Wednesday, July 18, 2018

California Supreme Court Unconstitutionally Blocks Three-State Solution

By Douglas V. Gibbs
Author, Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host
Article IV., Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution states that if new States are to be formed from the carcasses of old States, the move cannot take place without the consent of the State legislatures of any States involved, and the United States Congress.  It is a legislative issue.

Nothing in the Constitution prevents the people from voting on such a measure, but regardless of how the vote turns out, it is nothing more than a message, because in the end it requires legislative action by the legislatures involved.

There is no authority allowing the courts to get in the way.  Frankly, it's none of their high-fallootin' business.

Nonetheless, judges in this country believe they are somehow above everyone, and they can strike down whatever they want, for whatever reason.  In California, the State Supreme Court pulled the three State solution measure (Proposition 9) off of the 2018 ballot because they say the proposal to divide California into three new States is none of the business of the voters.

Funny thing.  In Article I, Section 4 the Constitution places the manner and procedures of elections in the hands of the legislatures, too.  Once again, it's none of the judiciary's business.  If the measure could have been stopped by anyone, that anyone is the California State legislature.

The three-state initiative, Proposition 9, gathered enough signatures to qualify for the November ballot. Nine days after opponents filed suit, the court issued a unanimous order removing the measure from the ballot and ordering further legal arguments on whether it should be placed on another ballot in 2020 or struck down altogether.

Who made the judges God?

And don't give me the John Marshall crap, or judicial review crap, or Marbury v. Madison crap. All of those arguments are nothing more than the courts seizing that power for themselves, and not being granted those powers by the States (whose delegates are the ones who wrote the Constitution, and whom granted all of the powers the federal government has).

The court, likely wishing they had royal scepters to pound into the ground as they belched their dictatorial decree, claimed “significant questions regarding the proposition’s validity” and the “potential harm” of allowing a public vote before those questions are resolved “outweighs the potential harm in delaying the proposition to a future election.”

Who are they to tell the voters that after they jumped through all of the hoops they somehow can't have their vote the way they want it?

Not that I like the three-State solution.  In fact, I actually think the New California idea, which is having a convention in Coalinga this weekend (and I was invited to participate, but I have other things to juggle), is a better idea for the mess we call California, but should be renamed either Detroit or Venezuela.

While the judges are right that California voters do not have the power to break up the State without legislative approval from both Sacramento and Washington D.C., the voters can vote on it to send the message to the legislatures that they want them to do it.

The judges are saying that legislative approval, at least by California, must happen before the people get to vote on it.  Basically, the three State solution requires a “revision” of the State Constitution, something in California that is not supposed to happen until approved by two-thirds of both houses of the Legislature in Sacramento.  Then, after that approval, it can be placed on the ballot.

The guy behind Proposition 9 is a billionaire Bay Area venture capitalist named Tim Draper.  He drafted Prop. 9, qualified it for the ballot and has represented himself without a lawyer in the court proceedings. Draper argues that California has become ungovernable — its taxes too high, its schools and public services in disrepair, its 39 million-plus residents far too numerous to be represented democratically by 120 elected legislators.

Well, there's a mistake right there.  We are not supposed to be a democracy.  Not the State government.  Not the federal government.  We are supposed to be a republic, with some democratic processes.  In Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution, in fact, it tells the United States Government that it is required to "guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government."

You want to fix California?  It should start by getting us back to a being Republic, which includes killing the current State Senator set-up, and changing it back to what it used to be before progressives and the Warren Court screwed it all up.  One Senator per county, and the county leadership appointing the State Senators.  The screwy way they have it now has rural counties sharing a State Senator, and Los Angeles County with 13 of them.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Tuesday, July 17, 2018

Tonight's Constitution Class in Corona: Prohibition, Women's Rights, Election Rules

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

Constitution Class Handout
Instructor: Douglas V. Gibbs
douglasvgibbs@reagan.com
 
 
 
Lesson 20
 
Prohibition, Women's Voting Rights, Election Rules
Prohibition

Amendment 18 was ratified January 16, 1919, bringing the prohibition of alcohol to America. The amendment was repealed by Amendment 21, December 5, 1933.
 
Christian churches worked to bring about prohibition as far back as the early 1800s, largely through the campaigning by women and young adults who had been adversely affected by husbands and fathers who were heavy alcohol consumers. Alcohol was considered to be one of the most prevalent social problems in America. The concerns over the dangers of alcohol brought about the Temperance Movement. The American Temperance Society was founded in 1826, with the specific goal of outlawing alcohol in the United States.
 
Local organizations that encouraged abstinence from alcohol existed as early as 1808. It was not until 1826 that a nationwide temperance society was created. As the American Temperance Society gained steam, national and international temperance societies sprang up. Organizations like the Washington Temperance Society did not consider temperance to be a religious issue, while other groups felt compelled by God to proclaim temperance. Considering the involvement in the movement by a diverse menu of denominations, no one religion was able to claim to have been the originator of temperance ideals.
 
The most effective weapon of temperance was to advocate total abstinence from alcohol through personal pledges. The societies gave out pledge cards or medals with various types of pledges written on them. Not all of the pledges, however, demanded total abstinence, as indicated by the following pledge:
 
"We agree to abstain from all intoxicating liquors except for medicinal purposes and religious ordinances."
 
Concerned that being too strict may discourage many from joining their society, some organizations gave people the option to choose the extent of their pledge. One common practice was to have those who joined a society to sign a book indicating their commitment. If the person was willing to commit to total abstinence, they would place a capital "T" by their name. The "T" stood for Total or "Total Abstinence". Hence came the term "Tee Totaler" as one who has committed himself to total abstinence.
 
Through the use of pressure-politics the goal of nationwide prohibition was achieved during World War I with the ratification of the Eighteenth Amendment in January of 1919.
 
Congress, in response to the new amendment, passed the Volstead Act on October 28, 1919, to enforce the law. Most large cities refused to enforce the legislation. As the federal government went after bootleggers, it became quickly apparent that the understaffed agencies were fighting a losing battle. Meanwhile, though there was a slight decline in alcohol consumption around the nation, organized crime increased in the larger cities. Alcohol became a high demand cash crop that the criminal element could not resist.
 
As Prohibition became increasingly unpopular, and the element of organized crime had reached its height, the perceived need for tax revenue during the Great Depression also encouraged a repeal movement. The hope for tax revenue from the legal sale of alcohol, and the need to weaken organized crime, led to the 21st Amendment, which repealed the amendment that had brought Prohibition to America. The repeal returned the legalities of alcohol to the States. Though Prohibition was over nationwide, some counties remained dry counties, forbidding the sale of alcoholic beverages.
 
In our current society there are calls for the legalization of Marijuana, and other drugs. Existing federal drug laws enforce a prohibition of drugs. There is a movement in some parts of government pushing for the legalization of certain drugs, like marijuana. If at the federal level a number of politicians decided that the legalization of drugs is good for the nation, we could very well see such legislation pass through Congress. By studying the U.S. Constitution, and taking a lesson from the 18th Amendment, it is apparent that the federal government does not have the authority to ban, or legalize, drugs in America without receiving such an authority through the Amendment Process (as we saw with the 18th Amendment in regards to Alcohol). The regulation of drugs is a State issue, as per the Tenth Amendment. This means that all federal drug laws are unconstitutional, and laws in California legalizing marijuana for medicinal purposes, and in the States of Washington and Colorado for recreational use, are completely constitutional.
 
Terms:
Dry Counties - Counties in the United States whose government forbids the sale of alcoholic beverages within the county.
 
Great Depression - A severe worldwide economic depression in the decade preceding World War II.
 
Organized Crime - Transnational, national, or local groupings of highly centralized enterprises run by criminals for the purpose of engaging in illegal activity, most commonly for monetary profit.
 
Prohibition - Period in United States history during which the manufacture and sale of alcohol was prohibited. Drinking alcohol itself was never illegal, and there were always exceptions for medicinal and religious uses.
Temperance Movement - A social movement urging the reduced use of alcoholic beverages during the 19th and early 20th centuries.
 
Volstead Act - Officially The National Prohibition Act; the law that was the enabling legislation for the Eighteenth Amendment which established prohibition in the United States.
 
 
Questions for Discussion:
 
1. Why were women a major factor in the temperance movement?
 
2. What were some of the factors that contributed to the growing popularity of The Temperance Movement?
 
3. What challenges did The Temperance Movement encounter, and how did they adjust (i.e. through the style of pledges, exceptions to abstinence, etc.)
 
4. What was the reaction of many local governments to the Volstead Act?
 
5. What happened to the presence of organized crime when Prohibition was enacted? Why?
 
6. What were the reasons for repealing Prohibition?
 
7. What did Prohibition say about individualism and personal responsibility from the point of view of the federal government?
 
8. In what form does Prohibition continue to exist in the United States even today?
 
9. What lesson regarding the legalization of other drugs does the 18th Amendment teach us?
 
 
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)
 
Kobler, John, Ardent Spirits The Rise and Fall of Prohibition, New
York: G.P. Putnam's Sons (1973)
 
The Temperance Movement, US History.com;
http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1054.html
 
Steven Mintz, Moralists & Modernizers: America's Pre-Civil War
Reformers; Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press (1995)
 
Women's Voting Rights
The 19th Amendment established uniform voting rights for women nationwide. It was ratified on August 18, 1920.
 
Women, despite popular opinion, did vote in elections prior to the ratification of the 19th Amendment. In 1869, women in the newly created territory of Wyoming became the first women in the United States to win the right to vote. Colorado gave voting rights to women in 1892, and both Utah and Idaho gave women the right to vote in 1896.
 
The Constitution gives the States the right to determine their own rules for elections. The women's suffrage movement worked to bring about an amendment that would give women voting rights nationwide. The amendment was first proposed in 1878, and it took forty-one years before it was submitted to the States for ratification. It took about a year to receive enough votes for ratification.
 
Susan B. Anthony, already known for her crusade for the abolition of slavery, and the prohibition of alcohol, added women's suffrage to her plate. By 1878 she was able to induce a Senator from California to introduce a resolution in Congress calling for an amendment to the Constitution which would give women throughout the United States the right to vote.
 
The drive for an amendment that would grant uniform voting rights for women was nothing new. Aaron Burr, the Vice President during Thomas Jefferson's presidency, was a fervent believer in women's rights, and took personal charge of his daughter's course of study, insisting she learn Greek, Latin, and French, along with literature, philosophy and sciences. His proposals for the uniform voting rights for women, however, never gained traction.
 
John Adams, the second President of the United States, also supported expanding women's freedoms. As a great admirer of his wife, Abigail, he often went to her for advice. In 1776, as the Founders put into full gear their drive for American independence, Abigail offered in a letter, "I long to hear that you have declared an independency. And, by the way, in the new code of laws which I suppose it will be necessary for you to make, I desire you would remember the ladies and be more generous and favorable to them than your ancestors. Do not put such unlimited power into the hands of the husbands. Remember, all men would be tyrants if they could. If particular care and attention is not paid to the ladies, we are determined to foment a rebellion, and will not hold ourselves bound by any laws in which we have no voice or representation."
 
A challenge to the 19th Amendment (Leser v. Garnett, 1922) claimed that the amendment was unconstitutionally adopted, and that the rules for elections were implicitly delegated to the individual States because of the need to preserve State Sovereignty. However, the very fact that the change in voting rules was through amendment made the argument against the 19th Amendment a moot point.
 
Once the 19th Amendment was ratified, with this new power, women were able to attempt to elect those who shared their beliefs, hoping that other measures that would push forward the fight for women's rights would also emerge.
 
After the 19th Amendment passed, the percentage of women in the workforce increased to about 25%. Though some discrimination continued, and women rarely held decision-making positions, it was definitely a step in the right direction for the purpose of encouraging the rights of women.
 
During World War II, women were needed in all areas since many of the men went overseas to fight. The percentage of women in the workforce increased to 36%. The boom for women was short-lived, however. When the war ended, and the soldiers returned home, two-million women were fired within fifteen months after the end of the war to make room for the men.
 
Despite such setbacks, by the 1980s, the percentage of women in the workforce exceeded 50%. However, the percentage of women voting has not equaled the original push shortly after the ratification of the 19th Amendment.
 
Advocates for family values, though supportive of equal opportunity, often view these advancements as promotion for the break-up of the family unit. With mothers participating in the workforce, advent of women's rights has also given rise to the emergence of latch-key kids.
 
The greatest right for women is choice, which includes the choice not to pursue the numerous opportunities available for the purpose of following a more traditional role, should they desire to make such a choice. Women in today's society have the choice to pursue a career, be a stay-at-home mom and wife, or attempt to juggle both. For the purpose of protecting the family unit, and the traditional nature of the American society, wife and mother remains the more popular choice.
 
Terms:
Women's Suffrage - The right of women to vote and to run for office. The expression is also used for the economic and political reform movement aimed at extending these rights to women without any restrictions or qualifications such as property ownership, payment of tax, or marital status.
 
Questions for Discussion:
 
1. Were women allowed to vote in national elections before the ratification of the Nineteenth Amendment?
 
2. How did the abolition movement and temperance movement lead some to also support women's suffrage?
 
3. On what grounds was the Nineteenth Amendment Challenged?
 
4. How has the drive for the rights of women changed to an opposite extreme?
 
5. How has the Women's Rights Movement affected the concept of the traditional family unit?
 
Resources:
Aaron Burr Biography, Essortment; http://www.essortment.com/aaron-
burr-biography-20550.html
 
Abigail Adams urges husband to "remember the ladies", History.com;
http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/abigail-adams-urges-husband-to-remember-the-ladies
 
Andrew M. Allison, K. DeLynn Cook, M. Richard Maxfield, and W.
Cleon Skousen, The Real Thomas Jefferson; New York: National Center for Constitutional Studies (2009)
 
David McCullough, John Adams; New York: Simon and Schuster (2001)
 
W. Cleon Skousen, The Role of Women in Healing America, Latter Day
Conservative and The Constitution magazine, November 1985; http://www.latterdayconservative.com/articles/the-role-of-women-in-healing-america/
 
Election Rules
Ratified in 1933, the 20th Amendment establishes the current rules regarding the beginning and end of the terms of elected federal offices.
 
The amendment moved the beginning of the Presidential, Vice Presidential and Congressional terms from March 4. Congress, under the new rules established by the 20th Amendment, convenes on the third day of January, reducing the amount of time a lame duck Congress would be in session. A lame duck Congress, no longer fearful of the effect their decisions may have on re-election, may be more apt to support otherwise unpopular legislation during a lame duck session.
 
The 20th Amendment moved the terms of the President and Vice President to begin on the 20th day of January.
 
Section 2 of the 20th Amendment begins, "The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year." The phrase is consistent with the language used in Article I, Section 4, though one wonders if the delegates debating the 20th Amendment viewed meeting one day a year as overburdensome as did the Framers of the Constitution, or if they considered themselves to be professional politicians who must be constantly legislating, as does today's legislators.
 
The 20th Amendment's Section 3 addresses vacancies to the presidency before the new President has the opportunity to take office. The clause assigns the presidency to the Vice President in the case of the death of the President, if the President dies before he can take office. Assigning the presidency to the Vice President was in line with Article II, Section 1, Clause 6, and the 12th Amendment assigning to the Vice President the Office of the President should the President die after he took office. In the case it turns out the President does not qualify for the office, this article grants to Congress the authority to declare who shall act as President. "Failing to qualify for office" refers to an occasion that the Electoral College fails to resolve who will be the President or Vice President. A key point of this provision, and a critical protection against an outgoing faction attempting to retain some semblance of power, in the case that the candidates fail to qualify for office, is that the decision still devolves to Congress, but to the newly elected Congress, as opposed to the outgoing one. As established in Article II, Section 1, the decision for President would continue to rest upon the House of Representatives, and the choice of Vice President would continue to be the choice of the United States Senate.
 
Section 4 of the 20th Amendment addresses succession, giving Congress the authority to establish a line of succession, in the case of death of the President, or of the Vice President. The more astute student may recall that today's constitutional protocols calls upon the President to appoint a new Vice President, should that seat be vacated, but that provision did not become law until the ratification of the 25th Amendment in 1967.
 
The final two sections of the 20th Amendment address when the amendment would take effect should it be ratified, and a time limit of the proposal should the States not ratify it in a timely fashion. Section 5 states that the first two sections of the amendment, the parts of the amendment that alters the date the terms of President, Vice President, and members of Congress shall begin, "shall take effect on the 15th day of October following the ratification of this article." If ratification reached completion during an election year, that would put the new amendment into effect a couple weeks before the next election. The amendment was ratified January 23, 1933, not in time for Franklin Delano Roosevelt's victory in the 1932 Election. FDR had to wait until March of 1933 to take office.
 
In Section 6 of the 20th Amendment, for the first time in American History, a limitation was placed upon a proposed amendment, requiring that the amendment be ratified within seven years from the date of its submission. The same stipulation would be added at the end of the 21st and 22nd amendments, as well as a number of proposals that failed to be ratified within the allotted time period (like the Equal Rights Amendment). The 27th Amendment, ratified in 1992, reveals that without a limitation, proposed amendments remain in place and can stay on the active list indefinitely. The 27th Amendment was originally proposed as a part of the original Bill of Rights, submitted September 25, 1789.
 
 
Terms:
 
Lame Duck Congress - A lame duck session of Congress in the United States occurs whenever one Congress meets after its successor is elected, but before the successor's term begins.
 
Line of Succession - The order in which individuals are expected to succeed one another in some official position.
 
 
Questions for Discussion:
 
1. Why did the framers of the Twentieth Amendment see a need to move forward the dates of Presidential and Congressional Terms?
 
2. In what way can Lame Duck Sessions be dangerous?
 
3. Why do you think the Amendment changed the duty of electing the President, should the Electoral College fail to do so, to the newly elected Congress from the outgoing one?
 
 
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)
 
United States Senate, Lame Duck Session Definition:
http://www.senate.gov/reference/glossary_term/lame_duck_session.htm
 
 
Copyright 2015 Douglas V. Gibbs

Strzok Admission

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

The FBI's bias has been revealed loud and clear in Peter Strzok's testimony before Congress. KrisAnne Hall discusses it at length on an interview with i24 News. Think about what is going on. Strzok and his FBI lawyer girlfriend Lisa Page were participating in internally destroying our system, and actively working to stop the election of a candidate, Donald Trump, who disagrees with their Marxist agenda.

Peter Strzok testified before two House committees, but what is even more juicy is that Lisa Page's testimony contradicts the testimony of Peter Strzok.

The purpose of calling the former FBI agent before Congress was to discuss his text messages that were extremely critical of Donald Trump during the 2016 presidential campaign, and how they may reveal compromise and applied bias in regards to the FBI investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.

Strzok claimed that the texts were simply talk, and that they were nowhere near the presidential campaign in the sense of bias by the FBI.  Page contradicted Strzok in her testimony and even admitted that the texts “mean exactly what they say.”

House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., criticized Strzok’s narrow definition of bias, noting that special counsel Robert Mueller removed him from the investigative team over that bias.

“The moment special counsel Bob Mueller found out about Peter Strzok’s text and emails, he kicked him off of the investigation,” Gowdy said. “But that was a year and a half too late. The texts and emails may have been discovered in May of 2017, but the bias existed and was manifest a year and a half before that. All the way back to late 2015 and early 2016.

Gowdy also explained that Agent Strzok had Hillary Clinton winning the White House before he finished investigating her. Agent Strzok had Donald Trump impeached before he even started investigating him. That is bias.

In the texts was the following exchange:

Page asked regarding Trump, “He’s not ever going to become president, right? Right?!”

Strzok responded, “No. No, he’s not. We’ll stop it.”

Was that a promise of doing whatever it took to stop the Trump Train using FBI tools and the manipulating ongoing investigations?

Early in the hearing, Strzok did not answer a question about how many witnesses he interviewed in the investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., reminded Strzok that he was “under subpoena and required to answer the question.”

Not only was Strzok willing to use bias in investigations to do what he could to stop Trump, he was willing to be guilty of contempt to keep from answering to Congress.

“Your testimony is essential to this hearing and to our oversight and information-gathering functions with regard to the actions taken and decisions made by the Department of Justice and the FBI in 2016 and 2017. I am specifically directing you to answer the question in response to our subpoena,” Goodlatte said. “In a moment, we will continue with the hearing, but based on your refusal to answer the question, at the conclusion of the day, we will be recessing the hearing, and you will subject to recall to allow the committee to consider a contempt citation.”

Strzok's hate for Trump, and his "right-wing" supporters, led him to make vile statements on his texts, such as in one of Strzok’s texts from Aug. 26, 2016 where he wrote of Trump supporters: “Just went to a southern Virginia Walmart. I could SMELL the Trump support.”

Originally, Lisa Page was refusing to comply with the House subpoena, threatening to be in contempt, herself. 

The conspiracy runs much deeper than only the FBI.  A top public-interest law group, Judicial Watch, filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) in an attempt to clarify other parts of the overall conspiracy to sabotage the presidential campaign (remember, the Democrats say that sabotage was against Hillary Clinton).  In the case of Judicial Watch's inquiry, they are seeking communications with former Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) and his staff regarding the anti-Trump ‘dirty dossier’ which was funded by Clinton and her campaign minions and the Democratic National Committee (DNC).

Senator Harry Reid, who served on a number of Senate committees, reportedly believed then-Obama’s CIA Director John Brennan was leaking information about Trump and the alleged links between the Trump campaign and the Russian government in order to make public accusations.

On August 27, 2016, Reid wrote a letter to Comey accusing President Trump’s campaign of colluding with the Russian government.

The Judicial Watch FOIA lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia after the CIA failed to respond to a February 12, 2018, FOIA request for:  All records of communications, including but not limited to letters, emails, text messages, and instant chats, between former CIA Director John Brennan and/or officials in the CIA Director’s Office on the one hand, and Senator Harry Reid and/or members of Senator Reid’s staff on the other hand, regarding, concerning or relating to the Christopher Steele “dossier” and/or alleged “collusion” between the Trump presidential campaign and Russia.

CIA Chief Brennan himself has revealed his deep-seated animus toward President Trump and used his media platform as an MSNBC commentator to repeatedly attack the president.

When President Trump tweeted about FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe’s firing in March 2018, Brennan retweeted and responded:  “When the full extent of your venality, moral turpitude, and political corruption becomes known, you will take your rightful place as a disgraced demagogue in the dustbin of history. You may scapegoat Andy McCabe, but you will not destroy America…America will triumph over you.”

In response to the president’s tweet that former FBI director Comey is a “proven leaker and liar,” Brennan retweeted and responded in April 2018 that President Trump’s administration is a failing “kakistocracy.”

“Obama CIA Director John Brennan’s unhinged attacks on President Trump help explain the Obama administration spying abuses targeting Trump,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “The mere fact that we had to file this lawsuit shows the CIA has something to hide on Obama-era abuses and collusion with Democrats in Congress to target then-candidate Trump,.” Fitton added.

In the end, the reality is, the Democrats, be they politicians, or members of the FBI or CIA, were willing to do anything, legally or illegally, to stop the election of Donald Trump as President of the United States because, in the end, a Trump presidency would basically put a stick in the spokes of the Democrat Party agenda, and dismantle a century old plan to move America even closer to utopian Marxism controlled by the Democrat Party in a single-party oligarchy.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Trump and Putin

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

Trump is the great negotiator.  He knows how to handle different people, and his handling of Putin at their time together in Helsinki was carefully orchestrated. Don't give too much.  Don't take too much.

The media had other thoughts about it.

They felt that Putin, the Russian President who they are convinced Trump is in cahoots with, dominated the Helsinki press conference.  Funny how they were not so concerned when Obama was rubbing noses with Putin, and telling Medvedev that he would be more flexible for the Russians after he got reelected.



When asked about his spying on Trump, Putin denied having any dirt on Trump.  It was the American media asking about the dirt on Trump and either way they get what they want.  If Putin had said "yes," it would have been an "aha!!!" moment.  By him saying no, "well, he's a Russian leader, of course he's lying."

Personally, I've always thought the election meddling charge coupled with collusion with the Trump campaign was ridiculous, because if anyone has always tried to work to be the buddies of communists, it has been the Democrats.  Putin agrees that the Democrats claiming that there was election meddling is 'utterly ridiculous'.  That said, I don't believe the meddling is ridiculous because Putin said so, for we know he is not necessarily one to be trusted, but because the lack of evidence regarding collusion between the Russians and the Trump campaign, and the evidence showing that if anyone was meddling, it was the Democrats and the Clinton Crime Family meddling among each other to try and undermine the election of 2016.


Acting like a puppet?  Really?

Wow, they see what they want to see.

I am not saying that the Russians did not try to manipulate our election.  The Russians have been meddling in our elections for over a hundred years.  I am saying that the very idea that they wanted Trump over Hillary Clinton, and colluded with Trump to get the billionaire into office, is ridiculous on its face.  Funny thing is, the Democrats, behind Barack Obama, didn't have a problem with the progressive left trying to meddle in Israel's election, hoping to dislodge Benjamin Netanyahu.

As far as the leftists are concerned, since Trump is President of the United States, we must be on the edge of a dystopian apocalypse ... all because they aren't getting their way, and all because their march towards communism in America was stopped with a stick in their spokes by a non-politician who sees through their game, and has promised to dismantle their deep state machine.

The Epoch Times headline says it all.  Obama and Clinton, Not Trump, Sold Out to Putin.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Monday, July 16, 2018

Enemies Within, Mission Viejo

By Douglas V. Gibbs

I am very good friends with Dennis Jackson, the executive producer of the film Enemies Within by Trevor Loudon.  We are in Mission Viejo tonight screening the film for the area's ACT For America group.  The film focuses on the communist and Muslim infiltration into the United States, and more specifically, into our government.  According to Trevor Loudon, more than 100 members of Congress could not pass a background security check due to their communist and Muslim connections.

Have you seen the film?

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Jesus Said, Keep and Bear Arms

Posted by Douglas V. Gibbs
Author, Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host


Luke 22:36 King James Version (KJV)

36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Sunday, July 15, 2018

2018 Constitution Association Annual Dinner, Report

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

The Constitution Association had a very successful fundraiser dinner last night (Saturday, July 14, 2018) in Wildomar, California, and I would like to share some pictures and video.  I would like to add, we really need monthly donors, and if you would like to give to our 501c3 and the efforts we are involved in regarding the spread of constitutional literacy and the promotion of patriotic advocacy, feel free to start a donation on our donation page.

Donate

The videos were taken by Glenn Stull of the Banning-Beaumont-Cherry Valley Tea Party, and were available live on Facebook:

As folks arrive:



Introduction, acknowledgement of certain folks in the room, Pledge of Allegiance, National Anthem, God Bless America, and the Invocation.


Douglas V. Gibbs: Rule of Law Constitutionally and through the Declaration of Independence
Robert Tyler: Rule of Law Legally


Father Josiah's incredible speech on the Rule of Law, and the answer to the question,
"Is the U.S. Constitution as secular document?"


As the folks arrived, the fun was just beginning. . . 

I was so busy (and arrived later than I wanted to) that my quick movements were
just a blur to the camera.

I welcomed everyone with a jovial launch.
Father Josiah Trenham of the St. Andrew Orthodox
Church in Riverside gave the opening prayer.
Robert (Bob) Tyler, co-founder of the Advocates for Faith and Freedom
gave a powerful speech on the Rule of Law from a legal perspective.


Father Josiah Trenham brought down the house with his speech
about the Rule of Law from a Christian perspective by
exploring the question, "Is the Constitution a secular document?"

Prior to the speakers I had given attention to my
good friend, and co-host on Constitution Radio,
Alex Ferguson.

We enjoyed a powerful rendition of the National Anthem (and funny, nobody kneeled),
and then when an encore was called for, she sang God Bless America.  Great Stuff.

We had three candidates in the room.  Tim Donnelly, Congressional Candidate
in the 8th District.

Kimberlin Brown Pelzer in the 36th Congressional District

Aja Smith from the 41st District

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Saturday, July 14, 2018

Constitution Radio with Douglas V. Gibbs: Rise of Republic Review

Constitution Radio with Douglas V. Gibbs

KMET 1490-AM, Saturdays 1:00-3:00 pm

Call in Live: 951-922-3532

Solutions ...

Are you familiar with what Republic Review is?

Our first guest, G.R. Mobley, coined the term many years ago.  I was the first to verbalize support for Republic Review.  He is the author of the We the People series of books.  

Our second guest is forensic accountant Alan Myers.  Join us during the second hour for a journey through the Federal Reserve, and the devastating impact of centralized engineered economics.

Today's CARSTAR/AllStar Collision Big Stories of the Week...


  • The Leftist Altar





Did you miss the program?  No problem.  Catch our archived podcasts at https://soundcloud.com/kmet-1490-am/sets/constitution-radio

Be sure and visit our sponsors:




Conservative Voice Radio: Winning

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

The Banning-Beaumont-Cherry ValleyTea Party's own radio program, Conservative Voice Radio, will be on the air this coming Saturday Morning.

Host Douglas V. Gibbs leads a round-table discussion with members of the Banning-Beaumont-Cherry Valley Tea Party (Glenn, Jan, and Diane) on Conservative Voice Radio, KMET 1490-AM, every Saturday at 8:00 am Pacific Time. 

Today's Topics:

- Kavanaugh to SCOTUS

- Left's Dystopian Apocalypse

- Dems Call to Abolish ICE

- Kimberlin Brown Pelzer Campaign Office Grand Opening

- Thunderstorms and the Radio

- San Bernardino Fire

- San Bernardino Deputy District Attorney Placed on Administrative Leave for Political Opinions

- Emerging Local Laws

- Socialism and the Black Exit from the Democrat Party

- Mueller Witch hunt deepens

- Brexit in Danger

- London Mayor and Trump Visit

Friday, July 13, 2018

FBI Bias, Mendacity, and Corruption

By Rick Reiss
Temecula, California

Disgraced FBI agent Peter Strzok's Congressional testimony revealed inherent bias, mendacity, and corruption within the FBI's Counter-Intelligence Division.

Strzok proclaimed that the vulgar and partisan messages with his then FBI-mistress Lisa Page via FBI smartphones could never create biased investigations. Strzok testified, "And the suggestion that I in some dark chamber somewhere in the FBI would somehow cast aside all of these procedures, all of these safeguards, and somehow be able to do this is astounding to me. It simply couldn't happen."

Yet Strzok conveniently omits that these "safeguards" included the now fired former FBI Director James Comey, the now fired Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe, the demoted DOJ official Bruce Ohr, and of course, the now resigned FBI girlfriend-attorney Lisa Paige. These people were the checks and balances Strzok alluded to and this all suggests something rotten in the Counter-Intelligence Division.

Such unsavory biases and rigged investigations are not new. The FBI has a well known history of “black bag” jobs and COINTELPRO investigations that were highly political and inherently unconstitutional. Now these FBI bureaucrats have been caught acting as a virtual legal defense service for the Hillary Clinton team and something more akin to a Spanish Inquisition to the Donald Trump team.

Since the FBI and the DOJ refuse to come clean, then they no longer deserve the honor of running America’s counter-intelligence programs. The function of counter-intelligence should be transferred over to the Department of Homeland Security as soon as possible.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Thursday, July 12, 2018

A Real Man

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

A real man is a cheerful giver but does so without boasting. He serves this country and his community, but he does not claim to be a hero.  If others wish to call him that, so be it. If his story while serving was a heroic one in the eyes of the public and they wish it to be told, then tell it. But beating one's chest and demanding attention, or calling oneself great, especially if they've done nothing, is not what being a real man is about. A real man is strong, firm, and confident, without being arrogant or pointing fingers towards himself.

A real man is an anonymous giver, and a beacon of humility.  He serves, but is firm in his stance.  He pays attention to detail, but does not make a big stink out of small problems.  He's kind, yet principled.  He's sensitive, yet fierce when necessary.  He knows when it's time to be compassionate, and he knows when his male aggression must rule the moment.

But, nobody knows he did whatever it was he did to save the day, because he's not pointing fingers towards himself, nor is he preaching about "I" and "me."

He can be depended upon, for he never fails when it comes to his word, or his resolve.

He is a real man.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Look Beyond Surface Vision

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

The problem with liberals and the younger generation is that you are not supposed to simply look with your eyes if you want to see what's beyond.  Democrat voters seem to always fall for what's on the surface and what they think they see (because the Democrat politicians told them so . . . even though they believe all politicians lie), not realizing there's more to the story then what has been revealed. Sometimes the truth it's not what you think it is.  The thing is, the professional politicians know that you don't look beyond the surface, and they make a living convincing you of what you are supposed to think the truth, even though it is all smoke and mirrors and sleight of hand.

2 Corinthians 5:7 (KJV) - For we walk by faith, not by sight.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Wednesday, July 11, 2018

Young Thai Soccer Players in a Cave Saga


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

The ordeal was watched closely by the world.  12 boys, soccer players, and their coach, were trapped in a cave, and the only way to get them out was through the bravery of Thai Navy SEALs as they braved the way through a harrowing underwater pathway with each of the rescuees.

The soccer team had been trapped for nearly three weeks.  Alone.  In the dark. Away from loved ones.  Frightened, but resilient.

The team, boys between the ages of 11 and 16 were greeted by relatives after the ordeal from the other side of a glass barrier.  The health status of the boys and their coach still is a concern, and is under careful evaluation.  They are wearing special clothing and being kept from having direct contact with the outside world, for the moment, to protect against the chance of infection.

Doctors say three of the boys are being treated for minor cases of pneumonia, but predict most of them should be discharged after about a week.  Reports claim that while they are in good condition, each lost an average of two kilograms (4.4 pounds) in weight during their time in the cave.  The coach, a twenty-five year old former monk, has been praised for taking care of the kids during the ordeal.  The children hadn't eaten any food in the nine days before they were found, and drank murky water from inside the cave, which saved them.  

"Some have had muscle infections, cold, flu, and some psychologists have been taking care of them to relieve stress," Health Ministry Inspector Lertvirairatanapong said.

As for the Thai Navy SEALs, the praise has been incredible, since the rescue literally set a new standard for difficult rescues.
"The complexity, scale and risk of the operation was unprecedented," Glen McEwen, Australian Federal Police manager for Asia said at a press conference Wednesday.

During the roughly nine-hour rescue operation, the boys were underwater for four to six hours with one SEAL beside each one, and another trailing behind.  The oxygen tanks for the boys were carried by the divers.  Parts of the journey, especially the first kilometer, were harrowing to say the least, with some of the spots being so narrow that the divers had to remove their tanks and push them through with their bodies squeezing through behind the tank.

Once through the first part of the journey, another team took over, with parts of the rescue simply being on foot.

The reasoning behind them going into the caves in the first place, especially during monsoon season (and considering there are signs warning about the dangers of going into the caves during the rainy season), is still unknown.  The coach will likely clear that up once all of the health dangers have passed, and the media can get their claws into him.

President Trump congratulated the brave Thai Navy SEALs with a tweet . . .
On behalf of the United States, congratulations to the Thai Navy SEALs and all on the successful rescue of the 12 boys and their coach from the treacherous cave in Thailand. Such a beautiful moment - all freed, great job!

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

NATO Bending to Trump

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

When it comes to foreign relations we haven't had a President who knows what he's doing quite like President Donald Trump since President Ronald Reagan.  Foreign Relations takes a firm hand among a circle of leaders who are wet noodles, and enemies who will take a mile for every inch every chance they can get.  The leftist Marxist progressives who claim to be our allies think appeasement and careful, soft-footed, "The Quiet Place" style stepping is the best way to confront our enemies (and allies).  The thing is, and Trump understands this, a firm hand is necessary when dealing with our allies as much as it is when dealing with historical enemies (like North Korea, Russia, or China) because they, frankly, think we should carry the whole burden of keeping the world safe because, well, that's the way it's always been, and they'd prefer to dump money into socialist programs that would not be affordable (and really is not affordable at any time), otherwise.

President Trump made it loud and clear, very early, that the United States is sick and tired of receiving no help, or very little help, from our soft allies, when it comes to funding the defense of their behinds.  So, he's been firm.

The progressive left has been freaking out.  They claim that's not how you treat our friends.

With friends like that, who needs enemies?

And like any good negotiator, Trump basically says that if they don't want to play ball, he'd be glad to take his ball and go home with it.

It's like being willing to walk off a car lot.  As you walk away, the used car salesman comes running up to you, "okay, okay, here's the reins to the negotiations, how do you want to make a deal?"

It was an awesome tactic with Kim Jong Un in North Korea, and Trump's firmness led to historical meetings and agreements that no Western leader has been able to accomplish . . . ever.

After the tense NATO summit President Trump accused German Chancellor Angela Merkel's government of being "captive" to Russia and demanded it immediately step up defense spending.  Further, Trump is demanding that NATO allies "reimburse" Washington for defending the continent.  Merkel, who grew up in communist East Germany (which actually explains a lot about her), shot back that she knew what it meant to be under Kremlin domination and Germany had the right to make its own policy choices.

So does the United States.  It is out of courtesy that we spend our money to protect Europe militarily.

What is funny about that is Trump has been accused of being a protectionist president.  If that was the case, we'd have already told Europe to take a hike.

In reality, our interests are at stake when it comes to Europe, so keeping Europe out of the hands of worse dictators than the Marxists already running around the continent is indeed in our best interest.  But, it is their behinds we are protecting, and Trump is right when he says they need to step up their participation and funding of that protection.

In response to Merkel's shot back across Trump's bow, the American President, without skipping a beat, continued to guide and maneuver the breakfast meeting with NATO chief Jens Stoltenberg and various European leaders.

"Everybody's talking about it all over the world, they're saying we're paying you billions of dollars to protect you but you're paying billions of dollars to Russia."

Later, Trump and Merkel met in a one-on-one meeting.  Trump stated that they had a "very very good relationship".

NATO allies agreed at a summit in Wales in 2014 to move towards spending two percent of GDP on defense by 2024. But Germany, Europe's biggest economy, spends just 1.24 percent, compared with 3.5 percent for the US.

"These countries have to step it up -- not over a 10 year period, they have to step it up immediately," Trump said.

"We're protecting Germany, France and everybody... this has been going on for decades," Trump said. "We can't put up with it and it's inappropriate."

Trump's "very direct language" has the European leaders on pins and needles, though they all agree with Trump that the allies need to boost NATO's resilience, fight terror and share the cost of defense more equally.  If Europe would stop importing terrorists, in the name of refugees and migrants, that would probably help, too.

EU President Donald Tusk told Trump he should "appreciate your allies" and reminded him that Europe had come to America's aid following the 9/11 attacks.

Never mind that the United States in World War II, and ever since, has been saving Europe's hindquarters.

That all said, their childlike lashing out against Trump's resolve is beginning to crack.  Slowly, the stubborn European leaders are being herded by Trump towards acting in a more reasonable manner when it comes to their defense.  And, by the time it's all over, they will all recommit to Article 5 in the articles of NATO, which states that an attack on one member is an attack on them all.

Stubborn children who don't understand the big picture always needs a firm hand.  President Trump has been impressive with his navigation through foreign affairs.  In fact, it's downright refreshing to see an American President act from a position of strength, rather than groveling, for a change.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary