Monday, May 31, 2010

The Purpose of the U.S. Constitution Resonates in the First Amendment

By Douglas V. Gibbs

The Founding Fathers understood the danger of government, and that though a governmental system is necessary to secure order, government must be limited to the duties of protecting the rights and properties of the people.

The U.S. Constitution was written to give the federal government limited powers.

The U.S. Constitution was written in the manner it was also to protect the people from the government, not to protect the government from the people.

The concept of protection from government resonates clearly in the First Amendment.

The First Amendment reads:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The First Amendment, based on the rest of the Constitution, and the writings of the Founders, could very easily say: This amendment was written to protect religion from government, not to protect government from religion; to protect the freedom of speech from government, not to protect the government from free speech; to protect the freedom of the press from the government, not to protect the government from a free press; to protect the people's right to peaceably assemble from the government, not to protect the government from people peaceably assembling; and to protect the people from the government by allowing them to petition the government for a redress of grievances, not to protect the government from the people who wish to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The Second Amendment is the enforcement clause, written to ensure the government continues to fear the people, and abides by the rest of the Constitution.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Israeli Raid on Flotilla off Gaza Explained by Fox All-Stars

Explanation of the Israeli military raid on a ship carrying pro-Palestinian activists intent on breaking a blockade on the Gaza coast.

In short, Islamists were working to break a blockade that disallows weapons into Gaza. Israel was allowing humanitarian aid into Gaza, but this was not an attempt to bring humanitarian aid into the area, and Israel is now being accused of stopping a malicious effort by the Palestinians. U.N. lynch mob is uncalled for, and an anti-Israel reaction without considering all of the facts.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Psalm 23 - Memorial Day

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Some Gave All, All Gave Some

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Memorial Day - Please Remember Me

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Memorial Day - Arlington

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Memorial Day's True Meaning

Thank you for your gift of Freedom.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Sunday, May 30, 2010

If Heaven Was Needing A Hero

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Chris Christie and the Angry School Teacher

Once again Chris Christie shows he has a brass pair, and is willing to do the right thing to save the state of New Jersey. . .

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

A Measureless Peril on the Eve of Memorial Day

A Measureless Peril by Richard Snow on Political Pistachio Radio Revolution

Host: Douglas V. Gibbs

Date / Time: 5/30/2010 7:00 PM Pacific

Category: Politics Conservative

Call-in Number: (646) 652-2940

Inspired by the collection of letters that his father sent his mother from the destroyer escort he served aboard, Richard Snow brings to life the longest continuous battle in modern times. With its vibrant prose and fast-paced action, A Measureless Peril is an immensely satisfying account that belongs on the small shelf of the finest histories ever written about World War II. Of all the threats that faced this country in World War II, Winston Churchill said, just one really scared him - what he called the "measureless peril" of the German U-boat campaign. In that global conflagration, only one battle - the struggle for the Atlantic - lasted from the very first hours of the conflict to its final day.

Hitler knew that victory depended on controlling the sea-lanes where American food and fuel and weapons flowed to the Allies. At the start, U-boats patrolled a few miles off the eastern seaboard, savagely attacking scores of defenseless passenger ships and merchant vessels while hastily converted American cabin cruisers and fishing boats tried vainly to stop them. Before long, though, the United States was ramping up what would be the greatest production of naval vessels the world had ever known. Then the battle became a thrilling cat and mouse game between the quickly built U.S. war ships and the ever more cunning and lethal U-boats.

The accomplished historian and former editor-in-chief of American Heritage Richard Snow captures all the drama of the merciless contest at every level, from the doomed sailors on an American freighter defying a German cruiser, to the amazing Allied attempts to break the German naval codes, to Winston Churchill pressing President Roosevelt to join the war months before Pearl Harbor.

A Measureless Peril reads like a well researched documentary with a personal touch craftily inserted by the people that were actually there on the high seas of the embattled Atlantic. Like a cunning craftsman, Richard Snow presents the long battle against the German U-boats in dramatic form, full of detail and facts, while the personal side remains intact, to remind us that these were our fathers, brothers, and friends out there, facing the Nazi terror of ruthless U-boats, facing A Measureless Peril.

Richard Snow joins us tonight on the eve of Memorial Day to discuss this amazing book, and the battle for the Atlantic that spanned the entirety of World War II. Join the program live at 7:00 pm Pacific, or catch the archive later, at

WWII Memorial Wall Unveiling in Murrieta, California

Memorial Day
WWII Memorial Wall Unveiling – Monday, May 31, 2010

The City of Murrieta is to honor and pay tribute to those courageous men and women
who served in World War II. Please join us with the rest of the area residents
to express our admiration and heartfelt gratitude to them
for their meaningful contributions to this great Nation, our State,
and their own proud community when we unveil and dedicate
the first phase of the Murrieta Veterans Memorial.
We invite you to join us on Monday, May 31 at 10 a.m.
at Murrieta’s Town Square Park near the Police Department Headquarters
for this special ceremony.
This event is open to the public and all veterans,
but will be held specifically to honor veterans of World War II.
Murrieta Veterans Memorial • One Town Square, 24601 Jefferson Ave.,
Murrieta CA 92562

Finally, A Sensible Look At Bailouts

By Kevin J. Price

Political economy is one of my passions.  As a radio host and syndicated columnist I get several free books a month.  They are usually unsolicited and not of much interest, every once in a while I get one that is worth reading and spreading the word on.  "Too Big to Save?" by Robert Pozen is just such an example.  The book's subtitle is "How to Fix the US Financial System" and it offers an agenda to do that and so much more.  It offers sanity in an industry that has lost its moral compass and he provides direction going forward.  His book is filled with some important facts that cannot help but wake one up to the causes of our financial crisis and how to solve such problems in the future.

Pozen is a refreshing voice on the issues surrounding the bailout.  Most of the analysts of the subject have pure academic backgrounds or mere activist experiences.  The former cannot have any real idea how such things happen and the latter believes everything requires more government control in order to avoid some from making a profit.  Pozen has serious academic credentials.  He holds degrees from Harvard and Yale.  Furthermore, he is on the faculty of Harvard University.  What is more important is that he has an understanding of business and the financial system.  According to his website, he "is Chairman of MFS Investment Management®, which manages over $200 billion in assets for over five million investors worldwide. This represents an increase of 50% from the first half of 2004 when Bob was named to his current position." 

The book is filled with common sense arguments that are built on the idea of restoring the integrity of financial institutions, rather than promoting political agendas.  Furthermore, it points out several important factoids that are designed to simply make you think about where we are and how we got here.

 Up until 2008, no housing slump in any country had ever caused a worldwide financial crisis.

 Until mid-2008, the Federal Housing Administration offered loans that required just a 3 percent down payment. In spite of this low sum, many nonprofits sprung up (and funded by construction developers and home builders) to cover the cost.  It was a house of cards waiting to fall.

 The stock market crash became even worse after Congress authorized the Treasury to spend billions of dollars "resolving" the financial crisis.  Many rightly argue that the worse is yet to come.
Pozner's solutions to the problems surrounding the financial are refreshing and filled with common sense.  The crisis we have today is rooted in "geniuses" with political, social and even profit agendas rather than sound financial principles.  Pozner points to the better way:

 He argues for the restoration of loan securitization as a key to economic and housing recovery.  The reason housing had never been a source of major financial catastrophe in the past is the integrity in the process, like due diligence and monetary "skin in the game" that proves one to be a worthy candidate of a home loan.

 The federal government's efforts to buy "toxic assets" are not viable and poorly designed to meet goals.  A great example is the use of such for loan modifications.  To date, 80 percent of all homes that experienced a modification are again in foreclosure. 

 The federal government has been wild and indiscriminate in it recapitalization of financial institutions.  It has bailed out many large banks that did not want the assistance, over 500 small banks that are anything but "too big too fail," and many insurance and credit card companies without explanation.

 Far reaching legislative restrictions of executive compensation have clearly made the situation worse.  For example, limits on "golden parachutes" have generally increased the cost of most terminated packages.  Furthermore, in order to be competitive, companies forced to have strict limits on bonuses have, instead, dramatically increased base salaries.  This means the executives can enjoy higher rewards with lower performance.

Pozen's excellent book goes on to evaluate the potential restructuring of the financial industry, the importance of fair value accounting, and the huge downside government actions in the financial industry has had on taxpayers.  It is an excellent book and really "must reading" for anyone interested in serious answers to our current financial crisis.


Kevin Price
Host, Price of Business, M-F at 11 am on CNN 650 and CBS Radio
Frequently found on Strategy Room at
Syndicated columnist whose article appear at Reuters, Chicago Sun Times, USA Today, and other media.
His is ranked in the top 1 percent of all blogs by Technorati.
His articles also appear regularly at and,, and oth

Congress' Failed Budget. . . But Spending and Spending and Spending

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Immigration's Lawless Nature

By Douglas V. Gibbs

In 1992 a high speed chase roared through the streets of Temecula. The chase worked its way down residential streets, until the fleeing Chevrolet Suburban was heading for Temecula Valley High School. Before it was all over, four students, and one parent, had been killed, and the blame was pointed at the Border Patrol.

Along Interstate 15, near the San Diego/Riverside county line, sits a border patrol freeway checkpoint. After the accident in Temecula, the local legislators began to wonder about the worth of the station, and the dangers of having Border Patrol personnel patrolling our region.

Not once, however, did any of these folks stop and consider that perhaps the cause of the tragedy was not the Border Patrol's presence and willingness to enforce the law, but that the tragedy was the fault of the illegal aliens in the Chevrolet for being in the United States in the first place.

With a portion of local crime being committed by illegal aliens, and the threat of another 1992 Temecula tragedy happening, but this time in Murrieta, I believe it is of the utmost importance, and obligation to the safety of the residents of Murrieta, for the city to pass an ordinance similar to the Arizona immigration law that enables the local police to enforce federal immigration laws should reasonable suspicion of an already legally contacted person or persons suggest that their legal status is not in conformity with immigration laws.

It is clear that the federal government is not willing to enforce their own laws, nor pursue cities and states that thumb their noses at the U.S. Code and the Immigration and Naturalization Act by acting as sanctuaries for these law breakers. By enforcing immigration laws locally, we will encourage the illegal aliens to self-deport themselves from our region, and protect our local citizens from the criminal element that often accompanies illegal aliens.

When elected to the Murrieta City Council, I will make it a priority to pass legislation allowing our local police to enforce immigration law, should reasonable suspicion be present.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

The Liberal Tax Man Cometh

By Douglas V. Gibbs

I find it odd that government demands more than God requests.

I tithe ten percent, but lose much more to a government that can't even balance its books.

If private citizens treated their finances like the government, they'd be filing for bankruptcy, and would be arrested for illegal activities.

Even more odd is the fact that Barack Obama campaigned on the notion that he was going to somehow cut the taxes of 95% of Americans, while soaking the other 5%. That seemed to be quite a goal, considering that over 40% of Americans don't pay taxes because they are exempt, or because of tax credits.

Of course Barack Obama was lying. Liberals do that. Spending is their game, and finding sneaky ways to get more taxes out of people while calling the highway robbery something else is their aim. Then, after everyone is soaked through fines, fees, and taxes with not-so-taxing names, the Leftists stand up and say, "See? We only taxed those mean old rich people who make more money than they should be allowed to."

In a conversation I recently had with a local liberal, he swore up and down that Obama had kept his pledge, and has cut taxes. I tried to explain to the person that tax credits are not tax cuts, they are simply a prize for performing an action (or not performing an action, depending). Keep your books with expenses labeled carefully? Get a prize. Have a boat-load of kids while poor? Get a prize. Allow your misery to drop below the government labeled poverty standard? Get a prize. Work as little as possible so that you may remain under the line of failure dictated by the government? Get a prize.

"Well," he said to me, "Obama hasn't imposed any new taxes."

"Actually," I responded, "Yes he has. And interestingly enough, the poor are the ones paying them."

The most glaring example of Obama breaking his campaign promise to not raise taxes on the poor is the largest increase in tobacco taxes in the history of this nation, which took place recently under his watch, and under his guiding hand. The tax increase took effect despite Obama's promise not to raise taxes of any kind on families earning under $250,000 or individuals under $200,000. And the most interesting part about the tobacco tax is that this is one tax that disproportionately affects the poor, who are more likely to smoke than the rich.

Ahhh, but don't you worry, the liberal tax man is not finished yet.

With the kind of unprecedented spending we are seeing coming out of Washington these days, it was only a matter of time before the liberal Democrats realized they were going to need to find another source of revenue to feed their freedom-sucking spending habit, and they were going to need to find it soon.

Tax hike proposals have been appearing regularly, primarily posing as punitive taxation for your bad behaviors, or at least bad behaviors according to the standards of a few folks that think the government should have a say over what you eat, drink, and do. They have proposed taxing sugary drinks, and salt, as well as increasing taxes on gasoline and alcohol.

And guess what? Those are not items only used by the top 5% wage earners.

Now, I know what the leftist spokes-holes have been saying. They claim Obama's position on taxes was that he would not raise income or payroll taxes on families making less than $250,000. How convenient, that leaves him open to screw the public with all kinds of other taxes that are not "technically" income or payroll taxes.

One of those options, which will be the largest tax increase in the history of this nation, is the coming Value Added Tax.

The VAT exists in failed dominance in Europe. It is a tax similar to a national retail sales tax, but is collected at every stage of business production until its entire burden ultimately falls on the consumer.

As always, the dopes of government believe their problem stems from not enough revenue. That is what they think in California. In the Golden State, as California spirals rapidly towards bankruptcy, the Democrats and progressive Republicans claim that Proposition 13, the law that caps property taxes, is the reason for the state's economic troubles. After all, having the fourth highest property taxes in the nation is a hindrance to their spending. They wish us to be the highest in the nation, then, maybe, they can afford their spending habit a little more.

The Value Added Tax is said to be a quick fix for the deficit because of the rapid injection of revenue, while the tax is also an allegedly difficult tax to evade. However, the thought process on that is in error, for evidence from other countries that use the VAT suggests that not only is fraud rampant with the tax, but that the companies paying the tax will simply transfer the payment to the consumers in higher prices, and decreased quality.

In the long run, consumer spending drops, production is reduced, and with the VAT in place the amount of revenue actually decreases.

That is the case with any tax increase. The more you tax an activity, the less you get of that activity. Tax increases, be they attempts to control our behavior as consumers, or attempts to increase revenue, they are always a sure way to decrease revenue as the spending increases.

As proven by Presidents Harding, Coolidge, and Reagan, the sure fast way to increase revenue is to cut taxes across the board (yes, that means cutting the taxes of the rich too!). Then, if you decrease spending too, while eliminating the bulk of government intrusion into the business sector (that means eliminating much of the regulation in place), the economy will be vibrant and prosperous.

In other words, the current policies of the current administration are leading us towards a financial collapse that will be devastating should we continue down this path. Only cutting taxes, decreasing spending, and pulling the government out of the business of the private sector will truly create economic growth, and lead us in the direction of economic recovery.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Value-Added Tax: No Easy Fix for the Deficit - Heritage Foundation

Out of Money? Value-Added Tax Next Up - Heritage Foundation

PROMISES, PROMISES: Obama tax pledge up in smoke - Breitbart, Associated Press

If You Are Reading This. . .

. . . in honor of our heroes.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Saturday, May 29, 2010

Dennis Hopper Loses Battle With Cancer

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Dennis Hopper has passed away after a long battle with cancer. His death, coming shortly after the death of Art Linkletter, came at the age of 74.

Best known for his role in Easy Rider, a 1969 cult classic, Dennis Hopper was a Reagan Conservative, after a life as a hard left, near commie, liberal in the seventies. A gun-toting Republican, his conservative streak was interrupted when he voted for Obama, not because he liked the man's politics, but as a protest to the Republican ticket of McCain and Palin.

But then again, what would you expect from a man known for his unpredictability?

Rest in Peace, Mr. Hopper, your films gave us memories we will be able to revisit time and time again.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Constitutional Lawyer Fired For Speaking At A Tea Party Event!

Woman Fired for Speaking at Tea Party - Political Pistachio Radio Revolution

Willie Lawson joins us during the first half hour to discuss KrisAnne Hall, the Constitutional Lawyer fired because of her speech at a Tea Party event in Florida.

Then, in the second segment, we will discuss the fact that Obama will not attend the laying of the wreath at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, my own personal feelings about Memorial Day, and the whole reason why the U.S. Constitution was written in the first place. - Conservative News and Commentary

Join us live at 7:00 pm Pacific, or catch the archive later, at

Launching Memorial Day Weekend

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Friday afternoon a tanker exploded on the 91 Freeway, closing the freeway in both directions, and delaying folks from getting home for up to eight hours. The driver, originally believed to have been burned alive in the truck, is uninjured.

The 91 Freeway is one of the busiest freeways in the Southland, and the area of the freeway through Corona is where it gets most congested. Sure enough, a chain reaction accident near the 71 Freeway at Corona on the 91 Freeway led to the tanker truck overturning, and burning for hours. The incident occurred at about 10:30 AM, a time when I am normally on that freeway in my big rig returning from a trip to Los Angeles or Orange County.

My day usually begins between 2:30 and 3:30 in the morning, and I pull in front of my home in the evening at about 5:30 or 6:30 at night. With the Memorial Day weekend coming, however, it has been an uncharacteristically slow week, and when my mother called me on my cell phone at 11:30 in the morning to find out if I was stuck in the 91 Freeway traffic resulting from the tanker truck fire, I had already been home for two hours. She called because she was concerned, even though she knows I don't drive a tanker. It is funny, you know. Every time she hears on the news that a big rig crash has occurred, she calls me to make sure I am not the driver.

I appreciate Mom's concern, and always reassure her when she calls.

Though there was no fatality, the news of the explosion, and the freeway mess, was all over the local news. People are concerned when these things happen close to home, as well they should be. But I wonder why these same people that are so concerned about local tragedy don't take the care on the Memorial Day weekend to stop for just a moment, and give a moment of silence to the fallen heroes of our U.S. Military, past and present.

A bunch of folks, trying to be conversational, asked me what I have planned for the Memorial Day weekend. Some of them have camping trips, fishing trips, cookouts, and family gatherings planned, and all of those things are wonderful in themselves, and most folks deserve the long weekend. But not a one asked about the true reason for the weekend. Realizing this, each time I responded, "I will be visiting my Grandfather at Riverside National Cemetery to thank him for my liberty."

When it comes to politics, we are concerned over the direction of the country under Leftist leadership, and here in California the battle over illegal immigration is reaching an angry crescendo. The Democrats are threatening to subvert our Constitutional right to bear arms with an International Small Arms treaty as the states continue their fight to reject the unconstitutional mandates of the ill-conceived federal health care legislation. We are concerned about everything political, as we should be, but we rarely stop to realize why we have the right to talk about these things in the first place, without fear of the government coming to take us away for seditious activities.

This morning I, and a group of four others, spread out and visited over 300 homes in Murrieta to spread the word about my campaign for Murrieta City Council, and the campaign of other conservatives, in our local area. Most folks weren't home, probably off on some trip to the river, or to the mountains. I came across a few folks loading their motorcycles for a trip to the desert, and another pulling out of his driveway with surf boards firmly fastened to the top of the small sedan.

The long Memorial Day weekend offers many things for Californians to do, and by God, they are going to make sure they do them, despite the traffic mess on our freeways.

Once again, I wonder how many folks are going to stop long enough to consider the reason for the freedoms we have, and the reason for the long weekend upon us. How many folks will stop and give a moment of silence to honor the men and women who died so that we may have the freedoms to head out for the weekend, or speak freely, or practice our religion without reprisal. I wonder how many will attend their local National Cemetery to witness the ceremonies, or to visit a loved one that gave the ultimate price.

While President Obama will not be at the laying of the wreath at the tomb of the unknown soldier at Arlington Cemetery, an extraordinary decision considering we are currently a nation at war, it does not give us a reason to ignore the traditions of this nation, or to fail to give a silent prayer to our heroes.

Despite my busy schedule, and the bar-b-que I will be attending, I will take time to pray for our fallen, and to visit my grandfather who is laid to rest at the Riverside National Cemetery. He died only a few years ago, and fought in Europe during the harrowing years of World War II.

As a recipient of his sacrifice, I can at least give him, and the others, the courtesy of a moment of silence, a tear, and a thank you.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Traffic getting back to normal on 91 Freeway - Los Angeles Times

President Obama’s Memorial Day Vacation - The Heritage Foundation

America In Peril and the Revolution

By Douglas V. Gibbs

"What do we mean by the Revolution? The war? That was no part of the revolution; it was only an effect and consequence of it. The revolution was in the minds of the people, and this was effected from 1760 - 1775, in the course of fifteen years, before a drop of blood was shed at Lexington." - John Adams

The philosophical divide that splits political opinion is nothing new. The Federalists campaigned for a more centralized government as the majority of the Founding Fathers embraced the concept of limited government.

Government expansion is a disease, and once unleashed, only revolutions can turn back the political clock. These are times that are rapidly approaching such a possibility, when the populace feels the last drop of their liberty seep away as they fall under the iron fist of bondage carried out by an oppressive, centralized government regime. Our Founding Fathers fought against such tyranny, forging this nation with their blood, sacrificing everything so that they may bequeath to us a nation founded on liberty, American exceptionalism, and a free market economy.

The ideological rift between the principles of a limited government system, and the concept of an intrusive, powerful centralized government, has widened. Leftism has gained control of the White House, Senate, and House of Representatives, and is spreading the poison of socialist policies. The liberal agenda proposes there is little to admire about America, that our history is filled with the sins of liberty, and that without heavy government regulation and control we are a society that lacks compassion, morality, and the right to exist.

American Patriots have gathered against the storm of progressivism, exposing it to be the destructive virus that it is. Through the voices of these patriots capitalism is being defended, the free market is being held up as the solution for an ailing economy under leftist assault, and liberty is being championed as the remedy for oppression. These patriotic revolutionaries gather at parks and on the steps of governmental buildings to rally for American exceptionalism. They are called radicals and extremists by the supporters of oppression for daring to call for a return to the principles of the U.S. Constitution.

Despite the attacks, the Tea Partiers meet in churches, meeting halls and homes planning their demonstrations, and teaching all that may join them the concept of liberty, Americanism, and the principles of limited government.

History repeats itself. Over two hundred years ago the colonists that were unhappy with the oppression offered by the British Empire met in pubs, meeting halls, churches and homes to discuss the values of freedom, and the principles of liberty. The concept of a free, independent union of American states, guided by the Hand of the Lord, was born in those meetings. The American Revolution began in those places long before the first shot was fired in Lexington (consequently because the British Army was marching toward Concord to take our guns).

In January of 2009, leftism took control of the White House, completing their march towards domination of both the executive and legislative branches in the federal government. The arrogance of the Left got the best of them, it seems, because the subtle and stealth incremental changes to the American form of government ceased to be their strategy. The Democrats began an aggressive and unapologetic assault on America, pushing their socialistic agenda at break-neck speed.

Perhaps it was not arrogance that fueled the rapidity of their agenda implementation. Perhaps the speed in which the liberal Democrats unleashed their series of policies that grants enormous power to the federal government, and expands the federal government in an unconstitutional manner, had more to do with urgency.

I believe that despite the opinions of the media, and the labors of a radically progressive educational system, the Democrats in power realize this is a center-right nation, and that their days are numbered.

Americans recognize the exceptional nature of this nation, despite the Left's continued attacks that are designed to denigrate this nation. The average American may not understand the specific political components that make liberty and a capitalistic system work so well, but they do know that it is those things that have made the United States an exceptional nation, and without them the citizenry will be led into bondage under an authoritarian federal system.

When Barack Obama uttered the words that his goal was to bring "fundamental change" to this country, and when he told Joe the Plumber that he wanted to "spread the wealth around," the fact that the Democrats aimed to restructure the American economy into a socialistic model became glaringly clear. It was then that the foreign takeover of America became apparent.

Socialism is a foreign concept, born from the big government philosophies in Europe. No European nation has ever endeavored to put into place a constitutional republic as is the one in America. Europeans have always been ruled over by systems that ultimately places an elite few over the unrepresented many.

In an effort to make it appear as if the people have say in their government, the European nations have played around with parliamentary systems, and democracies. In a parliamentary system of government, however, the separation of powers are not as clearly defined, and the voice of the people is small. In a democracy, all things are thrown to a vote by the people, and the system becomes one of "mob rules" chasing the whims of a fooled populace manipulated by a smooth talking elite. As a result, democracies are transitional, ultimately leading to the bondage of an oligarchy.

What is forming in America under leftist leadership is something worse. Instead of listening to the voices of the people, or even trying to look like they are, the Democrats have labeled their opposition to be seditious domestic terrorists. Instead of respecting State Sovereignty, the Obama administration has called the States efforts "misguided," and "irresponsible." The Democrats are attempting to move America into a position of being "ruled over" by an authoritarian federal government that is not only a system that controls every facet of the citizen's lives, but then joins with an international community that desires to impose its will globally, placing Americans under the thumb of worldwide scrutiny and control.

Obama desires to take America into an international framework that cedes our sovereignty to international bodies, and transfers wealth to poorer nations. Obama and the Democrats envision a global utopia where government expansion is the cure for everything that ails this nation, and the world. They are trying to put into place a system similar to the one that is failing in Europe, and one similar to the one that has led to collapse and riots in Greece. But once America is transformed, they wish to make it a worldwide effort.

The Left's political ideology is a failed one, and one that will destroy this nation. Their effort to transform this nation has inspired patriots to gather in meeting halls, churches, pubs, and at rallies to stop the madness. The stirrings of protest that encourage a return to the principles of the U.S. Constitution have emerged. The Democrats are unable to downplay the extent of their radicalism, for they have been exposed by the rising revolution for what they are. Anger has invigorated the populace, encouraging them to go to the polls and vote out the tyranny, leading the patriots to cry out that it is time to take this country back from the disease of Leftism.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Friday, May 28, 2010

Obama's Memorial Day Weekend

Thanks Jenn. . .

Obama's Memorial Day Weekend

So let's see where we stand.

Country in financial ruin. Check.
Worst oil disaster in history of country. Check.
Census is multimillion (or billion) dollar disaster. Check.
Inflation inflating. Check.
Jobs in the tank. Check.
Oil prices rising. Check.
North Korea pissed and declaring war(again). Check.
Border free for all continuing. Check.
Country at war, soldiers still dying. Check.

So what does Obama decide to do?

Vacation, again. Golf some more. Hold a fundraiser with $17,000 ribs. And of course skip Arlington on MEMORIAL DAY.

Stand up guy that Barry Sotero.

"There was a lag of several weeks that shouldn't have happened." -Barack Obama 05/28/2010

National Security Expert Examines Tension on Korean Peninsula

Tensions on the Korea Peninsula has led to the two nations, North Korea and South Korea, to cut ties with each other. With headlines like "North Korea threatens naval action," "South Korea May Accept UN Censure for North, Easing China Fears," "N.Korea threatens to attack S.Korea ships," and "Tensions rise at the DMZ between North Korea and South Korea," it is no surprise that the world is taking careful consideration of the events happening in that part of the world. How does this conflict affect U.S. interests in the region? Could this be the precursor of bigger problems? How does this affect our current war against the radicalism of the Islamic Jihad? National Security expert John Wohlstetter joins us tonight to answer these questions, and more. To read John's writings, visit his site at Letters From The Capitol.

Join us tonight live, or catch the archive later, at

Profile of the American Troop

Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North at the NRA Annual Meetings in 2009 provided a stirring profile of the spirited, courageous guardians of our precious freedoms. North's tribute is awe inspiring. . .

That's what we do - We're Americans

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Democrats are Lost

Get Liberty

A Radical Solution to our Fiscal Crisis

By Kevin J. Price

I have been writing for decades, but I have probably used the word "crisis" more in the last two years in my articles than in all the other years combined. There is a reason for that, the use of such hyperbole gets old. I think such words should be used with restraint or they will eventually fall upon deaf ears. Unfortunately, any word short of "crisis" simply does not make the grade in the times we live in today. The government is doing more (poorly) and spending more (than ever) and it is bankrupting our futures and the futures of those who will not even be born for several generations to come.

Currently the national debt is now growing at a rate annually that originally took almost 200 years for our country to reach for the first time. We are a nation in financial ruin and we continue to spend as if money grew on trees. Desperate times call for desperate measures. It is time for Americans to seriously consider the damage that comes from mob rule.
According to the government's own statistics, less than half of all Americans even pay taxes. This is significant because we now have a country where the majority is lulled into sleep as the minority is essentially oppressed by those who have "no skin" in the political process. They have absolutely no problem with spending growing out of control because whatever they receive is with minimum burden on them.

Meanwhile USA Today reports that well over half of the population receives direct assistance of various types from the federal government. This includes perennial welfare moms and the super rich who enjoy government bailouts.

The terrible situation we are in begs for radical change. The Constitutional type. In the early days of the Republic, people had to be property owners and even taxpayers before they were allowed to vote. Furthermore, the federal government was very limited in what it could do. With only seventeen enumerated powers and those voting having a vested interest, frugal government was much easier to achieve and maintain.

The principles of frugal government can be found on the micro level. If a board of directors of an organization or business has a vote on an item that directly benefits one of those decision makers, that person is expected to abstain. It only makes sense. If that did not happen there would be cries of impropriety and would plant the seeds of financial ruin for any group or company.

The United States is going to have to take a similar approach to solve its financial problems. The classical economist john Stuart Mill advocated the bold proposition that, if people received any government assistance, they would have to turn in their right to vote until they were no longer on the government dole. This policy would apply to the mega rich, the very poor and everyone in between who were getting direct government assistance. People seem to be concerned about "influence peddling." They warn about lobbyists and political action committees throwing money at politicians in order to get their vote on key issues. Yet, influence peddling runs both ways -- it is a two sided coin. Politicians who want to get reelected make all sorts of promises of money, goods, or services in order to buy votes. If the voter became disenfranchised while on the government's budget, politicians would have to find other ways of getting our votes. Maybe they would boast about how frugal they are in the way they represent the voters. A radical approach to government? Maybe, but it seems to me it could be long overdue.

Kevin Price
Host, Price of Business, M-F at 11 am on CNN 650 and CBS Radio
Frequently found on Strategy Room at
Syndicated columnist whose article appear at Reuters, Chicago Sun Times, USA Today, and other media.
His is ranked in the top 1 percent of all blogs by Technorati.
His articles also appear regularly at and,, and others.

Thursday, May 27, 2010

Massachusetts on its way to Joining Arizona on Immigration Stance

By Douglas V. Gibbs

In pursuit of enforcing the law the Massachusetts Senate has passed a bill that is intended to crack down on illegal aliens as does Arizona's SB 1070. The Massachusetts endeavor also goes after businesses that hire illegal immigrants, toughening penalties. The Massachusetts bill also goes after the use of fake identification documents as well as in state college tuition for illegal immigrants.

Mass. Senate passes crackdown on illegal immigrants - Boston dot com

Constitution Study: The 2nd Amendment

The Constitution is the Solution
Constitution Study - May 27, 2010 from 6:00 pm to 7:00 pm.

Study Group Leader: Douglas V. Gibbs
@ Faith Armory, 27498 Enterprise Cir. W. #2, Temecula, CA

The 2nd Amendment and State Sovereignty

There are three arguments among Constitutionalists regarding the 2nd Amendment.

1. That the 2nd Amendment only applies to the federal government
2. That the 2nd Amendment applies to the states too, because of the 14th Amendment.
3. That the 2nd Amendment is a national security issue, so the states may not ban guns.

Tonight we will study the 2nd Amendment, and ask ourselves which of the above statements is the one that fits in best with the original intent of the Founding Fathers.

The evidence presented will be U.S. Code, Title 10, Subtitle A, Chapter 13, Section 311 Militia: Composition and Classes; The Militia Act of 1903 (a.k.a. the Dick Act); Federalist Papers No. 45, 41, and 23; History: Lexington and Concord; the 10th Amendment; Justice Clarence Thomas’ dissenting opinion as it relates to state sovereignty of the United States v. Graydon Earl Comstock, Jr., case; Article I, Section 1 of the United States Constitution; and the wording, punctuation, and use of capitalization in the 2nd Amendment.

Special Thanks to: Faith Armory, 27498 Enterprise Cir. W #2, Temecula, CA 92562
951-699-7500, - For providing us with a classroom to meet in.

And Clay Thibodeau for Congress - Boot Bono in the 45th District,, for donating pocket constitutions.,

The U.S. Militia

The Second Amendment’s call for a "well regulated militia" in light of our modern organized military leads one to search out what the definition of a militia is, and if the U.S. Militia still exists.

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." – The Second Amendment to Constitution of the United States.

Is it possible that the US either no longer has a militia, or that the National Guard now serves as the militia envisioned by the Founding Fathers?

Title 10 of the United States Code provides for both "organized" and "unorganized" civilian militias. While the organized militia is made up of members of the National Guard and Naval Militia, the unorganized militia is composed entirely of private individuals.
United States Code: Title 10 – Armed Forces
Subtitle A – General Military Law
Chapter 13 – The Militia
Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
Naval Militia.

Other than age, health, gender, or citizenship, there are no additional provisions for exemption from membership in the unorganized militia.

The United States civilian militia does legally exist.


The Militia Act of 1903 (32 Stat. 775), also known as the Dick Act, was initiated by United States Secretary of War Elihu Root following the Spanish–American War of 1898, after the war demonstrated weaknesses in the militia, and in the entire U.S. military. Studying the history around this legislation also brings to light many answers regarding the militia.


FEDERALIST No. 45 assists with the concept of State Sovereignty, and what the Constitution intended regarding State's rights. Remember, the Federalist Papers were written to convince New York to ratify the new Constitution. During the convention, the anti-federalist New York delegation walked out, determining that the U.S. Constitution gave the federal government too much power. The only New York delegate to remain was Federalist Alexander Hamilton, who, interestingly enough, believed the U.S. Constitution gave the federal government too few powers.

The Alleged Danger From the Powers of the Union to the State Governments Considered
For the Independent Fournal.

James Madison

To the People of the State of New York:

HAVING shown that no one of the powers transferred to the federal government is unnecessary or improper, the next question to be considered is, whether the whole mass of them will be dangerous to the portion of authority left in the several States.

The adversaries to the plan of the convention, instead of considering in the first place what degree of power was absolutely necessary for the purposes of the federal government, have exhausted themselves in a secondary inquiry into the possible consequences of the proposed degree of power to the governments of the particular States. But if the Union, as has been shown, be essential to the security of the people of America against foreign danger; if it be essential to their security against contentions and wars among the different States; if it be essential to guard them against those violent and oppressive factions which embitter the blessings of liberty, and against those military establishments which must gradually poison its very fountain; if, in a word, the Union be essential to the happiness of the people of America, is it not preposterous, to urge as an objection to a government, without which the objects of the Union cannot be attained, that such a government may derogate from the importance of the governments of the individual States? Was, then, the American Revolution effected, was the American Confederacy formed, was the precious blood of thousands spilt, and the hard-earned substance of millions lavished, not that the people of America should enjoy peace, liberty, and safety, but that the government of the individual States, that particular municipal establishments, might enjoy a certain extent of power, and be arrayed with certain dignities and attributes of sovereignty? We have heard of the impious doctrine in the Old World, that the people were made for kings, not kings for the people. Is the same doctrine to be revived in the New, in another shape that the solid happiness of the people is to be sacrificed to the views of political institutions of a different form? It is too early for politicians to presume on our forgetting that the public good, the real welfare of the great body of the people, is the supreme object to be pursued; and that no form of government whatever has any other value than as it may be fitted for the attainment of this object. Were the plan of the convention adverse to the public happiness, my voice would be, Reject the plan. Were the Union itself inconsistent with the public happiness, it would be, Abolish the Union. In like manner, as far as the sovereignty of the States cannot be reconciled to the happiness of the people, the voice of every good citizen must be, Let the former be sacrificed to the latter. How far the sacrifice is necessary, has been shown. How far the unsacrificed residue will be endangered, is the question before us.

Several important considerations have been touched in the course of these papers, which discountenance the supposition that the operation of the federal government will by degrees prove fatal to the State governments. The more I revolve the subject, the more fully I am persuaded that the balance is much more likely to be disturbed by the preponderancy of the last than of the first scale.

We have seen, in all the examples of ancient and modern confederacies, the strongest tendency continually betraying itself in the members, to despoil the general government of its authorities, with a very ineffectual capacity in the latter to defend itself against the encroachments. Although, in most of these examples, the system has been so dissimilar from that under consideration as greatly to weaken any inference concerning the latter from the fate of the former, yet, as the States will retain, under the proposed Constitution, a very extensive portion of active sovereignty, the inference ought not to be wholly disregarded. In the Achaean league it is probable that the federal head had a degree and species of power, which gave it a considerable likeness to the government framed by the convention. The Lycian Confederacy, as far as its principles and form are transmitted, must have borne a still greater analogy to it. Yet history does not inform us that either of them ever degenerated, or tended to degenerate, into one consolidated government. On the contrary, we know that the ruin of one of them proceeded from the incapacity of the federal authority to prevent the dissensions, and finally the disunion, of the subordinate authorities. These cases are the more worthy of our attention, as the external causes by which the component parts were pressed together were much more numerous and powerful than in our case; and consequently less powerful ligaments within would be sufficient to bind the members to the head, and to each other.

In the feudal system, we have seen a similar propensity exemplified. Notwithstanding the want of proper sympathy in every instance between the local sovereigns and the people, and the sympathy in some instances between the general sovereign and the latter, it usually happened that the local sovereigns prevailed in the rivalship for encroachments. Had no external dangers enforced internal harmony and subordination, and particularly, had the local sovereigns possessed the affections of the people, the great kingdoms in Europe would at this time consist of as many independent princes as there were formerly feudatory barons.

The State government will have the advantage of the Federal government, whether we compare them in respect to the immediate dependence of the one on the other; to the weight of personal influence which each side will possess; to the powers respectively vested in them; to the predilection and probable support of the people; to the disposition and faculty of resisting and frustrating the measures of each other.

The State governments may be regarded as constituent and essential parts of the federal government; whilst the latter is nowise essential to the operation or organization of the former. Without the intervention of the State legislatures, the President of the United States cannot be elected at all. They must in all cases have a great share in his appointment, and will, perhaps, in most cases, of themselves determine it. The Senate will be elected absolutely and exclusively by the State legislatures. Even the House of Representatives, though drawn immediately from the people, will be chosen very much under the influence of that class of men, whose influence over the people obtains for themselves an election into the State legislatures. Thus, each of the principal branches of the federal government will owe its existence more or less to the favor of the State governments, and must consequently feel a dependence, which is much more likely to beget a disposition too obsequious than too overbearing towards them. On the other side, the component parts of the State governments will in no instance be indebted for their appointment to the direct agency of the federal government, and very little, if at all, to the local influence of its members.

The number of individuals employed under the Constitution of the United States will be much smaller than the number employed under the particular States. There will consequently be less of personal influence on the side of the former than of the latter. The members of the legislative, executive, and judiciary departments of thirteen and more States, the justices of peace, officers of militia, ministerial officers of justice, with all the county, corporation, and town officers, for three millions and more of people, intermixed, and having particular acquaintance with every class and circle of people, must exceed, beyond all proportion, both in number and influence, those of every description who will be employed in the administration of the federal system. Compare the members of the three great departments of the thirteen States, excluding from the judiciary department the justices of peace, with the members of the corresponding departments of the single government of the Union; compare the militia officers of three millions of people with the military and marine officers of any establishment which is within the compass of probability, or, I may add, of possibility, and in this view alone, we may pronounce the advantage of the States to be decisive. If the federal government is to have collectors of revenue, the State governments will have theirs also. And as those of the former will be principally on the seacoast, and not very numerous, whilst those of the latter will be spread over the face of the country, and will be very numerous, the advantage in this view also lies on the same side. It is true, that the Confederacy is to possess, and may exercise, the power of collecting internal as well as external taxes throughout the States; but it is probable that this power will not be resorted to, except for supplemental purposes of revenue; that an option will then be given to the States to supply their quotas by previous collections of their own; and that the eventual collection, under the immediate authority of the Union, will generally be made by the officers, and according to the rules, appointed by the several States. Indeed it is extremely probable, that in other instances, particularly in the organization of the judicial power, the officers of the States will be clothed with the correspondent authority of the Union. Should it happen, however, that separate collectors of internal revenue should be appointed under the federal government, the influence of the whole number would not bear a comparison with that of the multitude of State officers in the opposite scale. Within every district to which a federal collector would be allotted, there would not be less than thirty or forty, or even more, officers of different descriptions, and many of them persons of character and weight, whose influence would lie on the side of the State.

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.

The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State governments, in times of peace and security. As the former periods will probably bear a small proportion to the latter, the State governments will here enjoy another advantage over the federal government. The more adequate, indeed, the federal powers may be rendered to the national defense, the less frequent will be those scenes of danger which might favor their ascendancy over the governments of the particular States.

If the new Constitution be examined with accuracy and candor, it will be found that the change which it proposes consists much less in the addition of NEW POWERS to the Union, than in the invigoration of its ORIGINAL POWERS. The regulation of commerce, it is true, is a new power; but that seems to be an addition which few oppose, and from which no apprehensions are entertained. The powers relating to war and peace, armies and fleets, treaties and finance, with the other more considerable powers, are all vested in the existing Congress by the articles of Confederation. The proposed change does not enlarge these powers; it only substitutes a more effectual mode of administering them. The change relating to taxation may be regarded as the most important; and yet the present Congress have as complete authority to REQUIRE of the States indefinite supplies of money for the common defense and general welfare, as the future Congress will have to require them of individual citizens; and the latter will be no more bound than the States themselves have been, to pay the quotas respectively taxed on them. Had the States complied punctually with the articles of Confederation, or could their compliance have been enforced by as peaceable means as may be used with success towards single persons, our past experience is very far from countenancing an opinion, that the State governments would have lost their constitutional powers, and have gradually undergone an entire consolidation. To maintain that such an event would have ensued, would be to say at once, that the existence of the State governments is incompatible with any system whatever that accomplishes the essental purposes of the Union.


Federalist papers numbers 41 and 23 show the importance of protecting the union, and the ideas behind establishing a military that was organized under a federal eye.


General View of the Powers Conferred by The Constitution

For the Independent Journal.

James Madison

To the People of the State of New York:

THE Constitution proposed by the convention may be considered under two general points of view. The FIRST relates to the sum or quantity of power which it vests in the government, including the restraints imposed on the States. The SECOND, to the particular structure of the government, and the distribution of this power among its several branches.
Under the FIRST view of the subject, two important questions arise: 1. Whether any part of the powers transferred to the general government be unnecessary or improper? 2. Whether the entire mass of them be dangerous to the portion of jurisdiction left in the several States?
Is the aggregate power of the general government greater than ought to have been vested in it? This is the FIRST question.

It cannot have escaped those who have attended with candor to the arguments employed against the extensive powers of the government, that the authors of them have very little considered how far these powers were necessary means of attaining a necessary end. They have chosen rather to dwell on the inconveniences which must be unavoidably blended with all political advantages; and on the possible abuses which must be incident to every power or trust, of which a beneficial use can be made. This method of handling the subject cannot impose on the good sense of the people of America. It may display the subtlety of the writer; it may open a boundless field for rhetoric and declamation; it may inflame the passions of the unthinking, and may confirm the prejudices of the misthinking: but cool and candid people will at once reflect, that the purest of human blessings must have a portion of alloy in them; that the choice must always be made, if not of the lesser evil, at least of the GREATER, not the PERFECT, good; and that in every political institution, a power to advance the public happiness involves a discretion which may be misapplied and abused. They will see, therefore, that in all cases where power is to be conferred, the point first to be decided is, whether such a power be necessary to the public good; as the next will be, in case of an affirmative decision, to guard as effectually as possible against a perversion of the power to the public detriment.

That we may form a correct judgment on this subject, it will be proper to review the several powers conferred on the government of the Union; and that this may be the more conveniently done they may be reduced into different classes as they relate to the following different objects: 1. Security against foreign danger; 2. Regulation of the intercourse with foreign nations; 3. Maintenance of harmony and proper intercourse among the States; 4. Certain miscellaneous objects of general utility; 5. Restraint of the States from certain injurious acts; 6. Provisions for giving due efficacy to all these powers.

The powers falling within the FIRST class are those of declaring war and granting letters of marque; of providing armies and fleets; of regulating and calling forth the militia; of levying and borrowing money.

Security against foreign danger is one of the primitive objects of civil society. It is an avowed and essential object of the American Union. The powers requisite for attaining it must be effectually confided to the federal councils.

Is the power of declaring war necessary? No man will answer this question in the negative. It would be superfluous, therefore, to enter into a proof of the affirmative. The existing Confederation establishes this power in the most ample form.

Is the power of raising armies and equipping fleets necessary? This is involved in the foregoing power. It is involved in the power of self-defense.

But was it necessary to give an INDEFINITE POWER of raising TROOPS, as well as providing fleets; and of maintaining both in PEACE, as well as in war?

The answer to these questions has been too far anticipated in another place to admit an extensive discussion of them in this place. The answer indeed seems to be so obvious and conclusive as scarcely to justify such a discussion in any place. With what color of propriety could the force necessary for defense be limited by those who cannot limit the force of offense? If a federal Constitution could chain the ambition or set bounds to the exertions of all other nations, then indeed might it prudently chain the discretion of its own government, and set bounds to the exertions for its own safety.

How could a readiness for war in time of peace be safely prohibited, unless we could prohibit, in like manner, the preparations and establishments of every hostile nation? The means of security can only be regulated by the means and the danger of attack. They will, in fact, be ever determined by these rules, and by no others. It is in vain to oppose constitutional barriers to the impulse of self-preservation. It is worse than in vain; because it plants in the Constitution itself necessary usurpations of power, every precedent of which is a germ of unnecessary and multiplied repetitions. If one nation maintains constantly a disciplined army, ready for the service of ambition or revenge, it obliges the most pacific nations who may be within the reach of its enterprises to take corresponding precautions. The fifteenth century was the unhappy epoch of military establishments in the time of peace. They were introduced by Charles VII. of France. All Europe has followed, or been forced into, the example. Had the example not been followed by other nations, all Europe must long ago have worn the chains of a universal monarch. Were every nation except France now to disband its peace establishments, the same event might follow. The veteran legions of Rome were an overmatch for the undisciplined valor of all other nations and rendered her the mistress of the world.

Not the less true is it, that the liberties of Rome proved the final victim to her military triumphs; and that the liberties of Europe, as far as they ever existed, have, with few exceptions, been the price of her military establishments. A standing force, therefore, is a dangerous, at the same time that it may be a necessary, provision. On the smallest scale it has its inconveniences. On an extensive scale its consequences may be fatal. On any scale it is an object of laudable circumspection and precaution. A wise nation will combine all these considerations; and, whilst it does not rashly preclude itself from any resource which may become essential to its safety, will exert all its prudence in diminishing both the necessity and the danger of resorting to one which may be inauspicious to its liberties.

The clearest marks of this prudence are stamped on the proposed Constitution. The Union itself, which it cements and secures, destroys every pretext for a military establishment which could be dangerous. America united, with a handful of troops, or without a single soldier, exhibits a more forbidding posture to foreign ambition than America disunited, with a hundred thousand veterans ready for combat. It was remarked, on a former occasion, that the want of this pretext had saved the liberties of one nation in Europe. Being rendered by her insular situation and her maritime resources impregnable to the armies of her neighbors, the rulers of Great Britain have never been able, by real or artificial dangers, to cheat the public into an extensive peace establishment. The distance of the United States from the powerful nations of the world gives them the same happy security. A dangerous establishment can never be necessary or plausible, so long as they continue a united people. But let it never, for a moment, be forgotten that they are indebted for this advantage to the Union alone. The moment of its dissolution will be the date of a new order of things. The fears of the weaker, or the ambition of the stronger States, or Confederacies, will set the same example in the New, as Charles VII. did in the Old World. The example will be followed here from the same motives which produced universal imitation there. Instead of deriving from our situation the precious advantage which Great Britain has derived from hers, the face of America will be but a copy of that of the continent of Europe. It will present liberty everywhere crushed between standing armies and perpetual taxes. The fortunes of disunited America will be even more disastrous than those of Europe. The sources of evil in the latter are confined to her own limits. No superior powers of another quarter of the globe intrigue among her rival nations, inflame their mutual animosities, and render them the instruments of foreign ambition, jealousy, and revenge. In America the miseries springing from her internal jealousies, contentions, and wars, would form a part only of her lot. A plentiful addition of evils would have their source in that relation in which Europe stands to this quarter of the earth, and which no other quarter of the earth bears to Europe. This picture of the consequences of disunion cannot be too highly colored, or too often exhibited. Every man who loves peace, every man who loves his country, every man who loves liberty, ought to have it ever before his eyes, that he may cherish in his heart a due attachment to the Union of America, and be able to set a due value on the means of preserving it. Next to the effectual establishment of the Union, the best possible precaution against danger from standing armies is a limitation of the term for which revenue may be appropriated to their support. This precaution the Constitution has prudently added. I will not repeat here the observations which I flatter myself have placed this subject in a just and satisfactory light. But it may not be improper to take notice of an argument against this part of the Constitution, which has been drawn from the policy and practice of Great Britain. It is said that the continuance of an army in that kingdom requires an annual vote of the legislature; whereas the American Constitution has lengthened this critical period to two years. This is the form in which the comparison is usually stated to the public: but is it a just form? Is it a fair comparison? Does the British Constitution restrain the parliamentary discretion to one year? Does the American impose on the Congress appropriations for two years? On the contrary, it cannot be unknown to the authors of the fallacy themselves, that the British Constitution fixes no limit whatever to the discretion of the legislature, and that the American ties down the legislature to two years, as the longest admissible term.
Had the argument from the British example been truly stated, it would have stood thus: The term for which supplies may be appropriated to the army establishment, though unlimited by the British Constitution, has nevertheless, in practice, been limited by parliamentary discretion to a single year. Now, if in Great Britain, where the House of Commons is elected for seven years; where so great a proportion of the members are elected by so small a proportion of the people; where the electors are so corrupted by the representatives, and the representatives so corrupted by the Crown, the representative body can possess a power to make appropriations to the army for an indefinite term, without desiring, or without daring, to extend the term beyond a single year, ought not suspicion herself to blush, in pretending that the representatives of the United States, elected FREELY by the WHOLE BODY of the people, every SECOND YEAR, cannot be safely intrusted with the discretion over such appropriations, expressly limited to the short period of TWO YEARS?

A bad cause seldom fails to betray itself. Of this truth, the management of the opposition to the federal government is an unvaried exemplification. But among all the blunders which have been committed, none is more striking than the attempt to enlist on that side the prudent jealousy entertained by the people, of standing armies. The attempt has awakened fully the public attention to that important subject; and has led to investigations which must terminate in a thorough and universal conviction, not only that the constitution has provided the most effectual guards against danger from that quarter, but that nothing short of a Constitution fully adequate to the national defense and the preservation of the Union, can save America from as many standing armies as it may be split into States or Confederacies, and from such a progressive augmentation, of these establishments in each, as will render them as burdensome to the properties and ominous to the liberties of the people, as any establishment that can become necessary, under a united and efficient government, must be tolerable to the former and safe to the latter.

The palpable necessity of the power to provide and maintain a navy has protected that part of the Constitution against a spirit of censure, which has spared few other parts. It must, indeed, be numbered among the greatest blessings of America, that as her Union will be the only source of her maritime strength, so this will be a principal source of her security against danger from abroad. In this respect our situation bears another likeness to the insular advantage of Great Britain. The batteries most capable of repelling foreign enterprises on our safety, are happily such as can never be turned by a perfidious government against our liberties.

The inhabitants of the Atlantic frontier are all of them deeply interested in this provision for naval protection, and if they have hitherto been suffered to sleep quietly in their beds; if their property has remained safe against the predatory spirit of licentious adventurers; if their maritime towns have not yet been compelled to ransom themselves from the terrors of a conflagration, by yielding to the exactions of daring and sudden invaders, these instances of good fortune are not to be ascribed to the capacity of the existing government for the protection of those from whom it claims allegiance, but to causes that are fugitive and fallacious. If we except perhaps Virginia and Maryland, which are peculiarly vulnerable on their eastern frontiers, no part of the Union ought to feel more anxiety on this subject than New York. Her seacoast is extensive. A very important district of the State is an island. The State itself is penetrated by a large navigable river for more than fifty leagues. The great emporium of its commerce, the great reservoir of its wealth, lies every moment at the mercy of events, and may almost be regarded as a hostage for ignominious compliances with the dictates of a foreign enemy, or even with the rapacious demands of pirates and barbarians. Should a war be the result of the precarious situation of European affairs, and all the unruly passions attending it be let loose on the ocean, our escape from insults and depredations, not only on that element, but every part of the other bordering on it, will be truly miraculous. In the present condition of America, the States more immediately exposed to these calamities have nothing to hope from the phantom of a general government which now exists; and if their single resources were equal to the task of fortifying themselves against the danger, the object to be protected would be almost consumed by the means of protecting them.

The power of regulating and calling forth the militia has been already sufficiently vindicated and explained.

The power of levying and borrowing money, being the sinew of that which is to be exerted in the national defense, is properly thrown into the same class with it. This power, also, has been examined already with much attention, and has, I trust, been clearly shown to be necessary, both in the extent and form given to it by the Constitution. I will address one additional reflection only to those who contend that the power ought to have been restrained to external taxation by which they mean, taxes on articles imported from other countries. It cannot be doubted that this will always be a valuable source of revenue; that for a considerable time it must be a principal source; that at this moment it is an essential one. But we may form very mistaken ideas on this subject, if we do not call to mind in our calculations, that the extent of revenue drawn from foreign commerce must vary with the variations, both in the extent and the kind of imports; and that these variations do not correspond with the progress of population, which must be the general measure of the public wants. As long as agriculture continues the sole field of labor, the importation of manufactures must increase as the consumers multiply. As soon as domestic manufactures are begun by the hands not called for by agriculture, the imported manufactures will decrease as the numbers of people increase. In a more remote stage, the imports may consist in a considerable part of raw materials, which will be wrought into articles for exportation, and will, therefore, require rather the encouragement of bounties, than to be loaded with discouraging duties. A system of government, meant for duration, ought to contemplate these revolutions, and be able to accommodate itself to them.

Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States," amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction.
Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare.
"But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter.

The objection here is the more extraordinary, as it appears that the language used by the convention is a copy from the articles of Confederation. The objects of the Union among the States, as described in article third, are "their common defense, security of their liberties, and mutual and general welfare. " The terms of article eighth are still more identical: "All charges of war and all other expenses that shall be incurred for the common defense or general welfare, and allowed by the United States in Congress, shall be defrayed out of a common treasury," etc. A similar language again occurs in article ninth. Construe either of these articles by the rules which would justify the construction put on the new Constitution, and they vest in the existing Congress a power to legislate in all cases whatsoever. But what would have been thought of that assembly, if, attaching themselves to these general expressions, and disregarding the specifications which ascertain and limit their import, they had exercised an unlimited power of providing for the common defense and general welfare? I appeal to the objectors themselves, whether they would in that case have employed the same reasoning in justification of Congress as they now make use of against the convention. How difficult it is for error to escape its own condemnation!



The Necessity of a Government as Energetic as the One Proposed to the Preservation of the Union

From the New York Packet.

Tuesday, December 18, 1787.

Alexander Hamilton

To the People of the State of New York:

THE necessity of a Constitution, at least equally energetic with the one proposed, to the preservation of the Union, is the point at the examination of which we are now arrived.
This inquiry will naturally divide itself into three branches the objects to be provided for by the federal government, the quantity of power necessary to the accomplishment of those objects, the persons upon whom that power ought to operate. Its distribution and organization will more properly claim our attention under the succeeding head.

The principal purposes to be answered by union are these the common defense of the members; the preservation of the public peace as well against internal convulsions as external attacks; the regulation of commerce with other nations and between the States; the superintendence of our intercourse, political and commercial, with foreign countries.

The authorities essential to the common defense are these: to raise armies; to build and equip fleets; to prescribe rules for the government of both; to direct their operations; to provide for their support. These powers ought to exist without limitation, BECAUSE IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO FORESEE OR DEFINE THE EXTENT AND VARIETY OF NATIONAL EXIGENCIES, OR THE CORRESPONDENT EXTENT AND VARIETY OF THE MEANS WHICH MAY BE NECESSARY TO SATISFY THEM. The circumstances that endanger the safety of nations are infinite, and for this reason no constitutional shackles can wisely be imposed on the power to which the care of it is committed. This power ought to be coextensive with all the possible combinations of such circumstances; and ought to be under the direction of the same councils which are appointed to preside over the common defense.

This is one of those truths which, to a correct and unprejudiced mind, carries its own evidence along with it; and may be obscured, but cannot be made plainer by argument or reasoning. It rests upon axioms as simple as they are universal; the MEANS ought to be proportioned to the END; the persons, from whose agency the attainment of any END is expected, ought to possess the MEANS by which it is to be attained.

Whether there ought to be a federal government intrusted with the care of the common defense, is a question in the first instance, open for discussion; but the moment it is decided in the affirmative, it will follow, that that government ought to be clothed with all the powers requisite to complete execution of its trust. And unless it can be shown that the circumstances which may affect the public safety are reducible within certain determinate limits; unless the contrary of this position can be fairly and rationally disputed, it must be admitted, as a necessary consequence, that there can be no limitation of that authority which is to provide for the defense and protection of the community, in any matter essential to its efficacy that is, in any matter essential to the FORMATION, DIRECTION, or SUPPORT of the NATIONAL FORCES.

Defective as the present Confederation has been proved to be, this principle appears to have been fully recognized by the framers of it; though they have not made proper or adequate provision for its exercise. Congress have an unlimited discretion to make requisitions of men and money; to govern the army and navy; to direct their operations. As their requisitions are made constitutionally binding upon the States, who are in fact under the most solemn obligations to furnish the supplies required of them, the intention evidently was that the United States should command whatever resources were by them judged requisite to the "common defense and general welfare." It was presumed that a sense of their true interests, and a regard to the dictates of good faith, would be found sufficient pledges for the punctual performance of the duty of the members to the federal head.

The experiment has, however, demonstrated that this expectation was ill-founded and illusory; and the observations, made under the last head, will, I imagine, have sufficed to convince the impartial and discerning, that there is an absolute necessity for an entire change in the first principles of the system; that if we are in earnest about giving the Union energy and duration, we must abandon the vain project of legislating upon the States in their collective capacities; we must extend the laws of the federal government to the individual citizens of America; we must discard the fallacious scheme of quotas and requisitions, as equally impracticable and unjust. The result from all this is that the Union ought to be invested with full power to levy troops; to build and equip fleets; and to raise the revenues which will be required for the formation and support of an army and navy, in the customary and ordinary modes practiced in other governments.

If the circumstances of our country are such as to demand a compound instead of a simple, a confederate instead of a sole, government, the essential point which will remain to be adjusted will be to discriminate the OBJECTS, as far as it can be done, which shall appertain to the different provinces or departments of power; allowing to each the most ample authority for fulfilling the objects committed to its charge. Shall the Union be constituted the guardian of the common safety? Are fleets and armies and revenues necessary to this purpose? The government of the Union must be empowered to pass all laws, and to make all regulations which have relation to them. The same must be the case in respect to commerce, and to every other matter to which its jurisdiction is permitted to extend. Is the administration of justice between the citizens of the same State the proper department of the local governments? These must possess all the authorities which are connected with this object, and with every other that may be allotted to their particular cognizance and direction. Not to confer in each case a degree of power commensurate to the end, would be to violate the most obvious rules of prudence and propriety, and improvidently to trust the great interests of the nation to hands which are disabled from managing them with vigor and success.

Who is likely to make suitable provisions for the public defense, as that body to which the guardianship of the public safety is confided; which, as the centre of information, will best understand the extent and urgency of the dangers that threaten; as the representative of the WHOLE, will feel itself most deeply interested in the preservation of every part; which, from the responsibility implied in the duty assigned to it, will be most sensibly impressed with the necessity of proper exertions; and which, by the extension of its authority throughout the States, can alone establish uniformity and concert in the plans and measures by which the common safety is to be secured? Is there not a manifest inconsistency in devolving upon the federal government the care of the general defense, and leaving in the State governments the EFFECTIVE powers by which it is to be provided for? Is not a want of co-operation the infallible consequence of such a system? And will not weakness, disorder, an undue distribution of the burdens and calamities of war, an unnecessary and intolerable increase of expense, be its natural and inevitable concomitants? Have we not had unequivocal experience of its effects in the course of the revolution which we have just accomplished?

Every view we may take of the subject, as candid inquirers after truth, will serve to convince us, that it is both unwise and dangerous to deny the federal government an unconfined authority, as to all those objects which are intrusted to its management. It will indeed deserve the most vigilant and careful attention of the people, to see that it be modeled in such a manner as to admit of its being safely vested with the requisite powers. If any plan which has been, or may be, offered to our consideration, should not, upon a dispassionate inspection, be found to answer this description, it ought to be rejected. A government, the constitution of which renders it unfit to be trusted with all the powers which a free people OUGHT TO DELEGATE TO ANY GOVERNMENT, would be an unsafe and improper depositary of the NATIONAL INTERESTS. Wherever THESE can with propriety be confided, the coincident powers may safely accompany them. This is the true result of all just reasoning upon the subject. And the adversaries of the plan promulgated by the convention ought to have confined themselves to showing, that the internal structure of the proposed government was such as to render it unworthy of the confidence of the people. They ought not to have wandered into inflammatory declamations and unmeaning cavils about the extent of the powers. The POWERS are not too extensive for the OBJECTS of federal administration, or, in other words, for the management of our NATIONAL INTERESTS; nor can any satisfactory argument be framed to show that they are chargeable with such an excess. If it be true, as has been insinuated by some of the writers on the other side, that the difficulty arises from the nature of the thing, and that the extent of the country will not permit us to form a government in which such ample powers can safely be reposed, it would prove that we ought to contract our views, and resort to the expedient of separate confederacies, which will move within more practicable spheres. For the absurdity must continually stare us in the face of confiding to a government the direction of the most essential national interests, without daring to trust it to the authorities which are indispensible to their proper and efficient management. Let us not attempt to reconcile contradictions, but firmly embrace a rational alternative.

I trust, however, that the impracticability of one general system cannot be shown. I am greatly mistaken, if any thing of weight has yet been advanced of this tendency; and I flatter myself, that the observations which have been made in the course of these papers have served to place the reverse of that position in as clear a light as any matter still in the womb of time and experience can be susceptible of. This, at all events, must be evident, that the very difficulty itself, drawn from the extent of the country, is the strongest argument in favor of an energetic government; for any other can certainly never preserve the Union of so large an empire. If we embrace the tenets of those who oppose the adoption of the proposed Constitution, as the standard of our political creed, we cannot fail to verify the gloomy doctrines which predict the impracticability of a national system pervading entire limits of the present Confederacy.


Note: although Alexander Hamilton was a Federalist, and supported a more centralized government, in his writings of the Federalist Papers he wrote in regards of the intention of the Constitutional Convention, rather than his own desires regarding the federal government.

Earlier this year, in 2010, Justice Clarence Thomas, in his dissenting opinion of the UNITED STATES, PETITIONER v. GRAYDON EARL COMSTOCK, JR., ET AL. case, wrote (entire opinion is not published here, only the parts that pertain to state sovereinty):

The Necessary and Proper Clause empowers Congress to enact only those laws that “carry into Execution” one or more of the federal powers enumerated in the Constitution. Art. I, §8, cl. 18. . . “As every schoolchild learns, our Constitution establishes a system of dual sovereignty between the States and the Federal Government.” Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U. S. 452, 457 (1991). In our system, the Federal Government’s powers are enumerated, and hence limited. See, e.g., McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 405 (1819) (“This government is acknowledged by all to be one of enumerated powers”). Thus, Congress has no power to act unless the Constitution authorizes it to do so. United States v. Morrison, 529 U. S. 598, 607 (2000)

Every law enacted by Congress must be based on one or more of its powers enumerated in the Constitution. The States, in turn, are free to exercise all powers that the Constitution does not withhold from them. Amdt. 10 (“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”). This constitutional structure establishes different default rules for Congress and the States: Congress’ powers are “few and defined,” while those that belong to the States “remain . . . numerous and indefinite.” The Federalist No. 45 (J. Madison).
“With this careful [written] last phrase, the [Tenth] Amendment avoids taking any position on the division of power between the state governments and the people of the States: It is up to the people of each Stateto determine which ‘reserved’ powers their state government may exercise.” U. S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U. S. 779, 848 (1995) (THOMAS, J., dissenting). 3 Cite as: 560 U. S. ____ (2010)

The Constitution plainly sets forth the “few and defined” powers that Congress may exercise. Article I “vest[s]” in Congress “[a]ll legislative Powers herein granted,” §1, and carefully enumerates those powers in §8. The final clause of §8, the Necessary and Proper Clause, authorizes Congress “[t]o make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.” Art. I, §8, cl. 18. As the Clause’s placement at the end of §8 indicates, the “foregoing Powers” are those granted to Congress in the preceding clauses of that section. The “other Powers” to which the Clause refers are those “vested” in Congress and the other branches by other specific provisions of the Constitution. . .


In addition to the presented evidence, one must also consider that the first shot of the American Revolution, specifically at Lexington, was the result of the British Army marching to Concord to take away the guns of the colonists.

One must also consider, when considering the 2nd Amendment, that the 10th Amendment is very careful to remind us that the Constitution was written with the federal government in mind, and that the federal authorities are few, but the state's rights are many.

When reading the 2nd Amendment, also take great care in recognizing the way it is written. Notice that the word "State" is capitalized, as is "Militia." Also note that the phrase "being necessary to the security of a free State" makes reference to the Founding Father's premise that governmental tyranny was the primary evil that people had to guard against. Bearing arms, and being free, goes hand in hand.

With the creation of a military under federal authority, the founders understood that before a standing army can rule should such a coup take place, the people must be disarmed. By enabling the whole body of the people to be armed, constituting a force superior to any bands of regular troops, the people are guaranteed to be able to guard against despotism should it rise. The real deterrent to governmental abuse is the armed population.

Even the final words being "shall not be infringed" carries significance.

With the evidence provided, and understanding state sovereignty, have you figured out which of the three arguments is in line with the Framer's original intent?

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary