Saturday, February 15, 2020

Constitution Radio with Douglas V. Gibbs: Leftist Insanity

Constitution Radio    
with Douglas V. Gibbs 


Special Guest: Arkady Faktorovich

KMET 1490-AM 
Get the phone app ... make your smart phone smarter!

1-3 pm Pacific Time on Saturday Afternoon ... or if you miss the show, listen later to the archived podcast at 

Call in at
951-922-3532.

  • California Democrat Proposes Bill Calling for Compulsory Voting
    • Should Voting be a Legal Obligation?
    • Assemblyman Marc Levine introduced a bill last week that would essentially require every registered voter to cast a ballot -- even if it's an empty one.
    • Levine wrote in a news release addressing the proposal, known as AB 2070, that other nations such as Belgium and Australia already have rules about compulsory ballot casting, and the United States -- or at least California -- should join them.
    • "Democracy is not a spectator sport -- it requires the active participation of all its citizens," said Levine, a Democrat representing parts of Marin and Sonoma counties, in a statement.
  • Trump Campaign Reacts To Report Bloomberg Could Tap Crooked Hillary To Be His VP: ‘Hillary Apparently Can’t Resist Trying to Steal the Nomination From Bernie Sanders a Second Time’
  • Author Lee Smith: ‘We Knew the Clinton Campaign was Giving Information to FBI – It Now Appears FBI was Giving Information to Clinton Campaign as Well’
  • Could Coronavirus in China lead to an increase in manufacturing in the United States?
  • Roger Stone Calls for Retrial 
  • Trump Budget Cuts aim at ending deficit by 2035
    • 2021 proposal would reduce size and reach of the federal bureaucracy by shifting government responsibilities back to constitutional priorities and empowering state and local governments.
    • 2021 proposal includes cutting spending by $4.4 trillion
    • Individual tax cuts extended, automatic tax in crease in 2026 cancelled
  • Attorney General William Barr: Department of Justice will take significant actions against efforts by so-called progressive local and state governments that obstruct immigration federal law enforcement activities
    • Trump administration announces lawsuits against sanctuary cities
  • After releasing Sondberg and Vindman, Trump fires 70 positions inherited from former President Barack Obama.
  • Conservative lawmakers in at least nine states introduce legislation to ban medical providers from helping boys and girls undergo a medical transition via surgery and/or hormone replacement therapy before they turn 18
    • Some of the bills would make it a felony to prescribe hormones or perform related surgeries for minors.

Friday, February 14, 2020

Roger Stone Complaint Holds No Water

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

Roger Stone was arrested and convicted for process crimes.  In short, he was trapped while in questioning under oath into seeming like he contradicted himself.  Bad trial.  Bad accusation.  Entrapment, essentially.

After being sentenced to 7-9 years in prison, President Trump complained, and immediately afterward Department of Justice's Bill Barr acted recommending a reduction in Stone's sentence.

Barr says his decision had nothing to do with Trump's Tweets calling for Stone's reduction in time in jail.  The Democrats say otherwise.

In the end, none of this matters.  We must ask ourselves, "Why would Trump demand Barr reduce Stone's sentence, and why would Barr do so under pressure by the President, when in reality all the President has to do if it is really that important is pardon Roger Stone?"

That's like trying to find someone with matches to light your smoke while you are holding a lighter in your hand.

The accusation makes no sense.  President Trump doesn't need Barr if he thinks Stone should go free.

The problem is, the liberal left Democrats are still in impeachment mode, and they are looking for the next thing to attack, and at the moment, this is all they've got.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Wednesday, February 12, 2020

Temecula Constitution Class: Amendments 18-21

Temecula Constitution Class
Wednesdays 6:00 pm
GOP HQ
28120 Jefferson Ave.
Temecula, CA  

Constitution Class Handout
Instructor: Douglas V. Gibbs
 
 
 
Lesson 20
 
Prohibition, Women's Voting Rights, Election Rules
Prohibition
Amendment 18 was ratified January 16, 1919, bringing the prohibition of alcohol to America. The amendment was repealed by Amendment 21, December 5, 1933.
 
Christian churches worked to bring about prohibition as far back as the early 1800s, largely through the campaigning by women and young adults who had been adversely affected by husbands and fathers who were heavy alcohol consumers. Alcohol was considered to be one of the most prevalent social problems in America. The concerns over the dangers of alcohol brought about the Temperance Movement. The American Temperance Society was founded in 1826, with the specific goal of outlawing alcohol in the United States.
 
Local organizations that encouraged abstinence from alcohol existed as early as 1808. It was not until 1826 that a nationwide temperance society was created. As the American Temperance Society gained steam, national and international temperance societies sprang up. Organizations like the Washington Temperance Society did not consider temperance to be a religious issue, while other groups felt compelled by God to proclaim temperance. Considering the involvement in the movement by a diverse menu of denominations, no one religion was able to claim to have been the originator of temperance ideals.
 
The most effective weapon of temperance was to advocate total abstinence from alcohol through personal pledges. The societies gave out pledge cards or medals with various types of pledges written on them. Not all of the pledges, however, demanded total abstinence, as indicated by the following pledge:
 
"We agree to abstain from all intoxicating liquors except for medicinal purposes and religious ordinances."
 
Concerned that being too strict may discourage many from joining their society, some organizations gave people the option to choose the extent of their pledge. One common practice was to have those who joined a society to sign a book indicating their commitment. If the person was willing to commit to total abstinence, they would place a capital "T" by their name. The "T" stood for Total or "Total Abstinence". Hence came the term "Tee Totaler" as one who has committed himself to total abstinence.
 
Through the use of pressure-politics the goal of nationwide prohibition was achieved during World War I with the ratification of the Eighteenth Amendment in January of 1919.
 
Congress, in response to the new amendment, passed the Volstead Act on October 28, 1919, to enforce the law. Most large cities refused to enforce the legislation. As the federal government went after bootleggers, it became quickly apparent that the understaffed agencies were fighting a losing battle. Meanwhile, though there was a slight decline in alcohol consumption around the nation, organized crime increased in the larger cities. Alcohol became a high demand cash crop that the criminal element could not resist.
 
As Prohibition became increasingly unpopular, and the element of organized crime had reached its height, the perceived need for tax revenue during the Great Depression also encouraged a repeal movement. The hope for tax revenue from the legal sale of alcohol, and the need to weaken organized crime, led to the 21st Amendment, which repealed the amendment that had brought Prohibition to America. The repeal returned the legalities of alcohol to the States. Though Prohibition was over nationwide, some counties remained dry counties, forbidding the sale of alcoholic beverages.
 
In our current society there are calls for the legalization of Marijuana, and other drugs. Existing federal drug laws enforce a prohibition of drugs. There is a movement in some parts of government pushing for the legalization of certain drugs, like marijuana. If at the federal level a number of politicians decided that the legalization of drugs is good for the nation, we could very well see such legislation pass through Congress. By studying the U.S. Constitution, and taking a lesson from the 18th Amendment, it is apparent that the federal government does not have the authority to ban, or legalize, drugs in America without receiving such an authority through the Amendment Process (as we saw with the 18th Amendment in regards to Alcohol). The regulation of drugs is a State issue, as per the Tenth Amendment. This means that all federal drug laws are unconstitutional, and laws in California legalizing marijuana for medicinal purposes, and in the States of Washington and Colorado for recreational use, are completely constitutional.
 
Terms:
Dry Counties - Counties in the United States whose government forbids the sale of alcoholic beverages within the county.
 
Great Depression - A severe worldwide economic depression in the decade preceding World War II.
 
Organized Crime - Transnational, national, or local groupings of highly centralized enterprises run by criminals for the purpose of engaging in illegal activity, most commonly for monetary profit.
 
Prohibition - Period in United States history during which the manufacture and sale of alcohol was prohibited. Drinking alcohol itself was never illegal, and there were always exceptions for medicinal and religious uses.
Temperance Movement - A social movement urging the reduced use of alcoholic beverages during the 19th and early 20th centuries.
 
Volstead Act - Officially The National Prohibition Act; the law that was the enabling legislation for the Eighteenth Amendment which established prohibition in the United States.
 
 
Questions for Discussion:
 
1. Why were women a major factor in the temperance movement?
 
2. What were some of the factors that contributed to the growing popularity of The Temperance Movement?
 
3. What challenges did The Temperance Movement encounter, and how did they adjust (i.e. through the style of pledges, exceptions to abstinence, etc.)
 
4. What was the reaction of many local governments to the Volstead Act?
 
5. What happened to the presence of organized crime when Prohibition was enacted? Why?
 
6. What were the reasons for repealing Prohibition?
 
7. What did Prohibition say about individualism and personal responsibility from the point of view of the federal government?
 
8. In what form does Prohibition continue to exist in the United States even today?
 
9. What lesson regarding the legalization of other drugs does the 18th Amendment teach us?
 
 
Resources:
Joseph Andrews, A Guide for Learning and Teaching The Declaration of
Independence and The U.S. Constitution - Learning from the Original Texts Using Classical Learning Methods of the Founders; San Marcos: The Center for Teaching the Constitution (2010)
 
Kobler, John, Ardent Spirits The Rise and Fall of Prohibition, New
York: G.P. Putnam's Sons (1973)
 
The Temperance Movement, US History.com;
http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1054.html
 
Steven Mintz, Moralists & Modernizers: America's Pre-Civil War
Reformers; Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press (1995)
 
Women's Voting Rights
The 19th Amendment established uniform voting rights for women nationwide. It was ratified on August 18, 1920.
 
Women, despite popular opinion, did vote in elections prior to the ratification of the 19th Amendment. In 1869, women in the newly created territory of Wyoming became the first women in the United States to win the right to vote. Colorado gave voting rights to women in 1892, and both Utah and Idaho gave women the right to vote in 1896.
 
The Constitution gives the States the right to determine their own rules for elections. The women's suffrage movement worked to bring about an amendment that would give women voting rights nationwide. The amendment was first proposed in 1878, and it took forty-one years before it was submitted to the States for ratification. It took about a year to receive enough votes for ratification.
 
Susan B. Anthony, already known for her crusade for the abolition of slavery, and the prohibition of alcohol, added women's suffrage to her plate. By 1878 she was able to induce a Senator from California to introduce a resolution in Congress calling for an amendment to the Constitution which would give women throughout the United States the right to vote.
 
The drive for an amendment that would grant uniform voting rights for women was nothing new. Aaron Burr, the Vice President during Thomas Jefferson's presidency, was a fervent believer in women's rights, and took personal charge of his daughter's course of study, insisting she learn Greek, Latin, and French, along with literature, philosophy and sciences. His proposals for the uniform voting rights for women, however, never gained traction.
 
John Adams, the second President of the United States, also supported expanding women's freedoms. As a great admirer of his wife, Abigail, he often went to her for advice. In 1776, as the Founders put into full gear their drive for American independence, Abigail offered in a letter, "I long to hear that you have declared an independency. And, by the way, in the new code of laws which I suppose it will be necessary for you to make, I desire you would remember the ladies and be more generous and favorable to them than your ancestors. Do not put such unlimited power into the hands of the husbands. Remember, all men would be tyrants if they could. If particular care and attention is not paid to the ladies, we are determined to foment a rebellion, and will not hold ourselves bound by any laws in which we have no voice or representation."
 
A challenge to the 19th Amendment (Leser v. Garnett, 1922) claimed that the amendment was unconstitutionally adopted, and that the rules for elections were implicitly delegated to the individual States because of the need to preserve State Sovereignty. However, the very fact that the change in voting rules was through amendment made the argument against the 19th Amendment a moot point.
 
Once the 19th Amendment was ratified, with this new power, women were able to attempt to elect those who shared their beliefs, hoping that other measures that would push forward the fight for women's rights would also emerge.
 
After the 19th Amendment passed, the percentage of women in the workforce increased to about 25%. Though some discrimination continued, and women rarely held decision-making positions, it was definitely a step in the right direction for the purpose of encouraging the rights of women.
 
During World War II, women were needed in all areas since many of the men went overseas to fight. The percentage of women in the workforce increased to 36%. The boom for women was short-lived, however. When the war ended, and the soldiers returned home, two-million women were fired within fifteen months after the end of the war to make room for the men.
 
Despite such setbacks, by the 1980s, the percentage of women in the workforce exceeded 50%. However, the percentage of women voting has not equaled the original push shortly after the ratification of the 19th Amendment.
 
Advocates for family values, though supportive of equal opportunity, often view these advancements as promotion for the break-up of the family unit. With mothers participating in the workforce, advent of women's rights has also given rise to the emergence of latch-key kids.
 
The greatest right for women is choice, which includes the choice not to pursue the numerous opportunities available for the purpose of following a more traditional role, should they desire to make such a choice. Women in today's society have the choice to pursue a career, be a stay-at-home mom and wife, or attempt to juggle both. For the purpose of protecting the family unit, and the traditional nature of the American society, wife and mother remains the more popular choice.
 
Terms:
Women's Suffrage - The right of women to vote and to run for office. The expression is also used for the economic and political reform movement aimed at extending these rights to women without any restrictions or qualifications such as property ownership, payment of tax, or marital status.
 
Questions for Discussion:
 
1. Were women allowed to vote in national elections before the ratification of the Nineteenth Amendment?
 
2. How did the abolition movement and temperance movement lead some to also support women's suffrage?
 
3. On what grounds was the Nineteenth Amendment Challenged?
 
4. How has the drive for the rights of women changed to an opposite extreme?
 
5. How has the Women's Rights Movement affected the concept of the traditional family unit?
 
Resources:
Aaron Burr Biography, Essortment; http://www.essortment.com/aaron-
burr-biography-20550.html
 
Abigail Adams urges husband to "remember the ladies", History.com;
http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/abigail-adams-urges-husband-to-remember-the-ladies
 
Andrew M. Allison, K. DeLynn Cook, M. Richard Maxfield, and W.
Cleon Skousen, The Real Thomas Jefferson; New York: National Center for Constitutional Studies (2009)
 
David McCullough, John Adams; New York: Simon and Schuster (2001)
 
W. Cleon Skousen, The Role of Women in Healing America, Latter Day
Conservative and The Constitution magazine, November 1985; http://www.latterdayconservative.com/articles/the-role-of-women-in-healing-america/
 
Election Rules
Ratified in 1933, the 20th Amendment establishes the current rules regarding the beginning and end of the terms of elected federal offices.
 
The amendment moved the beginning of the Presidential, Vice Presidential and Congressional terms from March 4. Congress, under the new rules established by the 20th Amendment, convenes on the third day of January, reducing the amount of time a lame duck Congress would be in session. A lame duck Congress, no longer fearful of the effect their decisions may have on re-election, may be more apt to support otherwise unpopular legislation during a lame duck session.
 
The 20th Amendment moved the terms of the President and Vice President to begin on the 20th day of January.
 
Section 2 of the 20th Amendment begins, "The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year." The phrase is consistent with the language used in Article I, Section 4, though one wonders if the delegates debating the 20th Amendment viewed meeting one day a year as overburdensome as did the Framers of the Constitution, or if they considered themselves to be professional politicians who must be constantly legislating, as does today's legislators.
 
The 20th Amendment's Section 3 addresses vacancies to the presidency before the new President has the opportunity to take office. The clause assigns the presidency to the Vice President in the case of the death of the President, if the President dies before he can take office. Assigning the presidency to the Vice President was in line with Article II, Section 1, Clause 6, and the 12th Amendment assigning to the Vice President the Office of the President should the President die after he took office. In the case it turns out the President does not qualify for the office, this article grants to Congress the authority to declare who shall act as President. "Failing to qualify for office" refers to an occasion that the Electoral College fails to resolve who will be the President or Vice President. A key point of this provision, and a critical protection against an outgoing faction attempting to retain some semblance of power, in the case that the candidates fail to qualify for office, is that the decision still devolves to Congress, but to the newly elected Congress, as opposed to the outgoing one. As established in Article II, Section 1, the decision for President would continue to rest upon the House of Representatives, and the choice of Vice President would continue to be the choice of the United States Senate.
 
Section 4 of the 20th Amendment addresses succession, giving Congress the authority to establish a line of succession, in the case of death of the President, or of the Vice President. The more astute student may recall that today's constitutional protocols calls upon the President to appoint a new Vice President, should that seat be vacated, but that provision did not become law until the ratification of the 25th Amendment in 1967.
 
The final two sections of the 20th Amendment address when the amendment would take effect should it be ratified, and a time limit of the proposal should the States not ratify it in a timely fashion. Section 5 states that the first two sections of the amendment, the parts of the amendment that alters the date the terms of President, Vice President, and members of Congress shall begin, "shall take effect on the 15th day of October following the ratification of this article." If ratification reached completion during an election year, that would put the new amendment into effect a couple weeks before the next election. The amendment was ratified January 23, 1933, not in time for Franklin Delano Roosevelt's victory in the 1932 Election. FDR had to wait until March of 1933 to take office.
 
In Section 6 of the 20th Amendment, for the first time in American History, a limitation was placed upon a proposed amendment, requiring that the amendment be ratified within seven years from the date of its submission. The same stipulation would be added at the end of the 21st and 22nd amendments, as well as a number of proposals that failed to be ratified within the allotted time period (like the Equal Rights Amendment). The 27th Amendment, ratified in 1992, reveals that without a limitation, proposed amendments remain in place and can stay on the active list indefinitely. The 27th Amendment was originally proposed as a part of the original Bill of Rights, submitted September 25, 1789.
 
 
Terms:
 
Lame Duck Congress - A lame duck session of Congress in the United States occurs whenever one Congress meets after its successor is elected, but before the successor's term begins.
 
Line of Succession - The order in which individuals are expected to succeed one another in some official position.
 
 
Questions for Discussion:
 
1. Why did the framers of the Twentieth Amendment see a need to move forward the dates of Presidential and Congressional Terms?
 
2. In what way can Lame Duck Sessions be dangerous?
 
3. Why do you think the Amendment changed the duty of electing the President, should the Electoral College fail to do so, to the newly elected Congress from the outgoing one?
 
 
Resources:
 
Joseph Andrews, A Guide for Learning and Teaching The Declaration of
Independence and The U.S. Constitution - Learning from the Original Texts Using Classical Learning Methods of the Founders; San Marcos: The Center for Teaching the Constitution (2010)
 
United States Senate, Lame Duck Session Definition:
http://www.senate.gov/reference/glossary_term/lame_duck_session.htm
 
 
Copyright 2015 Douglas V. Gibbs

Video: Constitution Radio, What's At Stake

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




Visit the You Tube page and challenge the liberal left commenters!!!

https://youtu.be/t4ooEY_cyt8


-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

O'Clock, and Exceptionalism

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

The internet is changing the way we speak, think, and view the world around us.  Kids no longer learn cursive because, with computers and devices, who needs cursive anymore?  Ledgers are gone.  And, the language is being changed before our very eyes.

I have noticed that when I use the voice recognition option with texting, internet search, and even dictation on my phone, if I use "o'clock", the old term is simply ignored.  Even in the chat room of a game I play I quipped I was up until four o'clock in the morning, but the voice recognition put, "4 in the morning."  Is "o'clock" too antiquated of a term to be recognized anymore?

When I type the word "exceptionalism," until this one instance (hmmm, are they paying attention?) it has always been considered misspelled, and would get that jagged, red line under it (signifying it to be a spelling error).

How else has the internet changed us?

I was watching an old "Outer Limits" episode recently where it sort of predicts the internet.  On the show it calls it "the stream," and it is manifested as equipment on the temple receiving a signal at all times, to the point that since information is being uploaded directly to the brain, people don't even know how to read anymore.

Is that where we are going?  Will the information highway leads us down a road to stupidity?  What happens when the lights go out?  Will we die as a result of being too stupid to take care of ourselves without being connected to the web?

Just a few random thoughts.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Monday, February 10, 2020

Sunday, February 09, 2020

Greta Thunberg Incorporated, The Expose'

By Douglas V. Gibbs
Author, Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host
The darling of the Climate Change hoax has accused us of stealing her childhood...

Perhaps there is more than meets the eye.





-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Saturday, February 08, 2020

7 Reasons Democrats Are so Obsessed With Trump

By Jay Chambers

Since before Trump was even elected, the democrats have been putting themselves in a hole. Now they’re in a rough spot, and there doesn’t seem to be an easy way out.
With the 2020 election coming up fast, the democrats don’t have a lot of good answers to some of the hard questions they’re facing.
That’s why they’ve spent so much time on wild goose chases like impeachment. Right now, the democrats are like a college student that spent all semester partying: they’re looking at the questions on the final and grasping at whatever they can remember from the few classes they actually showed up for.
Trump is the one thing that the democrats can remember from the last election. But focusing on him now isn’t the answer to their 2020 election problems. Here’s why the democrats keep obsessing over Trump, despite the fact that it’s not helping them.

Hillary Clinton insulted voters in 2016

If you remember anything about Hillary Clinton from the 2016 election, it’s probably her “deplorables” speech. There’s a reason why you and a lot of people remember it.
Calling republican voters “deplorables” broke a major rule of American elections: you don’t attack the voters.
American elections have gotten heated before. And, candidates are welcome to be as nasty to each other as they want. Being insulting may not win them votes. But most voters don’t take it personally.
But people tend to take being called “deplorable” personally. And not all of Hillary’s supporters were ardent enough to carry around Hillary signs at her rallies. Attacking voters that way probably cost her some democratic votes, too.
Hillary Clinton seemed to have forgotten that convincing people to vote for you—especially those who need the most convincing—is how you win elections.
However, Hillary Clinton didn’t just sink her own ship in the 2016 election. She also put the democratic party behind the eight ball in 2020.
Rather than being the party that doesn’t like the republican party in 2020, Hillary set the democrats up as the party that doesn’t like the voters in 2020. And, they appear to be doubling down on insulting voters in 2020.
That’s a tough spot to be in just months before the ballots are cast.

The democrats don’t have a good candidate

When Trump was elected in 2016, the attitude of democrats seemed to be that sure, Trump won this one. But he’s so terrible that the 2020 election will be a slam dunk.
It hasn’t worked out that way.
Almost all of the current democratic candidates are running on a dangerously primitive platform: not being Trump. The recent democratic debates have sounded a lot like several people arguing about who’s less like Trump.
“Trump is very bad. And I’m not Trump” is a bad political value proposition. But that seems to be the only one that’s going around in the democratic party right now.
A lack of strong candidates means that the democratic party has to work overtime to make Trump look bad before November.

There’s no objective evidence that Trump has done a bad job

Whether or not you like Trump’s attitude, there’s not much hard evidence that he’s messed things up as bad as the democrats would like people to believe.
The economy is doing well right now. The country hasn’t devolved into white nationalism. There’s just not a lot to blame on Trump, regardless of how badly the democrats want to blame him for things.
They can’t trot out any stats or charts to demonstrate why Trump has ruined everything. So all they can do is target Trump himself.

The democrats don’t have any good solutions

Even though things are good right now, there are still problems to solve.
Over 7 million manufacturing jobs have been lost to automation. Removing the individual mandate penalty from the Affordable Care Act is a step in the right direction. But it’s not an ultimate solution.
The democrats haven’t offered good solutions to the present day issues. Furthermore, we had a democratic president for eight years before Trump was elected. The American people may not all be historians. But our memories are good enough to remember that democratic policies were responsible for at least a few of the issues we’re dealing with now.
Since it was their policies that caused some of the issues in the first place, the democrats are stuck focusing on Trump because nobody wants their plan to try the same things that didn’t work before.

The democrats haven’t done anything during Trump’s presidency

Even though Trump has been president, the democrats still had their chances. They won control of the house.
Then they squandered all their time on investigating Trump and pushing the impeachment through. And when it comes down to it, even democratic voters don’t really care if Trump is impeached, when compared to how much they care about the cost of prescription drugs and the quality of the roads they drive on every day.
The democrats had an opportunity to do things that might have put them in a better position to defeat Trump in 2020. But, instead they focused all their energy on something that doesn’t even matter that much to their voters, much less to Trump voters.
Now, they’re obsessing over Trump and focusing on the impeachment because that’s really the only thing they’ve done.

Democratic candidates don’t seem to care about the working class

When questioned about whether or not he would be willing to sacrifice blue collar jobs for clean energy, Joe Biden said, “Yes.”
Other democratic candidates seem similarly dedicated to causes like clean energy.
Now, it’s not that clean energy in itself is bad. But demonstrating that you care more about windmills than the livelihoods of a lot of people isn’t smart, especially when you need a lot of people to vote for you.
The democrats ran into a similar problem in 2016. Hillary Clinton just didn’t connect with the working class. And she didn’t seem to care. So it’s even worse for democrats to act like they don’t care about that in 2020. It really makes it seem like they didn’t learn from the last election.
That brings us to our last point.

Trump legitimately won the 2016 election

This might seem like old news. But there’s a reason this matters.
After the election, the democrats invested a ton of resources into trying to prove that Trump stole the 2016 election. But none of it panned out. It just ate up a lot of time that the democrats could have spent improving their prospects for the 2020 election.
As such, the democrats haven’t made much effort to win back the key states that they lost in the 2016 election.
The democratic party in 2020 is in almost the same position as they were before the 2016 election. Their position might even be worse this time around. And the democrats are quickly running out of time to turn things around in those battleground states.

What does all this obsession with Trump mean?

In short, it means that the democrats are in trouble, and they know it. But they don’t have a whole lot of options left.
They spent so much time trying to demonize and oust Trump, that they have very few moves left, other than to double down on the impeachment, which is pretty much a dead end, considering that the republicans control the senate.
Is a Trump victory in 2020 guaranteed? Of course not. Nothing is guaranteed. But right now the democrats certainly need to play catch-up. And obsessing over Trump is a bad way to do that.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Constitution Radio: What's At Stake

Constitution Radio    
with Douglas V. Gibbs 


Get the phone app ... make your smart phone smarter!

1-3 pm Pacific Time on Saturday Afternoon ... or if you miss the show, listen later to the archived podcast at 

Call in at
951-922-3532.

  • Pelosi's Orchestrated Political Coup
    • Pre-planned ripping in half of State of the Union Speech
    • Fake offered hand-shake a planned snub
  • President Trump
    • Acquitted
    • "We were abused by the FISA Process
  • Bernie Sanders
    • Admits addressing Man-Made Climate Change Hoax will result in job loss ... "Yes, there will be some job loss, I acknowledge that."
    • Sanders Democrat leader in miles using private jet ... hypocrisy?
  • Biden: 4th Place, only non-hardcore socialist on Democrat Stage
  • Bloomberg: Paying his way into presidency while hammering on the wealthy and paying social media influencers to click "like" on his social media pages
  • Buttigieg
    • Campaign caught inserting audience applause into CNN Town Hall Clip
    • Says there's no evidence that killing Soleimani made America safer
  • Iowa Caucus still a mess ... Dems can't even count a few thousand votes, and they want to run the country?
  • James Carville: "Democrats are losing their damn minds."
  • Socialism: Policies that historically destroy lives and destroy nations -- Tammy Bruce on the Sean Hannity Show
  • Joy Behar: "I'm crazy today, he's made me crazy this week, because he's winning I'm getting nuttier and nuttier."
  • Chaos on The View: Meghan McCain shoots back when Whoopi Goldberg compares Mitt Romney to John McCain.  Meghan regarding Romney?  "He is nothing."
  • Sondland and Vindman excused
  • New Hampshire: Boring snooze-fest included challenges to Buttegieg's experience, race and reparations, and a full embrace of socialism.
  • Trump Administration raises $100 million during impeachment
  • Trump's policies lead to U.S. adding 225,000 jobs in January, blowing away all predictions, dropping unemployment rate to 3.5% record low.
  • In China, journalists covering coronavirus are disapearing

Thursday, February 06, 2020

The Acquitted President

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

"Tearing up his falsehoods was appropriate," said Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi in reference to her tearing up Trump's speech at the conclusion of the State of the Union.  "I feel very liberated."

She also criticized President Trump having a list of guests at the State of the Union Speech, which surprised me, considering her praise for Obama doing the same.

And, of course there was her repeat of "He is impeached forever."

On Wednesday, the day after President Trump's State of the Union Speech, the U.S. Senate voted to acquit the President of the charges the House indicted him with through impeachment.

Senator Mitt Romney, who voted against the President, was defended by Pelosi.  The Republican Party has largely criticized the Utah Senator.

While Pelosi and the Democrats are claiming Trump is shredding the Constitution in his conduct, the reality is we have not had a President that acts as closely in accordance with the Constitution like President Trump since President Calvin Coolidge a hundred years ago.  He has eliminated unconstitutional, and damaging, regulations, worked to remove us from wars he considers to be unnecessary foreign entanglements, pushed to enforce our immigration laws (which, according to Article I, Section 8 and Article I, Section 9 are a federal authority), and is presiding over the best economy we've had in our lifetimes. 

Pelosi claims Trump "did not inherit a mess, he inherited momentum."

During the State of the Union speech President Trump also awarded radio host Rush Limbaugh with the National Medal of Freedom, and then later the Republicans in the chamber began to chant "four more years."  Pelosi called the chant inappropriate, and criticized Trump for giving Limbaugh his award in the House Chamber, that he should do his business in his own office.

We must remember that in the beginning, Pelosi resisted impeachment.  Then, against her original instinct, she gave in and went ahead with it, giving in to the radical socialist crazies of her party.  Now, she is forced to own it.  She is forced to double down.  She doesn't dare admit she screwed up.  And in the end, all of this is blowing up in the Democrat Party's face.  President Trump has never been more popular.

In a speech to the country this morning, President Trump was quick to point out that the whole party has been through a lot.  "It never really stopped ... it was evil ... it should never ever happen to another President."

He explained how such attacks can get out of control very quickly, "we caught them in the act," and he said that if he had not fired James Comey when he did he may not still be President of the United States at this point.  Despite the attacks, he touted how much his administration has accomplished.  "We've done more than any administration in the first few years."

He said that the economy and the strong stock market is "our credit."  He said that the power of the United States is unique.  There is nothing like it anywhere else in the world.

Trump called the speech he gave this morning a "celebration."  He explained that he'd done nothing wrong, and he held up a copy of the Washington Post with the headline "Trump acquitted."  "This is the result," he said.  "Only good headline I've ever had in the Washington Post."

The President called his team, and supporters, "warriors."  They survived the "Russia, Russia, Russia" lie, the Mueller Report, and a nasty campaign.  "We thought after the campaign it would stop.  It didn't stop."  He called it corruption, and that the FISA Court should be ashamed of itself.

In the end, however, Trump won.  "They knew we were totally innocent, but kept it going ... they wanted to inflict political pain on somebody that had just won an election ... Hillary Clinton and the DNC paid for, millions of dollars for the fake dossier."

He thanked his legal team, had them stand up, and they did so amidst plenty of applause.

Trump called Representative Schiff a "screenwriter," and added, "fortunately we had transcripts ... accurate transcripts ... professional transcribers."

The President then praised Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell, adding, "You did a fantastic job."

He noted they are up to 191 judges appointed (in addition to two Supreme Court judges), and Trump praised Senator McConnell for that number.

Trump commented about the good prayer breakfast earlier in the morning, made a few quips about Pelosi, and then thanked a list of Senators and other supporters.

When thanking Utah Senator Mike Lee, President Trump threw a few verbal jabs at Mitt Romney, telling Lee to apologize to Utah for him, and that Mike Lee is the most popular Senator in Utah.

President Trump commented about how so much could have been done had the Democrats worked with him rather than attacking him with impeachment.  Now, not only has he been acquitted, but he predicted that Congressman Kevin McCarthy will be the next Speaker of the House.

When introducing his Cabinet, he commented, "today is the day to celebrate these great warriors."

He stated the Republican Party is now stronger than ever before, including even the days of "Abe Lincoln."  The GOP, he said, is doing a great job.

"We have a great group of warriors ... very talented people ... I want to apologize to my family for having gone through a phony rotten deal."

Representative Meadows, at the end, added, "We've got your back."

Then, the President exited the room with his wife, First Lady Melania Trump.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Tuesday, February 04, 2020

Corona Constitution Class: Federal Supremacy

Corona Constitution Class
Tuesdays, 6:00 pm
CARSTAR/ALLSTAR Collision
522 Railroad Street
Corona, CA

Constitution Class Handout
Instructor: Douglas V. Gibbs
 
 
 
Lesson 11
 
Debt and Supremacy
 
            Prior Debt
 
Article VI begins with "All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation."
 
The first clause of Article VI legally transfers all debts and engagements under the Articles of Confederation into the new government. This is not only the debts and engagements by the United States Government under the Articles of Confederation, but also includes all debts of each of the several States. After ratification of the Constitution, each and every State would be debt free, and all debt would be held by the federal government. This condition, according to the Constitution, would be the last time the States would legally be in debt. In Article I, Section 10, the Constitution forbids the States from issuing bills of credit.
 
Alexander Hamilton, the first Treasury Secretary, suggested that the United States should remain in perpetual debt. Maintaining a perpetual debt, he explained, would be a mechanism that could assist in holding together the union, since States would be unlikely to secede when they are responsible for a part of the national debt.
 
Thomas Jefferson disagreed with Hamilton. He recognized the necessity to maintain the ability to borrow, and the need for credit, but found a national debt to be a potentially dangerous proposition.
 
"Though much an enemy to the system of borrowing, yet I feel strongly the necessity of preserving the power to borrow. Without this, we might be overwhelmed by another nation, merely by the force of its credit." -- Thomas Jefferson to the Commissioners of the Treasury, 1788.
 
"I am anxious about everything which may affect our credit. My wish would be, to possess it in the highest degree, but to use it little. Were we without credit, we might be crushed by a nation of much inferior resources, but possessing higher credit." -- Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1788.
 
"Though I am an enemy to the using our credit but under absolute necessity, yet the possessing a good credit I consider as indispensable in the present system of carrying on war. The existence of a nation having no credit is always precarious." -- Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1788.
 
"I wish it were possible to obtain a single amendment to our Constitution. I would be willing to depend on that alone for the reduction of the administration of our government; I mean an additional article taking from the Federal Government the power of borrowing. I now deny their power of making paper money or anything else a legal tender. I know that to pay all proper expenses within the year would, in case of war, be hard on us. But not so hard as ten wars instead of one. For wars could be reduced in that proportion; besides that the State governments would be free to lend their credit in borrowing quotas." -- Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1798.
 
"I sincerely believe... that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity under the name of funding is but swindling futurity on a large scale." -- Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816.
 
"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks...will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.... The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs." -- Thomas Jefferson in the debate over the Re-charter of the Bank Bill (1809)
 
"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies." -- Thomas Jefferson
 
"... The modern theory of the perpetuation of debt has drenched the earth with blood, and crushed its inhabitants under burdens ever accumulating." -- Thomas Jefferson
 
 
 
            The Supremacy Clause
 
Article VI, Clause 2: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
 
Perhaps one of the most misunderstood and misapplied clauses of the U.S. Constitution, the Supremacy Clause has been used in line with the concept of Federal Supremacy. Federal Supremacy is a concept our first Chief Justice, John Jay, believed in. During his stint on the Supreme Court Jay worked feverously to establish broader powers for the courts, and to transform the federal government into a national government. He quit the Supreme Court after failing, pursuing an opportunity to be governor of New York.
 
Chief Justice John Marshall spent his 36 years on the Supreme Court attempting to establish, and expand federal supremacy, and largely succeeded. Marshall is embraced by statists as the one to develop federal supremacy in his opinion of the Mcculloch v. Maryland case in 1819 where the Court invalidated a Maryland law that taxed all banks in the State, including a branch of Alexander Hamilton's creation, the national Bank of the United States. Marshall held that although none of the enumerated powers of Congress explicitly authorized the incorporation of the national bank, the Necessary and Proper Clause provided the basis for Congress's action. Marshall concluded that "the government of the Union, though limited in its power, is supreme within its sphere of action."
 
During the 1930s, under Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the Court invoked the Supremacy Clause to give the federal government broader national power. The federal government cannot involuntarily be subjected to the laws of any state, they proclaimed, and is therefore supreme in all laws and actions.
 
The legally, and commonly, accepted definition, as a result of the courts and the persistence of, regarding the Supremacy Clause, is that all federal laws supersede all State laws.
 
The commonly understood definition of the Supremacy Clause is in error. To understand the true meaning of this clause, one must pay close attention to the language used.
 
If the federal government has a law on the books, and the law was made under the authorities granted by the States in the United States Constitution, and a state, or city, passes a law that contradicts that constitutional federal law, the federal government's law is supreme based on The Supremacy Clause. However, if the federal law is unconstitutional because it was made outside constitutional authority, it is an illegal law, and therefore is not supreme over similar State laws.
 
An example of the federal government acting upon the assumption that all federal law is supreme over State law is when the medical marijuana laws emerged in California in 1996 after the passage of Proposition 215. Though I do not necessarily agree with the legalization of the casual recreational use of marijuana, and believe "weed" should be heavily regulated like any other pharmaceutical drug if being used for medicinal purposes, the actual constitutional legality of the issue illustrates my point quite well.
 
California's law legalizing marijuana for medicinal purposes was contrary to all federal law that identified marijuana as being illegal in all applications. Using the commonly accepted authority of the federal government based on their definition of the Supremacy Clause, federal agents began raiding and shutting down medical marijuana labs in California. However, there is no place in the U.S. Constitution that gives the federal government the authority to regulate drugs, nor has there been an amendment passed to grant that authority to the federal government. From a constitutional point of view, then, the raids on medical Marijuana labs in California were unconstitutional actions by the federal government.
 
The Supremacy Clause applies only to federal laws that are constitutionally authorized. Therefore, federal drug laws are unconstitutional. As a result, California's medical marijuana laws are constitutional because they are not contrary to any constitutionally authorized federal laws.
 
Language plays an important part in the Constitution, and The Supremacy Clause is no different. The clause indicates that State laws cannot be contrary to constitutionally authorized federal laws. For example, Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 states that it is the job of the U.S. Congress to establish an uniform rule of naturalization. The word "uniform" means that the rules for naturalization must apply to all immigrants, and to all states, in the same way. If a state was to then pass a law that granted citizenship through the naturalization process in a way not consistent with federal law, the State would be guilty of violating the Supremacy Clause.
 
In the case of Arizona's immigration law, S.B. 1070 in 2010, the argument by the federal government that Arizona's law is contrary to federal law was an erroneous argument. Assuming, for just a moment, that the federal government has complete authority over immigration (which is not true since immigration is one of those issues in which the federal government and the States have concurrent powers), Arizona's law would then need to be identical to federal law. And in most ways, the Arizona law was similar to federal immigration law. The only difference was that Arizona's law disallowed racial profiling.
 
The federal government's argument when the United States Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against the state of Arizona in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona on July 6, 2010, was that the law must be declared invalid because it interfered with the immigration regulations exclusively vested in the federal government. Therefore, a State cannot enforce immigrations laws if the federal government decides not to, nor can a State pass law regarding an issue that the federal government has sole authority over. In this way, Arizona was considered to be acting "contrary" to the federal government.
 
Article I, Section 9, Clause 1, and Article I, Section 10 in the final clause, provides that States hold concurrent authorities regarding immigration, and securing the border. Therefore, the federal government's argument that they held sole authority over the issue was in error.
 
Eric Holder, when he filed the lawsuit in the U.S. District Court also acted unconstitutionally because in Article III, Section 2, the Constitution states that all cases "in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction." Since the case was the United States v. Arizona, the case, constitutionally, could only be filed with the United States Supreme Court.
 
The language in Article VI, Clause 2 reveals clearly that only laws made under the authorities granted to the federal government have supremacy. Article VI, Clause 2 reads, "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
 
The clause establishes three things as being potentially the supreme law of the land. First, "This Constitution." Second, "Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof." And Third, all Treaties made, or which shall be made."
 
"This Constitution" is the supreme law of the land. Understanding that first part of the clause is easy.
 
The second one has a condition attached to it. "Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof."
 
In pursuance thereof? In pursuance of what?
 
Of "This Constitution."
 
Therefore, if a law is not made "in pursuance" of "This Constitution," then the law is an illegal law, and cannot possibly be the supreme law of the land. Unconstitutional laws are not the supreme law of the land, which reveals that all federal laws are not the supreme law of the land. Illegal law made outside the authorities granted by the Constitution of the United States cannot legally be the supreme law of the land.
 
After "pursuance thereof" in the clause, a semicolon is used. The semicolon separates "Treaties" from the "Laws of the United States." The separation by the semicolon means that "in pursuance thereof" applies to "Laws of the United States," but not to "Treaties." This means that treaties not in line with the principles of the Constitution can be accepted as the supreme law of the land.
 
The concern over treaties was not great, because the Senate was the voice of the States, and the States are the final arbiters of the Constitution. If the States are willing to ratify what would be considered an unconstitutional treaty, they must be given the chance. Therefore, "in pursuance thereof" does not apply to treaties.
 
The importance of this part of the Supremacy Clause revealed itself during Jefferson's Louisiana Purchase in 1803. As discussed in Article I, Section 8, Clause 17, the federal government does not have the authority to buy or own land unless it is purchased from a State, by the consent of the State legislature, for the purpose of needful buildings. The details of the Louisiana Purchase did not fit Article I, Section 8, Clause 17's requirement. To get around that, President Thomas Jefferson negotiated the Louisiana Purchase with France through treaties. Since treaties were ratified by the States through the Senate, it kept the States involved in the process, and made the purchase the law of the land even though technically it was not constitutional.
 
            Oath or Affirmation to Support This Constitution
 
Article VI, Clause 3 indicates that all elected officials are bound to support the Constitution by oath or affirmation. An oath is to God, and an affirmation is not a sworn oath to God. This was offered because the Founding Fathers recognized that not everyone believed in God, and that there were some religions that believed swearing to God to be a sin.
 
The final clause of Article VI also states that there shall be no religious test to serve. This was not the case inside the States. This was a provision only required of the federal government. At the State level, established churches, and religious tests were the norm. The Danbury Baptists in Connecticut appealed to President Jefferson because they felt they were being mistreated by the Puritans. The Baptists felt they were being treated like second class citizens in a State dominated by the Puritan Church. Jefferson replied that the federal government could not help them. It was a State issue.
 
Alexis de Tocqueville observed when he visited the United Sates in the 1830s that religious freedom had truly come to The States. In America, the politicians prayed, and the pastors preached politics, yet neither controlled the other. He concluded America's greatness was a result of the good in America, coining the term American Exceptionalism.
 
Terms:
Concurrent Powers - Government powers shared by the State and the federal government.
 
Exceptionalism - The condition of being exceptional or unique; the theory or belief that something, especially a nation, does not conform to a pattern or norm.
 
National Bank - In the United States, a bank chartered by the federal government authorized to issue notes that serve as currency; a bank owned and administered by the government, as in some European countries.
 
Oath - A solemn sworn declaration, or promise, to a deity (God), to fulfill a pledge.
 
Supremacy Clause - Clause in the Constitution that indicates that all federal laws, and treaties, passed under the authorities granted by the Constitution, are the Supreme Law of the Land
 
Questions for Discussion:
1. What was the common opinion by the Founding Fathers regarding a perpetual national debt?
 
2. What limitations on national debt did the Framers of the United States Constitution consider?
 
3. It is a common belief in today's society that all federal laws are supreme to all State and municipal laws. Why is this belief wrong?
 
4. How does the Supremacy Clause enable Nullification?
 
5. Why does the Constitution offer the opportunity for both oaths, and affirmations?
 
Resources:
John Taylor, New Views of the Constitution of the United States; Washington City: By Way and Gideon
(1823)
 
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)
 
Sam Cornell, The Other Founders: Anti-Federalism and the
Dissenting Tradition in America, 1788-1828; Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press (1999)
 
Copyright: Douglas V. Gibbs, 2015