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

Tuesday, May 24, 2016

Concerning the States: Corona Constitution Class

Corona Constitution Class:

Concerning the States 

Corona Constitution Class
Tuesdays, 6:00 pm
AllStar Collision
522 Railroad St., Corona CA

Constitution Class Handout

Instructor: Douglas V. Gibbs

Lesson 09

Concerning the States

Full Faith and Credit

Article IV, Section 1 begins with The Full Faith and Credit Clause. The clause reads, "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof."

In simple, modern day language, under the Full Faith and Credit Clause judgments rendered in one State are acknowledged in others; when a U.S. citizen resolves an issue within one of the States that resolution must be recognized by all other States.

The Founding Fathers originally intended, with the Full Faith and Credit Clause, to protect the self-government autonomy of the States, while also promoting the union of the sovereign States as well. To do this, the Founding Fathers needed to make sure that judicial rulings in one State would be respected by all States, because otherwise there would be a substantial opportunity for abuse. Doing so affirmed the autonomy of the individual States, while also ensuring that the states remained unified.

Without the Full Faith and Credit Clause, something as simple as a marriage would not be recognized outside the State where the proceeding took place. If the married couple moved to another state, it would be necessary to marry all over again, otherwise they would still be considered unmarried. However, thanks to the Full Faith and Credit Clause, the State that serves as the new home of the transplanted married couple recognizes the marriage contract agreed upon in the State of origin.

The Full Faith and Credit Clause also protects against abusive litigation. If someone in one State sues someone and the court delivers a valid judgment in favor of the defendant, the person who filed the suit cannot file the same suit in another State against the same person. Under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, the outcome of the suit in the first State is recognized and considered to be the final judgment. Likewise, someone who is ruled against in litigation in a State cannot flee to another State to evade punishment, because the ruling in the first State's court is still valid in the new State.

As a result of the Full Faith and Credit Clause, professionals like doctors and lawyers only need to go to school once. As they move to new States, they can apply for reciprocity in certification so that they can practice in their new location. State privileges like drivers licenses also benefit from the Full Faith and Credit Clause, because when people move to different States, they can renew their driving licenses in the new State without having to go through drivers' education a second time, as long as the standards for licensure are similar between the two States.

Privileges and Immunities

Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 gives the people of each state all the same privileges and immunities uniformly in each state. In other words, if a Texan moved to California, the Texan must be treated by California in no different manner than the State treats Californians. A State could not pass a law keeping Texans out of their state, but letting others in. This violates the Constitution. A State cannot play favoritism in such a manner for any reason. All persons must be treated uniformly in the eyes of the law. This is the clause the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause sought to broaden, in order to ensure that the former slaves would also be afforded the same protection, privileges, and immunities.


Article IV, Section 2, Clause 2 provides that "A person charged in any state with treason, felony, or other crime, who shall flee from justice, and be found in another state, shall on demand of the executive authority of the state from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the state having jurisdiction of the crime."

Fugitives that flee a State from justice to another State will be extradited on the demand of executive authority (governor) of the State from which the person fled from. The Constitution, in this clause, demands the extradition of fugitives who have committed "treason, felony or other crime," which means that it includes all acts prohibited by the laws of a State, including misdemeanors and small, or petty, offenses.

Since the word "shall" is used regarding the extradition order by the governor of the State, that means the extradition order will not be questioned. That also means the accused cannot defend himself against the charges in the extraditing State. The fugitive may only defend himself against the charges in the State receiving him.

The courts have determined that the accused may prevent extradition by offering clear evidence that he was not in the State he allegedly fled from at the time of the crime in the case, Hyatt v. People ex rel. Corkran (1903).

Fugitive Slaves

Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3 is obsolete because of the abolition of slavery, as per the 13th Amendment. During the era the Constitution was written, slavery remained in place, and slaves were seen as property by the States in which slavery was legal. The Constitution, as a compromise to assure that southern States ratified the document, included Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3, as a compromise, which demanded that escaped slaves be returned to their owners in the south, even if that slave was in a northern State.

The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 supported this clause of the Constitution, hoping to ensure under penalty of law that the slaves were in fact returned should they turn up in the north. Northern States were refusing to return escaped slaves, and the federal government refused to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act and the Constitution, creating, in the minds of the Southern States, a constitutional crisis.

Nullification is often blamed for its part in the onset of the American Civil War. Those that argue that nullification was a part of bringing about the War Between the States will argue that the Southern States were guilty of nullifying perfectly reasonable federal laws. In reality, the Southern States did not nullify any federal law. It was the northern States that actively nullified federal law. They nullified The Fugitive Slave Act by ignoring the legislation, and refusing to abide by it. However, since The Fugitive Slave Act was constitutional, the nullification of the law by the northern States was unlawful, and unconstitutional. Threatened by the fact that the northern States were ignoring constitutional law, the federal government was refusing to enforce the law, and anti-slave candidate Abraham Lincoln had won the presidential election without even being on the ballot in the South, eleven southern States withdrew from the union in 1860.

New States

Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1 gives Congress the authority to admit new States. If a new State is formed within the borders of an existing State, from a portion of an existing State, or by combining two States, then the State legislatures of all States affected must also get involved. This provision came into play is when West Virginia was formed from part of Virginia during the Civil War. The Virginia State legislature had to approve the formation of the new State of West Virginia before the new State could claim it was a separate sovereign State.

In California, there has been a number of recommendations for breaking up the large State, from a 2014 suggestion of forming six States from the former Golden State, to thirteen counties that threatened to secede in 2010 as suggested by a local politician. If any of these plans for new States out of the existing State of California had an opportunity to follow through with their threat, the approval process would still need to go through the existing California State Legislature. The loss of taxation, and representation in Congress, would probably convince the legislature to deny losing any portion of their State to the formation of a new State.

Territories and Federal Property

Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 gives the Federal Government "power over the territory and property of the United States." Territories like Puerto Rico fall under this clause, treating the territories not as individual sovereign states, but as territories under the control of the U.S. Government. Territories still enjoy a certain amount of autonomy, but ultimately, their governance falls under the authorities granted to Congress. Washington DC also falls under this clause, which means that Congress has authority over the functions of the city. In reality, Washington DC was supposed to only be the seat of government, and was not supposed to contain any residencies. Many of the framers envisioned Washington DC as being a thriving commercial center.

Border Security and Insurrection

Article IV, Section 4 reads, "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government," meaning that each State may have its own constitution, as well as a representative government based on the rule of law.

The second part of Article IV, Section 4 provides that the United States "shall protect each of them [the States] against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence."

The Federal Government, according to the final clause of Article IV, must protect each State from invasion, which, in line with the Necessary and Proper clause of Article I, Section 8, is a firm directive to the federal government to keep the national borders secure so as to protect the States from foreign invasion. If executive agencies fail to take the actions necessary to secure the border in order to protect the States from invasion, the militia can be called into service by either the Congress, or the governor of the State being invaded, in order to repel the invasion.

The Federal Government, in this clause, is also tasked with quelling domestic violence. This part of the clause refers to insurrection, and it is likely the writing of this clause was directly influenced by the occurrence of Shays' Rebellion in 1786.


Extradite: The surrender of a person charged with a crime by one state or country to another state or country.

Full Faith and Credit: In the context of the U.S. Constitution, Article IV, the phrase is defined as requiring all States in the U.S. to recognize and give effect to the legislation, public records, and judicial decisions of other States in the United States. Full Faith and Credit also means: An unconditional commitment to pay interest and principal in debt, usually issued or guaranteed by the U.S. Treasury or another government entity.

Nullification: State power to ignore unconstitutional federal law.

Questions for Discussion:

1. What kind of issues does the Full Faith and Credit Clause affect in today's American society?

2. How does the Full Faith and Credit Clause protect the autonomy of the State, while protecting their unity?

3. For what kind of crimes may a person be extradited for?

4. The northern States believed the Fugitive Slave Act to be a bad law, even though it was Constitutional, and believed that they had a right to nullify it because they perceived it to be immoral. The Federal Government failed to enforce it, possibly for the same reasons. How did this make the Southern States feel, and how did this action contribute to the secession of the Southern States?

5. The federal government is tasked with the duty of protecting the States against invasion. How does this affect the issue of illegal immigration?


Doris Kearns Goodwin, Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln; New York: Simon & Schuster Paperbacks (2005)

Hyatt v. People ex rel. Corkran, 188 U.S. 691 (1903) ("We are of opinion that, as the relator showed...he was not within the state of Tennessee at the times stated in the indictments found in the Tennessee court, nor at any time when the acts were, if ever, committed, he was not a fugitive from justice within the meaning of the Federal statute upon that subject...")

Joseph Andrews, A Guide for Learning and Teaching The Declaration of Independence and The U.S. Constitution - Learning from the Original Texts Using Classical Learning Methods of the Founders; San Marcos: The Center for Teaching the Constitution (2010).

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

Philip B. Kurland and Ralph Lerner, The Founder's Constitution - Volume Four - Article I I, Section 8, Clause 5 to Article VII; Indianapolis: Liberty Fund (1987)

Thomas J. DiLorenzo, The Real Lincoln: A New Look at AbrahamLincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War; Roseville, California: Prima Publishing, a division of Random House (2002)

Copyright: Douglas V. Gibbs, 2015
Thursday, Temecula Constitution Class

Don't forget that if you can't make the Corona Class, we meet in Temecula at 6:30 pm on Thursdays. Faith Armory, 41669 Winchester Road, Temecula.

We are working through Article II (executive branch) in that class.


By Allan McNew

I was of a conviction that most of the truly talented smearing came from the left, with those on the right being caught out with the perfectly timed “Do you still torture kittens to death?”, followed by the fumbled response “Huh? What are you talking about?” and continued with media talking heads trumpeting “Senator MacNackers denies years of ritually slaughtering neighborhood pets on Satanic alter in his basement.”

Or some right wing politician says something like “Bean burritos give me gas” and the headline becomes “Congressman Brightfuller's racist commentary” followed by a lead like “Career politician says 'Beaners are always up my ass.'”

Some could take the scenario of an elderly Mother Teresa peacefully taking a nap under a tree and turn it into some sort of evil adventure, maybe racist oppression or maybe throwing random children over a cliff.

I'm seeing it more now on the right against people who aren't on the left, and there could be some confusion over which side of center it's coming from. It's pretty much the same stuff.

There can be a 2000 word screamer rant about how this or that politician hates the little people and is planning with malice of forethought to yank what's left of the economy out from underneath Main Street. However, the gigantic piece is built around a single quote, or maybe two quotes – the link's right there. Sometimes, whenever I'm inclined to concerning any internet page about any subject, I'll click on the link and often find that the quote is clearly out of context with the rest of the paragraph and the politician isn't planning to do what the screamer rant says he's fixin' to do next – watch out.

Or, a quote could be lifted from an English translation of The Pyongyang Yeller, The Beijing Berater, something like The White Night Rider, The James Crow Herald, Media Matters,, Huffington Post or some other “reliable source” on the internet.

Or let's say another lengthy screamer rant says that another (perpetually targeted) politician has rallied a multitude of deluded sycophants to his cause by pointing out some decades old, glaring issue
about illegal immigration no one in Congress has been willing to address. The rant goes on to say that since the politician is rumored to be planning to talk with some unidentified persons within the
stereotyped “Latino Community” about the issue, the politician is now pissing all over his sycophant followers. What the author of the screamer rant isn't going to relate is that there are people within that
so called “Latino Community”, no zip code provided, who have a view of illegal aliens which may be nearly as harsh as that of sheet wearing cross burners. They're not all the same person in any of those
artificially constructed “communities”.

Many years ago, there was a reporter and a photographer who cornered and goaded me into commenting on an issue I had some strong feelings about at the time. Of course they managed to capture me after a post work session with some coworkers which happened to involve adult  beverages. They seemed smugly satisfied when they were done with the interview.

The next day's paper related a nearly incoherent rant, with the accompanying picture portraying a glaring lunatic figure, mouth wide open in mid rant and arms waving about. The only thing missing to complete the image was visual evidence of spit flying out my mouth.

I looked like a colossal idiot, and I got a lesson that sometimes maybe I should just keep my mouth shut and shuffle on. Sometimes it's been really hard for me to do so.

However, a few days later I found in my mailbox an unsolicited white supremacist newspaper delivered via the Postal Service. It had a front page article which quoted that epically stupid rant from the published interview in addition to also printing that lunatic picture. I was depicted as agreeing with their twisted supremacist cause.

So, I had to write a letter to the editor of the local paper from which the reporter had bagged me describing the whole thing, including the fact that I did not agree with those white supremacists who incorrectly thought I did, as well as trying to clear up the idiocy which came through via the reporter and his photographer.

Can you imagine having an internet complete with twitter and all sorts of other media combined with someone who really was out to destroy me at the time?

And just think of all the bandwidth that can now be clogged over something as trivial as a silly, discordant, even ignorant suck up move with a taco bowl as a prop. Cultural appropriation, “we Mexicans don't eat that crap”, sleeping with the enemy, traitor to the nation, racist, “He was all about the Schlachtplatte before – he's turned on Germany”…etcetera, ad infinitum, ad nauseam.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Islamic State Using Nitric Acid to Kill Opposition

By Douglas V. Gibbs

ISIS has already proven that they are sick and twisted.  Islam, in general, shares much of that with ISIS.  Now, as if what they've done up to this point wasn't bad enough already, they are using nitric acid to kill and torture some of the opposition who dares to stand against them in Iraq.

According to a source quoted by, "ISIS terrorist members executed 25 persons in Mosul on charges of spying and collaborating with Iraqi security forces.  ISIS put the citizens in a large tub containing nitric acid inside one of its headquarters."  The source added, "ISIS members tied each person with a rope and lowered him in the tub, which contains nitric acid, till the victims organs dissolve."

Islam has always specialized in extreme violence and torture. . . yet the Democrats, while defending Islam, screams that waterboarding to too horrendous.

Is this new torture a cry out in desperation as ISIS continues to lose control over territory across Iraq and Syria?  According to U.S. Military spokespersons, ISIS has lost almost half of what it had once held in Iraq.

Since August 2014, the United States has led an international coalition fighting back against the Islamic State group, using a combination of air strikes and training and equipping local partners.  As a result of the coalition, ISIS has lost control of Ramadi and Heet in Iraq, but still control other important cities including Mosul and Fallujah.

In Syria, the group maintains control of Raqqa, the capital of their so-called ‘caliphate’.

I am wondering what the next horrifying news will be coming out of the area.  Will they be chopping up babies and roasting their torsos live over a roaring fire as the child screams in pain?

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

One More Of The Many Ways Trump & Hillary Clinton Are Exactly Alike

by JASmius

You know The Donald's crazed, neigh-obsessive attempt to re-litigate all the....moist Clinton scandals of the 1990s that voters should have cared about at the time but didn't, and are ancient history now?  The latest chapter of which is Trump now running web ads practically accusing Mrs. Clinton of murdering Vince Foster?  (For the record, my take on the Foster episode is that he blew his own brains out in his White House office, staffers found his corpse, reported it up the chain of command, and Hillary ordered it to be taken out to Ft. Marcy Park for the Naitonal Park "Police" to "find" there.  It was an attempt at pre-emptive spin and damage control, not to bury or destroy evidence of foul play.  Billary is furtive and sneaky by nature, after all, and do not require heinous deeds to bring out of them what comes so naturally.)

There's no question that Mrs. Clinton was an enabler to her hubby's philandering - also a fine and pleasant Trump pasttime - but you know who else was a strenuous Sick Willie-defender and -enabler at the very same time?

You know who:

Top Donald Trump surrogate and attorney Michael Cohen struggled to explain Tuesday why his boss demonized those who accused Bill Clinton of rape and sexual impropriety in the 1990’s but now believes those accusations, saying that Trump was just “being a good friend” at the time.

“He defended Bill Clinton for years. He said the same allegations that you guys are talking about now were a waste of time, were wrong, were hollow, that Bill Clinton was a terrific guy. That he was a great president, that the impeachment was wrong, that it was a waste of time…” the host of CNN’s New Day [With] Chris Cuomo rattled off.

“He was a private citizen who was friendly with the Clintons and he was trying to protect a friend,” Cohen explained. “Now, it’s a different game. It’s 2016, he is the Republican presidential nominee.” [emphasis added]

Trump was being honest then, in other words, and he's lying now, including about not still being the bosomest of buds with Boris & Natasha.  And Cohen just gave us the reason: The 2016 general election.

There are other reasons, of course: Trump is trying to hold his base together, and all they care about is seeing their hero "stick it" to the people they hate, and could not possibly care less about the fact that he's a Manhattan liberal whose volatile, incompetent governance would differ not at all from that of his thunder-thighed opponent.  And he does not dare try to campaign on actual issues about which he knows less than nothing, would get humiliated by Mrs. Clinton, and on which he instinctively differs from her little if at all.

So this is what we have to look forward to for the next five and a half months: The shitstorm of all time between the two most loathed figures in American politics today.  This is why the 2016 election is likely to sport the lowest-percentage turnout in the modern era, and why it will, frankly, be a struggle for it to consistently hold my interest for the duration.

Now, it’s a different game. It’s 2016, he is the Republican presidential nominee.”

If politics has been reduced and debased from statecraft to "entertainment," couldn't the threshold at least be kept above tabloid trash?

Houston D.A. & Planned Parenthood Collude Against David Daleiden & The CMP

by JASmius

[A]t least pro-lifers had the right to protest the rampaging child-killers, however impotently, and expose the grisly, Naziesque, industrial butchery of the abortion industry.

Note the tense, because it's no typo:

A Houston grand jury investigating undercover footage of Planned Parenthood found no wrongdoing Monday by the abortion provider but instead indicted [pro-life] activists involved in making the videos that provoked outrage among Republican leaders nationwide.

David Daleiden, founder of the Center for Medical Progress, was indicted on a felony charge of tampering with a governmental record and a misdemeanor count related to purchasing human organs. Another activist, Sandra Merritt, was also indicted on a charge of tampering with a governmental record.

Harris County District Attorney Devon Anderson didn't specify what record or records were allegedly tampered with in a statement announcing the indictment. [emphasis added]

How convenient. Sounds trumped up, doesn't it?

- Me, four months ago

It took a while for this particular "other shoe" to drop, but down it finally came yesterday:

A Planned Parenthood attorney accused of conspiring with a district attorney against a man who shot a video in which the sale of fetal body parts is purportedly discussed — has denied the charge, but admits the prosecutor gave him a copy of the footage.

"The recent filings by the Harris County District Attorney confirm that the DA shared confidential documents and information with abortion provider Planned Parenthood, colluding with it in the prosecution of David Daleiden." attorney Peter Breen told Breitbart Texas.

"These filings also include evidence that appears to show that the DA's office worked with Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast to undermine the Texas Attorney General's independent investigation of that abortion provider.

"The conduct of Harris County prosecutors in this case is outrageous and illegal. We look forward to pressing our motion to quash this indictment in court." [emphasis added]

I believe the legal term for this phenomenon is "oops".

This should prove the anti-CMP conspiracy beyond any reasonable or unreasonable doubt and clear Mr. Daleiden completely and forthwith.  But that's probably not the way to bet.

Gender Dysphoria & Illegal Immigration

by JASmius

Entrance question: Why are the illegal alien gender impersonators being segregated from the normal illegal aliens?  Isn't "separate but equal" discriminatory and bigoted?:

Federal immigration authorities plan to build a separate unit for [gender impersonator] detainees in a new facility under construction in Alvarado, Texas.

The Prairieland Detention Center, expected to open in November, will house a total of seven hundred detainees and will have thirty-six beds set aside in a separate unit for [gender impersonator] detainees, according to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Well, isn't that just special?  With "detainees" crammed to cheek-to-jowl in existing facilities (prior to being turned loose into the nation's interior, never to be seen again, of course), the freaks and pervs - who represent 0.2% of the overall population - will get an allotment of beds and space over fifty times as disproportionately large.  Anybody still want to dispute which is the new ruling class in this country?

Detainees are asked about their "gender identity" when brought into detention facilities in order to make housing accommodations, according to current ICE guidelines.

Imagine how loony that question must sound to any illegal who isn't mad.  In their place, after being asked such a thing whose only proper answer is to peer incredulously at the ICE worker, peer into one's shorts, and then peer incredulously at the ICE worker with one's hands outstretched, I'd be giving significant thought to going back where I came from in case this mental illness was communicable.

According to a Human Rights Watch report from March, ICE officials estimate that out of the approximately thirty thousand [illegal]s detained by authorities on any given day about sixty-five are [gender dysphoric men].

Or 0.2%.  Yet they're being lavished with five percent of the space and beds.  Almost makes you wonder what they're going to be doing with it all.  Orgies?  Recruitment?  "Transitional procedures"?  Given how little time they're going to spend there before being turned loose anyway, I can't imagine any but the first option would be practicable.

Maybe that's what's behind the recently announced Obama Regime deportation push - sending more gender impersonator recruiters back to their home countries.  We are, after all, "all transgender," now, and now without borders as well.

Jazz Shaw brings up another debased, quasi-criminal possibility:

So do you suppose that this intensive screening process – which apparently involves simply asking inmates if they are [gender impersonators] or not – might be open to abuse? If you’re looking at being shoved into one of the heavily crowded, gender-specific cells but become aware that there is a nice, smaller unit where you’re sure of a bed and some more privacy, I’m sure none of these characters will simply claim to be [gender impersonators] to get into the new unit. Further, we keep hearing about allegations of sexual assault inside of these detention centers. I don’t suppose anyone would be sketchy enough to claim to be a [gender dysphoric man] just to be locked up with all the actual women and children, eh?

Almost makes Barack Obama look like some sort of really twisted pimp, doesn't it?

I thought Barack Obama liked, even loved illegal aliens.  Especially the "children".  You sure couldn't glean that from this story.

Obama Turns Attention To Human Rights In Vietnam After Forfeiting All His Leverage Over Hanoi

by JASmius

Ready, fire, aim:

A day after saying Vietnam had made enough progress on human rights to merit lifting a decades-old U.S. ban on arms sales, Barack Obama pushed back against his host country over its human rights record. [emphases added]

Obama met Tuesday with a small group of civil society leaders in Hanoi before delivering a speech aimed at the Vietnamese people. On Monday, his first of three days in the country, he held a series of one-on-one meetings with government leaders.

"There’s still areas of significant concerns in terms of areas of free speech, freedom of assembly, accountability with respect to government," Obama said Tuesday at a hotel in Hanoi, noting that Vietnam barred some people invited to the meeting by the U.S. [emphases added]

Obama often uses visits to countries with poor human rights records as an opportunity to raise the topic publicly and privately.

In such a way and time that it is maximally irrelevant, illustrating that it is all for show and none for sizzle.

He tangled with Cuban President Raul Castro in March in Havana with both countries criticizing the other for their records on rights and equality.

Quang said Vietnam has made progress on human rights and pointed to the country's membership on the United Nations Human Rights Council.

....that includes Cuba, Venezuela, Red China, Saudi should be called the UN Anti-Human Rights Council, seeing as how if it existed today, even Nazi Germany would gain ingress.,

Without pledging any changes, he told reporters that “we can narrow the gap in understanding and narrow the differences between the countries, especially on human rights.” [emphasis added]

 i.e. Other countries can lower their human rights standards closer to our own, because ours aren't gonna budge.  At least Quang is being honest about it, reflecting just how in-the-driver's seat he and his country accurately consider themselves to be.

But let's remember how....divergent O's definition of "human rights" is from the proper norm:

Vietnam has been a leader in Southeast Asia on [sodo]marriage, abolishing the ban on s[odo]marriage last year.

There's the "progress on human rights" that justified rearming communist Vietnam in the mind of The One.  The only kiind that matters to him.  "Free speech, freedom of assembly, accountability with respect to government"?  That's all "negotiable" and "non-critical".

Which is to say, he doesn't believe in or support actual human rights any more than Uncle Ho's successors ever have.

Pity he can't be as honest about it as his hosts.

Sexuality Mental Illness Reaches Washington DC

By Douglas V. Gibbs

The leftwing liberal progressive Democrat Party culture has determined that they are the masters of morality.  Despite what Christianity or Judaism has been teaching and preaching for thousands of years, because a small percentage of the population has decided that their sexual behavior should be a "right." Anyone who dares to disagree with that kind of behavior are being labeled as bigots.  Refusal to bow down to the god of sexual immorality is now considered discrimination.  Refusal to comply with the mandate that marriage should be redefined, and men in dresses must be able to use the same bathroom as your little girls and wives, will result in a loss of one's cake business or pizza parlor.  Refusal as a State of the Union to comply will result in corporate boycotts (despite the complaint by the liberal left Democrats that corporate money has no business in politics) and a royal edict by Fuhrer Obama that refusal to kneel to the god of sexual perversion will result in a stripping of federal funding for the State and its schools (well, so much for that free lunch program for poor little Suzie).

The Daily Beast found a "religious leader" to support its leftwing assault against religious freedom with an article titled: Washington Gets In on the LGBT Animus, Hitches It To The Almighty.

To make sure its uninformed leftist readers understand the word "animus", the article defines it for them in order to hammer home its anti-religion message. . .

Animus: (noun, A-ni-mus) “a usually prejudiced and often spiteful or malevolent ill will.”

The writer, Gene Robinson, whose article is categorized under the label of "obscene" begins his hateful and unbecoming of God rant with "An appalling federal bill would enshrine the right to discriminate as long as the person doing it really, sincerely wants to do it."

Opposition to homosexuality using the law to force its will upon the public, or transgenderism being forced upon the public through bathroom madness, is not discrimination, prejudice, or even spiteful or malevolent ill will as Mr. Robinson and the sexual lifestyle revolution would like you to believe.

Let's consider what is going on here.  A group of people whose behavior is considered by another group of people to be a deviance or a mental illness have gotten a group of politicians who ironically call themselves democratic (yes, we are not a democracy, but we do have certain democratic processes built into our republic) to declare their sexual behavior (be it homosexuality, or the urge to dress and act like the opposite sex) as not being what they do (behavior), but what they are (born with, despite evidence to the contrary) and then through threats, edicts and judicial rulings they have changed it from being immoral to moral through man's definitions (regardless of God's definitions), and now wish to use government coercion to force their will upon the people despite a massive opposition by the majority.

Now, to the horror of the writer of the Daily Beast article, the U.S. House of Representatives is willing to side with the States battling against this insanity.  Mr. Robinson calls the proposed law "twisted."  While the writer mocks Congress for calling their proposed legislation "freedom of religion" and "religious liberty," which he says is "guaranteed" in the Constitution's Bill of Rights, he says that their proposals "has nothing to do with religion, and everything to do with animus toward gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people."

There is no animus against gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender people.  The attempt is to guard against the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people using their "animus" against those who dare to disagree with them.  The attempt by Congress is to protect religious liberty against a group of people willing to use Hitlerian tactics to squash dissent, and silence those who dare to speak out against their "lifestyle."  My message to Mr. Robinson is that it is not "animus" that drives the "religious right."  It is animus that drives the homosexual and transgender lobby against the religious right.

The bill in question is H.R. 2802, sponsored by Raul Labrador of Idaho and co-sponsored by 167 of his Republican colleagues along with sole Democrat Daniel Lipinski of Illinois.  The bill is subtitled “A Bill to prevent discriminatory treatment on any person on the basis of views held with respect to marriage.” It has the short title of the “First Amendment Defense Act,” or FADA. The bill proposes that “the Federal Government shall not take any discriminatory action against a person, wholly or partially on the basis that such person believes or acts in accordance with a religious belief or moral conviction that marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman, or that sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage.”

First, the internal issue of marriage and bathrooms is none of the federal government's business.  There is no authority in the Constitution that grants to the federal government, nor the federal courts, to even have an opinion on this issue.  However, Congress feels compelled to initiate H.R. 2802 because President Barack Obama, and an army of leftwing federal judges, have made it the federal government's business (despite the illegality of federal involvement).  As for Mr. Robinson's statement about "rights guaranteed in the Constitution's Bill of Rights," we must remember that we do not have constitutional rights.  The Constitution does not grant rights, nor does the government.  It is not government's job to guarantee those rights, either. . . much less define them.  Our rights are God-given.  If our rights are God-given, as indicated in the Declaration of Independence (I am sure you remember that "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" line, right?), then our rights are also God-defined.

Chew on that for a moment, Mr. Robinson.  You do say you are a man of the cloth, right?  Would God sanction gay marriage?  How about forcing upon the little girls of the world grown men in dresses using the women's bathroom?

Mr. Robinson claims "The First Amendment is not under attack, nor is religion. No ordained person of any faith can be compelled to preside at the wedding of a same sex couple (or anyone else, for that matter)."

Okay, let's stop there.  The word to add is "yet."  No ordained person can be compelled to preside at the wedding of a same sex couple, yet.  Actually, in other countries where the leftwing homosexual agenda is much further along, that is exactly what is happening.  Preachers are being compelled to preside over homosexual weddings, and are being arrested if they don't.  And, the American gay lobby has said that is exactly what they are going after.  They want to force churches to hire homosexual personnel, and force pastors to preside over gay weddings.  That is their ultimate goal (well, actually their ultimate goal is the complete destruction of religion).  Don't kid yourself by believing that just because right now you haven't seen any person compelled to preside over the wedding of a same sex couple, that it's not happening, or not going to happen.

Despite Mr. Robinson's writings, Christian conservatives are not proclaiming victim-hood.  We are not crying out like we are victims.  We are recognizing, and taking action to defend against, a coordinated attack against marriage, and religion.  We understand that leftism, and the homosexual agenda, are waging an all-out war against the Judeo-Christian foundation of the United States of America.  The rise of the sexual lifestyle revolution is a direct attack designed to fundamentally change the American System, and to oust God in the process.

There is no discrimination being perpetrated against homosexuality or transgenderism.  A behavior cannot be discriminated against.  A segment of the population simply disagrees with their behavior, and has said, "Hey, practice your behavior in the privacy of your life, but don't force your behavior upon us by using the law and judges to coerce society into compliance regarding baking cakes, having gay weddings, or forcing us to allow transgenders to use the same bathrooms our daughters and wives use."  And if anything, if you want to claim that beliefs or behavior can be discriminated against, would not what the leftist homosexual agenda is doing to those who hold moral convictions differently than them be considered a form of religious discrimination?

Homosexuals are crying because their behavior is not seen as wonderful to everyone, so, they are using coercive tactics to force everyone to be happy about their decision to be gay.  "Approve of us, and be supportive of our lifestyle, or we will destroy your business, destroy your church, and use the force of law to fine or jail you for daring to disagree."

It's not a civil rights movement.  It's a temper tantrum against those who refuse to approve of their sinful behavior.

Theirs is an authoritarian move against a segment of the population for daring to think differently than them.  You might as well have thought-crime laws in place.  The push by the homosexual lobby against any dissent is Orwellian as hell.

The liberal left and Homosexuals say "live and let live", but there is this small print below that which says "You can think whatever you want, but it better not disagree with us."

FADA is an attempt to put a stop to this madness, to get under control the fascist tyranny we are facing that is dressed up in rainbow wrapping and bows.  Despite what they say, the homosexual agenda is simply designed to force the homosexual agenda upon every place of business, and every household, whether you like it or not, and FADA is an attempt to guard against that kind of authoritarianism.

Mr. Robinson, at one point in his article, goes way off the reservation with this statement: "As a religious leader, I am offended by such crass and self-serving use of religion. The god of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam calls the faithful to compassion and justice, not bigotry."

Stop.  First, Allah is not the same god as the God of Jadaism and Christianity.  Allah is a hate-filled counterfeit worshiped by a group of people who have been fooled into believing that shedding the blood of fellow human beings is the way to paradise.  Second, while I agree that being a person of Faith we must be compassionate and just, I do not see compassion and justice in the act of supporting and encouraging sinful behavior.  While I love these people no differently than anyone else, that love does not carry with it the condition of bowing down and accepting their immoral behavior.  When my child lied to me when he was young, I did not stop loving him.  When I called him out for lying, it was not an act of bigotry or discrimination.  When I recognized his lie as being sinful, and told him about it, I was being compassionate and just and I hoped he would learn from it.  In the end, however, the decision to turn away from lying was his decision to make.  The same goes for the homosexual lobby.  If I was to turn my head the other way and pretend like I was fine with their sinful behavior, I would be neither compassionate, nor just.

Again, this is not discrimination.  We are talking about sexual behavior.  We are talking about something people do, not what they are.

There is no animus, here.  What exists in FADA, and other legislation trying to protect those who are not in agreement with the homosexual agenda, is simply a way of saying, "just because men make something legal, it doesn't make that thing moral in the eyes of God."  Just because a bunch of deviants find a way to use the law to force their anti-God agenda upon God's people, it does not mean that disagreeing with that agenda is bigotry or discrimination.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Monday, May 23, 2016

WaPo: Injuns Are Too Stupid To Know That "Redskins" Is Insulting

by JASmius

What should we all have learned from the whole leftwingnut obsession with the nickname of Washington, D.C.'s NFL franchise?  (1) That what is "offensive" is in the ear of the be-hearer; (2) that, as the WaPo itself polled and reported last week, much to their evident consternation, ninety percent - or as close to "ALL" as any poll ever gets - of Original Americans either have no problem with the nickname "Redskins" or Washington, D.C.'s NFL franchise using it, and many of them actually like it and find it flattering because it denotes badassery - which is usually construed as a good thing in professional football; and (3) liberals are condescending, authoritarian racists who force their preferences on everybody else, including demographics on whose unwanted behalf they purport to be arguing.

Which leads to condescending, authoritarian, racist op-eds like this one:

But a couple of other aspects of the poll struck us as noteworthy. One was that more than half of respondents had heard little or nothing about this controversy.

Which ought to be revelatory of how NOT a "controversy" this contrived teapot tempest really is.

The other was that 21% said they found the word disrespectful, even if they weren’t personally bothered by the team’s use of the name, with another 6% declining to express a view.

i.e. The wouldn't walk up to an Original American on the street and call him/her a "redskin" - just for the record, I wouldn't, either - but consider it no big deal, and kinda cool, as a football team's mascot - as I do.  And I appear to have a whole lot more company on my island than that WaPo has on their sciff of busybodying buttinskyism.

Where does that leave us? We’ve always made clear that we think fans who embrace the name do so without racist feeling or intent.

How generous of them.

But we also are clear that the term originates in an era when Indians were considered less than human and were often treated accordingly. References to scalping, war whoops and tomahawk chops hark back to that era and perpetuate stereotypes that can be hurtful, especially to [Original] American children.

Evidently not, unless they're raised to be professional offense-takers like the WaPo editorial board.

Nine out of every ten North American Indians do not consider the term "redskin" to be offensive.  That ought to count for something, even in a "sit down and shut up" sense.  The feathered man does not need the Left's unsolicited succor.

One WaPo writer actually now gets it, mostly likely to the detriment of his career path:

Still, non-Indian critics like me can’t ignore the poll results or pretend they make no difference. Those who have opposed the team name include more than a quarter of Washington-area residents, along with [Barack] Obama, Mayor Muriel E. Bowser and fifty Democrat U.S. senators.

Or, in other words, all the people who DON'T matter and whose opinions are the least relevant.

Many of us thought we were defending a group that needed support.

But never asked for it.

But it feels presumptuous for us to say we know Indians’ interests better than they do. We can’t credibly claim that nine out of ten Indians somehow just don’t realize they’re being insulted.

Indeed.  Which is precisely why Redskins owner Daniel Snyder hasn't buckled to the obnoxious pressure and bullying tactics of all those people who don't matter and whose opinions are irrelevant.  The other reason is because it's not their damn team, and they are not the market his organization is serving.

Time to (heh) move on, libs, and take solace in the fact that the 'Skins are usually among the worst franchises in the National Football League.  If they continue to suck long and badly enough, the market may yet give the WaPo editorial board what they want.

Hope does spring eternal, after all.

European Far Right on the Rise

By Douglas V. Gibbs

The Freedom Party (FPOe) is making quite a bit of noise in Austria.  According to the media, FPOe is a far right extremist movement.

Far Right.  The term sounds very extreme, indeed.  Scary, to some - especially to those in Europe who are constantly reminded about what "far-right fascism" did less than a century ago.  Historically, the liberal left and Europe considers communism the far left, and fascism the far right.  Therefore, to stay away from those scary and tyrannical extremes, we must be moderate. . . dead center.  Except, their definitions of what is right, left, and center are skewed.  Therefore, when we read headlines like Far-Right on Edge of Power as Austria Votes for President, we are not really sure what is meant by "far-right."

According to the article mentioned above by the AFP, far-right in the context of Austria's election is any politician who has a problem with Muslim refugees pouring into the country ("European Union's first far-right leader, fueled by anti-immigrant anger over Europe's worst post-war refugee crisis").  The anti-immigration stance is considered dangerous, and is a polarizing attitude held by "fringe groups" according to AFP.

The far-right candidate even felt compelled to explain that he is not a "dangerous person."

Remember, "far-right" is fascism, to Europeans.  Fascism was the political system of the Nazis in Germany, and Italy.  The Nazis believed in a master race, rejecting people different than them.  Therefore, without actually saying it, the folks who are against Muslim refugees being welcomed into their country are not much different, according to the media, than fascist Nazis.  But, just in case you, as a reader, did not pick up on that subtle hint, after the part of the article about how the Freedom Party's Norbert Hofer had to explain why he is not a dangerous person, the next paragraph begins. . .

"For the first time since 1945. . . "

Yes, a factual year for the part that follows it, but the year conjures up World War II, and the defeat of the Nazis, doesn't it?

"For the first time since 1945 the president will not come from one of two main parties. . . "

Ah, again another similarity to Hitler.  The Nazi Party, after all, was also not among the original main parties.

The media has learned that when they blatantly attack "the right" it looks bad, so now they leave hints, a trail of bread crumbs, so that you can come to the conclusion yourself.  Hey, if you figure it out for yourself, it must be true!  Right?  Then, they can lay the rest of the propaganda groundwork afterward.

Here's the thing.  As a reader, you might suspect that you are being fed a line of bull.  But, what if the guy really is a Nazi-kind-of-guy?  Then, you would feel foolish doubting the media.  So, you may not trust the media, but you are not quite ready to scream out that you don't trust them, either. . . just in case.

It creates a real conundrum, for the reader.

Okay, now for some more tidbits about this far right extremist, Norbert Hofer.  In addition to being against the Muslim tsunami into his country, he's a gun enthusiast.  (oh, the horror!)  He's partially disabled (are they stating that as a reasonable fact, or are they trying to get the reader to doubt his abilities?).  The AFP then goes on to explain that Hofer has a "friendly face", and pushes "populist themes with a winning smile, steering clear of the inflammatory rhetoric."

In the next paragraph, you are then provided with an explanation to that the "populist themes," "winning smile," and "steering clear of the inflammatory rhetoric" was a "more moderate tone" that "paid off."  So, we are being told, his "populist message, winning smile, and non-inflammatory rhetoric" was all a ruse.  He's hiding something behind that artificial image, we are being told.

Here it comes: "...observers have warned that beneath Hofer's smooth image lurks a 'wolf in sheep's clothing', who has already threatened to seize upon never-before-used presidential powers and fire the government if it fails to get tougher on migrants or boost the faltering economy."

He sounds like an American Republican by the name of Donald Trump, but be warned, that's just what a Nazi-looking far right fascist looks like when he's trying to win over votes. . . right?

The former Green leader says that if voters abandon their parties and Hofer is among the final candidates, they'll be facing a "pathbreaking decision between a cooperative and an authoritative style".

So, is the "rightwing" political angle that Hofer represents something like the way conservatives are in America, or is he the kind of "rightwing" extremist that is more like fascists we've seen in history?  Honestly, the far left sees no difference between the two.  So, though this guy sounds like he may be what Americans would call conservative, he's being made out to be more like he's a nationalistic fascist.

"I've experienced how Austria rose from the ruins of World War II, caused by the madness of nationalism," he said recently. (the "he" being one of Hofer's opponents)

Hmmm, more clues about fascists from World War II.

The far-right extremist party Hofer belongs to, according to the article, "has tapped into public anger about growing inequality and the migrant crisis, which saw around 90,000 asylum-seekers arrive last year -- the second-highest number in the EU on a per-capita basis."

Hmmm, those "angry" members of the public almost sound like Trump supporters.  Is this a double-demonization going on?

"Back in 2000, more than 150,000 people marched in the Austrian capital against the FPOe -- then led by the late, SS-admiring Joerg Haider -- after it entered a much-maligned coalition with the OeVP."

FPOe being that far-right party known as the Freedom Party.  Throwing in "SS-admiring Joerg Haider" sounds similar to the left in America accusing Trump of being in bed with the KKK and David Duke because he didn't reject their support fast enough.  (Never mind that longtime Senator Byrd of the Democrat Party side was a grand wizard of some kind in the KKK).

"The far-right power grab also prompted international sanctions and turned Austria into an EU pariah."

See?  If the socialists of Europe doesn't like him, he must be a fascist!  Wait, isn't that what the liberal left media scrams about Trump, too?

Honestly, it's a confusion, because the definitions are all mixed up.  Reading the article about Hofer is like trying to put together a very poorly designed puzzle.

According to Europeans and America's Democrat Party, far left is communism, and fascism is far right.  But, in reality, they are the same.  Communism (they won't call it socialism because they don't want to incriminate themselves) allows government to take full control of the means of production through government take-over.  Fascism allows government to take full control of the means of production through heavy government regulation, while allowing the illusion of private ownership to remain in place.  In both cases, government controls the means of production.  They are the same, except when it comes to the method on how they do it.

The true political spectrum is 100% government to the left, and 0% government to the right.  So, if the article was being honest, the far-right Hofer (if they want to use the term "far-right") is an anarchist.  But, it sounds like he is either a left-wing fascist (which is actually closer to what the current European leadership and American Democrat Party is), or he's a centrist candidate (U.S. Constitution, and American Conservatism is actually dead-center, but everything has gone so far to the left, that constitutionalists and conservatives look like they are to the right).  As a constitutionalist, I call myself a "classical centrist."  That really makes heads explode.

From this side of the pond, it's hard to tell what Hofer truly is. . . but I am willing to consider he's not some rightwing extremist fascist.  He's probably a guy who believes in freedom, recognizes the danger of Muslim immigration, and just wants to keep his country from going over the edge.  Well, at least that's my theory from what little evidence we are given by a biased and untrustworthy media.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Lake Elsinore Constitution Class: Assembly and Arms

As we work our way through the bill of rights, one thing becomes clear: Without the Second Amendment, we can say goodbye to the First Amendment. . . 

Lake Elsinore Constitution Class
119 W. Peck Street
Lake Elsinore, CA

Mondays, 6:00 pm - 7:00 pm

Austrian Presidential Election A Sneak-Preview Of November?

by JASmius

The parallel isn't perfect - it would be just about dead-on if Bernie Sanders was the Democrat frontrunner - and, of course, the Austrian presidency is more of a ceremonial post, but otherwise the Austrian presidential election does look like a sneak preview of our own - other than that this one was actually close:

Austria elected economics professor Alexander Van der Bellen the country's next president by a razor-thin margin, foiling Freedom Party candidate Norbert Hofer's bid to become the first right-wing head of state in western Europe since World War II.

Van der Bellen, who was backed by the Green Party, took 50.3% of the votes to 49.7% for Hofer, Austria's Interior Minister Wolfgang Sobotka told reporters in Vienna on Monday. His winning margin over Hofer came down to a little more than thirty-one thousand votes, according to the official result, which is preliminary until June 1st pending possible legal challenges.

Austrian Freedom Party leader Heinz-Christian Strache conceded his party's defeat in a posting on his Facebook page shortly before the official announcement, saying that despite a strong campaign, Hofer had finished "millimeters" short of victory.

There are a three other differences between Van der Bellen-Hofer and Rodham-Trump: (1) as aforequoted,  Hofer conceded defeat, and if anybody thinks the hyper-litigious Trump would meekly bow out after losing by that small a margin, they simply have not been paying attention (the same thing would apply to Hillary); (2) President-elect Van der Bellen promised to "build bridges over the trenches that have been dug, to certainly not dig them deeper, and to make an effort to take everybody in this country with me," which is way more graciousness than a triumphant Empress will ever dispense, both on election night and over the ensuing four years; and (3) Trump is not "right-wing," but a nationalist/statist to Mrs. Clinton's "flexible" Marxian socialist.

And of course, again, Trump won't come that agonizingly close to victory.  Taking the Trump 51-49/Rodham 56-44 range we established yesterday, splitting that difference would yield a five point Hillary win in what will be one of the lowest turnout percentage elections in decades.

After which Trump will try to sue his way to the White House anyway.

See?  This campaign will NEVER end.

Marilyn Mosby Whiffs Again In Freddie Gray Inquisition

by JASmius

Of the Baltimore Six, Officer Edward Nero was always the least likely to be convicted of anything, because he had the least contact with the infamous small-time crook Freddie Gray.  State prosecutor Marilyn Mosby cast as big a net as possible in order to pad her scalp haul with an eye toward a future meteoric national political rise, and Nero got snagged.

But he and his legal eagles were canny enough to opt for a bench, as opposed to tampered-jury, trial, and that has now resulted in Officer Nero's complete acquittal on all charges, and his and the judge's lives falling under grave danger of extreme prejudicial termination:

Baltimore police officer Edward Nero was acquitted on Monday of all charges in the 2015 death of black detainee Freddie Gray, an incident that triggered rioting and protests and fueled the Black Lives Matter movement.

Baltimore City Circuit Court Judge Barry Williams, who heard the case in a bench trial, issued the verdict before a packed courtroom. Nero, thirty, had faced misdemeanor charges of second-degree assault, reckless endangerment and two counts of misconduct in office.

There were no initial signs of rioting after the verdict but a group of protesters chased members of Nero's family into a parking garage, yelling, "No justice, no peace."

Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake issued a statement urging calm and said Nero would face an administrative review by the police department.

That's awfully weak-tea consolation for the #BlackLivesMatter mob.  It makes you wonder whether the pitchforks and Molotov cocktails might not be coming out for Mayor Blake next.

As I say, Nero was the least of the Baltimore Six, and therefore his acquittal should be, on balance least likely to reignite mass rioting.  And Marilyn Mosby still has four more to go to "redeem" herself.  But her grotesque over-charging and partisan grandstanding and pandering to the Black Klan insurrectionists and Communist Party USA revolutionaries has her off to an 0-2 start, and if that trend continues throughout the remaining four trials, "Charm City" may - will - wind up a gigantic charcoal briquette for the second year in a row.

Exit question: Say, wouldn't Baltimore make a great venue for the 2020 Democrat or Republican National Convention?

Trump's Coming Climate Change Betrayal

by JASmius

You know the expressions "actions speak louder than words" and "putting your money where your mouth is"?  Presumptive "Republican" presidential nominee Donald Trump appears to be doing both when it comes to the global warming hoax, and it's not what some people would lead you to believe:

Donald Trump says he is “not a big believer in global warming.” He has called it “a total hoax,” “bullshit” and “pseudoscience.”

But he is also trying to build a sea wall designed to protect one of his golf courses from “global warming and its effects.”

The New York [m]illionaire is applying for permission to erect a coastal protection works to prevent erosion at his seaside golf resort, Trump International Golf Links & Hotel Ireland, in County Clare.

A permit application for the wall, filed by Trump International Golf Links Ireland and reviewed by Politico, explicitly cites global warming and its consequences — increased erosion due to rising sea levels and extreme weather this century — as a chief justification for building the structure.

The zoning application raises further questions about how the [m]illionaire developer would confront a risk he has publicly minimized but that has been [fraudulently] identified as a defining challenge of this era by world leaders, global industry and the American military. His public disavowal of [bogus, cherry-picked] climate science at the same time he moves to secure his own holdings against the effects of climate change also illustrates the conflict between his political rhetoric and the [political] realities of running a business with seaside assets in the twenty-first century.

“It's diabolical," said former South Carolina-4 Republican Representative Bob Inglis, an advocate of conservative solutions to climate change. “Donald Trump is working to ensure his at-risk properties and his company is trying to figure out how to deal with [fictional] sea level rise. Meanwhile, he’s saying things to audiences that he must know are....true. … You have a soft place in your heart for people who are honestly ignorant, but people who are deceitful, that’s a different thing.”

Neither Trump’s spokeswoman, Hope Hicks, nor Alan Garten, the general counsel of the Trump Organization, the umbrella company for Trump’s business ventures, responded to requests for comment. [emphases added]

So which is it, Trumplicans?  Does your hero really believe the truth about anthropogenic climate change, that it is "a total hoax,” “bullshit” and “pseudoscience”?  Or does he really believe the hoax and is just feeding you the "total hoax,”/“bullshit” that he doesn't to keep all of you in the "classy cult" and on the golf course reservation?  Or is he such a crappy manager that he isn't even aware that his business empire is blatantly contradicting his avowed (for the moment) policy stances?

Maybe the Democrat that Ben Carson recently floated as being on The Donald's veep shortlist is this man....

After all, Trump doesn't take small bites; why would selling out his swindled base be any different?

And as a followup to yesterday's post on the Donk Civil War, the DINOs are taking steps to defuse that well in advance of Philadelphia:

It turns out the Democrats still will have something Sanders wants, even if he loses. You see, the Democrats expect to take the Senate back this fall, which means the Democrats will have Senate committee chairmanships to hand out next year. Bernie Sanders, as ranking Democrat of the Budget committee, would love to get one of those, so he will fall in line.

Harry [G]Reid is already dropping hints, saying Sanders can come back to the Senate with “more power,” but “I just hope the people who surround him, his campaign advisers, give him the right advice.”

Weekend Bernie's lark and the unexpected cacophonous following he's attracted may have gone to his head, but while he has run a close and hard-fought race against the Empress, he's still going to lose, and it won't be on the strength of SuperDuperDelegates, either.  The California primary will settle that once and for all.  So he can't win the Democrat nomination, and has much more to lose from "Days of Rage II" than from knuckling under and returning to the Senate to chair next year's Budget Committee, where he can pursue his leftwingnut fiscal fantasies just as effectively.

Will Sanders make the "right choice," knuckle under, and take his proffered gavel?  Or will he keep tilting at windmills?  The smart money is on....Democrat Party unity.  And, consequently, Donald Trump's doom.

But who knows?  The one-time Wobbly may be as crazy as he looks.