DOUGLAS V. GIBBS <---------->RADIO <---------->BOOKS <---------->CONSTITUTION <---------->CONTACT/FOLLOW <---------->DONATE

Tuesday, February 28, 2017

Wrapping Up Black History Month, Constitution Association Style

Black Historian joins us Saturday...


Corona Constitution Class: Judicial Branch

Tuesday Night, 6:00 pm
AllStar Collision
522 Railroad St.
Corona, CA  92882

Constitution Class Handout
Instructor: Douglas V. Gibbs
 
 
 
Lesson 08
 
Judicial Branch
 
Establish Justice
 
The United States Constitution was written to establish a federal government for the United States of America. Article III establishes the federal court system.  Article I, Section 8 gives the Congress the power to "constitute tribunals inferior to the supreme Court."  Given the power to establish these courts, Congress also has the authority to do away with any of these inferior courts.  This power of Congress is repeated in Article III, Section 1 during the first sentence.
 
When reading Article III, one must keep in mind the fact that the article was specifically written to affect the federal court system, not the state courts. The authorities contained within this article, and the restrictions thereof, are to be applied to the federal courts, not the state courts. One must also bear in mind, as one reads this article, the additional limits placed on the federal courts by the 11th Amendment. No case against a state by citizens of another state, or by the citizens or subjects of a foreign state, shall be heard by a federal court.
 
In other words if citizens of a State sues a State, or foreign government sues a State, the case can't go to the federal courts.  The highest that case can go is the State Supreme Court.  These limitations placed upon the court system by the 11th Amendment were proposed by the people (House of Representatives) and the States (Senate), and finally ratified by the States, in order to better control a federal court system that was attempting to compromise State Sovereignty.  Judges, the lesson of the 11th Amendment shows us, are not the wielders of the rule of law.  They are not the powerful men of honor when it comes to the law.  The guardians of the rule of law are the people, and the States.  The courts had proven that they can become an enemy of the law, proclaiming that their rulings are the rule of law, but as the 11th Amendment reminds us, the judges are merely men, and their system is the rule of man attempting to manipulate the law through their rulings.  For their bad behavior, the people and the States judged them, and further limited them with a new constitutional amendment.
 
 
Good Behavior
 
The conventional understanding of the terms of federal judges is that they receive lifetime appointments because no time restriction is placed upon them in the Constitution.  The only limitation on term placed upon the judges can be found in Article III, Section 1 where the Constitution states that judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, "shall hold their offices during good behavior."  Conventional wisdom dictates that bad behavior is defined as unlawful activities.
 
The definition of bad behavior is not limited to only illegal activities.  Judges take an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the United States Constitution, which is the Law of the Land.  Bad behavior, then, from the point of view of the Founding Fathers, may also include unconstitutional actions, or failure to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution.
 
Impeachment by Congress may be used if a judge acts in bad behavior.  If a judge refuses to attend the hearing at the behest of the United States Senate, the federal marshall may be used to retrieve the judge, and compel them to stand before Congress to answer for their bad behavior.  Congress is the check and balance against the courts, not the other way around.
 
 Limits
 
The powers of the federal courts "shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority."
 
The federal courts, in other words, may hear all cases that fall within their authority.  These cases are regarding those in which the federal government has authority, be it by laws passed within the authorities granted to the federal government by the Constitution, or regarding issues related to treaties made that have been signed by the President and ratified by the U.S. Senate.  The courts may not hear cases that are regarding issues not within the authorities of the federal government.
 
A recent example would be the flurry of federal court rulings against State laws defining marriage as between a man and a woman.  In California, the State's attempt to protect the government definition of marriage was with Proposition 8.  The proposition changed the State Constitution to read that marriage is between a man and a woman.  Marriage is not an issue that falls under the authorities of the federal government as expressly granted by the Constitution, nor is the issue of marriage prohibited to the States.  Therefore, as per the authorities granted, and not granted, in line with the 10th Amendment, the government authority over marriage is reserved to the States.  Since the issue of marriage is a State issue, the case should not have gone beyond the State Supreme Court.  The federal courts hearing the case regarding Proposition 8, or any of the State laws regarding marriage, are acting unconstitutionally.  The governors of these States, whose marriage laws were overturned by an activist federal court system, have the right to disregard all rulings by the federal courts on this issue.  The action of ignoring the rulings is a type of nullification, and States have the right to nullify unconstitutional laws or actions by the federal government..
 
Other limitations have been placed upon the federal courts as well.  The 11th Amendment changed the intent of Article III.  As limited as the courts were supposed to be, the Founding Fathers realized the courts weren't limited enough, and as a result, the 11th Amendment wound up being ratified in 1795.  The 11th Amendment was encouraged by a federal case called Chisolm v. Georgia (1793).
 
 
Chisolm v. Georgia (1793)
 
An increasing problem with federal intrusion on the States via the federal court system culminated in the case of Chisholm v. Georgia in 1793, which eventually led to the proposal, and ratification, of the 11th Amendment.  A citizen of South Carolina sued the State of Georgia for the value of clothing supplied by a merchant during the Revolutionary War. After Georgia refused to appear, claiming immunity as a sovereign state, as per the Constitution (Article III, Section 2) the federal courts took the case.  The judges in the court system tended to embrace a nationalist view of the federal government, and their nationalist point of view encouraged the judges to deem that in the Chisolm v. Georgia case, Georgia was not a sovereign state, therefore the Supreme Court entered a default judgment against Georgia.  What ensued was a conflict between federal jurisdiction and state sovereignty that reminded the anti-federalists of their fears of a centralized federal government consolidating the states, and destroying their right to individual sovereignty.
 
Realizing that the clause in Article III gave the federal courts too much power over state sovereignty, Congress immediately proposed the 11th Amendment in order to take away federal court jurisdiction in suits commenced against a State by citizens of another State or of a foreign state. This is the first instance in which a Supreme Court decision was superseded by a constitutional amendment, and evidence that the founders saw the legislative branch, and the States, as being a more powerful part of government over the federal judiciary.
Authorities
 
The 10th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America states that the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, or prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.  The federal courts are included in that, as being a part of the United States federal government.  As a result of the nature of how federal authorities are granted, the federal court system can only hear cases that fall within the constitutional authorities for the federal government.
 
When one understands the importance of protecting state sovereignty, and that the courts are supposed to be very limited in their scope and power, Article III becomes much simpler to understand.
 
As stated earlier in this section, the first sentence of Article III, Section 2, reads: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States (which are only supposed to be passed if they are within the authorities granted by the Constitution), and Treaties made . . .
 
Notice the phrase, "arising under this Constitution."  If the case is not involving the federal government as one of the parties, or is not regarding an issue that falls under the authorities of the U.S. Constitution, the federal courts can simply not take the case. The State Supreme Court, in those cases, is the highest court the case can go to.
 
 
Judicial Review
 
Federal judges maintain that the federal courts have the power of judicial review, or the power to determine the constitutionality of laws.  In response to the judicial urgings for the powers to judge the extent of the federal government's powers, in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison warned us that giving the federal government through its courts the power of judicial review would be a power that would continue to grow, regardless of elections, putting at risk the all important concept of the separation of powers, and other much-touted limits on power.  The final arbiters of the Constitution are not the courts, argued the Founding Fathers who supported the foundation of limiting principles of the U.S. Constitution.  The power of the federal government must be checked by State governments, and the people. The States and the People are the enforcers and protectors of the U.S. Constitution.
 
In today's society it is commonly accepted that one of the roles of the federal court system is to interpret the Constitution, and issue rulings determining the constitutionality of laws.  The Constitution does not grant this authority.  The power of Judicial Review was given to the courts by themselves.
 
The first attempt to establish "Judicial Review" as an authority to the federal court system was through the Judiciary act of 1789, but the authority allowing the United States federal courts to hear a civil case because the plaintiff has alleged a violation of the United States Constitution, federal law, or a treaty to which the United States is a party, was limited to only the United States Supreme Court.  The lower federal courts, at this point, were not allowed hear cases questioning the federal government's "federal question jurisdiction."  Anti-federalists, and Jefferson Republicans immediately railed against the legislation, arguing that legislation cannot determine authorities granted.
 
The Federalists, in an attempt to allow the lower courts to wield the power of judicial review, briefly created such jurisdiction in the Judiciary Act of 1801, but it was repealed the following year.  Unable to establish the federal court system as the final arbiters of the United States Constitution through legislative means, the Federalists turned to the courts themselves to drive into place the controversial authority.
 
During John Adams' final moments in the presidency, he appointed a whole host of "midnight judges" (appointing 16 Federalist circuit judges and 42 Federalist justices of the peace to offices created by the Judiciary Act of 1801) in the hopes of retaining federalist control of the courts as Jefferson's Democratic-Republicans gained control of the Congress, and Jefferson himself accepted the presidency.
 
Thomas Jefferson's Democratic-Republicans were appalled by the appointment of the Midnight Judges, recognizing the stacking of the courts as a desperate attempt by the Federalists to try and continue Federalist influence despite their election loss.  In Jefferson's view, the Federalists "retired into the judiciary as a stronghold . . . and from that battery all the works of Republicanism are to be beaten down and destroyed."
 
While Adams was still in office, most of the commissions for these newly appointed judges were delivered.  However, unable to deliver all of them before Adams' term expired, some of them were left to be delivered by the incoming Secretary of State, James Madison.  Jefferson ordered them not to be delivered, and without the commissions delivered, the remaining new appointees were unable to assume the offices and duties to which they had been appointed to by Adams.  In Jefferson's opinion, the undelivered commissions were void.
 
One of those appointed judges was a man named William Marbury.  He sued, and the case worked its way up to the Supreme Court.  After all of the dust settled, on February 24, 1803, the Court rendered a unanimous (4-0) decision that Marbury had the right to his commission, but the court did not have the power to force Madison to deliver the commission.  Chief Justice Marshall wrote the opinion of the court, and in that opinion he wrote that the federal court system has the power of judicial review.  Rather than simply applying the law to the cases, Marshall decided, based on case law and precedent, that the courts have the authority to determine the validity of the law as well.  This opinion, however, went against all of the limitations placed on the courts by the Constitution.
 
One of the most obvious fundamental principles of the Constitution is the limitations it places on the federal government.  The Constitution is designed not to tell the federal government what it can't do, but to offer enumerated powers to which the authorities of the federal government are limited to.  The powers are granted by the States, and any additional authorities must also be approved by the States through the ratification of any proposed amendments.  It takes 3/4 of the States to ratify an amendment.  The congressional proposal of an amendment, with the ratification of that amendment, in the simplest terms, is the federal government asking the States for permission to a particular authority.
 
The power of Judicial Review, or the authority to determine if laws are constitutional, was not granted to the courts by the States in the Constitution.  The courts took that power upon themselves through Justice Marshall's opinion of Marbury v. Madison.
 
The federal courts are a part of the federal government.  The Constitution was designed to limit the authorities of the federal government by granting only a limited number of powers.  Judicial Review enables the federal government, through the courts, to determine if the laws that the federal government made are constitutional.  In other words, the federal government, through Judicial Review, can determine for itself what its own authorities are.
 
The idea that the federal court system has the authority to interpret the Constitution, and can decide if a law is constitutional or not, is unconstitutional, and is simply an attempt by those that believe in big government to gain power, and work towards a more centralized big federal governmental system.
 
 
Original Jurisdiction
 
In Article III, Section 2, Clause 2 the Constitution reads: "In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction."
 
What this means is that in all of those above listed cases, the federal appellate courts cannot take the case.  Such cases must bypass the federal appellate system, and go straight to the Supreme Court.  Since one of those stipulations is in regards to cases "in which a State shall be a Party," that means that the case "U.S. v. Arizona" where the federal government sued Arizona to block the State's immigration law, was unconstitutional.  It was unconstitutional for the inferior federal courts to hear the case.  The Supreme Court had original jurisdiction.  Therefore, when the district court ruled in July of 2010 on the case, and struck down parts of the Arizona immigration law, not only did that court not have jurisdiction to hear the case in the first place, but the very act of striking down portions of the law was unconstitutional. After all, Article I, Section 1 grants the legislative branch all legislative powers, and those powers would include the ability to strike down law.  The courts were not vested with any legislative powers, and therefore cannot strike down laws, or portions of laws.
 
 
Trial by Jury
 
Article III, Section II, Clause 3 sets up the right to a trial by jury, except in the cases of impeachment.
 
This clause also requires that a trial must be held in the state where the crime was committed. If the crime was not committed in any particular state, then the trial is held in such a place as set forth by the Congress.
 
 
 
Treason
 
Article III, Section 3 defines treason, as well as the granting of the power by the Congress to declare the punishment.  When the Constitution says that "no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attained," it means that the punishment cannot be inherited or passed down (corruption of blood), nor shall the person be denied due process (attainder).
 
Corruption of blood also means that all inheritable qualities are destroyed, and the Founding Fathers did not believe this English practice should be an American one.
 
No forfeiture meant that despite treason, the properties of the person could not be forfeited to the government.  The property would remain as property of the individual, or remain with family.  Even when it came to the despicable act of treason, the founders believed that the individual should be able to retain certain rights.
 
 
Terms:
 
Corruption of Blood: Punishment inherited or passed down, all inheritable qualities are destroyed.
 
Judicial Review: The unconstitutional authority of the federal courts to review law, interpret the Constitution regarding laws, and then determine the constitutionality of laws.
 
Original Jurisdiction: In the Constitution the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction on some cases, which means the case must proceed directly to the Supreme Court, and the high court must make a determination on whether or not to accept the case.
 
Treason:

Levying war against the States, or adhering to the enemies of the States, giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
 
Questions for Discussion:
 
1.  How would life in the United States be different if there was no federal court system?
 
2.  Why did the Founding Fathers limit the authorities of the federal courts?
 
3.  How has Judicial Review changed our system of government?
 
4.  Why do you think the Supreme Court has Original Jurisdiction over some cases?
 
5.  In what ways is the presence of a Judicial Branch important?
 
Resources:
 
Draft of the Kentucky Resolutions (Jefferson's Draft), Avalon Project, Yale University: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/jeffken.asp
 
Madison's Notes Constitutional Convention, Avalon Project, Yale University: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/debcont.asp
 
Virginia Resolution - Alien and Sedition Acts, Avalon Project, Yale University:
Copyright: Douglas V. Gibbs, 2015
 

Kellyanne's Learning Curve

By Douglas V. Gibbs
AuthorSpeakerInstructorRadio Host

Kellyanne Conway has misspoke, got into a little trouble promoting Ivanka's products, and now has been caught in a photograph just making herself comfortable, casually kneeling on the couch in the Oval Office, while checking her phone.  I like Kellyanne, I really do.  She's tough, smart, and pulls no punches.  But, does she understand that her position is one that requires a bit of, I don't know, respect for the office as she works with the President of the United States, and not as a media commentator?

I get it.  The leftist mainstream media went from puppy dogs under Obama to watch dogs under Trump, and they are looking for anything, and everything, to criticize the Trump administration about.  So, why give them fodder?  Why do these things we just know they are going to crawl all over?

As Donald Trump's senior adviser Kellyanne Conway should know better.  Especially since she has come under fire so many times, already.

The image was captured by an AFP photographer.  Conway's appearance on the couch with her shoes on as Trump poses for a photo with leaders of historically black colleges and universities looks way too much the way a teenager would look crawled up on the couch in mom and dad's living room.  It's funny, though, 
that the media didn't even mutter when Barack Obama had his feet propped up on the furniture in the Oval Office.

Conservative critics also chastised Obama for unbuttoning the previous Oval Office dress code that called for a suit jacket and a tie.

So, a message to Kellyanne.  "I love ya, but let's keep the vultures off ya by keeping a little bit of a respectful tone for the position, and the furniture, could ya?  After all, you no longer represent you.  You represent the President of the United States."

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Trump to Recommend New Budget

By Douglas V. Gibbs
AuthorSpeakerInstructorRadio Host

Trump's budget could care less about Democrats, Republicans, or politics in general.  It's the people's budget, full of his campaign promises.  Where he promised something would increase, the money went up.  Where he promised to reduce spending, the money goes down.  And, he's saying he will get our country funded in a manner a business is...cutting the fat, cutting unnecessary spending, and making it a well-oiled machine.

And the Democrats are ticked off and out of their minds.  The White House plan includes an increase in defense and national security spending by $54 billion (a 3% increase from Obama's numbers), and Trump plans to cut the same amount from non-defense programs.

Trump says "we have to start winning wars again," and "peace through strength."

Sounds "Reaganesque," doesn't it?

No, Trump is not the new Reagan.  He's Trump.  But, he seems to be more Republican in what us Reagan supporters remember, than anyone else in the Republican Party.

How did the Republicans become so unRepublican?

President Trump is also going to propose a $10 trillion spending cut over ten years – or $1 trillion per year. This is entirely reasonable considering the scale and scope of government.  Back during the tale-end of Dubya's presidency, a friend of mine and I went through the federal budget and determined that 85% of federal spending is unconstitutional.  While I don't believe we should pull the rug out from under Americans on all of those things, but rather reform slowly until the federal government is removed from things it has no authority being involved with, a reduction in spending with the word "trillion" attached seems like a wonderful start.

President Trump’s economic plan is based on a conservative prediction of economic growth being at 4% (which is still robust when compared to Obama's one-percenters).  Four percent growth equals an additional $1 trillion added to GDP.  The tax revenue from the GDP growth is $200 billion/per year (1/5th of $1 trillion). Or $2 trillion over the 10-year projection.  And to be honest, with tax cuts coming, the growth will likely be even greater because the tax cuts will encourage investments, new businesses, and expansion of existing businesses.  And, with more people making more money in an economy designed to fuel the free market, tax revenue will be even greater than anticipated. . . I am anticipating.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Dick Morris: Why is Trump Calling the Media his Enemy?

By Douglas V. Gibbs
AuthorSpeakerInstructorRadio Host

"It's a good strategy, on his part..."  "He's reducing the impact of the media."  "The media is biased in its attacks."



-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Monday, February 27, 2017

Ohio Discovers Voter Fraud

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

Each of the non-citizen voters have committed a criminal felony. DHS is deporting illegal alien felons as a top priority. Any illegal alien who voted will now be subject to arrest and deportation….
Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted announced an investigation has uncovered that hundreds of non-US citizens are registered to vote in the state, and dozens of them voted illegally.

According to a release from Husted, 385 people who are not citizens of the United States are registered to vote in Ohio. Out of those, 82 voted in at least one election in the last year.

God knows how many more there are that weren't caught.  Remember, a number around 3 million has been floated around when it comes to illegal aliens voting nationwide.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Political Pistachio Consistently over 3,000 Hits Per Day

By Douglas V. Gibbs
AuthorSpeakerInstructorRadio Host

Growth over the last few months has been incredible.  Political Pistachio, the official blogsite of Constitutionalist Douglas V. Gibbs, has become the "go to" site for many people when it comes to conservative news and commentary.  Our readers understand that according to the founder, editor, and chief writer for Political Pistachio, Douglas V. Gibbs, the U.S. Constitution is America's owner's manual and if we want to continue to drive our country in the right direction, it is imperative that we understand the owner's manual, and apply those principles to our governmental system.

The Political Pistachio blog began in May of 2006.  The radio program on BlogTalkRadio began February 2007, and moved to AM Radio on August 6, 2011.  Doug's Constitution Classes in Temecula began in February of 2008, and since then, a number of classes and other services have been added.  Doug's book, "25 Myths of the United States Constitution" hit the shelves early 2014, and he has three other books on the market since then.  Doug has appeared on various radio and television outlets, including Fox News, and provides many opportunities for constitutional literacy as a public speaker.

On the horizon are Constitution Classes at Congress of Racial Equality chapter offices in the Western Region of the United States (with a national program being formulated for next year), an after school program for public school children, and a curriculum for the home school industry (which goes into implementation at a home school satellite program in Southern California in August of 2017).

I have also begun lobbying Sacramento and Washington D.C. for the purpose of getting bills proposed that move the country in the direction of following the principles and philosophies of the U.S. Constitution.  My latest being a proposal for California lawmakers to support a federal law that is on the books that requires schools receiving public funding to have a constitution education program or assembly on Constitution Day, September 17, each year.

In March, alone, lobbying for the Constitution Association and Congress of Racial Equality, I will be making trips to San Diego, Fresno and Sacramento just during the first two weeks of the month.

The reality of all of this is that it takes funding, and I receive very little for what I do.  With over a million visitors a year, now, at Political Pistachio, over 11,000 followers on the Constitution Study Facebook Page, and the hundreds of thousands connected to Douglas V. Gibbs through the organizations I am a part of, a question must be asked:

"Where is the funding coming from?"

The bleak reality is that the funding is very anemic.  There are two donors, and most of his book sales occur at the few speaking engagements I provide.

So, here's the request:

If you have a group and you want one of the most comprehensible constitution presentations available, contact Doug at constitutionspeaker at yahoo dot com to set up a date.  If you want to buy the books, go to Doug's "books page."  Or, if you want to Donate, do so RIGHT HERE! (Sorry, not a non-profit. . . yet).

We are in this together.  Feel free to do what you can, and be sure and support those out there fighting the good fight.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Reducing Public Expense Through the States: A Constitutional Idea

By Douglas V. Gibbs
AuthorSpeakerInstructorRadio Host

Localism used by local governments.  Isn't that what the Founding Fathers had in mind?

Pension reform, hiring freezes of government jobs, and we are starting to see signs that this is ready to spread throughout the States.  And, it is happening with bi-partisan support.

It's called Federalism.

Is this a part of the Trump-Effect?



Bill Whittle: "They (public employees) are not going to go quietly into the night...but their standards cannot be met."

States are laboratories of liberty, and if this begins to work at the State level, how long before this kind of good governance spills into the federal government?

Trump is already looking at cutting federal jobs. . . therefore, federal spending.  Reducing the size of the government, and government spending, is smart at any level of government, be it federal, the States, or in our cities.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Trump New National Security Adviser Breaks from White House's View of Islam

By Douglas V. Gibbs
AuthorSpeakerInstructorRadio Host

Trump's newly appointed National Security Adviser, Lt. General H.R. McMaster needs to understand something about Islamic terrorism. . . the jihadists are following the teachings of the Koran.

The New York Times reported a few days ago that McMaster and his language regarding Muslims, and the language used by President Donald Trump regarding Muslims, are not in full agreement.

McMaster told his staff that Muslims who commit terrorist acts are perverting their religion, a talking point of the liberal left, and a false message Muslims use trying to point people away from Islam as a source for terrorism.

He said, the label “radical Islamic terrorism” was not helpful because terrorists are “un-Islamic,” according to people who were in the meeting who heard his speech.

This is a view dead opposite of what his predecessor, Michael T. Flynn, who resigned last week under pressure regarding a phone call with a Russian diplomat, held.  Which is why the Democrats did what they could to get rid of Flynn.

General McMaster, several officials said, has been vocal about his views on dealing with Islamic militancy, including with Mr. Trump, who described him as “a man of tremendous talent, tremendous experience.” General McMaster got the job after Mr. Trump’s first choice to replace Flynn, Robert S. Harward, a retired Navy vice admiral, turned it down.

General McMaster seems like he is closer to the positions of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, than that of conservatives, and President Trump.  But, what did we expect?  In the overall scheme of things, he is, after all, the third choice for the position.

This could be problematic, and serve to embolden Islamic terror groups.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Oscar's Wrong Winner Announced by Faye Dunaway

By Douglas V. Gibbs
AuthorSpeakerInstructorRadio Host

I am not a fan of Hollywood.  I don't think those people are particularly any better than anyone else simply because they can pretend in front of a camera real well.  I spent time in the acting industry for a little while in the mid-nineties, and I wasn't impressed.  The snack table impressed me, but the tiny people of tinsel-town did not.

That said, while Hollywood has been spending all of their time trying to verbally sabotage the presidency of Donald Trump, they can't even get their own awards shows correct.  At last night's Academy Awards (Oscars) Warren Beatty and Faye Dunaway, stars of 1967's Bonnie and Clyde, couldn't even get their announcement for best picture winner correct.  They got the wrong envelope in their hands, and said that La La Land had won best picture.  In reality, Moonlight was the correct winner.

Note: I have had no intention of seeing La La Land, and I have never even heard of Moonlight.

Beatty noticed the mistake, but Dunaway had read the winner before Beatty could stop her.

"I opened the envelope and it said Emma Stone, La La Land. That's why I looked at Faye, and at you. I wasn't trying to be funny." Beatty assured everyone, after admitting to the mistake and explaining that they had the wrong envelope.

The cast and crew of La La Land had already taken to the stage to give their acceptance speeches when the presenters told them of the mixup.

That's gotta be a punch in the gut.

"Warren, what did you do?!" joked Kimmel, coming on stage to help work things out, before joking that he also blamed Steve Harvey, who famously mixed up the winner of Miss Universe.

It's a wonder these people are even able to perform basic human functions.

Ashley Judd: Trump Election Worse Than Being Raped

By Douglas V. Gibbs
AuthorSpeakerInstructorRadio Host



Ashley Judd called herself a nasty girl at the same women's event that Madonna threatened to blow up the White House.  Now, Judd has insulted millions of rape survivors by comparing Trump’s election to a “Rape.”

Does Judd realize how much of an idiot she sounds like?  Does she not realize that her stupidity is actually pushing people away from her beloved Democrat Party?

Judd wants you to believe that Trump is worse than a “rapist.”  Why?  Because he talked about women in a personal conversation in a manner that she didn't approve of?

What about Hillary Clinton's husband, Bill?  The man is a sexual predator, and Hillary has covered up for his rapist lifestyle that has been a problem during his entire lifetime.  And, Hillary laughed about getting a rapist out of trouble during a rape case when she was a lawyer, bragging about it.

And that's not taking into account Bill's thing about cigars and teenage vaginas.

And Ashley Judd has the audacity to compare Trump's win in November to a rape?

She disgusts me.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Sunday, February 26, 2017

Case of the Nonsensical Peanut

By Douglas V. Gibbs
AuthorSpeakerInstructorRadio Host

On Sunday Night my wife, after her shift was over at her place of employment, wanted to go out and eat at one of the local establishments.  Three of our seven grandkids live in our house with us, and while we love the fact that the children (4, 6, and 9) live with us, every once in a while it is nice to just get away.  So, we headed to a steakhouse in neighboring Menifee, Texas Roadhouse, and waited for about a half hour, or so, for a booth.  The place is always packed, especially at about 6:00 pm, which is when we walked in.

The meat and potatoes restaurant is among the better ones in the area, especially for Menifee, and is one of those places that serves peanuts while you wait for your meal.  Personally, I love peanuts, and munched on quite a few.  My wife spent more time eating the complimentary bread, and our Cactus Blossum (onion petals).

Peanut shells, by the evening, form a layer on the floor at the Texas Roadhouse restaurant.  Everyone knows that the place is full of peanuts. It's common knowledge.

As we were completing our meal, and waiting for our check, a couple came in and sat near us.  Immediately, the woman shouted at the hostess who had led them to their table, "He's allergic to peanuts, get them away, get them away!"

My first thought was, "If you are allergic to peanuts, why would you come here to eat?"

If I was allergic to something, the last place I would go to dine would be a place covered with whatever I am allergic to.

Why?  Why, if he is allergic to peanuts, did they choose to eat at the Texas Roadhouse?  RJ's Sizzlin' Steer is about ten minutes down the road in Murrieta, and they don't serve peanuts, and in my opinion, are slightly better when it comes to the quality of the steaks.

Either, the person is not a clear thinker, they didn't know that peanuts were being served, or the couple decided to visit Texas Roadhouse because they were hoping for an excuse for a lawsuit.

To me, the nonsensical peanut case sounded a lot like the gay couple who asked a Christian baker to bake a homosexual wedding cake.  They knew that there was a baker up the street that would bake their cake, but they chose the Christians, cried when they wouldn't bake the cake, sued them, forced them to lose their business, and the Christian couple who owned the bakery wound up declaring bankruptcy.

Why didn't they just go to the baker up the street?

Either, they were not clear thinkers, they didn't know the Christians would not bake the cake, or they were hoping for a lawsuit.

In the latter case I think it was the latter reason.

And they call conservatives the fascists?

As for the peanuts...I am not sure I was more alarmed by the fact that a guy with peanut allergies would enter such an establishment, or how snotty his girlfriend was when she saw the bucket of peanuts on the table.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Trump Reveals Foolishness of Conservative NeverTrump Movement

By Douglas V. Gibbs
AuthorSpeakerInstructorRadio Host

There are two kinds of "Never Trump" camps, out there.  The hard left nutcakes who are destroying America through violent riots and fiery protests because they believe Trump wishes to destroy America, and the conservative Never Trump folks who said during the election that Trump was nothing more than a New York Liberal posing as a Republican (to help Hillary Clinton win the election).

Trump's victory and ascension to the presidency of the United States of America stunned both groups, and his first month in the White House has proven both groups to be nothing less than fools.

Before he even stepped into the shoes of President of the United States on January 20, Trump's business acumen and pull-no-punches style had businesses clamoring to return to the United States for the production of their products.  Trump has already reduced the national debt by $12 million, and has spurned a worldwide movement willing to stand against the ruling class leftist establishment.  He has been working to build the border wall, as promised; is continuing to work with conservatives as he slams the liberal media; his work has been returning jobs to the U.S., and despite the accusations of racism, is taking care to work to help improve the opportunities of black communities; and it has been shown that it was not Trump getting assistance from Russia, but Hillary Clinton.

Have we not learned, by now, that the Democrats lie and project?

The reality is, Trump is turning out, so far, to be a good President of the United States, and a conservative one, at that.  He was right about Sweden (and the problem of Islamic refugee programs throughout Europe - and here - while working to resolve the problem domestically with his travel ban).  He has the furious liberal left media back-pedaling, and the hard-left, anti-American crazies exposing who they really are. . . traitors who stand against the American System.

Yet, there are still Republicans who can't stand Trump, and continue to doubt he is not some liberal Trojan Horse?

While the leftists reveal that they are truly the ones who are racists, and that they truly do not understand the Constitution, much less, support it, Trump just keeps doing his thing.  He isn't cowering in the corner, nor is he giving the leftists a single inch... and I am loving it.  As they say, Trump is simply being Trump.

The thing is, the liberal left Democrats, and the conservative Never Trump crowd, do not understand Trump.  He's unconventional, and they can't seem to pull their noses out of the textbook of how things should be done, even though Trump has proven conventional political wisdom is a farce.

Trump, unlike the rest of the political establishment, is in tune with the people, and understands the basic tenets of liberty and a successful economy.  The establishment is hating it because Trump is outside their little club, and it places their power and money at risk.  While the Republicans have helped grow the size of government while promising to run the massive bureaucracy in a conservative manner (as if that's not an oxymoron), Trump is challenging their control of 37% of the economy and handouts of $6 trillion per year, and is saying, "This has got to change."  He is disabling the liberal press which has been driving the narrative that fuels the expansion of government, and he has placed sticks of dynamite in the Washington D.C. bubble so as to expose all of them for who they are, what they know, and what they have been doing.

Trump has Americans engaged again.  We are paying attention, and it turns out that like Trump, we don't like what we see.  So, the Democrats are rioting, and crying, and throwing temper-tantrums, and the statist members of the GOP are lashing out and panicking.  And, as voters watch what is going on, the number of Tea Party Republicans is destined to increase in Washington. . . because now the environment is more constitution-friendly and will be welcoming to their rise.

Trump isn't arguing for his policies in a manner that the politicians of the past have.  He's doing it by holding public events and using press conferences and social media to speak directly to the American People.  He is calling out the obstructionists, and he is using a conservative bully pulpit to slam the establishment with a big stick not much unlike the one Teddy Roosevelt proverbially swung around.

The Donald has taken a lesson from George Washington, who didn't sit in his chair at the capital trying to administratively keep the country moving forward and unified, but got out there with long tours to talk to the people.  When the Whiskey Rebellion erupted, he got on his horse and visited Kentucky to quell the divide.  Washington understood that speaking directly to the people would unify the country behind him, and Trump is doing the same.  President James Monroe did the same, and his connection to the people vastly influenced his popularity.  He ran unopposed for reelection.

The American People do not want the President to be some distant professional politician in the District of Columbia.  They want their leaders to be among them, to understand them, and to stand unified with them.

Trump is unconventional, and rejects conventional wisdom because the "the way it's always been" does not work.  He appeals to most of the American population because he talks to the American People.  His press conferences, while the media is present, is pointed at the American People.

Our complaint has been against the establishment, all along.  And when we finally find our piece of filet mignon to send to Capitol Hill, we are devastated when, after our favorite candidate goes through the meat grinder, it turns out he or she becomes just another glob of ground beef like the rest of them.

Trump is a hard piece of leather, one that only slightly bends, and refuses to yield.  He cannot be made into ground beef by the meat grinder, and in truth, the politicians are panicking because Trump is screwing the meat grinder up and is compromising their sharp blades of power.

Conservatives were wondering, under Obama, if we were headed for a revolution.  Could the Tea Party survive the onslaught of leftism?  Trump is the candidate the Tea Party was calling for.  He's the President that embodies our revolution, and the demand by the American People that the establishment be taken down.  Trump is a disruptor.  He's unorthodoxed, loud, and sticks to his guns.  The more I get to know him, the more I respect him.  He's exactly what America needed.  Now, it's just a matter of getting through the processes of getting this country turned around.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary