Saturday, June 30, 2012

Every Once In A While Jon Stewart Nails It

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Hope for the Best, Plan for the Worst

By Douglas V. Gibbs

As November approaches there are many who have determined that if Obama is reelected the American experiment is over. If Romney wins, the American experiment will be over, just not as quickly.  If Obama wins the government will use force to implement its policies and there will be blood in the streets. If Obama loses the result will be called racist, and riots will break out, bringing blood to the streets. The two-party system is unsalvageable, and therefore must be eliminated. There is no saving the party system, no saving the GOP, and no saving America save for a bloody revolution.

I refuse to be a fatalist of such magnitude.

The slide towards destruction facilitated by progressives in both political parties has become a nearly insurmountable battle. Simultaneously, our moral character has been in steep decline as evidenced by the slaughter of the unborn, and the dismantling of the family unit through divorce, the liberal conditioning of our children, and disregard for the sanctity of marriage. The Supreme Court has told States they can't defend themselves inside their borders against an invading force of illegal aliens, Justice Roberts has told us that the federal government can mandate anything they want as long as it attaches a penalty and calls it a tax, Roberts also told us that we are a democracy, not a constitutional republic, so the rule of law no longer applies, only the vote at the ballot box. Mob rules. Majority wins.

I refuse to believe that there is no hope.

Islam perpetrated the stoning of Christians in Dearborn, Michigan and the police stood by and watched. Iran claims it has ballistic missiles that can reach every U.S. target in the Middle East. Europe is on the verge of economic collapse, and Christians are being slaughtered in the name of Muhammad worldwide.

I refuse to concede that the world is on the verge of collapse, or that tyranny will dominate our land.

I believe the Republican Party can be turned around, I believe that an evangelical revival may be upon us, I believe that Israel needs us now more than ever and we need to stand with her, and that the number of Muslims rejecting Islam and turning to Christ will continue to occur in record numbers.  We can turn this around. I am an optimist. In the end good will triumph.

However, I am also a realist, and my guns are loaded - just in case.

Only 3% of the population fought against the British in the American Revolution. The government may have bigger guns, but we have more of them.

God help us as we enter uncharted territory.


-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Ringing In My Ear

By Douglas V. Gibbs

My left ear rings 24/7, and it rings very loudly. The ringing began after a head trauma I suffered in 1985. At first the ringing drove me nuts. It literally was driving me to levels of insane I really had no intention of visiting. My neurologist indicated that the ringing was the result of nerve damage that could not be repaired, and for the kind of ringing in my ear there was no remedy. Medicines were tried, and failed. A surgery was tried, giving me a little of my hearing back (very little), but the ringing remained. Sometimes it was louder than other times, but it was always ringing, and it was always loud.

Faced with a problem I could not resolve, I realized this was one of those rare moments in life where I would just have to live with whatever was making me uncomfortable. I lived my life trying to figure out how to stop the ringing, or ignore it. I couldn't sleep, for the ringing kept me up at night. I had trouble working because the ringing made it hard to focus on my duties.

The ringing was especially loud when I remembered it was there, and thought about how much I hated that damn ringing in my ear.

One day I didn't hear it, until I realized I didn't hear it.

As long as I kept myself busy enough that I didn't have time to focus on the ringing, the ringing was gone. I was still there, but I learned to ignore it. My mind didn't have time to worry about the ringing when I kept it calculating, writing, working, and studying. I even went to bed cramming my brain with thoughts and ideas. Eventually, I learned to fall asleep that way, thinking about things.

Eventually, the ringing became nothing more than an occasional minor irritation.

The only time I really hear it now is when I acknowledge its existence. . . like right now.

Perhaps, in a sense, that is it. It only exists when I let it exist.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Today's Radio Schedule with Douglas V. Gibbs

With the Obamacare ruling by the Supreme Court a lot of people are wanting to talk to me. This includes Vince Daniels, whose radio program airs from 10:00 to 1:00 on KCAA 1050 AM in San Bernardino, CA. He has asked me to be a guest on his show during the final half hour of his program. Tune in Online at at 12:35 pm Pacific today.

Prior to joining Vince Daniels, I will be on American Daily Review from noon until 12:30 Pacific. JASmius and I use that program as a pregame show for Constitution Radio later in the day. Tune in to ADR at

At 2:00 pm Pacific my show, Constitution Radio with Douglas V. Gibbs will air live on KCAA.  The show is rebroadcast on KCXL Kansas City and WHTH Youngstown, Ohio later in the week. My guest will be John Wohlstetter, national security expert, and during the first half hour of the show he and I will discuss Syria and Egypt. Then, during the final half hour, JASmius will join me for the 5 Big Stories of the week. Included in those stories will be the Supreme Court's rulings on the Arizona Immigration Law, the Stolen Valor Act law, and Obamacare. Listen live at 2:00 pm Pacific on, or catch the archive later on the Podcast Page.

Finally, at 5:00 pm Pacific Loki and I will discuss the ramifications of these Supreme Court rulings, and what the Constitution has to say. Join us for Founding Truth at 5:00 pm Pacific on BlogTalkRadio's Halls of Valhalla Radio Network.

Email of the Week: Three Beautiful Children

I told her she had three beautiful children. She didn't have to get all pissed off and threaten me with a bomb, and everything. It was an honest mistake!

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Friday, June 29, 2012

Supreme Court Obamacare Ruling: Justice Roberts is No Hero

By Douglas V. Gibbs

After the Supreme Court ruling regarding the constitutionality of the health care law, America changed. The final remnants of the Constitution were burned, ripped, and stomped upon. The courts completed the transformation of America as Barack Obama said he envisioned way back during his presidential campaign in 2008. My phone did not quit ringing. People were shocked, and outraged. The calls and emails continually streamed in for two days.

Then, some conservatives who always try to see a silver lining, came up with an interesting theory. Perhaps Justice Roberts, who sided with the liberal crazies, is not a traitor after all. Perhaps he is using a back door to get America back on track. Perhaps his unexpected move is pure brilliance, and all we have to do is see it!

Yes, Roberts ruled that Obamacare was unconstitutional as based on the Commerce Clause, and the opinion by Roberts may have reduced to opportunity for misuse we see in relation to the Commerce Clause. He may very well understand that the Commerce Clause was not originally intended to be a skeleton key for statists to unlock every big government action they can get their hands on. (For more on the Commerce Clause, go to Understanding the Commerce Clause).

Roberts also indicated that the federal government does not have the authority to mandate as argued by the liberal left - but then added, unless the penalty is a tax.

We'll get back to that.

Finally, as argued by those wishing to lift Roberts on their shoulders, "he struck down as unconstitutional, the Obama-care idea that the federal government can bully states into complying by yanking their existing medicaid funding. Liberals, through Obama-care, basically said to the states — ‘comply with Obama-care or we will stop existing funding.’ Roberts ruled that is a no-no. If a state takes the money, fine, the Feds can tell the state how to run a program, but if the state refuses money, the federal government can’t penalize the state by yanking other funding. Therefore, a state can decline to participate in Obama-care without penalty."

That may be a doorway he opened for the States to nullify as constitutionally allowed, while protecting the States from retaliation from the federal government.

Some may also argue that Roberts created a scenario that would energize the people opposed to Obamacare. People that were on the fence about voting in November are now raring and ready to go. Folks that were not overly concerned by the law have now been educated in ways they may not have been otherwise, and will also vote in November to unseat Obama, and a large number of democrats in Congress.

Hallelujah. But at what price?

Ever hear the old saying, "Two wrongs don't make a right?"

For a moment let's visit just one of a myriad of unconstitutional actions by the federal government the other day when they ruled on the health care law.  Justice Roberts changed the law by saying it is not constitutional through the commerce clause, but in order to save the act Roberts altered the definition of the penalty, making it a tax. If it is a tax, he reasoned, and since Congress has the power to tax, that once again makes Obamacare constitutional.

By doing this, he modified the law. He altered the definition of "penalty" in the law to mean "tax."

Article I, Section 1, of the U.S. Constitution states that all legislative powers belong to the Congress. That would include the power to modify a law. (Learn more about this concept in my article: All Legislative Powers Are Granted to Congress)

Roberts, in his attempt to constitutionalize Obamacare, acted in a legislative manner, making his action an unconstitutional one.

By upholding the mandate, based on the assumption that the penalty is a tax and that makes it constitutional, Justice Roberts has actually opened up Pandora's Box. Even if the law is successfully repealed by President Romney (which requires Mitt to win the election, and for the Senate to do better than simply earn a republican majority) the precedent will exist in the minds of the establishment, and more importantly, the progressives. The government, according to these knuckleheads, will be be able to tell you all kinds of things you have to buy. . . as long as they attach a penalty, and call it a tax.

If Obamacare remains in force, the danger heightens. The law is the biggest behavior modification program in history. You will be required to act in a manner that is considered to be acceptable behavior by the federal government if you want your health care. They will be able to tell you what to eat in the name of saving the taxpayers from having to pay for the health care of some obese person, they will be able to tell you what activities to engage in the name of preventing injuries so the taxpayer doesn't have to pay for that either. They will be able to order you to exercise (and if you refuse to, will they attach a penalty and call it a tax?), because your good health is good for the country since now the taxpayer will be paying for Obamacare.

Whoa, whoa, whoa, Doug. Obama said you can keep your doctor, and your insurance, if you like it.

This system is not designed for you to keep your doctor, and your insurance. It is designed to steer us toward single payer. It is designed to destroy the private insurance industry, and replace it with socialized medicine. The fine for not having insurance is less than the cost of insurance. Employers, to save money, will opt out of providing health care benefits, and pay the fine. Employees, unable to afford health insurance, or the fine, will then be left with no choice but to settle for governmental programs. Eventually, as the fine rises, and the States programs diminish, everyone will be compelled to use the federal health care system, until we finally have single payer - opening the rest of Pandora's Box - which will end up giving the federal government full control over your lives, your decisions, and your activities, in the name of keeping the cost down for the taxpayers.

As for you freedoms in that system? Those are at the behest of the health secretary, where in the health care law it repeatedly gives that person unlimited power with a simple statement: "As the secretary shall determine."

A liberal commenter said this is the FDR effect. The people will grow to like Obamacare, and then the republicans won't be able to win an election without supporting it.

First of all, that is a dirty way to play politics, but yes, that is how liberalism works. Entitlements are not because they care so much. It is all about buying votes, and gaining power. It is their goal to eliminate all opposition, through the buying of votes.

Obamacare won't remain intact because the people like it as the liberal commenter predicts, though, if Obamacare remains in place. It will be because the people become imprisoned by it, and can't escape.

Is that really what you want in America?

Rush Limbaugh said that no there is no place to go. The courts have befuddled him. He doesn't understand that the very idea that a few men in black robes have the ability to determine the fate of a law that will affect over 300 million people is an unconstitutional proposition. (Read more about the unconstitutionality of judicial review)

Limbaugh is wrong. There is a place to go. The States can nullify the law by ignoring it, and refusing to implement it, and the States can hold an Article V. Convention (Read more about Article V. Conventions HERE) to propose amendments that can further limit the powers of the courts. The founders showed us that the courts can be further limited by amendment when they proposed and ratified the 11th Amendment. (Learn more about nullification in my article: Nullification - A State's Right to Enforce the Constitution)

The fact is, Justice Roberts protected Obamacare, and sided with the liberal judges. He helped validate to many people the very dangerous and totalitarian health care law that is being considered the center-piece of Obama's presidency. Justice Roberts is no hero, but the opportunity to get this turned around still exists. We must be vigilant, we must be passioned, and we must not give up. This can be turned around. The Constitution has given us the tools. All we must do is not give up the fight.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Article V. Convention: The States' Tool To Bring the Federal Government Back Into Constitutional Limitations

By Douglas V. Gibbs

An "Article V. Convention," can completely shake the foundations of our governmental system, and steer the federal government back into the restraints of the U.S. Constitution.

Article V. is the section of the Constitution that explains the amendment process. The allowance for Congress to propose amendments was actually an after-thought, and only added during the final days of the Constitutional Convention. Originally, only the States were going to be allowed to propose amendments. The anti-federalists feared that by granted the authority to Congress to propose amendments, the federal government world work to completely re-write the Constitution. However, it was argued that the fail-safe to that was the fact that the States would still be needed to ratify the proposed amendment.

The call for an Article V. Convention is nothing new. 49 States have called for an Article V. Convention through the submission of over 750 applications. The convention, however, has never taken place because the Congress will not set a time and place (their only task regarding an Article V. Convention), for fear of the people proposing amendments, and the States ratifying them, which would ultimately cut the federal government out of the process. Centralized systems do not like it when individual states and people get involved in a process they think is only their domain.

Despite being a statist, Alexander Hamilton wrote Federalist 85 brilliantly, in defense of the Article V. Convention. He argued that if the federal government did become tyrannical, the Article V. Convention was the fail-safe device the States had to reign the out-of-control federal government back in.

Article V. Conventions were offered as a method for the people and the States to stop the rampage of a tyrannical government. An Article V. Convention gives the people and States a way to combat a federal system that ignores the Constitution, treats it as if it does not exist, or invalidates it through judicial means. An Article V. Convention is not only something we need not fear, but one of our primary tools to combat against a tyrannical federal system. An Article V. Convention is our means of changing the Constitution through amendments so that we may give power back to the States, and protect state sovereignty. The Article V. Convention is one of the necessary tools given to us by the Founding Fathers for taking back our nation.

Changing the Constitution by amendment is not an easy process on purpose. Amendments must be ratified by 3/4 of the states. The federal government does not like that process because they think it limits their power (and they are correct). This is why the federal government is doing as it pleases regardless of the authorities granted by the Constitution. They wish to keep the States out of the picture. Taking power without the benefit of an amendment makes the State legislatures irrelevant. Those that support big government plan to do their worst as they are now, through ignoring the law, and invalidating the original intent of the U.S. Constitution through the judiciary whenever possible.

They fear the Article V. Convention because such a convention is the people's way of forcing the federal government to behave in accordance to the limiting principles of the Constitution. Despite some arguments that these conventions can be dangerous, be advised that an Article V. Convention is not a way for the corrupt politicians and judges to re-write the Constitution. Only amendments can be proposed in such a convention, and those proposed amendments are still required to be retified by the States.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Nullification: A State's Right to Enforce the Constitution

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Nullification is the States' ability to ignore unconstitutional federal law. Despite the misnomer that all federal law trumps all state laws, Article VI of the U.S. Constitution is very clear that only federal laws that are within the authorities of the Constitution are the supreme law of the land.

If the federal government is the only arbiter of the Constitution, then the limits of the growth of the federal government are non-existent. The federal government could do anything it wanted by declaring it Constitutional, regardless of what the people, or the States, proclaimed.

In the Virginia Resolutions of 1798, James Madison stated is was the duty of the State to interpose between and federal government and the citizens of the state.

The Kentucky Resolutions of 1798-99 were triggered by Kentucky's need to nullify unconstitutional federal laws, and in those resolutions Jefferson pointed out, “… that the general government is the exclusive judge of the extent of the powers delegated to it, stop nothing short of despotism – since the discretion of those who administer the government, and not the Constitution, would be the measure of their powers. That the several states who formed that instrument, being sovereign and independent, have the unquestionable right to judge of its infraction; and, That a nullification, by those sovereignties, of all unauthorized acts done under color of that instrument, is the rightful remedy.”

Thomas Jefferson also wrote, ”whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force.”

Madison's Report of 1800 reaffirms The Virginia Resolutions of 1798; wherein the states must Interpose themselves between the citizens of the states and the federal government.

The establishment sees it otherwise, believing as Joe Klein wrote in Time Magazine in February of 2012, that the "Constitution was a stitching device, written to unify and control the States." The continued concept that the federal government rules over the States has forced the States to reconsider asserting their sovereignty. However, because of two hundred years of conditioning, the willingness to act has been met with reluctance, and the failure to understand the rights of the States.

One wonders if the day comes that a State does act upon its right of nullification, will it fold like a chair when the federal government sues the State through their own federal court system?

State sovereignty, and the right for a State to nullify an unconstitutional law, serves as an impediment to the growth of an oppressive national central government. The separation of powers were not just among the branches of the federal government, but between the States and Washington, as well. James Madison stated that the most ardent opponents of a central government considered the state legislatures the “sure guardians of the people’s liberties” against violations from the federal government.

Our system of a divided government only functions properly when each part of that system works in line with the authorities afforded to that part of government. By the States refusing to stand up for themselves, and challenge the rapidly growing federal government, the States have relinquished their Constitutionally protected powers of restraining the federal government's quest for more power. The people, through their States, are allowing Washington to silence the States. Without the States being willing to stand up to the federal government, Washington will continue to grow unchecked, and the States will eventually become no more than powerless provinces subject to the powerful ruling authority of a central, all powerful, and tyrannical federal government.

We are not powerless. A free people who fear an ever growing centralized government has the ability to stop it through their States. Nullification is the key. Without it, we become nothing more than subjects submitting to the dictates of a powerful central government. Without nullification, we will become enslaved by the federal government, squandering away the rights and freedoms of the future citizens of this nation.

In line with the final sentence of the Declaration of Independence, are we willing to mutually pledge to each other our lives, fortunes, and sacred honor?

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Unconstitutionality of Judicial Review

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Judicial Review is the power of the federal courts to determine if a law is Constitutional or not. This power was seized by the courts in the 1803 Marbury v. Madison case. The federal courts were not granted this authority by the States, or the people. It is not a constitutional authority.

The Constitution established the federal government to be a limited one, with its authorities expressly enumerated. Any authority not granted to the federal government on the pages of the U.S. Constitution, or prohibited to the States, is a State authority.

The Supreme Court's ability through judicial review to determine if a law is constitutional or not is the power to decide if the federal government has an authority. Since the Supreme Court is a part of the federal government, anytime the High Court determines the constitutionality of a federal law, it is literally a case of the federal government deciding for itself its own authorities.

The judicial branch was not established to be a check against Congress. The two Houses of Congress were originally designed to be checks against each other. The House of Representatives was the voice of the people, the Senate was the voice of the States, and they checked each other, while working together to check the executive and judicial branches. As for the party or parties responsible for determining the constitutionality of federal law, that task falls upon the States, and the people. As the final arbiters of the Constitution, the States have the authority to ignore, or nullify, unconstitutional laws. If the law is unconstitutional, then it is illegal, and therefore the States cannot be compelled to follow those laws.

The U.S. Constitution is written in a manner that grants express powers to the federal government. If a need for an issue to be taken care of by the federal government arises that is not authorized by the Constitution, then the appropriate procedure would be for the federal government to request that authority by proposing an amendment, and then the States would choose whether or not to grant that authority by whether or not they ratify the amendment. That makes sense when one considers that the creation of the federal government by the Constitution was orchestrated by the States, and the States giving the federal government a few of their powers for the purpose of protecting, preserving, and promoting the union. Prior to the Constitutional Convention in 1787, the States held all powers - which means the States have original authority over all governmental powers.

The very idea that the federal courts even have the authority of judicial review where the courts can strike down laws based on its interpretation on whether or not the law is constitutional is ridiculous. The very idea of judicial review is at complete odds with the idea of limiting principles as provided by the U.S. Constitution. The courts may have an opinion on the matter of the constitutionality of a law, but they hold no legislative power. On the federal level only the Congress, as per Article I, Section 1, has legislative powers, which is the ability to create law, modify law, repeal law, et cetera. Therefore, the courts have no authority to strike down a federal law. In the case of a State law, or state amendment, that was passed under the authority of the State as per the 10th Amendment, the federal courts not only have no authority to strike down the State law, but they are not even supposed to hear the case in the first place.

The liberal left has continuously shown disdain for the Law of the Land, and often try to use the courts to usurp the Constitution.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

All Legislative Powers are Granted to Congress

By Douglas V. Gibbs

All Legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

Article I establishes the Legislative Branch of the federal government.

Article I, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution establishes the two parts of Congress, and grants all legislative powers to the two houses of Congress.

When studying the language used in Article I, Section 1, the original intent by the Founding Fathers becomes obvious.

The first word in the first section of Article I is the word “all.”  The fascinating thing about the word “all” is that it means, as shocking as it may seem, “all.”

The following words are “legislative powers.”  Legislative powers are the ability to make law, modify law, repeal law, and anything else that has to do with affecting law.

The next word is “herein,” which strangely enough means “here in,” as in “here in this constitution.”

The word “granted” follows “herein.”  “Granted” is defined as “to give,” or “to allow,” or more specifically “to legally transfer.”  If powers are granted, then there must be a “grantor,” as well.  As we learned in our discussion regarding The Preamble, the “grantor” in this case is the States.

“Shall be” is definitive.  In other words, the word “shall” does not mean “ought to,” or “maybe.”  “Shall” means that “it is,” or “it will be.”

“Vested” is much like “granted.”  Vested is a legal transfer of something, or in this case, an allowance to have legislative powers at the federal level.

The Congress of the United States is the legislative branch of the federal government, and this clause indicates that not only will the Congress be granted all legislative powers given to the federal government, but that the branch of government consists of two houses; a Senate and House of Representatives.

So let’s review.  All legislative powers, according to this clause, are granted to the Congress by the States for the purpose of making law, modifying law, or repealing law.  The powers are herein granted, which means that the laws must fall within the authorities granted by the text of the U.S. Constitution.  In other words, laws made must remain consistent with the “powers herein granted.”

When one considers this clause, it becomes clear that when members of the judiciary legislates from the bench, or the President issues an executive order to modify a law, such action is unconstitutional.  After all, “all legislative powers” were granted to the Congress, not to the judicial branch, or the Executive branch.

Since all legislative powers belong to the Congress, it would also then be reasonable to consider any regulations by federal departments that are not in line with laws made by the Congress that are in line with the authorities granted by the Constitution to be unconstitutional as well.  Once again, all legislative powers belong to the Congress, therefore any “legislative actions” by regulatory agencies are not in line with the original intent.

Once again, we must be reminded of who gave the federal government those powers herein the Constitution in the first place? Those powers that the federal government has were “granted” by someone.  The authorities the federal government enjoys were granted by the States.  “We The People of the United States” granted those powers to the federal government.  Therefore, if the federal government acts in a manner that is not consistent with the contract between the States and the U.S. Government, the States have the option to ignore those unconstitutional actions by the federal government.  This action of ignoring unconstitutional law is the States’ way of being the final arbiters of the Constitution.  The term for this kind of action by a State is “nullification.”

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Understanding the Commerce Clause

By Douglas V. Gibbs

The Commerce Clause is found in Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution. The clause indicates that Congress shall have the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.

The word "regulate" is the key basis for disagreement, often times. The word "regulate" in the 1828 Noah Webster's Dictionary is defined as:

1. To adjust by rule, method or established mode; as, to regulate weights and measures; to regulate the assize of bread; to regulate our moral conduct by the laws of God and of society; to regulate our manners by the customary forms.
2. To put in good order; as, to regulate the disordered state of a nation or its finances.
3. To subject to rules or restrictions; as, to regulate trade; to regulate diet.

You will notice that the definition to restrict is the final definition.

When one regulates with the intention to put something in good order, the term used was "To make regular."

The States, during the early years of this nation, fought over commerce, charging tariffs against each other, and they limited the movement of goods across State lines. Under the Articles of Confederation the government had no authority to be involved in commerce in any way, shape, or form. During the debate in 1787 over the creation of a new government through the writing of a new constitution, this problem was addressed, and it was determined that Congress should have the power to "regulate" commerce. It was understood the value of the federal government taking action to negate the commercial advantages of other countries and to take steps for pushing American commerce was paramount. But what about the States? What about the squabbling between the States?

In order to pay the Revolutionary War debts, the United States were* in desperate need of revenue, and so first the tariffs needed to be nationalized. The power to tax for the purpose of militarily defending the union of States was one of the main purposes of the creation of the Constitution. The delegates at the Constitutional Convention also recognized that removing tariffs between the States would assist in quelling the disagreements between them.

Another purpose of the Commerce Clause was to guard against mercantilist schemes, which were prevalent during that time period. Favoritism by the British Government towards particular merchants was one of many sparks that sent America towards revolution. Mercantilism also discouraged imports, playing a protectionist role that ultimately stifled trade. By eliminating tariffs between the States, and nationalizing tariffs so that they were applied to international trade, the early Americans actually kept some elements of mercantilism in play. Free trade was a concept that had not yet taken hold.

Even with the elimination of tariffs between the States, the tendency of the States to undercut each other remained a concern that needed to be further addressed. The anti-federalists feared an over intrusive government, and a need to restrict the trade between the States was not a pressing issue.  However, a method to open up trade between the States to ensure commerce flowed was necessary, when one considered the sibling-like fighting among the States. The federal role agreed upon to put in good order the trade between the States was for the federal government to act as a mediator between the States whenever trade was obstructed.

This is not to say that the federal government has no authority to restrict, or prohibit, trade between the States, but the definition used by the progressives is broader than originally intended, as expected. Impeding or prohibiting the trade of certain items was to be used in a limited manner, and any regulatory actions by the federal government that would limit trade or control trade between the States required an agreement to do so by the States through their appointed representatives in the United States Senate**. Without the States approving of such an action in the Senate, the federal government's ability to regulate in a manner similar to the definition of the Commerce Clause held by today's liberal progressives was quashed.

* Note in Paragraph 7 I wrote "the United States were in desperate need of revenue," - this was not a typo. The term "United States" had a few meanings, based on the context of the conversation. "The United States" could be a reference to the new federal government, a reference to the union of States in a nationalistic manner, or as a reference to the union of individual states that are united. The latter was the more common usage of the term, and it is the latter I use in that sentence, making the "United States" a plural, which makes the word "were" appropriate.

** The voice of the States in the federal government through their appointed representatives in the United States Senate was eliminated in 1913 with the ratification of the 17th Amendment. As a result, the dynamics of the federal government was damaged, and the continued rise of progressivism was eminent. One step in halting the increased stranglehold progressives have on our American System as originally intended would be to repeal the 17th Amendment. Repealing the 17th Amendment can only be achieved by Congressional Amendment.  Repealing the 17th Amendment would return to the State legislatures their voice in the legislative branch of the federal government, so that they may properly act as a check against the House of Representatives, a check against the executive branch, and so that the advise and consent powers may be properly applied.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Note: This article is a reference article that will be applied to my upcoming article on the Supreme Court's ruling on Obamacare.

Muslims Stone Christians. . . In Dearborn, Michigan

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Thursday, June 28, 2012

Obama Truth Team Orders Website Criticizing Administration to be Shut Down

‘Obama Truth Team’ Orders GoDaddy To Shut Down Website

A political website that contained stinging criticism of the Obama administration and its handling of the Fast and Furious scandal was ordered to be shut down by the Obama campaign’s ‘Truth Team’, according to private investigator Douglas Hagmann, who was told by ISP GoDaddy his site contained information that was “maliciously harmful to individuals in the government.”

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Thomas Jefferson's Attitude Toward Immigration

"Born in other countries, yet believing you could be happy in this, our laws acknowledge, as they should do, your right to join us in society, conforming, as I doubt not you will do, to our established rules. That these rules shall be as equal as prudential considerations will admit, will certainly be the aim of our legislatures, general and particular." --Thomas Jefferson

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Stopping Judicial Madness. . . It's been done before

Once upon a time the Congress and the States proposed and ratified an amendment to the Constitution to further limit the powers of a federal court system that seemed to be growing too big for its britches. . . It was called the Eleventh Amendment and that is the topic of tonight's Constitution Class in Temecula, California.

Join us at 6:00 pm at Faith Armory on Enterprise Circle West (next door to Birth Choice).

Talk About Mindless Sheep: Karl Rove Protesters Don't Know Who Karl Rove Is

The Blaze

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Don't be Nosy, Shut Up and Follow Obama

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Liberalism is a collectivistic ideology that demands mindless followers, and unquestioning loyalty. Star Trek's "borg" come to mind.

Conservatism is about individualism, and that means less government interference in our lives, and more accurately, a federal government that functions in accordance with the limitations placed upon it by the United States Constitution.

Democrats believe the Constitution was written so that the federal government could control the States, while Republicans tend to believe the Constitution was written to protect the union of States while preserving their State sovereignty.

Liberalism demands followers that don't think, but do as they're told, and every once in a while, that truth pops up and rears its honest head in the media:

On CNN LZ Granderson and New York Times writer David Brooks had an exchange that revealed what the democrat party is all about. When discussing the Fast and Furious gunwalker scandal, Granderson determined that the people killed was just collateral damage. He said that Operation Fast and Furious is none of our business, we need to butt out, and that is just the way it is.

I wonder if he felt the same way about the federal government while George W. Bush was President?

Specifically, Granderson said, "We are a nosy country. Though to be fair, it's not entirely our fault. Between the 24/7 news cycle, social media and reality TV, we have been spoon fed other people's private business for so long we now assume it's a given to know everything. And if there are people who choose not to disclose, they must be hiding something. Being told that something's 'none of your business' is slowly being characterized as rude, and if such a statement is coming from the government, it seems incriminating. Times have changed. Yet, not everything is our business. And in the political arena, there are things that should be and need to be kept quiet. ... Heads should roll because of the Fast and Furious debacle. We don't need every detail of that operation to be made public in order for that to happen."

David Brooks says that we have to relearn the art of following our leaders. We don't have a leadership problem in the United States. We're not good followers anymore.

I wonder if he felt that way during the Bush administration too?

He also said, "Those 'Question Authority' bumper stickers no longer symbolize an attempt to distinguish just and unjust authority. They symbolize an attitude of opposing authority."

He must be referring to those mean ol' anti-government Tea Party types, right?

That was sarcasm, of course.

Okay, so liberal journalist LZ Granderson says when it comes to Obama's administration, like Fast and Furious, we don't need to know, it's none of our business. Obama is above the law, I guess. It's okay if people died, according to Granderson. It's collateral damage. Brooks says we're not following well. We just need to accept what our leaders tell us and learn to love it.

After all, they are the ruling elite, and they know what's better for us than we do, right?

Screw individualism. Benevolent big government will take care of us. It's not like they are acting like tyrants, or anything, right?

They're smarter and brighter and better, and they're doing fine. It's us who are the problem. We don't recognize how smart these people are. We don't acknowledge their elite status. We don't trust their intelligence and their brains.

I wonder if that was the same argument the communists used, or Hitler used, before lowering the hammer.

In other words, these people are telling us that we're not subservient enough to the all-powerful federal government.  Skepticism against the federal government is suddenly dangerous. You are anti-government, and anti-authority if you don't shut up and follow Obama with blind faith. 

Will these people be saying the same thing during the next Republican Presidency?

I have a feeling they won't.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Don't Be Nosy about Fast and Furious - LZ Granderson - CNN

Reaction to Supreme Court of Obamacare Will Reveal True Liberal Democrat Agenda

By Douglas V. Gibbs

The Affordable Health Care Act Supreme Court decision may be the most influential on our political system since Marbury v. Madison in 1803, through which the federal courts granted themselves the power of judicial review. Chances are, parts of the health care law will be upheld, and parts of it will be struck down. Enough will be unconstitutional in the opinion of the courts that the democrat dream of socialized medicine will encounter a major setback. . . or will it?

If the administration's treatment of the Supreme Court decision regarding the Arizona immigration law is any indication, Obama's team of liberal left loonies will disregard the Supreme Court's ruling, and implement their health care policies anyway, through regulatory agencies and executive orders.

If the Supreme Court doesn't play along with the Obama administration, lock-stock-and-barrel, the liberal left media will join the party, and launch the most aggressive and sustained attack against the Supreme Court in history.  Despite generations of using judicial fiat, now that the court will not obey the liberal left in complete lock-step fashion, the Supreme Court will be declared unacceptable, and war will be waged on the courts by every liberal left lunatic in Washington.

The court's credibility will be lambasted for all to see, and Obama will complete his journey making Congress, States' Rights, and the courts, completely irrelevant, and proclaiming himself king, or some facsimile thereof.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Wednesday, June 27, 2012

Pamela Geller Speech Cancelled by Jewish Group

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Pamela Geller of Atlas Shrugs is one of the most active speakers alerting the public about the dangers of Islamist fascism out there. The Islamists have created a lie called "Islamophobia" to combat anyone that dares to speak out against them. As a result, even Jewish groups, of which the Muslims have vowed to destroy and rid the Earth of, have fallen into the trap of appeasing Islam.

Islam is the opposite of common sense and what we would consider to be "good." While we strive to be more conscious about tolerance, they believe they are superior and that it is acceptable to kill those that do not agree with them. While we try to stamp out bullying, Islam encourages bullying against non-Muslims even if it results in the death of the targeted.

Last Saturday evening I attended A Summer Night for Human Rights in Manhattan Beach, California. A number of former Muslims spoke at the event. One speaker, a woman that is a dentist in Dearborn, Michigan, told of the attacks her children suffered in Egypt for daring to not conform to Islam. In the case of her daughter, it was conversion to Christianity that placed her in danger. In the case of her son, it was long hair and rock and roll that led to him getting beaten.

After the event, my buddy Paul, his wife, and I bumped into the speaker in the corridor as we prepared to leave, and Paul offered to pray for her. We placed our hands on the woman, and Paul prayed a lovely prayer asking for protection and blessings for the woman. After he completed his prayer, Paul's wife prayed for the woman's healing. The former Muslim was in tears after the prayers completed. She had never experienced anything like that before. In Islam, Allah is to be feared, while God is a loving God who protects his children.

Islam has deceived its followers. Muslims are simply without Christ, and have been lied to by the scheming political ideology called Islam. And their lies are so good that even Jews, who have been targeted for extermination by Islam, have shied away from people like Pamela Geller for fear of being considered "Islamophobes."

There is no such thing as Islamophobia. A phobia is an irrational fear, and fear of the tyranny called Islam is not irrational. Muslims have come to America to Islamicize the country, and not for the reasons they proclaim. They build their mosques in the places where they can achieve the greatest impact against this nation, often choosing places like Ground Zero, or largely Christian areas, in order to push out those that dare to oppose them. There agenda is all about perception, not truth. Because of the conditioning from the cradle by Islam, all Muslims are potential terrorists. . . but as the former Muslims at the event I attended last Saturday proved, Christ can change their hearts and turn them from the murderous barbaric political ideology of Islam.

Islam seeks to change our law from the Constitution to Shariah. The sooner we realize that, the sooner we can stop the invasion of the United States. Part of the battle is to let people like Pamela Geller spread the truth about Islam, and work to stop this insidious ideology. . . before it stops us, and controls us, and destroys us.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Jewish Group Cancels Speech by Controversial Author Pamela Geller - Los Angeles Times

Deeper than Immigration, State Sovereignty is at Risk

By Douglas V. Gibbs

This morning, not exactly anticipating my turn to be needled at the doctor's office, I was reading the literary selections in the waiting pen.  Like most lobbies presented by health professionals, the material was either about fitness, health, or a couple samples of the liberal news media. Sometimes, sports magazines are available too. Those are the medical corrals I like most.

Time Magazine caught my attention, so I opened it up. Newt Gingrich graced the February 6, 2012, cover, but Obama filled the interior. "Fairness Doctrine" by Joe Klein was the article that stopped me in my tracks. Anytime the liberals start pushing censorship, while calling it the opposite, I am always interested in what they have to say.

The article was not about the concept of "fairness on the radio" as I expected, and instead tried to explain how Obama is working to "contain conservatism." It was the final paragraph of the piece that bubbled the juices inside my brain. As a part of the statement designed to wrap it all up, after quoting Obama stating we have to work together (which is liberal-speak for redistribution of wealth by the government), Joe Klein wrote, "This is, without question, the strongest argument against the Darwinian "freedom" Republicans are touting. It is a reminder that the Constitution was a stitching device, written to unify and control the states, not merely to liberate them." (emphasis added)

The anti-capitalists of the Democrat Party have christened the free market as Darwinian Economics, or "you are on your own," without understanding how individualism without government intervention is actually better for the economy, for as you work for a better life, those around you benefit as well because in your success you seek employees to help manage the increase in production, you produce product for the market, and you purchase more product to better serve your improved lifestyle. But, that all set aside, the real kicker was the statement in the finale, "The Constitution was a stitching device, written to unify and control the states, not merely liberate them."

Sounds like Orwellian double-speak, doesn't it? Liberation is control. Control is liberation. Liberation while being controlled is unification.

Understanding that the liberal left views the Constitution as a device to grant control over the States to the federal government helps explain a lot of their views, doesn't it?

Which brings us to the liberal left Democrat Party opinion over the Arizona Immigration Law, and Obama's decision that Arizona's right to enforce immigration in its own State is null and void, despite what the Supreme Court's opinion on the matter was. Governor Jan Brewer stated that the Obama administration was literally telling Arizona to drop dead, in light of the Department of Homeland Security’s decision to cancel its agreements with Arizona law enforcement agencies allowing them to check the citizenship of suspected illegal immigrants.

Immigration is a concurrent issue, but remember, the liberal left does not see the States as independent, sovereign entities, and as Joe Klein stated in Time Magazine, they believe the Constitution was written to unify and control the States. It is as if Obama, and his liberal left cronies, view the States as petulant children that can't be trusted to do anything themselves, and must be controlled, and disciplined, by the big ol' federal government.  State authorities, or better stated, "States' Rights," don't even exist in the minds of these people. This is why the federal government sued the State of Arizona over its immigration law, and why now the Obama administration is ignoring the Supreme Court decision for daring to not get into complete lock-step with the administration by suspending existing agreements with Arizona police over enforcement of federal immigration laws.

Obama's regime has also issued a directive telling federal authorities to decline many of the calls from Arizona reporting illegal immigrants that the Homeland Security Department may get from Arizona cops. In other words, as allowed by the Supreme Court decision, Arizona police agencies can immediately begin calling to check immigration status, but the federal officials they are calling won't answer the phone, or won't answer their inquiry.

As far as Obama is concerned, the federal government is above the law, above the Law of the Land, and can punish States as they see fit, regardless of what the people say, regardless of what the law says, regardless of what the Constitution says, and despite any opinion their own courts may issue.

There are federal immigration laws on the books that the federal government refuses to enforce, because the democrats need the Hispanic vote, and hopes to change these illegals into voters too, and if the State of Arizona doesn't like it, or the Supreme Court doesn't like it, tough.

How dare Arizona refuse to not follow Obama's orders.

And just to make it completely Orwellian, to intimidate Arizona law enforcement officials, Obama set up a hotline for people to complain to when illegals are apprehended! If anybody sees something that they think is not right, they can call and tattle on their State government to the federal government.

Remember, the liberal democrats think the Constitution was written to give the federal government the authority to control the States.

Illegal aliens, who are criminals for breaking immigration laws, can now snitch on law enforcement, and Obama is purposely siding with those on the wrong side of the law for votes, and control over the States. Obama does not want immigration laws enforced. The democrats want the borders wide open, because the democrats need a perpetual underclass so that they can continue to use the "America is such a bad place, look at all of the poor people, so vote for us to fix it" ploy.

The liberal democrats think there shouldn’t even be a border. The rest of the world has stricter immigration laws than we do, and have stronger border protection often manned by the military, but when it comes to the United States, in the liberal democrat's opinion, "Who do we think we are? What border?"

Arizona decided to protect themselves against the problems that come with illegal immigration, and so they were going to enforce the laws themselves. Their State immigration law is nearly identical to the federal laws on the books. They did not go one step further. But, the leftists believe that by enforcing the law, when the federal government refuses to, that is a case of a state acting contrary to the federal government (a gross misunderstanding of the Supremacy Clause in the Constitution), and how dare a State misbehave like that.

So, the federal government went into "control the States" mode.

Think about the insanity, for a moment. A sovereign state that Constitutionally has a right to protect its own interior against law breakers, writes laws that reflect and mirror federal laws which are not being enforced by the federal government. The big government federal folks that are refusing to enforce the laws on the books  sue the state of Arizona for trying to enforce federal law, wins the case on all counts but one, and then refuses to abide by the one ruling because they consider themselves to be at the top of the food chain, and therefore no court, no State, nor the people, can tell them what they can and can't do.

Welcome to totalitarianism in America, and the loss of what was left of States' Rights.

As far as the federal government is concerned, there is no immigration law in Arizona, and there never will be.

But, just to make sure those lowly State officials don't dare to go against the ruling regime in Washington, they created a hotline. Americans, and non-Americans here illegally, are being encouraged to rat out those people in the State of Arizona that dares to not to obey the federal government's dictates.

Plus, if you pull off doing your job, without being snitched out, then Arizona's police and sheriff departments will be buried in bogus lawsuits at the request and the behest of Barack Obama and the liberal democrats.

Conform, obey, and shut up. You are a part of Obama's America, now.

Do as you're told, or be punished.

Any law enforcement official doing his job on the provision the Supreme Court upheld, "stop and check," is behaving in a criminal way as far as the federal government is concerned, and it is being encouraged that these law enforcement people will be ratted out by Arizona citizens, and any illegal alien with access to a telephone.

The federal government has torn up the Constitution and thrown it away. The federal government has determined that American Citizenship means nothing. The federal government has decided that laws mean nothing, and court rulings mean nothing. Do as they say, or face their wrath.

The federal government is not abiding by the rule of law. The federal government, led by Barack Obama, ignores the law, unless they see it as beneficial to them.

That is clearly tyranny.


-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Colorado Wild Fires Rage Out of Control

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Earlier this hot season New Mexico faced huge wild fires, now its Colorado. Meanwhile, California, the usual home for out of control fires, has remained fairly quiet.

Homes have burned to the ground, thousands have evacuated, as a three-day-old wildfire rips across the foothills neighborhoods of Colorado Springs.  By nightfall, roughly 32,000 people left their homes, chased out by the flames. Evacuations have included the Air Force Academy.

Near Boulder another wild fire is taking its toll, sending thousands to flee from the area.

Thousands of firefighters are on the ground and more than 100 planes and helicopters have been battling more than eight wildfires across the state.

Meanwhile, the temperatures continue to remain in the 90s and 100s, with wind gusts of 65 mph. The record heat continues while there seems to be no relief of seasonal subtropical moisture and much-needed rain coming in.

The High Park fire west of Fort Collins has so far burned 87,250 acres with 55 percent containment. The most destructive fire in state history, the High Park blaze has burned down at least 257 homes.

A fire near Last Chance on the Eastern Plains burned 45,000 acres in just eight hours.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

College Football Approves Four Game Playoff

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Every college sport and division has some kind of playoff system that makes some kind of sense. The BCS never made sense. Now, college football may finally be able to crown true champions.

The revolution of common sense has infected the BCS system, we think.

For the next twelve years the contract calls for four teams at the end to slug it out. That begins after two more seasons labor under the current system. The bowl system still remains intact, though.
The fear by some is that with the extra games the fear of injuries, including the much publicized "concussions", thanks to the NFL, rises up as a result.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

America has no Royalty

"As our president bears no resemblance to a king so we shall see the Senate has no similitude to nobles. First, not being hereditary, their collective knowledge, wisdom, and virtue are not precarious. For by these qualities alone are they to obtain their offices, and they will have none of the peculiar qualities and vices of those men who possess power merely because their father held it before them." --Tench Coxe, An American Citizen, No. 2, 1787

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Tuesday, June 26, 2012

Obama Team Desperate for Votes, Calls for Mandatory Voting

Desperation: Obama Surrogate Calls to Make Voting Mandatory - Breitbart

Peter Orszag, former head of the Obama Office of Management and Budget, is desperate. With even Roll Call recognizing that President Obama is fighting an uphill battle for re-election, Orszag is floating a trial balloon: mandatory voting. His call for forced voting comes in an op/ed for Bloomberg News:
The U.S. prides itself as the beacon of democracy, but it’s very likely no U.S. president has ever been elected by a majority of American adults.


-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Christian Bloodbath Planned by Muslims

300 suicide bombers plan Christian bloodbath
They're recruiting an army of suicide bombers with one target in their sights: Christians.

Calling it "revenge for Muslims killed," the goal is to make July the "bloodiest month yet."

Click here to read the full article.

Godfather of Global Warming Theory Abandons Hysteria-Makers

By Douglas V. Gibbs

It is funny. The global warming nuts say that consensus proves global warming to be the truth. Was that the case when the consensus was that the world was flat? Or that oil is a fossil fuel (evidence building that oil is abiotic)?

Science is not about consensus, but about the pursuit of truth.

Over global warming, the claim of consensus, and the hysteria that accompanies it, has even turned off James Lovelock, the man known to be the godfather of global warming. He, in an interview on MSNBC, admitted that even he had been a bit of an “alarmist” about climate change.

Lovelock uses a New Age idea, and formulated the Gaia theory, which supposes that the Earth operates as a single, living organism.

His theories were a large influence on the development of global warming theory.

As time has passed, global temperatures have not gone up in the way computer-based climate models predicted. Lovelock admits “the problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago.”

Though still a proponent that humanity must lower its greenhouse gas emissions, he says it’s now clear the doomsday predictions, including his own (and Al Gore’s) were incorrect.

In the interview, to my knowledge, he did not address the idea that global temperature changes are a natural phenomenon, largely influenced by sunspot and solar flare activity.

The problem is, these scientists are motivated by money, and fear losing government funding if they admit they are in error. Global warming scientists have, according to emails, manipulated the data to make sure it comes out in favor of their claims. Lovelock states that he is unlike those scientists, willing to revise his theories in the face of new evidence.

Among his observations to the Guardian:

(1) A long-time supporter of nuclear power as a way to lower greenhouse gas emissions, which has made him unpopular with environmentalists, Lovelock has now come out in favour of natural gas fracking (which environmentalists also oppose), as a low-polluting alternative to coal.

As Lovelock observes, “Gas is almost a give-away in the U.S. at the moment. They’ve gone for fracking in a big way. This is what makes me very cross with the greens for trying to knock it … Let’s be pragmatic and sensible and get Britain to switch everything to methane. We should be going mad on it.” (Kandeh Yumkella, co-head of a major United Nations program on sustainable energy, made similar arguments last week at a UN environmental conference in Rio de Janeiro, advocating the development of conventional and unconventional natural gas resources as a way to reduce deforestation and save millions of lives in the Third World.)

(2) Lovelock blasted greens for treating global warming like a religion.

“It just so happens that the green religion is now taking over from the Christian religion,” Lovelock observed. “I don’t think people have noticed that, but it’s got all the sort of terms that religions use … The greens use guilt. That just shows how religious greens are. You can’t win people round by saying they are guilty for putting (carbon dioxide) in the air.”

(3) Lovelock mocks the idea modern economies can be powered by wind turbines.

As he puts it, “so-called ‘sustainable development’ … is meaningless drivel … We rushed into renewable energy without any thought. The schemes are largely hopelessly inefficient and unpleasant. I personally can’t stand windmills at any price.”

(4) Finally, about claims “the science is settled” on global warming: “One thing that being a scientist has taught me is that you can never be certain about anything. You never know the truth. You can only approach it and hope to get a bit nearer to it each time. You iterate towards the truth. You don’t know it.”

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Not Letting Arizona Enforce Immigration is to Take Away Arizona's State Sovereignty

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Yesterday the United States Supreme Court ruled on Arizona's Immigration Law, and all sides think they have won something.

But when a State is sued for enforcing laws on the books, and for flexing its authorities on a concurrent issue, it places the very sovereignty of the State in danger.

Before I discuss this, I want you to remember that the federal court system has no constitutional authority to strike down State laws (or any law, for that matter). According to Article I, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, all legislative powers are granted to the Congress. By striking down a law, the courts are acting legislatively, and therefore unconstitutionally.

Now, that said, the United States Supreme Court, yesterday, struck down Arizona's requirement for aliens to carry registration papers. They struck down the law's application of criminal penalties for employing illegal aliens, and the authorization of warrantless arrests for deportable crimes. However, all eight present justices voted to allow the mandatory immigration check requirement to go into effect.

What happened was that a federal court dictated to a State what it can and can't do regarding an issue it has authority to pursue. This means that once again the federal government has again worked to silence the States, and tell them they don't have say over anything. . . especially if the States try to do something contrary to the federal government.

That's the argument. Sure, the immigration law in Arizona mirrors the federal law, and Arizona is simply enforcing immigration laws that the federal government refuses to enforce. Therefore, the federal government has determined that Arizona is acting unconstitutionally for daring to enforce existing laws on the books.

The argument surrounds the Supremacy Clause.

First of all, the word "contrary" in that clause is about legislation. Arizona's legislation is not contrary to the laws on the books at the federal level.  Secondly, the Supremacy Clause only applies to federal laws that fall within constitutional authority.

The Constitution addresses immigration four times in its text. In Article I, Section 8 the Congress is given the authority to "establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization." That one is about what happens after they are here, not before.

Article I, Section 9, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution was designed to stop the importation of new slaves, and to prohibit the immigration of people of the federal government's choosing. Too many immigrants not interested in fulfilling the American legacy were deemed as being dangerous, and could even be considered an invasion. And, after all, was it not also Constitutionally mandated that the Federal Government protect the States from invasion? (Article 4, Section 4). Sealing the border, after all, has not been just about keeping the typical illegal aliens from entering the country illegally, but also to stop those that would come into this nation from places like the Middle East to harm us.

The Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment demands full allegiance to the United States.

What is coming next, especially when this ruling immediately follows Obama's amnesty by fiat, will be a myriad of lawsuits.

The only sanity from the case came from Antonin Scalia's dissenting opinion in the Arizona case. He said, "If securing its territory is not within the power of Arizona, we should cease referring to it as a sovereign State. I dissent."

I agree.

I wonder if the States would have originally joined the union if they knew that down the road their sovereignty would be treated like this.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Scalia Slams Obama In His Arizona Immigration Dissent - Business Insider

Desperate Obama Seeking Oversees Donors

Obama taps overseas donor pool

Obama is tapping Americans abroad more than any other presidential campaign.

The all-consuming hunt for donors has led President Barack Obama’s campaign to England. And France. And China.

Obama is tapping the network of American citizens living outside the 50 states more than any other presidential campaign has before, with more than a dozen bundlers who have pledged to raise as much as $4.5 million.

The article continues by saying it is all legal because they are Americans he is pursuing. But don't you remember the evidence that Obama was taking in foreign money in 2008?

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Monday, June 25, 2012

The Swelling Middle East

--- Syrian Military Says it downed a Turkish Fighter Jet

--- U.S. Will Help Turkey Hold Syria 'Accountable' for Jet Shoot-Down, Says Obama Spokesman

--- Saudi Arabia Plans to Fund Syria Rebel Army

--- TARGET: SYRIAN WMD: U.S. Concerned Israel May Launch Attacks On Syrian WMD Sites

--- Russia Warns Against Issuing Ultimatums to Iran

--- Putin Warns Israel: Don't Rush to Strike Iran

--- Hillary Clinton Tied to New Muslim Brotherhood President: Radical Links Run Through Secretary of State's Chief of Staff

Explosive things are about to come out of the Middle East. . .

Who do you want answering the phone at 3:00 AM?

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Illinois Attorney General Ignores the Law Regarding Gay Marriage

Who cares about the law? These people take it upon themselves to force their will on the people of America, and will ultimately force the churches to conform as well. . .

Illinois AG refuses to uphold law banning gay 'marriage'

CHICAGO (AP) - Twenty-five Illinois couples were prepared for a long legal fight when they joined lawsuits challenging the state's ban on gay marriage. Turns out they won't get one - at least not from the attorneys who would normally be responsible for defending the state's laws.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Michael Reagan: Emperor Obama behaving as if separation of powers is something to be swatted away

It's Nice to be Emperor

If you don't like something or want to get something done, you don't let little things like the Constitution get in your way. For more than three years Emperor Obama has been behaving as if the separation of powers is a pesky fly to be swatted away whenever it becomes too annoying.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

What would George Washington Say About Obama Ordering Military Gay Pride Celebrations?

"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indespensible supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism who should labor to subvert these great Pillars of human happiness -- these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere Politician, equally with the pious man ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. ... [L]et us with caution indulge the opposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that National morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle." --George Washington (1796)

Let us also remember what John Adams said about the U.S. Constitution:

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." --John Adams

Or perhaps Samuel Adams said it best:

"The sum of it all is, if we would most truly enjoy the gift of Heaven, let us become a virtuous people; then shall we both deserve and enjoy it. While, on the other hand, if we are universally vicious and debauched in our manners, though the form of our Constitution carries the face of the most exalted freedom, we shall in reality be the most abject slaves." --Samuel Adams

It is our choice. It must be a choice. If we abandon our Godliness for the debauchery of sexual perversion, all other destructive tendencies will follow. Rome collapsed from within, because of the civilization's inability to remain moral. As the morality broke down, so did the representative nature of the political institution, and what remained were tyrants and despots who drove the empire into the ground.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

The Envelope Never Stops Being Pushed

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Pushing the envelope is a term used figuratively to mean "stretching the boundaries." Once a group begins pushing the envelope, it becomes a never ending need for more and more. The standards and morals of society are tossed aside, and collapse looms on the horizon.

Be it sexual behavior, or governmental intrusion in the lives of the citizens, the only way to stop the stretching of boundaries is to purposely stop the downhill slide down the slippery slope.

What is sad is most of these devastating assaults on our liberty and stability of our culture are either in the name of the common good, or claiming to be a "constitutional right," when they are nothing of the sort.

Let's take a look at some of the signs of the never-ending traveling envelope:

--- Diabetes doctors: NYC big-soda ban is just a start

Doctors treating the casualties of the global obesity epidemic say an unpopular proposal to limit soda portions in New York City should be just the beginning of stricter regulation of unhealthy foods.

Public opinion polls show a majority of Americans oppose New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg's plan to limit single servings of sugary drinks to 16 ounces (0.45 kilograms) at restaurants and other public venues.

Many view the measure as unwelcome government intervention in their daily diets.

But exasperated diabetes specialists say people need even greater protections from a food industry that keeps enticing them with ever-bigger portions, as more than two-thirds of the country's adults are now overweight or obese. Excess weight contributes to health problems from diabetes to hypertension.

"We're spending billions of dollars for drugs to cure the problem after the problem happens, instead of preventing the problem," said Dr. Bryce Palchick, a general practitioner in Pittsburgh.

--- White House rebukes guests who flipped bird at Reagan portrait

White House guests Zoe Strauss, right, and Matty Hart, left, are seen flipping off a portrait of Ronald Reagan on June 15, 2012. Philadelphia publisher Mark Segal, center, is shown giving a thumbs-up. (Philadelphia Magazine)

The White House on Friday rebuked two visitors who were photographed last week at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue flipping the middle finger below a portrait of the late President Ronald Reagan.

The guests had been invited to a reception last Friday marking gay pride month. The images of them -- with both middle fingers raised, pointing up toward Reagan -- were first published by Philadelphia Magazine.

The White House did not approve.

"While the White House does not control the conduct of guests at receptions, we certainly expect that all attendees conduct themselves in a respectful manner. Most all do," Shin Inouye, a White House spokesman, said. "These individuals clearly did not. Behavior like this doesn’t belong anywhere, least of all in the White House."

Photographer Zoe Strauss and Matty Hart, national director for public engagement at the group Solutions for Progress, had posted the images of themselves to Facebook.

Hart, under his, wrote simply: "F--- Reagan."

--- You can pray... just not to Jesus

There is a crack down going on in one North Carolina police department. Have patrols been stepped up? No. Are gangs being disbanded? No. Are the cops getting tough on crime? No. However, what is changing is that volunteer chaplains in the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department (CMPD) will no longer be able to invoke the name "Jesus" when they pray, and it has some people up in arms.

As reported by WSOC TV 9, "chaplains have been told that they cannot invoke the name of Jesus in prayers at public events."

"When I heard this I was sad," said Pastor Terry Sartain, who has been a chaplain with CMPD for seven years.

Sartain said he learned of the policy when he got a phone call before a recent promotion ceremony saying he could not use Jesus' name in his invocation.

"I asked if I could withdraw, because Jesus is the only thing I have to bless people with," Sartain said.

Of course, one person interviewed for the news story, an ACLU member named Jim Gronquist, said the policy was long overdue.

--- Secret Services Confiscates Cutlery at Obama Event

Apparently, the Obama administration who says they are the party of understanding and racial tolerance can't trust Hispanics with pointy objects if King Obama is in the room.

Does a fork or dinner knife pose an unacceptable danger to President Barack Obama?

One wouldn’t think so, given the hundreds of lunches and dinners he’s attended ranging from state dinners to political fundraisers to run-of-the-mill stops on the rubber-chicken circuit.

However, at one such lunch Friday afternoon, guests heard an unusual announcement that they needed to hand over their silverware for security reasons.

“It’s very important that you use your utensils as soon as possible,” National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials board member Raquel Regalado told about 1000 delegates at the group’s annual conference.

Regalado hurried the diners to finish up their salads and pre-cut chicken breasts, saying that the Secret Service required that there be no knives at the tables and that the forks be rounded up before Obama entered the room.

--- Eye for an eye, hair for hair? Judge orders Price woman to cut off daughter's ponytail in court

The mother of a 13-year-old girl says she has filed a formal complaint against a juvenile court judge who told her he'd cut her daughter's sentence if she cut off the girl's ponytail in his courtroom.

"She definitely needed to be punished for what had happened," Valerie Bruno told the Deseret News. "But I never dreamt it would be that much of a punishment."

Bruno's daughter, Kaytlen Lopan, was referred to 7th District Juvenile Judge Scott Johansen's court in March for an allegation of assault. Lopan and a friend endeared themselves to a 3-year-old girl at McDonald's in Price and then used scissors to cut several inches of hair from the little girl's head, according to Price police.

"It was beautiful, it was long, it had natural curl, and now it's cut up to here," said the victim's mother, Mindy Moss, gesturing to her jawline.

--- Supreme Court throws out FCC fines for cursing, nudity

The Supreme Court unanimously threw out fines and sanctions Thursday against broadcasters who violated the Federal Communications Commission policy regulating curse words and nudity on broadcast television.

and we saved the worst for last:

--- San Diego students watch gay porn, masturbate in class
This is what public government schools have devolved into.

As a class exercise, students in a 7th-grade class at Bell Middle School in Paradise Hills — a neighborhood in the southeastern area of the city of San Diego, California — watched porn videos, with some students openly masturbating.

Ashley McGlone reports for the San Diego Union-Tribune, June 15, 2012, that the incident, which took place in May, began as a “sexual orientation test” created by students in an English class.

According to written testimonials from 22 students in the all-boys class, the “test” had students wear gym shorts while watching “particular” (gay) porn videos on their cell phones. Whoever became aroused was labeled gay. Some boys masturbated openly in class, but the teacher Ed Johnson didn’t do anything, even when other students complained.