HOME_____BLOG _____BOOKS_____RADIO_____CLASSES_____VIDEO_____PUBLIC SPEAKER

Tuesday, July 07, 2020

Video: It's All About Liberty

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

Let's talk about the tyranny of good intentions ...






-- Political Pistachio Conservative News Commentary

Corona Constitution Class, Bill of Rights

Class will be held at CARSTAR/AllStar Collision, 522 Railroad Street, Corona, CA

6:00 pm to 7:00 pm

Handouts for the lesson will be available.

At the request of the business owner, please be wearing a face mask or face covering upon arrival.




Constitution Class Handout
Instructor: Douglas V. Gibbs




Lesson 12
Bill of Rights: Introduction to, and Incorporation of

Introduction to the Bill of Rights
The Bill of Rights does not guarantee your rights, nor was it designed to allow the federal government to protect your rights.  The language used in the first ten amendments is clear.  The 1st Amendment begins, “Congress shall make no law…”  The 2nd Amendment ends with the words, “…shall not be infringed.”  The 3rd Amendment begins, “No Soldier shall…”  The key phrase in the 4th Amendment is “shall not be violated.”  The entire Bill of Rights was designed to confirm what the first seven articles had already established.  The federal government was granted only certain authorities, and for the purpose of clarity, the Bill of Rights was written to reinforce the concept that the federal government has no business infringing upon the rights of the people.  The federal government is not charged with protecting those rights, or guaranteeing those rights, anywhere in the Bill of Rights.  The first ten amendments were written to tell the federal government, “Hands off, do not touch, thou shalt not.”

The concept that the federal government exists to guarantee our rights, or protect our rights, emerged after the ratification of the 14th Amendment.  The Civil War Amendment tasked the federal government with ensuring the newly emancipated slaves were treated fairly, and that their rights were protected – even at the State level.  In an effort to capitalize on that idea, the courts got involved to ensure that the former slave States behaved.  The southern States, the North was convinced, could not be trusted, and often the South confirmed the lack of confidence the Union States harbored with laws designed to get around the new restrictions placed upon them.

After the American Civil War, the three amendments proposed and ratified to protect the emancipated slaves were specifically designed for the purpose of ensuring the newly freed slaves were treated equally in the eyes of the law.  Statism, however, seized upon the ideas planted by Congressman John Bingham, and through the courts worked to weave an intricate tapestry that would change the culture of the United States from a union of voluntary members, to a nation of states joined in an unbreakable union.  The country no longer resembled the union of sovereign states it had once been, and instead became a nation held together by the statist consequences of the ravages of war.

The federal government telling States what they can and can’t do regarding our rights opens a Pandora’s Box the framers of the Constitution never intended to be breached.  By allowing the federal government to dictate to the States what they can and can’t do regarding rights, even with the best of intentions, the precedent is established allowing federal control.  A federal government that can force a State to behave in an acceptable manner can later dictate to a State to follow a federal mandate designed to reduce your access to your rights.

As President Gerald Ford once wisely said, “A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have.”

A significant segment of the Founding Fathers believed the Bill of Rights to be unnecessary.  The first seven articles of the U.S. Constitution were written in such a way that the concerns of the Anti-Federalists had been addressed, but they still feared that the federal government would compromise the natural rights of the citizens if a Bill of Rights was not included in the Constitution.

The Constitution was written in a manner that allowed the new federal government only the authorities granted to it by the Law of the Land.  Regarding arms, for example, the possession of guns was never an issue granted to the federal government in the first seven articles of the U.S. Constitution, therefore the federal government had no authority to restrict guns in any way, shape, or form.  The Anti-Federalists, however, did not believe the federal government would abide by the limitation of authorities placed on the United States Government, and demanded that a Bill of Rights be written.  Failure to provide a Bill of Rights, indicated the Anti-Federalists, would result in a failure of those States dominated by Anti-Federalists to ratify the new Constitution.

The Framers of the Constitution, understanding that without the critical approval of the Anti-Federalists, the new Constitution would never be ratified, agreed to include a Bill of Rights.  James Madison was asked to gather the amendments to be proposed and potentially ratified by the States, and use them to write a Bill of Rights.

Originally, there were a large number of amendments proposed, but the final proposal that went to the States for ratification was narrowed down to twelve amendments.  Only ten were ratified.  Of the remaining two, one regarding apportionment remains unratified, and the other became the Twenty-Seventh Amendment in 1992.

The debates over the adoption of the Constitution found the Anti-Federalists fearful that as drafted, the Constitution created a central government that may have the opportunity to become a tyranny.  These fears were based on the memory of the British violation of basic civil rights before and during the American Revolution.  With past British tyranny as a frame of reference, the Anti-Federalists demanded that a "bill of rights" be written that would clarify without question the immunities of individual citizens.  Though the amendments of the Bill of Rights were not proposed until 1789, several state conventions during their ratification conventions ratified the Constitution with the understanding that the amendments would be offered.

One of the fears regarding the proposal of the Bill of Rights was that by trying to protect specific rights, it might imply that any unmentioned rights would not be protected.  It was believed by many that as a result, the Bill of Rights was actually unnecessary, for in the British system of common law natural rights were not defined, nor quantified.  Adding a Bill of Rights to the Constitution may actually limit the rights of the people to those listed in the Constitution.  As a result of this argument, included in the Bill of Rights is the Ninth Amendment, which indicates that rights not enumerated would also be protected.

Another argument against the Bill of Rights is that the ten amendments muddy the waters of the Constitution, because the first seven articles were designed to grant authorities to the federal government, and if an authority is not granted, the federal government does not have that power.  The Bill of Rights tells the federal government what it cannot do.  This enables those who oppose the Constitution to claim that the Constitution does not only grant express powers.  By focusing on the Bill of Rights, the opposition responds to constitutional challenges with the question, “Where in the Constitution does it say the federal government can’t do that?”  Considering the Bill of Rights was not even necessary, this provides unnecessary ammunition to those that oppose the Constitution.
Terms:
Anti-Federalists - Opposed to formation of a federal government, particularly by adoption of the Constitution of the United States.

Arms - Weapons, firearms; a gun that may be used for protection of property or as part of a militia.

Bill of Rights - The first ten amendments of the U.S. Constitution; a formal summary of those rights and liberties considered essential to a people or group of people.

Common Law - The part of English law that is derived from custom and judicial precedent rather than statutes, able to be changed by the whims of the governed, or their representatives.

Enumerated - Counted or told, number by number; reckoned or mentioned by distinct particulars.

Questions for Discussion:
  1. Why does the Constitution offer the opportunity for both oaths, and affirmations?
2.                                                                                                               Why did some of the Founding Fathers consider the Bill of Rights unnecessary?
3.   What did the Anti-Federalists think of the creation of the federal government?  Why?
4.  Why were the Founding Fathers willing to add the Bill of Rights even though they believed the
      amendments to be unnecessary?
Resources:
Joseph Andrews, A Guide for Learning and Teaching The Declaration of
Independence and The U.S. Constitution - Learning from the Original Texts Using Classical Learning Methods of the Founders; San Marcos: The Center for Teaching the Constitution (2010).

Philip B. Kurland and Ralph Lerner, The Founder’s Constitution –
Volume Five – Amendments 1-12; Indianapolis: Liberty Fund (1987)

The Charters of Freedom: The Bill of Rights, National Archives and
Records Administration: http://archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights.html

Incorporation of the Bill of Rights
The Bill of Rights was originally intended to be applied only to the federal government.  Even the most ardent opponent to the originalist view of the Constitution concedes that it is commonly understood that originally the Bill of Rights was not intended to apply to the States whatsoever.  The text of the U.S. Constitution does not necessarily clearly exhibit that the Bill of Rights was only intended to apply to the federal government, but a deep study of the text of the first ten amendments, and the various writings of the Founding Fathers on the topic, reveals without a doubt that the Bill of Rights was indeed originally intended to only apply to the federal government.

Though even the most ardent opponent of the United States Constitution will admit that the Bill of Rights was originally intended to only apply to the federal government, the rule of inapplicability to the States was abandoned by statists after 1868, when it became argued that the 14th Amendment changed this rule, and served to extend most of the Bill of Rights to the States.

The section of the 14th Amendment that has been interpreted to extend the Bill of Rights to the States comes from the second sentence of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, which reads:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Through a series of court rulings, the Supreme Court has changed the Constitution by applying parts of the Bill of Rights to the States.  The process over the time period since the ratification of the 14th Amendment which works to apply the Bill of Rights to the States through court rulings and written opinions is called “The Incorporation of the Bill of Rights.”

The Bill of Rights was originally not meant to be a guarantee of individual freedoms at all, but a limitation of federal authority against our God given rights.  In other words, the Bill of Rights was not written for the people, but for the federal government as a means of telling the federal government what it cannot do in regards to our unalienable rights.

Why not apply these amendments to the States as well?

The States already had a Bill of Rights in their own State Constitutions (and those that did not have a constitution yet, did include a Bill of Rights later).  The Founding Fathers were confident that the people of the States could control their own State officials, and would be involved in their local governments.  The people did not fear their local governments acting in a tyrannical manner similar to the potential of a centralized government system.  Their fears were of the new and distant central government.

Originally, parts of the first amendments proposed by James Madison did in fact address the States, seeking to limit the State governments with provisions such as, "No state shall violate the equal rights of conscience, or the freedom of the press, or the trial by jury in criminal cases."  The parts of the Bill of Rights that sought to be applied to the powers of the States, however, were not approved by Congress, and therefore were not a part of the proposed amendments to the States.

The Bill of Rights was understood, at its ratification, to be a bar on the actions of the federal government.  Prior to the incorporation of the Bill of Rights to the States by the courts as based on their interpretation of the 14th Amendment, the Bill of Rights did not apply to the States, and was never intended to be fully applied to the States.
The argument used, despite original intent, that the Bill of Rights must also apply to the States is based more on philosophy, than historical evidence.  One of the philosophical standpoints used is that if the specific rights given in the Bill of Rights are based on the more general rights to life, liberty, and property which in turn are considered to be God-given and unalienable, then State governments do not have the authority to infringe on those rights any more than can the federal government.

The argument, however, simply suggests that the Bill of Rights ought to apply at the State level, not that it originally did.

If the Bill of Rights originally only applied to the Federal Government, and over time has changed to be something that was applicable on the State level through court decisions, the reality is that the Constitution itself has never allowed the Bill of Rights to be applied to the States.  The change was done by judicial means, meaning that the Constitution has been changed by judicial activism.  The problem, however, is that according to the Constitution, the only way to change the Constitution is through an amendment process.  Therefore, the incorporation of the Bill of Rights to the States occurred unconstitutionally.

This returns us to the argument that the 14th Amendment is the source and authority of the incorporation of the Bill of Rights to the States.  The Supreme Court's first ruling regarding the scope of the 14th Amendment, and if the amendment enables the Bill of Rights to be applied to the States, was rendered in the Slaughterhouse Cases just five years after the ratification of the 14th Amendment in 1868.  A five to four vote by the high court interpreted the Privileges and Immunities Clause to be the authority they needed to enforce The Bill of Rights against the States.  Subsequent cases also used the 14th Amendment as an authority for incorporation.  During the early twentieth century a number of court cases, using the arguments referencing the 14th Amendment, began selectively incorporating some of the specific provisions of the Bill of Rights while rejecting the incorporation of others.

The courts, through this process of incorporating The Bill of Rights to the States, have changed the Constitution through unconstitutional means, and against original intent.  As originally intended, all provisions in the U.S. Constitution apply to the federal government, unless otherwise noted.  The Bill of Rights was originally intended to apply only to the federal government, and if we are to remain in line with the original intent of the Founding Fathers, State sovereignty must remain protected by that original intent.

Congressman John A. Bingham of Ohio was the primary author of the first section of the 14th amendment, and it was his personal intention the Bill of Rights be applied to the States as well.  His argument was that it was necessary in order to secure the civil rights of the newly appointed slaves.  However, most of the representatives during the five months of debate on the floor of Congress argued against incorporating the Bill of Rights to the States, and so when the amendment was agreed upon for proposal, the majority of those involved intended for the 14th Amendment to not influence how the Bill of Rights was applied.  In the beginning, the courts ruled that the Amendment did not extend the Bill of Rights to the States.  It was after the realization that Black Codes were emerging in the South that the courts decided for the purpose of protecting the civil rights of the emancipated slaves, they would begin to apply parts of the Bill of Rights to the States.
Terms:
Black Codes - Laws put in place in the United States after the Civil War with the effect of limiting the basic human rights and civil liberties of blacks.

Incorporation of the Bill of Rights - The process through court rulings based on the interpretation of the 14th Amendment to apply the Bill of Rights to the States.

Judicial Activism - When judges violate the Separation of Powers through their rulings; when a judge rules legislatively by modifying or striking down a law using the unconstitutional authority of judicial review.

Original Intent - Original meaning of the United States Constitution as intended by the framers during the Federal Convention of 1787, and the subsequent State Ratification Conventions.

Originalist view of the Constitution - View that the Constitution as written should be interpreted in a manner consistent with what was meant by those who drafted and         ratified it.

Questions for Discussion:

1.   Why is the originalist view of the Constitution so important?

2.   How have Statists changed the Constitution through the courts over the last two hundred years?

3.   What is the only legal way to change the Constitution?

4.   Why is the Bill of Rights not a guarantee of individual freedoms?

5.   From where do our rights come from?

6.   How did the Black Codes play a part in the incorporation of the Bill of Rights?

Resources:

14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Civil Rights (1868), Our
Documents dot gov: http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=43

Intent of the Fourteenth Amendment was to Protect All Rights (argument
supporting incorporation of the Bill of Rights to the States), Constitution dot org (2000): http://www.constitution.org/col/intent_14th.htm

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).

Philip B. Kurland and Ralph Lerner, The Founder’s Constitution –
Volume Five – Amendments 1-12; Indianapolis: Liberty Fund (1987)

Richard L. Aynes, On Misreading John Bingham and the Fourteenth
Amendment (1993): http://www.constitution.org/lrev/aynes_14th.htm

The Fourteenth Amendment and Incorporation, The Tenth Amendment
Center (2010): http://newyork.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/05/the-14th-amendment-and-incorporation/

To Whom Does The Bill Of Rights Apply?, Lew Rockwell dot com
(2005): http://www.lewrockwell.com/browne/browne27.html

What is the Bill of Rights?, About dot com Civil Liberties (argument
supporting incorporation of Bill of Rights to the States: http://civilliberty.about.com/od/historyprofiles/f/what_is_bill.htm
Copyright 2015 Douglas V. Gibbs

Sunday, July 05, 2020

Jury Duty in California

By Douglas V. Gibbs
Author, Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host
Let this one sink in…………………….

Last year 449,163 Californians received a jury duty summons to which they declined, using the "I am not a citizen, therefore I cannot sit on a jury”   provision;

The source for jury duty summons candidates is the VOTER REGISTRATION list.

Think about that for a minute.


-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Saturday, July 04, 2020

Constitution Radio: Independence Day

Constitution Radio with 
Douglas V. Gibbs

I thought we were going to begin the show with a reading of the Declaration of Independence, but Alan is mixed up in a bunch of rallies, and won't arrive until the second hour of the show ... at which time we will read the Declaration of Independence.

Join us today on KMET 1490-AM (www.kmet1490am.com).  And if you can't listen online, or on your radio, Get the phone app ... make your smart phone smarter, and listen to us every Saturday!

We air at 1:00 pm through 3:00 pm Pacific Time on Saturday Afternoons ... and if you miss the show, listen later to the archived podcast at 

I would love to hear what you have to say, so call in to the program while we are live at 951-922-3532.

Today's Topics:

◉ California Governor Gavin Newsom's Orders are NOT LAW

◉ Declaration of Independence, reading of, and discussion regarding

◉ Cultural Marxism, what is it and how is it being used against us

◉ The Truth About Slavery

◉ The Truth About Face Masks

◉ A Familiar Echo

◉ The Left is Becoming Desperate

◉ Which Black Lives Matter?

◉ Democracy Versus Republicanism

◉ From Newsom to Biden, the socialists are authoritarians

◉ Trump's Actions Discredit the Accusations of Racism

◉ NFL Finally Lost Me

Dictator Newsom's Mandates ARE NOT LAW

FACE MASKS ARE SLAVERY
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Author, Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host

The dictator governor of California, Gavin "Gruesome" Newsom, has done more than overstep the line between liberty and tyranny.  He is now a full blown totalitarian acting in an illegal manner, and it needs to be stopped.

I was yelled at last night, and again this morning, for refusing to wear a face mask.  In both cases the people screamed at me, "It's the f***ing law, you idiot."  On two other occasions, I have been physically confronted for not wearing my mask.  In one case, a guy much bigger than me pushed me into a wall, knocking me to the ground from the impact.  "Wear a mask, a$$hole," he told me.  "It's the law."

Technically, I have a medical exemption. I am hard of hearing, and have some neurological things going on that sometimes makes it difficult for me to understand what words are coming out of people's mouths.  Muffled voices behind masks makes it hard for me to understand people.  It is a lot easier if I can see people's lips.  I am not totally deaf.  My left ear doesn't work except for very loud sounds, but the right is in pretty good shape (even my ears have been following the political spectrum, the left doesn't work, and the right does).

Last night, despite the restaurant lock-down order returning with another wave of Gavin Newsom's magic totalitarian wand, we found an Italian restaurant in San Diego County still allowing for dine-in seating.  Upon approach, the man at the door said we had to be wearing masks to come in.  My wife said, "We are exempt.  He's hard of hearing and it's easier for him if he can see my lips."

The man refused.

"I will be glad to call the disabled persons association," she said.

"Fine," the man said.  "He doesn't have to wear his mask into the building, but you do.  That way I am not violating his disability rights."

The purpose of the exemption is so that I could see her lips moving when she talks.  Making her wear a mask kills the whole thing for me. Technically, they were still in violation.

"It's the law," he said.  "I hope you can understand the legal risks."

Let me be as clear as I can be.  IT IS NOT THE LAW!

Gavin Newsom has been barking orders verbally, like a number of other governors, with no accompanying legislative support, as if he is dictator.  He says we all have to wear face masks, we can't go to the beach, we can't go to the park, all bars must close, are restaurants must end dine-in activities, after being told he can't legally stop churches from meeting he decided to tell them they can't sing, and worse of all he has told us face masks and social distancing is required at our backyard bar-b-ques, as if he has the authority, or the means of enforcement, to force people into obeying his demands on their own property.

And he did this right before Independence Day.

Fireworks shows have been cancelled, and gatherings are being limited.

Ronald Reagan once said that for Democrats everyday is April 15 (tax day) and for Republicans everyday is July 4 (Independence Day).  Now, it is turning out, Democrats like radical Gavin Newsom hate America so much that they are trying to outlaw Independence Day by making it impossible to celebrate it.

I know for a fact a number of the voters feel the same way.  At a store, this morning, when paying for my groceries with my wife (and yes, I had no mask on even though the woman at the door demanded I put one on) I said to the cashier as we were pulling away with our cart, "Happy Independence Day."

"No thank you," she replied.  "I don't celebrate slavery."

George Orwell would be proud.  Liberty is slavery.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Friday, July 03, 2020

American Patriots Must Oppose Domestic Terrorists Plans To Attack All Symbols of America On The Fourth of July

By Capt Joseph R. John, July 4, 2020: Op Ed # 498

According to Nazi-Collaborator George Soros, America is the only obstacle to Communists and The Muslim Brotherhood from creating a new world order.   For many years, Nazi-Collaborator George Soros has been working with Communist China, while funding the Domestic Terrorist organizations highlighted in this Op Ed, in order to undermine the US Constitution and destroy America from within.  Police and Fire Departments nationally have been alerted by an Unclassified Law Enforcement Bulletin that on the Fourth of July there will be well organized violent attacks to try to prevent Americans from celebrating Independence Day.    
ANTIFA Marxist Domestic Terrorists, Nazi-Collaborator George Soros’ Black Lives Matter (BLM) Marxist Domestic Terrorists, Bill Ayer’s Marxist Weather Underground, CAIR, The Muslim Brotherhood International Terrorists, the Communist Party USA, Democrat Socialists, and Domestic Enemies will be supporting the Global Marxist Movement to destroy America’s founding principles of liberty and freedom, to poison race relations and foment divisions in American cities, and change the US Constitutional Republic into a Socialist State. 
Unfortunately for the last 5 weeks, not “one” Democrat in the nation has condemned the rioting, the looting of small businesses, the arson, the setting of fire to police cruisers, the attacks that have injured and killed 1100 of Police Officers, and the anarchy in the streets of 184 cities.  By their silence Democrats are supporting the violence and vandalism, and have emboldened their foot soldiers in the streets who will again raise their ugly heads again on the Fourth of July.
On this Fourth of July, American Patriots must oppose the Socialist Democrat Party’s attempts to suppress America’s celebration of Independence Day, to divide the nation by race, to oppose the Marxist’s violent attacks on 4th of July celebrations, to destroy America’s Patriotic symbols, and to oppose the attempts to continue the ongoing initiatives to defame and corrupt US History. 
History is not a blank page on which Nazi-Collaborator George Soros can substitute his own racist version of US History, then publish his corrupt and dishonest US History textbooks, which the Obama administration forced all public schools to teach from in all 50 states.  It became the required Common Core Curriculum US History textbook, and the 50 State Education Departments could only receive federal aid to education if they used Soros’ corrupt US History textbooks.
A "Law Enforcement Sensitive - For Official Use Only", Controlled Unclassified Law Enforcement Bulletin (CUI) has been distributed to alert Police and Fire Departments to the fact that ANTIFA, BLM, The Weather Underground, The Muslim Brotherhood, CAIR, The Communist Party USA, Democrat Socialists, and other US Domestic Enemies have been igniting fireworks to acclimate suburbia with the sounds of explosions.  There have been many on-going reports of illegal fireworks and explosions currently going off throughout hundreds of US cities.  US Domestic Terrorists have been taking deliveries of very large shipments of professional-grade fireworks in bulk, via moving trucks and vans.

The left of center liberal Main Stream Media (MSM) establishment, largely controlled by Communist China’s “United Front”, has been attempting to paint this "massive uptick" in fireworks across the nation, as only a sign of people being overly "celebratory" in preparation for the Fourth of July.  For the past two weeks, ANTIFA, BLM, The Weather Underground, CAIR, the Muslim Brotherhood, The Communist Party USA, and other Domestic Terrorists have been sending teams of terrorists throughout the nation to detonate fireworks, and continue the on-going sounds of explosions, so on the Fourth of July, they can use those sounds of firework explosions, to cover the sound of gunfire in white suburbs and neighborhoods.

The Domestic Terrorists have three (3) specific objectives:

  1. The first objective: To test the response of local law enforcement.  If fireworks are going off around the clock and residents are filing complaints, will police respond?  How long does it
take them to respond?  How many officers?  Do they even respond at all?  This data is being recorded by these groups, and will prove to be very valuable intel for what is to come.  This is a very accurate barometer to test the waters.
   (2) The second objective: Get local residents i.e., white people in nearby neighborhoods acclimated to the frequent sounds of explosions that often sound like gunfire.
    (3) The third objective: Knowing response times and manpower of police, and having acclimated the local population into explosion sounds that mimic gunfire, to then commit arson 
          attacks with professional fireworks to set so many fires, local Emergency Services are immediately overwhelmed, and enter houses to actually fire guns and kill as many as possible in
          white suburbs.

At a time when the US is in the grips of anarchy in the streets led by Marxist Domestic Terrorists and Radical Islamic Terrorists in 184 cities, supporting the rioting, looting, and attacking Police Officers, a large weapons shipment from Communist Chinese was intercepted prior to the Fourth of July Holiday.  That intercept exposed a serious national threat, since the terrorist groups leading the rioting, ANTIFA, Black Lives Matter, the Weatherman Underground, CAIR, the Muslim Brotherhood Terrorists, and the Communist Party USA have direct ties to Middle East Radical Islamic Terrorists and Communist China.  ANTIFA actually joined with ISIS in Iraq, displaying their flag, while murdering Christians in the genocide of Christians on the Plains of Nineveh.
Thomas Mahn, the Port Director at the Express Consignment Operation Hub in Louisville, reported that Chinese Communist smugglers tried to avoid detection while smuggling 10,800 Assault Weapons parts thru the Express Consignment Operation Hub.  The Assault Weapons parts were detected by US Customs and Border Protection Officers.  The shipment from Shenzhen, China, destined for a residence in Melbourne, Florida, arrived in the US and was seized on May 22.   Mann said “Importing any type of munitions is regulated by the ATF.  The Chinese smugglers knowingly tried to avoid detection, however, our officers remain vigilant, ensuring our community is safe.”  Other large Assault Weapons shipments from Communist China most probably have gotten thru undetected.
ANTIFA and Nazi-Collaborator George Soros’ Black Lives Matter have been mobilizing hundreds of thousands of former college students, who were previously indoctrinated over the last 16 years by the Chinese Communist “Confucius Institute”, so they will riot on the Fourth of July.  The plan is to attack and desecration the Gettysburg National Cemetery, to attack the Fourth of July celebration at Mount Rushmore, to attack white wealthy suburbs under the cover of firework explosions going off (like they previously did in St Louis), to burn American Flags whenever they can get their hands on them, to desecrate and topple US Monuments and Statues, to burn businesses in order to destroy the livelihood of average Americans, and to continue the violent demands in the street to defund Police Forces across the nation.  That long-term goal is to eliminate as many Police Forces as possible, so they won’t be able to interfere into planned voter fraud and the violent disruptions of the November Presidential elections at the polls. 
Patriotic Americans should let their voices be heard in opposition to America’s Domestic Enemies who have been colluding with Communist China, Progressives, Marxists, the Communist Party USA, ANTIFA Marxist Domestic Terrorists, Nazi-Collaborator George Soros’ Black Lives Matter Marxist Domestic Terrorists, CAIR and The Muslim Brotherhood International Terrorists, The Weatherman Underground, Democrat Socialists, and the left of center liberal Main Stream Media establishment whose goals are to eliminate The Free Enterprise System and change the US Constitutional Republic into a Socialist State. 
Americans have to also be on guard against subtle attacks on American Patriotism.  An astute reader pointed out that NBC has twice edited, “Under God” out from the Pledge of Allegiance.  The intentional omission happened during a commercial promoting the NBC network’s upcoming spy thriller called “Allegiance.”  That is not the first time NBC removed “Under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance.  In 2011, NBC was forced, to apologize after they omitted the phrase “One Nation Under God” from its coverage over the U.S. Open Championship.  That didn’t happen once, that also happened twice.
American Patriots must again proudly support their country on this Fourth of July and every day, to be optimistic about the future of their country, to let their voices be heard in support for the US Constitution and The Bill of Rights, to display and defend the American Flag flying over their residence and business, and to teach their family members to emulate their respect for the Republic.  Watch the Spectacular and Unusual Spherical Fireworks in the attachment.
We encourage all Patriotic Americans to remember and celebrate the fact that on the first Fourth of July in 1776, delegates from the 13 Colonies adopted the Declaration of Independence, drafted by Thomas Jefferson.  On that day, American Colonists celebrated securing their individual freedoms from oppressive British Rule, and their freedom from the heavy taxes levied upon them by King George of England, without giving them the ability to represent themselves. 
Since 1776, Americans have been celebrating the Fourth of July as the birth of American Independence, and their achievement of self-rule by and for the people.  Since 1776, the annual celebration on July Fourth has been called  “Independence Day.”  Each year on Independence Day, Americans have always expressed their support for the freedoms they enjoy and how blessed they are to live in the US Constitutional Republic.  Americans must not to be prevented from supporting the Republic by Domestic Enemies-----Americans outnumber them, one million to one!!  Fight back and put an end to the lawlessness.
Americans have always appreciated the unlimited opportunities they have to improve their stations in life, because of the individual freedoms outlined in The Bill of Rights, and because of their opportunity to establish a new business venture under The Free Enterprise System.  Today the average American citizens, have more benefits and better living standards than members of royalty lived under, over 100 years ago, and today even citizens with low incomes or on welfare have better living standards and medical benefits (by just going to hospital emergency rooms), than the citizens of every country throughout the world.  
On the Fourth of July, we encourage millions of Americans to proudly fly their American Flags on their residences, businesses, their automobiles, at their picnics, in national cemeteries, in churches, etc.  By doing so, Americans will also be expressing their support for the Republic, and their unity under the “American Flag” that has tied all Americans in 50 states together.  For 244 years, countless generations of Patriotic Americans have defended their country and fought in defense of the Republic under the American Flag, that we should all honor. 
On Independence Day, American citizens have always expressed their support for members of the US Armed Forces and Veterans, who at one time in their lives, raised their right hand and swore to protect and defend the US Constitution, and to protect their fellow Americans from enemies, foreign and domestic.  The Combat Veterans For Congress wish all Americans of good will, a Blessed, Safe, Secure, and Happy Fourth of July. 
The Fourth of July is not only the annual celebration of the birthday of the Republic, but many Patriotic Americans also celebrate that day as second symbolic birthday.  American Patriots must let their voices be heard, should once again proudly celebrate Independence Day as they have always done, and should display and defend the American Flag as it flies everywhere throughout the nation.  Americans should stand for the National Anthem, and Honor the American Flag, that enshrouds all military heroes!  Have a Happy and Safe Fourth of July!

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