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

Thursday, July 28, 2016

Temecula Constitution Class, Tonight, Judicial Branch

Temecula Constitution Class, Article III, Judicial Branch, Continued... Join us tonight at Faith Armory in Temecula
Temecula Constitution Class
Thursdays, 6:30 pm
Faith Armory
41669 Winchester Road
Temecula, CA  92590

Constitution Class Handout
Instructor: Douglas V. Gibbs
douglasvgibbs@reagan.com



Lesson 08

Judicial Branch

Establish Justice

The United States Constitution was written to establish a federal government for the United States of America. Article III establishes the federal court system. Article I, Section 8 gives the Congress the power to "constitute tribunals inferior to the supreme Court." Given the power to establish these courts, Congress also has the authority to do away with any of these inferior courts. This power of Congress is repeated in Article III, Section 1 during the first sentence.

When reading Article III, one must keep in mind the fact that the article was specifically written to affect the federal court system, not the state courts. The authorities contained within this article, and the restrictions thereof, are to be applied to the federal courts, not the state courts. One must also bear in mind, as one reads this article, the additional limits placed on the federal courts by the 11th Amendment. No case against a state by citizens of another state, or by the citizens or subjects of a foreign state, shall be heard by a federal court.

In other words if citizens of a State sues a State, or foreign government sues a State, the case can't go to the federal courts. The highest that case can go is the State Supreme Court. These limitations placed upon the court system by the 11th Amendment were proposed by the people (House of Representatives) and the States (Senate), and finally ratified by the States, in order to better control a federal court system that was attempting to compromise State Sovereignty. Judges, the lesson of the 11th Amendment shows us, are not the wielders of the rule of law. They are not the powerful men of honor when it comes to the law. The guardians of the rule of law are the people, and the States. The courts had proven that they can become an enemy of the law, proclaiming that their rulings are the rule of law, but as the 11th Amendment reminds us, the judges are merely men, and their system is the rule of man attempting to manipulate the law through their rulings. For their bad behavior, the people and the States judged them, and further limited them with a new constitutional amendment.

Good Behavior

The conventional understanding of the terms of federal judges is that they receive lifetime appointments because no time restriction is placed upon them in the Constitution. The only limitation on term placed upon the judges can be found in Article III, Section 1 where the Constitution states that judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, "shall hold their offices during good behavior." Conventional wisdom dictates that bad behavior is defined as unlawful activities.

The definition of bad behavior is not limited to only illegal activities. Judges take an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the United States Constitution, which is the Law of the Land. Bad behavior, then, from the point of view of the Founding Fathers, may also include unconstitutional actions, or failure to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution.

Impeachment by Congress may be used if a judge acts in bad behavior. If a judge refuses to attend the hearing at the behest of the United States Senate, the federal marshall may be used to retrieve the judge, and compel them to stand before Congress to answer for their bad behavior. Congress is the check and balance against the courts, not the other way around.

Limits

The powers of the federal courts "shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority."

The federal courts, in other words, may hear all cases that fall within their authority. These cases are regarding those in which the federal government has authority, be it by laws passed within the authorities granted to the federal government by the Constitution, or regarding issues related to treaties made that have been signed by the President and ratified by the U.S. Senate. The courts may not hear cases that are regarding issues not within the authorities of the federal government.

A recent example would be the flurry of federal court rulings against State laws defining marriage as between a man and a woman. In California, the State's attempt to protect the government definition of marriage was with Proposition 8. The proposition changed the State Constitution to read that marriage is between a man and a woman. Marriage is not an issue that falls under the authorities of the federal government as expressly granted by the Constitution, nor is the issue of marriage prohibited to the States. Therefore, as per the authorities granted, and not granted, in line with the 10th Amendment, the government authority over marriage is reserved to the States. Since the issue of marriage is a State issue, the case should not have gone beyond the State Supreme Court. The federal courts hearing the case regarding Proposition 8, or any of the State laws regarding marriage, are acting unconstitutionally. The governors of these States, whose marriage laws were overturned by an activist federal court system, have the right to disregard all rulings by the federal courts on this issue. The action of ignoring the rulings is a type of nullification, and States have the right to nullify unconstitutional laws or actions by the federal government..

Other limitations have been placed upon the federal courts as well. The 11th Amendment changed the intent of Article III. As limited as the courts were supposed to be, the Founding Fathers realized the courts weren't limited enough, and as a result, the 11th Amendment wound up being ratified in 1795. The 11th Amendment was encouraged by a federal case called Chisolm v. Georgia (1793).

Chisolm v. Georgia (1793)

An increasing problem with federal intrusion on the States via the federal court system culminated in the case of Chisholm v. Georgia in 1793, which eventually led to the proposal, and ratification, of the 11th Amendment. A citizen of South Carolina sued the State of Georgia for the value of clothing supplied by a merchant during the Revolutionary War. After Georgia refused to appear, claiming immunity as a sovereign state, as per the Constitution (Article III, Section 2) the federal courts took the case. The judges in the court system tended to embrace a nationalist view of the federal government, and their nationalist point of view encouraged the judges to deem that in the Chisolm v. Georgia case, Georgia was not a sovereign state, therefore the Supreme Court entered a default judgment against Georgia. What ensued was a conflict between federal jurisdiction and state sovereignty that reminded the anti-federalists of their fears of a centralized federal government consolidating the states, and destroying their right to individual sovereignty.

Realizing that the clause in Article III gave the federal courts too much power over state sovereignty, Congress immediately proposed the 11th Amendment in order to take away federal court jurisdiction in suits commenced against a State by citizens of another State or of a foreign state. This is the first instance in which a Supreme Court decision was superseded by a constitutional amendment, and evidence that the founders saw the legislative branch, and the States, as being a more powerful part of government over the federal judiciary.
Authorities

The 10th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America states that the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, or prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. The federal courts are included in that, as being a part of the United States federal government. As a result of the nature of how federal authorities are granted, the federal court system can only hear cases that fall within the constitutional authorities for the federal government.

When one understands the importance of protecting state sovereignty, and that the courts are supposed to be very limited in their scope and power, Article III becomes much simpler to understand.

As stated earlier in this section, the first sentence of Article III, Section 2, reads: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States (which are only supposed to be passed if they are within the authorities granted by the Constitution), and Treaties made . . .

Notice the phrase, "arising under this Constitution." If the case is not involving the federal government as one of the parties, or is not regarding an issue that falls under the authorities of the U.S. Constitution, the federal courts can simply not take the case. The State Supreme Court, in those cases, is the highest court the case can go to.

Judicial Review

Federal judges maintain that the federal courts have the power of judicial review, or the power to determine the constitutionality of laws. In response to the judicial urgings for the powers to judge the extent of the federal government's powers, in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison warned us that giving the federal government through its courts the power of judicial review would be a power that would continue to grow, regardless of elections, putting at risk the all important concept of the separation of powers, and other much-touted limits on power. The final arbiters of the Constitution are not the courts, argued the Founding Fathers who supported the foundation of limiting principles of the U.S. Constitution. The power of the federal government must be checked by State governments, and the people. The States and the People are the enforcers and protectors of the U.S. Constitution.

In today's society it is commonly accepted that one of the roles of the federal court system is to interpret the Constitution, and issue rulings determining the constitutionality of laws. The Constitution does not grant this authority. The power of Judicial Review was given to the courts by themselves.

The first attempt to establish "Judicial Review" as an authority to the federal court system was through the Judiciary act of 1789, but the authority allowing the United States federal courts to hear a civil case because the plaintiff has alleged a violation of the United States Constitution, federal law, or a treaty to which the United States is a party, was limited to only the United States Supreme Court. The lower federal courts, at this point, were not allowed hear cases questioning the federal government's "federal question jurisdiction." Anti-federalists, and Jefferson Republicans immediately railed against the legislation, arguing that legislation cannot determine authorities granted.

The Federalists, in an attempt to allow the lower courts to wield the power of judicial review, briefly created such jurisdiction in the Judiciary Act of 1801, but it was repealed the following year. Unable to establish the federal court system as the final arbiters of the United States Constitution through legislative means, the Federalists turned to the courts themselves to drive into place the controversial authority.

During John Adams' final moments in the presidency, he appointed a whole host of "midnight judges" (appointing 16 Federalist circuit judges and 42 Federalist justices of the peace to offices created by the Judiciary Act of 1801) in the hopes of retaining federalist control of the courts as Jefferson's Democratic-Republicans gained control of the Congress, and Jefferson himself accepted the presidency.

Thomas Jefferson's Democratic-Republicans were appalled by the appointment of the Midnight Judges, recognizing the stacking of the courts as a desperate attempt by the Federalists to try and continue Federalist influence despite their election loss. In Jefferson's view, the Federalists "retired into the judiciary as a stronghold . . . and from that battery all the works of Republicanism are to be beaten down and destroyed."

While Adams was still in office, most of the commissions for these newly appointed judges were delivered. However, unable to deliver all of them before Adams' term expired, some of them were left to be delivered by the incoming Secretary of State, James Madison. Jefferson ordered them not to be delivered, and without the commissions delivered, the remaining new appointees were unable to assume the offices and duties to which they had been appointed to by Adams. In Jefferson's opinion, the undelivered commissions were void.

One of those appointed judges was a man named William Marbury. He sued, and the case worked its way up to the Supreme Court. After all of the dust settled, on February 24, 1803, the Court rendered a unanimous (4-0) decision that Marbury had the right to his commission, but the court did not have the power to force Madison to deliver the commission. Chief Justice Marshall wrote the opinion of the court, and in that opinion he wrote that the federal court system has the power of judicial review. Rather than simply applying the law to the cases, Marshall decided, based on case law and precedent, that the courts have the authority to determine the validity of the law as well. This opinion, however, went against all of the limitations placed on the courts by the Constitution.

One of the most obvious fundamental principles of the Constitution is the limitations it places on the federal government. The Constitution is designed not to tell the federal government what it can't do, but to offer enumerated powers to which the authorities of the federal government are limited to. The powers are granted by the States, and any additional authorities must also be approved by the States through the ratification of any proposed amendments. It takes 3/4 of the States to ratify an amendment. The congressional proposal of an amendment, with the ratification of that amendment, in the simplest terms, is the federal government asking the States for permission to a particular authority.

The power of Judicial Review, or the authority to determine if laws are constitutional, was not granted to the courts by the States in the Constitution. The courts took that power upon themselves through Justice Marshall's opinion of Marbury v. Madison.

The federal courts are a part of the federal government. The Constitution was designed to limit the authorities of the federal government by granting only a limited number of powers. Judicial Review enables the federal government, through the courts, to determine if the laws that the federal government made are constitutional. In other words, the federal government, through Judicial Review, can determine for itself what its own authorities are.

The idea that the federal court system has the authority to interpret the Constitution, and can decide if a law is constitutional or not, is unconstitutional, and is simply an attempt by those that believe in big government to gain power, and work towards a more centralized big federal governmental system.

Original Jurisdiction

In Article III, Section 2, Clause 2 the Constitution reads: "In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction."

What this means is that in all of those above listed cases, the federal appellate courts cannot take the case. Such cases must bypass the federal appellate system, and go straight to the Supreme Court. Since one of those stipulations is in regards to cases "in which a State shall be a Party," that means that the case "U.S. v. Arizona" where the federal government sued Arizona to block the State's immigration law, was unconstitutional. It was unconstitutional for the inferior federal courts to hear the case. The Supreme Court had original jurisdiction. Therefore, when the district court ruled in July of 2010 on the case, and struck down parts of the Arizona immigration law, not only did that court not have jurisdiction to hear the case in the first place, but the very act of striking down portions of the law was unconstitutional. After all, Article I, Section 1 grants the legislative branch all legislative powers, and those powers would include the ability to strike down law. The courts were not vested with any legislative powers, and therefore cannot strike down laws, or portions of laws.

Trial by Jury

Article III, Section II, Clause 3 sets up the right to a trial by jury, except in the cases of impeachment.

This clause also requires that a trial must be held in the state where the crime was committed. If the crime was not committed in any particular state, then the trial is held in such a place as set forth by the Congress.

Treason

Article III, Section 3 defines treason, as well as the granting of the power by the Congress to declare the punishment. When the Constitution says that "no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attained," it means that the punishment cannot be inherited or passed down (corruption of blood), nor shall the person be denied due process (attainder).

Corruption of blood also means that all inheritable qualities are destroyed, and the Founding Fathers did not believe this English practice should be an American one.

No forfeiture meant that despite treason, the properties of the person could not be forfeited to the government. The property would remain as property of the individual, or remain with family. Even when it came to the despicable act of treason, the founders believed that the individual should be able to retain certain rights.

Terms:

Corruption of Blood: Punishment inherited or passed down, all inheritable qualities are destroyed.

Judicial Review: The unconstitutional authority of the federal courts to review law, interpret the Constitution regarding laws, and then determine the constitutionality of laws.

Original Jurisdiction: In the Constitution the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction on some cases, which means the case must proceed directly to the Supreme Court, and the high court must make a determination on whether or not to accept the case.

Treason:Levying war against the States, or adhering to the enemies of the States, giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

Questions for Discussion:

1. How would life in the United States be different if there was no federal court system?

2. Why did the Founding Fathers limit the authorities of the federal courts?

3. How has Judicial Review changed our system of government?

4. Why do you think the Supreme Court has Original Jurisdiction over some cases?

5. In what ways is the presence of a Judicial Branch important?

Resources:

Draft of the Kentucky Resolutions (Jefferson's Draft), Avalon Project, Yale University:http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/jeffken.asp

Madison's Notes Constitutional Convention, Avalon Project, Yale University:http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/debcont.asp

Virginia Resolution - Alien and Sedition Acts, Avalon Project, Yale University:

Copyright: Douglas V. Gibbs, 2015

Would be Reagan Assassin John Hinckley, Jr. Released

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Mental health patient, or not, John W. Hinckley Jr. is a potential killer.  Nonetheless, a federal judge has ordered that Hinckley be released.  Hinkley is the man who attempted to assassinate President Ronald Reagan March 30, 1981 - only 69 days into Reagan's presidency.  Reagan's wound to the chest was the result a bullet that ricocheted off a limousine.

At first nobody was aware that Reagan had been shot.  He insisted on walking into the emergency room, entering the hospital unassisted.  Inside the hospital Reagan said he was having difficulty breathing.  At that point, his knees buckled, and he went down on one knee.

Reagan went into shock, and normally an elderly man in Reagan's predicament would not be able to survive.  The 70 year old, however, was in excellent physical health, which was one of the contributors to his survival.  Another factor that led to Reagan's survival was the fact that it had been decided to take him directly to the hospital, rather than to the White House.

Ronald Reagan was known for being quick witted, and his quips did not cease while on a hospital bed.  When his wife, Nancy, arrived, Reagan said, "Honey, I forgot to duck."  While intubated, he scribbled to a nurse, "All in all, I'd rather be in Philadelphia."  In the operating room, Reagan removed his oxygen mask to joke, "I hope you are all Republicans." The doctors and nurses laughed, and the lead doctor, Joseph Giordano, a liberal Democrat, replied, "Today, Mr. President, we are all Republicans."

John W. Hinckley Jr. was acquitted in 1981 after his lawyers orchestrated a successful insanity defense.  Hinckley claimed he shot President Reagan to impress a movie star, Jodie Foster, and then spent the next 35 years in a government psychiatric hospital.

U.S. District Judge Paul L. Friedman says Hinckley no longer poses a danger to himself or others.  The 61 year old, after he is released, will live full time with his mother in Williamsburg, Virginia.

The release could be as early as August 5, 2016.

Among the conditions of Hinckley's release, he must stay within a 50-mile radius of Williamsburg and he must always have on him a trackable phone and provide information about vehicles he will be driving.

I would rather they tag him with a GPS marker before they release him into the wild.

Hinckley was 25 when he shot Reagan, White House press secretary James Brady, U.S. Secret Service agent Tim McCarthy and D.C. police officer Thomas Delahanty with six exploding “Devastator” bullets from a .22-caliber pistol. All survived the attack.  Brady was left paralyzed by a shot to his head.

Brady, following the injury, became an activist for gun control, dying in 2014.  His death was ruled to be connected to his head injury.

Michael Reagan, President Reagan's oldest son, said that he and his father forgave Hinckley.

President Reagan's daughter, Patti Davis, voiced opposition to Hinckley's release.  “I’m not surprised by this latest development, but my heart is sickened,” she said.

In a statement, the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation and Institute, which hosts Reagan’s presidential library, said, “Contrary to the judge’s decision, we believe John Hinckley is still a threat to others, and we strongly oppose his release.”

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Wednesday, July 27, 2016

Freddie Gray Charges All Dropped

By Douglas V. Gibbs
AuthorSpeakerInstructorRadio Host

When it was said the police killed Freddie Gray, when the evidence said otherwise, Baltimore exploded into riots.  Now, long after it all began, after the first four trials went against the prosecution in the Freddie Gray case, the charges for the remaining two officers have been dropped.  

The Baltimore Police Department has released a statement saying all six officers will be back on the payroll effective immediately, although they will remain on administrative duty.

Baltimore City State’s Attorney Marilyn Mosby is livid, but there was not enough evidence in any of the witch hunts against Baltimore police officers.  

Mosby claims “the prosecution of on-duty police officers in this country is unsurprisingly rare and blatantly fraught with systemic and inherent complications.”

She went on to say, that “as a mother, the decision not to proceed on the remaining trials is agonizing.” But, “as a chief prosecutor elected by the citizens of Baltimore, I must consider the dismal likelihood of conviction at this point.”

“What I ultimately learned throughout this arduous process is that, although no small task, justice is always worth the price paid for its pursuit. You see, in spite of the fact that the verdicts didn’t go in our favor, there have been many gains throughout this journey to ensure that what happened to Freddie Gray never happens to another person that comes into contact with police.”

At a news conference held around 1 p.m., Lt. Gene Ryan of the Fraternal Order of Police said “justice has been done.”

“Our union will continue to support our officers during their administrative hearings and believe these good officers will be returned to fulfilling their duties with the Baltimore City Police Department and serving the citizens of Baltimore City. The men and women of the Baltimore Police Department are extremely dedicated to serving the citizens of Baltimore every day. The comments made today about our officers by Ms. Mosby were outrageous and uncalled for.”

Defense Attorney Ivan Bates, who represents Sgt. Alicia White, also spoke at the FOP conference. All of the six officers charged in the Freddie Gray case and their legal representatives were in attendance, although none of the officers spoke.

“Baltimore, it’s time to heal,” Bates said.

“Anytime there’s a incident like this, it’s always a sad time when a family loses anyone’s son. But we also have to recognize that on May 1, 2015, that’s when the nightmare began for all these officers. And that is when we saw the State’s Attorney for Baltimore City walk down the steps and announce to the world the charges, announce to the world what they felt and what they wanted the evidence to be.”

Former Baltimore Police Commissioner Anthony Batts tells our media partner The Baltimore Sun that City State’s Attorney Marilyn Mosby is “in over her head” and has added more flaws to a broken justice system by prosecuting innocent officers.

“She’s immature, she’s incompetent, she’s vindictive and that’s not how the justice system is supposed to work,” former Baltimore police commissioner Anthony W. Batts said on Wednesday. “The justice system is supposed to be without bias for police officers, for African Americans, for everyone.”

From an event in Florida, Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump even reacted to the news.

“I think she ought to prosecute herself,” he said of Mosby. “I think it was disgraceful what she did, and the way she did it.”

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Douglas V. Gibbs to speak to Hispanic Republican Club in Menifee

Join Douglas V. Gibbs, AuthorSpeakerInstructorRadio Host

Wednesday, July 27, 6:30 pm: California Republican National Hispanic Assembly, Riverside County --- Mason Jar Brewery, 29683 New Hub Dr., Menifee, CA  92586

Doug speaks on the U.S. Constitution, and the current issues related to constitutional philosophies and principles.

Doug is a Radio HostAuthor, fellow of the American Freedom Alliance, and Instructor on the United States Constitution.  Douglas V. Gibbs has appeared a number of times on Fox News, One America News, Al Jazeera America, NPR and various smaller television and radio outlets.   Doug is a free lance newspaper columnist whose articles appear in both print, and online.  He is a member of the California Republican Assembly, "Unite Inland Empire" patriot group coalition, the “American Authors Association”, and “The Military Writers Society of America.” Doug received the Golden Anchor Award for his patriotic commentary in 2008, and received a California State Senate Certificate of Recognition in 2014 for his "Outstanding Patriotic Service." Doug is a family man, married 32 years to his high school sweetheart. He is the father of two and has seven grandchildren. Doug is a proud United States Navy veteran.

Muslim Violence at Frankfurt Germany Airport

By Douglas V. Gibbs


Once again, Islam is showing the world what it is really all about through the Muslim migrants in Europe.  In Germany, at the Frankfurt Airport, a Muslim man angry at his flight being delayed beat up two police officers.

A video clip shows the man kicking and punching two officers who are incapable of subduing him at a Lufthansa check-in desk.  Some cheers can be heard from the crowd.  Suddenly, at the end of the bout, the man drops and doesn't move.  Great acting?  Or was he tazed?

The rest of the man’s family, including two Muslim women wearing hijabs then crowded around the police.

The Muslim man and the police officers involved in the fight were “slightly injured,” according to police.

The police, bending over backwards to please their Muslim overlords, have urged people not to share the video and insists that the Muslim man has no terrorist background.

Tensions are high in Germany following a number of Islamist attacks over the last 10 days.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Bombing Attempt at Migrant Office, Germany

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Germany continues to be faced with Muslim terror attacks, the latest being a failed bombing near a government migrant office.  The suitcase bomb failed to explode.  Witnesses say they saw 'Arab-looking' suspects running away from the scene.  The attempted terrorism occurred in the German town Zirndorf in northern Bavaria, near the city of Nuremberg.

The device, which was a suitcase filled with aerosol cans, was reportedly ‘planted by a man and a woman’ as Germany remains on edge after a series of horrifying terror attacks.

According to local officials, there was “No explosion, no injuries. Forces on the ground. No acute danger to the environment.”

Reports, however, say that the ‘bomb’ exploded around 200 metres from the building’s reception area.

According to police at the scene, eyewitnesses reported heard a loud bang while others saw a burning suitcase in a small garden nearby.

German police say they have deployed officers near a refugee accommodation centre and a branch of the country’s office for asylum-seekers after the frightening blast.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

We are Clinton, Resistance is Futile

By Douglas V. Gibbs
AuthorSpeakerInstructorRadio Host

Welcome to the Clinton Collective, where everything, and I mean everything, is covered up and fixed up and scrubbed away for the Clinton Crime Family by their adoring mindless automatons.  Even when Hillary Clinton was in what could have become a medical emergency (seizure-like/see video below) the media surrounding her laughed and acted as if nothing wrong was going on.

The reality is that the Democrats can't even fill the convention hall in Philadelphia.  Every single Trump Rally has been packed.  Republicans are ready to dislodge the giant blackhead of progressive liberal left Democrat madness from our American complexion, and squeeze out the Marxist puss the Democrats represent.

I'll wait while you compose yourself after that image I just provided.

Sure, I am not a huge Trump fan.  Of the original 17, he was number 15 on my list.  But, compared to the absolute evil that Hillary Clinton represents, I will take Mr. Trump every day of the week.  Besides, he's surrounding himself with some good people.  While some people might call people like Mike Pence a sell-out for daring to join Trump, I think a conservative like Pence deciding to join the Trump team is being very wise.  The first thing Trump needs is to be surrounded by true conservatives.  Heck, I've even been offering my services as a constitutionalist, but to no avail.

Hillary Clinton, in the meantime, can't even fill the arena where the Democrat National Convention in Philadelphia is being held at.

Are you ready for this?


Really?  The Democrats are advertising for actors to be paid $50 to fill seats at the convention. . . "You will be required to cheer at all times". . .

Why do they need to create a perception that the room is full?  Everybody knows if you cross the Clintons, you'll simply die an untimely death.  Just ask FBI Director Comey.

So, while the Democrats and the media are acting like everything is normal...and she tried to play it off with her drink...



The reality is the campaign and Hillary is becoming unhinged.  Could her seizure-like bouncing be a reaction to all of the medications she is on?

They are cornered.  They know they are in trouble.

Worried that the great Queen Hillary Clinton might suddenly be in trouble against an advancing Trump campaign, President Barack Obama has cleared much of his October schedule to campaign for his former rival.

Desperation is setting in. Hillary Clinton’s campaign is pressuring TV stations across the country to stop airing an anti-Clinton political ad sponsored by the pro-Trump super-PAC Rebuilding America Now.

The campaign claims the ad, titled “Outsourcing,” is “directly contracted by evidence in the public record.”

The ad claims Clinton went to India and talked up outsourcing — and then received a donation from Indian politician Amar Singh of up to $5 million in 2008.

The Clinton campaign contends that the donation was made in a different year.

A lawyer for Rebuilding America Now, Cleta Mitchell, said the political ad “is well within the scope of important public discourse.”

In the State of Virginia, Governor McAuliffe is doing all he can to make sure felons can vote, even by circumventing the Virginia Supreme Court ruling against him, and issuing 200,000 Clemency Grants.

On the environmentalist front, there is a huge push to legally punish people who dare to disagree with the Democrats on their man-made Climate Change hoax. . . and the environmentalism ties the attorney generals behind this madness have is incredible.  They are also working to criminalize any dissent regarding sexual behavior.

Yet, despite all of the corrupt attempts to stop Trump, silence conservatives, and with the media swearing up and down The Donald has no chance, Trump has pulled ahead in the polls.

So much for the NeverTrump Crowd claiming that a Trump nomination guarantees a Clinton win.

The danger is deeper than mere leftism.  Hillary Clinton is a part of more than a mere Marxist Revolution from within to topple the American System.  The fact that her V.P. pick Tim Kaine has connections to radical Islam and the fact that she has ties to the Muslim Brotherhood should tell you this is about more than power - - - it is about the destruction of America.

The wild animal is cornered.  What do you think Hillary and her allies will do next?

Comply, or be targeted.  She is Hillary Clinton.  Resistance is futile.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Tempe Arizona Shooting

Posted by Douglas V. Gibbs

A barricaded suspect has been contacted and transported to the hospital following an officer-involved shooting in Tempe.

Tempe police say the suspect barricaded himself at the Westchester Senior Center near Rural and Westchester after the shooting. No officers were injured in the shooting.
We have contacted suspect and he is being transported to hospital for injury.
Currently working an officer involved shooting at Rural/Westchester. Officer ok, suspect barricaded

Suspect barricaded in Westchester Senior Center. No residents hurt at this time

Democrat National Convention and the Clinton Crime Family

By Douglas V. Gibbs
AuthorSpeakerInstructorRadio Host

The social engineering and the psychological programming of the Democrat Voters is complete. . .

Media cry 'tears of joy' for Hillary milestone...

ABC’s World News Tonight repeatedly harped in the most jittery mood possible about the DNC hall being in “tears” at Clinton becoming the first woman to be a major party’s presidential nominee.  ABC anchor David Muir welcomed viewers to the newscast by proclaiming that America was collectively “witnessing something truly historic in this convention hall right behind us” with “[r]eal emotion here on display, tears of joy from Hillary Clinton's supporters, and a sense of true pride from Bernie Sanders supporters.”

DAVID MUIR: Breaking news tonight on the floor of the Democratic National Convention. The roll call under way. The tension. History about to be made. Chants of Hillary, chants of Bernie on the floor. With Hillary Clinton about to become the first female presidential nominee...we are witnessing something truly historic in this convention hall right behind us.

Donald Trump says Hillary Clinton is bought and sold.


During MSNBC’s coverage of the Democratic National Convention on Tuesday, host Rachel Maddow stated that she found the top part of former President Bill Clinton’s speech to the DNC “shocking and rude.”

Maddow began by giving the end of the speech an A+, but then said, “I think the beginning of the speech was a controversial way to start, honestly, talking about the girl, a girl, leading with this long story about him being attracted to an unnamed girl and thinking about whether he was starting something he couldn’t finish, building her whole political story, for the whole first half of the speech around her marriage to him. I think, unless there were worries that this is going to be too feminist a convention, that was not a feminist way to start. But the end of the speech was really good. I’ve got to say, the top of the speech I found shocking and rude.”
DOWD: Bubba Pours on the Estrogen...

She “calls you when you’re sick, when your kid’s in trouble or when there’s a death in the family,” Bill said of his partner of 40 years.

It has been said that the essence of the Clinton marriage is coming to each other’s rescue in critical moments. Or maybe more precisely, their byzantine conjugal dynamic works like this: One of them creates chaos — usually Bill — and then they get out of it together. Or as a former aide described the Clinton pattern: “Hubris. Funk. Reintroduction.”

“You could drop her in any trouble spot, pick one, come back in a month and somehow, some way, she will have made it better,” he said, in a line that could have applied to global crises or marital. (An earlier celebrity speaker tonight was Tony Goldwyn, who plays the philandering president in a series inspired by Bill and Monica).

After the email shaming and a bloodless campaign, tonight it was Bill’s turn to rescue Hillary from being the most unknown known person in history. One of the most liked presidents was charged with humanizing one of the least liked presidential candidates.

“One of the most seductive characters we’ve seen in American politics in our lifetime,” as David Axelrod calls Bill Clinton, had to melt the sphinx-like aura of his guarded wife.

The uncontrollable Clinton had to make the tightly-controlled Clinton seem less coiled and more endearing. The Protean pol had to take his wife’s ever-shifting personas and policies, and paint a cohesive portrait. He rivaled Ivanka in his talent for airbrushing, but he probably won’t be offering his convention outfit for sale tonight.

(...)

It is another example of the overcorrecting that marks Hillary’s career. In trying to feminize and maternalize Hillary, Bill almost went overboard about that “girl,” as he called her three times. He poured on the estrogen, presaging his role as helpmeet in the East Wing.

(...)

“One is real, the other is made up,” he said of the caricature of Hillary. “You nominated the real one.”

BILL'S STORIES

 on Tuesday night, as millions of voters watched and with the political stakes as high as they've ever been, the former president tried to make sense of it all and make the case for his wife, the newly minted Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton.
"In the spring of 1971, I met a girl," he began.

(...)

Bill Clinton cast himself as a passenger in his wife's life, reshaping the story of much of their decades in politics.

DELETED SCENES

IT WAS a glowing tribute to his beloved wife, the woman who aims to make history by becoming President of the United States of America.

At the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia on Tuesday, Bill Clinton was fulsome in his praise of Hillary, who has now officially received the party’s nomination for the top job.

But there was something big - something huge - missing from his speech.

The former Mr President described the potential Mrs President as the “best darn change-maker” he’d ever met and recounted how he tried three times to get her to marry him, in a speech designed to use his popularity to ingratiate his wife to Middle America.

He took the crowd on a journey through the years of their relationship. It was 1971, he said, when he met the girl with big blonde hair and glasses.

There were the years between 1993 and 2001 when he and Hillary made the White House their home.

There was 1997, when daughter Chelsea went to college, and then, just like that, we were in 1999.

But there was one year missing. A year it’s probably best not to bring up when you’re trying to sell the audience a story of your happy marriage.

In all of Clinton’s speech, 1998 was completely absent. But why? After all, during 1998, a number of notable events occurred. The Winter Olympics took place in Japan, France beat Brazil in the World Cup final and Titanic took out 11 Oscars.

It wouldn’t have anything to do with Monica Lewinsky would it?Source:AP

But, for the Clintons, it was also their “annus horribilis”. It was in January that website the Drudge Report revealed allegations that White House intern Monica Lewinsky had sex with the then President Bill Clinton.

Later the same month, Clinton made the now famous denial: “I did not have sexual relations with that woman”.

JUANITA BROADDRICK: HE RAPED ME TWICE

"Juanita Broaddrick has told this reporter that she was raped not once but twice by Bill Clinton during the same infamous encounter in 1978."

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary