DOUGLAS V. GIBBS             RADIO             BOOKS             CONSTITUTION             CONTACT/FOLLOW             DONATE

Saturday, December 31, 2016

Constitution Radio with Douglas V. Gibbs - Emoluments Clause

Constitution Radio with Douglas V. Gibbs airs Saturdays at 1:00 pm Pacific.  The program is hosted by Douglas V. Gibbs and Alex Ferguson.  You can listen online at www.kmet1490am.com, or catch the podcast later on our SoundCloud Page.Today's episode will begin with a discussion about Donald J. Trump, and the Emoluments Clause.
Guest call in if you would like to join the conversation is 951-922-3532.

Here's today's AllStar Collision Big Stories of the Week:

  • Trump and the Emoluments Clause

http://politicalpistachio.blogspot.com/2016/12/trump-and-emolument-clause.html

  • Exit, Stage Left

http://politicalpistachio.blogspot.com/2016/12/exit-stage-left.html

http://politicalpistachio.blogspot.com/2016/12/drudge-report-attacked-by-government.html

http://politicalpistachio.blogspot.com/2016/12/democrats-prepare-for-violent-revolution.html

http://politicalpistachio.blogspot.com/2016/12/john-kerry-to-israel-be-jewish-or-be.html

http://politicalpistachio.blogspot.com/2016/12/obamas-ministry-of-truth.html

http://politicalpistachio.blogspot.com/2016/12/obamas-final-flurry.html

http://politicalpistachio.blogspot.com/2016/12/obamas-last-crusade-against-israel.html

http://politicalpistachio.blogspot.com/2016/12/obamas-transformation.html

http://politicalpistachio.blogspot.com/2016/12/obamas-environmentalism-double-down.html

http://politicalpistachio.blogspot.com/2016/12/a-new-hope-in-america-contrary-to.html


  • The Unorthodoxy of Trump

http://politicalpistachio.blogspot.com/2016/12/unorthodoxy-of-donald-j-trump.html

http://politicalpistachio.blogspot.com/2016/12/trumps-jerusalem-location-for-us.html

Trump and the Emolument Clause

By Douglas V. Gibbs
AuthorSpeakerInstructorRadio Host

The 1828 Webster's Dictionary is our best source for defining the words used in the earliest articles of the United States Constitution.  If we are going to pursue the original intent of the document written in 1787, it is only logical to pursue the original definitions of the words used in that document.  Emolument is a term that appears in the U.S. Constitution's first seven articles a total of three times.  The word "Compensation" also only appears three times in the original Constitution.

Emolument is defined by the 1828 Webster's Dictionary as: 1. The profit arising from office or employment; that which is received as a compensation for services, or which is annexed to the possession of office, as salary, feels and perquisites.  2. Profit; advantage; gains in general.

Compensation is defined by the 1828 Webster's Dictionary as: 1. That which is given or received as an equivalent for services, debt, want, loss, or suffering; amends; remuneration; recompense.  All other debts may compensation find.  The pleasures of life are no compensation for the loss of divine favor and protection.  2. In law, a set-off; the payment of a debt by a credit of equal amount.

In the Constitution, Compensation appears in:

• Article I, Section 6: Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States.

• Article II, Section 1: The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be encreased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.

• Article III, Section 1: The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

In these three clauses it is explained that for their services, the members of the Legislative Branch, the President, and the judges of the federal court system shall receive compensation for their services, rather than an emolument.  The pay is supposed to compensate them for their services with an amount equal to the services they are providing, and to recompense (repay) them for monies lost since they are unable to operate their businesses, or jobs, because of their service.  Note, because the term "compensation" was used, rather than "emolument," it reminds us that the politicians were not supposed to be "professional politicians" with a salary that exceeds their losses resulting from their services.

In the Constitution, Emolument appears in:

• Article I, Section 6: No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.

• Article I, Section 9: 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.

• Article II, Section 1: The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be encreased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.

In the first appearance of "emoluments" in the Constitution it refers to salaries for positions in the government like "Secretary of State," giving the term "emolument" more of a salary definition, rather than that of a compensation.  In Article I, Section 9, the latter part of that paragraph is known as the "Emolument Clause," and is the one being referred to regarding Donald J. Trump's international personal economic benefits as they pertain to his role as a businessman.  In Article II, Section 1 the appearance of "emolument" is for the purpose of explaining that while the President is receiving compensation for his services, it is illegal for him to receive a salary from any other federal office, or State office.

In the news, the Emolument Clause being targeted by the opponents of Donald J. Trump is Article I, Section 9: "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."

First of all, it amazes me how, when they think it serves their purposes, the Democrats become strict constitutionalists, sometimes.

Second, Barack Obama has violated the Emolument Clause repeatedly.  According to Congress, one of those offenses was when he won the Nobel Peace Prize.  Though he donated the cash prize to charity, the very fact that he received those monies from a foreign source without congressional permission means he violated the clause, or at least that is what members of Congress said.  The Justice Department concluded that because the prize was awarded by the Nobel Committee, which is not an "agent or representative of the Norwegian government," there was no violation.  Was that a sound conclusion, or a friendly nudge of assistance by the United States Attorney General, who was Barack Obama's buddy, Eric Holder, at the time?

The Founding Fathers included the Emoluments Clause in the U.S. Constitution because they wished to reduce foreign influence on our government as much as possible.  They were, at the time, dealing with a Tory population that, though most of them had fled to Britain after the war, sought to undermine the new government.  Great Britain failed to recognize the sovereignty of the United States, and considered the Constitution a traitorous act against The Crown.  While trade with other nations, and even business dealings with other nations, were allowed, anything beyond what was for the immediate benefit of the local economy was frowned upon.  The original 13th Amendment, in fact, which was somehow scrubbed from the pages of the United States Constitution shortly before the War Between the States, penalized citizens with the loss of citizenship should they accept a foreign title (such as knight).

America’s founding fathers heavily worried about the potential problem of corruption in the new constitutional government. Outside influence through the gift of money or physical presents by wealthy persons and powerful governments had doomed republics earlier in history.  They saw the exchanges of gifts and money for diplomatic reasons a component of the kind of aristocratic and monarchical rule that plagued Europe.  How could an officeholder serve the people when one has the privileges of a noble?

When the king of England granted titles and salaries to loyalists, wrote John Adams, it turned the crown itself into a “private interest”. 

The Founding Fathers considered royalty, and anything that suggested a potential connection to it, a conflict of interest when it came to a system of liberty, and the kind of ruination that could be detrimental to the survival of the fledgling United States government.

American government representatives receiving foreign gifts were considered dangerous, but the giving of such gifts in Europe were routine in diplomacy.  The delegates in the Constitutional Convention of 1787 decided to follow a model provided by Holland, another republic influenced by a Saxon history of limited government, and the belief that nobody is above the law, even a king. In 1651, the dutch had adopted a ban on gifts for its ambassadors unless they were declared and approved by parliament.

Recognizing the fuss being brought by the Democrats about the Emolument Clause, Mr. Trump tweeted on November 30th that he will be “leaving [his] great business in total”.  While Mr. Trump has not explained exactly what that means, all evidence points towards him handing over control of his business dealings to his children.  "Experts," and  America’s Office of Government Ethics, believes he should sell (or give away) his business interests to parties not connected to him.

While the primary concern of the Founding Fathers was foreign gifts and bribes, the emolument clause pretty much covers all personal economic benefits one might receive from foreign governments.

Does that include if a foreigner stays at one of Trump's hotels?  How about the fact that the Industrial and Agricultural Bank of China, whose majority stakeholder is the Chinese government, rents office space in New York City’s Trump Tower? How about the fact that Trump is working on erecting a new 35-story Trump Office Buenos Aires development, and the only thing holding it back at the moment is the fact that it is awaiting final approval from that city’s government?

Questions regarding the Emoluments Clause are nothing new.  Past presidents have worked hard to avoid even the appearance of conflicts of interest.  President Martin Van Buren was gifted horses, rugs, pearls and other goods from the Imam of Muscat.  Van Buren had a special resolution from Congress passed to let him split the goods up between the State Department and the Treasury.

Today's political quagmire has become a veritable minefield of bribes and behind-closed-door dealings.  Private financial interests can subtly sway even the most virtuous leaders. The Emoluments Clause was written because the Founding Fathers understood human nature, and despite how evolved we may think we are, the nature of the human condition and the reality of government places us at a constant risk of outside meddling by the powerful opponents of our liberty.

George Washington often mentioned the term "foreign entanglements," and while more often than not he meant that we should not inject ourselves into foreign entanglements that have nothing to do with American affairs, he was also warning that we should not invite foreign entanglements to come to our shores, as well.  

Trump’s vast global scope of business interests, many of which remain shrouded in secrecy, may very well pose themselves to be a potential danger if Donald Trump does not decide to totally divest himself from them.

Congress, of course, can also use legislation to allow Trump to continue to receive what he receives through his business dealings.  The question is, in that case, Do we trust Donald Trump will not use his business relationships in an unethical way while serving as President of the United States?

Congress would have to affirmatively decide what it is willing to live with in the way of Trump conflicts.

The problem with all that I've written, however, is that some of it may not matter, in the first place.  We are dealing with interpretations, and legal rulings.  But what does the Constitution actually say in the Emoluments Clause?

Article I, Section 9: 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.

Did you catch the end, there?  "from any King, Prince, or foreign State."

While the Industrial and Agricultural Bank of China, whose majority stakeholder is the Chinese government, rents office space in New York City’s Trump Tower, they are not paying Trump directly.  His emolument comes from the overall profit of that building.  Business income not received from government sources are totally fine.  After all, were not the early politicians of America's earliest days farmers and shopkeepers and professionals with law practices and doctor's offices?  They could, after all, receive payment for their services as private individuals (as long as those payments were not directly from kings, princes, or a foreign government) - though as President these persons set aside their businesses completely, or to family, while they served.

It goes back to the argument the Department of Justice made regarding Barack Obama's emolument for the Nobel Peace Prize, right?  The Justice Department concluded that because the prize was awarded by the Nobel Committee, which is not an "agent or representative of the Norwegian government," there was no violation.

This doesn't, of course, get Trump completely off the hook.  Situations like the new 35-story Trump Office Buenos Aires development waiting for approval from that city’s government could be a sticky situation.  Approval could be seen as a gift from that government to the new President.  Therefore, either Trump needs to separate himself from those situations, somehow, or Congress needs to pass resolutions saying, "Naw, that one is fine.  We give our consent."

In short, the Emoluments Clause is a big deal, and it was written to protect our country from foreign meddling and influence.  But, most of Trump's personal economic benefits are not from foreign dignitaries or governments, but from private sources.  Whether they are international, or not, those monies do not fall under the scrutiny of the Emoluments Clause.  Therefore, while there are segments of Trump's business dealings that must be dealt with because of the Emoluments Clause, most of his income from foreign investments and sources do not apply.

Congress will need to deal with this as necessary, and Trump will need to divest where necessary, but in all honesty, the problem is not nearly as large as the liberal left is making it out to be.  However, it's huge to them, while the Nobel Peace Prize wasn't, simply because of trust.  They trusted Obama.  They don't trust Trump.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Friday, December 30, 2016

Constitution Study Facebook Page Tops 10,000 Likes

By Douglas V. Gibbs
AuthorSpeakerInstructorRadio Host

Here at Political Pistachio all of the posts from this site go automatically to my personal Facebook page (we are currently at 1,614 Friends), and to my Political Pistachio Facebook page (45 likes).  The articles specifically related to the United States Constitution go to the Constitution Study Facebook page.

Constitution Study has 10,094 likes.  Feel free to join so that you, too, may be informed about the original intent of the United States Constitution.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Ode to the Welfare State - Poem, 1949

Posted by Douglas V. Gibbs
AuthorSpeakerInstructorRadio Host


-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Exit, Stage Left


By Douglas V. Gibbs
President Obama has taken a number of unilateral actions in the waning days of his tenure that appear designed to box in President-elect Donald Trump.

Obama's decision Thursday to sanction Russian entities for election-related hacking is just the latest obstacle he has placed in Trump's way.

Days before the sanctions were unveiled, the Obama administration allowed the U.N. Security Council to condemn Israeli settlement activity — something that could have an indelible impact on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Obama has also permanently banned oil and gas drilling across large swaths of the Atlantic and Arctic oceans, closed off 1.6 million acres of Western land to development and scrapped the last vestiges of a registration system used largely on Muslim immigrants.

• Unleashes 3,853 regs, 18 for every law, record 97,110 pages of red tape...

President Obama's lame duck administration poured on thousands more new regulations in 2016 at a rate of 18 for every new law passed, according to a Friday analysis of his team's expansion of federal authority.

While Congress passed just 211 laws, Obama's team issued an accompanying 3,852 new federal regulations, some costing billions of dollars.

The 2016 total was the highest annual number of regulations under Obama. Former President Bush issued more in the wake of 9/11.

The proof that it was an overwhelming year for rules and regulations is in the Federal Register, which ended the year Friday by printing a record-setting 97,110 pages, according to the analysis from the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

• PAPER: Ugly snub of voters...

In his waning days in the White House, President Obama is desperately trying to make his policies as permanent as possible by tying the hands of his successor — and far more than other presidents have done on their way out.

From his dramatic and disastrous change of US policy on Israel to his executive order restricting 1.65 million acres of land from development despite local objections, Obama is trying to make it impossible for Donald Trump and a GOP-controlled Congress to govern.

Even Thursday’s announcement of wide-ranging sanctions against Russia presents Trump with a foreign-policy crisis immediately upon taking office.

By contrast, many of Obama’s predecessors have stood back in their final days in office and refrained from any dramatic shifts, in deference to the agenda of the man voters sent to succeed them.

But Obama won’t accept the election results. As he suggested the other day, Trump’s election was a fluke — and he himself would have easily been re-elected if allowed to stand for a third term.

He believes this not just because he’s an effective campaigner, but because he thinks his “vision” and policies continue to be backed by “a majority of the American people.”

But Obama, like many Democrats, fails to understand what happened in the election: Voters were calling for real change from the status quo — from his policies. Indeed, before the vote, he himself said it was a referendum on him and his policies.


I see it as an effort to help America better understand itself. He said he was trying to show that “Everybody is kind of working in the same direction, trying to get by, get a life that provides them with dignity.” In this, he suggests, we are more united than we know.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Thursday, December 29, 2016

Obamacare Truth Shocks Democrats

By Douglas V. Gibbs
AuthorSpeakerInstructorRadio Host

My wife and I were slammed by a vicious head cold this week.  I was able to fight it off with over-the-counter medicines, but my wife's history of bronchitis encouraged me to take her into the family doctor a few days ago.  We don't have health insurance, but are exempt from the Obama administration imposed fine because we are in the Veteran's Administration system.  However, because the bureaucracy is such a mess, we've never really been able to work our way through the red tape to get our VA benefits working right.

When it came time to pay for the medical services at our family doctor, the woman behind the counter asked about our insurance.  "None," we replied.

She was confused.  She didn't know what to do.  "Everyone has insurance."

"No," I said, "Everyone has been ordered by threat of penalty to have insurance.  We don't."

"You know," she said, "Covered California is easy and inexpensive."

Covered California is the Golden State's Obamacare exchange, and it is a mess.

"No," I said.  "We could afford insurance before Obamacare.  The Affordable Care Act jacked up our costs, and made it unaffordable.  Now, we can't afford to purchase private insurance."

She didn't know what to say.  She, I am figuring, fully believes the propaganda about how wonderful socialized medicine is.  She has likely bought into the propaganda that "health care is a right," and it must be guaranteed by the government as a result.

The doctor stepped up.  "Charge them the 'cash' rate."

He threw a wink my way, and a slight grin.

We paid our $60, and went home.

My discussion about Obamacare with the medical office administrative worker brought to mind the many conversations I have had about the liberal left's wondrous love of socialized medicine.  While, on the surface, "free" healthcare seems great, I am reminded of the saying by conservatives, "If you think health care is expensive now, wait until it's free."

A friend of mine lives in Toronto, and as she explained to me, "In the beginning, socialized medicine was great.  Then, the government began to realize how expensive it could be.  They began to refuse to cover certain procedures.  Eventually, it got to the point where, if you went to the doctor, the government health care program covered such a limited amount of things that we had to get supplemental insurance."

We compared costs.  At the time I was paying a little over $600 per month for my plan.  Between her taxes for health care, and the cost of her supplemental insurance, she was paying more than I per month for her free health care, and she was receiving less quality services.

Now, my costs under Obamacare have gone even higher, and I simply can no longer afford to purchase health insurance.

When Trump says he plans to "repeal and replace" Obamacare, my attitude is, "No, just repeal the monstrosity."

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Drudge Report Attacked by Government

By Douglas V. Gibbs
AuthorSpeakerInstructorRadio Host

The Drudge Report is the largest news portal in the world in terms of number of hits.  The founder and operator, Matt Drudge, is a right-of-center enemy of the liberal left, and so it is of no surprise that as Obama's days in office have been reduced to a mere few weeks, the government has decided to begin interfering with his website.  The attack, by the way, occurred only hours after the Barack Obama administration announced new sanctions against Russia over election hacking, and during a mass frenzy by the liberal left against what they call "fake news".

The news became available when Matt tweeted: "Is the US government attacking DRUDGE REPORT? Biggest DDoS since site's inception. VERY suspicious routing [and timing]."
The attack manifested as a large-scale distributed denial of service attack (DDoS).  The style of attack, in the past, has also been used to shut down major websites such as Twitter, Spotify, Netflix, Amazon, Tumblr, and Reddit.  The DDoS form of attack sends a server many illegitimate requests to make it hard for real requests to get through, effectively shutting down the site.

Drudge Report was down briefly around 7 p.m. EST, but was up and working hours later.

Government officials have wrangled with Drudge before over his alleged fake news.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Wednesday, December 28, 2016

Democrats Prepare for Violent Revolution

By Douglas V. Gibbs

The Democrats, in the 2016 Presidential Election, lost Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin when it came to the Electoral College.  While California became bluer, the realization that the Democrats are losing grip on their transformational agenda in the rest of the country has slammed the leftists square in the face.  The disarray and civil war the liberal leftists accused the GOP of being capable of over that last eight years is now a reality for the Democrat Party.  They have revealed too much of who they really are, and America has rejected their socialism, their divisive class warfare, and their unwillingness to protect the United States against enemies who want to destroy our way of life.

The liberal left utopia, however, is more than merely an ideology.  For the American Left it is a religion.  They hate any opposition, and are willing to do whatever it takes to either win over their opposition, or silence and eliminate their opposition.  We saw this to be true during the 2016 Election.  The tactics of street warfare, and something way beyond mudslinging, were disturbing.

While a liberal left Democrat failed utopia exists in places like California, Detroit, Chicago and the Northeast, Americans in the remainder of the United States have rejected the unsuccessful leftist policies that have left these places in severe economic trouble, and have encouraged a massive exodus from those regions by Americans who just can't survive under leftist rule.

In the past, Republicans would simply try to blend in with the Democrats.  They refused to rock the boat.  The GOP has always feared direct confrontation with the leftist Democrats because they believe the rhetoric about the swing voters, and how easy it is for the Republicans to anger those voters, and lose them.  The problem is, the conventional wisdom they have always believed is a bunch of poppycock.  That's one of the reason Trump's win was such a surprise.  He rejected that kind of strategy, which has always led to either putting a Democrat in office, or a very weak Republican in office.  Trump's brand of politics is something different.  He has taken strong stances on hardcore issues, and won't budge when under attack by the Left.

Historically, the liberal left Democrats have always accused their right-wing opposition of being paranoid, Bible-clinging, gun-toting conspiracy theorists.  Now, it's the liberals who are suddenly worried, and stockpiling food, guns, and emergency supplies.  Trump's 2016 win was a wake-up call.  Their cheating, lying and violence was not enough to stop the man, and his very unorthodox approach to politics.

Rather than looking within, however, the liberal left have decided the problem is that they were too nice, and now they need to fight Trump, and the Republicans, every inch of the way.

Why?

The Democrats fear that either Trump is going to collapse the system as we know it, or their fight against him will do so.  Either way, according to the liberal left, there will be a “Trumpocalypse”.

The liberal left feels more negatively about Trump than they did about George W. Bush, and the anti-Bush campaign took eight years to fully hatch.  They have angrily protested Trump's election in the streets, they violently targeted his supporters, cried in their college classrooms, and screamed on various media outlets.  They are in full preparation for social and economic collapse, or a violent revolution.

Under Obama, the liberal left Democrats thought the end of the Republican Party, and any opposition to leftist policies, was at an end.  America had finally made the big left turn.  They only needed, now, to disarm the crazy right-wing bastards.  Then, with a faint whimper, the last of the opposition to the liberal left agenda would be gone.  Hillary Clinton was a shoe-in, and Trump made her coronation a sure thing.  Her victory was more than assured by his rise to the top of the GOP.  Surely, there was nobody in America willing to vote for the crazy billionaire who represented everything the Democrats had taught American voters, especially the younger ones, and the minority ones, to hate.

Just to make sure, however, they unleashed everything in their arsenal.  The attacks against Trump knew no limits.  He was accused of sexual impropriety, accused of being a racist, and white supremacist, and someone who could not be trusted with the nuclear codes.  The very name of Donald J. Trump sent liberals into a tizzy, because of the evil he represented. . . or, at least that is what they were told.

The election of Donald Trump was a shock to the system.  Nobody on the left side of the aisle expected that Trump had a snowball's chance in Hell to win the 2016 Election.  All of their skewed poll numbers said Hillary was going to win.

Unfortunately, for the Democrats, they believed their own bull.

Reality, it turns out, was something very different than the fantasy world the Democrats had been creating.

Conservatives and the National Rifle Association figured the panic buying of fire arms and ammunition would slow down once Trump's win sunk in.  However, gun sales have remained high - but the type of buyers have shifted.  The leftists are now buying guns.

With the unexpected win by Trump, a storm is approaching, the liberals believe.  Maybe not the kind of apocalyptic scenario true preppers have long been expecting, but a storm, nonetheless.

Conservatives like myself have been predicting an economic crash is on its way, soon, for a long time.  We haven't suggested that the financial collapse is on its way because of someone like Trump, however, but because the dollar has been artificially held up for so long that a downturn is inevitable.  The Federal Reserve, however, holds the reins, and has been delaying any financial calamity.  However, with a new right-wing sheriff at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, they may very well be willing to unleash their own financial Armageddon.  I have been suggesting for years that if a Republican won the White House in 2016, the leftists in important economic positions would do what they could to collapse the system in 2017 or 2018, and try to make it look like the fault of whoever that GOP President of the United States is.  Americans, after all, if fed the right story at the right time, will believe just about anything.  And the Democrats, desperate to hang on to the last scrap of their power, are willing to say, and do, anything.  The welfare of the United States is not what they strive for.  Their aim is whatever is best for their leftist agenda.

The choice of Donald Trump, and the GOP Congress, should such a thing happen, will be simple.  Do what they can to ensure the economic bubble doesn't burst, and continue the artificial support of the financial system, or let fall what must fall and then deal with the crisis in a manner more akin to what the Founding Fathers would expect.  The latter, we must realize, because of the amount of time the system has been held up by government manipulation, is the more painful route.

The latter will not only be painful because of the economic consequences for our century-long socialism-influenced actions, but also because the American leftists are willing and ready to launch their own violent revolution while we are financially down.

Some suggestions are even questioning if the Trump presidency will ever get off the ground.  ISIS, after all, is already promising a bloody inauguration day at the hands of Muslim terrorists.  What if the liberal left is preparing to do the same - or worse?

A website, DisruptJ20.org, is promising to put into action a liberal left uprising against the Trump administration on January 20, 2017 as I write this.  It is their goal to “block, obstruct, disrupt, and do whatever they can to prevent the onslaught that is going to happen with Donald Trump,” says Michael Moore.

They see themselves as the moral supremacists.  Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press is fine as long as you agree with the liberal left.  Disagreement with leftism is so upsetting that on college campuses they need safe zones to protect themselves from being offended by conservative thoughts or words.  And, if the political right actually dares to score a political victory against the liberal left, it has been already determined that the right-wingers will pay the price.  The liberal left's delusional paranoia typifies them, and they have been busy teaching the youth that madness, as well.  Violence has become a norm.  The younger generation has been taught so well to go off into violent fits with ease that we have been even seeing their violence erupt at various shopping malls during the Christmas season.

It's a communist uprising, in truth.  It's what they've been working towards since before any of us were born.  The real coup, however, began in 2008, after a century long reeducation of society.  Yet, to their surprise, they somehow lost the White House in 2016.  So, when the political angle doesn't work, that is when tyranny reaches into their bag of violent tricks.  But, like all communist uprisings, it will all begin as something good and meaningful.  It will be launched as a peaceful protest.

Darkness always first appears as an angel of light.

Could the Inauguration Day revolution be something akin to the Tet Offensive?  Could the liberal left tyrants be planning an offensive aimed at the new Trump inauguration in order to foment rebellion nationwide?  Could this be an activation of their angry brown shirts we've seen glimpses of at Trump rallies during 2016, or during riots in black neighborhoods in recent years?  The liberal left believes that they've been too nice, and now they are willing to go for broke.  To unleash the revolution.  To finally bring about their long awaited Marxist regime.

The timing, if the liberal left does actually do such a thing as use violence against the Trump administration on Inauguration Day, would be interesting from a historical perspective, considering that reports are also circulating that ISIS is planning a series of “Jihad” attacks on Inauguration Day, as well.

U.S. special forces will already be on high alert when Mr. Trump takes his oath as the 45th President of the United States on Friday, January 20, 2017, in Washington, DC.  They will be so busy looking for Islamic terrorists that they won't realize the true threat is from within.  The liberal leftists want desperately to sabotage the Trump administration, and possibly overthrow the entire government.  For their socialist big government agenda, the ends justifies the means.  Besides, under Obama, the veil was raised.  Why worry about exposure now?  They've been poking the right-of-center groups in the chest for years, trying to instigate a violent response, and they never got it.  Now, they may be realizing, it is up to them to initiate the violence.  It is up to the leftists to finally launch the true coup.  Or, at least that is what a lot of people think.

I am not as convinced that the violent actions of revolutionary liberal leftists will be launched any time soon.  The liberal left has always worried about the fact that conservatives are armed.  The 2nd Amendment has always been the one thing that has protected us from such a takeover.  So, while there are liberal left groups out there, and Islamic terrorists out there, aiming to be a problem for Donald Trump's inauguration, I find it more likely it will be a Muslim terror attack than a liberal left launch of a violent revolution.

This is not to say we will not see the occasional leftist crazies doing stupid things.

We have already seen liberal left loonies go over the deep end and do some crazy stuff.  A passenger on a JetBlue flight went nuts when noticing Ivanka Trump was on board.  The person admitted to being a Hillary voter, and claimed Ivanka's father is "ruining the country."  I guess the liberal left mantra is that everyone should be treated with respect, unless you're Republican - and especially unless you are a Trump supporter or member of Trump's family.

A group of artists have voiced their unhappiness with Trump by telling Ivanka Trump they are not happy with the fact that Donald' Trump's eldest daughter has been featuring their work on the walls of her home.  The artists, who joined together to form Halt Action Group, have started an Instagram campaign called “Dear Ivanka” to protest President-elect Donald Trump through his daughter, Fox News has reported.  Many of Ivanka’s Instagram photos show her posing with the pieces of artwork in her apartment.

Ivanka Trump is also being targeted on AMAZON, where reviewers are trolling her products and leaving less than complimentary reviews.

Reviews of the Ivanka Trump Women's Issa boots, for example, included reviews like "These boots were perfect for wiping my feet on the Constitution and trampling the civil liberties and basic human rights of my fellow Americans.  The spike heel is ideal for grinding democracy into the ground, or simply kicking the downtrodden as you stride past."

Another Amazon user called them "two extremely right boots" in her one star review and added that the "sizing and all other info is in Russian, but they are made in China."

The list of stinging insults is a long one, and virtually every Ivanka Trump product on Amazon has at least one scathing review designed as a barb against the businesswoman, particularly as she relates to her father's political agenda.
The liberal left agenda of claiming Trump is some kind of Hitler has dug so deep that even the Royals have fallen for it.  With Trump's election following Brexit so closely, misguided Prince Charles has actually claimed that what is going on raises a specter of a coming holocaust.

Remember, the leftists have said continuously that they don't trust Trump with the nuclear codes, and they have somehow, in their mind, equated his position of stopping Muslim immigration because of the threat of terrorists being intermixed with those refugees on par with what Germany did with the Jews.  Their hysteria goes beyond insanity, and the liberal lefties are gnashing their teeth in anger and fear because of their anti-Trump derangement disorder.  Therefore, it is no surprise they are also up in arms because Trump has said he plans to strengthen and expand the nuclear capabilities of the United States.  From a conservative point of view, however, the timing is perfect, since Russian President Vladimir Putin has his own sights set on strengthening the Russian military.  Putin's making a pitch for bigger and badder nuclear weapons, saying that Moscow must “strengthen the military potential of strategic nuclear forces, especially with missile complexes that can reliably penetrate any existing and prospective missile defense systems.”

Is all of this we've discussed here enough for the liberal left to set off some kind of a violent revolution?  Yes.  But, they won't.  Not yet, anyway.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

John Kerry to Israel: Be Jewish, or Be Democratic

The land God originally promised to Israel
By Douglas V. Gibbs
AuthorSpeakerInstructorRadio Host

While conservatives claim that Obama's insult against Israel by abstaining in the recent U.N. Resolution vote shows he's Muslim, it actually showed how much in-bed the Democrat Party is with Islam.  Secretary of State John Kerry said that the move of refusing to block a United Nations resolution demanding an end to the building of settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem was all about preserving the two-state solution.  The Democrats either erroneously believe the two-state solution will bring peace to the Middle East, or they know it would encourage the destruction of Israel, and they are in full support of annihilating the small Jewish state.

Israel's Prime Minister Netanyahu blasted a recent speech by Secretary Kerry, during which the American Secretary of State said, "Today, there are a similar number of Jews and Palestinians living between the Jordan river and the Mediterranean Sea. They have a choice. They can choose to live together in one state or they can separate into two states. But here is a fundamental reality. If the choice is one state, Israel can either be Jewish or democratic. It cannot be both. And it won't ever really be at peace."

Netanyahu said the speech was "...skewed against Israel," and "obsessively dealt with settlements."  The Israeli Prime Minister explained that the root of the problem is not Israel.  "The root of the conflict," Netanyahu said, is "Palestinian opposition to a Jewish state in any boundaries".

"Secretary Kerry paid lip service to the unrelenting campaign of terror that has been waged by the Palestinians against the Jewish State," The prime minister added. "Israelis do not need to be lectured about the importance of peace by foreign leaders."

President Elect Donald Trump chimed in, urging Israel to “stay strong” until he takes office next month  He then accused President Barack Obama of erecting “roadblocks” to a smooth transition.

“We cannot continue to let Israel be treated with such total disdain and disrespect,” Mr. Trump said on Twitter. “They used to have a great friend in the U.S., but not anymore.”

“The beginning of the end was the horrible Iran deal, and now this (U.N.)! Stay strong Israel, January 20th is fast approaching!”

In response to Trump's supportive Tweet, Netanyahu also took to Twitter, writing, “President-elect Trump, thank you for your warm friendship and your clear-cut support for Israel!” 

Mr. Trump seems to be learning the lessons that Reagan had to wrestle with while dealing with Tip O'Neal.  While all smiles with Obama shortly after election day, Trump now has said, “Thought it was going to be a smooth transition - NOT!”

As Inauguration Day approaches, tensions are growing between President-Elect Trump and Mr. Obama.  Trump is hopefully realizing that the Democrats lie, they do not compromise, and they will do anything they can to support their leftist agenda.  The same, by the way, also goes for the establishment Republicans who have bought into much of what the Democrat leftists have to offer.

What struck me as most disturbing about Kerry's speech was his Obamaesque comment that allowing Israel to continue to build settlements in the disputed territories is not "in line with American values."

What does Kerry understand about American values?  He traitorously protested America while in uniform during the Vietnam War with the even more treasonous Jane Fonda.  Yet, he's going to preach about American values, and then warn Israel about how the country should handle its own territories?

More than 500,000 Jews live in about 140 settlements in lands captured by Israel in the country's 1967 victory in the Six-Day war.  The spoils of that war are known as the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza.  The United Nations and Islamic nations consider the settlements illegal under international law, while Israel states that the lands belong to Israel, and it is their right to settle the regions as the Jewish nation wishes.

Israel pulled out of the Gaza Strip in 2005, evacuating 9,000 settlers.  Since then, the results of the withdrawal have been disastrous.  After the Israeli withdraw from Gaza the Palestinians did not choose freedom, but instead continued to chase after their eliminationist ideology.  They lobbed missiles into Israel, happy to take advantage of their new strategic positioning with increased terrorist attacks against the Jewish state next door.

This is why Israel must hang on to the West Bank and East Jerusalem, and do all they can to make those territories more Jewish.  If they don't, those regions will become like Gaza, through which we have been reminded once again that for Islam, living side by side in peace, and benefiting from mutual economic cooperation, is not in the cards for them.  None of what goes on in the Middle East is about territory.  It is always about Islamist ideology.  Peace in the Middle East is not possible as long as Islam exists, and it is critical for Israel to continue to stand her ground, and reject Palestinian promises and lies.

The Democrats disagree.  Mr Kerry said in his speech, "The two-state solution is the only way to achieve a just and lasting peace between Israelis and Palestinians. It is the only way to ensure Israel's future as a Jewish and democratic state. That future is now in jeopardy.  Friends need to tell each other the hard truths, and friendships require mutual respect. The United States did in fact vote in accordance with our values, just as previous US administrations have done at the Security Council before us."

If left in the hands of the progressives of the Democrat Party, or the progressives on the international stage, the fate of Israel would be one of death.  If it was up to the leftists, there would be no Israel.

If Islam were to somehow be willing to lay down their arms and proclaim peace, there would be peace.   If Israel were to lay down her arms and proclaim peace, there would be no Israel.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Tuesday, December 27, 2016

Killing Capitalism, and Killing the Middle Class

By Douglas V. Gibbs
AuthorSpeakerInstructorRadio Host

The Founding Fathers, during the Constitutional Convention in 1787, created the federal government, and gave the new central government absolutely no authorities regarding American Economy except for the following clauses (All found in Article I, Section 8, and the authorities are only granted to Congress - not a central bank like the Federal Reserve, and not to the other two branches of government, executive or judicial):

1.  Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes.  In Article I, Section 9 a clarification is applied, explaining that the federal government could not lay a direct tax against the people.  That clause was superseded by the 16th Amendment during the Progressive Era.

2.  To borrow Money on the credit of the United States.  During the convention, according to James Madison's notes, it was assumed that borrowing money would only occur during time of war.  Statist Alexander Hamilton, however, argued that the United States should be in perpetual debt to not only to build the country's credit, but also as a means of discouraging States from seceding from the Union.

3.  To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.  This clause has been grossly misused.  The original definition of "regulate" in this case was "to put in good order."  According to James Madison, for the federal government to regulate the federal government would use legislation as a means to provide agreements between the States after mediating disputes.  In the case of interstate commerce, if there are no disputes between the States, interference by the federal government is not authorized.

4.  To establish...uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies.  This was intended to prevent abuse of bankruptcy laws in States by simply moving to a different State in an attempt to escape said bankruptcy.

5.  To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin.  Note that the Constitution does not authorize paper money, nor a central bank like the Federal Reserve.  Alexander Hamilton, however, was able to convince President Washington and his allies in Congress to create the Bank of the United States with his unconstitutional argument regarding "implied powers."

That's it.  There are no authorities granted to the federal government to regulate banks as we saw with Dodd-Frank, nor are there any authorities granted for the federal government to interfere in the market in any other ways.  If it is necessary for "regulations" to be created regarding the behavior of businesses or corporations in order to protect workers or the consumers, the authority lies solely with the individual States.

The economy was expected to be of the people and by the people.  A free and dynamic market where government had almost no influence, and where people were capable of moving up and down in the system based on their hard work and successes or failures.

In free market systems, when the central government remains out of the picture, a middle class naturally emerges.  While larger companies, and the very wealthy at the top of those corporations, carry a lot of power in such a system, the free market self-regulates based on consumer buying habits and the natural cycles associated with supply and demand.  Problems arise when corporate giants use their money to buy political favors - which is why the Founding Fathers wanted government not involved in the natural cycles of the economy as much as possible.  Heavy taxation against the market system is also destructive, leaving less capital in the system for growth, innovation, and product development.

Intervention by a central government places the existence of the middle class at risk.  When the rules of the game are established by a central government, the government's aim is not to protect the market, but to expand the powers of the governmental system.  In short, destruction of the private sector and the middle class by government intervention is by design.  The true agenda, however, is often hidden in order to protect the political power of those who support central governmental control.

This is not to say there should be no rules.  As stated earlier, there are some authorities granted to the federal government regarding economic matters.  However, the majority of the rule making, if there must be governmental participation, is authorized to the local governments, the States, counties and cities.  Localism is the key to a successful society, be it in reference to liberty, or economic prosperity and stability.  As per the 10th Amendment, if an authority does not belong to the federal government, and is not prohibited to the States, it is a State authority - thus, reinforcing the concept of localism.

It is best to let the market naturally regulate itself, however.  Local rules must be sparingly applied.

Liberal leftists claim that conservative methods regarding a free market economy means allowing control by the big corporations, but as stated earlier, the true regulatory power belongs to the consumers who are capable of making, and breaking, any business venture - big, or small - through their buying habits, and buying preferences.

That all said, exceptions do exist in terms of federal intrusion.  There are times when disputes between the States actually hinder the movement of commerce.  In those cases, it is the job of Congress to mediate, find common ground between the parties, and issue legislation establishing a new agreement regarding the movement of commerce that is acceptable to all parties.

The liberal left Democrats believe that government's role must be more extensive.  They believe that markets don't exist unless government creates them, and sets the rules.  They believe that the middle class is also a creation that emerges from government regulation, when in reality, government's goal through expansion is always to reduce the size of the middle class, and eventually to eliminate it.  As Karl Marx taught, the most effective way to destroy the middle class is through heavy taxation.  That is how Soviet Russia did it.  Taxation became so punitive that eventually everyone wound up in poverty, and dependent upon the government.

Venezuela is a most recent example of government control of the market leading to poverty, and economic collapse.

Another example of liberalism destroying hope, an economy, and an orderly society is San Francisco.  Years of liberal policies have the city in economic trouble, and in the midst of a societal breakdown.

The hope, then, is that the new Trump administration will help reverse the big government trend, and return the economy to where it belongs. . . to the people.  However, that will only happen if the federal government begins to withdraw from its influence of the economy.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

The Loss of Carrie Fisher


Boeing Hardball Pays Off

By Douglas V. Gibbs
AuthorSpeakerInstructorRadio Host

Donald Trump stumped the liberal left when he told Boeing to take a hike regarding their price for Air Force One.  They didn't understand.  How could he tell Boeing he wouldn't pay their out-of-control high price for Air Force One?  Did he want the plane discontinued.  Was he planning on flying around in his own plane?

Remember, the leftists have, for the most part, never worked in the free market.  They do not understand the free market because they have rejected the free market.  As socialists, Trump's dynamic understanding of the free market loses them.

What Trump was doing was using the free market to get what he wants.  Boeing was told their price was too high, and competitors (like Lockheed Martin) were told to feel free and send in their own bids.  The CEO of Boeing was quick to respond.  In the end, Boeing will be building a new Air Force One for less.

Isn't one of the goals of President Trump to reduce federal spending?

Bam.  He's accomplishing the feat without even being in office, yet.

Worked like a charm.

Confused?  Read his book, The Art of the Deal.  That book is essentially a recipe book for what he is doing, and he is following the recipe to the tee.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary