DOUGLAS V. GIBBS             RADIO             BOOKS             CONSTITUTION             CONTACT/FOLLOW             DONATE

Friday, July 28, 2017

BETRAYED!

By Douglas V. Gibbs
AuthorSpeakerInstructorRadio Host

Is it a case of it has to fail to succeed?  Will this rejuvenate the Republicans and convince them to finally get it done?

Thanks to the narrow defeat of the skinny repeal 49-51, the Republicans are moving on.  They've given up on repealing Obamacare.  After seven years of campaigning on repeal, Obama is still haunting the United States with his socialist change to the American Health Care System because the GOP can't seem to do what they say they'll do.

Conservative Voters will be infuriated, and I am betting we will see a very interesting 2018 Mid-Term.  Now, will the mid-term in 2018 mean big losses for moderate Republicans and put a number of Democrat seats in jeopardy in an attempt to get who we need in there to repeal Obamacare, or will GOP voters throw their hands up and give the Houses of Congress to the Democrats?

A process is now in play.  Mitch McConnell will now feel he has to play games, that he must begin to compromise with an enemy that doesn't compromise, and the Trump Tweets are going to go wild.

The Democrats are rejoicing, and the media will once again call the GOP legislative branch impotent.

The problem is, the discussion about the failures of Obamacare is not being discussed.  The people like me who lost health insurance as a result of Obamacare, the States where only one provider is left, and the skyrocketing costs of premiums with out of reach deductibles, has barely been in the conversation.

We've been betrayed, and I have a feeling the Republicans are going to now table Obamacare until after the mid-terms. . . which means the ball is now in the court of the voters.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Thursday, July 27, 2017

GOP Still Can't Seem To Repeal Obamacare

By Douglas V. Gibbs
AuthorSpeakerInstructorRadio Host

Update: After midnight the Skinny Vote amendment failed. . . once again thanks to turncoat Republicans like John McCain, and Alaska's Murkowski, and Susan Collins.  Final Tally: Yea 49, Nay 51.  Senator McConnell called it a "disappointment."

As news has spread across the country that the latest attempt to repeal Obamacare has failed, we find ourselves confused.  Isn't a full repeal the same bill the Republican easily garnered enough support for in 2015, but then Obama vetoed it (as expected)?  But now, with control of both Houses of Congress, and a GOP President, the Republicans can't bring themselves to repeal Obamacare?

Another question: Why aren't the Republicans considering Ted Cruz's ideas?

During the presidential election I was not a huge fan of Ted Cruz.  Aside from eligibility questions, I wasn't sure he had the temperance needed as the country's executive, and more specifically, if he had the chutzpah to withstand the ongoing attacks a GOP president was going to receive from the liberal left Democrats.

That said, I love the guy as a U.S. Senator; and while I am not a believer he understands the Constitution as much as he should, he understands constitutional principles heads-and-tails over most of his congressional counterparts.

Cruz's plan is less replace, and more repeal.

Obviously, there are some concerns.  In reality, full repeal is what is needed.  Any federal influence into consumer activities in an unconstitutional attempt to protect consumer interests should not be there at all.  Individuals with pre-existing conditions, included. I am not saying we should screw those people, I am saying it is none of the federal government's business.  Let the States worry about having a safety-net and using State programs to help those who can't afford insurance, or have pre-existing conditions that insurance companies won't touch.

Cruz's plan also redistributes funds between exchange plans according to the proportion of disease burden of individuals enrolled in each.  Again, none of the federal government's business.

However, that all said, Cruz and folks like Rand Paul are seeking to get the federal government out of healthcare as much as possible.  That is, indeed, the constitutional answer.

If only we can get them to realize that the Republican disease of stammering and unwillingness to vote in a way they were willing to when Obama was in office is not only unconstitutional, but will likely be what leads to many of them losing their seats in Washington D.C.


-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Wednesday, July 26, 2017

A Moral America Based on Biblical Standards Is a Free America

By Douglas V. Gibbs
AuthorSpeakerInstructorRadio Host











-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Muslim Cop Shooter in Minneapolis: Victim of Hate

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

Why is it that every time a Muslim does exactly what conservatives say they will do, because Islam teaches violence and murderous rage against anyone who is not Muslim, the liberal left loonies circle the wagons and then point fingers away from Islam?

In Minneapolis, Minnesota, a Muslim cop (Somali in this case), who took an oath to not act in a barbaric Muslim manner because his job is to uphold the law as a member of law enforcement, to everyone's surprise suddenly went all jihadi on everyone's butts, and shot dead an unarmed woman in cold blood.  The response of Mayor Betsy Hodges?  She then in turn urged Muslims to file hate crime claims, and then on Facebook directed Muslims on how to file hate crimes claims.

In her mind, she is assuming that the poor Muslims will be the victims of hate and prejudice by people who just don't understand their "peaceful" religion as a knee-jerk reaction to this shooting.

She's confused.  She is trying to understand.  How is it that this seemingly non-extremist Muslim member of her police force suddenly went extreme on everyone?  I am sure she believes his violence was the result of something done to him by some mean ol' Trump supporter, somewhere.

A Muslim woman once asked me, "Why is it whenever there is violence you automatically assume that it was a Muslim who committed it?"

"I don't automatically assume it was a Muslim," I said, "but I am never surprised when it turns out to be a Muslim."

"The violence being committed in the name of Islam does not follow the teachings of Islam," she claimed.

"Until the violence stops in the name of Islam, I don't believe you," I said.  "If you want me to stop assuming violence and Islam are not synonymous with each other, clean up your house."

The problem with the liberal left progressive socialist communists is that they either believe the taqiyya people like the woman I was talking to vomits upon us, or they welcome the chaos for their own political purposes (or both).

Liberal nutcakes like Minneapolis Mayor Betsy Hodges automatically assumes that if jihad happens, the Muslims must be protected because then they will all be falsely accused of being capable of terrorism. . . even though the reality is that in that community, a majority applauds and supports the violent actions of their jihadi counterparts.

Hodges sent a message to her poor friends in the Muslim community:
To the Somali community: I want you to know that you are a valued and appreciated part of Minneapolis. I stand with you and support you. The strength and beauty of the Somali and East African communities are a vital part of what makes Minneapolis so strong and beautiful. I am grateful to be your neighbor.  This week a Somali police officer, Officer Mohamed Noor, shot and killed a woman under circumstances we don’t yet comprehend. Justine Damond’s death was tragic and awful for everyone. And I want to be very clear that Officer Noor, a fully trained officer in the Minneapolis Police Department, won’t be treated differently than any other officer. Justine’s death is a tragedy for our city. We cannot compound that tragedy by turning to racism, xenophobia, and Islamophobia. It is unjust and ridiculous to assert that an entire community be held responsible for the actions of one person. That will not be tolerated in Minneapolis. If you are experiencing discrimination, you can file a complaint at http://www.minneapolismn.gov/civil…/discrimination-complaint
If the shooter had somehow turned out to be a Trump supporter, however, the mayor would have no doubt demanded that the entire Trump supporting community, and Trump himself, be held responsible for the actions of one person.

Mayor Betsy Hodges changed Police Department Policy to recruit and hire Muslims, saying “that effort will continue”.

It was Mayor Betsy Hodges herself who instituted the hiring policies in the police department to prioritize the hiring of Somali Muslims.

Meanwhile, more than 22 young men from the Muslim Somali community has traveled overseas to be jihadist warriors as members of al-Shabab in Somalia, and roughly a dozen people have left in recent years to join the jihad in Syria, including the Islamic State group. In November, nine men were sentenced on terror charges for plotting unsuccessfully to join the group and fight in Syria. 

Separately, a 20-year-old Somali-American Muslim went on a stabbing rampage at a shopping mall in St. Cloud last September, wounding 10 people before an off-duty police officer fatally shot him.

The blood of Justine Damond, and every other victim of Islamic violence in Minneapolis, is on Mayor Betsy Hodges' hands.

You don't protect us from poison by circling the wagons around the remainder of the poison.  You protect us from poison by removing the poison.  Encouraging Muslims to be in law enforcement poisons the police force, and situations like the shooting of Justine Damond was inevitable in a community encouraging Muslims to be on their police force.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Trump's Military: No Transsexuals

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

In June, President Donald Trump's Defense Secretary Mad Dog Jim Mattis had made a comment that he was considering allowing transsexuals to continue to enter into the United States Military, a decision the Trump administration had delayed for six months.  Allowing "transgender" people into the military for active service was the policy under President Barack Obama.  Mattis stated he wanted to study the impact the decision would have before allowing such a policy to be implemented.

A gentleman, yesterday morning, at a breakfast meeting I attended, who remembered World War II as a young man, and served in the U.S. Army, said, "If I am in a foxhole, the enemy wants to kill me, and the person who has my back has me guessing because he's wearing high heels and stockings as he looks at my butt, it's not going to be a very well-disciplined military."

As I said when it comes to women in combat, and homosexuals serving openly in the military, in combat situations, hesitation kills.  Women and homosexuals present a plethora of challenges and hesitations.  If the unit is not a closely knit brotherhood, people will die.  Unit cohesion creates a condition where the unit is more likely to be successful in its mission.  Any distractions that challenges that unit cohesion creates hesitancy and an opportunity for the mind to deviate from its training, which then leads to unit failure, and death.
According to the New York Times: President Trump nipped all of the worry about transsexuals in the military, for now, by announcing this morning that the United States will not “accept or allow” transgender people in the United States military, saying American forces “must be focused on decisive and overwhelming victory” and could not afford to accommodate them. 
Mr. Trump made the surprise declaration in a series of posts on Twitter, saying he had come to the decision after talking to generals and military experts whom he did not name.
“After consultation with my generals and military experts, please be advised that the United States government will not accept or allow transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the U.S. military,” Mr. Trump wrote. “Our military must be focused on decisive and overwhelming victory and cannot be burdened with the tremendous medical costs and disruption that transgender in the military would entail.” 
The sweeping policy decision reverses the gradual transformation of the military under President Barack Obama, whose administration announced last year that transgender people could serve openly in the military. Mr. Obama’s defense secretary, Ashton B. Carter, also opened all combat roles to women and appointed the first openly gay Army secretary.
Trump's decision follows a debate in Congress regarding the policy also leftover from the Obama era requiring the Pentagon to pay for medical treatment related to genital mutilation for the purpose of changing one's outward gender appearance.  The potential bill's cost is already nearly $700 billion in a spending bill designed to fund the Pentagon, and in it, Representative Vicky Hartzler, Republican of Missouri, proposed an amendment that would bar the Pentagon from spending money on transition surgery or related hormone therapy.

A measure barring Pentagon money from being used for genital mutilation for gender change buffoonery failed last month after a few turncoat Republicans voted with the Democrats on it.*

According to the New York Times, of the 1.3 million active duty personnel serving, about 2,450 are "transgender", a number I believe is probably much higher than the actual number.  We'll chalk it up to manipulating the news for their own benefit.

* The Republican Platform is a good one.  Any Republican who does not vote in line with the platform should not only be removed from office, but removed from the party due to their unwillingness to abide by the platform.  If the GOP were to adjust their party platform away from its constitutional foundation, I would then remove myself from the party without looking back.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

USS Thunderbolt Fires at Iranian Vessel

By Douglas V. Gibbs
AuthorSpeakerInstructorRadio Host

Finally, an administration that does not put up with B.S.

Under Obama the Navy was surrendering and crying in confrontations with the Iranian bullies.  I served in the Navy, and I was very angry at the cowardice portrayed by our sailors, and the restrictive rules of engagement that left the Navy vessel without ammunition.

Now, it's a little different.

The USS Thunderbolt, PC-12, fired warning shots at an Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy vessel. According to an unnamed US defense official source "The IRGCN boat was coming in at a high rate of speed. It did not respond to any signals, they did not respond to any bridge-to-bridge calls, they (the USS Thunderbolt) felt there was no choice except to fire the warning shots." 

The U.S. Navy coastal patrol ship fired warning shots from its .50-caliber machine gun at the Iranian patrol boat when it came within 150 yards of the ship in the Persian Gulf.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Tuesday, July 25, 2017

Mueller Investigation Into Trump, and Possible Conflict of Interest

By Douglas V. Gibbs
AuthorSpeakerInstructorRadio Host




President Donald Trump says he believes Mueller is guilty of a massive list of conflicts of interest so he should not be investigating Trump.  Since Mueller and his team members are all Democrats and were contributors to the campaign of Hillary Clinton, you are darn tootin' there is a conflict of interest!

If the person being investigated was a Democrat, would the party of the donkey have allowed a special prosecutor with ties to the last Republican nomination for President and a bunch of GOP members who donated to that candidate be the team to investigate the Democrat in question?

Could you imagine the outcry if Hillary Clinton had won last November and then the Republicans put together a team of right-wingers to investigate her and threaten her presidency with what they might find?

However, Trump is in the White House, so the Democrat controlled media claims Trump's concern about conflicts of interest means he is seeking to control and block Mueller’s Russia investigation.

What a load of poppycock.

The Democrats are using Mueller in the hopes of impeaching Trump.  They are using the threat of taking this to the federal courts to go after the executive branch.

So much for a separation of powers.

Here's the thing.  If Mueller is acting as a part of the Department of Justice, guess who his boss actually is?  It's not the Democrats.

While the Democrats would scream obstruction of justice, again, the reality is that Trump is the boss over all these people as head of the executive branch.  If he wanted to fire Mueller, he could.

This whole investigation is a distraction seeking a crime, and so far what we have found out is that the crime was fabricated.  It's a farce.  It's a witch hunt.

Can't we just stop all of this nonsense and allow the President to do what he was voted into office to do?

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Prager University Reveals Dixiecrat Myth

By Douglas V. Gibbs
AuthorSpeakerInstructorRadio Host





-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Corona Constitution Class: Final Amendments

Tuesday Night, 6:00 pm
AllStar Collision
522 Railroad St.
Corona, CA  92882
Constitution Class Handout
Instructor: Douglas V. Gibbs
 
 
 
Lesson 21
Final Amendments
 
 
Amendment 22: Presidential Term Limit
The 22nd Amendment was passed in 1951.  It was designed to ensure no president could seek a third term. Though the Constitution did not limit the number of terms a president could serve prior to this amendment, many consider the fact that George Washington chose not to seek a third term as evidence the Founding Fathers recognized two terms should be the expected standard.
 
George Washington's popularity would have easily enabled him to be President for the rest of his life, and many even tried to encourage him to be king.  However, Washington saw himself as no different than everyone else, and recognized the presidency as a privilege to serve.  He felt that more than two terms opened the opportunity for abuse of power by an Executive, which would hinge on the idea of a monarchy.
 
Following George Washington, James Madison and James Monroe also adhered to the two-term principle.  No Presidents afterward sought a third term, with the exceptions of Ulysses S. Grant, Theodore Roosevelt, and Franklin Delano Roosevelt.  No President achieved a third term until FDR.
 
Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1940 became the only President to be elected to a third term.  World War II has often been cited as the reason.  The public was not fond of the idea of a change in Commander in Chief during such a crucial event in history.  In 1944, while World War II continued to rage, Roosevelt won a fourth term.  He died before he could complete it.
 
The 22nd Amendment was proposed and ratified during the Truman presidency.
 
The failure of the Founding Fathers to establish a term limit on the President in the early articles of the United States Constitution aligns with a prevailing opinion the Framers held that term limits were the responsibility of the voter.  Their belief hinged on a reliance on the people and the Electoral College, and that electorally a third term would be prevented, unless a third term was absolutely necessary.
 
Under the 22nd Amendment, the only President who would have been eligible to serve more than two terms would be Lyndon B. Johnson.  LBJ was the Vice President of the United States at the time of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, and after serving the remainder of JFK's term, Johnson had only been President for fourteen months.  The 22nd Amendment provides that "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once."
 
Questions for Discussion:
 
1.  Why do you think the Founding Fathers believed two terms were adequate for the President?
 
2.  What is the cited reason for Franklin Delano Roosevelt's continued re-election as President?
 
3.  How could an unlimited allowance of terms for President be dangerous?
 
Resources:
Andrew M. Allison, Jay A. Perry, and W. Cleon Skousen, The Real
George Washington; New York: National Center for Constitutional Studies (2010)
 
Catherine Drinker Bowen, Miracle at Philadelphia: The Story of the Constitutional Convention, May to September 1787; Boston: Atlantic
Monthly Press (1966)
 
Donald Porter Geddes (ed.), Franklin Delano Roosevelt - A Memorial;
New York: Pitman Publishing Corporation (1945)
 
James Srodes, On Dupont Circle: Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt and
the Progressives Who Shaped Our World; Berkeley: CounterPoint Press (2012)
 
James Thomas Flexner, Washington: The Indispensible Man; Boston:
Back Bay Books (1969)
 
John Morton Blum, The Progressive Presidents: Theodore Roosevelt,
Woodrow Wilson, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Lyndon B. Johnson; New York: W.W. Norton & Co. (1982)
 
Willard Sterne Randall, George Washington: A Life; New York: Henry
Hold & Co. (1997)
 
Amendment 23: Washington, D.C., Receives Electoral Votes
The rallying cry during the American Revolution, as we have been taught, was "No taxation without representation."  Yet, despite that famous call for revolution, after the United States became a nation, there were those who were taxed without representation in the United States Government.  The most famous case was Washington, D.C.  The movement for representation for Washington, D.C., led to the proposal, and ratification, of the 23rd Amendment.
 
Washington, D.C., is a ten mile by ten mile section of land donated by Maryland and Virginia to serve as the seat of government.  The land was easy for those two States to let go of because it was undesirable.  While it is popular to say that Washington, D.C., sits on swampland, it is actually a tidal plain, land that was a mix of thickly wooded slopes, bluffs and hills, crop land, and several major waterways.  The location was chosen by George Washington because of its central location between the northern and southern States as a compromise between Alexander Hamilton and northern States who wanted the new federal government to assume Revolutionary War debts, and Thomas Jefferson and southern States who wanted the capital placed in a location friendly to slave-holding agricultural interests.
 
The District was not supposed to be a city in the sense that we see it today.  The District of Columbia was not supposed to have a population, for the creation of the district was for the sole purpose of being the seat of the United States Government.  The Congress was given full power over the functioning of the city, and the inhabitants were supposed to only be the temporary visitors of government officials, or employees.  The Founding Fathers envisioned Washington, D.C., to be the seat of the federal government, and a vibrant commercial center.
 
As time passed, Washington, D.C., attracted residents, eager to partake in the opportunities offered in the way of government jobs.  The incoming population largely consisted of Free Blacks prior to the beginning of the American Civil War, and after the abolition of slavery in the District in 1850.  After the War Between the States, the growth of Washington, D.C.'s population exploded.
 
John Adams, the second President of the United States, did not like Washington, D.C.  He viewed it as hardly being a city at all, and nothing more than a clump of dirty buildings, arranged around "unpaved, muddy cesspools of winter, waiting for summer to transform them into mosquito-infested swamps." 
 
As the population of Washington, D.C., grew during the twentieth century, it became glaringly apparent to the residents that their taxation did not accompany representation.  At one point, "Taxation without representation" became such a rallying cry that Washington, D.C., license plates even held the phrase.
 
After the cries for representation reached a crescendo, the Twenty-Third Amendment was proposed and ratified, allowing the citizens in Washington, D.C., to vote for Electors for President and Vice President.  The amendment was ratified in 1961.
 
Since Washington, D.C., is not a State, the District is still unable to send voting Representatives or Senators to Congress.  However, Washington, D.C., does have delegates in Congress that act as observers.
 
The amendment restricts the district to the number of Electors of the least populous state, irrespective of its own population.  That number is currently three.
 
Terms:
 
Seat of Government - The location of the government for a political entity.  The seat of government is usually located in the capital.
 
Commercial Center - A central location of commercial activity; an environment for commerce, or business activity.
 
War Between the States - The Civil War was fought from 1861 to 1865 after Seven Southern slave States seceded from the United States, forming the Confederate States of America.  The "Confederacy" grew to include eleven States.  The war was fought between the States that did not declare secession, known as the "Union" or the "North", and the Confederate States.  The war found its origin in the concept of State's Rights, but became largely regarding the issue of slavery after President Abraham Lincoln delivered the Emancipation Proclamation.  Over 600,000 Union and Confederate soldiers died, and much of the South's infrastructure was destroyed.  After the War, Amendments 13, 14, and 15 were proposed and ratified to abolish slavery in the United States, and to begin the process of protecting the civil rights of the freed slaves.
 
Questions  for Discussion:
 
1.  Why was the location of Washington DC chosen to be at a central position between the northern and southern States?
 
2.  Why was Washington DC only supposed to be the seat of government?
 
3.  What was the encouragement for people to take up residency in Washington DC?
 
4.  How did the Twenty-Third Amendment satisfy the demand by the districts residents that they be afforded representation?
 
5.  How is Washington DC's representation limited?
 
Resources:
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)
 
Larry Schweikart and Michael Allen, A Patriot's History of the United
States; New York: Sentinel (2004)
 
Smithsonian, Washington, D.C., History and Heritage, (2007)
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/travel/destination-hunter/north-america/united-states/east/washington-dc/washingtondc-history-heritage.html
 
 
Amendment 24: Poll Taxes and Open Primaries
The 24th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution ratified in 1964 made it unconstitutional for a State to use payment of taxes as a requirement to vote in national elections.  Few blacks could vote in States using poll taxes as a requirement to vote because they had little money.  The poll tax to vote in these states was $1.50.  After the ratification of the 24th Amendment a number of districts continued the practice of requiring a poll tax in order to vote.  A woman named Evelyn T. Butts decided to take the poll tax issue to court.  In October 1965, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear Evelyn T. Butts' appeal.  In 1966 the Supreme Court of the United States declared poll taxes unconstitutional in accordance with the 24th Amendment.
 
A poll tax is a uniformed tax levied on every adult in the community, called a capitation tax by the Founding Fathers.  Poll taxes have their roots in ancient tax systems and have been criticized as an unfair burden on the poor.  Historically, in the U.S., poll taxes were enacted in the South as a prerequisite for voting, disfranchising many African-Americans and poor whites.
 
One argument regarding the article claims the spirit of the 24th Amendment also disallows closed primaries by leaving out of the process independent voters.  As a result, a number of States have been passing laws enabling their States to make their election primaries open to all voters.  In an open primary you can vote for anyone you want regardless of party affiliation during the primary election.  Some proponents of open primaries contend closed primaries are unconstitutional - a violation of the 24th Amendment.
 
General discontent with the two-party system has emerged in American society.  A party system, however, is a natural result of human nature.  Every issue is divided by those who support the issue, and those that oppose it.  As human beings, we tend to gravitate toward those who think like ourselves (birds of a feather flock together), and parties ultimately form out of that natural tendency to organize.  Once the groups form, they become organizations, appoint leadership positions, and a political party is born.  Political parties are the natural result, fueled by our own human nature, of this kind of political organization.
 
In a party system such as ours, to allow voters to cross party-lines in the primaries can be dangerous because it opens up the potential for unethical voting techniques that are designed to injure the other party.  Open primaries allow members of opposing parties to vote in their opponent's primary in the hopes of affecting the outcome, and putting the weaker candidate on the ballot so that their own party has a better chance to win.  If both parties of a two party system is doing such, the result will always be the two weakest candidates facing off against each other.  Open primaries nullify the whole point of the primary elections, and often result in the best candidates not being elected.
 
Not all States have primaries, and the rules for choosing candidates for a particular party varies from State to State - as it should.  Some States have caucuses, which are meetings of the members of a legislative body who are members of a particular political party, to select candidates.  The choosing of the delegates varies from State to State.
 
States are given the authority to make their own election rules, and maintain the elections in their State, according to Article I, Section 4 of the United States Constitution, and reinforced by Article II.  This is why the Florida-Chad controversy in 2000 should have never resulted in the federal courts, or even the State courts, getting involved.  According to the Constitution, the decision on what to do regarding the controversy in Florida in 2000 should have remained with the State Legislature.
 
Some supporters of open primaries contend that closed primaries are in violation of the 24th Amendment because limiting who can vote in a primary by party membership is a poll tax as per implied law.
 
By strict definition, a poll tax is a tax, which would be a monetary amount expected as a prerequisite for voting.  Closed primaries do not impose a monetary tax, and therefore are not in violation of the 24th Amendment, based on the language of the amendment.  One may suggest the 24th Amendment implies that no action can be taken to close any election to any person - but primaries are simply party oriented.  People who couldn't vote in the primary would have been able to by joining a political party, and regardless of the ability to vote in the primaries, will be able to vote in the general election, and therefore are not being declined the opportunity to participate in the electoral process.
Terms:
Capitation - Head tax; a direct tax on each person.
 
Caucuses - A meeting of the members of a legislative body who are members of a particular political party, to select candidates or decide policy.
 
Closed Primary - A primary election in which only party members may select candidates for a general election.
 
Implied Law - Legal concept serving as a legal substitute for authorities expressly granted by the United States Constitution; an agreement created by actions of the parties involved, but it is not written or spoken, because they are assumed to be logical extensions or implications of the other powers delegated in the Constitution.
 
Open Primary - A primary election in which voters, regardless of party may select candidates from any party for a general election.
 
Poll Tax - A tax levied on people rather than on property, often as a requirement for         voting.
 
Primary Election - An election in which party members or voters select candidates for a general election.
 
Tax - A compulsory monetary contribution to the revenue of an organized political community, levied by the government of that political entity.
 
Two-Party System - A form of political system where two major political parties dominate voting in nearly all elections, at every level; a political system consisting chiefly of two major parties, more or less equal in strength.
 
 
Questions for Discussion:
 
1.  How did poll taxes disallow some people from being able to vote?
 
2.  What is the difference between open primaries, and closed primaries?
 
3.  Why is the existence of a two-party system inevitable in a political system like ours?
 
4.  Who prescribes the times and manner of elections?
 
5.  How was the "hanging chad" controversy mishandled?
 
6.  What are the advantages and disadvantages of open primaries?  Closed primaries?
 
 
Resources:
 
Congressional and Presidential Primaries: Open, Closed, Semi-Closed,
and "Top Two", Fair Vote: http://www.fairvote.org/congressional-and-presidential-primaries-open-closed-semi-closed-and-top-two#.T01VzPGPWHM
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)
Tom Spencer, American-style primaries would breathe life into
European elections (2004): http://www.europeanvoice.com/article/imported/american-style-primaries-would-breathe-life-into-european-elections/49725.aspx
Ware, Alan. The American Direct Primary: Party Institutionalization and
Transformation in the North (2002), the invention of primaries around 1900: http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=105149213
 
 
 
Amendment 25: Presidential Disability and Succession
The 25th Amendment, Section 1, reads, "In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President."
 
Section 1 of the 25th Amendment is clear, concise, and to the point.  After nearly two centuries of questions regarding if the Vice President actually became President in the case of the removal, death or resignation of the President, or was to merely act as President if such an instance would arise, the 25th Amendment sought to clarify without question the confusion that haunted Article II, Section 1, Clause 6, and the 12th Amendment.
 
When President William Henry Harrison became the first U.S. President to die in office in 1841, Representative John Williams had previously suggested that the Vice President should become Acting President upon the death of the President.  Vice President John Tyler concurred, asserting that he would need to succeed to the office of President, as opposed to only obtaining its powers and duties.  Though Tyler took the oath of President (precedent for full succession was established, becoming known as the "Tyler Precedent"), nothing was done to amend the Constitution regarding the procedure.
 
When President Wilson suffered a stroke in 1919, no one officially assumed the Presidential powers and duties, and the office of President essentially remained unmanned during the remainder of Wilson's second term.
 
It was clear that a set of guidelines needed to be established.
 
In 1963, a proposal enabling Congress to enact legislation establishing a line of succession by Senator Kenneth Keating of New York based upon a recommendation by the American Bar Association in 1960 surfaced, but it never gained enough support.
 
On January 6, 1965, Senator Birch Bayh proposed in the Senate, and Representative Emanuel Celler proposed in the House of Representatives, what would become the 25th Amendment.  Their proposal provided a way to not only fill a vacancy in the Office of the President by the Vice President, but also how to fill the Office of the Vice President before the next presidential election.
 
The line of succession the 25th Amendment establishes is as follows:
 
If the President is removed from office, dies, or resigns, the Vice President immediately becomes President.  Prior to the 25th Amendment there was no provision for Vice Presidential vacancies.  Under Section Two of the 25th Amendment the President nominates a successor who becomes Vice President if confirmed by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress, which occurred when President Richard Nixon appointed Gerald Ford to be his Vice President, after Spiro Agnew resigned as Vice President of the United States.
 
In Section 3 of the amendment, if the President provides a written declaration to the President Pro Tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives that "he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President."
 
Section 4, which has never been invoked, enables the Vice President, together with a majority of either the leading officers of the Executive Department, or of "such other body as Congress may by law provide", to declare the President disabled by submitting a written declaration to the President Pro Tempore and the Speaker of the House of Representatives.  If the President is unable to discharge his duties as indicated, the Vice President would become Acting President.
 
If the President's incapacitation prevents him from discharging the duties of his office and he himself does not provide a written declaration, the President may resume exercising the Presidential duties by sending a written declaration to the President Pro Tempore and the Speaker of the House.  If the Vice President and the officers of the Cabinet believe the President's condition is preventing him from discharging the duties of President, they may within four days of the President's declaration submit another declaration that the President is incapacitated.  If not in session, the Congress must, in this instance, assemble within 48 hours.  Within 21 days of assembling or of receiving the second declaration by the Vice President and the Cabinet, a two-thirds vote of each House of Congress is required to affirm the President as unfit.  If such actions are satisfied the Vice President would continue to be Acting President.  However, if the Congress votes in favor of the President, or if the Congress makes no decision within the 21 days allotted, then the President would resume discharging all of the powers and duties of his office.
Questions for Discussion:
1.  Why do you think there was no line of succession clearly defined prior to the 25th Amendment?
2.  Why do you believe nobody took on presidential powers after President Wilson's stroke in 1919?
3.  How does a President's incapacitation affect the overall functioning of government?
4.  Would a President's incapacitation influence government functioning differently in a time of war?
Resources:
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)
 
Understanding the 25th Amendment, Law.com,
http://constitution.laws.com/american-history/constitution/constitutional-amendments/25th-amendment
 
United States Constitution and Citizenship Day: 25th Amendment,
http://www.usconstitutionday.us/p/25th-amendment.html
 
Amendment 26: Voting Age
The 26th Amendment establishes the voting age at the age of 18, rather than 21 as it was previously.  The amendment was proposed in 1971, in an attempt to respond to student activism against the Vietnam War.  Originally, President Nixon had signed a law making the voting age 18, but a number of States challenged the law, and under pressure the amendment was proposed and ratified.
 
The slogan, "Old enough to fight, old enough to vote," which surfaced as far back as World War II, had finally become a worn-out enough slogan that the majority began to support it.  Arguments of various viewpoints regarding the wisdom of this amendment continue to this day, but one thing is clear, the original argument of "Old enough to fight, old enough to vote," was a ruse.
 
The Democrat Party was in trouble, and desperate for votes.  President Nixon was wildly popular.  The 1972 election was coming, and the Democrats needed to find a way to gain more votes, and to gain them fast.
 
The college-aged population was protesting against the war.  The younger generation, molded by left-leaning public school teachers, and leftist college professors, were ripe for the picking, but most of them were too young to vote.  The Democrats knew that if the protesting students could vote, they would vote for the Democrat candidate for president, and give the Democrats a fighting chance to gain seats in Congress.  The push for the 26th Amendment, though in part about "old enough to fight, old enough to vote," was in reality an attempt to gain more votes for the Democrats.  However, despite the ratification of the amendment in time for the election allowing people as low as the age of eighteen to vote, Richard Nixon still won the election in 1972 by a landslide.
 
Questions for Discussion:
1.  How has the inclusion of voters over 18 and under 21 influenced politics?
2.  Was the "old enough to fight, old enough to vote" campaign a new campaign?
3.  Did he political strategy being the 26th Amendment succeed?
4.  Why do you suppose the Democrats targeted the vote of the younger generation?
Resources:
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)
 
Larry Schweikart and Michael Allen, A Patriot's History of the United
States; New York: Sentinel (2004)
 
Old Enough to Fight, Old Enough to Vote, Nixon Foundation,
http://blog.nixonfoundation.org/2014/06/old-enough-fight-old-enough-vote/
 
Repeal the 26th Amendment! by Anne Coulter, Townhall,
http://townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/2010/11/10/repeal_the_26th_amendment%21
 
Youth Vote: Dems' Secret Weapon 40 Years in the Making? by Carl M.
Cannon, Real Clear Politics, http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/03/25/youth_vote_dems_delayed_time_release_capsule.html
 
 
Amendment 27: Congressional Salaries
The 27th Amendment prohibits any law that increases or decreases the salary of members of the Congress from taking effect until the start of the next set of terms of office for Representatives.  Ratified in 1992, the proposal remained in waiting for 203 years after its initial submission in 1789.
 
The reason for ratification was anger over a Congressional pay raise.  Wyoming became the last State to ratify the amendment.  Four States (California, Rhode Island, Hawaii, and Washington) ratified the amendment after the required number of States was met.
 
A battle over whether or not cost of living increases are affected by this amendment continues to this day.  Currently, cost of living increases take effect immediately, without a vote.
 
Questions for Discussion:
 
1.  How does the 27th Amendment protect against corruption?
 
2.  Why do you think it took so long to ratify the amendment?
 
3.  Is Congress voting itself raises still a concern among voters?
 
Resources:
 
Amendment XXVII: Congressional Compensation, United States
History, http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h924.html
 
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)
 
Members of Congress Haven't Had a Raise in Years, by Jesse Rifkin,
USA Today, http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/08/15/congress-pay-salaries/2660545/
 
Notes on the 27th Amendment, Constitution of the United States
"Charters of Freedom", http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_amendment_27.html
 
Understanding the 27th Amendment, Laws.com,
http://constitution.laws.com/american-history/constitution/constitutional-amendments/27th-amendment
 
 
 
Copyright 2015 Douglas V. Gibbs

Democrat Re-brand is Leftism by a Different Name

By Douglas V. Gibbs
AuthorSpeakerInstructorRadio Host

The Democrats are confused. How in the world did they lose in November of 2016 when Hillary Clinton was the inevitable heir apparent?  Their manipulated polls said she could not be beat, and that the emergence of Donald J. Trump increased her odds of winning.  How could they be so wrong?

At first, the Democrats believed that they lost because they weren't clear with their message of progressivism, so they doubled down on it.  A communist now chairs the DNC, with a Muslim as his second in command.  The Republicans have been accused of being evil, the identity politics has been ratcheted up a notch, and freedom of speech is not freedom of speech unless you agree with the Democrats. . . and that hasn't been working.  So, the Democrats figure they need to re-brand, come up with a clearer message, come up with a new and improved way of presenting themselves.

The problem is, progressive politics is not new and it is not improved.  While the Democrats believe they lost to Donald Trump because the voters didn't know what the party stands for, the reality is, the voters voted in Trump because they know exactly what the Democrats stand for.

Back in the 1930s the New Deal worked really well, so for their new message they are renaming an old message.  "A Better Deal."

A better deal of what?  Leftism?  Are they going to deal out jokers and deuces?

The Democrats are trying to rehash the lie that they are for the working people. 

The problem is, all of their policies are not good for the working people.

The Democrats have three overarching goals: raising wages, lowering costs for families, and giving working Americans better skills for the 21st century economy.

The first two, however, are not capable of existing at the same time.  If wages go up because of government mandate, costs go up.  As for skills, subsidizing college has already made the Bachelor's Degrees worthless.  What else will they be devaluing?

In reality, the Democrats message is anti-corporate America. They want to force the medical industry and drug industry to fit into their own little box, go after larger corporations for daring to seem like they might be a monopoly, and then the Democrats want to use government to limit the size of mergers and corporate interests.  Then, after attacking the corporations, they say they want to create millions of jobs.

How do you create jobs when you target the job creators with higher taxes and regulations?

Have you ever been hired by a poor person?

The Democrats are nervous, and they don't realize that it's their socialism that has turned people off.  They are like the squirrel with a fist full of nuts who can't remove its fist from a jar.  All they need to do is let go of the nuts. Problem is, the whole party is nuts.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Hillary Clinton, Wasserman-Schultz, and Broken Hard Drives

By Douglas V. Gibbs
AuthorSpeakerInstructorRadio Host

UPDATE: The IT Staffer Has Been Arrested - he was trying to leave the country!

How much evidence needs to surface against the Democrats, and how much needs to not surface regarding Donald Trump, before people realize that the Democrat Party is the mafia of politics?


I wonder what data is on the little pieces of computer hardware that the Democrats thought they didn't have to worry about?

It's like dumping a body in the river with concrete boots on him, and then later it somehow comes back to bite you.

Even though the hard drives are smashed into pieces, the data is retrievable, and the Democrats are scrambling in fear.

The aide in question is a Muslim Democrat, Pakistani-born Imran Awan, and he has verbally demanded that the hard drive puzzle pieces be returned to him.  Debbie Wasserman Schultz is also frantically demanding that the smashed hard drives be returned.  The Daily Caller is reporting that a source is saying the information on those drives are evidence of “serious, potentially illegal, violations on the House IT network” by Imran and three of his relatives.

Could this be more evidence regarding not only Hillary Clinton's illegal activities, but be a smoking gun regarding the Democrat Party's mob-like behavior and the Islamic infiltration into the U.S. Government?

The IT folks in question worked on many accounts, including the emails and files for more than two dozen House Democrats.  And guess what?  Many of those Democrats whose IT services were provided by the Muslim quatrain sat on high-level national security committees.

Trevor Loudon's film, Enemies Within, tells us that more than a hundred congressmen could not pass a back-ground check required for federal workers because of their collusion with groups who proclaim themselves to be enemies of the United States.  Now, the extent of their treasonous behavior may be open for all of the public to see.

Here's something else that is interesting.  The work the Muslim quatrain did for the Democrats was special work.  They only worked part-time hours, according to the Daily Caller, but they still made millions doing IT work.

How much is hiding a secret worth to a Democrat?  How much are Democrats willing to pay Muslim IT guys to hide their secrets, and give that money to Muslims so that it could be sent back to the Middle East for the funding of Islamic terrorists?

By the way, when the investigation began, one member of the Muslim quatrain fled back to the Middle East.  Could that have been the panicked response of a guilty party?

With the latest seizure of shattered hard drives from Wasserman Schultz's IT guy, her computer equipment was seized too.  And Wasserman Schultz is acting like she’s terrified over it.

To try to obstruct the investigation, something the Democrats blame Trump of doing, Wasserman Schultz was even willing to use a Capitol Police budget hearing to threaten that she would make sure there would be “consequences” for them if they didn’t return the laptop back to her immediately. 

They told her "no."  She's not getting her computer back.

The Muslim quatrain has pocketed over $4 million since 2009 through the Democrats, and some of the computers they managed were being used to transfer data to an off-site server.

Among the things found?  “Wireless routers, hard drives that look like they tried to destroy, laptops, [and]a lot of brand new expensive toner.”

A United States Marine reported the potential crime scene, and after NCIS was there, the FBI arrived along with the Capitol Police to interview them and confiscate the equipment. The Marine spoke on condition of anonymity because of concerns for his wife’s naval career. “It was in the garage. They recycled cabinets and lined them along the walls. They left in a huge hurry,” the Marine said. “It looks like government-issued equipment. We turned that stuff over.”
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary