thereby earning the trust of Congress and the American people," he said.

The Senate has only confirmed these two cabinet nominees, but have been obstructive for the remainder of Trump's picks.  For some Democrats there were some concerns regarding the fact that Mattis was recently retired, and had not been retired as long as a 1947 law requires.  However, Congress quickly gave him an exception to serve in the post, with only one Democrat voting against it.

FHA mortgage premium cuts helping low-income homebuyers cancelled by President Trump

It was lending practices to low-income buyers that caused the bubble that burst at the beginning of Obama's presidency in 2008, which was the impetus of the recession in the first place.  Yet, the Democrats were beginning to lead us down that path again with their FHA mortgage premium cuts.  On day one, President Trump signed an executive order to stop the damaging act, a move that helps the middle class by stopping a new housing bubble before it forms.

Trump's HUD, which would have administered the new program, said the reduction was “suspended indefinitely.”

Ben Carson, Trump’s nominee to lead HUD, told a Senate committee last week he would “really examine” the interest-rate cut.  

Trump puts freeze on new regulations

White House chief of staff Reince Priebus sent a memo titled “Regulatory Freeze Pending Review” to block all pending regulations under review but not yet in the Federal Register.  The memorandum Friday night went out to all executive departments and agencies to freeze new or pending regulations.  The move effectively halts any lingering policies from the Obama administration before they can be finalized.

The move also gives President Donald Trump the ability to declare an immediate impact on the regulations that Republicans have long slammed as burdensome on businesses.  Elimination of the laws the regulations may be attached to will still need an act of Congress.

The President cannot immediately halt any regulations that have gone into effect already.

For any regulations that have yet to be sent for publishing in the Federal Register, the memo asks the agency to not send any regulation to the Federal Register until reviewed by someone selected by the President.
For those that have been sent but not published, the White House ordered the regulations withdrawn.
There are regulations have been published but have not reached their effective date. The memo instructs those regulations to be delayed for 60 days for review -- with a potential that a new notice for reopening the regulation could occur.
The memo makes an exception for "critical health, safety, financial, or national security matters," and asks agencies to identify any regulations that can't be delayed for other reasons.

◾Trump put to paper his formal nominations for Cabinet members that have not yet been confirmed. Sending them on to the Senate, the list includes a number of private businessmen, and several sitting GOP legislators.

Trump declares a National Day of Patriotism

While not immediately clear when that day would occur, though one would assume September 11 (as Bush proclaimed in 2002, calling for national prayer and remembrance of the victims of the terrorist attacks in 2001), Trump's National Day of Patriotism is officially in the process of being created.  There are no details regarding if this day would be a presidential proclamation like Constitution Day, or a call for a federal holiday, but if the latter, it will require Congress to pass legislation to make it official.  A President can create an official holiday for one year with an executive order, according to internal rules.  Bush took advantage of that provision for a day of mourning when Ronald Reagan passed away in 2004.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Conservative Voice Radio: Inauguration

Hosted by Douglas V. Gibbs, AuthorSpeakerInstructorRadio Host and members of the Banning-Beaumont-Cherry Valley Tea Party Glenn, Jan and Diane.

Saturdays, 8:00 am, Conservative Voice Radio, KMET 1490-AM

Listen live at or listen later at the podcast page.

Today's Topics:

  • Inauguration Day
  • Hopes
  • Violent Leftists
  • Sanctuary City Revolt
  • California Governor Thiel?
  • Fake News: Trump Clashes with the Media
  • The line between the left and the right
  • Internationalists meet in Paris to push for two-state solution in Middle East