DOUGLAS V. GIBBS             RADIO             BOOKS             CONSTITUTION             CONTACT/FOLLOW             DONATE

Thursday, October 19, 2017

Temecula Constitution Class: Concerning the States

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

- Thursday, October 19, 6:30 pm: Temecula Constitution Class, Faith Armory, 41669 Winchester Road, Temecula, CA

- Saturday, October 21, 9:30 am: RLA Republican Women Federated, Cypress Courtyard Marriott, 5865 Katella Ave., Cypress, CA

- Monday, October 23, 6:30 pm: Constitution Association movie night, "Birth of American Liberty", Grace Mellman Library, 41000 County Center Dr., Temecula

- Tuesday, October 24, 8:00 am: Banning-Beaumont-Cherry Valley Tea Party Breakfast Meeting, Farm's House Restaurant, 6261 Joshua Palmer Way, Banning, CA

- Tuesday, October 24, 6:00 pm: Corona Constitution Class, AllStar Collision, 522 Railroad St., Corona, CA

Join us tonight at 6:30 pm as we continue to examine Full Faith and Credit, and the rest of Article IV.
Faith Armory, 41669 Winchester Road, Temecula, CA


Constitution Class Handout
Instructor: Douglas V. Gibbs

Lesson 09
Concerning the States
            Full Faith and Credit
Article IV, Section 1 begins with The Full Faith and Credit Clause.  The clause reads, "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof."
In simple, modern day language, under the Full Faith and Credit Clause judgments rendered in one State are acknowledged in others; when a U.S. citizen resolves an issue within one of the States that resolution must be recognized by all other States.
The Founding Fathers originally intended, with the Full Faith and Credit Clause, to protect the self-government autonomy of the States, while also promoting the union of the sovereign States as well.  To do this, the Founding Fathers needed to make sure that judicial rulings in one State would be respected by all States, because otherwise there would be a substantial opportunity for abuse.  Doing so affirmed the autonomy of the individual States, while also ensuring that the states remained unified.
Without the Full Faith and Credit Clause, something as simple as a marriage would not be recognized outside the State where the proceeding took place.  If the married couple moved to another state, it would be necessary to marry all over again, otherwise they would still be considered unmarried.  However, thanks to the Full Faith and Credit Clause, the State that serves as the new home of the transplanted married couple recognizes the marriage contract agreed upon in the State of origin.
The Full Faith and Credit Clause also protects against abusive litigation.  If someone in one State sues someone and the court delivers a valid judgment in favor of the defendant, the person who filed the suit cannot file the same suit in another State against the same person.  Under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, the outcome of the suit in the first State is recognized and considered to be the final judgment.  Likewise, someone who is ruled against in litigation in a State cannot flee to another State to evade punishment, because the ruling in the first State's court is still valid in the new State.
As a result of the Full Faith and Credit Clause, professionals like doctors and lawyers only need to go to school once.  As they move to new States, they can apply for reciprocity in certification so that they can practice in their new location.  State privileges like drivers licenses also benefit from the Full Faith and Credit Clause, because when people move to different States, they can renew their driving licenses in the new State without having to go through drivers' education a second time, as long as the standards for licensure are similar between the two States.
            Privileges and Immunities
Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 gives the people of each state all the same privileges and immunities uniformly in each state.  In other words, if a Texan moved to California, the Texan must be treated by California in no different manner than the State treats Californians.  A State could not pass a law keeping Texans out of their state, but letting others in.  This violates the Constitution.  A State cannot play favoritism in such a manner for any reason.  All persons must be treated uniformly in the eyes of the law.  This is the clause the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause sought to broaden, in order to ensure that the former slaves would also be afforded the same protection, privileges, and immunities.
            Extradition
Article IV, Section 2, Clause 2 provides that "A person charged in any state with treason, felony, or other crime, who shall flee from justice, and be found in another state, shall on demand of the executive authority of the state from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the state having jurisdiction of the crime."
Fugitives that flee a State from justice to another State will be extradited on the demand of executive authority (governor) of the State from which the person fled from.  The Constitution, in this clause, demands the extradition of fugitives who have committed "treason, felony or other crime," which means that it includes all acts prohibited by the laws of a State, including misdemeanors and small, or petty, offenses.
Since the word "shall" is used regarding the extradition order by the governor of the State, that means the extradition order will not be questioned.  That also means the accused cannot defend himself against the charges in the extraditing State.  The fugitive may only defend himself against the charges in the State receiving him.
The courts have determined that the accused may prevent extradition by offering clear evidence that he was not in the State he allegedly fled from at the time of the crime in the case, Hyatt v. People ex rel. Corkran (1903).
            Fugitive Slaves
Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3 is obsolete because of the abolition of slavery, as per the 13th Amendment.  During the era the Constitution was written, slavery remained in place, and slaves were seen as property by the States in which slavery was legal.  The Constitution, as a compromise to assure that southern States ratified the document, included Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3, as a compromise, which demanded that escaped slaves be returned to their owners in the south, even if that slave was in a northern State.
The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 supported this clause of the Constitution, hoping to ensure under penalty of law that the slaves were in fact returned should they turn up in the north.  Northern States were refusing to return escaped slaves, and the federal government refused to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act and the Constitution, creating, in the minds of the Southern States, a constitutional crisis.
Nullification is often blamed for its part in the onset of the American Civil War.  Those that argue that nullification was a part of bringing about the War Between the States will argue that the Southern States were guilty of nullifying perfectly reasonable federal laws.  In reality, the Southern States did not nullify any federal law.  It was the northern States that actively nullified federal law.  They nullified The Fugitive Slave Act by ignoring the legislation, and refusing to abide by it.  However, since The Fugitive Slave Act was constitutional, the nullification of the law by the northern States was unlawful, and unconstitutional.  Threatened by the fact that the northern States were ignoring constitutional law, the federal government was refusing to enforce the law, and anti-slave candidate Abraham Lincoln had won the presidential election without even being on the ballot in the South, eleven southern States withdrew from the union in 1860.
            New States
Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1 gives Congress the authority to admit new States.  If a new State is formed within the borders of an existing State, from a portion of an existing State, or by combining two States, then the State legislatures of all States affected must also get involved.  This provision came into play is when West Virginia was formed from part of Virginia during the Civil War.  The Virginia State legislature had to approve the formation of the new State of West Virginia before the new State could claim it was a separate sovereign State.
In California, there has been a number of recommendations for breaking up the large State, from a 2014 suggestion of forming six States from the former Golden State, to thirteen counties that threatened to secede in 2010 as suggested by a local politician.  If any of these plans for new States out of the existing State of California had an opportunity to follow through with their threat, the approval process would still need to go through the existing California State Legislature.  The loss of taxation, and representation in Congress, would probably convince the legislature to deny losing any portion of their State to the formation of a new State.
            Territories and Federal Property
Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 gives the Federal Government "power over the territory and property of the United States."  Territories like Puerto Rico fall under this clause, treating the territories not as individual sovereign states, but as territories under the control of the U.S. Government.  Territories still enjoy a certain amount of autonomy, but ultimately, their governance falls under the authorities granted to Congress.  Washington DC also falls under this clause, which means that Congress has authority over the functions of the city.  In reality, Washington DC was supposed to only be the seat of government, and was not supposed to contain any residencies.  Many of the framers envisioned Washington DC as being a thriving commercial center.
            Border Security and Insurrection
Article IV, Section 4 reads, "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government," meaning that each State may have its own constitution, as well as a representative government based on the rule of law.
The second part of Article IV, Section 4 provides that the United States "shall protect each of them [the States] against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence."
The Federal Government, according to the final clause of Article IV, must protect each State from invasion, which, in line with the Necessary and Proper clause of Article I, Section 8, is a firm directive to the federal government to keep the national borders secure so as to protect the States from foreign invasion.  If executive agencies fail to take the actions necessary to secure the border in order to protect the States from invasion, the militia can be called into service by either the Congress, or the governor of the State being invaded, in order to repel the invasion.
The Federal Government, in this clause, is also tasked with quelling domestic violence.  This part of the clause refers to insurrection, and it is likely the writing of this clause was directly influenced by the occurrence of Shays' Rebellion in 1786.
Terms:
Extradite: The surrender of a person charged with a crime by one state or country to another state or country.
Full Faith and Credit: In the context of the U.S. Constitution, Article IV, the phrase is defined as requiring all States in the U.S. to recognize and give effect to the legislation, public records, and judicial decisions of other States in the United States.  Full Faith and Credit also means: An unconditional commitment to pay interest and principal in debt, usually issued or guaranteed by the U.S. Treasury or another government entity.
Nullification: State power to ignore unconstitutional federal law.
Questions for Discussion:
1.  What kind of issues does the Full Faith and Credit Clause affect in today's American society?
2.  How does the Full Faith and Credit Clause protect the autonomy of the State, while protecting their unity?
3.  For what kind of crimes may a person be extradited for?
4.  The northern States believed the Fugitive Slave Act to be a bad law, even though it was Constitutional, and believed that they had a right to nullify it because they perceived it to be immoral.  The Federal Government failed to enforce it, possibly for the same reasons.  How did this make the Southern States feel, and how did this action contribute to the secession of the Southern States?
5.  The federal government is tasked with the duty of protecting the States against invasion.  How does this affect the issue of illegal immigration?
Resources:
Doris Kearns Goodwin, Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of
Abraham Lincoln; New York: Simon & Schuster Paperbacks (2005)
Hyatt v. People ex rel. Corkran, 188 U.S. 691 (1903) ("We are of opinion
that, as the relator showed...he was not within the state of Tennessee at the times stated in the indictments found in the Tennessee court, nor at any time when the acts were, if ever, committed, he was not a fugitive from justice within the meaning of the Federal statute upon that subject...")
Joseph Andrews, A Guide for Learning and Teaching The Declaration of
Independence and The U.S. Constitution - Learning from the Original Texts Using Classical Learning Methods of the Founders; San Marcos: The Center for Teaching the Constitution (2010).
Madison's Notes Constitutional Convention, Avalon Project, Yale
University: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/debcont.asp
Philip B. Kurland and Ralph Lerner, The Founder's Constitution -
Volume Four - Article I I, Section 8, Clause 5 to Article VII; Indianapolis: Liberty Fund (1987)
Thomas J. DiLorenzo, The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham
Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War; Roseville, California: Prima Publishing, a division of Random House (2002)
Copyright: Douglas V. Gibbs, 2015

YouTube Admits Censoring Independent News Channels

By Douglas V. Gibbs
AuthorSpeakerInstructorRadio Host




-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Wednesday, October 18, 2017

Tuesday, October 17, 2017

Douglas V. Gibbs to speak to Big Bear Valley Republican Assembly

By Douglas V. Gibbs
AuthorSpeakerInstructorRadio Host

See yours truly speak tonight to a unit of the California Republican Assembly.  I will address Natural Rights, constitutional principles and philosophies, and how if we are not growing as a movement, we are dying. . .

- Tuesday, October 17, 6:00 pm: Guest Speaker at Big Bear Valley Republican Assembly, 40797 Big Bear Blvd., Big Bear Lake, CA

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

GOP: Not a Civil War, an Infestation of Leftism

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

Former adviser to President Trump, and Breitbart head, Stephen Bannon has declared war on the Republican Party establishment, and the Democrats are thrilled about it.  The liberal left believes what they are witnessing is a civil war in the Republican Party between the "alt-right," Trump supporters, and the moderate wing of the GOP.  In truth, what we are witnessing is not a civil war, but a realization that the Republican Party has a severe leftist infestation, and Bannon wants to play the part of pest control.

President Trump is playing the game with the moderates he has to play.  He knows he has to make nice with the likes of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell or House Speaker Paul Ryan if he wants to get anything accomplished.  Bannon thinks otherwise.  He wants to chase out of Washington those who are pouring more muck into the swamp so that Trump can get back on track with the agenda he ran on during the 2016 Presidential Election.

The media claims that the attacks against incumbent GOP senators by Bannon will endanger GOP control of the Senate, but what is really happening is that as the leftists in the Republican Party are being revealed by Bannon, some of them are moving towards Trump so as to keep their seat, and in some cases, in their States, more conservative candidates are bubbling to the surface.  In truth, I don't fear the Democrats regaining the Senate in 2018.  I believe the Republican Party will gain more seats, but the moderates will be purged during the process.  And, if that happens, and if the Republican Party gains in the House of Representatives at the same time, we may see pure panic in the Democrat Party - a party who seems to think that doubling down on their cultural Marxism agenda is the key to winning.

The Democrats are pushing the narrative that the Republican Congress still has not passed a single piece of legislation proposed by Trump, and that the public's disapproval of Congress will make them run to the Democrats for a change.  In reality, Trump's Congress has been very successful legislatively, despite the deep state controlling about 60% of the bureaucracy, and doing all it can to stop him and the Republicans from achieving success.

Bannon's plan to promote more conservative primary challengers against key Republicans in Congress may spell doom for the Democrats if he is successful.  In truth, much of the Republican Party's electoral failures have been a result of candidates refusing to be conservative enough.  Most of the independent voters are not moderates, as we have come to believe, but are disgruntled conservatives who are waiting for the GOP to put out candidates who are more than Democrat-light.  A successful purge of the RINO population in the Republican Party could get the GOP back on a track that matches the party's platform, and in that case, except in places like California, the electoral slaughter against Democrats could actually deepen in years to come.

That all said, if the leftist establishment, which infects both parties, pulls off a successful propaganda campaign against the rising tide of conservatism, and we see success for more moderate or establishment Republicans in primaries, the whole thing could possibly backfire.  But, if Bannon's strategy works, not only would Trump be a shoe-in for reelection in 2020, but he'd be in office with a much more conservative Congress, with both Houses working with him each step of the way (as long as Trump's platform also remains conservative).  And, if that were to happen, it would not only spur an increase in the velocity of the Democrat Party's death spiral, but the leftist lean of the media and entertainment industry may begin to die a little more, as well.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Hollywood Exposed

By Douglas V. Gibbs
AuthorSpeakerInstructorRadio Host


I spent a couple years in Hollywood during the mid-nineties, on two movie sets, and as a part of two commercials.  I was second in my acting class, and only quit because I was running out of time and money.  I had to quit so that I could go out and get real employment as my options were running out.

A friend of mine also spent a number of years in the industry, and when we first met and discussed our experiences, we came to the following common conclusions.

1) On Movie Sets, the snack table is awesome.
2) Most of the people in the industry are very small people (physically, and in terms of their character).
3) The industry is not just to the left, they are straight out communists.
4) The industry is overflowing with homosexuals.
5) The industry has a serious pedophilia problem.

Corey Feldman warned us years ago about the pedophile problem in Hollywood.  The emergence of something like Harvey Weinstein's latest revelations was only a matter of time - and the list of victims is increasing, and getting longer and longer...

The interesting thing is about how the media is not touching the issue, and how the reality of what is going on in Hollywood is unfolding like a rotten onion, with more sexual sin beneath each layer whether the liberal left likes it, or not.

I think the drama has only just begun.



-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Monday, October 16, 2017

Refugees and Illegal Aliens: Letting In The Enemy

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

I don't believe that every single person who comes to America without going through the proper immigration protocols, or by way of the refugee program, are an enemy of the United States.  However, that element exists, no matter how many or how few, and they are crossing into the United States, mixed into the rest of the folks, with a smile on their face, and innocence in their pleas for help.

I lock the door of my house, not because I don't trust my neighbors, or because I think everyone walking down the street is a criminal or drug dealer, but because no matter how few it may be, the undesirable element exists out there.

It's common sense that we don't allow people from countries where the majority supports jihadism, or the government funds and harbors terrorism, and we must not allow people to enter the country illegally and then simply welcome them with open arms without at least vetting them so as to ensure they are not a danger to the receiving population.

Evidence exists that within the populations of illegal aliens and refugees, the bad apples exist.
Daniel De Jesus Rangel-Sherrer came to the U.S. illegally from Mexico, and now has been accused of killing a South Carolina high school student.  He had been protected from deportation under the DACA program.
An immigrant from Sudan, Emanuel Kidega Samson, has been arrested for shooting-up the Burnette Chapel Church of Christ in Antioch, Tennessee.

Sudan, along with Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria and Yemen is among the original six countries covered by President Trump’s original “travel ban.” A new ban on travel from five of those six countries, plus Chad, North Korea and Venezuela has replaced the original executive order.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

NFL Kneel Protest Reasoning is Marxist and Destructive

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

A list of responses by NFL players has been circulating the email grapevine, and while I cannot confirm these are actual answers given by NFL players regarding why they are protesting by kneeling during the National Anthem, they seem like the likely answers that would be given.  That said, there are problems with each of the answers.

Let's discuss.

● "Pretty sure it's against Nazis - especially the white ones."
  • The ridiculous idea that Trump or his supporters are "Nazis" is so incredible, it is hard to believe people actually believe that hogwash.  A Nazi, according to the American College Encyclopedic Dictionary published in 1959 (can't trust the dictionaries printed over the last decade, because many of the terms have been altered to fit political narratives), is as follows: 1. A member of the National Socialist German Workers party of Germany, which in 1933, under Adolf Hitler, obtained political control of the country, suppressing all opposition and establishing a dictatorship on the principles of one-party control over all cultural, economic, and political activities of the people, belief in the supremacy of Hitler as Fuhrer, anti-semitism, and the establishment of Germany by superior force as a dominant world power.  2.  One who holds similar views elsewhere.
The problem with the argument about Trumpster Nazis is that Trump and his supporters are calling for less federal control over the masses, not more control through socialism (like Democrats are calling for).  As for suppression of opposition and a push for one-party control over cultural, economic and political activities of the people, it has been the supporters of the Democratic Party (like Black Lives Matter, La Raza, and Antifa) who have been acting out violently, stopping any opposition from speaking at places like UC Berkeley, and have been doing things like forcing religious freedom into silence (Just the other day a court in Minnesota by judicial fiat is forcing a Christian couple to film a gay wedding or be fined or jailed for refusing to do so.  Could you imagine if a gay photographer or videographer who didn't want to film a Christian wedding was forced to do so by the courts?  In short, it's liberalism that is working to suppress its opposition, in this latest instance by way of the judiciary).  In California, through government force, the Democrats want to be able to jail people for using the wrong pronoun (he, she, or whatever else someone wants to be called)
Let's dig a little deeper, however, for the truth about if the NFL players are truly in danger because of the rise of oppressive white Nazis as a result of the election of Donald Trump.
Nazism is a form of fascism.  While this player's alleged quoate did not mention fascism, antifa and all kinds of celebrities (and left-wing political and media voices), have been calling Trump and his supporters fascists.
According to the same Encyclopedic Dictionary from 1959 I referred to regarding "Nazi," Fascism is defined as: 1. A governmental system with strong centralized power, permitting no opposition or criticism, controlling all affairs of the nation (industrial, commercial, etc.), emphasizing an aggressive nationalism, and (often) anticommunist.  Fascism was established in Italy by Mussolini in 1922, whence its influence spread to Germany and elsewhere; it was dissolved in Italy in 1943.  2. The philosophy, principles, or methods of fascism.
The Thorndike-Barnhart Comprehensive Desk Dictionary of 1951 explains a little better in its second definition of fascism: 2. Any system of government in which property is privately owned, but all industry and business is regulated by a strong national government.
According to the Democratic Party's own platform, they believe in controlling society and the culture by heavy federal regulations (and increasing regulations more so) regarding the wages of workers, the profits of private corporations, housing and home ownership, our retirement funds, manufacturing, energy, science, research, education, technology, small businesses, Wall Street and the financial system, higher taxation against those who have become wealthy as a result of success in industry and business, dictating through regulations the culture (regarding women, homsexuals and transgenders) by forcing society to comply with their ideas on how those issues should be treated, environmental issues, water, education at all levels, healthcare, prescription drugs, medical research, drugs, alcohol, mental health issues, end of life care, public health, guns, religion, and labor.  Meanwhile, the Republican Party platform and actions by the GOP has been all about reducing, rolling back, and eliminating intrusive government regulations against industry and business
Remember, fascism is all about an increase in regulations against industry and business.  So, based on that, don't the Democrats, and their leftist allies, have more in common with fascism than President Donald Trump and the Republican Party?
● "We're protesting America becoming capitalistic instead of equal."
  • Equality in the manner that the NFL players making the above statement, as opposed to capitalism, is a Marxist construct.  When the Declaration of Independence states that all men are created equal, the phrase means equality in the eyes of God, not in the eyes of men.  So, we must ask ourselves a question.  Do we seek equality based on man’s definition, or God’s.
Instead of equality, the statement is actually about equity.  We have been convinced that if there is not an equality in results, we are somehow racist or bigoted.  Should equality apply at the start of the race, or at the end?  Should an A student give up part of the grade he or she worked hard for so that an F student can enjoy equality in the classroom at the end of the semester?  A society cannot practice liberty and man’s definition of equality simultaneously.  Equality seeks communitarianism.  Collectivism demands equality, and calls it civil rights.
The drive for equality should not be about forcing the culture to be color-blind, but to remove government from the culture so that we may strive to be self-reliant, personally responsible, and successful without governmental regulations forcing upon the citizenry their idea of collectivism, and without allowing the politicians to use social engineering through laws that promote preferential treatment, quotas, or limit our opportunities to reach for the incentives offered by a free market economy, regardless of who we are.
In other words, the greatest threat to our liberty is a government that believes it is its job to guarantee equality so that it can force society to treat us "equally."
The political opponents of the U.S. Constitution use terms like "fairness" and "justice" to promote their call for a collective, homogeneous society.  They reference the Declaration of Independence's language calling for the idea that "all men are created equal" without understanding what the phrase truly means.  On the surface the call for "fairness" and "equality" sounds wonderful, but the reality is that these concepts actually propose a society that is the opposite of what our American system of government was designed to promote. 
Biblical concepts of individualism and free-will are intertwined with the principles of liberty we find in the founding documents of the United States.  Our natural rights are God-given, and the concept of having an individual right to own property so that we may be fruitful as a result of our labors is biblical.  A free society requires that we have private ownership, and that our possessions are to be obtained as a result of our individual labors.  The Bible states, "Thou shalt not covet" and "Thou shalt not steal," confirming the concept of ownership.  Ownership requires individual assertiveness and innovation to be able to obtain the property.  A society that refuses to adhere to the commandments of Heaven, which includes liberty and the pursuit of happiness, becomes chaos. A society that eliminates the right of private property ownership becomes a tyranny. 
When governments call for "fairness" they are calling for equity.  God, however, made each of us different from each other.  We are not the same, nor were we ever intended to be so.  The reality is that in a free "capitalistic" system where our own individual skills and drive fuel our journey towards success or failure, there will be winners and losers.  There will be those who become wealthy, and those who don't.  For those who lose, however, in a truly free society those people will still have the equal opportunity to try again, without government interference, without government control, without government regulation. 
As the old saying goes, "If at first you don't succeed, try, try again."  It is not supposed to be, "If at first you don't succeed, head for the welfare line, or demand that government make everyone collectively equal by government mandate." 
In a communist system the concept of equality is front and center.  On the surface they proclaim it to mean that all men should be an equal king, but the reality is it means that all men should equally be peasants and slaves, save for a few who are politically powerful and wealthy and must rule with an iron fist so as to stamp out any momentary emergence of individuality, or independent thoughts of having hopes and dreams.
The goal of those calling for equality as defined by man is to make irrelevant all remnants of individuality, be it the individual sovereignty of the States, to the ability of the individual to influence their system through a representative government.  If the individual can be convinced that their individuality is a danger to their own happiness, they will be willing to relinquish their individualism, and hand over the keys to their pursuit of happiness to the government where a life of mediocrity is preferred. After all, being an individual can be a lot of hard work. As individuals, we work at a thankless job, pay payments on a massive mortgage, and balance the checkbook with not enough money in the coffers. These distractions, we are convinced by the statists, interferes with life.  The life of mediocrity is taught to be real freedom, when it is founded upon a desire for equity.  Democrats wish you to believe that anyone who desires more than a life of mediocrity orchestrated by a government that encourages dependency is greedy, and must be brought down to the level of everyone else. 
Freedom, after all, is considered to be selfish, according to the Marxists (communists, fascists, liberals and progressives).  Saul Alinsky, a Marxist radical, wrote, “The greatest enemy of individual freedom is the individual himself... People cannot be free unless they are willing to sacrifice some of their interests to guarantee the freedom of others. The price of democracy is the ongoing pursuit of the common good by all of the people.”
As Senator, Hillary Clinton said while talking to a group of wealthy Democrats, “Many of you are well enough off that … the tax cuts may have helped you.  We’re saying that for America to get back on track, we’re probably going to cut that short and not give it to you.  We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.” 
Another time during an economic policy speech in May of 2007 Hillary Clinton said, “It’s time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few, and for the few.  Time to reject the idea of an 'on your own' society and to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity.  I prefer a 'we're all in it together' society.” 
On July 13, 1813, John Adams wrote, "Inequalities of mind and body are so established by God Almighty in his constitution of human nature that no art or policy can ever plane them down to a level.  I have never read reasoning more absurd, sophistry more gross, in proof of the Athana­sian creed, or transubstantiation, than the subtle labors of Helvetius and Rousseau to demonstrate the nat­ural equality of mankind.  Jus cuique, the golden rule, do as you would be done by, is all the equality that can be supported or defended by reason or common sense." 
Helvetius and Rousseau were utopianists who were important cogs in the launch of the brutal and godless French Revolution that sought a "we're all in it together" kind of society that Mrs. Clinton called for, but instead wound up with a bloody totalitarian system that still haunts France to this day. 
On April 15, 1814, John Adams wrote to John Taylor of Virginia, "Inequalities are a part of the natural history of man. I believe that none but Helvetius will affirm, that all children are born with equal genius." 
We are all born equal in the eyes of God, therefore we are equal in our possession of Natural Rights.  We all have an equal right to pursue happiness, and to follow a moral path.  We, however, do not have equal powers and faculties.  We do not have an equal influence on society.  As a result of our labors we do not end up with an equal ownership of property and possessions.  If we were equal in each of those things, we would not have liberty, because government would be in place to make sure each of those things are equal. 
While the French decided to try and fashion their own revolution after the American Revolution, their cry for liberty failed because it refused to integrate important ingredients that were a part of the American Revolution.  France rejected God, and inserted the theory of man's definition of equality.  France, as a result, quenched liberty in blood. 
The American Revolution was kept under control by documents limiting the power of government, and because the Americans fought their revolution "with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence."  The concept of liberty and a limited government through godly principles were followed by all of the new thirteen States. 
In France, the leadership subordinated the liberties of men to the power of a government, following a more democratic government immediately responsive to equalitarian mobs.
Equality leaves no choice, no uniqueness, and no incentive.  If all men are equal by nature, there can be no differences and no distinctions, and therefore, no liberty and no prosperity of any individual for any reason.   
Inequality creates freedom, the opportunity to pursue one's own religion, to learn according to one's own talents and capabilities, to work as hard as one desires and to seek the rewards that accompany those labors, to be virtuous or not, and to be as wealthy as one desires if their talents and hard work makes available such an opportunity. 
Equality of wealth makes all men poor.  Equality of religion destroys all religion.  Equality of labor and reward renders all incentives moot and unavailable.  Equality homogenizes so that there is no innovation or the opportunity to rise up in wealth.  Government imposed equality is full dependency upon government, which is bondage. . . which is slavery. 
Equality through government exists only in systems based on collectivism and despotism, both which are unconstitutional and contrary to the concept of liberty.  Equality in the eyes of God is hope, and the ability to seek one's own individuality in a system based on liberty.

So, shall we seek racial equality based on the definitions of men, or the definitions of God?
                                                                                                        ● "I'm protesting against Trump saying black lives don't matter."
                                                                                                        • President Donald Trump never said "black lives don't matter."  He is surrounded by black pastors and personnel in his administration, and has always been a beacon of recognizing people by their talents and skills, rather than their color, ethnicity, or cultural heritage.  In 1986, Donald Trump, along with Muhammad Ali, and Rosa Parks, received the Ellis Island Medal of Honor for his work in inner-cities.  The problem is, when conservatives and Republicans say "all lives matter," black activists reject that as being racist.  In their minds, either black lives take precedence over all other lives, or you are a racist.  But, isn't demanding that one group's lives take precedence over other groups racist in its own right?
                                                                                                        ● "We're against global warming and the police."
                                                                                                        As for the second part of the statement, which should more specifically say "police brutality against blacks," like the concept of man-made global warming, according to the FBI, it's a myth.
                                                                                                        In fact, statistics show that a black man is more likely to be struck by lightning, than be brutalized by a police officer or any color.
                                                                                                        ● "We're showing the world that we care about, ahh, things such as... such as...ahhhhh, freedom from suppression?"
                                                                                                        • Freedom from suppression?  We just finished eight years of a black president, in the 2016 election one of the Republican candidates for President was a black neurosurgeon, and the football players kneeling are all very wealthy playing a kid's game with nobody and no thing getting in the way of their rise to stardom.  What suppression?  By the way, I think they meant oppression, but the answer is still the same.
                                                                                                        ● "Me and my fellow players are protesting the Constitution of Independence because of what it does to people of color."
                                                                                                        • I think there is a confusion between the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, but let's go with the Constitution.  I am sure that is what is meant here.
                                                                                                        The Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution eliminated slavery, calls for equal protection under the law, and for the ability to vote not to be hampered by race, color or previous condition of servitude.  The Constitution demands that the equal opportunity for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (from the Declaration of Independence) not be interfered with by government based on racist laws.  In the Twenty-Fourth Amendment the Constitution also outlaws "poll taxes," a tactic that was used by some districts to interfere with a black's ability to vote.  Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution, written in 1787, led to the elimination of the Atlantic Slave Trade, and the 3/5s clause (also written in 1787) removed pro-slavery States' power to overwhelm the Congress with pro-slavery legislative domination - balancing out the Congress in the hopes of containing slavery, and eventually abolishing it.
                                                                                                        In short, the idea that the Constitution is a racist or oppressive document is a false one. 
                                                                                                        ● "We are displaying our right to stand up by kneeling for our beliefs."
                                                                                                        • If you are so oppressed, how is it you are able to display your right to protest in the manner that you are?  That said, while government cannot make laws limiting your right of political speech or assembly, if you work for a private company (such as the NFL) and your actions, while you are on the clock, cause a disruption in the services the company provides, or causes a loss of customers, the company has every right to tell you to either stand during the National Anthem, or you are fired.
                                                                                                        While I am not expecting the NFL to go that far, if it did, I am sure the Canadian Football League would welcome you with open arms, and a smaller paycheck.
                                                                                                         ● "We are protesting Trump, because he, you know, keeping the black man down and sh*t."
                                                                                                        • As stated a few sections earlier in this post, the "Trump is racist" card is a false one.  Nobody is keeping the black man down.  You football players, after all, are making a lot of money to play a kid's game.  Were you kept down?  In truth, what is keeping the black community down is the break up of the nuclear family, and dependency upon government benefit programs.  Therefore, since it is the Democrat Party that is behind the government dependency programs, it seems to me that the black community is angry with the wrong political party.
                                                                                                        ● "Myself is kneeling to show that just because I'm American don't mean I got to act like one."
                                                                                                        • If you do not wish to be American, fine.  But, if the country is so lousy, there are plenty of other countries you can go live.  Go ahead and check out Venezuela, China, Russia or Cuba.  How about one of the Muslim countries?  Hell, even in Europe you would not be living as well as you do here in America playing football in the NFL.  By the way, as a military veteran who was willing to die for your right to act like a fool, I feel insulted by your indignation for my service.
                                                                                                        -- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

                                                                                                        Sunday, October 15, 2017

                                                                                                        Trump: We Worship God, Not Government

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


                                                                                                        The whole "nationalist" thing, when it comes to Trump, has always confused me.  The classic definition of nationalism, based on the writings of the Founding Fathers, and other persons from that era, is that nationalism is the call for a strong national identity through a powerful centralized government.  While patriotism is love of country, nationalism is love of government.  Alexander Hamilton, and his big government allies, were nationalists.  They imagined America as being the next great empire that would replace Britain as the nation over which the sun would never set.

                                                                                                        Thomas Jefferson, while envisioning the expansion of the territories and States under the name "United States of America", foresaw the republic's future as being very different.  Rather than "nationalism," he embraced the concept of republicanism.  Under republicanism, while the expansion of the United States may still occur, patriots like Jefferson envisioned that growth being through territories and countries voluntarily applying to become States in the United States (if it had not been for the Missouri Compromise, based on their requests for joining the United States, much of northern Mexico, Cuba, and the Yucatan Peninsula would States in the U.S.).

                                                                                                        The advent of fascism, and more specifically, Hitler's Nazism, which led to the Second World War, changed the original definition of nationalism.  The National Workers Socialist Party (Nazi) altered the definition of nationalism, from the rest of civilization's point of view, to mean "master race" (racism), and "marked by a feeling of superiority over other nations".  Then, during recent events in America, in dictionaries the word nationalism has become a synonym for patriotism.  From the Founders point of view, those words were antonyms.

                                                                                                        Since "marked by a feeling of superiority over other nations" is now considered a fascist definition in the minds of the Marxist Democrats who seek equality at any expense, even if that means equality in misery, Trump's America First message was twisted into being a fascist message.

                                                                                                        The liberal left has, since the election of Donald Trump (of whom they now regularly call a nationalist) lumped anything they disagree with into the nationalism pile of soundbites.  From their point of view, nationalism is a racist, white supremacist, gun-toting, bible-thumping, segment of society who wants to bring back Jim Crow laws, and are willing to treat the Muslims and Mexicans the same way the Nazis treated the Jews.

                                                                                                        Except, their all-things-against-liberalism definition of nationalism is not fully accurate.  In fact, the more notorious things they claim to be nationalist are actually close to being correct, but it's not Republicans that embrace those things.  White Nationalism was created by the Democrat Party during the Civil War Era.  The KKK was created by the Democrat Party to act as a militant arm of the party to stop blacks and white Republicans from voting in The South during the Reconstruction Period.  Jim Crow laws were also a creation of the Democrat Party.  As for the strong central government as suggested nationalism means by the Founding Fathers, isn't it also the Democrats who constantly seek to expand the powers of the federal government, despite the fact that such expansion is in complete opposition to the United States Constitution?

                                                                                                        As for the myth about the Dixiecrats flipping the political parties so that all of the racists in the South (Southern Strategy) changed over from Democrats to Republicans during the Sixties and Seventies. . . that is not true.  The Democrat Party is still the party of slavery, Jim Crow laws, the KKK, and racism.

                                                                                                        When it comes to the modern definition of nationalism, the "Bible-Thumping", "gun-toting" part was added because of the liberal left's disdain for God, and their disagreement with enabling a population the arms to defend themselves against the tyranny the leftists so eagerly desire.

                                                                                                        In short, most of what the liberal left Democrats accuse Trump of being are actually attributes of the Democrat Party, but because they threw "religion" into the mix, they claim his alliance with church leaders just proves he's some kind of fascist nationalist even more so.

                                                                                                        The problem is, people believe the rhetoric because they don't realize that the lexicon has been altered, and the whole thing is based on a false premise.

                                                                                                        During the early years of the United States, the constitutional principles and philosophies that guided this country were very simple.  The authorities the federal government have are expressly enumerated in the U.S. Constitution, and if the power is not listed, the federal government does not have the power; the federal government was created to handle the external issues, conflicts between the States, or anything that directly influences protecting, promoting, or preserving the union; the States are unique, individual, autonomous entities who handle their own issues and interests within their borders (Tenth Amendment: Since the States have original authority over all issues, if the federal government does not have an authority over an issue, and the issue is not prohibited to the States, the authority over the issue belongs to the States); we do not have three co-equal branches, the Congress is supposed to be the strongest of the three, followed by the President, and the judiciary; separation of church and state does not exist in the Constitution - the politicians prayed, and the pastors preached politics, but both restrained themselves from taking control of the other - the strength of America was in its churches - even Benjamin Franklin understood that "only a virtuous people are capable of freedom".

                                                                                                        If we are not a godly country, we are not capable of liberty, or the principles of the U.S. Constitution.

                                                                                                        On Friday, President Donald Trump addressed the Values Voter Summit, a gathering of Christian conservatives who call for America to return to being a godly nation, and a group who expects our leaders to place God above politically perceived government powers and elite positions.

                                                                                                        Trump, to the consternation of the Democrats, summed it up nicely at the Christian convention.  "We Don't Worship Government, We Worship God."

                                                                                                        The Values Voter Summit first emerged during the George W. Bush presidency in 2006, but neither Bush, nor Obama, ever attended.  Trump, however, gladly accepted their invitation, and last Friday he reminded Christian voters that he is in their corner.  "We know that it's the family and the church — not government officials — who know best how to create strong and loving communities," Trump told them.

                                                                                                        Trump continued his claim that he plans to do what he can to protect religious liberty.  The appointment of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court was a part of that effort.  The crowd gave the President a standing ovation.

                                                                                                        Trump noted he signed a religious liberty order on the National Day of Prayer that eased enforcement of the Johnson Amendment, which involves government in the political activity of churches (an unenforceable law that is not only unconstitutional, but has never caused a church to lose its non-profit status, anyway).  Trump added that on another front to protect religious liberty, with an executive order he weakened the contraception mandate in Obamacare.

                                                                                                        "We are stopping cold the attacks on Judeo-Christian values," Trump said to applause.

                                                                                                        Since the Republicans in Congress have refused to simply repeal Obamacare like they promised when they were a minority under Obama, Trump has been working to weaken the Affordable Care Act where he can through executive orders, beginning with his order to end subsidies paid to lower income individuals.  Not only does the federal government not have the authority to subsidize health care, but the establishment of those payments eliminated the safety net programs of the States which were less expensive, more accessible, and constitutional.  Trump explained that without a repeal by Congress, his effort would have to be a "step by step by step" process and that the latest action to kill the subsidies was a "big step."

                                                                                                        "We're taking a little different route than we had hoped, because getting Congress — they forget what their pledges were," Trump said. "So we're going a little different route. But you know what? In the end, it's going to be just as effective, and maybe it'll even be better."

                                                                                                        The crowd also applauded Trump's recent criticism of NFL players who have knelt during the national anthem.  He received a standing ovation when he proclaimed that "we respect our great American flag."

                                                                                                        The biggest applause erupted when Trump said, "We're saying 'Merry Christmas' again."

                                                                                                        "And as a Christmas gift to all of our hardworking families, we hope Congress will pass massive tax cuts for the American people," Trump continued. "That includes increasing the child tax credit and expanding it to eliminate the marriage penalty. Because we know that the American family is the true bedrock of American life."

                                                                                                        When he talked about our efforts overseas in the war against Islamic Terrorism, unlike his predecessor, Trump was willing to use the language that identifies the enemy; "radical Islamic terrorism."

                                                                                                        "In this administration, we will call evil by its name," Trump said. "We stand with our friends and allies, we forge new partnerships in pursuit of peace and we take decisive action against those who would threaten our people with harm."

                                                                                                        "In protecting America's interests abroad, we will always support our cherished friend and partner the state of Israel."

                                                                                                        "We're confronting rogue regimes from Iran to North Korea," he continued. "And we are challenging the communist dictatorship of Cuba and the socialist oppression of Venezuela. And we will not lift the sanctions on these repressive regimes until they restore political and religious freedom for their people."

                                                                                                        When referring to the recent shooting in Las Vegas, Trump used words like "courage" and "resilience" to describe what he saw when visiting the victims in Nevada, and also while touring areas devastated by hurricanes in Texas and Florida.

                                                                                                        He also had a few words for the fake news being put out by the media, largely in relation to his administration's response to Puerto Rico being hit by two hurricanes. He said he was in contact with leaders in all the ravaged areas.  Evidence has shown that in reality, in some cases, Puerto Rico's leadership has failed to take proper actions regarding the incoming federal aid.

                                                                                                        While this was the first time Trump addressed the Values Voter Summit as President of the United States, it was actually his third speech to the Christian conservative gathering; previously speaking at the event in 2015 as a candidate and then in 2016 as the Republican presidential nominee.

                                                                                                        "As long as we have pride in our country, confidence in our future and faith in our God, then America will prevail," Trump said.

                                                                                                        Trump was followed by White House counselor Kellyanne Conway, and the following morning former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon addressed the gathering.  Bannon, in his speech, declared war on the GOP establishment, of whom conservatives identify as liberal left infiltrators into the Republican Party.

                                                                                                        -- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary