DOUGLAS V. GIBBS             RADIO             BOOKS             CONSTITUTION             CONTACT/FOLLOW             DONATE

Monday, February 19, 2018

Winter Olympics? You Mean They're On?

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

If you are anything like me, you have only been watching the Olympic Games while you are out to eat, because the restaurant so happens to have the games on.  And, to be honest, aside from curling, and hockey, the winter games have never been a big draw for me, anyway.

It turns out, I am not alone.

Not only are the American athletes not doing as well as one would hope, currently holding on to sixth place with 10 overall medals, just behind the Russian competitors, and tied for third in gold medals with Canada’s haul of five, but also the Olympics, when it comes to its television audience, is currently the lowest rated and least watched games ever.

I am going to guess that because of technology, people are more busy arguing with people they don't know on social media than they are watching the boob-tube (which is probably collecting dust in the corner).  In fact, I can't count how many people I know who have discontinued their cable subscriptions because live TV is no longer fun to watch, and they can get the rest of what they want on You Tube, Hulu, Netflix, and various other platforms out there through the internet.

As for me, I still watch television, but not the traditional alphabet networks, anymore - unless they have a decent sporting event on . . . and unfortunately, the Olympics have not been fitting into that bill very well.  In fact, from what I've heard, NBC can't even get their own game in gear, first reporting the wrong gold medalist, and then after all of that egg in their face, they botched the correction.

Former Olympians don't want to participate as correspondents, and the gaffes are piling up.

Besides, there are no great story lines, no miracles on ice, and no episodes of great things that just tug at the heart strings.  The best we are getting are wardrobe malfunctions, a Russian curler who failed a drug test, and a whole team of North Korean athletes who fear that if they don't medal, it'll be off to the gulags for them.

Well, I guess we can at least applause snowboarder Shaun White, who made history in the 2018 Games as he scored America’s 100th Winter Games gold medal.

Don't get me wrong.  I have a lot of American Pride. I attended the 1984 Olympics when the Summer Games were in Los Angeles (largely attending Track and Field events at The Coliseum).  I want to be inspired.  I want to enjoy the games.  It's just that nothing about these games have been inspiring, or enough to make me want to participate . . . and with all of NBC's hard left garbage they've been dealing out over recent years, I really don't want to give them any viewership.

Maybe the Summer Games will catch our attention.

Maybe.

I know NBC won't.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Sunday, February 18, 2018

Madison's Veto of federal public works bill, 1817

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

In 1817, James Madison vetoed the Bonus Bill, and in his written explanation he not only explained that federal spending on roadways and boatways is unconstitutional, but he also explained that the use of the General Welfare Clause as defined by Congress in Mr. Calhoun's bill is not what was originally intended.  Today's Congress also tries to use the General Welfare Clause as an excuse to do anything they desire, and it would behoove them to read Madison's definition, which explains that it is not a clause or excuse to do as they please as much as it is a condition that is achieved if the federal government is doing its job.


Here's the text of the...

• Veto of federal public works bill

March 3, 1817

To the House of Representatives of the United States:

Having considered the bill this day presented to me entitled "An act to set apart and pledge certain funds for internal improvements," and which sets apart and pledges funds "for constructing roads and canals, and improving the navigation of water courses, in order to facilitate, promote, and give security to internal commerce among the several States, and to render more easy and less expensive the means and provisions for the common defense," I am constrained by the insuperable difficulty I feel in reconciling the bill with the Constitution of the United States to return it with that objection to the House of Representatives, in which it originated.

The legislative powers vested in Congress are specified and enumerated in the eighth section of the first article of the Constitution, and it does not appear that the power proposed to be exercised by the bill is among the enumerated powers, or that it falls by any just interpretation with the power to make laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution those or other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States.

"The power to regulate commerce among the several States" can not include a power to construct roads and canals, and to improve the navigation of water courses in order to facilitate, promote, and secure such commerce without a latitude of construction departing from the ordinary import of the terms strengthened by the known inconveniences which doubtless led to the grant of this remedial power to Congress.
To refer the power in question to the clause "to provide for common defense and general welfare" would be contrary to the established and consistent rules of interpretation, as rendering the special and careful enumeration of powers which follow the clause nugatory and improper. Such a view of the Constitution would have the effect of giving to Congress a general power of legislation instead of the defined and limited one hitherto understood to belong to them, the terms "common defense and general welfare" embracing every object and act within the purview of a legislative trust. It would have the effect of subjecting both the Constitution and laws of the several States in all cases not specifically exempted to be superseded by laws of Congress, it being expressly declared "that the Constitution of the United States and laws made in pursuance thereof shall be the supreme law of the land, and the judges of every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." Such a view of the Constitution, finally, would have the effect of excluding the judicial authority of the United States from its participation in guarding the boundary between the legislative powers of the General and the State Governments, inasmuch as questions relating to the general welfare, being questions of policy and expediency, are unsusceptible of judicial cognizance and decision.

A restriction of the power "to provide for the common defense and general welfare" to cases which are to be provided for by the expenditure of money would still leave within the legislative power of Congress all the great and most important measures of Government, money being the ordinary and necessary means of carrying them into execution.

If a general power to construct roads and canals, and to improve the navigation of water courses, with the train of powers incident thereto, be not possessed by Congress, the assent of the States in the mode provided in the bill can not confer the power. The only cases in which the consent and cession of particular States can extend the power of Congress are those specified and provided for in the Constitution.

I am not unaware of the great importance of roads and canals and the improved navigation of water courses, and that a power in the National Legislature to provide for them might be exercised with signal advantage to the general prosperity. But seeing that such a power is not expressly given by the Constitution, and believing that it can not be deduced from any part of it without an inadmissible latitude of construction and reliance on insufficient precedents; believing also that the permanent success of the Constitution depends on a definite partition of powers between the General and the State Governments, and that no adequate landmarks would be left by the constructive extension of the powers of Congress as proposed in the bill, I have no option but to withhold my signature from it, and to cherishing the hope that its beneficial objects may be attained by a resort for the necessary powers to the same wisdom and virtue in the nation which established the Constitution in its actual form and providently marked out in the instrument itself a safe and practicable mode of improving it as experience might suggest.

James Madison,

President of the United States


------------------


-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Russian Meddling, Mueller's Indictments, and What It Means

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

While I believe the indictments reveal that Russia wanted to influence the election, something they've been up to for the last 100 years, and something Obama tried to do himself regarding Israel's election when he was President, I am not sure the indictment necessarily incriminates or vindicates the Trump administration from involvement in Russian election meddling.  In truth, it doesn't necessarily prove there was Russian state-sponsored meddling in the first place, but it does charge that Russians were individually involved in attempting to influence the 2016 Presidential Election.  Indictments and hearsay testimony does not necessarily make something true.  It takes hard evidence to prove something, and regarding this case, that kind of evidence continues to remain elusive - at least to the public.

The Indictments obtained by special counsel Robert Mueller on Vladimir Putin’s alleged attempts to create discord in the 2016 election still keeps us in stitches with a number of questions that have not been answered.  That said, the indictments say that the Russians involved were pretending to be Americans, so if true, it could be good news for the Republicans and Trump's supporters because that would mean that any Americans contacted by the 13 charged Russians, including Trump campaign associates, did not know they were dealing with Russians, or at least did not know they were dealing with Russians actively operating to disrupt the American Election.

The thirteen defendants indicted are not in custody.  They are Russians who will likely never actually be brought into any American courtroom.  The grand jury’s charges against the 13 Russians and three organizations mark a change in the investigation, because it changes the conversation from whether or not there was Russian meddling to "who" the Russians were colluding with.

Trump has played an interesting card on this.  He has pointed out that the previous administration should have been doing something about this.  It happened under Obama's watch. Congressman Adam Schiff (D-CA), the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, continued to criticize the Trump administration’s response to Russia’s election meddling, but in light of special counsel Robert Mueller’s indictment targeting Russians over the interference he also repeated his dissatisfaction with the Obama administration’s initial response to what the Russians were up to, especially now that Mueller’s indictment says it all began in 2014.

The special counsel is stating interference happened, and Mueller says he can prove the existence of the Russian operation in court beyond a reasonable doubt, using only admissible evidence, and that the operation violated U.S. federal criminal law - note that the allegations in this indictment do not deal with computer or email hacking. The operation described in this indictment did not relate to the hacking of the DNC network, Donald Trump Jr.'s meeting with Russians in Trump Tower, nor to the theft or distribution of Podesta’s or the DNC’s emails in the summer and fall of 2016.

The 37-page indictment also makes no allegations regarding specific politicians on either side of the aisle, or the Trump team, either.  The indictment simply deals with an operation that the Russian participants themselves described as “information warfare against the United States of America.” What it does say, however, is that the Russian conspiracy began interfering in the presidential election in May 2014 — more than a year before Trump even entered the race in June 2015 (hence, once again, the reason Democrats are beginning to point fingers at Obama).

The goal of the Russian meddling operation had nothing to do with Trump.  As I wrote before, it didn't even match history, which has seen the Democrats colluding with Russia for dang-near the entire last 100 years.  Russia has always preferred a Democrat in office, because the left-wingers institute weaker foreign policies, and policies that are more favorable for Russia's favorite endeavors of expansion and geo-political meddling.

According to Mueller's indictment, the primary objective of the Russians' conspiracy wasn't to pick Hillary over Trump, or Trump over Hillary, but to "spread distrust towards the candidates and the political system in general."
The indictment’s first count charges 16 defendants with conspiring to defraud the United States (18 U.S.C. §371), alleging a conspiracy that “had as its object impairing, obstructing, and defeating the lawful governmental functions of the United States by dishonest means in order to enable the Defendants to interfere with U.S. political and electoral processes, including the 2016 U.S. presidential election.” In particular, the indictment alleges the defendants interfered with the Federal Election Commission’s administration of the Federal Election Campaign Act (prohibiting foreign nationals from certain kinds of political spending during elections); the Justice Department’s administration of the Foreign Agent Registration Act (requiring agents of foreign principals working within the United States on political matters to register as such); and the State Department’s program for issuing visas to foreign individuals entering the United States.
The indictment’s second count charges the Russian Internet Research Agency and two of its employees with conspiracy to commit wire fraud and bank fraud (18 U.S.C. §1349). According to the special counsel, these defendants opened U.S. bank and PayPal accounts under false names in order to receive and send money into and out of the United States—both to support the Internet Research Agency’s operations in the U.S. and for self-enrichment. The indictment alleges that in furtherance of this conspiracy, the defendants unlawfully used the Social Security numbers, home addresses and birth dates of real U.S. persons, without their knowledge or consent, to fraudulently open at least four bank accounts and six PayPal accounts. The defendants and their co-conspirators also allegedly purchased credit card and bank account numbers using the stolen identities of real U.S. persons obtained online.
Counts three through eight charge the Internet Research Agency and four of its employees with aggravated identity theft (18 U.S.C. §1028A) for knowingly transferring, possessing and using, without lawful authority, a means of identification of six different real persons during and in relation to the wire fraud and bank fraud alleged in count two.
No American was a knowingly participant in the operation.

The indictments also reveal that while the Russians wished to influence the election, the Russians had no impact on the election results.

But, what about Christopher Steele, and the dossier?  If no American knew about it, nor was a willing participant, where did Steele's fictional dossier come from?  How was it that the Democrats were so convinced that the Russians wanted Trump to win if the Russians had been operating without any Americans knowing what they were up to?

Is it possible as the rumors began to stir, and it became clear that Russia (once again) was trying to meddle in an American election, the Democrats decided to use that little bit of truth to create a massive story of collusion fiction about Trump?

As the Russians were doing their thing, Steele continued to work on behalf of the Clinton campaign in the hopes of undermining any confidence in the Trump presidency.  He was leaking the contents of his fictional dossier to the press and took it to the FBI.  It was believable because Russian meddling was believed to be true.  While no American was knowingly participating, it was much more sexy to accuse Trump of being head-deep into the conspiracy as an agent working with them.  It was believable because the part about Russian meddling was true (as it likely has been in every American election since the Russian Revolution).

Ultimately, we have no evidence of collusion, we simply have Russians trying to achieve division in the United States. 
The hardy Democrats will still argue, "but the Russians wanted Trump to win."

Really?

Then why does the indictment reveal that after Donald Trump carried the State of North Carolina, Russian conspirators posing as grass-roots activists helped arrange a November 19 rally in Charlotte called “Charlotte Against Trump”?

But, let's not jump onto the "they wanted Hillary to win" train, just yet, either.  The indictment says similar rallies in support of Trump were staged by the group in other U.S. cities.

The conspirators also infiltrated community groups such as Black Lives Matter.

Again, the indictment does not say that there was any collusion, or preference by the Russians on who won the election.  The indictment basically says that the whole operation was simply designed to foment discontent throughout the country.

That's not to say that the Russians didn't attempt to create collusion with one of the campaigns. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein said the Russians attempted to dupe Trump campaign figures into working with them.  Either, the duping didn't work at all, or the Mueller team has decided that at this point prosecutors aren’t ready to begin accusing any Americans of intentionally providing assistance.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Some thoughts about Guns after the Florida Shooting

Douglas V. Gibbs

It is none of the federal government's business regarding our right to keep and bear arms.  What part of "shall not be infringed" do these people not understand?  The focus has been on stopping this kind of evil from happening before it happens.  At what point does that kind of action become a tyranny?  Do we really want the government apprehending people because they think you might be dangerous?  You want to stop school shootings?  Pack the schools with good guys with guns.  Allow some of the teachers to carry, have armed guards available, and while you make sure the students and public knows armed good guys are on campus, don't let them know which of those people are the armed ones!  Simple.

Added note:

The whole point of the Second Amendment is for us to have the ability to defend ourselves not only from criminal activity but from a tyrannical government, which means my Firepower should be as potentially large as theirs. As for the concentration on guns that the liberal-left has it is kind of a ridiculous stance.  Let's instead talk about drunk driving. We could say hey to get rid of drunk driving how about we just ban the big scary cars and trucks. And then eventually they will say hey in order to stop drunk driving we need to get rid of mid size vehicles. It's ridiculous. Drunk driving happens because people are irresponsible with their alcohol intake. Shootings happen because people are irresponsible with their use of a tool called guns. More people are killed by knives and hammers, should we ban knives and hammers?

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Saturday, February 17, 2018

Constitution Radio with Douglas V. Gibbs: Politics Rising

Douglas V. Gibbs hosts Constitution Radio on KMET 1490-AM every Saturday at 1:00 pm Pacific Time ... 

Live on the Radio Dial: Banning, 1490-AM
Live on the Internet: KMET1490AM.com
Live on your mobile phone: KMET APP
● Android   ● Apple
Archived as a Podcast: Sound Cloud


Congressional Candidate Edwin Duterte, who is one of the Republicans challenging Maxine Waters for her seat, will be joining us at the top of the first hour . . . 



Join us, not only to listen, but to participate. Phone in during the show, 951-922-3532

Here's this week's AllStar Collision/CarStar Big Stories of the week:


- Gary Jeandron wins CRA Endorsement

http://politicalpistachio.blogspot.com/2018/02/gary-jeandron-wins-california.html

- Florida School Shooting

http://politicalpistachio.blogspot.com/2018/02/florida-school-shooting-dots-connected.html

- Right to Work Nationwide?

http://politicalpistachio.blogspot.com/2018/02/could-unions-democrat-money-laundering.html

- Rigged Wall Street Rollercoaster?

http://politicalpistachio.blogspot.com/2018/02/are-wall-street-rollercoaster.html

http://politicalpistachio.blogspot.com/2018/02/stock-markets-wild-ride-continues.html

- DACA, Immigration, and the Illegal Workforce

http://politicalpistachio.blogspot.com/2018/02/durbin-americans-wont-do-rough-and.html

- Judging the Wall

http://politicalpistachio.blogspot.com/2018/02/trumps-mexican-judge-becomes-wall-judge.html

- QAnon

http://politicalpistachio.blogspot.com/2018/02/qanon-and-trumps-war-with-deep-state.html


www.constitutionquest.com

Powerful Quake Shakes Mexico City

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

The Ring of Fire continues to shake.  After a flurry of earthquakes in a number of locations along the Pacific Ring of Fire, including swarms in California, and recently in the western Pacific, a 7.2 magnitude earthquake slammed southern and central Mexico on Friday; only five months after a deadly earthquake hit Mexico City's region with fierce force.

The September 19, 2017 earthquake caused 228 deaths in Mexico City, and 141 more in surrounding areas.  Some of the structural damage from that earthquake remains to be repaired.

The major earthquake was followed by a magnitude 5.8 aftershock about an hour later.

The earthquake is being labeled as a separate event from a September 7 earthquake that registered magnitude of 8.2, and the September 19 event.

The September 7 earth quake killed nearly 100 people, and was centered about 273 miles southwest of the latest event.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Gary Jeandron wins California Republican Assembly Endorsement

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

The Murrieta-Temecula Republican Assembly, one of two Riverside County units for the California Republican Assembly, held an endorsement convention last night.  Melissa Melendez, the Republican incumbent for California's 67th Assembly District who has held her seat since 2012, and has been a consistent winner and popular assemblywoman of her district which includes Lake Elsinore, Murrieta, Menifee, Winchester, Canyon Lake, Lake Mathews, Wildomar, and parts of Hemet, won the MTRA's endorsement unanimously; as did Marie Waldron (assembly district 75, Temecula and parts of northern San Diego County, also in office since 2012), and Duncan Hunter (U.S. House of Representatives California District 50).  Ken Calvert (U.S. House of Representatives California District 42) won his endorsement almost unanimously - there was one abstention.

After the endorsements of the incumbent republicans, a candidate forum for the California Assembly Seat in the 42nd Assembly District (Pass Area, Desert Communities, Yucaipa, Redlands, San Jacinto and a portion of Hemet) currently held by Chad Mayes took place.  The incumbent Republican Chad Mayes was invited, but did not attend, nor did he send any representative from his campaign.  He had also been disqualified because he had not sent in his questionnaire on-time.  Mayes has held the seat since 2014, and was the minority leader in Sacramento until a wave of Republican Party rebuke for his vote to extend Cap and Trade took place.  Riverside County's Republican Party Central Committee was among a long list of committees who called for Mayes' removal not only from his leadership position, but from holding office.  Two Republican candidates have emerged to challenge Chad Mayes (along with two democrats, and one Green Party candidate).

Gary Jeandron, a retired police officer (former Police Chief of Palm Springs), former school board member, and small business owner (marriage and family therapist), has 33 years experience in law enforcement, and has signed a "no-tax" pledge in relation to his current campaign. Jeandron's political history in the terms of holding office includes time on the Palm Springs Unified School District board, elected in 2010, of which he resigned about six weeks before the 2014 election after he moved outside the boundaries of his seat.  Electorally, this is Jeandron's third try at an assembly seat.  He competed for the Assembly in 2008 against V. Manuel Perez and lost, and finished third in the 2014 primary behind Mayes.  In 2010 he also challenged State Senator John Benoit for the Riverside County Board of Supervisors and lost.

Andrew Kotyuk, who, due to unforeseen circumstances, was unable to attend the CRA endorsement convention, last night, and instead sent his Campaign Manager Nathan Miller, who is also vice-chair of the Riverside County Republican Party Central Committee, is a businessman and current member of the San Jacinto City Council.

By the end of the evening, Jeandron, on the first ballot, earned the 2/3 majority vote needed to secure the endorsement by the California Republican Assembly at the Murrieta-Temecula Republican Assembly meeting.

Yours truly, Douglas V. Gibbs, was the moderator of the forum, during which I provided 3 questions (regarding Cap and Trade, the 2nd Amendment, and the immigration issue) followed by a half-dozen questions from the audience.  Candidates were given three minutes to give an opening statement, and three minutes for each question.  A one-minute rebuttal was available should any candidate directly challenge his opposition, but at no point during the evening was the rebuttal rule necessary.

After the final endorsement, an ordinance designed to enable California cities to opt-out of California's sanctuary status law (S.B. 54) was presented and voted on.  The MTRA voted unanimously to support the ordinance, which has been presented, thus far, to six cities.  I am the author of that ordinance.  If you would like me to send you a copy of it, please email me at constitutionspeaker at yahoo.com.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Friday, February 16, 2018

Tonight's MTRA Meeting

The Murrieta-Temecula Republican Assembly is meeting tonight, with check-in time at 6:00 pm.  I will be moderating a candidate forum between Andrew Kotyuk and Gary Jeandron as they battle for the California Assembly Seat for the 42nd District (Chad Mayes' seat).  Join us . . . Flyer below:


A Moral and Conservative Conscience

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

March 2-4 the California Republican Assembly will be holding their annual convention in Buena Park, California. I will be in attendance, and the following article is regarding that gathering, so we understand the importance of what we do, and how we go about it.

Ronald Reagan often referred to the California Republican Assembly as being "The Conscience of the Republican Party." A conscience is that inner voice, that feeling we all have about the rightness, and wrongness, of our actions and thoughts. What Reagan was saying was that as the Republican Party goes about its business, it is the California Republican Assembly that has been there to guide the party, and to make sure it remains on a moral and constitutional path.

With so many obstacles along the political path in today's volatile political atmosphere, it sometimes seems difficult to imagine that on September 17, 1787, when our United States Constitution was signed by the delegates of the convention, and was ready to be sent out to the States for ratification, even then there was significant opposition to the document.  During that time period, there were a number of folks concerned about the implications of creating a new federal government.  Some desired the central government to be a strong and powerful entity, and others feared that the new federal government would become tyrannical and encroach upon the Natural Rights of the citizens.  

The division of political ideologies existed back then, as they do, now.  There were those who called for a stronger centralized government.  The Constitution itself was born during an age of crisis.  The British Empire refused to recognize the sovereignty of the United States, and was simply waiting for the experiment of self-rule to collapse.  The British leadership fully expected the petulant colonies to fail and come crawling back to Mother England.  The American economy was in shambles, and on the verge of collapse.  Some States, with inflation raging out of control, were preparing to consider secession from the union before the country ever got a foothold under its new existence.  There were trade disputes, shattered hopes, and strong suspicions about the convention to create a new government going on in Philadelphia at Independence Hall behind closed doors and shuttered windows.

Patrick Henry refused to attend the convention, and after it was all over, George Mason refused to sign the document.  There were fears that the sovereignty of the States would be in danger, and that freedom gained by the Revolution would be lost in a committee of politicians.

While modern-day Americans imagine that there was harmony and collective agreement during the Constitutional Convention, the reality is that it was full of division and difficulty.  During the first four to five weeks the disagreements were so fierce that little was accomplished, and it wasn't until Benjamin Franklin recommended they pray before each session of the convention that work began to finally move forward.  Even then, there was disagreement.  Alexander Hamilton, offended that the delegates would desire to reach out to the impropriety of a spiritual entity for guidance, quipped that the new country was not in need of "foreign aid."

Despite the differences and fierce debates, the delegates came together to create a document that would profoundly and forever alter the path of the new union of States in America, but it would light a shining beacon of liberty that could be seen around the globe.  The American Revolution had been put down into words, and the construction of the American Republic's Constitution sent tremors throughout the world, inspiring dreams of liberty in other places of the planet, and it elevated the hopes for a better life not only in the United States, but beyond her shores.

Thomas Jefferson recognized the importance of equality in the new country when he penned the words in the Declaration of Independence that "all men are created equal."  But, he was not providing a template for equality based on man's definition of equality, but based on the Creator's definition of equality.  The dreams of the Framers of the Constitution was that God-given Natural Rights would be enjoyed by all people, someday, and theirs was a blueprint to begin that new revolution of liberty.  Those dreams have remained in the morals of a Godly conscience that has navigated this country through many difficult waters, bringing us to today, this moment in time, when still the question of being created equal and being endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights remains a challenge in the face of an opposition that has been convinced that the Constitution is an antiquated oppressive document.

The delegates had labored for four months during the heat and humidity of the Philadelphia summer.  They knew they were creating something phenomenal, and they knew that the Hand of Divine Providence was with them.

Since the Constitutional Convention of 1787, with the passing of each generation, issues have become more complex, and the opposition to the liberty the Constitution presents has become more fierce.  

While no system is perfect, the United States Constitution has proven to be the system that has worked best in history when it comes to promoting, preserving, and protecting liberty.  Sometimes we are led astray, but our conscience always leads us back to conservative principles and the United States Constitution. Winston Churchill once said, "You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after they've tried everything else."

Thomas Jefferson also realized that sometimes Americans, during our journey, may be tempted to step off course.  However, he had faith in We the People, that we would realize our errors, and follow our conscience back to the principles of liberty.  He once wrote, "The good sense of the people will always be found to be the best army.  They may be led astray for a moment, but will soon correct themselves."

Ronald Reagan recognized that the California Republican Assembly, and ultimately a national organization of Republican Assemblies, was a part of that nudge that would lead Americans to correct themselves.  As the conscience of the Republican Party, even while statists have worked to infiltrate the Grand Ol' Party, the California Republican Assembly has stood firm on principle and determination. Since 1934, when the CRA had its first statewide organizational meeting in San Jose, the organization has served as a conscience of the Republican Party.  We have sought to keep the GOP on its conservative path, to keep the never-ending battle of beating back tyranny alive, and to do what we can to make sure we keep freedom secured in America.  

We have worked to live up to John Quincy Adams' promise that "Whenever the standard of freedom and independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will be America's heart, her benedictions and her prayers."

We have a love affair with liberty, and the covenant made through the United States Constitution, and it is not only the desire of the California Republican Assembly to be the conscience of the Republican Party; it is our duty.

The Constitutional Convention in 1787 was a miracle.  Miracles only emerge when God's hand is upon something.  The Framers of the United States Constitution recognized that the Hand of Divine Providence was upon them.

George Washington, in his Inaugural Address, said "No person can be bound to acknowledge and adore the Invisible Hand which conducts the affairs of men more than those of the United States. Every step by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation seems to have been distinguished by some providential agency."

In his Farewell Address, Washington said, "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indispensable supports.  In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism who should labour to subvert these great Pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens.  The mere Politician, equally with the pious man, out to respect and to cherish them ... Let it simply be asked, where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of moral and religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice?"

There is no doubt that human nature is imperfect, and because men are not angels, as James Madison reminded us, government is a necessary evil.  Due to the fact that men inhabit the chambers of government, while it is important that they recognize that the finger of Providence must be a guiding principle in the affairs of humanity, without a conscience that is active and ever-present, it is the nature of humans to become corrupt and vicious and to deny their position among the powers of the earth and that our position is dependent upon the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God if we are to continue to be free.

It is the duty of the California Republican Assembly, as the Conscience of the Republican Party, to entertain the higher cause of the preservation of the fires of human liberty.  It is our solemn responsibility.

It took prayer before each session of the Constitutional Convention, a litany of fierce debates, and the sacrifices of those who believed in the Blessings of Liberty to birth the greatest country ever to exist on Planet Earth; and it will take the same kind of conviction, prayer and work to maintain it as we continue into the 21st Century.  We live in a world whose eyes are upon America.  We are the last great hope for freedom.  We are the bearers of the torch of liberty.  Our Constitution is the triumph of determination, and a desire that all may be free, united as one under God.

It is a fitting tribute to the delegates of the Constitutional Convention that the California Republican Assembly recognizes that it is the moral and conservative conscience not only of the Republican Party, but of the United States of America.  We must remember that those original patriots, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, were willing to mutually pledge to each other their Lives, Fortunes, and sacred Honor for the cause of liberty.  As the Conscience of the Republican Party, it is our duty to do at least the same.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Three Common Gun Control Myths Debunked

Video Posted on Political Pistachio by Douglas V. Gibbs
Author, Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host

Pretty Good Video. . . not perfect, though.  See note below after viewing the video:



* The argument the young lady in this video uses regarding the 14th Amendment and incorporating parts of the Bill of Rights to the States, despite judicial complicity, is in error.  The bigger question is not about incorporation of the Bill of Rights as much as it is about the nature of Natural Rights.  Based on the Natural Rights argument, while we have the right to keep and bear arms at the State level, it's not because the Bill of Rights says so, but because it is a natural God-given right . . . in other words, because God says so.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Thursday, February 15, 2018

Douglas V. Gibbs speaking to Beach Cities Republicans Tonight!


Florida School Shooting: Dots Connected Afterward

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

If ever there was a case where everyone just knew that a particular person was going to become a mass shooter, Nikolas Cruz was that case.  He was obsessed with pridefully displaying and brandishing guns and knives on social media.  He grandly shared his stories about shooting rats with his BB gun, and combined with the fact that he brought bullets to school in his backpack, he was kicked out of school and sent to a continuation high school to finish his time in public school.  He was not allowed back on his old campus, especially with a backpack.

Cruz, yesterday, shot and killed 17 people at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida.  He left 15 others injured.  He has been charged with 17 counts of pre-meditated murder.

While Cruz had no previous arrests, there were many signs and clues that should have led law enforcement to the conclusion that Cruz was a killer in the making.  The shooting was pre-meditated.  He fled the scene.  Everyone knew he would do such a thing.

On You Tube Nikolas Cruz proclaimed, "I'm going to be a professional school shooter."  Yet, investigators didn't go beyond that and question the potential shooter regarding his post.

The common thread among modern shootings in America has been social media, but is that enough to put together a case against someone?  Are we willing to chase after Minority Report-style arrests before someone commits a crime?  Or is that too Orwellian for a society based on liberty, and the United States Constitution, to use those kinds of methods?

Hindsight is 20/20.  Sure, looking back the dots were there to be connected, but in law enforcement you can't arrest someone because you think they are someone who might commit a crime.  The real prevention doesn't begin with government, it begins with making sure we follow a moral compass in society, and promote the traditional family model.  Unfortunately, families are not as engaged with their children as they used to be.

While we wish we could prevent such horrible things, at what price to liberty would such actions cost?

There is little we can do until a potential shooter actually commits the crime.  If there are suspicions, we can only hold people up to 72 hours.  Meanwhile, we have specific protections of civil liberties in this country, and we can't accuse people of crimes they have not committed yet because of what they posted on social media, or because a psychiatrist says they have the potential to do such a thing.  The reality is, the majority of gun owners are not violent, and the majority of mental health sufferers do not commit mass violence of this nature.

The conversation about mental illness being blamed in this shooting also has me nervous.  There is an extensive list of what is considered to be a mental illness.  If government is making the definitions regarding mental illness, how long before they use that power to accuse people of having a mental illness because of an opinion they have, or a stance they take?  How long before adhering to Christianity is considered a mental illness?  How long before people begin to be detained for mental illness issues because it is assumed they will be mass shooters because of their political stances?

It's a Pandora's Box we do not want to open, so allowing government to proceed with gun laws that are tied to their definitions of mental illness is a very dangerous path.

In Florida, where the shooting occurred, they have a law titled the Florida Mental Health Act of 1971 (Florida Statute 394.451-394.47891[1] (2009 rev.)), commonly known as the "Baker Act," which allows the involuntary institutionalization and examination of an individual.  Is that something law enforcement could have used as a strategy prior to the shooting?

A Baker Act initiated involuntary examination must be ordered by judges, law enforcement officials, physicians, or mental health professionals. There must be evidence that the person has a mental illness and that the condition creates a situation where they are a potential harm to themselves, to others, or that they could be self-neglectful (as defined in the Baker Act).  Examinations may last up to 72 hours.

Then, what do they do after the examination?  Following examination of the patient, they could then be released to the community, there could be a petition for involuntary inpatient placement (what some call civil commitment), involuntary outpatient placement (what some call outpatient commitment or assisted treatment orders), or voluntary treatment (if the person is competent to consent to voluntary treatment and consents to voluntary treatment). The involuntary outpatient placement language in the Baker Act took effect as part of the Baker Act reform in 2005.

While the Baker Act could have been used, was their enough evidence to impose such an action?  Or, an even bigger question, what kind of tyranny could laws like the Baker Act lead to if certain political persuasions decided to use the law for more nefarious reasons?

Judge Napolitano said of the Florida shooting that it was a "planned and plotted murder...classic death penalty case."  However, as I said before, hindsight is 20/20, and you can't accuse someone of crimes they have not committed . . . even if you are positive they will do it.

The possibility of Islamic Terrorism has also been considered, especially since Cruz has on his Instagram mentioned Islam, and Allah.  That said, there has been no evidence that shows any connections to Islam, or that the shooting was ISIS inspired.

Social media did come into play during the shooting, as the students kept the world updated as the bullets were flying.  Some of the students even sent out video footage from their phones.  The list of victims from the shooting is extensive, and one of the people killed during the event saved lives by acting as a human shield.  The hero who saved lives was a Football Coach, Aaron Feis.  As Cruz opened fire with an AR-15 rifle, Coach Feis, according to students, jumped in front of the bullets.  One of the fathers whose son is on the football team shared the story with other parents.  “The coach was also shot,” the father said. “He got shot by jumping on the guy, that’s what I heard.”  On Thursday morning, Broward Sheriff Scott Israel confirmed Feis was killed and described him as a person who was beloved in the school and community.

President Donald Trump cancelled a planned trip to Orlando, Florida after news of the deadly school shooting in Parkland reached his administration.  Trump is still planning a separate trip to Florida to meet with families and local officials in Parkland.  After stating his administration plans to look at the mental health issue associated with the shooting, he also urged Americans to “create a culture in our country that embraces the dignity of life that creates deep and meaningful human connections.”


Who's to blame?  What's to blame?  Is it the fault of our gun culture, or the reality that our society is spiraling out of control due to other influences and mindsets?

The Democrats will push for more gun control, and in fact they already are.  Other politicians will call for a crack-down on mental illness in this country.  Honestly, at the end of the conversation, EVIL is the reason for the shooting.  Evil has been teaching society that life is not something to be valued; Six States have Assisted Suicide Laws allowing doctor assisted personal euthanasia.  Obamacare and other leftist socialist universal medicine plans, as a part of rationing health care, include provisions for "end of life counseling" with euthanasia being a consideration.  Abortion is accepted as a "reproductive right," with over 58 million innocent babies being slaughtered in the womb since Roe v. Wade (and that doesn't take into consideration "ghost abortions," which are those children that would have been born had the abortion victims lost had grown up and had families of their own).  Laws are being passed forcing the abortion pill into the hands of our girls on college campuses, and unconstitutionally attacking pro-life pregnancy centers by compelling them by law to advertise for abortion clinics (due to be heard by the Supreme Court on March 20 - NIFLA v. Becerra).  Our children are being taught that life has little value, especially if those lives are old or young.  They are being taught it's okay to be promiscuous because babies can be killed and discarded with ease.  The media and entertainment industry celebrates abortion.  Our country has determined that we do not value life of the innocent, so why would a kid with dreams of death and revolution floating inside his brain value the life of others?

In America our kids have been drugged, and like their parents they suffer from depression, anxiety, and a whole list of mental illnesses or learning disability labels that may, or may not exist.  Life is horrific, from their point of view.  Climate Change will end the world before they become adults, Trump wants to imprison them and all we can plan for in the future is a loss of Social Security and the rise of an Orwellian Society that will control everyone through a massive tyrannical technocracy.  They live a life fearful of bullying, and offensive language.  Political Correctness has them looking over their shoulders, and technology has them locked inside their rooms with devices to keep them company.

No wonder some of them have resorted to video game style shooting rampages.

Cultural Marxism has promoted hate, and has divided society; and all we can think of as a political machine is which Natural Rights suppression knee jerk reaction should be applied next.

As for the news media, we aren't even sure if we get all of the information to understand what is going on.

Aside from the fact that there is an obvious political bias, sometimes they simply leave things out when they report the news so as to influence our thinking.  In the case of the Florida shooting, one witness claims there was a second shooter.  Cruz was taken into custody without any issues, complying with the commands of law enforcement.  Authorities have not mentioned anything that says they believe that there is the possibility of a second shooter.  How about this unreported tidbit while we are at it: Guns are used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year -- or about 6,850 times a day.  This means that each year, firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.  And, on top of all that, of the 2.5 million times citizens use their guns to defend themselves every year, the overwhelming majority merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers. Less than 8% of the time, a citizen will kill or wound his/her attacker.  How's that for something that is being left out by the news media?

The shooter in Florida was not suicidal, and as stated earlier, signs and clues were there that should have made everyone connected to Cruz ready for such a thing.  While, as I stated earlier, I don't think we should become a Minority Report crime prevention system that arrests people because we think they are capable of some kind of violence, I also recognized that the FBI was warned and there surely is something that could have been done to stave off such a situation from developing.

Would more guns in the hands of teachers and personnel (and security), and making sure it is known publicly that shooters will be dealt with instantly and with severity by those people wielding firearms, been enough to scare off such craziness?

Absolutely!

I think that is exactly what needs to be done.  Let's get rid of the gun-free crap, and let's fill our schools with good guys with guns.  That, right there, will stop at least most of the madness. While criminals and potential mass shooters may be willing to cause harm on others, more often is the case that they don't want to be shot at; and the threat of being gunned down by a society that is fully armed is plenty enough of a deterrent that will likely stop most of the mass shootings we have been experiencing.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Wednesday, February 14, 2018

Could the Unions' Democrat Money Laundering be Ending?

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

In less than two weeks the United States Supreme Court will be hearing a case about union fees that could make the Right-To-Work phenomenon become a countrywide reality.

An employee who is a part of a public union named Mark Janus, working at the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services, decided his $45 union due was a problem because he didn't think  he should be forced to pay union dues or fees just to be allowed to work for the State.  Besides, where was his money going?

In his court filing, Janus quoted Thomas Jefferson, who said to “compel a man to furnish contribution of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical.”

Though the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Janus’ argument, the Supreme Court agreed to hear his appeal - and this could be bad news for the unions.  Without compulsory fees, union funding would decrease drastically, and so would their ability to pass the money on to their political causes, like the Democrat Party.

“The merits of the case, and 40 years of Supreme Court precedent and sound law, are on our side,” says Lee Saunders, president of the union, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees.

The central question in “Janus” is this: Should the court overrule its 1977 decision Abood v. Detroit Board of Education? In “Abood,” the Supreme Court declared that schoolteachers could be required to pay fees to public unions as long as the money was spent on the costs of collective bargaining and related issues, and not on ideological causes.

There was Harris v. Quinn (2014), where the court determined that non-union employees couldn’t be forced to pay fees to labor unions, even though they received compensation from government sources that was determined through collective bargaining. The case was decided 5-4.

More on point was Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association (2016), which asked if a school district requiring employees to join a union or pay a fee infringed on their First Amendment rights of free speech and assembly. In other words, the court was being asked to reconsider “Abood.”

And they might have done just that, except that Associate Justice Scalia died before the case could be decided. This left the court split with four liberals and four conservatives, so they simply put out a one-line opinion that affirmed the lower court decision, leaving the question for another day.

Now, that day has come.

With Trump's appointee, Neil Gorsuch, on the court, if Justice Kennedy rules as he has in the past, it could spell the end of compulsory union dues and membership, spreading the right-to-work rule across the country.  My only concern is that like the leftists freaking out about Trump, union thugs can be quite dangerous.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Are Wall Street Rollercoaster Fluctuations Rigged?

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

Wall Street is a funny place.  It's a casino, in many ways.  Speculation, market confidence, and political turmoil all play a role in its rises and falls.  One person says that the recent craziness associated with the whole thing is the result of manipulation, and artificial motivations encouraged for political reasons.

The whistleblower says the whole thing is being manipulated by simple computer entries.  The alleged manipulators are moving prices up and down, entering quotes for trades that are never executed, ultimately influencing values so that traders react in a certain way.

Wrongway short bets had become one of the most popular trades on Wall Street because volatility had gone eerily absent for a protracted period, encouraging investors, who were lamenting the narrow trading ranges present during that period of placidity, to make more aggressive wagers to generate richer returns.  But, the whistleblower has been concerned about unfair markets where "VIX manipulation that has already caused investors to incur massive losses and is eager to prevent further harm from investors” is used to cause further damage.  He charges that the average retail investor isn’t aware of how exchange-traded products like VIX are rebalanced daily and that a “mismatch” in the nature of short-volatility products means “a larger move in spot-volatility in either direction requires excessive buying or selling pressure whenever short volatility assets are dominant.”

Experts say the whistleblower is a fake who has no idea what he's talking about.  His “letter is replete with inaccurate statements, misconceptions and factual errors, including a fundamental misunderstanding of the relationship between the VIX Index, VIX futures and volatility exchange traded products, among other things,” a Cboe spokeswoman said in a statement.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Chad Bianco joins Constitution Association Monthly Meeting in March


Durbin: Americans Won't Do Rough and Dirty Jobs

By Douglas V. Gibbs
Author, Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host
Immigration is the current issue being debated in Congress.  It's all about DACA, and the Democrats are attempting to defend their stance of putting illegal aliens above Americans and military service personnel in the last round of budget talks.

The Democrats are all about open-borders, a stance that has been historically championed by globalists and communists.  Dick Durbin is the guy with the loudest argument, retelling the same old worn-out lines that simply aren't true.  On the Senate floor Durbin was willing to proclaim, "Hispanics and Africans taking what are pretty tough, dirty rough jobs, because others don't want 'em...not many of us say to our sons and daughters 'I'm hoping the day will come when you decide to go and pick fruit for a living'. Hardly ever hear that, because we know its hard, back-breaking work and immigrants do the work."

Can you get more racist and offensive than that?

My grandfather was a sharecropper.  My dad and my wife, at times in their lives, worked on assembly lines.  My brother and I, in my case for fourteen years, dug ditches for a living.  My hands bled for the first two weeks on the job.  Yes, most of the people on the job sites were Hispanic, but a good portion of them were American-born, or "white."

My son applied for a job to pick fruit many years ago.  He was a young man who had failed to chase the college dream, and after spending a few years working with me in the dirt he decided to pick fruit.  He found a local employer, but was rejected because he doesn't speak Spanish.

If the situation was reversed, and it was over whether or not he could speak English, it would be considered a case of discrimination; but in the fruit-picking industry it's not.  What that told me is that it isn't that Americans aren't willing to do that kind of work, but that the industry refuses to allow Americans to do that kind of work.

Who does Durbin, and his Democrat Party friends, think did that kind of work prior to the influx of illegal aliens working under the table for slave wages?  Before those job positions opened up as a result of the expansion of welfare programs by Lyndon B. Johnson's Great Society, it was Americans who did the jobs that the leftists are now claiming Americans aren't willing to do.

How is a young person supposed to break into the workforce if the low-wage jobs are taken up by illegal aliens?

Oh, wait, Durban kept using the word "immigrants."

Idiot.

Immigrants are people who go through immigration protocols established by immigration law.  He's not defending immigrants, Durban is defending illegal aliens ... people who broke federal law to cut in line and come to the United States illegally - which makes them federal fugitives.

The reality is, mixed into the illegal alien population are people who are not good for America.  Among the families seeking a better America are drug dealers, rapists, gang members, the diseased, terrorists, and various other criminals.  Are all of them these kind of people?  Of course not, but the fact is the rule of law is in place for a reason.  Immigration laws protect the receiving population from the wrong people coming into our country that in the long run could be detrimental to our safety.

As for the DACA argument of the poor kids, many of those people are also criminals, illiterate and wish harm against Americans.  Again, I realize that every DACA recipient is not what I just described, but enough of them are that we have no choice but to demand that none of them receive amnesty . . . and if they truly do wish to be Americans, once they return home, they will be determined to go through the process in place to become a legal immigrant.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

MTRA: Candidate Forum and Endorsement Meeting

Douglas V. Gibbs will be the Moderator for the 42 Assembly District Candidate Endorsement Forum


Tuesday, February 13, 2018

Anything to Stop Liberty . . . be it stopping Trump, or Netanyahu

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

Donald J. Trump as President of the United States is a nightmare to the hard-left establishment who thought they finally had the United States on its knees and ready to succumb to the demands of the globalists and Marxists on the international stage.  In the early 1980s, Ronald Reagan did the same thing to them, setting them back decades after all of the work they had accomplished through the Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission.  With Reagan, the second half of his conservative army that set the world right again for a moment in time was Margaret Thatcher of Great Britain.  Unfortunately, this time, the U.K. does not have the kind of leader that is willing to work with our President . . . but Israel does.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, after weathering through the presidency of Barack Obama, is ready to work with Trump, and together, the pair poses a serious threat to the powers that thought they had the world by the throat a year and a half ago when they believed Hillary Clinton was the heir apparent in the United States.  As a result, their hatred and willingness to do whatever it takes to stand in the way of Trump has extended to Netanyahu, as well.

The latest attacks against Trump, and anyone else not obedient to the establishment's wishes, has been brutal. Representative Eric Swalwell (D-CA) introduced the “Journalist Protection Act” in the House which would make attacking or intimidating journalists a federal crime. Swalwell claims President Trump has created a “toxic atmosphere” for journalists and his legislation is needed for their protection - an attempt to essentially protect the leftist message by disallowing anyone to say anything against it.  It's like Woodrow Wilson's unconstitutional sedition act in reverse.

I remember when NBC let go of Jay Leno for joking about Obama, yet all of the late night hosts have been especially brutal to Trump's administration and his supporters . . . yet none of them are worried about their jobs.  Jimmy Kimmel recently went after some friends of mine from We the People Rising, by trying to trap them on the DACA issue . . . and he failed miserably.  This isn't the first time Kimmel has been humiliated, and a crying little b*tch as a result. . . I seem to remember when street artist Sabo nailed Kimmel with his "Estrogen Hour" laughers, and "Cry-Baby" art mere months ago.  Then there was the time about four months ago when idiot Kimmel tried to attack the 2nd Amendment with his “our forefathers wanted us to have AK-47s is the argument, I assume” comment . . . the answer is, "Yes, we should have the same fire-power the government has, if it is our duty to use our firearms as a defense against potential government tyranny." While Kimmel was suggesting that the Founders didn’t understand modern technology, and therefore, arguments about why they set out to defend gun rights in the Bill of Rights don’t apply to today - it only proved how much of a moron he really is. It wasn't about understanding new technology, it was about understanding human nature and the potential of tyranny.  I liked Kimmel better on The Man Show.

Letterman's replacement, the once prince of Comedy Central Stephen Colbert, was willing to go into a rant laced with profanity to allege Trump has a lack of a soul - simply revealing his hatred, and lack of any class.

Google was even in on all of the madness, doing what they could to rig the 2016 Election.

What would you expect from the leftists in media and entertainment when you even have the New York Times embracing communism:


In fact, all of the liberal media has been lately revealing their love of communism as they recently fawned over North Korea's communists during the Olympics broadcasts.  Just look at their latest love-affair with North Korea's Propaganda Minister, a.k.a. North Korean pudgy dictator Kim Jong Un's sister, a.k.a. Kim Yo Jong:






For some reason the presence of the North Korean dictator and his sister reminded me more of Adolph Hitler and Evan Braun, than it did of the charms and delights the liberal media saw in it.

The attacks against liberty by the leftists of the world, be it through media, or attempts to remove our president from office, isn't only being levied against President Trump and his supporters.  As I said earlier, they hate Trump's ally in Israel, as well.  Benjamin Netanyahu is under attack, and this one seems much like a straight out attempt at a military coup through Israel's police.

As with the "Impeach Trump" campaign, a similar thing is going on in Israel because Netanyahu is also a danger to a worldwide establishment seeking global governance through a Marxist tyranny.  

Rather than collusion with the Russians, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is being threatened to be indicted for bribery, fraud, and breach of trust in a pair of corruption cases - of which Netanyahu calls “unfounded” and “outrageous.”  He claims he's innocent and that he will continue to lead Israel for years to come.

In a recent televised speech he said that throughout his life he has always worked solely and strictly to benefit the State of Israel and its security, and was not influenced by gifts he is alleged to have received in exchange for advancing businessmen’s interests.

“The only thing that motivates me is the interest of the state,” he said. His actions, he said, were “not for cigars from a friend. Not for press coverage. Not for anything. Just for the state.”

Netanyahu’s speech came minutes before police published their recommendations for his indictment in two years-long corruption investigations, known as cases 1000 and 2000.

During his speech, Netanyahu cast doubt on the objectivity of police investigators, following Israel Police Commissioner Roni Alsheich’s assertion last week that private sleuths tried to dig up dirt on police investigating Netanyahu.

“It is impossible to break free from the impression that the [police recommendations] were influenced by the unfounded feelings of interrogators that I acted against him,” he said. The investigation simply could not have been “objective,” he claimed.

“Therefore it is no surprise that these are the recommendations,” he said, alleging that they had been predetermined from the start of the probe.

Netanyahu's allies say that nothing can happen legally unless the Attorney General initiates it, and that simply won't be the case.

Following protocol, the police recommendations are heading to Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit, who will have to decide whether to indict Netanyahu on any or all of the suggested charges.

Netanyahu says he has long been a victim of “slander,” and that some 15 probes that have been opened into his conduct over the years were part of an effort “to topple him from power.”

“All these attempts, without exception, ended with nothing. Because I know the truth, I am telling you all that also this time they will end without anything,” he said.

“These recommendations have no status in a democratic state,” the prime minister added, noting that a substantial proportion of cases in which police recommend prosecution end without charges brought.

Directly addressing the allegations against him, Netanyahu vehemently denied accepting gifts from anyone in exchange for political favors.

Netanyahu said he was confident that the prosecution would recognize that the police recommendations to indict him are without foundation, that “the truth will out,” and that his government will see out its term. He vowed to continue to “advance Israel as a rising power.”

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary