Friday, June 22, 2018

Judge Steven Bailey: Politicians Placing Police At Risk

Communications Director
(951) 501 9944
Judge Steven Bailey (Ret.) Calls on Californians to Defeat Legislation to Restrict Use of Force by Police Officers
California - Republican Attorney General candidate Judge Steven Bailey (Ret.) is calling on Californians to contact their legislators to express opposition to AB 931 (Weber), a bill that would, among other things, limit use of deadly force by a peace officer to "those situations where it is necessary to prevent imminent and serious bodily injury or death to the officer or another person."

"Police officers are required to make split-second judgments in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving. Use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, not the 20/20 vision of hindsight. That is language straight from the U.S. Supreme Court case Graham v. Connor (1989) but California legislators think they know better."
"Without consulting law enforcement, Sacramento politicians who have never worn a badge colluded with special interests to write a bill that must be soundly defeated in the State Legislature. California legislators are not only defying common sense, they are proposing an unprecedented departure from the standards of criminal and constitutional law." 

"I am calling on all Californians to contact their State Legislators and express their opposition to this radical, misguided proposal. Together, we can beat the special interests and ensure first responders are heard first in Sacramento."
AB 931 passed the Senate Public Safety Committee on a 5-1 vote. Among those who oppose its passage are most California law enforcement organizations: 
Association of Orange County Deputy Sheriffs; California Association of
Highway Patrolmen; California Association of Code Enforcement Officers;
California Coalition of Law Enforcement Associations; California College and
University Police Chiefs Association; California Narcotics Officers Association;
California Peace Officers’ Association; California Police Chiefs Association;
California State Sheriffs’ Association; California Statewide Law Enforcement
Association; City of Oakley; City of West Covina; Cloverdale Police Department;
Fraternal Order of Police; Law Enforcement Managers’ Association; Long Beach
Police Officers Association; Los Angeles Police Protective League; Los Angeles
Professional Peace Officers Association; Peace Officers Research Association of
California; Riverside Sheriffs’ Association; Sacramento County Deputy Sheriffs’

Judge Steven Bailey is honored to have the endorsements of three county sheriffs; four county DAs, and several law enforcement associations representing more than 15,000 police officers throughout California: Los Angeles Police Protective League; Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs; Deputy Sheriffs' Association of El Dorado County; Placer County Deputy Sheriffs' Association; Roseville Police Officers' Association; Rocklin Police Officers' Association. 

For more information on Judge Steven Bailey, visit 
For a full list of endorsements, visit 

Thursday, June 21, 2018

Don't Believe Immigration Children Controversy Message

Turns out Shaun King was wrong. . .
The pic was taken in 2014
during the Obama administration
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Author, Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host

I oppose amnesty.  If a family commits an illegal action, such as breaking into an amusement park, and they are discovered, would the police arrest and expel from the park only the parents and allow the children to remain in the park?  Would the whole family be put into the same jail cell, or would the children be placed under the guardianship of a family services agency until due process has been fully navigated?

Democrats know that while they oppose the family unit (as revealed by their stances that have targeted traditional family values), Americans have a soft part in their heart for families, and children.  So, the Democrats, for no reason other than political expediency, have pulled out a full all-string orchestra to play a sad tune.  The reality is, the whole "children separated from their family" controversy is nothing more than an attempt by the Democrats to stir your emotions on an issue they have been losing on badly, and the issue that launched Donald J. Trump into the presidency.

President Trump is no pushover, and he is using a strategy that is essentially forcing the Democrats to double-down on what beats them.  He is herding them into screaming for an even more extreme position than the Ryan Amnesty plan calls for.  In short, Trump has positioned the Democrats into admitting they are in support of open borders.  Senator Feinstein out of California, for example, has all of the Democrat Senators as co-sponsors on a bill that would push illegal aliens upon 80% of the States.  This bill, alone, could cost the Democrats a few seats in the U.S. Senate in November.

Horror stories, pinning mistreatment of illegal alien children on the Trump administration, are being hysterically painted on the liberal left's journalistic canvas.  The problem is, it is all a bunch of lies, and a desperate attempt to use their losing illegal alien position as a weapon against the current administration.

The Democrats would rather have a campaign issue, than a solution.  They are trying to pin down Trump not because they care about the children, but because they are desperate for votes in an upcoming election that is beginning to look very bad for the Democrat Party.  They are not the party of solutions.  They are the party of problems.  They need crises, and they never let a crisis go to waste.  If there were no problems, what would they run on in the election?

The Democrats weren't willing to seek a solution for immigration when they had a majority in both Houses of Congress while President Obama was in office, so, why would they seek a solution now?

There was never a solution offered by the Democrats then, and there is no solution being offered now, because they would rather use the immigration issue as a political weapon.

The liberal media went nuts when the Associated Press reported that over the six weeks from April 19 through May 31, federal officials separated about 2,000 children from their families at the U.S.-Mexican border.  The Trump administration shot back that the procedure separating kids from their families exists because of the Democrats in Congress.  The reality is, the policy is encased in a law that was put into place under the Clinton administration, then slammed into what it is now by the Democrats in Congress during the Bush administration, and by the courts under the Obama administration.
In 1997, the Clinton administration entered into something called the Flores Settlement Agreement, which ended a class action lawsuit first brought in the 1980s. 
The settlement established a policy that the federal government would release unaccompanied minors from custody to their parents, relatives, or other caretakers after no more than 20 days, or, alternatively, determine the “least restrictive” setting for the child. 
In a separate development, in 2008 the Democrat-controlled Congress approved bipartisan legislation to combat human trafficking and President George W. Bush, a Republican, signed it into law. 
Section 235 (g) in that law, the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act, states that unaccompanied minors entering the United States must be transferred to the custody of the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Refugee Resettlement rather than to the Department of Homeland Security. 
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit expanded the Flores settlement in 2016 to include children brought to the country illegally by their parents. 
For consistency between the provision of the anti-trafficking law and the 9th Circuit’s interpretation of the Flores agreement, children who came into the country illegally with parents had to be taken into HHS custody, said Art Arthur, former general counsel for Immigration and Naturalization Services (now known as Immigration and Customs Enforcement) as well as a former federal immigration judge.
My thing has always been that if you don't want to be separated from your children, don't break the law in the first place.

Jeff Sessions agrees.
“If you’re smuggling a child, then we’re going to prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you, probably, as required by law,” Sessions said. “If you don’t want your child separated, then don’t bring them across the border illegally. It’s not our fault that somebody does that.”
The reality is, there are only a few choices when it comes to our legal response to illegal aliens breaking federal law by breaking into the United States.  We can release the whole family into the United States (open borders), send the whole family back to where they came from (of which the Democrats claim is cruel), or we must give them due process, treat the case as a legal case that is associated with a crime committed, and in the process the family may be separated during processing and the procedure for various reasons (of which the Democrats are complaining about).  Therefore, from the liberal left's point of view, the only solution is open borders.

Never mind that many of these people are not children or innocent little families, but are gang members, criminals, and worse.

The solution is to stop illegal entry into the country in the first place, and ensure that the immigration procedures and vetting process are used as established by law.  Build the wall, tighten security, increase personnel available to handle incoming legal immigration cases, and in turn discourage the breaking of federal law by entering the country illegally.  This will stem the flow, and discourage frivolous asylum cases.  Isn't that what we want?  Stop the abuse of the system, and let's tend to legitimate refugees who truly need help, and are willing to go through the process in place.

As for the idea that children are being separated from parents and then detained in concentration camps, the idea is false.  An image of children in a cage has circulated through the Democrat ranks, but the reality is that the image was snapped in 2014, during the Obama administration.

The Daily Signal reports:
The Department of Homeland Security rejected the comparison, noting that most children caught crossing the border illegally are not detained by federal officials. 
“We have high standards,” Nielsen said during the White House press briefing Monday. “We give them meals and we give them education and we give them medical care. There are videos, there are TVs. I visited the detention centers myself.” 
In the last fiscal year, 90 percent of apprehended children were released to a sponsor who was either a parent or close relative, according to the department. 
Homeland security officials also say they work with HHS to improve and ease communication between detained parents and their children in HHS care. 
Sponsors may be “a parent, adult sibling, relative, or appropriate home that meets criteria for the safety of the child and continuation of any immigration proceedings,” according to DHS. Also, a parent who is prosecuted and later released can be a sponsor and ask HHS to restore custody of the child. 
Immigration and Customs Enforcement has dedicated a facility to operate primarily as a family reunification and removal center. ICE staff who interact with parents will receive training in trauma-informed care, and the agency will assign staff trained in mental health care to detained parents who have been separated from children, according to DHS.
Some of what is being reported is straight out fake news, but the liberal media thrives on sensational stories, even if they are false. CNN, for example, reported last week that an illegal immigrant from Honduras claimed her nursing daughter was pulled away from her before she was handcuffed. CNN cited a lawyer from a liberal legal group called the Texas Civil Rights Project.
In a conference call with reporters last week, a senior Department of Homeland Security official said this was not the case. 
“We do not separate breastfeeding children from their parents. That does not exist. That is not a policy. That is not something that DHS does,” an official told reporters Friday. “We believe that that is false.”
The immigration reform law calling for mandatory E-Verify died.  Now the less desirable bills are moving through Congress.  I am guessing none of them will pass.

The true stories are never told, however.  While the Democrats work on bringing tears to your eyes because criminals may be separated from their children (and remember, many of these children came unaccompanied), what about the MS-13 members posing as children?  What about people like the ranchers along the border who lives with shadows moving across their property, some of those shadows causing damage to their property, or death to their livestock?

The Democrats want entry for all.  Even the animals of MS-13.

While President Trump is doing what he can to stop the separations the Democrats claim the separation of children from their parents by immigration authorities is an endemic problem.  In response, protesters are out in force with violent demands.  While federal officials are working to uphold immigration law, California is not the only location doing what it can to put in jeopardy public safety by blocking federal immigration efforts.  In Atlanta the mayor signed an order blocking the city jail from being used to accept new illegal alien detainees.  Greyhound is being criticized because they "let" the Border Patrol search one of their buses.

Rush Limbaugh says that the opposition to President Trump on this issue is going to wind up getting people killed.  In fact, Limbaugh specifically fingered the media and their fake news on the issue, that that is will be the media who is 'going to get somebody killed'. 

Through it all, Trump has a handle on all of it.  In the end, I believe he is using their game, and their issue, to expose the Democrats for who they really are. The reality is, they don't care about the children, nor do they care about your safety. All they care about is votes, and power.  Trump is using all of this to expose the liberal left for who they really are on this issue. . . supporters of an open, undefended border, and they support such policies specifically for political power, and no other reason.

I think the Republicans should write a bill that is so conservative that not a single Democrat would even consider supporting it.  Let them vote against it.  Let them tell us who they are.  And then, use that information to fuel a Republican insurgency at the voting booth in November.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Paul Joseph Watson: Sex War

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

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Wednesday, June 20, 2018

Tuesday, June 19, 2018

Corona Constitution Class: Slavery Abolished

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

Dangerous People Are Teaching Your Kids

By Joseph R. John

Dangerous People Are Teaching Your Kids

We encourage you to watch the video entitled "Dangerous People Are Teaching Your Kids", forwarded by Professor Jordon Peterson, Professor of Psychology at Praeger University.  The video discusses how, for the last 10 years in the United States, Marxist Progressive teachers in grammar schools, middle schools, and high schools and Radical Marxist Progressive college professors have been refusing to teach students the accurate History of the United States, have been teaching students the US Constitution is no longer relevant, and have been refusing to emphasize the importance of the Bill of Rights, especially “Freedom of Speech.”.

Instead those Marxist Progressives teachers and radical college professors are indoctrinating students in Marxist Progressive ideology, teachings the philosophy of Karl Marx, encouraging students to reject The Free Enterprise System and Capitalism, singing praises of Socialism that hasn’t worked in any nation where it has ever been tried, promoting Equity and Inclusion where no one fails---while minimizing a student’s traditional goal of wanting to stand first in their class, and they continue to  indoctrinate student in the leftists philosophy of Diversity and Identity Politics.  Text books have been modified in that now include anti-Police, anti-Christian, anti-Patriotic, anti-US Constitution, while eliminating inclusion of many of the Founding Fathers, eliminating key events in US History, finding fault with white Americans, etc. 

We encourage you to forward the link to this post and the above video to family, friends, and associates who have children, grandchildren, and/or relatives in school or in college.

Joseph R. John, USNA ‘62
Capt    USNR(Ret)/Former FBI
Chairman, Combat Veterans For Congress PAC
2307 Fenton Parkway, Suite 107-184
San Diego, CA 92108

Then I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, “Whom shall I send, and who will go for Us?” Then I said, “Here am I. Send me!”
-Isaiah 6:8

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Monday, June 18, 2018

California's AB 2943 Counter to Democrat Party's Health Care Argument

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

In modern society the assumption regarding our rights is that government must protect and guarantee our rights. For example, when it comes to health insurance, the common belief is that health care is a right, therefore, government must protect our access to health care against greedy private entities, legally force those corporations and any medical personnel to give us unobstructed access to all health services, and subsidize that access if necessary. As a result, proponents of the modern definition associated with our rights support concepts such as “single-payer”, “universal” or “socialized” health care.

To the liberal left, true liberty is only a silly illusion.  It is their job to control all, and manipulate it as needed.

The real illusion, however, emerges in their contradictions ... their willingness to change direction as needed, for the sake of the utopian agenda they hold dear to their own version religiosity.

If one is going to use their argument regarding health care, then the details of A.B. 2943 in California, put into place and being pushed by the Democrats, is completely contrary to their definition of health care.

A.B. 2943 (bill text) declares “advertising, offering to engage in, or engaging in sexual orientation change efforts with an individual” as illegal under state’s consumer fraud law. Sexual orientation change efforts is defined as “any practices that seek to change an individual’s sexual orientation. This includes efforts to change behaviors or gender expressions, or to eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attractions or feelings toward individuals of the same sex.”

If that is the case, then that means government is doing what it can to block access to counseling if someone who wishes not to wrestle with homosexuality would like to seek that kind of services.  But, I thought the Democrats claim government must clear the path for all health services.  Why, with A.B. 2943, do they seek to obstruct one's access to some health services, while claiming with health care for all that they wish to grant access to all health services?

Health Care, and pretty much everything else, are simply small, intricate, and interchangeable parts of a much larger political game.  They move the pieces, change their stances, and do what they can for only one goal . . . utopia.  It's a jagged road where the rules change constantly, are adjusted constantly, for the sake of their authoritarian desires.  Along the way, with all of the lies and deception going on, there is bound to be contradictions.  They were for the war in Iraq before they were against it.  They were for traditional marriage before they were against it.  They once railed against illegal immigration to protect the unions, and in fact Cesar Chavez spoke out against illegal immigration.  Now, because illegals now pose as a political opportunity, they support illegal immigration.  They used to be for peace at any cost, sticking flowers in the barrels of guns.  Now?  Riots are okay.  Violence in the streets is a part of their game.  How about free speech?  Remember how once, long ago, they fought for freedom of speech, voicing a quick agreement with Voltaire, "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it"?  Now, with political correctness, safe spaces, and hate speech they no longer believe in free speech.  It turned out not to serve their purpose, so now they've changed direction on that issue, too.

As for health care, from their point of view you are only allowed to have the health care that fits their political agenda.  They say they support health care for all, but if your desire for health services defies their agenda, such as aversion therapy, then it won't be allowed.  In truth, they only support health care for the things they politically agree with, and for the things that advances their utopian agenda.

That's where the idea of death panels came from when talking about Obamacare.  When healthcare no longer fits their agenda, it will be rationed, changed, and altered, and those who do not fit the agenda will be led to die for the good of the community.

That is the way of progressivism.  In the end, they are authoritarians seeking more power, be it water rationing, soda rationing, or healthcare rationing.  They seek to perpetuate crises, not solve them, unless somehow a solution may assist in their lust for power, and utopia.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Sunday, June 17, 2018

Father's Day 2018

By Douglas V. Gibbs
AuthorSpeakerInstructorRadio Host

Hebrews 12:7 - Endure hardship as discipline; God is treating you as sons. For what son is not disciplined by his father?

Deuteronomy 1:29-31
Then I said to you, "Do not be terrified; do not be afraid of them. The LORD your God, who is going before you, will fight for you, as he did for you in Egypt, before your very eyes, and in the desert. There you saw how the LORD your God carried you, as a father carries his son, all the way you went until you reached this place." 

It has always struck me that while fathers are so important to the stability of the family unit, and that the family unit is an important building block of our free society, in this feminized culture where the hard left feminists are running around unchecked and amok, the importance of fatherhood has been diminished, and even scoffed at.  It's gone way beyond the story about the football player that makes it to the NFL.  Dad taught the boy how to throw, catch, and tackle.  Dad spent hours each day after working a full day on his job to teach his son the fundamentals, to toughen the boy up, and to attend the games to see his progeny play in a litany of grueling games.  Then, on that professional football field in a stadium full of shouting fans, a television camera moves into position, does a close-up of the boy that became a man with his football helmet sitting next to him on the bench, and with grass stains ground into his knees.  The player looks up, the pride of father's hard work and encouragement.  The young man waves to the camera, and says, "Hi Mom."

In today's society, there is likely no father hanging around for the son to wave to.  Dad has been told he no longer matters, and he has been replaced by the welfare state.

In the black community, for example, in households with only a mom in the home, the poverty rate is 37%. If both parents are in the household, the poverty rate is about 8%. In Black households where both parents are in the house and both are working the poverty rate is 5%.

Dad's role has been diminished across-the-board, however. In all households, whenever Dad is not around, the poverty rate is higher and the likelihood that the children will get into trouble is greater.

Sure, for the most part kids today have the same hang-ups we did, and perhaps more, but instead of sucking it up and growing up, they have become snowflakes who run frightened to safe-zones, blaming their Dad for them being so screwed up.

Such has been the goal of cultural Marxism. We have been
convinced that masculinity is toxic and male aggression is a bad thing. When our boys act like boys they are giving drugs, and are considered to be outside the norm.

While society is trying to convince men to be a second mom, the reality is that Dad is supposed to be a man-maker, and a woman-maker.  He's there for the tough lessons, and the tough discipline.  He's there to show resolve and patience, hard work and self-reliance, personal responsibility and how to do the right thing.  Dad's lessons are the hard lessons of life, the ones that takes a man to reveal toughness.

While Mom is concerned about the fat lip from a fight in the schoolyard, Dad asks, "Did ya win?"  While Mom has been the one to encourage that everyone gets a participation trophy, it's Dad that yanks the engraved metal slice off the base and grabs a marker to write the word "Champion" or "Winner."  I am not putting down Mom.  She has a vital role.  She is there to mother her children.  But it is Dad's job to father them.

So, thank you to all of those fathers, dads, and men who didn't have to step into the role, but did.  Thanks for working hard, demanding the best from us, and teaching us to reach deep down to find in our gut the strength to accomplish whatever it was you were demanding we finished.  Thanks for teaching us to finish the race, shake hands with the opponent, to be proud when we won, and to hold our head up high when we lost.  Thanks for the lessons on how to trouble-shoot, on how to get up early, and work hard late.  Thanks for teaching us to stand and take our hats off during the National Anthem, kneel during prayer, and explaining to us the importance of fighting for freedom and doing so in a godly manner.  Thanks for using your God-given male aggression for serving in the military and fighting in wars, or being those men who stood up in support of our veterans even though you yourself did not make that choice to wear a uniform.  Thank you for saluting the flag, and for revering the Constitution.  Your lessons were the ones that stuck most.

Thanks Mom for the nurturing.  Thanks Dad for the toughening.

Happy Father's Day, 2018.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Friday, June 15, 2018

Miss America Joins Boy Scouts in Fall to Cultural Marxism

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

Cultural Marxism is being waged against America. Soviet President Nikita Khrushchev once said, "We will bury you," and it turns out that through the Democrat Party, and their societal allies, the communists truly are.  The war is being waged all across our culture.  Academia, in the political realm, entertainment, and the media, are all doing what they can to wage the war and destroy our American system.  The warriors are working to destroy our system of liberty, dismantle our free market system, and wipe out the white, male, heterosexual power structure (their words, not mine).

They believe we live in a white supremacist, patriarchal, heteronormative, capitalist system, and all of those things are oppressive and must be washed away before America can be clean, fair, and equal.

They view their movement to be a revolution, a resistance against the capitalistic enemy, and a chance to change the world.  They are fashioning their movement after Karl Marx's teachings, but they are careful not to be so bold to say so out front, because some of us remember that Marx was the father of communism, the grandfather of the Soviet Union, and the man whose ideas lead to hundreds of millions of deaths through genocide after genocide against anyone and everyone who dared to stand against The State.

It is a new Bolshevik Revolution, and President Donald Trump, and the Republican Party, have become the targets of those Marxist revolutionaries.  

I've heard of this kind of thinking before.  History provides example after example of it.  Nazi Germany.  The Soviet Union.  The Khmer Rouge.  Science Fiction writers have constantly warned of the Gray Tyranny, the faceless automatons of society who become nothing more than faceless numbers wearing gray outfits, shaved heads, and a mindless allegiance to a mass collective built on equality in misery.

While Thomas Jefferson wrote that we are all created equal, the Lord gave us unique skills, talents and personalities.  Equality stops at the starting line.  After that, it is up to each of us individually to use our opportunities to create better lives for ourselves.  We have incentives to do well, be it profit, personal satisfaction, or a desire to be the best.

Individualism cannot be trusted, say the Marxists.

In the world of the Cultural Marxist, possessions must vanish, and personal ambition is a crime.  In the world of the Cultural Marxist we are sexless, genderless, colorless, and equal to each other in all ways.  Individualism and anything unique about us that might give us some advantage in the competition of life must be eliminated, so that we are all cookie-cutter copies of each other. In their minds, equality means equity. Therefore, pretty women cannot be allowed to have an advantage in beauty pageants, so the swimsuit competition is being done away with.  

We hear that the Boy Scouts are now welcoming girls to the scouts, and condoms are being handed out to accommodate the change.  Remember, to be a scout, you must be under eighteen.

Coming soon at a near future Miss America Pageant, Miss "so and so" of "such and such" State, who used to be a guy gave their answer to the big question asked.  "World Peace, and love through a large gay rainbow patch I got when I was having sex with my transgender councilor in Scouts.  My gray featureless night gown is made of canvass, and was designed by my local Democratic Socialist Party representative.  All hail the Democrat Party Supreme Leader."

No wonder they want to get rid of the swimsuit competition.  The guys who think they're gals would probably have experienced a bulge problem in their bikini bottoms, and such a thing might remind us that there really is a difference between men and women. . . and we just can't be having such horrible, normative thoughts.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary