DOUGLAS V. GIBBS             RADIO             BOOKS             CONSTITUTION             CONTACT/FOLLOW             DONATE

Saturday, April 21, 2018

Funeral of Barbara Bush

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

This morning the granddaughters of Barbara Bush read Proverbs 31:10-31 during the funeral of the former first lady, wife of President George H.W. Bush and mother of President George W. Bush at St. Martin's Church in Houston, Texas.  1,500 guests joined together to remember the life of Barbara Bush.

As the wife of one President, and mother of another, an attribute only held by Abigail Adams (wife of President John Adams, mother of John Quincy Adams), Mrs. Bush was highly respected, and closely endeared.  Compassionate and strong-willed, the Silver Fox was revered by an entire nation.  A giving soul, and a support to those in her life, she cared for those around her, and the country she spent much of her life serving . . . by the side of her husband, George Herbert Walker Bush.

Her funeral, attended by members of both sides of the aisle, included moments of levity and sorrow, celebration and solemn remembrance.  While sadness filled the room, a gladness also existed, for Barbara Bush's faith in God was known, and all who were attending knew, Mrs. Bush is finally home with her Lord.

Historian Jon Meacham delivered words filled with humor and respect.  The attendees laughed, and joined in celebration.

Midway through singing Amazing Grace, with a full choir robed in white leading the way, the crowd including Barack Obama and Melania Trump, listened to a reading from the Gospel as they stood together to celebrate the life of Barbara Bush, thanking Our Lord for the pleasure of having Barbara Bush on the planet with us during the time she was with us.

The finale of the congregational signing of Amazing Graze was powerful, and filled with emotion (despite, as it was humorously pointed out later, the fact that it was sung earlier than originally planned and intended).  This writer's eyes were welling up, only to leave me nodding my head in understanding and agreement as Mrs. Bush's friend Susan Garrett Baker delivered her own eulogy, also laced with humor.  She called Mrs. Bush a tough and loving enforcer who had vision and tenacious dedication to literacy.  Her public contributions were only a part of her character.  She was also a dear friend. . . supportive, encouraging and loving as she pushed those around her to become more than they were, and more than they believed they could be.

Son Jeb Bush said his mother taught everyone around her how to live a life with purpose and meaning.  He then thanked all who attended the funeral before delivering a litany of lessons he learned from his "first teacher."

The funeral continues as I write this, targeted to meet its completion at 3:00 pm Eastern/Noon Pacific.  If the celebration of the woman's life continues as it has, each speaker will explain a number of things, focusing primarily on her toughness, traditional views, humility, and the humor that seemed to follow her around.  Rest in Peace, Barbara Bush.

All who knew her weep, not because they are sad about her passing because we know she is with The Lord . . . we weep because she will no longer be in our lives.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Conservative Voice Radio: Beaumont Opts Out of Sanctuary State


Saturday 8:00 am: 
Conservative Voice Radio

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

Conservative Voice Radio is hosted by Douglas V. Gibbs, with President of the Banning-Beaumont-Cherry Valley Tea Party Glenn Stull. Jan and Diane rounds out the round-table for this week's episode on KMET 1490-AM.

Podcast available at https://soundcloud.com/kmet-1490-am/sets/conservative-voice-radio

Topics:

- Comey's Book, McCabe's Inspector General Report

- Pompeo Confirmation includes unconstitutional Religious Test

- Beaumont Opts Out of Sanctuary State

Friday, April 20, 2018

Paying for Green

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

Excerpt from my latest book, 7 Worst Constitutional Liars:
[Alexander] Hamilton was, among other things, also the founding father of Crony Capitalism and Corporate Welfare.  In addition to a government-directed economy, Hamilton made it clear that it was his opinion that the government should work with massive corporations, and use government influences to benefit politically connected businesses.  At the time, the practice was called “mercantilism.”  Hamilton maintained that government intervention was necessary, and that if the government did not provide tax-financed subsidies for businesses, manufacturing would never develop.  In his Report on Manufactures Hamilton argued for using government to try to make certain manufacturing industries appear earlier than they otherwise would on the free market – a practice that is followed today by the Democrat Party, of which they are trying to apply to “renewable resources” industries. 
Are you paying for, through your taxes or a higher cost for products, the liberal left dream of dumping "brown energy" for "green energy?  The answer is "yes," and the tactic is as old as the U.S. Constitution that our system of liberty is based upon.

In a number of circles, going green has become the trendy thing to do.  The trend, however, was not encouraged by the free market, or individualism.  It was thwarted upon us by government, and the greed for power and money that dwells within the empty skulls of establishment politicians and leftist ideologues.

We are told that there are many benefits associated with renewable energy and electric conveyances.  We need to dump our gas-guzzlers, outlaw all thin plastic grocery bags, and go hug a tree.

In California, the Democrat Party has a stranglehold on the State, so it is their policies that are getting shoved into place.  The problem is, while they claim their policies are friendly to the environment, and provides for a sustainable society, the reality is, they are neither "green," nor sustainable.

In 2010, when I was still a truck driver, Sacramento put into place a law requiring big rigs to reduce their emissions of pollutants by adding filtration systems (much like catalytic converters) to all trucks in California. All big rigs were required by law to be retrofitted with new equipment at a cost of about $25,000 per truck.  The same went for tractors, and other heavy equipment. In many cases, the retrofits cost more than the value of the equipment.  Smaller companies and owner-operators were not able to afford compliance.  Without the retrofits, the State of California shut those companies down, and disallowed them from doing business in California.  In the end, the smaller players in trucking and construction either went out of business, or left the State . . . leaving less competition for the larger corporations, of whom the Democrats claim to have a problem with.

In the end, while the move may, or may not, have helped the environment, it enabled California to force funds out of businesses, take more control over their operations, and reduce the number of companies operating in the State when it comes to trucking and construction.

A similar thing happened with the plastic grocery bag ban.  In California, thin plastic grocery bags are illegal, and if you use a thicker bag that is intended to be used over and over, there is a ten-cent tax attached.

A friend of mine was telling me about another friend of his who is in the plastic bag business.  He was afraid the new law would kill his business.  In the end, it actually helped his business.  The thicker bags cost more, and people, for the most part, are using them the same way they used the thinner bags.  The result of the switch is that the grocery stores are forced to raise prices on some products to cover the loss of revenue through the additional plastic bag expenditure.  California is receiving a ten-cent hidden tax on each bag.  However, the environment is not only not better off, in the long run it is actually worse off.  That said, my friend's friend is making a bundle.

Compared to the old, thinner bags we used prior to this law, the thicker plastic bags require twenty-six times the energy to produce, and twenty-six times the amount of time to decompose.  So, unless you are using these bags at least twenty-six times, they are worse on the environment, not better.

Most people are using them once, and then using them as a trash liner, as they did with the thinner bags, in their smaller trashcans.

Reusing the bags, if one really is a green nut and believes in the claimed original intent of the law, it turns out, is not good, either.  In fact, reuse of the bags create a legitimate health hazard.  Most people, when they reuse bags, do not wash out the bags each time they are used.  Besides, if they did, the increase of water usage may also create its own environmental situation.  But, since most folks are reusing the bags, often what happens is contaminants get into the bags, and then are passed onto their food during the next trip to the store, causing illness, and an increased strain on the health care system, and a reduction in hours worked by employees due to missing work as a result of their bag-born illness.

Overall, in addition to the damage the new thicker bags create in regards to the environment, they are also resulting in a reduction in income tax revenue (from the people who missed work due to illness caused by the re-use of the bags), an increase in environmental damage and costs, and an increase in the cost of products in stores to cover the higher cost of manufacturing the thicker plastic bags.

The green agenda has backfired, and the State of California is worsening its economic situation.

So, while going “green” may seem trendy, it's not really as green as one would think, and it is definitely detrimental to our overall economy, and the prosperity of individuals at the lower scale of things.

Even the electric cars are not as green as they say, for while they may be using electricity to run, the increase in the use of electricity is requiring brown energy to be used to keep up with the demand.

Besides, we must also remember, there are all kinds of hidden costs in the pursuit of “clean energy,” much of which directly influences all consumers.

In California, the State’s new Zero Emissions Vehicle (ZEV) mandate, along with nine other States, have automakers pushing to produce more electric cars each year.  With California's cap and trade, automakers are forced to either meet their annual ZEV quotas or purchase costly credits to make up the difference.

The Democrats are pulling a Hamiltonian move (using government to try to make certain manufacturing industries appear earlier than they otherwise would on the free market), and to be honest, consumers aren't quite completely ready for these vehicles.  The price tag is too high, and the variety of vehicles in that industry are too limited.  Besides, you only get somewhere between 40-55 miles per charge.  Californians drive much farther than that.

Granted, a Tesla Model S may travel 200-300 miles per charge, but it's sticker price is pretty high, around $70,000.

Auto manufacturers already survive on tight margins, and that number is even tighter when it comes to environmentally friendly vehicles.  Therefore, with no wiggle room, the cost of making the cars "cleaner" is being passed on to the consumers, as is the cost of cap and trade credits.  The increases in prices are not only on those new greener cars.  Conventional auto prices are also rising in price to help subsidize more-costly electric cars.

In short, only the wealthy can afford the higher priced green cars, but in order for them to be made available, subsidies to make sure those cars make it to the showroom floor are being shouldered by lower-income families buying brown energy vehicles.

What about all of that electricity being used that is supposed to be cleaner?  As I mentioned earlier, most of that comes from what the environmentalists call "brown energy."  Almost two-thirds of all electricity generated in the U.S. comes from coal and natural gas power plants.  Thus, while advertised as non-fossil fuel cars, the plug-in electric vehicles are still being powered mostly by fossil fuels, just not through an internal-combustion engine.

Government is determined, however, to continue to compel Americans to purchase electric cars . . . to save the planet.  It's either that, or your old school car's price will continue to skyrocket to help the market nobody is participating in.  In the end, eventually the average American won't be able to afford a car at all.

But, that's the plan, isn't it?  They want us out of our cars.  That's way too much freedom, for you.  Be happy.  Ride a bike, or ride a bus.  Never mind that you commute to a job outside your neighborhood, or region.

Well, there's that, or you can leave California . . . but the Democrats are working on taxing that, too.


-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Zuckerberg Before Congress is Unconstitutional

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

Yes, Mark Zuckerberg, the owner and CEO of FACEBOOK is a raging leftist, and he runs his FACEBOOK business in a manner that is politically discriminatory.  He targets conservatives, censors conservatives, and bans conservative material.  He uses technology to target advertising, shares information (of which his customers agreed to via the agreement in place by joining FACEBOOK) and treats his customers in a manner that is not good.

Fine.  He's a jerk.  But, Zuckerberg is a private business owner.  If you don't like what he's doing, take your business elsewhere.

There is no authority granted to the federal government by the Constitution giving Congress or any other part of government the authority to demand Zuckerberg to stand before Congress, and answer for his private business practices.

As a customer, Ted Cruz's questioning of Zuckerberg was fantastic and correct, but how Zuckerberg runs his business is none of the U.S. Senate's business, so as a Senator, Ted Cruz (as the "constitution guy" in the Senate) should have known better than to be read Zuckerberg the riot act.

We have a free market system.  If we don't like government dictating to a baker about their cake baking, or to preachers regarding who they will marry, why are we cheering for government to dictate to FACEBOOK on how they run their business?

Don't like them?  Take your business elsewhere.  Create a competing platform.

If Zuckerberg understood freedom and the Constitution, he would have walked into Congress and said, "My name is Mark Zuckerberg, and I am a liberal left Democrat, and as a private business owner it is none of your business, nor authority, on how I run my private corporation."

I don't like the guy, and I think it is messed up that FACEBOOK plays these games of censoring people for political reasons.   I am angry they did what they did to Diamond and Silk.  It was messed up and I will shout from the highest rooftops that it was wrong.  But, in the end, as a private business owner, there is nothing legally we can do about it, and Congress has no business being involved.  In fact, the questioning of Zuckerberg by the U.S. Senate is not only unconstitutional, but it is downright tyrannical.

Since when should conservatives and constitutionalists cheer government dictating to a private business owner how he runs his business?

The First Amendment was written to limit government, not private businesses or individuals.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Join the Fight to Pardon Dinesh D'Souza

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

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/pardon-dinesh-dsouza-6

I wanted to let you know about a We the People petition and ask for your support. Will you add your name to mine? If this petition gets 100,000 signatures within 30 days of its creation, the White House will review it and respond!

You can view and sign the petition here:

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/pardon-dinesh-dsouza-6

Thanks for raising your voice!

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Thursday, April 19, 2018

Democrat's Investigation Reveals Left's Criminality

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

Robert Mueller:  Mueller was a central figure in an FBI cover up that kept four completely innocent men in prison for decades, in order to protect the FBI’s reputation. Protecting the Deep State was so important to Mueller that he perpetuated an FBI cover up that allowed innocent Americans to rot in prison for more than 30 years.

Andrew McCabe: Andrew McCabe lied.  The new report from the Justice Department inspector general concludes that McCabe, the former FBI deputy director, lied to then-FBI Director James Comey, to other FBI agents, and to officials of the Office of the Inspector General. Some of those lies came when McCabe was under oath.

That's not even taking into account the lies and corruption committed by Comey, the Clintons, the Obamas . . .

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Temecula Constitution Class: War and Reconstruction, Amendments 13, 14, and 15

Temecula Constitution Class, Tonight, 6:30
Faith Armory, 41669 Winchester Rd., Temecula, CA

Constitution Class Handout
Instructor: Douglas V. Gibbs
 
 
 
Lesson 18
 
The Civil War Amendments 13, 14, and 15
 
The End of Slavery

Prior to the Civil War, any federal legislation related to slavery dealt with the importation of slaves. Aspects of slavery inside State lines were considered a State issue.
 
Article I, Section 9, Clause 1 abolished the Atlantic slave trade, and the United States Government intervened militarily to ensure the law prohibiting the importation of slaves was enforced. The Framers of the Constitution believed that in order to ensure the southern States did their part in ratifying the Constitution, while remaining consistent with the concept of the federal government only having authority over external issues, and disputes between the States, they could not abolish slavery nationally through the articles presented by the Constitution. A large number of delegates at the federal convention in 1787 desired the immediate abolition of slavery, but the fear was that the southern States would not only refuse to ratify the Constitution, but that they would refuse to remain a part of the union, eventually succumbing to attacks from Florida and absorbed into the Spanish Empire.
 
A proposed amendment to abolish slavery during the American Civil War finally passed the Senate on April 8, 1864, by a vote of 38 to 6, but the House did not approve it.
 
When the proposed amendment was reintroduced by Representative Ashley, President Lincoln took an active role in working for its passage through the House by ensuring the amendment was added to the Republican Party platform for the upcoming Presidential elections. Lincoln's efforts, combined with the result of the War Between the States, ensured the House passed the bill on January 31, 1865, by a vote of 119 to 56.
 
The 13th Amendment was ratified into law on December 6, 1865.
Terms:
Atlantic Slave Trade - Started by the Portuguese, but soon dominated by the English, the Atlantic Slave Trade was the sale and exploitation of African slaves by Europeans that occurred in and around the Atlantic Ocean from the 15th century to the 19th century.
 
War Between the States - The Civil War was fought from 1861 to 1865 after Seven Southern slave States seceded from the United States, forming the Confederate States of America. The "Confederacy" grew to include eleven States. The war was fought between the States that did not declare secession, known as the "Union" or the "North", and the Confederate States. The war found its origin in the concept of State's Rights, but became largely regarding the issue of slavery after President Abraham Lincoln delivered the Emancipation Proclamation. Over 600,000 Union and Confederate soldiers died, and much of the South's infrastructure was destroyed. After the War, Amendments 13, 14, and 15 were proposed and ratified to abolish slavery in the United States, and to begin the process of protecting the civil rights of the freed slaves.
 
Questions for Discussion:
 
1. Why wasn't slavery abolished at the founding of this nation?
 
2. Why did the House of Representatives not originally approve this amendment?
 
3. How has the abolition of slavery affected this nation since the ratification of the 13th Amendment?
 
Resources:
 
Congressional Proposals and Senate Passage Harper Weekly. The
Creation of the 13th Amendment. Retrieved Feb. 15, 2007
 
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).
 
Citizenship, Civil Rights, and Apportionment
            Citizenship Clause
 
The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution failed in 1866 after the southern States rejected the proposed amendment. After a second attempt to ratify the amendment, it was adopted on July 9, 1868. The ratification of the 14th Amendment occurred after the federal government began to govern the South through a system of military districts. Some historians question the validity of the ratification of the 14th Amendment because it is believed by these historians that the southern States ratified the amendment under duress, and pressure applied by the northern governorships in each of the southern States during the early part of the Reconstruction Period.
 
The first clause of the 14th Amendment is known as "The Citizenship Clause." The clause was intended to ensure the children of the emancipated slaves, as well as the newly freed slaves, would be considered citizens without any room for argument. The clause reads:
 
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
 
This clause has been misinterpreted to mean all persons born in the United States are automatically citizens, which is not the case. The defining term in this clause that enables the reader to recognize that citizenship needs more than just being born on American soil reads: "subject to the jurisdiction, thereof."
 
To understand the term jurisdiction, one may go to the debates on the congressional record of the 14th Amendment. In those debates, and in articles of that time period written to explain the intent of the language of the amendment, one finds that "full jurisdiction" was meant to mean "full allegiance to America." The intention was to protect the nation against persons with divided loyalties.
 
The writers of the 14th Amendment wished to follow the importance of "full loyalty" as portrayed by the Founding Fathers. As far as the founders were concerned, there could be no divided allegiances. They expected citizens to be fully American.
 
Despite the defeat of the Confederacy in the American Civil War, the emancipated slaves were not receiving the rights and privileges of American citizens as they should have been. The former slaves were present in the United States legally, and because they were here legally they were "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," but they were still not receiving any assurance of equal protection under the law.
 
The Civil Rights Act of 1866 was created in the hopes of correcting the problem. Some of the language in the Civil Rights Act of 1866 states, "All persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States. ... All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other."
 
The definition of "persons within the jurisdiction of the United States" in that act was all persons at the time of its passage, born in the United States, including all slaves and their offspring, but not having any allegiances to any foreign government.
 
Michigan Senator Jacob Howard, one of two principal authors of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment (Citizenship Clause), noted that its provision, "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," excluded American Indians who had tribal nationalities, and "persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers."
 
Senator Howard's responses to questions regarding the language he used in the Citizenship Clause were recorded in The Congressional Globe, which are the recorded transcripts of the debates over the 14th Amendment by the 139th Congress:
 
Mr. HOWARD: "I now move to take up House joint resolution No. 127."
 
The motion was agreed to; and the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, resumed the consideration of the joint resolution (H.R. No. 127) proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
 
"The 1st Amendment is to section one, declaring that all persons born in the United States and Subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside. I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion. This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country."
 
Senator Howard even went out of his way to indicate that children born on American soil of foreign citizens are not included.
 
Clearly, the framers of the 14th Amendment had no intention of freely giving away American citizenship to just anyone simply because they may have been born on American soil.
 
The second author of the Citizenship Clause, Illinois Senator Lyman Trumbull, added that "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" meant "not owing allegiance to anybody else."
 
The full quote by Senator Trumbull:
 
"The provision is, that 'all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.' That means 'subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.' What do we mean by 'complete jurisdiction thereof?' Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means."
 
Trumbull continues, "Can you sue a Navajo Indian in court? Are they in any sense subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States? By no means. We make treaties with them, and therefore they are not subject to our jurisdiction. If they were, we wouldn't make treaties with them...It is only those persons who come completely within our jurisdiction, who are subject to our laws, that we think of making citizens; and there can be no objection to the proposition that such persons should be citizens."
 
Senator Howard concurred with what Mr. Trumbull had to say:
 
"I concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois [Trumbull], in holding that the word 'jurisdiction,' as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now."
 
Based on these explanations by the writers of the clause, then, it is understood that the intention was for those who are not born to American citizens to have no birthright to citizenship just because they simply were born inside the borders of this country.
 
The courts have interpreted the Citizenship Clause to mean other things, but we must remember that the Constitution cannot be changed by the courts. Changes to the Constitution can only be made by amendment (Article V.).
 
It was through the progressive actions of the Lincoln administration in the American Civil War, and the actions of the courts to incorporate the Bill of Rights to the States, that America ceased to be "The United States Are," and became a more nationalistic "The United States Is."
 
            Privileges and Immunities Clause
 
The next clause, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States," was expected to protect the newly emancipated slaves from local legislation that may treat them differently. This clause was a direct response to the Black Codes, laws passed in the States that were designed to limit the former slaves from obtaining all of the freedoms they thought they had been guaranteed.
 
The Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment prohibits state and local governments from depriving persons of the proper due process of law. The right to a fair trial was to be extended to all persons, including the emancipated slaves.
 
            Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause
 
The Due Process Clause, and the Equal Protection clause, have been the subject of debate since the language written by Congressman John Bingham, the principal author of the later part of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, was first penned. Bingham believed the federal government should use all national tools available to ensure the southern States behaved as instructed. Bingham repeatedly stated his belief that the Fourteenth Amendment would enforce the Bill of Rights against the States, but the majority of the members of Congress present did not concur with his muddled and inconsistent argument.
 
Author Raoul Berger, in his book Government by Judiciary, discussed whether the 14th Amendment should be construed to enforce the Bill of Rights against the States. Relying on the analysis of Professor Charles Fairman in his published article, Does the Fourteenth Amendment Incorporate the Bill of Rights?, Berger concluded that Bingham was a "muddled" thinker whose views should be discounted. Berger agreed with Fairman that the framers of the 14th Amendment did not intend it to enforce the Bill of Rights against the States. Berger rejected even selective incorporation, arguing that the Amendment's framers did not intend that any of the first eight amendments should be made applicable to the States through the 14th Amendment
 
Antislavery activists largely supported Bingham's conclusion that that Bill of Rights must be applied to the States, and such application must be enforced by the federal government. Though the Bill of Rights was originally intended by the Founding Fathers not to apply to the States, and with less than a centuryt since the American Revolution and the writing of the Constitution behind them, Bingham's supporters contended that local jurisdiction over cases regarding an individual's rights could no longer be allowed because the southern States could not be trusted to be fair to the newly emancipated slaves.
 
Bingham's call for an incorporation of the Bill of Rights to the States established the concept that all people's rights are supposed to be protected by the federal government. The Founding Fathers did not apply the Bill of Rights to the States from the beginning because giving that kind of power to a potentially tyrannical federal government carries with it many pitfalls. As the quote by Gerald Ford goes, "A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have." Nonetheless, despite the dangers of a central government dictating to the States regarding their laws regarding individual rights, because of the mistreatment of the former slaves by the Southern States, the Privileges and Immunities Clause, the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause, have been commonly interpreted to mean that the Bill of Rights is applicable to the States.
 
Since the Incorporation of the Bill of Rights did not take hold as a result of the 14th Amendment, as the statists that supported Bingham's position had desired, the federal courts stepped in and took pursuit. Pursuing a nationalist agenda, the courts disregarded the original intent of the Framers of the Constitution, as well as the conclusions of the Congress regarding the 14th Amendment, and began to selectively incorporate the Bill of Rights to the States, beginning with the Slaughterhouse Cases just five years after the ratification of the 14th Amendment in 1868. A five to four vote by the high court interpreted the Privileges and Immunities Clause as the authority to enforce The Bill of Rights against the States. Subsequent cases also used the 14th Amendment as an authority for incorporation.
 
The courts, through this process of incorporating The Bill of Rights to the States, have changed the Constitution through unconstitutional means, and against original intent. As originally intended, all provisions in the U.S. Constitution apply to the federal government, unless otherwise noted. The Bill of Rights was originally intended to apply only to the federal government, and if we are to remain in line with the original intent of the Founding Fathers, State sovereignty must remain protected by that original intent.
 
The attitude of the southern States, and their refusal to treat the former slaves fairly led to a perceived need for clarification and enforcement by the federal government, which led to the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, and eventually to the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s.
 
A separate but equal doctrine existed for more than fifty years, despite numerous attempts to ensure blacks enjoyed full rights and privileges of citizenship.
 
In modern politics, laws continue to test the limits of the Equal Protection Clause. While the clause was intended to make sure that everyone is treated equally under the law, politicians supporting the Affordable Care Act have handed out exemptions to members of Congress, and some individuals or corporations, allowing those that receive the exemptions to be treated differently under the law.
 
            Apportionment
 
Section 2 of the 14th Amendment altered the rules for the apportioning of Representatives in the Congress to the States. The enumeration was changed to include all residents, while also calling for a reduction of a State's apportionment if it wrongfully denies any adult male's right to vote.
 
For fear that the former slaves would support the Republicans, southern Democrats worked feverishly to dissuade blacks from voting. Section 2 addressed this problem by offering to the southern States the opportunity to enfranchise black voters, or lose congressional representation.
 
            Consequences of Insurrection
 
Section 3 of the 14th Amendment prohibits the election or appointment to any federal or state office of any person who had held any of certain offices and then engaged in insurrection, rebellion or treason. A two-thirds vote by each House of the Congress could override this limitation. The interest was to ban the service of any members of the Confederacy that refused to renounce their participation in the Confederacy.
 
            Public Debt as a Result of the War
 
Section 4 of the 14th Amendment confirmed the legitimacy of all United States public debt appropriated by Congress. The clause also indicated that neither the United States nor any State would pay for the loss of slaves or debts that had been incurred by the Confederacy. This clause was to ensure that all States recognized the validity of the debt appropriated by Congress as a result of the war, while bonds secured by the Confederacy in order to help finance the South's part of the war "went beyond congressional power."
 
Political battles over the debt ceiling in 2011 and 2013 encouraged some politicians to argue that the "validity of the public debt" clause outlawed a debt ceiling, because placing a limit on federal spending interferes with the duty of the government to pay interest on outstanding bonds and to make payments owed to pensioners (such as Social Security). The clause in the 14th Amendment addressing the validity of the public debt, however, was never intended to be a general clause to be used by future administrations, but a specific clause only addressing the debt accrued as a result of the American Civil War.
 
            Enforcement
 
The final clause of the 14th Amendment authorizes Congress to "enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article." Federal intrusion upon the States, however, has been a long-time fear by those that support the concept of State Sovereignty. The question regarding enforcement was addressed in the Civil Rights Cases of 1883, where the opinion of the Supreme Court interpreted Section 5 of the 14th Amendment to mean that "the legislation which Congress is authorized to adopt in this behalf is not general legislation upon the rights of the citizen, but corrective legislation".
 
In a more recent case, City of Boerne v. Flores, 1997, the Supreme Court ruled that Congress's enforcement power according to the last clause of the 14th Amendment is limited to only enacting legislation as a response to a "congruence and proportionality" between the injury to a person's 14th Amendment rights and the means Congress adopted to prevent or remedy that injury.
 
Court interpretation of the Constitution can be a dangerous practice, and we must remember that any interpretation of the Constitution offered by the courts in a ruling are merely opinions. The final authority regarding the definitions of Constitutional law resides with the people, through their States. Any allowance of the courts to fully define the Constitution at the whims of the judges opens up the opportunity for the courts to change definitions for ideological purposes, resulting in a judicial oligarchy, rather than a constitutional republic driven by the consent of the governed, and the self-evident standards of Natural Law.
 
Terms:
Black Codes - Laws put in place in the United States after the Civil War with the effect of limiting the basic human rights and civil liberties of blacks.
 
Constitutional Republic - Government that adheres to the rule or authority of the principles of a constitution. A representative government that operates under the rule of law.
 
Equal Protection Under the Law - Laws must treat an individual resident or citizen in the same manner.
 
Incorporation of the Bill of Rights - The process through court rulings based on the interpretation of the 14th Amendment to apply the Bill of Rights to the States.
 
Jurisdiction - Full loyalty, a condition in which all foreign allegiances have been released; not owing allegiance to anybody else.
 
Military Districts - Districts created in the seceded states (not including Tennessee, which had ratified the 14th Amendment and was readmitted to the Union), headed by a military official empowered to appoint and remove state officials.
 
Nationalist - An advocate of Nationalism.
 
Natural Law - Unchanging moral principles regarded as a basis for all human conduct; observable law relating to natural existence; birthright law.
 
Original Intent - Original meaning of the United States Constitution as intended by the framers during the Federal Convention of 1787, and the subsequent State Ratification Conventions.
 
Public Debt - National debt; the financial obligations of a national government resulting from deficit spending.
 
Reconstruction Period - Period following the American Civil War during which the United States government began to rebuild the States that had seceded from the Union to form the Confederacy, lasting from 1865-1877. During Reconstruction, the federal government proposed a number of plans and committed large amount of resources, to the readmittance to the union, and the rebuilding, of the defeated Confederate States.
 
Separate But Equal - Various laws designed to undermine the 14th Amendment requirement that former slaves be treated equally under the law, contending that the requirement of equality could be met in a manner that kept the races separate. The result of these laws was a generally accepted doctrine of segregation throughout The South.
 
State Sovereignty - The individual autonomy of the several states; strong local government was considered the key to freedom; a limited government is the essence of liberty.
 
United States are - These States that are united; a group of sovereign member States in America voluntarily united into a republic.
 
United States is - Nation of the United States containing a number of States similar to provinces ruled over by a centralized federal government.
 
Questions for Discussion:
 
1. How might have the governors of the military districts influenced the ratification of the 14th Amendment?
 
2. Does the Citizenship Clause have anything to do with Natural Born Citizenship? Why?
 
3. Why was Congress concerned with the threat of divided allegiance?
 
4. Did the 14th Amendment eliminate laws like the Black Codes, as intended?
 
5. How is it that despite the original intent of those that voted for the 14th Amendment that the Bill of Rights not be applied to the States most of the first ten amendments have been applied to the States anyway?
 
6. What pieces of legislation since the ratification of this amendment have been passed in order to ensure that the Equal Protection Clause is properly enforced?
 
Resources:
Congressional Globe, 39th Congress (1866) pg. 2890: Senator Jacob
Howard States the Intent of the Fourteenth Amendment Published in the Congressional Record, May 30, 1866.
 
Civil Rights Act, The - April 9, 1866,
http://www.tedhayes.us/CVR_civil_rights_act_of_1866.htm
 
Doris Kearns Goodwin, Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of
Abraham Lincoln; New York: Simon & Schuster Paperbacks (2005)
 
Frank J. Williams, Judging Lincoln; Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press (2002)
 
John F. Marszalek, Sherman: A Soldier's Passion for Order; New York:
Vintage Civil War Library (1993)
 
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).
 
Thomas J. DiLorenzo, The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham
Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War; Roseville, California: Prima Publishing, a division of Random House (2002)
 
William S. NcFeely, Grant; New York: W.W. Norton & Company
(1981)
 
Voting Rights
The 15th Amendment was designed to protect the voting rights of all citizens, regardless of race, color, or if the voter had previously been a slave or indentured servant. As stated in the amendment, this article applies to both the federal government, and the States.
 
As the third reconstruction amendment, the 15th Amendment faced another challenge that was unexpected. In some States the requirements were that all voters and candidates must be Christians. As originally written, the amendment would require these States to change their rules regarding the manner of elections. Realizing the ratification of the amendment may depend on the support of the States with Christianity requirements regarding elections, the amendment was revised in a conference committee to remove any reference to holding office or religion and only prohibited discrimination based on race, color or previous condition of servitude.
 
Democrat Party created militias, like the Ku Klux Klan, continued to try and intimidate black voters and white Republicans. The federal government promised support, assuring that black and Republican voters could both vote, and serve, in confidence. When an all-white mob in the Battle of Liberty Place attempted to take over the interracial government of New Orleans, President Ulysses S. Grant sent in federal troops to restore the elected mayor.
 
President Rutherford B. Hayes narrowly won the election in 1876. To appease the South after his close election, in the hopes of gaining their support and soothing angry Democrats, President Hayes agreed to withdraw the federal troops who had been occupying the South since the end of the Civil War. The hope was that the southern States were ready to handle their own affairs without a need for any interference from the North.
 
In the process, President Hayes also overlooked rampant fraud and electoral violence in the Deep South, despite several attempts by Republicans to pass laws protecting the rights of black voters and to punish intimidation. Without the restrictions, voting place violence against blacks and Republicans increased, including instances of murder.
 
By the 1890s many of the southern States had enacted voter eligibility laws that included literacy tests and poll taxes. Since the black population was normally steeped in poverty, the inability to afford the poll tax kept them from voting in elections.
 
It took nearly a century for the promise of the Fifteenth Amendment to finally take hold. The ratification of the 24th Amendment in 1964, which eliminated poll taxes, and the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, served to ensure that blacks in the South were able to freely register to vote, and vote without any obstacles.
Terms:
Poll Tax - A tax levied on people rather than on property, often as a requirement for         voting.
 
Questions for Discussion:
 
1. Why was the wording of the Fifteenth Amendment changed to not include discrimination based on religion?
 
2. Why do you think the Democrat Party played a part in forming the Ku Klux Klan?
 
3. Why did President Hayes withdraw federal protections against racial discrimination in the South?
 
4. How did poll taxes enable the Southern Democrats from keeping Blacks from being able to vote without violating the Constitution?
 
5. Why do you think it took nearly a century for the promise of the Fifteenth Amendment to be realized?
 
Resources:
 
Congressional Globe, 40th Cong., 3d Sess (1869) pg. 1318
 
Foner, Eric, Reconstruction: America's Unfinished
Revolution, 1863-1877; New York: Harper Perennial Modern
Classics (2002)
 
Gillette, William, The Right to Vote: Politics and the Passage of the
Fifteenth Amendment; Baltimore: John Hopkins Press (1969)
 
 
Copyright 2015 Douglas V. Gibbs

Beaumont Opts Out of Sanctuary Status . . . Kind of

Douglas V. Gibbs being interviewed by KMIR.
Local Tea Party President Glenn Stull stands in the background
holding the yellow sign.
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Author, Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host

On Tuesday Night, April 17, 2018, I arrived at the City of Beaumont's City Hall at about 4:15 pm.  The city council meeting was scheduled to begin at 6:00 pm.  I arrived with my very good friend, President of the Banning-Beaumont-Cherry Valley Tea Party, Glenn Stull.  From a media point of view, the first on the scene was NBC KMIR out of Palm Springs, who interviewed both Glenn Stull, and I.

The wind was whipping up pretty good, throwing my tie over my right shoulder, but the camera kept rolling and the questions from the female reporter were pretty reasonable.  I explained that I was the author of the Sanctuary State opt-out ordinance presented to the Beaumont City Council by the local Tea Party group, and the basic reasons behind it.

We are a nation of laws, and the rule of law is not being followed by the State of California.  S.B. 54 is in violation of the United States Constitution.  The U.S. Constitution grants to the federal government authority over immigration issues, and as per the Supremacy Clause in Article VI of the U.S. Constitution, States may not legally pass laws that are contrary to the Constitution, or constitutionally authorized federal laws.  Therefore, S.B. 54 is unconstitutional.

Prior to the event, we had been advised that the ACLU, La Raza, and other pro-amnesty groups were going to be protesting in front of City Hall beginning at 4:30, which is why we began showing up between 4:00 and 4:15.  One person opposing our stance on the issue appeared with a sign with big black letters spelling "ICE" in a red circle, and slashed out by a red diagonal line, but she grew tired of being out-numbered and eventually found her way inside.  After that, we noticed that the anticipated leftist protesters never materialized.  When we went inside city hall after a short while, we realized why the opposition was not outside protesting.
SB 54 makes it illegal for county or municipal peace officers to do any of the following:
  • ask about an arrestee's immigration status
  • honor a federal immigration hold request or detainer, unless it's specifically authorized by a judge
  • arrest a person based on a civil immigration warrant
  • notify federal authorities about the pending release of a jailed illegal immigrant, with a couple of exceptions based on criminal history
  • participate in task forces that target illegal immigrant offenders
  • utilize immigration officers as interpreters during local interactions with suspects
SB 54 also mandates that schools, health facilities, libraries and courthouses serve as "safe zones," where undocumented immigrants can come and go without risk of detention. 
SB 54 was an expansion of Assembly Bill 4, the so-called "Trust Act" of 2013, which prohibits honoring federal detainer requests, specifically for foreigners arrested or suspected of minor offenses.
The ACLU and other pro-amnesty groups never materialized to stand against us on the sidewalk.  While we were outside with signs and flags, they were packing the seating at the city council meeting inside.  Only a few of our group were able to land seats in the city council chambers.  I wound up sitting, at first, in the overflow room, watching the city council meeting on a video screen from across the hall.

After I turned in a sheet to speak during public comments, we were advised that for the S.B. 54 issue a clipboard sign up sheet was being used, instead.  When I arrived at the table with the forms, after waiting in line, I noticed there were three clipboards.  One for opposing S.B. 54, one for folks who supports it, and one for those who are neutral.  The neutral sign-up sheet never got a signature.  I added my name on the appropriate list, and waited for the meeting to begin.

We were advised during the public comments portion of the meeting that the speakers from the audience would be picked randomly, and then they proceeded to choose only one name off of the list of folks opposing S.B. 54, out of a dozen and a half speakers.  Glenn Stull pointed out the lopsided nature of the commenting, but the mayor assured him that the City Clerk had been instructed to pick names randomly.

She was picking names randomly, but off of only one of the lists.  By the time our allies began speaking, CBS had picked up their microphone, and most of the media had departed.  The fix was in, or so it seemed at the time.

The liberal left pro-amnesty argument primarily used three tactics. 

1. Amendment 4 (due process, protection against unreasonable searches and seizures) which is an invalid argument because Article IV, Section 2 of the Constitution clearly reserves the immunities and privileges afforded by the Constitution to "citizens" only.  The 14th Amendment also uses the words "citizens of the United States" in reference to immunities and privileges.

2. Amendment 10, claiming this is a States' Rights issue, and that the States have a right to determine their own internal issues.  The 10th Amendment would be appropriate if immigration was solely a State issue.  However, immigration is granted by the U.S. Constitution to the federal government in Article I, Section 8 and Article I, Section 9.  Border security is authorized to the federal government in Article IV, Section 4.  Use of the National Guard (militia) for the purpose of repelling invasions is granted in Article I, Section 8 where the Constitution discusses the calling forth of the militia.  The presence of national security factors validates the border security argument when discussing the sanctuary status issue.

3. This is not a city issue, and we are not lawyers or judges, so we must wait until the State of California and Department of Justice ends their battle before we make a decision regarding what we do.  That, also, is an invalid argument.  In short, with S.B. 54 the State of California is requiring the cities to act illegally, and opting out simply is a message back to the State of California that the city will not participate in the illegal activities demanded by the State, nor be accomplices in Sacramento's unlawful demands.

When it was my turn to speak, in addition to my own constitutional presentation, I asked a question.  Did you lock your door when you left your home, tonight?  Why?  Do you not trust and love everyone outside of your home?  The fact is, we know that there are bad people out there, so we lock our doors.  We don't lock our doors because we hate everyone outside of our home, but because we love everyone inside our home.

  1.  Mike Lara
  2.  Julio Martinez
  3.  Nancy Carroll
  4.  Lloyd White
  5.  Rey Santos

Assembly candidate Gary Jeandron, a retired police chief from Palm Springs, provided a view of the issue from the point of view of law enforcement.  He explained how sanctuary status places at risk our local police, while also endangering public safety in our communities.

Assembly candidate Andrew Kotyuk, after finishing his own city council meeting down the hill in San Jacinto where he is a councilmember, appeared at the podium to give his presentation, which included a myriad of statistics regarding the crimes committed by illegal aliens, and the unsustainable costs to cities and the State as they are associated with the crisis.

Agnes Gibboney, an Angel Mom whose son was killed by a previously deported illegal alien, gave her tear-inducing testimony with a firm reference on other cases of deaths as a result of the presence of illegal aliens in our communities, including, but not limited to, Kate Steinle who was murdered in San Francisco, yet her murderer was set free by a liberal left court in the name of San Francisco's sanctuary status.

Each of the presentations in support of Beaumont opting out of S.B. 54 were impactful, and laced with facts, statistics, and constitutional law - as opposed to the emotional pleas by the liberal left who were crying for Beaumont to defy the rule of law.

Councilman Lloyd White was the member of the Beaumont City Council who placed the issue on the agenda, and he later proposed a resolution (written by the city attorney, but I recognized a couple small elements in it from my ordinance) to the members of the city council to consider.  While slightly watered down, the resolution essentially stated that the City of Beaumont takes a position on the matter of standing against S.B. 54.  Each of the members of the council gave statements regarding what they thought about the resolution, and then they took a vote that surprised everyone by the time it was over.

Councilman Lara was the first to speak about the resolution.  He verbalized his concern about the inability of local law enforcement being able to share information with federal agencies as a result of S.B. 54.  As a result of that matter, it makes the sanctuary status issue a public safety issue.  He also recognized the argument that had been used often by the public comments participants, which is that S.B. 54 violates the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution, and since he is required to uphold the Constitution, he stated he supported the resolution.

Councilman Martinez said he was proud of the fact that so many people were at the meeting.  He always appreciates community involvement.  However, he stated he saw the issue as being a partisan issue, and he had no desire to be involved in partisan politics.  If the issue is a partisan issue, he said, "the city should not take a position in the battle between the State and the federal government."  He then suggested that the best action to take would be to wait for a judicial decision.  In the end, he said, he saw "no relevance in continuing the discussion."

Councilman White, when it was his turn to speak on the matter, reminded the audience that it was him who placed the item on the agenda because he wanted all citizens to be able to comment on the issue.  He stated he believed the issue of sanctuary status to not be about immigration as much as it is about protecting criminals, and defying the rule of law.  There are consequences for not following the rule of law, he explained.  "S.B. 54 protects foreign criminals."  He advised the audience that the crimes being committed by illegal aliens, and then ignored as a result of S.B. 54 and other California policies, would not be acceptable in any other arena.  If the crimes by illegal aliens had been committed by them on foreign soil, "they would not have been allowed in the United States in the first place."  White echoed Lara's concern that sanctuary status is a public safety issue, and Beaumont needs to allow local law enforcement to coordinate with federal agencies.  In the long run, he said, S.B. 54 "makes law-abiding citizens less safe."

White referred the audience to "google" Rodney Scott of the U.S. Border Patrol.  Mr. Scott is the Border Patrol San Diego Sector’s chief agent, and he is siding with the Department of Justice's lawsuit against the State of California.

White also explained that Beaumont's current police department policy is not to ask immigration status.  The local police are tasked with serving the entire community.  If the person is a criminal, however, and if during various procedures, after fingerprinting, their immigration status comes up, it must be the responsibility of local law enforcement to coordinate with federal agencies.

According to White, the U.S. Constitution is the law of the land.  "I swore to uphold it first and foremost."  He then explained he also swore an oath to the California constitution, but it is secondary.  S.B. 54 creates a conflict, and since the U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, "I must uphold the U.S. Constitution."

From left to right: White, Martinez, Carroll, Lara, and Santos
Councilman Santos stated he used to run a business in East Los Angeles, and he respectfully "did not ask for papers."  He stated he respects all citizens and all immigrants who work hard and respect the United States of America.  However, by the time his verbal gymnastics were completed, the room was no more wiser regarding where he stood on the issue, than before he began speaking.  A person in the audience even shouted out, "we still don't know where you stand on the issue."  Santos remained quiet, tight lipped, and mysterious.

I jotted in my notes he was likely a "no" on opting out of S.B. 54.

Mayor Carroll, the lone woman on the council, said she wanted to remain as non-partisan as possible.  She was not going to voice her opinion on the matter, either.  She thanked the audience for their participation, stating that "Your voice is important."  She realized that issues like the supremacy clause were an important part of the discussion, but because she's "not an attorney," it was not her place to decide the legal implications of the law.  According to Carroll, "it's a legal issue, and we are not lawyers.  We have no jail in Beaumont so we are not releasing criminals.  Therefore, it does not affect Beaumont.  There is no there, there.  It doesn't apply to us."  She stated she believed the whole issue, and the reason so many people appeared to speak on the issue, was because of fear.  She said it all was "fear driven."  She added, "I wish there was something I could do to take away that fear. . . I can't."  She then began to talk about the dangers of "States' Rights," comparing this issue to slavery, and the American Civil War.

She then went into "democracy" mode, indicating if you are "against S.B. 54, go at it.  Put it on the ballot. . . at the State level, not at the city."

"We don't have the right to decide if the federal law is over the line or if the State is over the line.  It's not a city issue. . . I am not the Supreme Court."

My first thought was, "if you have no right to decide if something is legal or constitutional, why are you sitting on the dais, and why did you swear an oath to protect and defend the Constitution?"

Lloyd White chimed in at this point, stating that "S.B. 54 was not the will of the voters. . . it should have gone to a ballot in the first place.  Same thing happened with the gas tax."

Councilman White then made a motion.  He moved that the city council takes a position in opposition of S.B. 54.

He then read a resolution written by the City Attorney. It had a few elements of my ordinance, but was watered down in ways I wouldn't have been willing to do.  Nonetheless, aside from its use of the word "democracy", which always bothers me because I know for a fact we are a republic, it sounded like a step in the right direction.

Councilman Lara, impressing upon the audience the need to ensure the safety of local law enforcement by ensuring coordination between Beaumont Police and federal authorities, seconded the motion.

Councilman Martinez stated that if he were to support the item now being discussed it would make him a "hypocrite."

The City Attorney explained that the resolution is a position, but "will not change anything with the law."

Then the voting commenced.  White voted "yes."  Martinez voted "no."  Carroll voted "no."  Lara voted "yes."

Now, it all came down to Councilman Rey Santos.

I was pretty sure, at this point, that once Santos voted "no," Councilman White had another rabbit in his bag of tricks.  Likely, he would motion that the matter be put on the ballot for the voters of Beaumont to decide it.  Surely, the less than constitution-abiding members who voted "no" would go for that.

As I was thinking about the next move, Santos slowly made his decision, and said, "yes."

What?

Did I hear that clearly?

The resolution to adopt a position against S.B. 54 had passed by a vote of 3-2, with Councilman Santos surprising everyone in the room, including his fellow councilmembers.

Beaumont had just been added to the long list of California cities (and counties) opting out of S.B. 54, California's Sanctuary State law, and I was very proud to be a part of it, and a part of the Tea Party group that made it happen.

I also have noticed that it is mostly Southern California cities and counties opposing Sacramento, of which are closer to the border, and more impacted by the troubles associated with illegal aliens, and the sanctuary status law, S.B. 54, of which the capitol in the north has imposed upon the entire State of California.

The room remained silent, but we were mentally pumping our fists in victory.  The overflow room, however, did not keep decorum, and from across the hall we could hear the cheer and roar of approval.

The whole thing is not over, yet.  The language of the resolution still has to be adjusted, and will seek final approval at the next council meeting, of which, I am of no doubt, the Banning-Beaumont-Cherry Valley Tea Party will be there.

Saturday Morning at 8:00 am, on KMET 1490 AM radio, I will be hosting the Tea Party's radio program, "Conservative Voice Radio."  We will be, I am sure, enthusiastically talking about what transpired on Tuesday Night, and what's next for the Tea Party, and the region the City of Beaumont resides in.

I can't wait for the Tea Party's Tuesday Morning Breakfast Meeting at 8:00 am at the Farm's House Restaurant in Banning.  That will be a very informative, and fun-filled meeting.

But, victories are fleeting.  There is still much work to do, and we are ready for the next issue.

Bring it on!

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary