Saturday, November 16, 2019

Constitution Radio/Constitution Podcast/YouTube

There will be no Constitution Radio today on KMET 1490 AM due to University of Redlands football.  Whether or not we are on the air next Saturday depends upon if they win today.

However, in lieu of the radio program, I plan to make a couple videos today, the inaugural video version of the Constitution Podcast, and Constitution Study Television.  Watch those YouTube channels, your email, and Political Pistachio for those videos, which will likely air this afternoon/evening.

Thanks for your fellowship, friendship, and support.  And don't forget, the radio program still needs help financially.  We had a recent $200 donation, but we are still about $300 short.  Please feel free to donate below.

Stay Constitutional, and Stay Free.


Friday, November 15, 2019

Incestuous Nepotism of the Liberal Left in Politics, and the Media

Douglas V. Gibbs
AuthorSpeakerInstructorRadio Host

Email of the Week:

> This is what you call a "stacked deck."
> ABC  News  executive producer Ian Cameron is married to Susan Rice,  Obama's former National Security Adviser.
> CBS  President David Rhodes  is the brother of Ben Rhodes, Obama's Deputy National Security Adviser for Strategic Communications.
> ABC  News correspondent Claire Shipman is married to former Obama White House Press Secretary Jay Carney  .
> ABC  News and Univision reporter Matthew Jaffe is married to Katie Hogan, Obama's former Deputy Press Secretary.
> ABC  President Ben Sherwood is the brother of Obama's former Special Adviser Elizabeth Sherwood.
> CNN  President Virginia Moseley is married to former Hillary Clinton's Deputy Secretary Tom Nides  .
> This is “Huge” and is a 'partial' list since the same incestuous relationship holds true for NBC/MSNBC and most media outlets. Trump has been right all along. Fake News is generated by this incestuous relationship.
> Ya think there might be a little bias in the news?..... Dah!

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Monday, November 11, 2019

Corona Constitution Class: Faithfully Execute (Responsibilities of the President of the United States)

See you Tuesday Night for the Corona Constitution Class ...

Yes, with my surgery in the rearview mirror, I am back in the saddle again:

6:00 pm, Tuesday Night
Corona Constitution Class
CARSTAR/AllStar Collision
522 Railroad Street
Corona, CA

Constitution Class Handout
Instructor: Douglas V. Gibbs

Lesson 7: Faithfully Execute


The first word of Article II, Section 3 is “He.”  The word refers to the President of the United States.  I have actually had some people, who oppose the Constitution, tell me that the word “He” being used is evidence that the Constitution disallows women from being President.  They then argue that if a woman was to become President, because of the word “He” being used in the Constitution, anything she did in office would be unconstitutional since the Constitution does not allow women to be President of the United States.

Not necessarily.

As with other writings, such as the Holy Bible, often the word “He” may be used as a general term to represent both sexes.

In the case of the Constitution, it is conceivable, considering the mindset of the day, that the Founders did not think a woman would someday become President of the United States.  I assure you, people like John Adams and Aaron Burr were exceptions to that line of thinking.

Aaron Burr was Vice President under Thomas Jefferson, and he actually was one that proposed that there be a uniform rule across the nation that enabled women to vote.

If you look through the Constitution, there is no place in the Constitution that says women cannot vote, or run for office.  The reason women were not able to vote, or run for office, was because the States were given the authority over the rules of elections, and during that time the States did not allow women to vote or hold office.  Much of that changed in some States and territories long before the Suffrage Movement, but it took a Constitutional amendment to make the practice uniform among all States.

Therefore, the first word of Article II, Section 3, being “He,” is simply a general term.  Whoever the first female President is in the future, she will be fully entitled, upon being elected, to assume the Office of the President of the United States.

            State of the Union

“He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient.”

The State of the Union address is supposed to be as it is worded in the Constitution, a speech about the state of the union addressed to Congress by the President.  It is not supposed to be a campaign speech, it is not supposed to be a popularity speech, nor a chance to take a stab at political opposition.  The speech is simply supposed to be an opportunity for the President to give the Congress information regarding the state of the union.

The speech is also not supposed to be designed as an address to the people, either.  It was expected that the electorate would be interested in hearing the speech, and that the press would report on the speech, for it is in our interest to know what the state of the union is.  But, the specific reason for the State of Union address is to give Congress information of the state of the union.

There is an additional reason for the State of Union address should the President deem it necessary.  According to the Constitution, he may during the speech “recommend to their Consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient.”  Of course, he can do this during the normal course of his presidency, as well.  The word “recommend to their consideration” in this part of the clause gives us a clue to the limits on the powers of the President.

Article I, Section 1 reads: “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.”

This means that the authority to make law, modify law, repeal law, and strike down law - “all” legislative powers - are granted to the Congress by the States.

Article II, Section 3 says the President can “recommend” to their “consideration” such measures.  He cannot act without Congress, he cannot put measures into place “with or without Congress,” and at best he can “recommend” to Congress his own ideas regarding legislation that he would like to see Congress initiate.  The President can only “recommend to their consideration,” because he has no legislative capacity.  He cannot make Congress do anything, and he cannot act legislatively without Congress.

            Executive Orders

The President has the authority to issue Executive Orders.  An Executive Order is a proclamation.  Executive Orders began back when George Washington was President.  His Thanksgiving Proclamation was an Executive Order.  Executive Orders serve two functions.  They may be used to change the processes within the Executive Branch, because the rules of the internal workings of the Executive Branch are up to the President.  Or, an Executive Order may be used to issue a proclamation that is not legally binding.

No place in the Constitution does the document give the President the allowance through Executive Order to modify, repeal or make law.  Executive Orders have been used often in history to modify law, but that is an unconstitutional executive action.  The President does not have that kind of authority.

Since all of the regulatory agencies in the United States Government are a part of the executive branch, they are also bound by the same limitations.  Like the President, regulatory agencies cannot act legislatively.  Whenever they make a regulation that is not to directly regulate (put in good order and execute) an existing constitutional law, but to regulate an unconstitutional law, or to create a new law, it is outside the authorities granted to the executive branch by the Constitution.

On March 26, 2012, Cap and Trade auto emission legislation failed to pass through Congress. The Environmental Protection Agency began to auction greenhouse gas allowances anyway, effectively taxing emissions and regulating in a manner consistent with Cap and Trade should it have passed as a piece of legislation.

On December 20, 2010, when an Internet regulation bill failed to pass through Congress, the Federal Communications Commission announced it would regulate the Internet anyway. The FCC's new regulations controlled the way service providers may manage their network transmissions.

The regulatory agencies are under the Executive Branch, and are not a part of the Legislative Branch.  A Separation of Powers exists, limiting each branch to only the authorities granted to it, and any part of the executive branch, including the regulatory agencies, do not have any legislative authority.

            Extraordinary Occasions

“He may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them.”

What is an extraordinary occasion?  That would be an emergency, or during a time that matters are urgent.  If the President believes a matter needs to be tended to, he can compel the Congress to be in session.  In other words, it is constitutional when the President says something like, “I’m working, so Congress needs to be, too.”

An extraordinary occasion can be wartime, budget discussions, or anything else the President determines to be an extraordinary occasion.

This includes when there is a “disagreement between them (the Houses).”  The President may choose when the Houses will meet, as he feels is proper.

The President was expected to be a man of sacred honor, and it was believed he would use this authority wisely, and not in excess based on the whims of his ideology fancy.

In Article I, Section 5 the Constitution instructs that the Houses may not adjourn without the permission of the other House.  But what if they refuse to allow the other House to adjourn?  This is where the President comes in.  If, because of disagreement, the Houses won’t allow each other to adjourn, the President, if he feels it is necessary, “may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper.”

The President can compel the Houses to convene, or adjourn, as he feels necessary, as well.

He can’t force them to make particular laws, per se, but he can make them be in session to get the work done, or take a break if he sees it as necessary.

As much as Congress has control over when they convene or adjourn, the President does have the authority if things are getting out of hand, or for whatever other reason he deems necessary, to override Congress’ decision of when to convene or adjourn.

An appropriate example would be during wartime.  The President’s war powers enable him to put the military into action.  If he feels there should be a declaration of war, would like to discuss his war plans with the Congress, or requires an apportionment of funding for the military effort, he can compel them to be in session.  He cannot force Congress to declare war, or approve of his actions, but he can ensure they are in session so that the politics of war may be discussed.

If some of the members of Congress have a problem with the actions of the President so that they refuse to convene, he can then order Congress to convene so that he may discuss with them the issues at hand.  If there are enough to qualify as a quorum, it is not necessary to compel the absent members to be in attendance.  If Congress does not meet the requirement for a quorum, and the President believes the matter to be an extraordinary occasion, he can then compel the absent members to attend.

            Receiving Ambassadors and Other Public Ministers

The President may invite important people to Washington, be they ambassadors, or other officials.  Having the Chinese leader over for a dinner at the White House, or entertaining a group of diplomats, for example, is completely constitutional.

            Regulatory Agencies

“He shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”

This clause establishes the enforcement arm of the Executive Branch, which eventually became the regulatory agencies.

The clause is definitive in its instruction to the President regarding the execution of the laws of the United States by using the word “shall.”  The words “take Care” places an additional importance upon ensuring the laws of the United States are executed.  The word “Care” in this clause is capitalized, placing emphasis on the word in a manner that we use today with italics.  The laws must be executed with Care, and the Laws are expected to be “faithfully executed.”  Faithfully, without exception, without preferences, and without ideological interference.

Laws, under the federal government, are only valid laws, if they are constitutional.  If the laws are not made in line with the authorities granted to the federal government by the Constitution, they are not legal laws.  The executive branch shall “execute” the laws - constitutional laws.

Some people say the Executive Branch is supposed to “enforce” the laws - and in a sense that is correct.  But really, the Executive Branch is supposed to execute the laws - ensure they are carried out - Laws that were put into place constitutionally.

We are the final arbiters of the Constitution, but there are other steps along the way to ensure that unconstitutional laws don’t go into effect.  The President represents one of those checks.

When President Obama determined DOMA was unconstitutional, and decided his agencies would not execute that law, he was acting constitutionally.  The law is the law, however, and there is much discussion regarding if, considering that the President has decided the law is unconstitutional, he is compelled to ensure the law is executed.  Also, if he refuses to execute constitutional law, calling it unconstitutional, it is our responsibility that he is removed, and replaced with somebody who will execute the laws appropriately.

The constitutional check in the hands of the President is not supposed to be utilized “after” a bill becomes a law, however.  Unconstitutional laws are supposed to be caught before they get that far.  The early President of the United States vetoed bills based on the constitutionality of the bill, and not necessarily because they disagreed with it ideologically.

In 1817, when President Madison deemed a public works bill unconstitutional, he simply refused to sign the bill into law, indicating in his written reason why he vetoed the bill that the proposed law was unconstitutional.

Congress can override a President’s decision not to execute a law on the books because he deems it unconstitutional, just like they can override a veto.  The States may also enforce the law if the President refuses.  Article I, Section 8 grants to Congress the authority to “provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union.”

The reverse is also true.  If the President tries to execute law, calling it constitutional, when it is not constitutional, the States can ignore those federal laws, or nullify them.

            Officers of the United States

“… and shall commission all the Officers of the United States.”

The “United States,” as mentioned here in this final part of Article II, Section 3, does not mean The United States as a country.  The United States is mentioned often in the Constitution, and whenever the “United States” is mentioned, it means one of two things.  Either, it means “these States that are united,” or the “federal government.”  Remember, to these early Americans, who considered themselves citizens of their States before they considered themselves “Americans,” the United States meant “these States that are united,” rather than a single, nationalistic, entity.

In this particular clause the “United States” means “federal government.”

As a result of that definition, you could also say that this part of the Constitution reads: “and shall commission all the officers of the federal government.”

The Senate must give consent, as indicated in Article II, Section 2 and Article I, Section 3, to the appointment of these officers, therefore, giving the U.S. Senate (and therefore “the States” prior to the 17th Amendment) the power of oversight over the President’s choices.  This, in turn, means that any and all of the President’s czars are unconstitutional.  Officers of the United States are any office holders in the government exercising significant authority pursuant to the laws of the United States, and czars are included in that definition.


The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Impeachment is a term that means “To charge with misconduct.”  Removal from office does not happen unless the official is “convicted.”  In the case of the President and Vice President, the hearings are held by the U.S. Senate.

The reasons for impeachment may be for “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

Treason is defined in Article III, Section 3 as “levying War against them (these States that are United), or adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.”

Bribery is defined as meaning the exchange of money, promises, or other things, with someone in office, in order to influence that person’s views or conduct.

The real confusion comes when we talk about the final part: “or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

When it comes to the phrase, "high crimes and misdemeanors" and the meaning of that phrase to the Founding Fathers, we must recognize the language used.

The word “high” in this context does not necessarily mean "more serious".  It refers to those punishable offenses that only apply to high persons, meaning “public officials,” or those who, because of their official status, are under special obligations that ordinary persons are not under.

For an official who was placed in office by the people, a crime offends the sense of justice of the people.  When a public official commits these crimes, they can be more serious than if the same crime is committed by a citizen, because of the trust put into the office the official holds.

One of those high crimes is Perjury, which is more than merely “lying under oath".  Under the definitions used by the Founders, perjury also means "violation of one's oath (or affirmation)".  Therefore, the President refusing to protect and defend the Constitution, could be considered perjury.

The President is bound by his oath of office in all matters until he leaves office to follow the oath of office. While he holds that office, he is always under oath, therefore his failing to uphold the oath, or lying at any time, constitutes perjury if it is not justified for national security.

An executive official is also ultimately responsible for any failures of his subordinates and for their violations of the oath he and they took, which means violations of the Constitution and the rights of persons.  The President's subordinates include everyone in the executive branch, and their agents and contractors.  It is not limited to those over whom he has direct supervision.  He is not protected by plausible deniability.  The President is legally responsible for everything that everyone in the executive branch is doing.

Impeachment and removal proceedings may then encompass a full range of offenses against the Constitution and against the rights of persons committed by subordinate officials and their agents which have not been adequately investigated or remedied.

The meaning of the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors," was common knowledge during the time of the founding of this nation.  The phrase imports a concept in English Common Law of the word “misdemeanors” that essentially means bad behavior.

“Misdemeanors" in the language of the Founders, then, did not necessarily refer to a criminal act as many believe, but opened up the opportunity for impeachment of the President should he be guilty of gross incompetence, gross negligence, or outright distasteful actions which clearly show "malevolence toward this country and constitution, which is unabated."

The subject of impeachment was adopted from the English concept of this idea.  In England impeachment was a device to remove from office someone who abused his office or misbehaved, but who was protected by the Crown. 

James Madison said during the federal convention that impeachment ought to be used to reach a bad officer sheltered by the President and to remove him “even against the will of the President; so that the declaration in the Constitution was intended as a supplementary security for the good behavior of the public officers.”

At first, during the debates in the Constitutional Convention, the grounds for removal of the president were to be upon conviction “of mal-practice or neglect of duty” and subsequently this was changed to “Treason, or bribery.”  George Mason objected to this limitation, saying that the term did not encompass all the conduct which should be grounds for removal.  So, Mason proposed adding the term maladministration following ''bribery.''

Madison objected, believing the term to be too vague, or too general.  Mason then suggested ''other high crimes and misdemeanors,'' which was adopted without further recorded debate.


Adjourn - Suspend proceedings to a later time and/or place.

Bribery - The exchange of money, promises, or other things, with someone in office, in order to influence that person’s views or conduct.

Cap and Trade - Emissions trading; a regulatory approach to control pollution by providing economic incentives for achieving reductions in the emissions of pollutants; central control limit of amount of pollutants that can be emitted (cap), and companies are permitted to sell the unused portion of their limits to other companies who are struggling to comply (trade).

Executive Branch - The branch of government responsible for executing, or carrying out, the laws.  An executive in government can be a president, or a governor.

Executive Order - An order issued by the President of the United States that may be a proclamation, or an order to change the processes within the Executive Branch.

High Crimes - Punishable offenses that only apply to high persons, meaning “public officials,” or those who, because of their official status, are under special obligations that ordinary persons are not under.

Legislative Authority - See Legislative Powers.

Legislative Branch - Congress; the branch of the federal government that is vested with all legislative powers and consists of two Houses, the House of Representatives, and the United States Senate.

Legislative Powers - The ability to make law, modify law, repeal law, and anything else that has to do with affecting law.

Maladministration - Inefficient or dishonest administration; mismanagement.

Misdemeanors - In the Constitution the definition is bad behavior including, but not limited to, gross incompetence, gross negligence, or outright distasteful actions which clearly show “malevolence toward this country and constitution, which is unabated”; maladministration.

Nullification - State power to ignore unconstitutional federal law.

Perjury - Lying under oath, violation of one’s oath (or affirmation).

Plausible Deniability - Circumstances where denial of responsibility or knowledge of wrongdoing cannot be proved as true or untrue due to a lack of evidence proving the allegation; when high ranking officials deny responsibility for or knowledge of wrongdoing by lower ranking officials; any act that leaves little or no evidence of wrongdoing or abuse.

Quorum - Minimum number of members of an assembly necessary to conduct the business of that group.

Regulatory Agencies - Agencies within the Executive Branch tasked with executing the laws of the nation; the enforcement arm of the Executive Branch.

Separation of Powers - A division of governmental authority into three branches: legislative, executive, and judicial; division of powers between the States and federal government.

State of the Union address - A speech about the state of the union addressed to Congress by the President.

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

Veto - The power of a chief executive to reject a bill passed by the legislature in order to prevent or delay its enactment into law.

Questions for Discussion:

1. During what kind of circumstance can the President of the United States act legislatively?  Why?

2.  What kind of circumstances do you believe would be considered extraordinary by the Founding Fathers?

3.  What is the proper role of the Regulatory Agencies?

4.  Should failing to preserve and protect the United States Constitution be an impeachable offense?  Why, or why not?


Jon Roland, Meaning of "High Crimes and Misdemeanors"; Constitution

Joseph Andrews, A Guide for Learning and Teaching The Declaration of
Independence and The U.S. Constitution - Learning from the Original Texts Using Classical Learning Methods of the Founders; San Marcos: The Center for Teaching the Constitution (2010).

Madison’s Notes Constitutional Convention, Avalon Project, Yale

Philip B. Kurland and Ralph Lerner, The Founder’s Constitution –
Volume Four – Article I, Section 8, Clause 5 to Article VII; Indianapolis: Liberty Fund (1987)

Vincent Gioia, What is a ‘Misdemeanor’ Under the Constitution and

Copyright Douglas V. Gibbs 2015

Saturday, November 09, 2019

Constitution Radio: Living in America

Liberty or Authoritarianism?  Let's take a look at where the parties fit on the issues.

Impeachment is all over the news.  But, what does it mean?  How does the process work?

How miserable must Americans get before they realize how crazy things have become ... or is this only the beginning?

Constitution Radio with Douglas V. Gibbs

KMET 1490-AM

1-3 pm on Saturday Afternoon

archived podcast at


Saturday, November 02, 2019

Judge Jeanine: Lying Sack of Schiff

Douglas V. Gibbs
Author, Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host
Impeachment: There are no rules here, and when there is, the radicals change them.  They distort them for their own legal purposes.  Flaunt the law, and then brag their deep state is accomplishing its goal... lawlessness and hate for the man who fights for this country.

When are these leftist criminals going to be prosecuted?

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Constitution Association: Impeachment

The monthly Constitution Association meeting is today at 5:00 pm in Temecula.

After being out of town for a week, I am looking forward to reconnecting with my constitutionalist friends.

View flyer for tonight's meeting HERE

Tuesday, October 29, 2019

Impeachment: Constitutional Panel

Pelosi wants a vote on Thursday.

On Saturday at the Constitution Association we will hold a panel on impeachment, and discuss what her vote really means.

Kellogg's Embraces Homosexual Agenda

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

Thanks, but no thanks.

The Kellogg's Cereal Company has taken sides in the gay agenda debate with a new "All Together" cereal.  It's a private company, they can do what they want, but I hope the sale of this product is bad so that they get the message that Americans don't appreciate the drive by the liberal left and homosexual community to push America in a direction that they are not necessarily willing to go.

Let me qualify something real quick, here, because the liberal left pro-gay response will now be that I am homophobic, and a hater.

I don't hate anyone.  I believe homosexuality is a sin, and a dangerous behavior that often leads to serious negative consequences.  I do not believe the law should dictate to someone if they are allowed to be gay or not, but I have a problem that the homosexual agenda is trying to use the force of law, and cultural games and societal pressure to demand that everyone celebrate and accept as normal homosexual behavior, regardless of what we may think inside.  The wonderful thing about liberty is the ability for people to disagree, and to shout someone into silence for not accepting a sexual behavior as normal is not liberty ... it is tyranny.

That said, could you imagine the outrage if Kellogg's decided to have an "All Godly" cereal with Crosses, descending doves, and Christian fish shapes in the cereal?

The media and Democrats would ridicule and shame them into bankruptcy.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Saturday, October 26, 2019

No Rest for Trumpsters

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

There is an old saying.  "No rest for the wicked," I think that is how it goes.

Then there is a quote, too, and with my luck I am figuring the guy who said it is a lefty:

“People who claim that they're evil are usually no worse than the rest of us... It's people who claim that they're good, or any way better than the rest of us, that you have to be wary of.”
― Gregory Maguire, Wicked: The Life and Times of the Wicked Witch of the West

I think that describes the political progressive Marxist Democrats of today, don't you think?

The Framers of the U.S. Constitution were well aware of the kind of thinking represented by the liberal left in today's struggle for political power.  They saw government as a necessary evil, rather than a benevolent force for charity and order.  The federal government was created by the Constitution to handle external issues, and internal issues that were regarding the union.  The States were expected to be autonomous entities, sovereign units who took care of their own internal issues.
Federalist 45, James Madison: The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State. The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State governments, in times of peace and security.
Someone once asked me when the first leftwing attacks against the Constitution began, and I proclaimed, "during the convention in 1787."  The struggle for power begin in Independence Hall, and exploded into a full blown attack against the limiting principles of the Constitution right out the gate.  Those attacks manifested into things like the tax that led to the Whiskey Rebellion during Washington's presidency, the Sedition Act during the Adams presidency, and the illegal rise of judicial review in 1803 during presidency of Thomas Jefferson.  Chief Justice John Marshall built upon the idea of a firm union and federal supremacy over all issues, and the father of the Democrat Party, President Andrew Jackson, pushed us towards democracy (a concept the Founders did everything they could to avoid us becoming).  And now, two and a half centuries later, after constitutional setbacks during the War Between the States, the Progressive Era, and under a steady assault by socialism, we have come to a point where the Democrat Party socialists are throwing a temper tantrum because they could not get us over the final few hurdles in their quest to fundamentally transform America.  President Donald J.Trump foiled their attempts, and now stands in the way of the final countdown to socialism and globalism.

Election tampering was not enough to push Hillary Clinton into the White House, and it made them so mad that they accused the Republicans, and specifically Donald Trump, of ... you guessed it ... election tampering.  So, if you can't rig the vote, then the Democrats are working to overload the vote with their voters, even if it means making sure that non-citizens who don't understand the principles of liberty or have any skin in the game, yet, votes in massive numbers.

That is why they are all over the immigration issue, and doing what they can to make sure illegal aliens have as say in our society as they can.  They don't actually care about the illegal aliens crossing the border in mass numbers because of the left's invitations.  It's all about power.  Democrat voters should be against open borders, not for them.  Why would blue collar workers, once the backbone of the Democrat Party, want to vote in favor of selling their jobs to foreign workers who are not even willing to go through the immigration process?

It's all about power.  If the Democrat Party truly cared about their voters, and wanted to chase after solutions, the population centers of the United States, under the control of Democrat mayors and city councils ever since I can remember, would not be the hell-hole urban ghettos that they've become.

It's already bad in our cities, and now that the economic prospects of Americans living in the inner-cities are being further slammed by the large wave of illegal aliens tugging on the same jobs, the same housing, and the same government benefits, who can the Americans in these cities realize a better life for themselves?

Like all of the leftists in history, or should I say "Marxists," the Democrats love the downtrodden and impoverished not because they give a whit about them, but for the political power that can be derived from pandering to their substandard existence.

The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

The Democrats are not working on solutions, they are working on increasing the problems, because economic problems in America produces platforms to run on, and potential voters to put on government dependence so that they keep voting Democrat.

The only obstacles in the way are the Electoral College (of which they are working very diligently to eliminate), the fact that Americans are armed (of which they are also working hard to eliminate), the American Christian (of which they are working hard on ridiculing into silence), and President Donald J. Trump (of which they've been working very hard lately on figuring out how to impeach him).

Their moves attacking the obstacles and their legal maneuvering to make sure illegals are voting (such as blocking a citizenship question on the 2020 census) do not tell us that they care about the anyone who votes Democrat.  All of their actions tell us that they are simply inserting as many tactics and as much strategy to seize all political power.

What they can’t win legally, Democrats seek to seize by any means necessary.

President Trump, to the horror of the liberal left Democrats, has been paying attention.  He is doing what he can to counter the Democrat Party's madness, which makes them get even madder.

For example, The Justice Department will be appearing before the United States Supreme Court to argue in favor of the citizenship question on the 2020 census questionnaire.
Meanwhile, Trump's team is also doing what it can to expose the corruption, not only because the deep state runs pretty deep, but because it is through this network of corruption that the Democrats are doing whatever they can to unseat the 45th President of the United States.

Findings by the Department of Justice inspector general

Findings released by the Department of Justice inspector general are raising new questions about the whole "Russia Russia Russia" narrative, as well as the factors that led to the unconstitutional appointment (he was never confirmed by the Senate) of Special Counsel Robert Mueller and former FBI Director James Comey's testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee.
Comey testified that it was Trump's May 12, 2017, tweet about possible White House tapes that prompted him to wake up "in the middle of the night" days later, convinced that he needed to leak the contents of one of his sensitive memos documenting his conversations with Trump. Such a leak, Comey reasoned, would result in an investigation that would uncover any tapes created by the president.
The problem is, the evidence reveals some serious problems with his testimony.  According to an 83-page report released by the Department of Justice inspector general, "on the afternoon of May 14, 2017 -- the Sunday before that alleged late-night episode occurred -- Comey sent four of the memos to one of his attorneys, Patrick Fitzgerald, 'with instructions to share the email and PDF attachment with [attorney David] Kelley and [Columbia Law School professor Daniel] Richman.'"
There were no indications that Comey told Richman, his longtime friend and adviser, to leak the documents at that time. Fitzgerald forwarded the documents to Kelley at 7:35 a.m. on May 17, and to Richman on May 17 at 10:13 a.m.
In short, Comey lied, and while he was at it, he violated a number of FBI policies.
On the morning of May 16, Comey separately sent a digital photograph of one of his memos specifically to Richman, with explicit instructions to share the substance of the memo with a New York Times reporter.
On May 16, 2017, based on a leak from Richman at Comey's direction, The New York Times ran a story documenting the memos and bearing the headling "Comey Memo Says Trump Asked Him to End Flynn Investigation." 
Richman was also the source of a May 11 New York Times article that described Comey's private conversations with "associates," in which Comey said Trump had requested a loyalty pledge from Comey. That article prompted Trump to tweet, "James Comey better hope that there are no 'tapes' of our conversations before he starts leaking to the press!"
Separately, the IG report probed Comey's honesty during his congressional testimony, when Maine Republican Sen. Susan Collins asked him, "Did you show copies of your memos to anyone outside of the Department of Justice."

"Yes," Comey said.

"And to whom did you show copies?" Collins asked.

"I asked — the president tweeted on Friday after I got fired that I better hope there's not tapes. I woke up in the middle of the night on Monday night because it didn't dawn on me originally, that there might be corroboration for our conversation," Comey said.

"There might a tape," Comey continued. "My judgment was, I need to get that out into the public square. I asked a friend of mine to share the content of the memo with a reporter. Didn't do it myself for a variety of reasons. I asked him to because I thought that might prompt the appointment of a special counsel. I asked a close friend to do it."

So much for swearing not to lie under oath.

Comey later told the IG that he had provided the memos to Richman -- but was faulted for not mentioning that he had also given the documents to his lawyers.
Comey is having a heck of a time with honesty, it seems.  But, if the Democrats were innocent in all of this, why would the former FBI Chief be lying under oath?  Comey assured Trump that he was not personally under investigation, yet, the former FBI director and his top deputies went to great lengths to confront Trump at a Jan. 6, 2017, meeting at Trump Tower with the salacious accusations in the fake dossier drafted by British ex-spy Christopher Steele, and paid for by Hillary Clinton.

The goal, according to the FBI officials, was to see if Trump would "'make statements about or provide information of value to the pending Russia interference investigation' known as 'Crossfire Hurricane.'"
After Comey revealed the dossier claims to Trump, he observed the president's reactions and quickly documented them for investigative purposes, the IG recounted.
"Comey said he had a secure FBI laptop waiting for him in his FBI vehicle and that when he got into the vehicle, he was handed the laptop and 'began typing as the vehicle moved,'" the IG report stated. That section of the IG report was first flagged by The Washington Examiner's Byron York.
Comey later headed to the New York FBI field office to discuss the matter in a secure videoconference with other members of the Crossfire Hurricane team, according to the report.
"We have a CNN exclusive for you now," anchor Jake Tapper said Jan. 10, 2017. "CNN has learned that the nation's top intelligence officials provided information to President-elect Donald Trump and to President Barack Obama last week about claims of Russian efforts to compromise the president-elect," citing "a former British intelligence operative whose past work U.S. intelligence officials consider to be credible."
CNN did not mention that Steele was funded by the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC), and it did not reveal which participant in the meeting had leaked the news about the dossier briefing.

The IG is separately working on a report into broader potential intelligence community surveillance abuses.

Former FBI Director James Comey put his own self-interest, and hatred of opponents of the progressive agenda (such as Donald J. Trump) ahead of the country and, inconsistent with DOJ policy, created a chain of events that lead to the appointment of the special counsel.
The IG report outlined a series of violations, including that he broke FBI policies and the bureau's employment agreement "by providing one of the unclassified memos that contained official FBI information, including sensitive investigative information, to his friend with instructions for the friend to share the contents of the memo with a reporter."
Further, the IG determined that Comey kept copies of four memos (out of the total seven he drafted) in a personal safe at home after his removal as director -- and in doing so "violated FBI policies and his FBI Employment Agreement by failing to notify the FBI that he had retained them." 
The IG said Comey again violated the rules "by providing copies ... of the four memos he had kept in his home to his three private attorneys without FBI authorization," and by failing to alert the FBI once he learned one of the memos contained sections later deemed classified at the confidential level. 
"By not safeguarding sensitive information obtained during the course of his FBI employment, and by using it to create public pressure for official action, Comey set a dangerous example for the over 35,000 current FBI employees—and the many thousands more former FBI employees—who similarly have access to or knowledge of non-public information," the report stated. 
The IG added: "Were current or former FBI employees to follow the former Director's example and disclose sensitive information in service of their own strongly held personal convictions, the FBI would be unable to dispatch its law enforcement duties properly."
Through Comey we see easily that the Democrats are not only lying, and have been colluding with various players to undermine the Trump presidency, but that everything they have accused our president of they are guilty of themselves.  They are projecting their corruption upon Trump, and now the Trump team is making the reality of what has been happening slowly available for all to see.

And then, as the evidence pours in, like a child in a schoolyard, the Democrats proclaim, "we didn't do that."

The game is deep, sick and twisted.  Jeffery Epstein was a key in exposing that, then he not only mysteriously died in jail, but then key witnesses attached to his case mysteriously vanished.

At what point do we cry foul, and at what point will the normal people out there finally realize what is really going on?

We can go back to General Flynn, even, if we must.

Nobody has been more mistreated by the Deep State than General Michael Flynn.

General Flynn has a real fighter in his attorney Sidney Powell and she is rightfully demanding the Mueller gang be held in contempt. Powell is right no matter what the far left New York Times’ ‘Russia Collusion’ reporters say.
General Flynn’s attorney Sidney Powell filed a BOMBSHELL motion in his case on Friday night per investigative reporter Will Chamberlain from Human Events. The Deep State Mueller gang are finally being outed for the crooks that they are and the crimes they committed by Flynn’s attorney Sidney Powell
Mueller’s goons withheld Brady material which is not shock since they did the same back in the 2000’s in their Enron related cases as noted in Powell’s “License to Lie.
Powell argues that the Deep State Mueller gang led by the most corrupt DOJ attorney in US history, Andrew Weissmann, withheld information pertinent to their case. 
The Mueller – Weissmann gang tried to slip in some documents in some late reporting that were very important to the case and yet they claimed they were no big deal. 
It is rare to have somebody who is as much of a fighter as Flynn. 
He has already lost a lot, including his home, dealing with his massive legal fees. 
But instead of rolling over and allowing the Deep State to win in order to get a lighter sentence, Flynn is fighting back as hard as he can.
The liberal left progressive socialist commie Democrats have not given up on Kavanaugh, either.

When Brett Kavanaugh went through the hearing for his confirmation to the United States Supreme Court a year ago, the liberal left pulled out all of the stops.  And now, a year later, the game is not over.

False accusations continue to fly, despite the fact that on the Kavanaugh front the evidence is showing it is all about Democrat Party power, and not the truth, as well.  Recently, Debra Katz, the attorney for Kavanaugh accuser Christine Blasey Ford, admitted that Ford’s allegations were motivated by a desire to tarnish Kavanaugh’s reputation. Speaking at a feminist legal conference at the University of Baltimore, Katz said:
In the aftermath of these hearings, I believe that Christine’s testimony brought about more good than the harm misogynist Republicans caused by allowing Kavanaugh on the court. He will always have an asterisk next to his name. When he takes a scalpel to Roe v. Wade, we will know who he is, we know his character, and we know what motivates him, and that is important; it is important that we know, and that is part of what motivated Christine.
It was all politically motivated, as conservatives were well aware of as the madness surrounding Kavanaugh was in full swing.  But, even with the serious doubt on Ford's credibility surfacing, the liberal left are not done with Kavanaugh.

Reports have surfaced that Ford’s father actually supported Kavanaugh during his confirmation hearing—a fact that went unreported during the hearing, yet would have had a significant impact on the proceedings.

By the end of the week, things were looking pretty bad for those who wished to smear Kavanaugh’s character.

Then, as if on cue, The New York Times stepped in to assail Kavanaugh yet again.
The Times published a new allegation against Kavanaugh based on a forthcoming book, “The Education of Brett Kavanaugh: An Investigation.” The article recounts an uncorroborated claim that Kavanaugh exposed himself and sexually harassed a Yale classmate at a drunken party—separate from a previous but similar allegation
The Times reports: “A classmate, Max Stier, saw Mr. Kavanaugh with his pants down at a different drunken dorm party, where friends pushed his penis into the hands of a female student.”
And the cries for impeachment of Kavanaugh reached a crescendo, again.  The problem is, as with almost all Democrat claims, context and vital information was left out.  The Times omitted critical pieces of information. The alleged victim refused to be interviewed by the Times, and her friends say she didn’t recall the incident.

The Times admitted that error in an editor’s note, but not before 24 hours had gone by.

And there’s another problem with the story. The man who claimed he witnessed the incident, Max Stier, had a long personal rivalry with Kavanaugh, having served as a defense attorney for President Bill Clinton in the 1990s when Kavanaugh worked on the opposing side with independent counsel Kenneth Starr during the Clinton impeachment. The Times failed to disclose this.

Another day in life in these United States when dealing with the liars, cheaters, and crooked Democrats.

The Times straight up botched the story, and they did it on purpose.

This is the same exact pattern we saw last year, and it is the same pattern we see on all issues when it comes to the Democrats.  The reporting is one-sided, and sometimes the lies catch up with them, and inconsistencies emerge.  The Democrats and the crooked media are working in cahoots with each other to make sure you think a certain way, that a particular narrative is fed to the public, hoping that the normal people won't notice the media’s shoddy and slanted coverage during the hearing, and every other issue that rises up.

The thing is, in this case, it wasn't just The New York Times.  They are all accomplices.  The New Yorker, CNN, and The Washington Post played their parts, too.
Now, with the left clearly willing to impeach Kavanaugh, given the opportunity, the media is once again sloppily throw darts at him in the hopes that one will actually stick.
All because Donald J. Trump dared to recognize the sins of the establishment, and then he vowed to expose their sins, and dismantle the political machine it sits upon.

President Trump is tireless in his nonstop war against progressive cultural control of the American System.

They don't know how to deal with Trump’s unorthodox and combative take-no-prisoners style. Critics detest his crude and unfettered assertions, his lack of prior military or political experience, his attacks on the so-called bipartisan administrative state, and his intent to roll back the entire Obama-era effort of “fundamentally transforming” the country leftward.

And as they attack him, Trump has still been working at his job as President of the United States.  Despite their obstructionism, Trump's economy is booming as never before in the new 21st century, championing near record-low unemployment, a record number of Americans working, increases in workers’ wages and family incomes, low interest rates, low inflation, steady GDP growth, and a strong stock market.

The Democrats don't care about all of that.  They don't want what's best for the country.  They want what's best for their agenda.  They want to usher into existence an elite postmodern progressive world.  Bondage for all.

A new America under the leadership of the Democrats is supposed to be dawning right about now.  The new America has your energy use under strict scrutiny by the government, Americans stepping out of their fossil fuel cars so that they can ride their bikes, an end to the Second Amendment, a Marxist-style redistribution of income, identity politics and open borders, free indoctrination through a college education for all, free health care, and abortion on demand because they are way behind on their child sacrifices to Molech.

Except, insomniac Trump stands in the way, taking the fiery darts and throwing them back, fighting for Americans, for as he reminded us, it is not him they are after, it is Americans who embrace liberty the Democrats are trying to defeat and destroy.

And under the onslaught, Trump continues to win more than he loses, and they can't figure out how. 

In the process, the Democrats are outing who they really are.  President Trump has so enraged his Democratic adversaries that the candidates to replace him have moved farther to the left, and their socialism is now clear and recognizable.

In the end, it is a battle for American Liberty.  If Trump continues to stand firm, his victory could very well finish off the Democrat Party.  But, I won't hold my breath on that one.  Remember, there is no rest for the wicked.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary