DOUGLAS V. GIBBS             RADIO             BOOKS             CONSTITUTION             CONTACT/FOLLOW             DONATE

Saturday, November 18, 2017

Conservative Voice Radio: Kotyuk

Hosted by Douglas V. Gibbs, AuthorSpeakerInstructorRadio Host, and members of the Banning-Beaumont-Cherry Valley Tea Party Glenn, Jan and Diane.  On today's episode, Jan and Glenn were unable to join us.

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

Listen live at or listen later at the podcast page.

Today's Topics:
  • Repeal and Replace Chad Mayes
  • Gorsuch Attacked for Being Constitutional
  • Governor Jerry Brown's Unconstitutional Climate Change Trip to Europe
  • Virginia Election has Democrats Excited for False Reasons
  • Roy Moore
  • Senate Version of Tax Reform is Democrat Light

Friday, November 17, 2017

Six Democrats Introduce Articles of Impeachment of President Donald Trump

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

The Democrats hate Trump, not just because he's Trump, but because he claims to be a Republican who is willing to upset the apple cart of the establishment.  If, somehow, a different GOP candidate had won the 2016 Presidential Election, and he was also willing to challenge politics-as-usual, the treatment would be the same.  The accusations against Trump were planned against whoever the Republican would be a decade ago.  The Democrats were so close to creating a single-party socialist system with a powerful Clinton at the helm that they could taste it.

The strategy shifted from what they were doing (through creeping incrementalism), to "whatever it takes."  A part of that emergency procedure effort is to do anything and everything it takes to marginalize Trump, and any conservative Republican the Democrats see as a threat.  Roy Moore is being removed before he can even take a seat at the table.

Six Democrat representatives are going all the way when it comes to Trump, by introducing articles of impeachment against the president.

There's no crime.  No maladministration.  Trump has not committed perjury under oath like Bill Clinton did.  They just simply despise him, so they attack him with both barrels blazing.

“Given the magnitude of the constitutional crisis, there’s no reason for delay,” Representative Steve Cohen, D-TN, said in a statement regarding his co-sponsorship of the articles of impeachment.

What Constitutional Crisis?  If there is a Constitutional Crisis, it's not being caused by Trump.  It's a longer than two-century long crisis caused by the Democrat Party's allies throughout U.S. History in their use of unconstitutional concepts like "implied law" and "judicial review" to usurp the U.S. Constitution.  Trump's only crime is standing up to the Democrats in the kind of way that they have no reasonable response for.

They hate Donald Trump, not because of who he is, but because of what he is.  He can't be bought, he can't be shifted, and he is outside the system.  He is a wrecking ball, and he is slamming against the establishment.

The thing is, the Democrats know they won't succeed in achieving a removal from office of President Trump.  That's not what they are doing.  They are setting the stage.  Preparing for the onslaught of dirty politics against the man so that reelection is not only not possible, but to ensure that they are the ones able to grab the White House in 2020, and in 2018 grab at least the Senate (and perhaps the House) along the way.

It's not about the Constitution.  The Democrats use words like "constitution," but they actually see the original intent of that document as an obstacle to their ultimate Marxist plans.  The tactics we are seeing is all about their political power, and the fact that they are willing to obtain that political power any way they can, even if it is through deception, illegal means, and sinister ploys such as articles of impeachment filed for false reasons.

The top leadership of the Democrat Party is nervous about the call for impeachment.  While Maxine Waters is making the news often screaming "impeach 45," establishment Democrats like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and Democratic National Committee Chairman Tom Perez, have been quiet about it.  It worries them.  To the voters, it may look more like a negative for the Democrats.

Instead, the goal of the entrenched establishment Democrats is to force the Republicans to fail when it comes to major legislation like the repeal of Obamacare, or reforming the tax system - and then run on the claim that the GOP controlled Houses of Congress are a do-nothing Congress.

Then, if the Democrats could somehow gain control of the House, and the Speaker becomes Nancy Pelosi again, they would be in a better position to make Trump's final two years pure hell, and cripple him to a point that it neutralizes the conservative push the Republicans have somehow been able to manage since the election of Barack Obama in 2008.

In truth, what the Democrats have been doing in retaliation of the Donald Trump ascendancy to the White House has been downright Orwellian (George Orwell, author, 1984 and Animal Farm). Orwell, in 1984, wrote, "Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, and every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right."

The concepts of newspeak and doublethink that Orwell came up with in his novel warning us about socialism is now what we call political correctness.  Reality has been distorted through the manipulation of language, history is being twisted (or purposely forgotten) in the halls of institutions of higher learning and by the destruction of historical artifacts and statues that don't reflect the new truth as it is being put out by the Democrats.  The liberal left is calling the opposition to their narrative "sufferers of a mental disorder", and they are demanding a reconditioning of people's mental attitude so that they also will fall in line with the new reality.

Orwell wrote, "the whole aim of Newspeak and Doublethink is to narrow the range of thought."

Sound familiar?  Could that be what political correctness is all about?

The thing is, the Democrat thought-process goes way beyond politics.  Their anger and anguish over Trump's election led to a "scream at the sky" temper tantrum event on the one year anniversary of his election.  It is a religiosity.  They religiously believe in the leftist socialist garbage being fed to them, and are 100% convinced they are 100% correct. . . hence, the intolerance of any opposing point of view.

They have been convinced that they are stopping the next great dictatorship.

Sure, they agree with socialism, but from their point of view, that's not what the NAZIsm and fascism Trump supports is all about.  It's about white supremacy.

Actually, NAZI stands for National Socialist German Worker's Party.

Socialism is the control of the means of production through government ownership of the means of production.  Fascism is the control of the means of production through government regulation of the means of production.  In short, socialism and fascism are the same when it comes to the ends they are trying to achieve.  Only the path to get there slightly differs.

The Democrats have a lot more in common with NAZIs and fascists than the Republicans ever could.

Like the fascist Nazis, the Democrats and their minions are shutting down opposing speech on college campuses across the country, demanding that historic statues and monuments associated with anything they deem offensive be taken down, and they have been demanding that people with opposing views be silenced, fined or arrested.

A system with a foundation embedded in the concept of liberty cannot allow such madness to continue, nor allow that kind of oppressive leftism to take a hold of the reins of the American Government.  Advocacy for constitutional restoration must be at the forefront of the conservative agenda.  Otherwise, we will continue blindly along Tytler's Cycle, where in the end we will settle for the eventuality of complete bondage.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Allred Avoids Questions about Yearbook Forgery of Roy Moore's Signature

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

On CNN, Wolf Blitzer repeatedly asked Gloria Allred if the yearbook signature that is being considered a smoking gun regarding the sexual assault accusations against Judge Roy Moore is a forgery.  Allred refused to give an answer.
Embattled Attorney Gloria Allred, who is well known for trotting out women to confess to phony crimes against conservatives, held a press conference on Monday afternoon. Allred and her client accused Judge Roy Moore of attempted rape in 1977.
Allred and her client brought a yearbook with them to use as evidence during their press conference.

The signature was signed in two different colored inks.
That said, Gateway Pundit also reminds us that Allred was a Hillary delegate at the DNC in 2016, and she is currently under TWO INVESTIGATIONS for misconduct as an attorney.

In other words, she's a typical Democrat.
“Well, all I’m saying is, we will permit an independent examiner of the writing…We will allow all of this to be asked and answered at the hearing,” Allred said. 
“But that’s not a flat denial, Gloria,” Blitzer said. 
“Well, all I’m saying is, we’re not denying, we’re not admitting, we’re not addressing,” Allred said. “We will not be distracted.” 
Blitzer asked why Allred needed a Senate hearing and would not just permit an independent handwriting expert to take a look. 
“Well, uh, all I can say is we want it done in a professional setting to the extent possible, that’s the only setting in which people can testify under oath,” Allred said.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Thursday, November 16, 2017

Moore Sex, Fight Fire with Fire

By Douglas V. Gibbs
Author, Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host
The Democrats are convinced that Judge Roy Moore, who is now a threat to them because of his run for the U.S. Senate to replace Jeff Sessions, while Moore was still a Democrat younger in his life, may have been a little more than flirtatious with females younger than him (and in their teens), so they have launched an attack against him 39 years after it allegedly happened less than 30 days before the special election in Alabama.

Bill Clinton was/is a habitual pervert, and Senator Al Franken in his previous life as a comedian also practiced unacceptable behavior and has, as a result, been also hit with a sexual harassment allegation.

In the case of the Democrats, with them saying that Moore's sexual improprieties are unacceptable, they have to, so as not to look like hypocrites, Bill Clinton's past is under fire, and some Democrats are demanding Franken's resignation for his sexual improprieties from long ago, as well.

“Sexual harassment is never acceptable and must not be tolerated,” said Democratic Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer. “I hope and expect that the Ethics Committee will fully investigate this troubling incident, as they should with any credible allegation of sexual harassment.”

Talk show host Leeann Tweeden on Thursday accused Franken of sexually assaulting her during an overseas USO tour in 2006, three years before he became a Democratic senator from Minnesota. She said Franken forcibly kissed her, and later posed for a photo in which he groped her chest while she slept.

The Minnesota Democrat issued a statement apologizing to Tweeden and said he’d welcome a congressional ethics investigation into the incident. But the allegations had by that time already sent shockwaves through the Democratic Party. Democrats, who rely heavily on women for votes, regularly criticize Republicans for being insufficiently supportive of women on issues like abortion rights and gender pay equity.

Now, the party has been forced to scrutinize its own ranks.

The deluge of criticism for Franken not only comes while the Democrats are trying to fry Roy Moore for his alleged crimes of sexual impropriety from 39 years ago, but also during the sex scandals surrounding major Hollywood executive Harvey Weinstein and comedian Louis C.K.

As the allegations against Franken spilled out, the National Republican Senatorial Committee issued a series of press releases calling on Democrats to return the campaign donations they had received from the Minnesota Democrat.  The money is pouring back towards Franken.

The question is, will the Democrats follow through with their claim that they will force Franken to resign?

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Temecula Constitution Class: Introduction to the Bill of Rights

Join us Thursday Night at 6:30 pm, Faith Armory, 41669 Winchester Road, Temecula, CA

Constitution Class Handout
Instructor: Douglas V. Gibbs

Lesson 12
Bill of Rights: Introduction to, and Incorporation of
Introduction to the Bill of Rights
The Bill of Rights does not guarantee your rights, nor was it designed to allow the federal government to protect your rights.  The language used in the first ten amendments is clear.  The 1st Amendment begins, "Congress shall make no law..."  The 2nd Amendment ends with the words, "...shall not be infringed."  The 3rd Amendment begins, "No Soldier shall..."  The key phrase in the 4th Amendment is "shall not be violated."  The entire Bill of Rights was designed to confirm what the first seven articles had already established.  The federal government was granted only certain authorities, and for the purpose of clarity, the Bill of Rights was written to reinforce the concept that the federal government has no business infringing upon the rights of the people.  The federal government is not charged with protecting those rights, or guaranteeing those rights, anywhere in the Bill of Rights.  The first ten amendments were written to tell the federal government, "Hands off, do not touch, thou shalt not."
The concept that the federal government exists to guarantee our rights, or protect our rights, emerged after the ratification of the 14th Amendment.  The Civil War Amendment tasked the federal government with ensuring the newly emancipated slaves were treated fairly, and that their rights were protected - even at the State level.  In an effort to capitalize on that idea, the courts got involved to ensure that the former slave States behaved.  The southern States, the North was convinced, could not be trusted, and often the South confirmed the lack of confidence the Union States harbored with laws designed to get around the new restrictions placed upon them.
After the American Civil War, the three amendments proposed and ratified to protect the emancipated slaves were specifically designed for the purpose of ensuring the newly freed slaves were treated equally in the eyes of the law.  Statism, however, seized upon the ideas planted by Congressman John Bingham, and through the courts worked to weave an intricate tapestry that would change the culture of the United States from a union of voluntary members, to a nation of states joined in an unbreakable union.  The country no longer resembled the union of sovereign states it had once been, and instead became a nation held together by the statist consequences of the ravages of war.
The federal government telling States what they can and can't do regarding our rights opens a Pandora's Box the framers of the Constitution never intended to be breached.  By allowing the federal government to dictate to the States what they can and can't do regarding rights, even with the best of intentions, the precedent is established allowing federal control.  A federal government that can force a State to behave in an acceptable manner can later dictate to a State to follow a federal mandate designed to reduce your access to your rights.
As President Gerald Ford once wisely said, "A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have."
A significant segment of the Founding Fathers believed the Bill of Rights to be unnecessary.  The first seven articles of the U.S. Constitution were written in such a way that the concerns of the Anti-Federalists had been addressed, but they still feared that the federal government would compromise the natural rights of the citizens if a Bill of Rights was not included in the Constitution.
The Constitution was written in a manner that allowed the new federal government only the authorities granted to it by the Law of the Land.  Regarding arms, for example, the possession of guns was never an issue granted to the federal government in the first seven articles of the U.S. Constitution, therefore the federal government had no authority to restrict guns in any way, shape, or form.  The Anti-Federalists, however, did not believe the federal government would abide by the limitation of authorities placed on the United States Government, and demanded that a Bill of Rights be written.  Failure to provide a Bill of Rights, indicated the Anti-Federalists, would result in a failure of those States dominated by Anti-Federalists to ratify the new Constitution.
The Framers of the Constitution, understanding that without the critical approval of the Anti-Federalists, the new Constitution would never be ratified, agreed to include a Bill of Rights.  James Madison was asked to gather the amendments to be proposed and potentially ratified by the States, and use them to write a Bill of Rights.
Originally, there were a large number of amendments proposed, but the final proposal that went to the States for ratification was narrowed down to twelve amendments.  Only ten were ratified.  Of the remaining two, one regarding apportionment remains unratified, and the other became the Twenty-Seventh Amendment in 1992.
The debates over the adoption of the Constitution found the Anti-Federalists fearful that as drafted, the Constitution created a central government that may have the opportunity to become a tyranny.  These fears were based on the memory of the British violation of basic civil rights before and during the American Revolution.  With past British tyranny as a frame of reference, the Anti-Federalists demanded that a "bill of rights" be written that would clarify without question the immunities of individual citizens.  Though the amendments of the Bill of Rights were not proposed until 1789, several state conventions during their ratification conventions ratified the Constitution with the understanding that the amendments would be offered.
One of the fears regarding the proposal of the Bill of Rights was that by trying to protect specific rights, it might imply that any unmentioned rights would not be protected.  It was believed by many that as a result, the Bill of Rights was actually unnecessary, for in the British system of common law natural rights were not defined, nor quantified.  Adding a Bill of Rights to the Constitution may actually limit the rights of the people to those listed in the Constitution.  As a result of this argument, included in the Bill of Rights is the Ninth Amendment, which indicates that rights not enumerated would also be protected.
Another argument against the Bill of Rights is that the ten amendments muddy the waters of the Constitution, because the first seven articles were designed to grant authorities to the federal government, and if an authority is not granted, the federal government does not have that power.  The Bill of Rights tells the federal government what it cannot do.  This enables those who oppose the Constitution to claim that the Constitution does not only grant express powers.  By focusing on the Bill of Rights, the opposition responds to constitutional challenges with the question, "Where in the Constitution does it say the federal government can't do that?"  Considering the Bill of Rights was not even necessary, this provides unnecessary ammunition to those that oppose the Constitution.
Anti-Federalists - Opposed to formation of a federal government, particularly by adoption of the Constitution of the United States.
Arms - Weapons, firearms; a gun that may be used for protection of property or as part of a militia.
Bill of Rights - The first ten amendments of the U.S. Constitution; a formal summary of those rights and liberties considered essential to a people or group of people.
Common Law - The part of English law that is derived from custom and judicial precedent rather than statutes, able to be changed by the whims of the governed, or their representatives.
Enumerated - Counted or told, number by number; reckoned or mentioned by distinct particulars.
Questions for Discussion:
  1. Why does the Constitution offer the opportunity for both oaths, and affirmations?
2.                                                                                                               Why did some of the Founding Fathers consider the Bill of Rights unnecessary?
3.   What did the Anti-Federalists think of the creation of the federal government?  Why?
4.  Why were the Founding Fathers willing to add the Bill of Rights even though they believed the
      amendments to be unnecessary?
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).
Philip B. Kurland and Ralph Lerner, The Founder's Constitution -
Volume Five - Amendments 1-12; Indianapolis: Liberty Fund (1987)
The Charters of Freedom: The Bill of Rights, National Archives and
Records Administration:
Incorporation of the Bill of Rights
The Bill of Rights was originally intended to be applied only to the federal government.  Even the most ardent opponent to the originalist view of the Constitution concedes that it is commonly understood that originally the Bill of Rights was not intended to apply to the States whatsoever.  The text of the U.S. Constitution does not necessarily clearly exhibit that the Bill of Rights was only intended to apply to the federal government, but a deep study of the text of the first ten amendments, and the various writings of the Founding Fathers on the topic, reveals without a doubt that the Bill of Rights was indeed originally intended to only apply to the federal government.
Though even the most ardent opponent of the United States Constitution will admit that the Bill of Rights was originally intended to only apply to the federal government, the rule of inapplicability to the States was abandoned by statists after 1868, when it became argued that the 14th Amendment changed this rule, and served to extend most of the Bill of Rights to the States.
The section of the 14th Amendment that has been interpreted to extend the Bill of Rights to the States comes from the second sentence of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, which reads:
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Through a series of court rulings, the Supreme Court has changed the Constitution by applying parts of the Bill of Rights to the States.  The process over the time period since the ratification of the 14th Amendment which works to apply the Bill of Rights to the States through court rulings and written opinions is called "The Incorporation of the Bill of Rights."
The Bill of Rights was originally not meant to be a guarantee of individual freedoms at all, but a limitation of federal authority against our God given rights.  In other words, the Bill of Rights was not written for the people, but for the federal government as a means of telling the federal government what it cannot do in regards to our unalienable rights.
Why not apply these amendments to the States as well?
The States already had a Bill of Rights in their own State Constitutions (and those that did not have a constitution yet, did include a Bill of Rights later).  The Founding Fathers were confident that the people of the States could control their own State officials, and would be involved in their local governments.  The people did not fear their local governments acting in a tyrannical manner similar to the potential of a centralized government system.  Their fears were of the new and distant central government.
Originally, parts of the first amendments proposed by James Madison did in fact address the States, seeking to limit the State governments with provisions such as, "No state shall violate the equal rights of conscience, or the freedom of the press, or the trial by jury in criminal cases."  The parts of the Bill of Rights that sought to be applied to the powers of the States, however, were not approved by Congress, and therefore were not a part of the proposed amendments to the States.
The Bill of Rights was understood, at its ratification, to be a bar on the actions of the federal government.  Prior to the incorporation of the Bill of Rights to the States by the courts as based on their interpretation of the 14th Amendment, the Bill of Rights did not apply to the States, and was never intended to be fully applied to the States.
The argument used, despite original intent, that the Bill of Rights must also apply to the States is based more on philosophy, than historical evidence.  One of the philosophical standpoints used is that if the specific rights given in the Bill of Rights are based on the more general rights to life, liberty, and property which in turn are considered to be God-given and unalienable, then State governments do not have the authority to infringe on those rights any more than can the federal government.
The argument, however, simply suggests that the Bill of Rights ought to apply at the State level, not that it originally did.
If the Bill of Rights originally only applied to the Federal Government, and over time has changed to be something that was applicable on the State level through court decisions, the reality is that the Constitution itself has never allowed the Bill of Rights to be applied to the States.  The change was done by judicial means, meaning that the Constitution has been changed by judicial activism.  The problem, however, is that according to the Constitution, the only way to change the Constitution is through an amendment process.  Therefore, the incorporation of the Bill of Rights to the States occurred unconstitutionally.
This returns us to the argument that the 14th Amendment is the source and authority of the incorporation of the Bill of Rights to the States.  The Supreme Court's first ruling regarding the scope of the 14th Amendment, and if the amendment enables the Bill of Rights to be applied to the States, was rendered in the Slaughterhouse Cases just five years after the ratification of the 14th Amendment in 1868.  A five to four vote by the high court interpreted the Privileges and Immunities Clause to be the authority they needed to enforce The Bill of Rights against the States.  Subsequent cases also used the 14th Amendment as an authority for incorporation.  During the early twentieth century a number of court cases, using the arguments referencing the 14th Amendment, began selectively incorporating some of the specific provisions of the Bill of Rights while rejecting the incorporation of others.
The courts, through this process of incorporating The Bill of Rights to the States, have changed the Constitution through unconstitutional means, and against original intent.  As originally intended, all provisions in the U.S. Constitution apply to the federal government, unless otherwise noted.  The Bill of Rights was originally intended to apply only to the federal government, and if we are to remain in line with the original intent of the Founding Fathers, State sovereignty must remain protected by that original intent.
Congressman John A. Bingham of Ohio was the primary author of the first section of the 14th amendment, and it was his personal intention the Bill of Rights be applied to the States as well.  His argument was that it was necessary in order to secure the civil rights of the newly appointed slaves.  However, most of the representatives during the five months of debate on the floor of Congress argued against incorporating the Bill of Rights to the States, and so when the amendment was agreed upon for proposal, the majority of those involved intended for the 14th Amendment to not influence how the Bill of Rights was applied.  In the beginning, the courts ruled that the Amendment did not extend the Bill of Rights to the States.  It was after the realization that Black Codes were emerging in the South that the courts decided for the purpose of protecting the civil rights of the emancipated slaves, they would begin to apply parts of the Bill of Rights to the States.
Black Codes - Laws put in place in the United States after the Civil War with the effect of limiting the basic human rights and civil liberties of blacks.
Incorporation of the Bill of Rights - The process through court rulings based on the interpretation of the 14th Amendment to apply the Bill of Rights to the States.
Judicial Activism - When judges violate the Separation of Powers through their rulings; when a judge rules legislatively by modifying or striking down a law using the unconstitutional authority of judicial review.
Original Intent - Original meaning of the United States Constitution as intended by the framers during the Federal Convention of 1787, and the subsequent State Ratification Conventions.
Originalist view of the Constitution - View that the Constitution as written should be interpreted in a manner consistent with what was meant by those who drafted and            ratified it.
Questions for Discussion:
1.   Why is the originalist view of the Constitution so important?
2.   How have Statists changed the Constitution through the courts over the last two hundred years?
3.   What is the only legal way to change the Constitution?
4.   Why is the Bill of Rights not a guarantee of individual freedoms?
5.   From where do our rights come from?
6.   How did the Black Codes play a part in the incorporation of the Bill of Rights?
14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Civil Rights (1868), Our
Documents dot gov:
Intent of the Fourteenth Amendment was to Protect All Rights (argument
supporting incorporation of the Bill of Rights to the States), Constitution dot org (2000):
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).
Philip B. Kurland and Ralph Lerner, The Founder's Constitution -
Volume Five - Amendments 1-12; Indianapolis: Liberty Fund (1987)
Richard L. Aynes, On Misreading John Bingham and the Fourteenth
Amendment (1993):
The Fourteenth Amendment and Incorporation, The Tenth Amendment
Center (2010):
To Whom Does The Bill Of Rights Apply?, Lew Rockwell dot com
What is the Bill of Rights?, About dot com Civil Liberties (argument
supporting incorporation of Bill of Rights to the States:
Copyright 2015 Douglas V. Gibbs

Dinesh D'Souza's Tweets about Judge Roy Moore say a lot

Douglas V. Gibbs, AuthorSpeakerInstructorRadio Host

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Judging Roy Moore

By Douglas V. Gibbs
AuthorSpeakerInstructorRadio Host

Can someone figure out who you are today by examining your actions from 39 years ago?  I am not who I was 39 years ago, or 29 years ago, or 9 years ago.  As human beings, we tend to learn, grow and mature.

I do not believe Roy Moore is guilty of what he is being accused of, but isn't it strange that all of this suddenly appeared within 30 days of an election regarding a guy who is not only a threat to the Democrats, but the moderate establishment Republicans?

And, even if Roy Moore, when he was young and full of youthful sexual exuberance, is guilty of flirting (or more) with young women who may or may not have been just as guilty of being flirtatious, can we determine who the man is today and if he is worthy of representing us politically based on those alleged actions from 39 years ago?

When the Democrats talk about how we were all over Bill Clinton for his sexual impropriety, we must also remember that for President Clinton, the behavior was ongoing, from Arkansas to the White House.  Has Roy Moore been accused of being sexually out of control with young women since his early thirties?  Do we have any examples of such behavior in recent years by Roy Moore?

I stand with Judge Roy Moore, and firmly believe he needs to stay in the race.  Alabama voters have got to see the sinister nature of these attacks, and realize that it is all politically motivated because Roy Moore's Christianity and conservatism represents something that scares the heebie-jeebies out of the establishment.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Wednesday, November 15, 2017

Andrew Kotyuk's Run for California Assembly Against Chad Mayes

Andrew Kotyuk
By Douglas V. Gibbs
AuthorSpeakerInstructorRadio Host

Over the last couple months I have had the pleasure of being introduced to, and getting to know, Andrew Kotyuk.  The San Jacinto City Councilman is also a successful businessman, and a pillar of his community. When Republican minority leader in the California State Assembly Chad Mayes decided to vote in favor of extending Cap and Trade to 2030, and essentially approving a gas tax increase that will soon go into effect with a rise in gas prices by about 67 cents per gallon, it triggered something in Kotyuk.  He recognized that Mayes was not acting like a leader of the Republican Party, but instead a lap dog of the opposition.

Along with Mayes, another six assembly critters, and one State Senator, voted in favor of Cap and Trade. 14 County Republican Parties called for Mayes to be removed as leader, and he was (He was replaced by Assemblyman Brian Dahle).  Now, Kotyuk is poised and prepared to "repeal and replace" Chad Mayes.

Andrew Kotyuk joined the Conservative Voice Radio team for two segments during pre-recording, and you can hear what he had to say on the radio program this coming Saturday at 8:00 AM on KMET 1490-AM on the radio dial, or listen live at the website at

We invite his opponents to join us, as well, on future programs.

My latest opportunity to spend some time with Andrew Kotyuk was at the Tuesday Morning Breakfast Meeting of the Banning-Beaumont-Cherry Valley Tea Party (we meet every Tuesday at 8:00 am, Farm's House Restaurant, 6261 Joshua Palmer Way, Banning, CA).  He addressed the group with common sense ideas, and solutions to derail the super-majority Democrats. He discussed the importance of repealing the Gas Tax and getting rid of the Cap and Trade deal.  He voiced his concerns regarding the rise in homelessness in the State, and has ideas on how to tackle the problem.  He called out the Democrats on how they really don't plan to fix our already very badly maintained roads.  The monies they plan to take from us are not tagged to primarily go to roads.  In fact, no "new lanes" are planned at all.  Instead, the gas tax money will largely go to unpaid pensions, and Jerry Brown's high speed choo choo train that nobody plans to ride.

Kotyuk also discussed our prisons, how criminals are being let out onto the streets, and how the money that should be going into roads and our prisons are being spent on unconstitutional illegal alien programs, instead.

California is feeling a lot of pain as a result of liberal left policies, and as Californians, we need to be asking "why"?

While Kotyuk was discussing the prisons, he also verbalized that he is in favor of capital punishment.   The problem, he told us, is that jail is no longer a difficult place to stay.  In fact, criminals "want to be in jail, and are doing harder crimes to get there."

They get a gym, television, three square meals, and a yard.  For many, that's a lot more than what they get on the outside world.

Following a discussion where Kotyuk stated he is against regionalism organizations like WRCOG, which are essentially extra-governmental organizations who are filled with appointed officers (rather than elected) who make many of the large decisions regarding the path our cities will make, especially when it comes to future economic and building development.  Yet, after slamming the regionalism style of these organizations, he stated he supports CCAs.

That was a red flag, and I actually asked him again to make sure I had it right, "Are you saying you support CCAs, or are you against them."

"I support them."

Read my articles explaining why I oppose CCAs (which are essentially regional co-ops for electricity that creates a regional collectivist organization to replace the free market activities of companies like Southern California Edison) HERE, and HERE.

After fishing around, I also discovered that Mr. Kotyuk is not opposed to the legalization of marijuana, and voted on the city council to expand the number of dispensaries allowed in San Jacinto.  On the dais he said that a large part of his reasoning was the money it would bring into the city.  According to the Press Enterprise, under Kotyuk's mayoral leadership, San Jacinto has taken the lead among Inland cities when it comes to Prop. 64, which legalized recreational marijuana in California.

Read my article about why I oppose the legalization of marijuana (and other drugs) for recreational use HERE and HERE (among other places).

Aside from Chad Mayes, Kotyuk's other GOP challenger is former Palm Springs Police Chief Gary Jeandron who is running on a "no more taxes" pledge.  Among Kotyuk's challenges is the fact that Jeandron and Mayes are known in the desert communities, and Kotyuk has yet to establish himself out there, east of the San Gorgonio Pass Area.

While Kotyuk's positions on CCAs and marijuana are not in line with my own positions, of the three candidates on the Republican side of things, Kotyuk has proven to be the best, and strongest candidate.  Unlike Jeandron, who has virtually no experience running for anything other than local office, Kotyuk's ability to raise money has been impressive.  The real trick, however, is to use that money in such a way that he can overcome Mayes' notoriety.  Mayes may have ticked off the conservative wing of the Republican Party with his Cap and Trade vote, but there are a lot of voters who pull the lever based on familiarity, and Kotyuk has to make sure those voters know who he is.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

5 Solutions To Save America. . .

By Douglas V. Gibbs
AuthorSpeakerInstructorRadio Host

Benjamin Franklin's iconic words to Elizabeth Powel, upon leaving the Constitutional Convention, were, "A republic, ma'am, if you can keep it." The Constitution was written to stand the test of time, and to resist the fiery arrows of tyrants. The modern political atmosphere, however, leaves most Americans uneasy. Have we lost our republic? America's Constitution Authority, Douglas V. Gibbs, reminds us that while our republic has not been lost, we teeter on the edge of a treacherous cliff. While we have not passed the sign that reads, "the point of no return," we are close enough to it that we can read the small print on the bottom which says, "Made in China." How do we, as Americans, regain a foothold on our journey to restore the constitutional republic, and reestablish the principles and philosophies of the United States Constitution? We have failed to focus on our own core responsibilities as citizens, and we have been allowing the sovereignty and autonomy of the States to be neutralized and dismantled. A ruling class has established itself in the halls of government, diminishing the power of We the People, and growing the power of an emerging oligarchy in America. The rise of tyranny in America should instill in us a patriotic and revolutionary call to action. We the People need to have the courage to take on the establishment, and be informed enough to know how to do it. Without an informed populace carrying out their civic duty of keeping the republic, how can the Blessings of Liberty be handed down to the next generation? Have we been experiencing such a steady decline in freedom that we have forgotten what liberty truly is? How do we restore our constitutional republic, especially at this stage in the game? The Founding Fathers gave us a quiver full of remedies to combat tyranny. All we must do is apply them during our advocacy to keep the republic. It's not too late to save America. The opportunity to keep the republic exists, and if properly informed of the solutions available to us, we can make the necessary adjustments so as to place America back on the proper path of liberty. The only questions that remain are, "Do we have the willingness to educate ourselves regarding those solutions?", and "Do we have the discipline to carry out those remedies, once we learn what they are?"

Purchase my latest book on Amazon HERE.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Transgender Frankenstein

By Douglas V. Gibbs
AuthorSpeakerInstructorRadio Host

Once, in America, we recognized mental illnesses as what they were; mental illnesses.  Now, we have a segment of political opportunists who have decided to embrace a mental illness as a potential voting block, while trying to label their political opposition as being mentally ill, instead.

Democrats wish you to believe that your desire for individuality is psychotic, and your belief in natural rights such as to own a firearm means you are somehow mentally disturbed.

If homosexuality and transgenderism must be forced upon society (through educating our children on it without our approval, and through legal actions), and if we must be indoctrinated to believe the same as the leftists on the issue, how does the issue fit into a model of liberty?

How about the white guy who thinks he's a Filipino woman?

Is the white guy who thinks he's a Filipino woman suffering from a mental affliction?

Liberal leftism states it is the ideology that believes in science.  If that's the case, how is it that they were so willing to toss aside basic biology?

Dr. Paul R. McHugh, the former psychiatrist-in-chief for Johns Hopkins Hospital and its current Distinguished Service Professor of Psychiatry, says that transgenderism is a “mental disorder” that merits treatment, that sex change is “biologically impossible,” and that people who promote sexual reassignment surgery are collaborating with and promoting a mental disorder.

A couple years ago the author of six books and at least 125 peer-reviewed medical articles, made his remarks in a commentary in the Wall Street Journal, where he explained that transgender surgery is not the solution for people who suffer from a mental illness that leaves them wondering that their maleness or femaleness is different than what nature assigned to them biologically.

As a result of the sickness, the suicide rate among "transgendered people" after they go through with the surgery to mutilate their genitals is 20 times higher than the suicide rate among non-transgender people. Dr. McHugh further noted studies from Vanderbilt University and London’s Portman Clinic of children who had expressed transgender feelings but for whom, over time, 70%-80% “spontaneously lost those feelings.”

The Democrat Party, however, has been working on normalizing the concept of transgenderism (the next progression of the slippery slope after they worked to normalize homosexuality. . . either polygamy or pedophilia is next).  The liberal left, from the politicians down to the media and academia are feeding the madness, and are actually harming these people, and society as a whole, with their selfish demand for more votes. . . and power.

Dr. McHugh states what the people caught up in transgenderism really needs is "understanding, treatment and prevention."

“This intensely felt sense of being transgendered constitutes a mental disorder in two respects. The first is that the idea of sex misalignment is simply mistaken – it does not correspond with physical reality. The second is that it can lead to grim psychological outcomes.”

Dr. McHugh compared the misassumption of what sex a person is with anorexia, where the person misassumes how they look and become obsessed with losing weight.  The view of themselves has nothing to do with anatomical reality.

In truth, the liberal left is enabling the sickness, and if anything, they are encouraging more people to wander into the madness, and they are feeding the illness all for votes and power - and to encourage the destruction of our moral compass as a society.

What we are seeing now is “misguided doctors” working with very young children who seem to imitate the opposite sex and administering “puberty-delaying hormones to render later sex-change surgeries less onerous – even though the drugs stunt the children’s growth and risk causing sterility.”

Dr. McHugh calls such actions "child abuse," especially when considering that studies have shown that close to 80% of those kids will “abandon their confusion and grow naturally into adult life if untreated….”

“’Sex change’ is biologically impossible,” said McHugh. “People who undergo sex-reassignment surgery do not change from men to women or vice versa. Rather, they become feminized men or masculinized women. Claiming that this is civil-rights matter and encouraging surgical intervention is in reality to collaborate with and promote a mental disorder.”

While reality dictates that normalizing the mental illness of gender dysphoria is complete insanity, and is child abuse when applied to children, how do we address the issue when an entire society buys into the madness and embraces that daring to oppose them is abuse, and daring to disagree puts you at odds with the law?

In Canada the Province of Ontario has passed Bill 89, which criminalizes disagreeing with the government's viewpoint regarding transgenderism if the disagreement with the gender of the child is considered to be a part of "a pattern of abuse, neglect or serious emotional harm".  In short, if disagreeing with the child's self-perceived gender is considered to be a part of a list of government defined pattern abuses, the new law gives the provincial government the authority to remove the child from the home.

Specifically, the law says that “gender identity” and “gender expression” are factors to be considered “in the best interests of the child.”

Meanwhile, it deletes the religious faith of the parents, mandating that child protection services consider only the child’s own “creed” or “religion” when assessing the best interests of the child.

In America, the godless Democrats are also chasing the same kind of anti-religious freedom mandates to force the younger generation into the liberal left's opinion of what should be considered normal.  In fact, U.S. Academia believes it to be their duty to change children into homosexuals.

A professor at the School of the Art Institute of Chicago (SAIC) recently argued in favor of using art education to help “kids turn out queer.”

Complaining that “heteronormativity” is pervasive in school curricula, Adam Greteman suggests that “we can, and perhaps should, help our kids turn out queer” through "queer affirmation" strategies in class.

The target ages?  Greteman teaches aspiring K-12 art teachers, so his target age is any age.

Imagine, if you will, walking into your child's kindergarten class, and noticing the teacher using art to try and turn your kid into a homosexual, and then when you look close the art being shown to your child are depictions of homosexual sex.

“This article explores the possibilities of queer theory in art education, and I playfully, perhaps provocatively, ask how art education can help kids turn out queer,” he writes, adding that there is a “need” for art educators to “challenge fears around queer topics.”

Greteman, who identifies as a “queer scholar,” lists a few ways teachers could achieve this, such as implementing “queer art lessons,” embracing a “queerer agenda” in class, and using “queer affirmation” strategies to help gay students feel more included.

He argues that schools have a duty to speak frankly with students about queer sex.

In 2013, Greteman published an article on how bareback sex (male homosexual intercourse) should be taught in sex education programs, to create a “theory of risky (sex) education. He has also written other articles about the role that queer theory can play in education.
The patients are running the asylum, and they are fashioning a societal Frankenstein monster that in the end, because it is an aberration, will be a part of what sends our current civilization into the dustbin of history - unless the villagers with any sense of a moral compass does something about it.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Venezuela's Financial End of the Road

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Socialism, properly applied, has destroyed the once prosperous, and resource rich, country of Venezuela.  Now, thanks to the same leftism that the Democrat Party in the United States pushes, Venezuela has begun to miss payments on their debt.  Venezuela's leadership missed interest payments due on two government bonds and one bond issued by the state-owned oil monopoly known by its Spanish initials PdVSA. Venezuela owed creditors $280 million, which it couldn’t manage even after a 30-day grace period.

In short, Venezuela is out of money.  Socialism has drained the country to the point of economic ruin, and now even the government is completely and flat broke.

The Venezuelan government can't claim that their woes result from a lack of resources, for the South American country is oil rich. . . but being the once richest country in South America does not make a country invincible against socialism.  The leftist ideology is capable of slaughtering the meek and the powerful, alike.

War and pestilence hath no fury like that of the destructive forces of a "progressive" socialist political ideology.

Hugo Chávez rose to power during the time of plenty, claiming the central bank had “excessive reserves.”  Giving back to the people in the name of socialism has reduced the central bank to about $1 billion in reserves, at best.  Now, the people have nothing, and the country is on the verge of death.

I worked in the construction industry for fourteen years, and one of the things you learn while laboring in a vocation that is seasonal is that you save and live frugally during times of plenty so that you can survive during the faminous winter.

While leftists may be quick to cite falling oil prices as being what is to blame for Venezuela's woes, the reality is that the loss of the free market, and the embrace of socialism by Venezuela, are the primary forces behind the death of the once powerful Venezuela economy.  Now, the country suffers under expropriation, hyperinflation, price controls and rampant corruption.  A faminous winter has approached, but there are no stores remaining.  Nothing remains from the time of plenty.  The government has lost all of it through socialism.

Venezuela has passed Detroit as the best example of what kind of destruction happens when liberal-leftism has a chance to grab a hold of a society.

The Wall Street Journal reports that "As of Tuesday evening, the Investment Swaps and Derivatives Association still had not declared Venezuela in default. That matters because this will trigger the insurance obligations inherent in the credit default swaps. But S&P Global Ratings declared the country in default Monday. On Tuesday morning the Luxembourg Stock Exchange issued a suspension notice for the bonds with missed payments."

Now, President Nicolás Maduro will try to shuffle around his debt, move around what little money still exists in the country, but there is no solution in sight.  All Maduro can do is try to delay the inevitable. . . complete and utter collapse.  The chaos in the streets, and the starvation of the population, has only just begun.  If we thought it was out of control before, now the real carnage will begin.

Such is the result of socialism, every single time.

Blame, however, is being sent out in all directions, and Venezuela is accusing the Trump Administration for some of their woes, claiming that sanctions have made it difficult for the dictatorship to arrange refinancing.

Restructuring requires any hope for growth, and the Venezuelan economy cannot grow as long as it follows the leftist political ideas of socialism.

The only cure for poverty is a free market.

As the Venezuelan people die from suicide by socialism, and as the leadership continues to deal blame as their ideology kills what is left of their support, and their power, the next step will be seizures, and the closing of Citgo facilities in the U.S.

Socialism has killed the once mighty Venezuela.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Tuesday, November 14, 2017

Sessions Grilled

By Douglas V. Gibs
Douglas V. Gibbs, AuthorSpeakerInstructorRadio Host

Jeff Sessions is on the hot seat in front of a House committee.  He's used to the democrats going after him, but now it's the republicans, too.

Their question?

Why hasn't the Justice Department, which Sessions is the current head of, dug into Russia-related scandals surrounding Hillary Clinton?  Clinton Cash, and now the FBI, has exposed the Democrats, and especially the Clintons, for the criminals they are.  The Democrats and the Clintons funded the full-of-false-accusations Trump dossier, of which the Democrats used to drum up their "Trump and Russia" witch hunt, but the DOJ hasn't touched that, nor the fact that the Clintons sold uranium to Russia and the Clinton Foundation and Bill Clinton made off like bandits out of it. And, what about Obama, and his involvement?  What about the Obama administration's “unmasking” scandal.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions testified today in a House Judiciary Oversight hearing. His testimony came as the DOJ considered new special counsel on the Clinton Foundation.

As a result of today's grilling, among other things, Sessions is asking his federal prosecutors to "evaluate certain issues" presented by House Republicans, including the alleged ties between the Clinton Foundation and the sale of Uranium One.

We'll see how far that goes in the next few weeks, I am sure.

Based on the evidence so far, I don't see why both Clintons and both Obamas aren't in orange jump suits at this very moment.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Corona Constitution Class: Legislative Prohibitions to the States

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

Constitution Class Handout
Instructor: Douglas V. Gibbs

Lesson 04
Legislative Prohibitions
Prohibitions to the Federal Government, and the States
-  Prohibitions to the Federal Government
The Slave Trade and Immigration
The common misconception is that Article I, Section 9, Clause 1 is obsolete.  The abolition of slavery in the United States made the clause obsolete, we are told.  In reality, only a part of the clause is not longer in force.  The clause addressed the Atlantic slave trade, and the migration of people into the United States. Slavery was abolished by Amendment 13 so the part of Article I, Section 9, Clause 1 that addresses slavery is obsolete. But is the part about migration still in force?
One could say that the "migration" portion of the clause is still in force because the 13th Amendment only addresses slavery. The standard belief among historians is that the entire clause is no longer in force.
The ramifications of this clause may indeed reach into today's issue regarding illegal immigration.
Why would the Founding Fathers include a mention of migration in a clause that is essentially geared toward the abolition of the importation of slaves?
The word "importation" in this clause applies wholly to slaves.
The word, migration, then, would seem to apply wholly to non-slaves.
The intention was that since the Constitution, as the contract that created our federal government, is a document that grants powers to the federal government, and that all authorities not expressly delegated, are reserved to the States, it was expected that immigration would remain as an issue that would be addressed by the States.
Other national governments prohibited migration as they saw fit, so the Founding Fathers determined that the new United States Government must have that same authority.
According to the clause, however, from the year 1808 Congress would possess the power to stop the importation of slaves, as well as the migration of people the Congress felt must be prohibited from entering this country as immigrants, through the Congress' power of legislation.
The Constitution was written specifically in regards to the federal government.  All powers originally belonged to the States.  Some of those authorities were granted to the federal government for the purpose of protecting and preserving the union.  Therefore, all authorities regarding immigration originally belonged to the States, and before 1808 the States had sole authority regarding all immigration issues. 
In Article I, Section 9, the federal government was given the opportunity to regulate immigration, but not until 1808.  The reason for delaying the power to prevent migration were, to be simply put, to give the States twenty years to attract as many people as possible without Congressional regulatory consideration. After all, at this time in history we had immense and almost immeasurable territory, peopled by not more than two and a half million inhabitants. Therefore, migration was encouraged, especially of the kind of people that would bring a benefit to the new nation. The immigration of able, skilful, and industrious Europeans was encouraged.
Note that this clause gives the federal government the authority to prohibit certain persons from migrating into the United States, but it does not give the federal government the authority to dictate to the States which persons the States must admit inside their borders.
Habeas Corpus
Article I, Section 9, Clause 2 states that "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."
Habeas corpus is a legal term that means quite literally in Latin: "you may have the body." In legal terms, Habeas corpus is a writ that releases a prisoner from unlawful detention. Habeas corpus comes from British common law, and has historically served as an important legal instrument safeguarding individual freedom against arbitrary state action that includes detention without the due process of law.
A writ of habeas corpus is a summons with the force of a court order that demands a prisoner be taken before the court, and that the custodian present proof of authority, allowing the court to determine if the custodian has lawful authority to detain the person. If the custodian does not have authority to detain the prisoner, then the prisoner must be released from custody.
Habeas corpus is designed to protect citizens against any detention that is forbidden by law. The U.S. Constitution specifically includes the habeas procedure, and instructs the Congress not to suspend such unless the detainment is the result of a "Rebellion or Invasion," adding that "the public Safety may require it."
Normally, habeas corpus proceedings accompany questions of jurisdiction and authorities of the court that sentenced a defendant. The suspension of habeas corpus has recently become an issue regarding the detainment of terrorists, but one must ask if the public safety requires the suspension of habeas corpus in the case of terrorists, as prescribed in the Constitution. Secondly, one must consider that the Constitution applies to American citizens, so the question on whether or not Article I, Section 9, Clause 2 applies to captured combatants seems to be a moot point since it is obvious that the detained are not American Citizens, and therefore are not protected by Constitutional protections.  Also, remember that Congress has the sole authority to make rules regarding captures on land and water as per Article I, Section 8, Clause 11.
Bills of Attainder
A Bill of Attainder is when the legislature declares the guilt of a person or group of persons, and punishes them without due process (the benefit of a trial).
In Britain, bills of attainder were used as a convenient way for the King to convict subjects of crimes and confiscate their property without the bother of a trial, and without the need for a conviction or indeed any evidence at all. Such actions were seen as tyrannical because often this power was used against political enemies, and the Founding Fathers did not wish to give the new federal government those same kinds of powers. Some states, prior to the Constitution, did use attainders against British loyalists, but the practice all but disappeared after the Constitution so specifically forbid the use of attainders by the U.S. Congress, and the States.
Prohibiting the use of bills of attainder serves a number of purposes. One purpose is that by disallowing the bills of attainder the separation of powers is reinforced. By disallowing bills of attainder, it literally forbids the legislature from performing a judicial function. Another purpose is in regard to the protection of the concept of due process, which was later reinforced by the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.
The true danger of a bill of attainder is that such a legislative act inflicts punishment without a judicial trial, and takes away the life, liberty or property of the target.
Ex Post Facto law
Ex post facto Law is literally retroactive law, or a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences (or status) of actions committed or relationships that existed prior to the enactment of the law. Ex post facto law could criminalize actions that were legal when committed, or in the case of amnesty laws, decriminalize certain acts or alleviate possible punishments. Generally speaking, ex post facto laws are seen as a violation of the rule of law as it applies in a free and democratic society. Ex post facto laws are expressly forbidden by the United States Constitution.
Direct Taxation
The U.S. Constitution originally forbade direct taxation upon the people by the federal government.  Taxation of the people by the federal government could only be laid in relation to population.  When the idea for the income tax came to fruition, an amendment (16th) had to be passed to allow for the direct taxation of the people without dependence upon the enumeration of the population.
Article I, Section 9, Clause 4 states that in addition to direct taxation, the federal government was forbidden from using Capitation.  Capitation is a head tax.  A Poll Tax is a kind of head tax.  In the context of the period, any tax that singles out groups both directly and indirectly regardless of possession of lands or personal property is Capitation. Since Article I, Section 9 is a prohibitory section, the specific call by the Founding Fathers in that clause was that there shall be No Capitation, which included No Poll Tax.
In early New England, in keeping with traditions from the homeland, capitation (caput, meaning head), or poll taxes, were common. These taxes were levied as a way to manipulate the people for the "good of the government."
Alexander Hamilton, though condemning capitation taxes in his Federalist Papers writings, was in favor of "head taxes" for emergency revenue reasons. He felt that since sources for revenue were so few, if the government needed to expand for any reason, the ability to lay head taxes, or direct taxation, needed to be an option. However, most of the Founding Fathers disagreed, not only because of their belief that taxation must be indirect and small, but also because of their opinion that the federal government must remain limited to the few authorities granted to it by the U.S. Constitution.
Article I, Section 9, Clause 4 forbids Congress to lay a tax upon individuals except uniformly, and in proportion to the census provided for in Article I, Section 2, Clause 3, where this subject is first brought up.  In other words, direct taxation was forbidden.  What the federal government did was tax the States, based on proportion to the census, or enumeration.  The States then taxed the people in order to pay the tax to the federal government.  The method of taxation by the States was left up to each individual State.  The federal government, in this way, used indirect taxation to tax the people.
As we have learned, the U.S. Constitution is not designed to necessarily tell the federal government what it can't do as much as it is designed to tell the federal government what few authorities it has. But the Founders felt this to be so important that in addition to not giving direct taxation to the Federal Government as an authority, they felt they must also spell it out that the Federal Government cannot tax in this manner in any form. This clause restricts the Congress a lot more because it is prohibitive. Article 1, Section 8 provides a list of "enumerated powers," but knowing that politicians would bend and twist meanings to gain more power, Article 1, Section 9 was designed to spell out some very specific things the Congress is prohibited from doing (such as direct taxation and capitation taxes).
Preference in Commerce
Article I, Section 9, Clause 6 states that "No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another."
This proposal was placed before the Constitutional Convention by the delegates from Maryland, their fear being that congressional legislation might prefer Chesapeake Bay ports of Virginia to those of their State. Under the Articles of Confederation, each State was free to impose duties and make regulations to the disadvantage of others, and it was desired that equality in commerce be maintained in the future. This also gives us a clue to the intentions of the Commerce Clause in Article I, Section 8. The Founding Fathers did not wish to give the Federal Government control over commerce, only the ability to ensure that commerce was maintained in an equitable manner in regards to the several States.
U.S. Treasury
Article I, Section 9, Clause 7 reads: "No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time."
This clause was inspired by the lessons learned in regards to merry old England. The Founding Fathers did not believe it should be in the power of the Executive alone, or of the legislature alone, to raise or spend the money at will. Article I, Section 7, Clause 1 requires that all bills for raising money must originate in the House of Representatives; but they must then pass the Senate and be signed by the President. In 1842 Congress began to make appropriations by joint resolution; but as that also must be approved by both Houses, and signed by the President, there is no real difference. Also, in the interest of transparency to the people, the records of all monetary transactions both of receipts and expenditures must be made available for public scrutiny.
Divided Allegiance
Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 reads: "No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State."
The Founding Fathers did not believe there should be any foreign influences in the affairs of our government.
This provision was taken from a provision in the first section of Article VI of the Articles of Confederation. It permitted persons holding office under a State to accept, with the consent of Congress, the objectionable gifts or distinctions; but the constitutions of at least two of the States at that time forbade them altogether. This republic, being a nation born as a result of the tyranny of a monarchy, should not grant titles of nobility, that much was easily understood. Nobility betrayed the trust and honor of the people through the use of prestige and favoritism. This was the kind of government that did not protect the liberties of the people.
Jefferson, as President, accepted from Alexander I of Russia a bust of that Emperor, which he said would be "one of the most valued ornaments of the retreat I am preparing for myself at my native home." He said that he had laid it down as a law of his official conduct not to accept anything but books, pamphlets, or other things of minor value; but his "particular esteem" from the Emperor "places his image in my mind above the scope of the law." However, without the consent of Congress, who was the final determining factor, he could not have accepted that gift.
In 1810 Congress proposed an amendment, the original Thirteenth amendment (some would call it the lost 13th Amendment because some records showed it was ratified, then suddenly disappeared - as explained below), to add a heavy penalty to this clause by this wording:
"If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive or retain any title of nobility or honor, or shall, without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding office of trust or profit under them, or either of them."
The people were told that the proposed amendment lacked the necessary ratifying votes. Ongoing research has shown that the proposed amendment was indeed properly ratified, the State Department WAS notified, and the amendment was on the books and records of the various States until at least 1876. From 1810 to 1812, twelve states ratified this amendment. The War of 1812 destroyed the library of Congress and these documents were thought destroyed, but in 1994 it was discovered they still exist after a chance discovery in Maine in 1983 made historians aware of the existence of the original 13th Amendment.
Indirect Taxation: An indirect tax is contrasted with a direct tax which is collected directly by government from the people.  An indirect tax, for example, may increase the price of a good so that consumers are actually paying the tax by paying more for the products.  Another example of indirect taxation is for one entity to tax another entity, and then the second entity taxing the people to recoup the taxes it paid.
Joint Resolution: A joint resolution is a legislative measure requiring approval by the Senate and the House and then is presented to the President for approval or disapproval.  There is generally no legal difference between a joint resolution and a bill.  Laws enacted by virtue of a joint resolution are not distinguished from laws enacted by a bill. Constitutional amendments are passed by joint resolutions, which are instead presented to the States for ratification.  Resolutions are often temporary in nature.
Questions for Discussion:
1.  How was immigration regarded by the Founding Fathers?
2.  Why is Habeas Corpus so important?
3.  If the Founding Fathers disagreed with divided allegiance, what would they think of dual citizenship?
Articles of Confederation, March 1, 1781;
Larry Schweikart and Michael Allen, A Patriot's History of the United States; New York: Sentinel (2004).
Madison's Notes on the Constitutional Convention, Avalon Project, Yale University:
The Original 13th Article of Amendment; American Patriot Friend's Network: Thomas J. DiLorenzo, Hamilton's Curse; New York: Three Rivers Press (2008).
-  Prohibitions to the States
The articles in the U.S. Constitution all apply to the federal government unless otherwise noted.  Article I, Section 10, notes otherwise.  Each clause begins with the words "No State shall," making Article I, Section 10 prohibitive to the States.
Article I, Section 10, Clause 1 begins by disallowing the States to enter into any treaty, alliance, or Confederation.  The goal was to keep the union intact, have all dealings with foreign governments go through the federal government, and to ensure there was no divided loyalties among the States.  Treaties and alliances are external issues.
The disallowance of the States entering into a confederation was the argument used against the Confederacy during the American Civil War.  President Lincoln considered the southern states seceding and joining into a confederation to be unlawful, partly due to this clause in the Constitution.  However, by seceding, the States no longer fell under the jurisdiction of the Constitution, making the Confederacy a legal arrangement.
No State could grant letters of Marque and Reprisal, or coin money.  These authorities were granted to the federal government in Article I, Section 8.  States were not allowed to coin money so that they would not use currency as a means to gain an unfair advantage over each other in relation to interstate commerce.
Article I, Section 10 prohibits the States from emitting bills of credit.  Bills of credit take two forms.  Bills of credit are receipts for currency, such as a treasury note, and bills of credit can be items of credit such as bonds.  What this means is that the States could not issue paper money, nor could States issue instruments of debt.  In other words, the States were not allowed to borrow money.  Today, all but two States of the union are in debt.  The State deficits are in violation of the U.S. Constitution.
The States were also disallowed from passing bills of attainder, ex post facto law, or passing any law that would impair the obligation of contracts.  The States, as the federal government, could not issue any title of Nobility.  Ex post facto law has become a large concern in recent politics.  Ex post facto law is retroactive law.  By disallowing the passage of ex post facto law, the States (just like the federal government) cannot constitutionally pass laws retroactively.  A gun legal at the time of purchase cannot be made retroactively illegal.  Immigrants who entered the State illegally cannot be made retroactively legal.  A tax cannot be retroactively imposed, creating a sudden large balance of tax due.
States are allowed to tax imports or exports, but only with the consent of Congress.  Because States are tasked with having their own inspection laws, any costs necessary for executing those inspection laws may be recouped through imposts or Duties without the consent of Congress.
"The net produce of all duties and imposts, laid by any State on imports or exports, shall be for the use of the Treasury of the United States."  In other words, the States cannot over tax imports and exports.  They are only to charge taxes necessary to cover their costs, such as "executing inspection laws."  Any net produce, or what would be considered "profit" in the private sector, goes to the U.S. Treasury.  All of the States inspection laws, or other laws regarding imports and exports, are also subject to revision and control by the Congress.
Having a military is also forbidden to the States in time of peace, except with the consent of Congress.  However, if a State is invaded, or the State feels they are in imminent danger, they are allowed to form a military.  Currently, 23 States have State Defense Forces, or "State Militias."  In recent years, State Defense Forces have proven vital to homeland security and emergency response efforts.
Questions for Discussion:
1.  What does the various prohibitions to the States have in common?
2.  How do the prohibitions to the States relate to concepts like the Tenth Amendment?
21st-Century Militia: State Defense Forces and Homeland Security, Heritage Foundation:
Madison's Notes on the Constitutional Convention, Avalon Project, Yale University:
UNITED STATES v. COMSTOCK (No. 08-1224), Clarence Thomas Dissenting Opinion (State Sovereignty):
Copyright: Douglas V. Gibbs, 2015