DOUGLAS V. GIBBS             RADIO             BOOKS             CONSTITUTION             CONTACT/FOLLOW             DONATE

Tuesday, January 16, 2018

Corona Constitution Class: First Session of 2018


Finally, I am looking at the flu in the rearview mirror.  While I still have some abdominal pain from the strain to my oblique, the coughing is all but history, and the ill feelings are a distant past.  So, let's have our classes.  Tuesday Night in Corona and Thursday Night in Temecula.  Here's our next gathering:


6:00 PM
Tuesday Night
AllStar Collision
522 Railroad St.
Corona, CA


Constitution Class Handout
Instructor: Douglas V. Gibbs
 
 
 
Lesson 6: Powers of the Executive Branch
 
Article II, Section 2
 
Commander in Chief
 
Section 2 of Article II establishes the President as the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States.
 
This allows for the President to wage war, if necessary, without Congressional approval. However, if Congress does not agree with the President's actions, they can pull the funding, which would force a discontinuation of the use of the military for whatever operations the President chose them to operate.  In the Articles of Confederation, the powers to wage war, and to declare war, were listed as separate authorities, although in the Articles of Confederation both powers were granted to the Congress.
 
There were extensive debates over war powers. In fact, when the founders were debating over war powers in regards to Article I during their assembly on August 17, 1787, they considered giving to Congress the power to "make war."  A number of reasons brought up during that debate convinced the delegates to give Congress the power to declare war, instead.  This decision left the power to make war with the President, as Commander in Chief.
 
When the Framers of the Constitution were creating the executive branch, the President they had in mind was George Washington.  He was, in their eyes, the perfect President.   The executive branch was fashioned around Washington's personality, and abilities.  The expectations were that the presidents to follow Washington would be similar to Mr. Washington in their level of sacred honor, humility, and ability to properly apply the war powers as necessary, while refraining from becoming involved in foreign entanglements that did not directly affect the United States of America.
 
Among Washington's strengths was that he was a great general.  It became apparent that the President would need to be a strong military leader.  However, the consideration that an executive may take that power and abuse it was in play.  Therefore, a number of checks and balances against the power of the executive branch were put into place.
 
Part of the reason the power to make war was given to the President, and not Congress, has much to do with the time period.  One must consider that when the members of Congress were at home in their districts, it could be as far as the southernmost State of Georgia.  Considering the lack of technology, members of Congress could not just get on a plane, or take a drive, to get to Washington, D.C., quickly.  Even the time it may take to get the messages out to the members of Congress could take longer than the time needed to begin necessary war maneuvers.
 
When it came to war powers, the need was for the Commander in Chief to be quick, decisive, and take care of business as needed.  However, if we have a President acting in a tyrannical manner, launching military operations when it is not necessary, aside from the ability to electorally vote the President out of office, the Congress has two ways to check his behavior.
 
First, Congress can pull funding.  If there is no money, the troops must be brought home.  Second, the Congress has the power to impeach the President if he is becoming tyrannical, or is doing things that he shouldn't (maladministration).
 
One concern that has arisen in today's political environment, largely as a result of the change in the dynamics of our political system by the 17th Amendment in 1913 that changed the Senate from being the voice of the States, to an assembly directly voted into office by public vote, is if both Houses of Congress are in collusion with the President.  A White House administration with both Houses of Congress working with the President could be a recipe for disaster in regards to the rule of law, creating an opportunity for those three parts of the federal government to collude against the people, which would inevitably lead to the rise of an unchecked oligarchy.
 
In the cases of the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, or Libya, the President had every right to launch those operations.  That is not to say the decisions were correct, or in the best interest of our country, but that the President had the constitutional authority to wage war in those theaters without his actions being accompanied by a congressional declaration of war.
 
When it came to foreign entanglements, the Founders preferred America to stay out of such conflicts unless American interests were directly influenced.  George Washington in his farewell address is actually quite clear on the subject.
 
Congress holding the power to declare war does not mean that the President must ask Congress for permission before waging war.  In today's world it would seem to be the reasonable thing to do, and I believe it would be the proper thing to do, but as far as the Constitution is concerned, congressional approval for a military action is not necessary.
 
A reference used to support the concept of "no war without a declaration" is The War Powers Act of 1973.  The War Powers Act was simply a piece of legislation, and did not change the authorities of the President when it came to his war powers.  The War Powers Act is unconstitutional.  Only amendments can change the authorities granted to the President of the United States.
 
The two Barbary Wars, the first two international wars the United States found herself engaged in, were waged by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison.  Jefferson's engagement against the Muslim States of the Barbary Coast was fought from 1802 to 1805, after Jefferson refused to continue paying a tribute to the Barbary Pirates for safe passage through the Mediterranean Sea.  Hostilities were reignited in 1815, during Madison's presidency.  Both wars were undeclared, waged by Jefferson and Madison without a declaration of war from the Congress, but Congress did appropriate funding for both campaigns.
 
            Calling forth the Militia
 
The President of the United States is not supposed to be all powerful, or the final decision maker in the federal government.  The American System of government is full of checks and balances.  Even as the Commander in Chief, if he is abusing his power as the head of military operations, Congress can defund war efforts, or impeach the President.
 
In Article II the Constitution states that the President is the "Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual service of the United States."  Some have argued that means he is only Commander in Chief when "he" is called into service to do so, which is accomplished by a declaration of war.  That is an erroneous opinion.
 
As Commander in Chief, the President may engage the Army and Navy in war operations as necessary.  This power of Commander in Chief does not extend to the militias at the President's whim.  The President is only the Commander in Chief of the Militia of the several States, when the militia is called into actual service of the United States.
 
The distinction was established so that the President could use military forces against foreign enemies if a quick and decisive decision was necessary, but not against the States, or the American people.  The standing army is not for domestic use to suppress insurrections, or repel invasions.  That is what the militias are for, and the militia can only be put into action by Congress, or State leadership.  The President does not control the militias, nor does he determine when they go into action.  His only relationship with the militias only emerges when they are called into actual service of the United States by the United States Congress.  Then, and only then, the President serves as Commander in Chief over the militias.
 
Article I, Section 8 states that "Congress shall have power to provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel invasions."
 
States cannot call their militia into action "unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay." (Article I, Section 10)
 
Though the President is tasked with "faithfully executing the laws of the United States" as stated in Article II, Section 3, and he can do so with executive departments such as I.C.E., and the Border Patrol, the actual call for the militia (National Guard, State Militias, unorganized militia) to protect the border is the responsibility of Congress, and State leadership.
 
            Executive Departments and Agencies
 
Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 indicates the President may "require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective offices."  This part of this clause is a good indication that the Founding Fathers felt the President should consult others when making decisions, especially those familiar with the departments in question.
 
The existence of the different executive departments is constitutional, as long as they are established to handle constitutional duties of the federal government, and their powers are limited within constitutional allowances.  Originally, there were only four executive departments (and five if you separate the War Department and Department of the Navy); the War Department, the State Department, the Department of the Treasury, and the Department of Justice.  The Department of the Navy served as a separate department until 1947, but worked closely with the Department of War.
 
There are many departments in the executive branch that are unconstitutional, and should not have even been established.  The Education Department, for example, is unconstitutional in its current form because there is no place in the Constitution that gives the federal government the authority to regulate, or be involved in, education.  Therefore, as per the 10th Amendment, education is a State issue. 
 
The Energy Department and the Environmental Protection Agency are also unconstitutional.  The federal government has no authority to regulate those issues.  However, if those departments did not regulate, but only kept studies and records of those issues, then the existence of those agencies may be acceptable.
 
The executive branch can have departments and agencies that study issues not authorized by the Constitution to fall under the federal government, but they cannot have any regulatory power because any federal laws regarding those issues are not constitutionally authorized to the United States Government.  Regulations are directly connected to laws, and laws must be constitutional in the first place in order to be considered the supreme law of the land.
 
Despite these agencies not being legally allowed to regulate unconstitutional law, agencies like the EPA are doing just that.  In fact, the EPA is regulating independently, literally legislating through regulations.  In other words, the EPA, as well as other agencies, have been enacting their own regulations without the benefit of a law being on the books, revealing the danger of having unconstitutional departments and agencies.
 
This is not to say we should not have the various departments and agencies of the executive branch.  Some of them are constitutional, and absolutely necessary.
 
Correction of federal unconstitutionality can be sought through concepts known as Republic Review, and nullification.  By using a convention of delegates from the several States to determine the unconstitutionality of particular laws, actions, or departments of the federal government, the States can be encouraged to work together to nullify the unconstitutional regulations set forth by the various federal agencies.  The States have the authority to take care of their own business, and if a federal agency tries to regulate an issue that falls under the State's powers, the States have the right to ignore that regulation.
 
A common belief is that if we do not have these various federal agencies regulating things like food, energy, and actions against the environment, people will just act in ways that are unacceptable and dangerous.  The opposition to the Constitution will tell you that we need the federal government to make sure that our food is safe, energy is used properly, and corporations are not polluting our fragile environment.
 
Local issues are supposed to be handled at the local level, and the people, through their States, are more than capable of properly regulating these issues as necessary, but in a manner that is consistent with the local opinion of the electorate.
 
The Founding Fathers did not trust a large, centralized, national government, hence, the reason the Framers only granted to the federal government authorities regarding external issues, and the power to act as a mediator between the States in the case of disagreement. 
 
            Reprieves and Pardons
 
The President is also given the power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.  This was one of the first functions President Gerald Ford took advantage of when he took office after President Richard Nixon resigned, pardoning Nixon so that no criminal cases could be brought against him.  No impeachment procedure had ensued, so Ford was constitutionally allowed to grant the pardon.  It has been suggested that is why Nixon resigned.  If he had not resigned, and was impeached, the next President would not have had the authority to pardon him.
 
The President is granted the ability to make treaties and to nominate members to the executive branch, Supreme Court, and other offices not expressly provided for in the Constitution.  Agreement and consent of two thirds of the Senate is necessary for any treaty, or nomination for that matter, to become effective.  The advise and consent powers granted to the United States Senate was a way of disallowing the executive branch from mirroring the centralized British Model of unilateral control under the king.  The authority also gave the States the allowance to approve or disapprove any action by the President by requiring that the Senate concur with two-thirds vote.
 
The purpose of giving advise and consent powers to the U.S. Senate refers us back to the original dynamics of the United States government.  The Senators in the U.S. Senate were appointed by the State Legislatures before the appearance of the 17th Amendment in 1913.  The Senate was the States' representation in the federal government.  The Senators were the voice of the States.  Treaties, appointments, and other executive functions, though executed by the President, requires approval by the Senate.  The States, as with the granting of powers to the federal government in the first place through the articles of the Constitution, had the power to approve or disapprove the President's actions through the U.S. Senate in a manner much like parents grant permission to their children before a child can perform a particular action.  After all, the Senate was the voice of the States, and it was the States that created the federal government in the first place.
 
This was an important check upon the executive branch by the States.
 
The executive branch requiring the consent of the U.S. Senate for some of its actions reminds us of the amendment process.  As with treaties and appointments by the executive branch, amendments must be approved, or ratified, by the States.  In the case of amendments, however, the vote is three-quarters of the States in order to ratify.
 
The federal government, be it through amendments, or executive actions, needs the permission of the States.
 
Remember, the States once held all powers.  It was the States that provided the authorities to the federal government so that it may exist, and function.  The States had original authority over all powers, and decided to grant a few authorities to the federal government so that it may operate in a necessary manner - specifically for the purpose of protecting, preserving, and promoting the union.
 
The States gave permission to the federal government to function in a manner prescribed by the Constitution.
 
An opponent to the originalist viewpoint of the Constitution once said to me, "You have it all wrong.  The federal government tells the States what to do."
 
If that was the case, then why would the President need to get the consent of the U.S. Senate to make treaties, and two-thirds of the Senators present have to concur?  Why would the President's nominations need to be interviewed and approved by the Senate?  And with that in mind, remember that before the 17th Amendment in 1913, the Senate was the voice of the States.
 
The executive can do very little without the Senate's approval.
 
War Powers seems like an exception on the surface, but even the authority to make war has its checks by Congress.
 
For the most part, it is up to the people and the States through Congress to ensure the President does not act in a manner unbecoming of the office.
 
This check is designed to protect us from tyranny.
 
Imagine how different the appointment hearings of Supreme Court justices have become, now that the Senate is no longer the representation of the States, anymore.  The questions are probably very different than they otherwise would be.  Now, the House and the Senate are really not a whole lot different.  They are both voted in by the popular vote.  Before 1913, the Senate was the voice of the States.
 
I wonder how the questions posed to the Supreme Court nominees would be different if the Senate still belonged to the States.  Perhaps the questions would be more in line with protecting State sovereignty.  Surely the concerns of the States would be behind much of the questioning.
 
The 17th Amendment changed the dynamics of our government.  One of the reasons our federal government is constantly acting unconstitutionally is because it is now structured unconstitutionally.  The people voting for the Senators, rather than the Senators being appointed by the State legislatures, is not in line with what was originally intended.  With the voice of the States removed, the government cannot function as intended because the proper checks and balances are not in place.  The 17th Amendment introduced ideology into the Senate, and removed one of the checks necessary to protect us against a federal government constantly seeking to become more expansive.
 
            Recess Appointments
 
The final clause of Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution states: The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.
 
This clause refers to what is called a recess appointment.  A recess appointment is the appointment of a senior federal official (department head, judge, etc.) by the President while the U.S. Senate is in recess.  As the voice of the States in the federal government, the Senate must confirm all appointments of senior federal officers before they assume office.  However, while the U.S. Senate is in recess, and during the early years of this nation that meant they could be a few days ride away, the President can make a recess appointment without Senate confirmation.  However, the appointment only remains in effect until the next session.  A recess appointment must be approved by the Senate by the end of the next session of Congress, or the position becomes vacant again.
 
Remember, the House of Representatives and the Senate were originally made up very differently from each other.  The Representatives go to Washington to serve their district, and to act in accordance with the will of the people in their district, making the House of Representatives literally the voice of the people in the federal government.
 
The Senate was made up of Senators appointed by the State legislatures.  The Senators represented the States, and they made up the State coalition of the federal government.  It was through the Senate that the States had representation in the federal government, and could ensure, along with the House of Representatives, to provide a series of checks against the executive branch.
 
Part of the way to control power is to divide it.  Then, after you divide the power, divide it again.  Then, make the powers of the separate branches different from each other, that way they do not collude together against the people, or other branches of government.
 
One of the fears of the Founders was that the branches would collude together in an effort to take away individual freedoms.
 
By requiring the Senate to confirm appointments by the Executive, it kept a leash on the Executive.  Even in a recess appointment, when the President could appoint without confirmation by the Senate, confirmation would still eventually be needed or else the seat became vacant again.  This kept the Executive from surrounding himself with a group of cronies the States did not approve of.
 
 
Terms:
 
Advise and Consent Powers - Treaties, appointments, and other executive functions, though executed by the President, requires the advise by, and the approval of, the Senate.
 
Collusion - Conspire together.
 
Foreign Entanglements - Unnecessary involvement with other nations.
 
Ideology - A set of political or economic ideas that forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy.
 
Impeachment - To charge with misconduct.  Formal process that may lead to removal of an official accused of unlawful activity; impeachment does not mean the removal from office, though removal from office is often the result of impeachment proceedings.
 
Militia - An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers; a military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency; the whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service.
 
National Government - Any political organization that is put in place to maintain control of a nation; a strong central government that does not recognize the individualism or local authorities of the smaller parts, such as states, of the nation.
 
Nullification - State power to ignore unconstitutional federal law.
 
Nullify - See Nullification.
 
Oligarchy - Government by a few powerful persons, over the many.  A state governed by a few persons.
 
Recess Appointment - The appointment of a senior federal official (department head, judge, etc.) by the President while the U.S. Senate is in recess.
 
Republic Review - A convention of delegates representing the several States in order to audit the laws, actions, and composure of the United States federal government; a review of unconstitutional characteristics of the federal government based on the amendment ratification concept that if it takes three-quarters of the States to ratify an amendment, a quarter (plus one) of the States determining a law, action or department of the federal government to be unconstitutional allows the States to nullify the item.
 
United States Senate - The House of Congress in which each State enjoys equal suffrage of representation, with two Senators per State.  The appointment of Senators was originally by their State legislatures, creating a natural check and balance between the House of Representatives, and the U.S. Senate.  The appointment of Senators was changed to the popular vote of the people by the 17th Amendment in 1913.
 
War Power - Power exercised in the prosecution of war.
 
Questions for Discussion:
 
1.  What is the difference between the power to Wage War, and the power to Declare War?
 
2.  What is meant by "Commander in Chief?"
 
3.  Why should, or shouldn't, the United States engage in foreign entanglements?
 
4.  Why is the War Powers Act of 1973 unconstitutional?
 
5.  How can the States protect against a President abusing his war powers?
 
6.  When are State Militias under State authority, and when are they under federal authority?
 
7.  When is the President the Commander in Chief over the State Militias?
 
8.  Regulatory Agencies are constitutional, but their regulations must conform to what authorities granted?
 
9.  What is the difference between impeachment, and being removed from office?
 
10.  When are recess appointments allowed?
 
11.  What is a pro-forma session?
 
 
 
Resources:
 
Joseph Andrews, A Guide for Learning and Teaching The Declaration of Independence and The U.S. Constitution - Learning from the Original Texts Using Classical Learning Methods of the Founders; San Marcos: The Center for Teaching the Constitution (2010).
 
Madison's Notes Constitutional Convention, Avalon Project, Yale University: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/debcont.asp
 
 
 
Copyright Douglas V. Gibbs 2015
 
 

The Cause of High Black and Brown Jail Numbers

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

According to the NAACP:

Racial Disparities in Incarceration

  • In 2014, African Americans constituted 2.3 million, or 34%, of the total 6.8 million correctional population.
  • African Americans are incarcerated at more than 5 times the rate of whites.
  • The imprisonment rate for African American women is twice that of white women.
  • Nationwide, African American children represent 32% of children who are arrested, 42% of children who are detained, and 52% of children whose cases are judicially waived to criminal court.
  • Though African Americans and Hispanics make up approximately 32% of the US population, they comprised 56% of all incarcerated people in 2015.
  • If African Americans and Hispanics were incarcerated at the same rates as whites, prison and jail populations would decline by almost 40%.
  • Drug Sentencing Disparities
  • In the 2015 National Survey on Drug Use and Health, about 17 million whites and 4 million African Americans reported having used an illicit drug within the last month.
  • African Americans and whites use drugs at similar rates, but the imprisonment rate of African Americans for drug charges is almost 6 times that of whites.
  • African Americans represent 12.5% of illicit drug users, but 29% of those arrested for drug offenses and 33% of those incarcerated in state facilities for drug offenses.

Contributing Factors

  • Inner city crime prompted by social and economic isolation
  • Crime/drug arrest rates: African Americans represent 12% of monthly drug users, but comprise 32% of persons arrested for drug possession
  • “Get tough on crime” and “war on drugs” policies
  • Mandatory minimum sentencing, especially disparities in sentencing for crack and powder cocaine possession
  • In 2002, blacks constituted more than 80% of the people sentenced under the federal crack cocaine laws and served substantially more time in prison for drug offenses than did whites, despite that fact that more than 2/3 of crack cocaine users in the U.S. are white or Hispanic
  • “Three Strikes”/habitual offender policies
  • Zero Tolerance policies as a result of perceived problems of school violence; adverse affect on black children
  • 35% of black children grades 7-12 have been suspended or expelled at some point in their school careers compared to 20% of Hispanics and 15% of whites
Why?

Is the crime in Chicago, Los Angeles, Washington D.C., New York City, Baltimore, and Detroit the fault of Republicans?  Is it all Trump's fault?  Bush's fault?  Who is to blame for the misery we are being told that exists in the inner-cities?

Each of the cities I named are under Democrat Party control.  The blacks in those cities live under Democrat policies, and Democrat leadership.

As a State, California has been under Democrat control (and at times with a super-majority, leaving the Republicans no opportunity to stand against any proposed policy at all) for half of a century. The Golden State, as a result of Democrat control, leads the country in poverty for States, and ranks second overall only to Washington D.C. (another Democrat dominated region). While the State only accounts for about 12 percent of the national population, Californians comprise one-third of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families beneficiaries (i.e. Welfare Programs). California is home to approximately 22 percent of the nation’s homeless population (with 1 in 5 in either Los Angeles or New York City)California has the most people on food stamps.  California regularly ranks in the top ten States when it comes to tax burden.

Who's fault is it that the NAACP statistics shows what it shows?  Who's fault is it that there is higher crime in brown and black neighborhoods?

The first cause is that of the individual.  Individuals have a choice.  The problem is, many of these folks don't realize they have a choice, which brings us to the other cause.  Aside from poor decisions made by individuals (who could have chosen otherwise), among the causes of high black and brown jail numbers, and poverty numbers, is liberal left Democrat Party policies. 

The solution?  Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in a free market based on the principles of the United States Constitution.

But, the Democrats refuse to apply the solution, and the black community largely refuses to admit the obvious.

It's almost like some kind of Stockholm Syndrome.

At what point does the people living in Democrat controlled areas realize that their plight is largely because of the Democrat Party leadership in control of their communities?

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Monday, January 15, 2018

Twitter's Shadow Banning: Project Veritas

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



-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

The Birthday of Martin Luther King, Jr.

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

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. did not march so that Black Nationalists could demand black power and further divide this country along racial lines as they have been doing through groups like the Black Panthers, and movements like the Black Lives Matter movement.

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. did not march so that blacks in America could vote Barack Obama into office because of the color of his skin, rather than the content of his character.

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. did not march so that blacks in America could lead the country in abortions to the point where more black babies are aborted in New York City than born live, each year.

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. did not march so that the black community could go on welfare and throw dad out of the house for the promise of increased government benefits, leading the black community to suffer in poverty as a result of abandoning the traditional family unit (poverty rate for single mother households in the black community is 37%, for households with both parents 8%, for households where both parents work 5%).

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. did not march so that under liberal policies that are legalizing drugs (i.e. marijuana) blacks could get high.

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. did march for the hope that people would be judged individually; not based on the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.  He marched so that Americans could come together and work together against the leftist forces determined to tear down the American System of liberty and free association.  He marched because he believed, "We have an opportunity to make America a better nation…to make America what it ought to be."  He marched so that all Americans would realize that we all have a God-given right to live our lives free from the oppression of tyranny.

Today is Martin Luther King, Jr.'s birthday.  He fought for the individual liberty of all American citizens because Dr. King believed that all lives matter, and all lives should have the opportunity to enjoy the liberty available in America ... if only one were willing to pursue it.

I celebrate the life of Martin Luther King, Jr., who understood that without God, we are not capable of freedom, that without God we live under the rule of man rather than the rule of law, and that without God the liberty and prosperity we so desperately seek is but an illusion.

"Only a virtuous society is capable of freedom."  -- Benjamin Franklin

-- Political Pistachio' Conservative News and Commentary

Nationalist Fallacy

Definitions from list of terms in my book:
The Basic Constitution: An Examination
of the Principles and Philosophies
of the United States Constitution
:
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Author, Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host
The liberal left statist progressive utopianist socialist commies of the Democrat Party love using language, and more specifically, butchered language, to achieve their dastardly deeds.  The word "liberal" used to mean "Jeffersonian," and by using "progressive" they are insinuating they are the only people interested in "progress" and that their kind of change is "progressive", when in reality it is "regressive."  Despite the fact that the Democrats are the party of slavery, the creators of the KKK, the party that established Jim Crow laws, voted against the Reconstruction Amendments, against the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and 1964, support abortion of which targets the black community and was first inspired by racist Margaret Sanger who created Planned Parenthood with the goal of eliminating "human weeds" (who is also Hillary Clinton's hero), and the party of whom continues to perpetuate the plantation - but, through political means, pushing dependency upon government rather than dependency upon the slaveholder.

The Democrats have done the same thing with the word "Nationalist" and "Nationalism," and to my horror, conservatives have adopted the word, claiming it is a way to combat the Democrats.  The problem is, both sides are playing with a definition without truly knowing what it is.

A Nationalist is one who pushes for national unity through big government.  Is that what conservatives consider themselves to be?

Of course, not.

NAZI stood for the National Socialist German Worker's Party.  For the purpose of their argument, the eyes of the Democrats have glazed over the word "Socialist" and have keyed on the fact that the NAZIs were Nationalists.  The insinuation then follows that if you are a person who wants to put your country first, that makes you a Nationalist, and if you are a Nationalist you are no different than a NAZI, which also makes you a racist.  Therefore, from the point of view of the Democrats, if you are a "Nationalist", you are automatically a NAZI, fascist, and racist.

That's like saying that since most criminals in prison don't like broccoli, if you don't like broccoli you must be a criminal.  The conservatives making that argument have a good point in their argument, but that still does not make me want to embrace the term "Nationalism."

First of all, the NAZI and fascist accusations are not only ridiculous, they are politically false.  NAZIs weren't necessarily fascists, though they were called that because of NAZI Germany's close connection with Italy.  The Germans were socialists, but considered themselves to be different from the communists, even though the two ideologies were very similar.  Mussolini was a fascist.  Fascism is just another form of socialism, however.  So even the fascists were not necessarily anti-communist as they claimed.  They simply sought the utopia that communism was seeking in a different manner.  The fascists believed that Marx's revolution had failed, so they tweaked the method and were ready to try again.

Under socialism/communism the government takes ownership of the means of production, allegedly in the name of the people, until the selfish sin of profit is shed by the people and they learn to live in utopian harmony.  Then, government is supposed to fade away, leaving the means of production in the hands of the workers, with no bourgeoisie remaining to exploit the workers for their own profit.

Under fascism, instead of the government controlling the means of production by taking over ownership of the means of production, the means of production remains in the hands of the private sector, but the government controls the means of production through heavy regulation.  This is done until the selfish sin of profit is shed by the private sector, and the workers are treated as equals, and they all learn to live in utopian harmony.  Then, government is supposed to fade away, leaving the means of production in the hands of the workers, with no bourgeoisie remaining to exploit the workers for their own profit.

In both cases the government used violence and fear to put their ideology in place.  Street riots and the silencing of all opposition was put into full force.

With just that short study of history, it is already apparent that the Trump Train does not fall under that category.  In fact, the supporters of the Democrat Party are closer to the fascist and socialist descriptions - with the thuggishness of Black Lives Matter, La Raza and Antifa fueling the drive to eliminate the alleged bourgeoisie.

As for the Nationalist label (and sometimes "White Nationalist" label), this is not something conservatives should be embracing.  While I agree that wanting to put America First is not necessarily a sign of protectionism, socialism, fascism, or racism, putting America First is not necessarily exactly in tune with the historical definition of nationalism, either.

One may consider the important distinction between a nationalist, and a patriot. Patriotism is the wholesome, constructive love of one’s land and people. Nationalism is the unhealthy love of one’s government, accompanied by the aggressive desire to build a centralized governmental system to a point that it is above all else, and becomes the ultimate provider for the public good. In short, Patriotism is love of country, Nationalism is love of government.

The frame of reference of the Founding Fathers was the British Empire. In their independence, the patriots of America desired to be as nothing like the tyranny they had won their independence from as possible. The Founding Fathers, based on their own experiences, the experiences of the colonists before them, and the realities of history, determined that freedom for individuals was best served when the governmental system was limited by the chains of a constitution. Nationalists believe that government should have the authority to enact any act of government for the purpose of forceful benevolence. But if an individual is being forced, how is it benevolent?

In the American system, the States hold original authority. All powers originally belonged to the States, and only the authorities necessary for the protection, preservation, and promotion of the union were granted to the federal government by the States. “Big Government” is when the central government expands beyond the authorities granted to it. This kind of governmental expansion is normally an attempt to transform the central government into a more nationalist system. The danger of nationalism is one of the reasons the Founding Fathers created a “federal” government, rather than a “national” government.

Thomas Jefferson, while envisioning the expansion of the territories and States under the name "United States of America", foresaw the republic's future as being very different. Rather than "nationalism," he embraced the concept of republicanism. Under republicanism, while the expansion of the United States may still occur, patriots like Jefferson envisioned that growth being through territories and countries voluntarily applying to become States in the United States (if it had not been for the Missouri Compromise, based on their requests for joining the United States, much of northern Mexico, Cuba, and the Yucatan Peninsula would be States in the U.S.).

The advent of fascism, and more specifically, Hitler's Nazism, which led to the Second World War, added racist and socialist components to the original definition of nationalism. The definition of nationalism, from the rest of civilization's point of view, came to mean the drive for a "master race" (racism), and "marked by a feeling of superiority over other nations".

Since "marked by a feeling of superiority over other nations" is now considered a fascist definition in the minds of the Marxist Democrats who seek equality at any expense, even if that means equality in misery, Trump's America First message was twisted into being a fascist message.

The liberal left has, since the election of Donald Trump (of whom they now regularly call a nationalist) lumped anything they disagree with into the nationalism pile of soundbites. From their point of view, nationalism is a racist, white supremacist, gun-toting, bible-thumping, segment of society who wants to bring back Jim Crow laws, and are willing to treat the Muslims and Mexicans the same way the Nazis treated the Jews.

Except, their new definition of "if it opposes liberalism it must be nationalist" definition of nationalism is not fully accurate. While some of the more notorious things they claim to be nationalist are actually close to being correct, it's not Republicans who embrace those things. White Nationalism was created by the Democrat Party during the Civil War Era. The KKK was created by the Democrat Party to act as a militant arm of the party to stop blacks and white Republicans from voting in The South during the Reconstruction Period. Jim Crow laws were also a creation of the Democrat Party. As for the strong central government as suggested nationalism means by the Founding Fathers, isn't it the Democrats who constantly seek to expand the powers of the federal government, despite the fact that such expansion is in complete opposition to the United States Constitution?

The claim of racism against the Republicans is nothing new.  It's a worn out argument.  From the Democrat point of view, the racists fled the Democrat Party for the GOP as a part of the Southern Strategy.  It is claimed the Republicans sought the racists to win The South during the Sixties and Seventies.  The problem is, it is simply not true.  The South began voting Republican in the late nineties, and did so not because the racists flipped parties, but because the South was beginning to embrace industry and the free market - which naturally convinces people that the Democrats are the enemy of the free market due to the left's support of heavy regulations and industry killing fees and taxes.  Therefore, once a segment of the population becomes entrepreneurial, it encourages them to move towards the GOP.  Besides, despite all of the arguments, the Democrat Party is still the party of slavery, Jim Crow laws, the KKK, and racism.  Their policies prove it every day.  The idea that there was some kind of racist flip from the Democrats to the Republican Party is laughable.

When it comes to the modern twisted definition of nationalism, the "Bible-Thumping", "gun-toting" part was added because of the liberal left's disdain for God, and their disagreement with enabling a population to arm itself so as to defend against the tyranny the leftists so eagerly desire.

In short, most of what the liberal left Democrats accuse Trump, and his supporters, of being are actually attributes of the Democrat Party, but because they threw "religion" into the mix, they claim his alliance with church leaders just proves he's some kind of fascist nationalist even more so.

During the early years of the United States, the constitutional principles and philosophies that guided this country were very simple. The authorities the federal government have are expressly enumerated in the U.S. Constitution, and if the power is not listed, the federal government does not have the power; the federal government was created to handle the external issues, conflicts between the States, or anything that directly influences protecting, promoting, or preserving the union; the States are unique, individual, autonomous entities who handle their own issues and interests within their borders (Tenth Amendment: Since the States have original authority over all issues, if the federal government does not have an authority over an issue, and the issue is not prohibited to the States, the authority over the issue belongs to the States); we do not have three co-equal branches, the Congress is supposed to be the strongest of the three, followed by the President, and the judiciary; separation of church and state does not exist in the Constitution - the politicians prayed, and the pastors preached politics, but both restrained themselves from taking control of the other - the strength of America was in its churches - even Benjamin Franklin understood that "only a virtuous people are capable of freedom".  The States are the parents over the federal government.  The federal government was not established to rule over the country, but to serve the States and We the People.

If we are not a godly country, we are not capable of liberty, or the principles of the U.S. Constitution.

President Donald Trump at the Values Voter Summit, a gathering of Christian conservatives who call for America to return to being a godly nation, and a group who expects our leaders to place God above politically perceived government powers and elite positions, summed it all up nicely at the Christian convention. "We Don't Worship Government, We Worship God."

Nationalists worship government.  Therefore, either Trump is not a nationalist, or he is a very good liar.  That said, historically, it has been the Democrats who have been working feverishly to expand the scope and power of government.  In truth, they are the nationalists.

The Democrat Party owns each and every thing they accuse the Republican Party and Trumplicans of being.  They are projecting who they are.  Conservatives and Republicans should never claim the words "Nationalist" or "Nationalism" because we believe in less government, a Laissez Faire approach that calls for letting things take their own course, for government to not interfere in the basic workings of a free market economy, and we believe in localism (local issues handled by local government, not the federal government). Each and every thing the liberal left Democrats claim are attributes of the GOP are actually their own animal. It is the Progressive Democrats who believe in a stronger central government and the use of authoritarianism.  It is the Progressive Democrat who has been fighting for an increase of central government control over all issues, using government to bring about societal reform, and federal supremacy over the States on all issues.

They are the American version of a socialist, pushing for central government control over the means of production.

It is the Democrats who are actually the purveyors of White Nationalism - which was created by the Democrats during the slave era.

It is the Democrats who are aligned with Antifa, a group that calls themselves anti-fascists, but use fascist methods, and call for a stronger central government - because they are communists.

It is the Democrats who have been aligned with Black Lives Matter, whose foundation can be found in Black Nationalism, a racist and Marxist ideology calling for preferential treatment by the central government of one ethnic group, and an ideology that has been calling for federal supremacy over all issues.

It is the Democrats who have more in common with the Nazis, which is national socialism, calling for stronger central government through fascist and nationalist means.  Hitler's top issues during his campaign for President of Germany were free health care for all and gun control.  Sound familiar?

It is the Democrats who have always defended and promoted communism.  Like John Lennon, the Democrats are in lock-step with the communists with their impossible desire for a utopia where possessions are a thing of the past, where religion is a thing of the past, and where the proletariat rises up as a result of the central government controlling the means of production, and after the central government achieves societal reform, handing the reins over to the worker class.

It is the Democrats who have always been the White Supremacists.  White Supremacy in America was created by Democrats during the era of slavery.  It was the Democrats who called for citizenship to extend to one ethnic group and for that to be controlled by a strong central government.

It is the Democrats who created and funded the KKK (Ku Klux Klan).  The KKK was created by the Democratic Party during the Reconstruction Period to enforce white supremacy rule and to terrorize blacks and white Republicans in order to keep them from voting.  And, even today, the members of the KKK believes in federal supremacy in order to enforce their policies - a concept completely alien to the Republican Platform.

The Democrats, and each of the groups mentioned, believe in bigger government. They all believe in instituting a strong central government in order to achieve their aims. They are all left-wing, and they are all cousins of each other. Conservatism and Constitutional Originalism have nothing in common with those groups.

In short, there is no alt-right, and folks who are right-of-center are not nationalists.  The terminology being used by the Democrat Party are attacks designed to mess with the lexicon so that the Democrats can steer the bloodhounds off of their own racist and Marxist fingerprints on American History.

I cringe when I hear conservatives using the word "nationalism" or "populism" to describe themselves, or the supporters of President Trump.  We need to understand that it is in our best interest to toss those terms aside. Nationalism is a leftist construct that calls for central government control, and populism is pure democracy (mob-rule, which leads to mob-violence) . . . both of which are Democrat Party animals, and both of which do not represent conservatism, nor the original intent of the U.S. Constitution. As Constitutional Conservatives we believe this country is a republic, not a democracy, that government must be restrained to only the authorities granted by the Constitution, and that all men are Created Equal (that means God's definition of equality, not man's. . . man's definition of equality finds its roots in Marxism, and calls for equal misery - which is in complete opposition to equal opportunity, self-reliance, personal responsibility, and a pursuit of wealth in a free market economy that can be achieved based on the level of work and talent).

The claim of "Nationalism" is propaganda.  Nazi-style propaganda carefully crafted to trap us in a box, and diminish our message of liberty and freedom.  We must not assist the liberal left Democrats in their assault by adopting those terms for ourselves.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Sunday, January 14, 2018

Back to Basics 2018 Coming up

Douglas V. Gibbs Author, Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host will be giving a presentation titled "Four Keys to Understanding the U.S. Constitution.  This year's event is titled: Transformational Education Homeschool Conference.


Saturday, January 13, 2018

Hawaii's False Ballistic Missile Alert

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

With all of the threats coming out of North Korea, and the liberal left media hammering on Trump for daring to point out that the U.S. Nuclear Button is bigger and badder than that of the pudgy dictator in Pyongyang, it is no surprise that when a ballistic missile warning was sent out by Civil Defense in Hawaii, everyone was very nervous.  The warning came out at 8:00 am, reading on their phones as: 'BALLISTIC MISSILE THREAT INBOUND TO HAWAII. 'SEEK IMMEDIATE SHELTER. THIS IS NOT A DRILL'.

Pandemonium broke out, but once level heads contacted Civil Defense, folks learned that it was a mistake.

The alert sent people scrambling for shelters and their cars, and online for additional news.  The false alert was confirmed false within about 15 minutes.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Constitution Radio: Trump Under Fire. . . Still

Constitution Radio
Produced and Hosted by
Douglas V. Gibbs
AuthorSpeakerInstructorRadio Host

Co-hosts:

Alex Ferguson: Conservative Cannonade
Dennis Jackson: Executive Producer of 
Enemies Within MOVIE

Saturday, 1:00 pm - 3:00 pm Pacific

KMET 1490-AM
Listen Online at:
www.kmet1490am.com

Call into the program live at 
951-922-3532

Podcast available later at: soundcloud.com/kmet-1490-am/sets/constitution-radio



CarStar/AllStar Collision Big Stories of the Week - January 13, 2018:
  • Natural Rights and Government Authority
  • Iran's Protests Supported by Trump
  • Cliven Bundy Mistrial
  • Arpaio for U.S. Senate
  • California Rejects Trump Tax Reform, Plans End Around
  • Jeff Sessions Reverses Obama Marijuana Policy
  • Trump's Right About $hithole Countries

  • Hillary Lied, Media Lied, about Trump Dossier

Trump's Right - Those Countries are $hitholes

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

As a Navy Veteran, I have been to places the average American has not, and truth be told, many of them were $hitholes.

President Trump said the obvious, recently, calling Haiti and countries in Africa $hitholes when indicating that the United States is taking far too many immigrants in from these countries.

The liberal left Democrats went into crybaby mode.  How dare Trump call the people of those countries a bunch of . . . 

Wait!!!

Trump did not say the people of these countries are anything less than people, and he was not being racist.  But, the liberal left's emotional knee jerk tendencies took his $hithole comment to mean he was saying the people themselves were a bunch of $hitholes.

The sickening nature of the countries being referred to are $hitholes, not because of the people, but because of the political system they follow - a political system based on the same fundamental principles as leftist liberalism being practiced by the Democrat Party.

If we take a look in history, the truth is obvious.  Limited government and systems based on a free and dynamic economic market prosper and thrive, while countries that follow the collectivistic big government principles of leftism become $hitholes.  It's not a mean-spirited comment, it is simply the truth.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Conservative Voice Radio: Trump Hysteria


Conservative Voice Radio

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

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

Listen live at www.kmet1490am.com or listen later at the podcast page.

Today's topics:

- Great Britain Rations Health Care

- Democrats Threaten 25th Amendment Against President Trump

- Beaumont Postpones Sewer Rate Increase

- California Declares State Taxes are Charity to Avoid Trump Tax Reform

- SCOTUS: Rules Against Sharia and Gay Agenda

- Joe Arpaio to Run for U.S. Senate

- Jeff Sessions Reverses Obama Marijuana Policy