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

Wednesday, February 22, 2017

Sensory Overload

Posted by Douglas V. Gibbs
AuthorSpeakerInstructorRadio Host

While driving to a meeting yesterday morning, driving home after pre-recording one of my radio programs, and driving in the evening to Corona to teach a Constitution Class, I left the radio off.  I turned the phone off.  The car was silent.  It was just me, the wind blowing against my windows, and my thoughts.

I remember when I was young we had those moments of silence.  Time to think, and ponder.  It seems like in today's society of technology we no longer have those moments.  We are always being bombarded with information.  We watch television at home, listen to the radio in our cars, and have our devices on and buzzing during all other moments.

When do we actually return to our humanity, and simply think?

At what point does the sensory bombardment become a sensory overload?

Or, is that what the powers-that-be want?

If we are constantly being entertained, or occupied, how can we stop long enough to realize the tyranny the liberal left is trying to apply?  If we spend all of our time getting what we want, quickly, through technology, is it no surprise that the snowflakes are flipping out because the sensory overload is telling them Trump is not giving them what they want?

Do they even know what they want?

Thoughts.  Silence.  Peaceful alone time.

Shouldn't we all, every once in a while, just turn everything off... and think?

Perhaps, for just a moment, we should quit believing what we are being told, and actually look into the truth for ourselves.  Perhaps, just perhaps, we will realize that the fear and hate being spewed by the liberal left is simply a temper tantrum, and a fear that individualism has finally reawakened.  Their dream of a collective utopia is at risk.  Liberty can be a powerful thing.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Sweden in Flames, Media Denies Truth, Trump was Right

By Douglas V. Gibbs
AuthorSpeakerInstructorRadio Host

In short, Trump was right.

While the media was saying Trump had no idea what he was saying about Sweden, riots were breaking out in the immigrant suburb of Rinkeby in Stockholm.

Police officers have been subjected to stone throwing, warning shots have been fired, shops have been looted, shopkeepers are beaten and several cars on fire.

The unrest and rioting includes attacks against the police, with the throwing of stones.

People have been assaulted. Stores have been looted.  The riots are being caused by Muslim refugees.  Migrants.  But the media says large scale immigration in Sweden is working out just beautifully.

Trump says otherwise.

While the New York Times headline is as follows:

Sweden burns.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Natural Rights, Liberty, and Responsibility

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

Natural Rights are the possession of the citizen, given by God. God, and individuals, existed before government, therefore government has no claim on rights. The Bill of Rights uses language not asking government to guarantee our rights, but telling the government hands off our rights. If government is the greatest threat to our rights, why would the founding fathers desire for government to be the guarantors of those rights?

Rights are an entitlement by God, self-evident, and unalienable. They are ours to defend, protect, and demand.  The greatest risk to our rights is government, not other individuals.

With our rights comes the responsibility to protect them. As with any other possession, it is our duty to safeguard our rights, while ensuring our rights do not interfere with another's rights. Rights do not demand, nor use tyranny to demand their existence. They exist because we do.  Our responsibility to protect our rights means that we must be politically involved to ensure government remains limited, and has no opportunity to interfere with our rights.

As with an intersection and the right to go through it, government may provide certain protections like a stop sign or stop light, but our right to go through that intersection must remain in place.  Same with rights.  While laws at the local level may be created that may be necessary and proper, the infringement upon our rights in a complete manner is still forbidden. . . not because of a constitution or a bill of rights, but because those rights belong to us as a result of God endowing us with them.

We have a right to make a life for ourselves, and protect the possessions that we accumulate with that labor. A good life is a privilege we attain by using our right to work for it and protect it. A good life, itself, however, is not a right, nor is it something government must be required to give. . . especially by taking away from others.  While we are equal, we are not equitable.  While, in God's eyes, and the eyes of government, we are all equal at the starting line, it is our own business how we get to the finish line, and at what position we are at that place.

A good life is not only achieved by hard work and good planning, but by being frugal in one's lifestyle. Any economy can only be successful if it is waged within its means. More going out than coming in can only end in disaster if not corrected soon.  Being thrifty is a virtue.

One's rights, and the appreciation and consideration of other's rights, are the foundation of a strong social order, which can only be achieved if the society is virtuous. Without virtue a culture cannot be godly, and without godliness a culture is destined to destroy itself from within.

A virtuous society is honest, and the people judge each other only by the content of one's character.  A virtuous society is populated by individuals who are self-reliant, personally responsible, and conscious of the rights of other individuals.

Through self-reliance, personal responsibility and hard work, individuals become prosperous, with spreads to the community, making the community itself prosperous. Prosperity, however, always begins with the successes of individuals.

Which all begins with Natural Rights, each of which are a possession of the citizen, given by God.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Tuesday, February 21, 2017

Alfonzo Rachel Discusses Milo and CPAC

Posted by Douglas V. Gibbs
AuthorSpeakerInstructorRadio Host

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Education Industry Gestapo

By Douglas V. Gibbs
AuthorSpeakerInstructorRadio Host

Over the last eight years did we hear of any educator being fired for supporting the policies of Barack Obama?  Of course not.  What if it was on their own time?  Social media?  Nope.

But, if you are pro-Trump, and you are an educator, your job may be in jeopardy...even if you post your support for Mr. Trump on your own private time, on your own social media site.

In Florida an elementary teacher, after posting on her own, personal Facebook page, was reassigned to administrative duties.  Her crime?  

“The funny part about immigrants staying home is the rest of us who pay for them are here at work like we’ve always been. Looks like less mouths to feed today. Have fun while you still can. So glad to hear about massive deportation. Let’s make America great again. Thanks Donald Trump!”
Some parents considered the post to be racist, and were offended.

“My feelings are hurt for our kids,” one mother said. “I couldn’t even believe it. How could a teacher speak like that?”

Speak like what?  Do you have a problem with the fact that Mexico's southern border is a militarized zone with guard towers and a sturdy fence?  Or is it only racist when America tries to protect its own border?

District officials removed the teacher from her classroom and reassigned her to the district administrative center while they investigate.

A petition on has been launched calling for firing her, and the petition has received more than 3,000 signatures of support in the five days since the incident.

“We understand that as a private citizen Mrs. Fleming should be allowed to express herself, however, as an educator at a school composed of predominantly Hispanic, Haitian, and students of other minorities, one should always be professional and behave as an impartial authority figure that is held to higher standards,” the petition reads.

Impartial?  Do you know how many times I have dealt with pro-Obama, anti-Republican statements by teachers to my grandkids over the last few years, and then I was told I was overreacting?

How was what the Florida teacher wrote racist?  First, there are three "races," black, Mongoloid and Caucasian.  Hispanics are technically Caucasian.  Islam is a political ideology that masks as a religion.  Therefore, racism is not even in the same realm, when it comes to that part of the equation.  Besides, the immigration laws have nothing to do with race, color, ethnicity, religion or political leanings, and everything to do with the law that is currently on the books.  The question is simple.  Did the immigrant, regardless of who they are, follow the law to enter the country, or are they guilty of violating federal law, making them a fugitive?  The immigration laws exist for a reason.  We want to protect the receiving population from potential disease, criminal element, and terrorism.  Am I racist for agreeing with that teacher in Florida?  How about my Mexican wife?  Is she racist for agreeing with the Florida teacher?

Have Americans completely lost their minds?

In Georgia, the consequences for agreeing with Trump on immigration has a greater consequence.
DeKalb County Schools Superintendent Stephen Green issued a warning to teachers in the suburban Georgia County to refrain from promoting President Trump’s policies on border security and legal immigration.
Since the warning was issued two teachers were reportedly forced to resign.
I wonder what would happen to a teacher if they echoed Farrakhan, who has called for the killing of all whites, and someone who was recently welcomed with chants of Allah Akbar in Detroit?  Or what if a teacher repeated what Sarah Silverman said about wanting a military coup to remove Trump from the White House?  Or, what if the teacher repeated Madonna's words about blowing up the White House?  How much do you want to bet the teacher's job would be safe, in those instances?

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Corona Constitution Class: Executive Powers Continued

Tuesday Night, 6:00 pm
AllStar Collision
522 Railroad St.
Corona, CA  92882
Constitution Class Handout
Instructor: Douglas V. Gibbs
AllStar Collision, Inc.
522 Railroad Street
Corona, CA
Lesson 6: Powers of the Executive Branch
Article II, Section 2
Commander in Chief
Section 2 of Article II establishes the President as the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States.
This allows for the President to wage war, if necessary, without Congressional approval. However, if Congress does not agree with the President's actions, they can pull the funding, which would force a discontinuation of the use of the military for whatever operations the President chose them to operate.  In the Articles of Confederation, the powers to wage war, and to declare war, were listed as separate authorities, although in the Articles of Confederation both powers were granted to the Congress.
There were extensive debates over war powers. In fact, when the founders were debating over war powers in regards to Article I during their assembly on August 17, 1787, they considered giving to Congress the power to "make war."  A number of reasons brought up during that debate convinced the delegates to give Congress the power to declare war, instead.  This decision left the power to make war with the President, as Commander in Chief.
When the Framers of the Constitution were creating the executive branch, the President they had in mind was George Washington.  He was, in their eyes, the perfect President.   The executive branch was fashioned around Washington's personality, and abilities.  The expectations were that the presidents to follow Washington would be similar to Mr. Washington in their level of sacred honor, humility, and ability to properly apply the war powers as necessary, while refraining from becoming involved in foreign entanglements that did not directly affect the United States of America.
Among Washington's strengths was that he was a great general.  It became apparent that the President would need to be a strong military leader.  However, the consideration that an executive may take that power and abuse it was in play.  Therefore, a number of checks and balances against the power of the executive branch were put into place.
Part of the reason the power to make war was given to the President, and not Congress, has much to do with the time period.  One must consider that when the members of Congress were at home in their districts, it could be as far as the southernmost State of Georgia.  Considering the lack of technology, members of Congress could not just get on a plane, or take a drive, to get to Washington, D.C., quickly.  Even the time it may take to get the messages out to the members of Congress could take longer than the time needed to begin necessary war maneuvers.
When it came to war powers, the need was for the Commander in Chief to be quick, decisive, and take care of business as needed.  However, if we have a President acting in a tyrannical manner, launching military operations when it is not necessary, aside from the ability to electorally vote the President out of office, the Congress has two ways to check his behavior.
First, Congress can pull funding.  If there is no money, the troops must be brought home.  Second, the Congress has the power to impeach the President if he is becoming tyrannical, or is doing things that he shouldn't (maladministration).
One concern that has arisen in today's political environment, largely as a result of the change in the dynamics of our political system by the 17th Amendment in 1913 that changed the Senate from being the voice of the States, to an assembly directly voted into office by public vote, is if both Houses of Congress are in collusion with the President.  A White House administration with both Houses of Congress working with the President could be a recipe for disaster in regards to the rule of law, creating an opportunity for those three parts of the federal government to collude against the people, which would inevitably lead to the rise of an unchecked oligarchy.
In the cases of the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, or Libya, the President had every right to launch those operations.  That is not to say the decisions were correct, or in the best interest of our country, but that the President had the constitutional authority to wage war in those theaters without his actions being accompanied by a congressional declaration of war.
When it came to foreign entanglements, the Founders preferred America to stay out of such conflicts unless American interests were directly influenced.  George Washington in his farewell address is actually quite clear on the subject.
Congress holding the power to declare war does not mean that the President must ask Congress for permission before waging war.  In today's world it would seem to be the reasonable thing to do, and I believe it would be the proper thing to do, but as far as the Constitution is concerned, congressional approval for a military action is not necessary.
A reference used to support the concept of "no war without a declaration" is The War Powers Act of 1973.  The War Powers Act was simply a piece of legislation, and did not change the authorities of the President when it came to his war powers.  The War Powers Act is unconstitutional.  Only amendments can change the authorities granted to the President of the United States.
The two Barbary Wars, the first two international wars the United States found herself engaged in, were waged by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison.  Jefferson's engagement against the Muslim States of the Barbary Coast was fought from 1802 to 1805, after Jefferson refused to continue paying a tribute to the Barbary Pirates for safe passage through the Mediterranean Sea.  Hostilities were reignited in 1815, during Madison's presidency.  Both wars were undeclared, waged by Jefferson and Madison without a declaration of war from the Congress, but Congress did appropriate funding for both campaigns.
            Calling forth the Militia
The President of the United States is not supposed to be all powerful, or the final decision maker in the federal government.  The American System of government is full of checks and balances.  Even as the Commander in Chief, if he is abusing his power as the head of military operations, Congress can defund war efforts, or impeach the President.
In Article II the Constitution states that the President is the "Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual service of the United States."  Some have argued that means he is only Commander in Chief when "he" is called into service to do so, which is accomplished by a declaration of war.  That is an erroneous opinion.
As Commander in Chief, the President may engage the Army and Navy in war operations as necessary.  This power of Commander in Chief does not extend to the militias at the President's whim.  The President is only the Commander in Chief of the Militia of the several States, when the militia is called into actual service of the United States.
The distinction was established so that the President could use military forces against foreign enemies if a quick and decisive decision was necessary, but not against the States, or the American people.  The standing army is not for domestic use to suppress insurrections, or repel invasions.  That is what the militias are for, and the militia can only be put into action by Congress, or State leadership.  The President does not control the militias, nor does he determine when they go into action.  His only relationship with the militias only emerges when they are called into actual service of the United States by the United States Congress.  Then, and only then, the President serves as Commander in Chief over the militias.
Article I, Section 8 states that "Congress shall have power to provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel invasions."
States cannot call their militia into action "unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay." (Article I, Section 10)
Though the President is tasked with "faithfully executing the laws of the United States" as stated in Article II, Section 3, and he can do so with executive departments such as I.C.E., and the Border Patrol, the actual call for the militia (National Guard, State Militias, unorganized militia) to protect the border is the responsibility of Congress, and State leadership.
            Executive Departments and Agencies
Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 indicates the President may "require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective offices."  This part of this clause is a good indication that the Founding Fathers felt the President should consult others when making decisions, especially those familiar with the departments in question.
The existence of the different executive departments is constitutional, as long as they are established to handle constitutional duties of the federal government, and their powers are limited within constitutional allowances.  Originally, there were only four executive departments (and five if you separate the War Department and Department of the Navy); the War Department, the State Department, the Department of the Treasury, and the Department of Justice.  The Department of the Navy served as a separate department until 1947, but worked closely with the Department of War.
There are many departments in the executive branch that are unconstitutional, and should not have even been established.  The Education Department, for example, is unconstitutional in its current form because there is no place in the Constitution that gives the federal government the authority to regulate, or be involved in, education.  Therefore, as per the 10th Amendment, education is a State issue. 
The Energy Department and the Environmental Protection Agency are also unconstitutional.  The federal government has no authority to regulate those issues.  However, if those departments did not regulate, but only kept studies and records of those issues, then the existence of those agencies may be acceptable.
The executive branch can have departments and agencies that study issues not authorized by the Constitution to fall under the federal government, but they cannot have any regulatory power because any federal laws regarding those issues are not constitutionally authorized to the United States Government.  Regulations are directly connected to laws, and laws must be constitutional in the first place in order to be considered the supreme law of the land.
Despite these agencies not being legally allowed to regulate unconstitutional law, agencies like the EPA are doing just that.  In fact, the EPA is regulating independently, literally legislating through regulations.  In other words, the EPA, as well as other agencies, have been enacting their own regulations without the benefit of a law being on the books, revealing the danger of having unconstitutional departments and agencies.
This is not to say we should not have the various departments and agencies of the executive branch.  Some of them are constitutional, and absolutely necessary.
Correction of federal unconstitutionality can be sought through concepts known as Republic Review, and nullification.  By using a convention of delegates from the several States to determine the unconstitutionality of particular laws, actions, or departments of the federal government, the States can be encouraged to work together to nullify the unconstitutional regulations set forth by the various federal agencies.  The States have the authority to take care of their own business, and if a federal agency tries to regulate an issue that falls under the State's powers, the States have the right to ignore that regulation.
A common belief is that if we do not have these various federal agencies regulating things like food, energy, and actions against the environment, people will just act in ways that are unacceptable and dangerous.  The opposition to the Constitution will tell you that we need the federal government to make sure that our food is safe, energy is used properly, and corporations are not polluting our fragile environment.
Local issues are supposed to be handled at the local level, and the people, through their States, are more than capable of properly regulating these issues as necessary, but in a manner that is consistent with the local opinion of the electorate.
The Founding Fathers did not trust a large, centralized, national government, hence, the reason the Framers only granted to the federal government authorities regarding external issues, and the power to act as a mediator between the States in the case of disagreement. 
            Reprieves and Pardons
The President is also given the power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.  This was one of the first functions President Gerald Ford took advantage of when he took office after President Richard Nixon resigned, pardoning Nixon so that no criminal cases could be brought against him.  No impeachment procedure had ensued, so Ford was constitutionally allowed to grant the pardon.  It has been suggested that is why Nixon resigned.  If he had not resigned, and was impeached, the next President would not have had the authority to pardon him.
The President is granted the ability to make treaties and to nominate members to the executive branch, Supreme Court, and other offices not expressly provided for in the Constitution.  Agreement and consent of two thirds of the Senate is necessary for any treaty, or nomination for that matter, to become effective.  The advise and consent powers granted to the United States Senate was a way of disallowing the executive branch from mirroring the centralized British Model of unilateral control under the king.  The authority also gave the States the allowance to approve or disapprove any action by the President by requiring that the Senate concur with two-thirds vote.
The purpose of giving advise and consent powers to the U.S. Senate refers us back to the original dynamics of the United States government.  The Senators in the U.S. Senate were appointed by the State Legislatures before the appearance of the 17th Amendment in 1913.  The Senate was the States' representation in the federal government.  The Senators were the voice of the States.  Treaties, appointments, and other executive functions, though executed by the President, requires approval by the Senate.  The States, as with the granting of powers to the federal government in the first place through the articles of the Constitution, had the power to approve or disapprove the President's actions through the U.S. Senate in a manner much like parents grant permission to their children before a child can perform a particular action.  After all, the Senate was the voice of the States, and it was the States that created the federal government in the first place.
This was an important check upon the executive branch by the States.
The executive branch requiring the consent of the U.S. Senate for some of its actions reminds us of the amendment process.  As with treaties and appointments by the executive branch, amendments must be approved, or ratified, by the States.  In the case of amendments, however, the vote is three-quarters of the States in order to ratify.
The federal government, be it through amendments, or executive actions, needs the permission of the States.
Remember, the States once held all powers.  It was the States that provided the authorities to the federal government so that it may exist, and function.  The States had original authority over all powers, and decided to grant a few authorities to the federal government so that it may operate in a necessary manner - specifically for the purpose of protecting, preserving, and promoting the union.
The States gave permission to the federal government to function in a manner prescribed by the Constitution.
An opponent to the originalist viewpoint of the Constitution once said to me, "You have it all wrong.  The federal government tells the States what to do."
If that was the case, then why would the President need to get the consent of the U.S. Senate to make treaties, and two-thirds of the Senators present have to concur?  Why would the President's nominations need to be interviewed and approved by the Senate?  And with that in mind, remember that before the 17th Amendment in 1913, the Senate was the voice of the States.
The executive can do very little without the Senate's approval.
War Powers seems like an exception on the surface, but even the authority to make war has its checks by Congress.
For the most part, it is up to the people and the States through Congress to ensure the President does not act in a manner unbecoming of the office.
This check is designed to protect us from tyranny.
Imagine how different the appointment hearings of Supreme Court justices have become, now that the Senate is no longer the representation of the States, anymore.  The questions are probably very different than they otherwise would be.  Now, the House and the Senate are really not a whole lot different.  They are both voted in by the popular vote.  Before 1913, the Senate was the voice of the States.
I wonder how the questions posed to the Supreme Court nominees would be different if the Senate still belonged to the States.  Perhaps the questions would be more in line with protecting State sovereignty.  Surely the concerns of the States would be behind much of the questioning.
The 17th Amendment changed the dynamics of our government.  One of the reasons our federal government is constantly acting unconstitutionally is because it is now structured unconstitutionally.  The people voting for the Senators, rather than the Senators being appointed by the State legislatures, is not in line with what was originally intended.  With the voice of the States removed, the government cannot function as intended because the proper checks and balances are not in place.  The 17th Amendment introduced ideology into the Senate, and removed one of the checks necessary to protect us against a federal government constantly seeking to become more expansive.
            Recess Appointments
The final clause of Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution states: The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.
This clause refers to what is called a recess appointment.  A recess appointment is the appointment of a senior federal official (department head, judge, etc.) by the President while the U.S. Senate is in recess.  As the voice of the States in the federal government, the Senate must confirm all appointments of senior federal officers before they assume office.  However, while the U.S. Senate is in recess, and during the early years of this nation that meant they could be a few days ride away, the President can make a recess appointment without Senate confirmation.  However, the appointment only remains in effect until the next session.  A recess appointment must be approved by the Senate by the end of the next session of Congress, or the position becomes vacant again.
Remember, the House of Representatives and the Senate were originally made up very differently from each other.  The Representatives go to Washington to serve their district, and to act in accordance with the will of the people in their district, making the House of Representatives literally the voice of the people in the federal government.
The Senate was made up of Senators appointed by the State legislatures.  The Senators represented the States, and they made up the State coalition of the federal government.  It was through the Senate that the States had representation in the federal government, and could ensure, along with the House of Representatives, to provide a series of checks against the executive branch.
Part of the way to control power is to divide it.  Then, after you divide the power, divide it again.  Then, make the powers of the separate branches different from each other, that way they do not collude together against the people, or other branches of government.
One of the fears of the Founders was that the branches would collude together in an effort to take away individual freedoms.
By requiring the Senate to confirm appointments by the Executive, it kept a leash on the Executive.  Even in a recess appointment, when the President could appoint without confirmation by the Senate, confirmation would still eventually be needed or else the seat became vacant again.  This kept the Executive from surrounding himself with a group of cronies the States did not approve of.
Advise and Consent Powers - Treaties, appointments, and other executive functions, though executed by the President, requires the advise by, and the approval of, the Senate.
Collusion - Conspire together.
Foreign Entanglements - Unnecessary involvement with other nations.
Ideology - A set of political or economic ideas that forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy.
Impeachment - To charge with misconduct.  Formal process that may lead to removal of an official accused of unlawful activity; impeachment does not mean the removal from office, though removal from office is often the result of impeachment proceedings.
Militia - An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers; a military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency; the whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service.
National Government - Any political organization that is put in place to maintain control of a nation; a strong central government that does not recognize the individualism or local authorities of the smaller parts, such as states, of the nation.
Nullification - State power to ignore unconstitutional federal law.
Nullify - See Nullification.
Oligarchy - Government by a few powerful persons, over the many.  A state governed by a few persons.
Recess Appointment - The appointment of a senior federal official (department head, judge, etc.) by the President while the U.S. Senate is in recess.
Republic Review - A convention of delegates representing the several States in order to audit the laws, actions, and composure of the United States federal government; a review of unconstitutional characteristics of the federal government based on the amendment ratification concept that if it takes three-quarters of the States to ratify an amendment, a quarter (plus one) of the States determining a law, action or department of the federal government to be unconstitutional allows the States to nullify the item.
United States Senate - The House of Congress in which each State enjoys equal suffrage of representation, with two Senators per State.  The appointment of Senators was originally by their State legislatures, creating a natural check and balance between the House of Representatives, and the U.S. Senate.  The appointment of Senators was changed to the popular vote of the people by the 17th Amendment in 1913.
War Power - Power exercised in the prosecution of war.
Questions for Discussion:
1.  What is the difference between the power to Wage War, and the power to Declare War?
2.  What is meant by "Commander in Chief?"
3.  Why should, or shouldn't, the United States engage in foreign entanglements?
4.  Why is the War Powers Act of 1973 unconstitutional?
5.  How can the States protect against a President abusing his war powers?
6.  When are State Militias under State authority, and when are they under federal authority?
7.  When is the President the Commander in Chief over the State Militias?
8.  Regulatory Agencies are constitutional, but their regulations must conform to what authorities granted?
9.  What is the difference between impeachment, and being removed from office?
10.  When are recess appointments allowed?
11.  What is a pro-forma session?
Joseph Andrews, A Guide for Learning and Teaching The Declaration of Independence and The U.S. Constitution - Learning from the Original Texts Using Classical Learning Methods of the Founders; San Marcos: The Center for Teaching the Constitution (2010).
Madison's Notes Constitutional Convention, Avalon Project, Yale University:
Copyright Douglas V. Gibbs 2015

Day Without Immigrants Firings

by Douglas V. Gibbs
AuthorSpeakerInstructorRadio Host

In the real world there are consequences to one's actions.  The liberal left's goal is to eliminate consequences.  They teach their followers that there are no consequences.  But, sometimes, real life slams into place, and consequences happen.

If you ditch work, it's possible you might get fired.  That is a simple reality.

The Day Without Immigrants protest shut down businesses nationwide last week, but it didn’t come without some consequences for a handful of workers who decided to take part in the demonstrations.

Dozens of workers said they lost their jobs after taking part in last Thursday’s protest. The boycott was aimed squarely at President Trump's efforts to step up deportations, build a wall at the Mexican border and close the nation's doors to many travelers.

The firings led to an outcry in the community.  They've been trained to believe that if they act out politically in favor of leftist ideological stances, they shouldn't have to experience any real world consequences.

In many cases, the employees were warned of the potential consequence.  And consequences are what happened.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Trump was Right about Sweden, and the rest of Europe

by Douglas V. Gibbs
AuthorSpeakerInstructorRadio Host

President Trump said while at a rally in Florida that Sweden is having a problem with Islam.  

“You look at what’s happening last night in Sweden,” Trump said. “Sweden. Who would believe this? Sweden. They took in large numbers. They’re having problems like they never thought possible.”

Trump was accused of misspeaking.

The Swedish police investigator that let the information get out is being investigated for possible hate crime incitement.

At what point will the leftists in Europe, and America, realize that when they cower like that they are falling under the pressure of sharia law?

The details of Investigator Springare revealing information included, during a five-day period, five rapes, three assaults, a pair of extortions, blackmail, an attempted murder, violence against police and a robbery.  The suspects were all from Muslim-majority countries – Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Somalia and Turkey – save for one Swedish man nabbed in a drug-related case.

“Mohammed, Mahmod, Ali, again and again,” Springare wrote of those arrested.

Trump explained on Twitter he was referring to a Fox News segment that aired on “Tucker Carlson Tonight” dealing with the Swedish refugee crime.

“It seems like we may be missing the point of the story, which is there has been a massive social cost associated with the refugee policies and the immigration policies of Western Europe,” Carlson said on “Fox & Friends” the following Monday.

“Fifty years of immigration policy is coming to flower in Europe. We’re not paying any attention. We’re not drawing any of the obvious lessons from it. It's not working. That's the real point here. ”

Trump tweeted again on Monday morning, blasting media outlets that failed to report on Sweden's migrant crime epidemic.

"Give the public a break - The FAKE NEWS media is trying to say that large scale immigration in Sweden is working out just beautifully. NOT!" Trump wrote.

In Sweden the terror threat level is at “elevated” and police believe at least 300 Swedish nationals have traveled to Syria and Iraq for jihadi training.

On the same day Springare posted his screed, a Swedish court turned over to Belgium evidence in connection with the 2016 Brussels terror attacks, prosecutors said.

Sweden has taken in 650,000 asylum-seekers during the past 15 years...mostly males.

Carlson warned this mass influx of migrants, many of whom are uneducated and jobless, has begun to alter the face – and crime rates – of countries such as Sweden.

“[The integration policy] hasn’t worked very well, at all,” Carlson said. “And it’s in the process of totally changing these ancient cultures into something different and much more volatile and much more threatening, so what are the lessons we should draw from this? That’s the conversation we should have.”

Trump, apparently a regular watcher of Fox News, has been paying attention, and putting two and two together.  The liberal left Democrats seem to be stuck in some Common Core math equation, and can't seem to see the obvious.  Either that, or they, too, like the Swedish, are willing to be dhimmis.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

The Truth Ignores The Truth

By Douglas V. Gibbs
AuthorSpeakerInstructorRadio Host

It has always fascinated me that the liberal left is against tobacco, but supports marijuana. is one of the organizations working to eliminate tobacco from our society.  I am not here to defend tobacco.  I think it's someone's own business if they want to smoke.  It is, however, bad for your health, and I applaud private organizations trying to bring that truth to light.  I also believe marijuana is very bad for your health, dangerous to the development of young brains, and ultimately much worse than tobacco for a society.  Organizations like Citizens Against Legalizing Marijuana (CALM) are bringing those facts to light.

However, this is not about tobacco and marijuana as much as it is about the ad has been putting out about how tobacco is profiling, targeting minority neighborhoods, and more specifically, black neighborhoods.  It is an interesting observation, but have they notice that another dangerous industry is also doing the same?  The profiling by the other murderous industry that peddles death isn't getting the same kind of acknowledgement for their assault on the black population.

Margaret Sanger was the founder of Planned Parenthood.  She was a racist, and in 1939 launched The Negro Project.  Her goal was to eliminate "human weeds" and "human waste" from our society, and today, Planned Parenthood is following her lead.  In New York City, more black babies are aborted, than born alive.  The eugenic racism of Planned Parenthood is well documented.

From Too Many Aborted dot com:
Today, nearly 40% of all African-American pregnancies end in induced abortion...Fatherlessness and poverty are rampant. Unintended pregnancy rates in the black community continue to rise. Today, the same mouthpieces for Planned Parenthood are claiming “lack of access” while black women access abortion clinics at 5 times the rate of white women. Abortion kills more black lives (363,705) than all other causes of death combined (285,522)...Abortion, no matter the race, is a tragedy. But in the black community, it is epidemic. Mainstream media, black celebrities, health care professionals and so-called black leaders continue to shill for Planned Parenthood, while our churches (who stood against injustice during the Civil Rights Movement) are mostly silent. Regardless, the truth screams loud and clear. Under the false liberty of ‘reproductive freedom’ we are killing our very future.
And, yes, Planned Parenthood targets black neighborhoods.

Death by tobacco?  How about death before you can even take your first breath?  Why aren't the liberal left Democrats upset about that kind of profiling?  Where is the liberal left Democrat's Truth Ad about America's genocide of unborn babies, and how the abortion butchers target black neighborhoods?

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary