Obama's Motive in Syria?

"But the safety of the people of America against dangers from foreign force depends not only on their forbearing to give just causes of war to other nations, but also on their placing and continuing themselves in such a situation as not to invite hostility or insult; for it need not be observed that there are pretended as well as just causes of war." - John Jay, Federalist No. 4, 1787

As I read that quote, by John Jay, I realize that Obama is a great pretender (as if I hadn't realized that before). His motive is not to protect America, or even to defend people that have been wrongly attacked (wrongly in his opinion).  Barack Obama has shown time and time again that his motives are always for himself, not America, and not for any oppressed people.

What is the answer to the question?  Any question?  In the case of Obama, the answer is not logical, or sensible, or even consistent with his past decisions or attitudes.  The answer is always whatever Barack Obama feels benefits him the most at the moment.

Remember, this President received the Nobel Peace Prize because of his anti-war rhetoric against George W. Bush, of which the democrats had succeeded in demonizing to the point that even the world came to hate Dubya.  Yet, here he is, proposing war, with evidence (and a situation) similar to that of Bush's Iraq.  And in the case of Syria, it may be even more volatile, than Iraq.  Big Ears did it in Libya, as well, though the interference was more subtle than what he plans in Syria.

Isn't that amazing?  Have you ever seen a Nobel Peace Prize recipient that wanted to be a war mongerer. . . and in this case to satisfy his own narcissistic desires?

I can speculate on Obama's motive, from him wanting to align with the same people that flew planes into our twin towers, to his deconstructionist view of America which fuels his desire to make America look weak, but in the end, regardless of the motive, his moves are very dangerous, to the nation as a whole, and to the entire Middle East.  He is sitting on a keg of black powder, and he is trying to insert into the barrel a lit fuse.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Our Salvation As A Nation

"We have to remember where our salvation lies, and it is not in government. " - Douglas V. Gibbs

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Join Me Today at B J Sporting Goods in Hemet, California

I will be joining the National Rifle Association booth for two hours today after the radio program at
B J Sporting Goods at 324 E Florida Ave, Hemet, CA 92543.  Meet me, get a pocket constitution, a Douglas V. Gibbs flyer, and information about my Constitution Classes today at B J Sporting Goods.

I am looking forward to meeting you!

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Constitution Radio with Douglas V. Gibbs - Post Ted Nugent Concert Edition

At 2:00 PM Pacific listen to your Weekend Dose of Truth: Constitution Radio with Douglas V. Gibbs, listen live at KCAA AM1050, Online at KCAAradio.com, or by phone at 832-999-1050. Call in to join the conversation at 888-909-1050. Catch the podcast later on our Podcast Page.

Today is the day after the Ted Nugent concert at Agua Caliente in Rancho Mirage, and we will open the show with that. . . 

http://politicalpistachio.blogspot.com/2013/08/ted-nugent-concert-aftermath.html

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/crime/headlines/20130829-ted-nugents-wife-arrested-after-gun-found-in-carry-on-bag-at-dfw-airport.ece

Along with our Book of the Week (by Ted Nugent), and the Constitution Quest Question of the Week.

And when it comes to the Headlines and 5 Big Stories of the Week, this is what you can expect:

I will discuss the ongoing debate I have been having over the 14th Amendment Privileges and Immunities Clause

http://politicalpistachio.blogspot.com/2013/08/update-continuing-debate-over-14th.html

and JASmius will join me for the

5 Big Stories of the Week, August 24, 2013

Honorable Mention: Tinkering with College Costs

http://politicalpistachio.blogspot.com/2013/08/obama-federal-government-to-tinker-with.html

5. Striking Fast Food Workers

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/08/29/fast-food-workers-to-strike-nationwide-over-wages/

4. 50th Anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I Have A Dream” Speech

http://www.archives.gov/press/exhibits/dream-speech.pdf

http://politicalpistachio.blogspot.com/2013/08/kings-dream-march-on-washington-misses.html

3. The Battle to Defund Obamacare, and the Looming Government Shutdown

http://politicalpistachio.blogspot.com/2013/08/let-government-shutdown.html

2. Nidal Hasan, Fort Hood Shooter, Sentenced to Death

http://politicalpistachio.blogspot.com/2013/08/fort-hood-shooter-nidal-hasan-gets.html

1. Syria

http://politicalpistachio.blogspot.com/2013/08/does-president-obama-have-war-powers.html

http://news.yahoo.com/on-syria--obama-says-eyeing-%E2%80%98shot-across-the-bow%E2%80%99-222156121.html

American Daily Review - Irreverent and To the Point...much like Ted Nugent

02:00

American Daily Review

Welcome to the pre-game show for Constitution Radio on the Political Pistachio Radio Network [(KCAA-1050AM (Los Angeles), KCXL-1140AM (Kansas City), and WHTH-790AM (Youngstown, Ohio)]! Hang on every word of Blog Talk... more

by ADR Radio

in Politics Conservative

Noontime Pacific

Ted Nugent Concert Aftermath

By Douglas V. Gibbs

I woke up this morning with a headache - a glorious, pounding headache and a scratchy throat from all of the screaming and yelling last night.  My feet are sore, and my ears are trying to recuperate.  On the kitchen counter next to my cell phone is a rag-tag ticket stub, a squished pair of ear plugs, and a white guitar pick flung by the Motor City Madman himself - a set of items I laid there only hours ago.

Last night was the AWESOME Ted Nugent concert at the Agua Caliente Casino, Resort and Spa in Rancho Mirage, California. . . and The Nuge puts on a helluva show.  For me it was amazing to realize that the man on stage kicking ass and taking names is a 65 year old rocker who doesn't exactly fit in with the political insanity of his Leftist-loving music industry. In fact, at one point he referred to that, joking that folks have told him that he needs to slow down.  In Ted Nugent fashion, he said he replies, "F-That!"  Oh, and "F-Obama."

But let's go back to the beginning.  Why was I there, how did I discover the event, and what in the heck is this "I got in for free and I sat near dead-center in the front row" crap all about?

In the Inland Empire yours truly has been making a mild impact that is becoming less mild more and more as time passes.  In the process of growing what I do regarding educating the public about the Constitution, and spreading the word about how we can turn this thing around if we all would just get involved and start kicking butt, a wonderful network of fine folks has grown around me.  I am blessed to have an small army of folks that believe in what I do, and are willing to assist me along the way in the manner they have been Blessed with in regards to their God-given talents.  A core group at my Constitution Class I lead on Thursday Nights at 6:30 at Faith Armory in Temecula have been doing what they can to help spread the word.  Our fledgling Constitution Association has a number of folks doing what they can to try and grow that group, or help as they can.  One member brings a microphone and speaker for our use each meeting on the first Saturday Night of the month.  We have been graced by fantastic speakers, and we have influenced local politics in a significant way.  I have done a number of public speaking events, and more are cropping up.  Groups are approaching me, asking for me to join their coalitions, make an appearance at their events (I will be at BJ Sporting Goods in Hemet today from 4-6 at the NRA table), and in some cases, even to run for office - The United States House of Representatives 42nd District is one that I am seriously considering.

Among those folks taking interest in what I am doing is the Southern California chapter of the Sons of Liberty Riders, who were a large part of the drive behind the Ted Nugent concert - or at least the VIP group they were putting together to go to that concert.  The goal was to bring together the influential constitutionalists of the area for a night of networking, and concert-going.  They booked a suite at the hotel, gave us many hours before the concert for members of the group to get to know each other, gave us tickets to the show (bought on their dime - or should I say "many dimes"), and then after the show brought us back to the suite for more congregating.

I was one of those invited guests, and I am humbled by being chosen to join the group I was a part of.  From gubernatorial candidate Robert Newman, to author and patriot Lawrence Hebron (His book is Solutions), to San Bernardino Sheriff candidate Paul Schrader, the group was populated by some fantastic people.

With a plan to get off work early, pick up a friend who is also influential locally (Harry Ramos, Murrieta City Council), and get up to Rancho Mirage right at 3:00 pm, I got up at 3:00 am to go to work.  Work went a little long, Harry had a family emergency that kept him from being able to go, and accidents and roadway shutdowns along the way, resulted in me arriving at 4:00 pm, an hour later than I desired.  Coincidentally, and as a Christian I don't believe in coincidences, 4:00 o'clock turned out to be the perfect time to arrive.  I met a bunch of folks, had an opportunity to network with them, and then had lunch with San Bernardino Sheriff Candidate Paul Schrader, and Steve Lopez of the National Rifle Association.

Then, the concert.  I can describe it in one word: LOUD.

Thank God for the ear plugs. . . which actually killed the blaring, and made the music sound better, and the singing clearer. . . but it was still loud.  In fact, I could hear the music just fine - and I could feel the music, too.

I was up front and could see the sweat on Nugent's hands as he played that guitar like Montag directed his brass nozzle in his fists, playing the symphonies of blazing and burning, but instead of bringing down the tatters and charcoal ruins of history like Montag, Ted Nugent, with his music, and fiery political words in between songs, was educating and uniting and igniting the fires of revolution, healing, love of country, and a return to the United States Constitution.

The cheers roared as Uncle Ted talked about the Revolutionary War, and how when the British came for our guns, we shot them dead.  He referred to the White House, and the sweeping sickness of socialism that has engulfed our government, and he said that we must fight back.  This is America, and we will prevail.

A fan brought an American Flag to the stage, and Nugent took that flag, held it up in reverence, and placed it behind him on his stack of stuff, momentarily later bringing out a guitar graced with the Stars and Stripes.  He talked about his love of this country, his love for his wife, his love of hunting, and how if they come for our guns we know what to do.

And then as abruptly as it began, Nugent completed the final song, Stranglehold, letting us know that is what the Left is doing to us, and then walked off stage - with a roar of screaming fans confirming that it was a night of good fun - a night where the attitude of Nugent, that irreverent attitude, was appreciated.

On the way home, after midnight, I found myself having trouble keeping my eyes open, so just short of halfway, I pulled into a travel center, cocked the seat back, and closed my eyes.  I slept for three hours before I resumed the trip home, with the concert continuing in my dreams during the short time I slept.

Great show.  The man knows how to perform, and get the crowd riled up.

And yes, I love the fact that he is an irreverent, non-conforming patriot that says it like it is - and if you don't like it, that is your problem.  He curbs his rhetoric for nobody.

Ted Nugent, thank you for a fantastic concert at the end of your summer tour.

Now, it is time for him to get ready to go hunting.

Oh, and hears the pictures I snapped of the concert.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Should we increase the minimum wage?

By Douglas V. Gibbs

A friend asked this very question, and told me based on the rising cost of living the minimum wage should not only be increased, but all the way up to $15 per hour.

Here is my response:

Aside from federal manipulation of wages being unconstitutional (no authority in the Constitution is granted to the federal government) wage control is a bad idea, and a large part of the problem.  Wages influence costs just like taxation.  An increase in minimum wage will increase the cost of doing business, and those costs will be passed to the consumers - increasing prices, and nullifying the whole idea behind the wage increase in the first place.  Low wage jobs are low for a reason. Those jobs, like entitlements, are not supposed to be a lifestyle, but a stepping stone along the journey of where someone is going.  If you want to make more money, work your way out of the low wage jobs to things that make more money.  It is called achievement, and it can be reached by hard work, a little luck, and a lot of doing the best you can even on jobs you don't like.  Being a good employee, even at things you don't necessarily like, can go a long way.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

VIP at the Ted Nugent Concert in Rancho Mirage

Tonight I am attending the Ted Nugent concert at the Agua Caliente Casino in Rancho Mirage.  After pursuing Mr. Nugent to be on my radio program for the last year and a half, I am excited to join a VIP group of influential Inland Empire conservatives tonight at the event.

There is an outside chance we will get to meet the Motor City Madman himself, too.

Oh, and from what I hear, Nugent puts on a great show.

I will tell you the details of how it went on my Constitution Radio program on KCAA 1050 AM on Saturday at 2:00 PM Pacific.  Tune in to the dial, or listen at KCAAradio.com tomorrow to hear all about the concert.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Black Conservatives. . . Judged by the Content of their Character

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Does President Obama have War Powers That Allows Him to Attack Syria without Congress's Approval?

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Ah, the age old question between the ability to wage war, and declare war.  This could get interesting.

When President George W. Bush decided to invade Iraq, he decided to run the idea by Congress, just out of political courtesy. Congress concurred, and the war began. Later, George W. Bush was criticized for his decision, and accused of running an illegal war because Congress never declared war.  They also accused Bush of selling the war on false evidence regarding weapons of mass destruction, one piece of evidence being audio recordings of Iraqis discussing the use of chemical weapons.

Now, President Barack Obama is mulling over the possibility of a military strike against Syria.  He, and his democrat minions, the same people that criticized Bush for his willingness to wage war, and claiming that the war was illegal because it was never declared by Congress, is now saying Congress can't be trusted because of the Republicans, and that Obama can wage war without even consulting Congress.  Oh, and they say they have evidence that Syria used chemical weapons. . . audio recordings of Syrians discussing the use of chemical weapons.

In 2011, President Barack Obama decided to send military personnel into Libya to assist a rebellion against Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi. Obama initiated this military operation without congressional approval, and without a declaration of war, and then stated he was not required to do so because it was "Kinetic Military Action."

So the question is, is it constitutional for a President, be it Bush, or Obama, to wage war without a declaration of war from Congress?

In the case of both Presidents, they were well within their authority to wage war.  I am not saying the decisions were good decisions, or bad decisions.  I am just saying that they were well within their constitutional authority to wage war, even if they did not consult Congress.

I think it is a wise move for the President to discuss any intentions to use the military with his military advisers, and Congress, before taking any military action of any kind. However, regardless of the wisdom of the decisions, the Commander in Chief can indeed constitutionally wage war without a declaration of war, and even without conferring with Congress before making the decision.

Former Attorney General Ed Meese says on the subject that the President has the sole power to wage war under the Constitution.

“Protecting the nation requires a unity of purpose and faculty, and it cannot be devolved to a committee or Congress,” he explains.

The President has the authority to wage war, Meese went on to explain, because in times of crisis, no time should be wasted in legislative debate and maneuver. Thus, “the Constitution place[s] paramount authority for national security in a single executive.”

Under the Articles of Confederation, which was "the constitution before the constitution," Congress had the sole power to wage war. The executive, under the Articles, had little power as it was, and in the case of war, had no say in the matter whatsoever.

During the Constitutional Convention in 1787, the founders were searching for a more balanced approach to the question of war. Congress, being populated by representatives of the States, were often in their districts. Unlike the politicians of today, the representatives were statesmen who spent more time at home than in Washington. If Congress had the sole power to wage war, the time it would take to get the message to the Congressman, and then for that Congressman to travel back to Washington, would be far too long when faced with the need for a quick decision regarding the issue of war.

On August 17, 1787, the delegates debated heavily over war powers. The fear was that by giving the President the sole power to wage war a tyrannical president would use those powers in an abusive manner. To give Congress the sole power of waging war was inefficient, and had proven to be a poor decision under the Articles of Confederation.

A compromise was needed. The founders needed to create both an efficient system, yet one that used limiting principles, and a system of checks and balances, to protect the nation from a potentially tyrannical executive.

The power to wage war was granted to the President, and the power to declare war was vested in the Congress. The President, as a result of those debates, was granted the power to wage war whenever and wherever he deemed necessary. However, that war could only be formally declared by Congress. If Congress disagreed with the President's decision to wage war, we are reminded that the Congress has the power of the purse strings, and has the power to deny the President the funding to wage war. So, though the President has the power to wage war as he believes is necessary, that power is checked by the Congressional power of being able to defund the war.

If a President continues to wage war, even after congressional attempts to cut off funding, the Congress also has the power to impeach the President as well.

The decision to wage war often demands immediate action. In such a case, only the President has the ability to quickly step in and order the troops into battle to protect the national interest.

An added point is that both Barbary Wars, waged by Presidents Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison, were undeclared wars. If the President must wait for a declaration of war in order to wage war, then that would be to suggest that Thomas Jefferson, and the father of the Constitution James Madison, acted unconstitutionally to wage war against the Barbary Pirates. Did Jefferson and Madison go against the Constitution? Or were they waging war as Commander in Chief using the war powers granted by the Constitution?

The answer can be found in the constitutional debates on August 17, 1787.

Therefore, even though I feel it would be a disastrous decision, Obama can use the military against Syria if he so wishes.

Oh, and as for the argument that the War Powers Act of 1973 places limits, and requires congressional approval, that law is only a piece of legislation, and cannot change the authorities granted by the Constitution.  Such changes can only be made by amendment.  The War Powers Act, in that sense, is an unconstitutional law.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Update: The continuing debate over 14th Amendment Privileges and Immunities Clause/Incorporation of the Bill of Rights

I am having a debate with someone who believes that the 14th Amendment's Privileges and Immunities clause incorporates the Bill of Rights to the States.  My previous posts on this are as follows:

Incorporation of the Bill of Rights to the States as per the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the 14th Amendment

Follow-Up: 14th Amendment Incorporation of Bill of Rights Debate

Here is my latest email to him:

You misunderstand. Of course the clause ensures that all privileges and immunities were protected, specifically of the emancipated slaves. The laws you listed was not about the bill of rights, but about how one group was not being treated equally under the law. That was the purpose of the amendment. It was not intended to be a general allowance of the federal government forcing the states to apply the bill of rights. Your argument is based on absolute assumptions, and you are missing the whole nature of the writing of the clause. Once again, I get what you are saying, but if you allow the federal government to force the states to do one thing, it sets precedent, and allows the federal government to force the opposite. It's like in the McDonald v. Chicago case, of which gun owners felt it was a victory for gun rights when the Supreme Court applied the 2nd Amendment to Chicago to strike down Chicago's handgun ban law. It was not a victory, but a nail in the coffin. It set a precedent of the federal government dictating to a city/state regarding gun rights. All they have to do is strike down the Heller case, change gun rights from being an individual right to a collective right, and then use McDonald as evidence that the federal government can apply the second amendment on the cities and states, and boom, our individual gun rights go out the window. If you allow the federal government to force the states to do something that you think is good, you allow the federal government to force the states to do something that is the opposite. Your definition, and understanding of the clause, places state sovereignty in jeopardy. Read the debates, and understand that they, by majority, overruled Bingham's theory. The States were to be instructed not to treat anybody differently under the law, in line with Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 - which means if I have the right to something, so does someone of the lineage of a slave, and anyone and everyone else - that is what the privileges and immunities clause means. Equality under the law. But, that does not mean forcing the States to comply as the federal government dictates regarding the Bill of Rights. That is where the informed voter comes in. Remember, the federal government is for external issues, and the States handle internal issues. The privileges and immunities clause is to ensure all people, regardless of race, color or previous condition of servitude, are treated equally under the law - and that is it. So if in a state they decide that one group can own guns, then all can. If they decide one group can't, then all can't. That is what the clause means. This incorporation of the Bill of Rights was not the intent of the voting body, or of the ratifying states - and for good reason. Once again, requiring equal treatment under the law is one thing, but allowing the federal government to force the states to abide by the bill of rights, as defined by the federal government, is a dangerous thing, and against the original intent of those that debated over the 14th Amendment, as well as the founding fathers.

Blessings,

Doug
www.politicalpistachio.com

Fort Hood Shooter, Nidal Hasan, Gets Death Penalty

By Douglas V. Gibbs

After providing for his own defense in court, and proclaiming he wanted the death penalty so that he could be a martyr, Nidal Hasan, the sick Islamic Fort Hood shooter that slaughtered 13 people in 2009, was sentenced to the death penalty on Wednesday after the jury deliberated for only two hours.  Some family members of the victims cried as the sentence was being read, but Hasan, in his wheel chair, paralyzed from the chest down from injuries from the shooting, remained emotionless.

Some are of the opinion that the death sentence should not have been granted, because of the fact that the Muslim shooter wanted that penalty so that he could be considered a martyr for Muhammad.  Hasan also wanted the death penalty because being partially paralyzed is a fate worse than death for Muslims, and he also wants out of his body that is unable to carry out anymore jihad.

The death penalty is appropriate.  In fact, the death penalty is too good for this Islamic jihadist that killed these people without remorse, without mercy, and for the purpose of fighting the Islamic jihad against America.  The traitor deserves a death by firing squad, that begins by picking off  parts of his body one by one, and then when he finally can't stand anymore pain, finally firing the killing shot.

For the families of the victims of his murderous rampage, and for the victims of other jihadist attacks, this man should be made an example.  For all of Islam to see, he should be brought to the point where he can't wait to die because of the pain, and then explained to that after he dies, he would be buried with the entrails of pig so that in his religion he would also not go to see Allah, but instead go straight to Hell.

It would be amazing how rare terrorism would be committed against the United States if we did that.  Call me radical, call me a hater, but a mere death by injection is too good for somebody like Nidal Hasan.

Oh, one more thing: You will notice in all of the mainstream media coverage of this case, Hasan is never referred to as Muslim.  He is a Major, a psychologist, and a shooter, but they almost never refer to the fact that he is Muslim, or that he committed these murders for Allah and Islam.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Fort Hood gunman Maj. Nidal Hasan sentenced to death - Fox News

Temecula Constitution Class: 6th, 7th, and 8th Amendments

Tonight, at Faith Armory located at 41669 Winchester Rd #101 Temecula, CA 92590 we will be covering Amendments 6 through 8.  Join us in the classroom at the back of the store at 6:30 pm for the one hour study.
8.6 - Amendments VI, VII and VIII

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Rights afforded in all criminal prosecutions are set forth in this amendment. Remember that we have discussed that the Constitution applies only to the federal government, unless it states otherwise. The Sixth Amendment is one of those articles that includes the States. The word "all" provides that this amendment is not only to be applied to the federal courts, but to the State, and lower, courts as well.

This article gives the accused the right to a speedy and public trial, an impartial jury, notice, to be confronted with the witnesses against him as well as obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have counsel afforded for his defense (Remember "Miranda Rights" from earlier?).

Amendment VII

In suits at Common Law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

The Seventh Amendment guarantees the right to a jury trial in most civil suits heard in federal court. The goal of the amendment was to create distinction between the work of a judge and that of a jury in operation in Federal civil court. Judges were to instruct juries, determine which evidence could be legally heard, and to advise juries on matters of law. The jury needs to hear the evidence, and determine if the lawsuit brought is viable or not.

In civil court and in common law in England, on which the Seventh Amendment is based, a judge’s responsibility should not include barraging the jury with opinions about the case or instructing jurors how to rule. Both judge and jury had vital roles, which were separate and discrete, and the system worked most fairly when these roles were maintained. The framers of the constitution sought the same distinction in American courts, resulting in inclusion of the Seventh Amendment.

State courts don’t have to honor this provision in the Seventh Amendment, and often don't. People bringing a suit do not have to have a jury trial. Individuals can waive their right to a jury trial if they so choose.

The Seventh Amendment also expressly forbids federal judges to re-examine any "fact tried by a jury" except as allowed by the common law. This means that no court, trial or appellate, may overturn a jury verdict that is reasonably supported by the evidence.

Together with the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment, the Seventh Amendment guarantees civil litigants the right to an impartial jury.

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

As a nation founded on principles, the United States legal system is expected to be fair and just. This would mean that Americans should insist upon a due process that protects individuals from excesses and abuses by the judicial system. Such expectations would include that no individual should be singled out, or treated differently, in the eyes of the courts. This means that there should be no excessive bails or fines, or cruel and unusual punishment, for one person while others guilty of similar crimes do not receive similar.

A lack of specific definitions leads us to believe that it was common knowledge what would be considered as excessive, or cruel and unusual. Unfortunately, because of the lack of clear definitions, this provision has been often the subject of "interpretation."

Resources:

Joseph Andrews, A Guide for Learning and Teaching The Declaration of Independence and The U.S. Constitution - Learning from the Original Texts Using Classical Learning Methods of the Founders; San Marcos: The Center for Teaching the Constitution (2010).

Madison’s Notes Constitutional Convention, Avalon Project, Yale University: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/debcont.asp

Philip B. Kurland and Ralph Lerner, The Founder’s Constitution - Volume Five - Amendments I-XII; Indianapolis: Liberty Fund (1987).


-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Message to striking fast food workers

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Turning adverse situations into opportunity is one of the exciting perks of living in a free society.  We do not have a caste system where only certain people can attain wealth, and where a lower class exists to perform only the menial labor.  In America, working for low-wage jobs (like fast food), or using government assistance, are not supposed to be a way of life, but simply a stepping stone one must inhabit for a moment before launching into the next phase of our journey towards success.  We are Americans.  We all have the opportunity to grow beyond our current position in life.  All we must do is go for it, be persistent, and never give up.

Sometimes, we fail. Sometimes, we must take steps back.  Then, we pick ourselves up by our bootstraps, and continue to push forward.

The Obama administration, and minority leaders, have a different message.  They believe you can't do any better than fast food.  You, according to them, are not smart enough for talented enough to pursue something more than where you currently are in life.  So, rather than viewing your job and status as a temporary station in life, they want you to demand a "living wage," you know, for that menial job they think you can't do better than.

As a result, we have fast food workers around America on strike, demanding a raise in pay, double what they are making - Falling for the proletariat-vs.-bourgeois-style argument by the democrats (you know, the same tactic used by the communists during the Russian Revolution?).

A funny thing happens when a mass wave of wage increases take place.  The cost of doing business goes up as well.  Prices rise.  And as the prices go up to meet the wages, the value of the wage increase turns out to be zero.  You have trouble buying things with the additional wages you have because the price of things went up, too.  Fast food increases influence the price of product, which in turns influences the price of production and transportation, which then branches out to other costs regarding other services and products.  Before you know it, an avalanche of inflation takes place.  Perhaps massive, perhaps not, but the ill-effect it would have on the economy would be catastrophic.  And that is not even taking into consideration other jobs that will begin demanding increases because the fast food people got one.

If you want a better wage, do well at this lower job, and use the experience and commendations for a job well-done as tools for your next step on the ladder.  Increase your position by moving up in the company, or seeking a higher position elsewhere.  Increased wages don't happen by just demanding them.  Increased wages happen when one does what it takes to achieve those increased wages.

Stop striking, go back to work, be happy you have a job, and take advantage of the opportunity America has to offer.  Be a fantastic worker, and move up.

As for the increase in fast food wages, did it occur to you that all of you progressives out there striking against fast food joints for higher wages will wind up losing your jobs by demanding more wages, anyway, if you keep up the liberal political mindset?  Think about it.  Your job is in danger because your very own allies in government wants to give amnesty to a whole army of workers, so that they can flood the job market.  Oh, and those people are willing to work for half the wages you are willing to work for.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

The Syria Conundrum

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Syria's President Assad has used chemical weapons against his own people, people who are aligned with the Muslim Brotherhood, and al-Qaeda.  Obama says he wants to send a "shot across the bow," which he calls "decisive but limited."  You can't be decisive, but limited.  They are opposites.  Either, be decisive, or don't.

Assad has crossed Obama's "red line," by using chemical weapons.  In other words, killing thousands with conventional weapons was not enough to get Obama involved, but a few hundred with chemical weapons was too much.

If Obama moves against Assad, he is sending a message that we are siding with the same people that flew planes into the twin towers on September 11, 2001.  If he sends a limited response, it will encourage both Assad and the Syrian Rebels to up the ante.  The available moves are either to stay out of Syria, or go in fully with a quick and decisive invasion.

Considering the political implications, we must remain out of this conflict.

A political solution is impossible, because Islam does not negotiate, but to make a move into Syria is a lose-lose situation that puts us on a warpath with Islam that will escalate in ways we are not ready to fight.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

On Syria, Obama says eyeing "shot across the bow" - Yahoo News

Martin Luther King Jr. - I Have A Dream - 50 Years

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Today marks the 50th Anniversary of Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I Have A Dream" speech.  The speech is one of the most acclaimed speech's in America's history.  The phrase "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character" summed up the Civil Rights movement of the day, and is a statement that for many has been fulfilled in today's society.  Unfortunately, sometimes, that statement is ignored.

The election of Barack Obama is a great example, where in poll after poll it has been overwhelmingly demonstrated that a large portion of voters voted for Barack Obama not because of his policies, or his character, but because of the color of his skin.

Today President Obama is delivering a speech to commemorate the anniversary of Dr. King's speech, and I believe Mr. Obama should not be present, and should not be allowed to participate.  He has done more to create division than any leader in recent memory.  He has used race baiting and class warfare to gain power, keep power, and push his Marxist policies on this nation.  He has divided this nation, he has driven a stake between blacks and whites, and he has done much to create an America that is contrary to what Dr. King desired.

Read the text of Dr. King's "I have a dream speech" HERE.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Run for Office?

By Douglas V. Gibbs

I am flattered that there are local folks telling me I ought to run for some kind of office.  I am seriously considering it, but to do so I need to be assured that I will have incredible support, an army of volunteers, and enough funding to accomplish the feat.

I believe the political atmosphere is much like it was in 2010.  I believe the voters are sick of professional politicians.  It is possible to win, be it local, at the state level, or for national office.

Would you be in? Would you help do what it takes to help me win?

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Let The Government Shutdown

By Douglas V. Gibbs

The budget battle, and the GOP desire to defund Obamacare, has met at a crossroads in Washington. . . and it brings back memories of budget battles of the nineties, between the Republican dominated Congress and President Bill Clinton.  The conventional wisdom is that the republicans lost that battle, but the truth is not quite that.  The fear of the media misconstruing the facts regarding the shutdown, as they did in 1995, has the GOP nervous.  Should they shut down the government?  Will they lose the battle of "image with the public" through the eyes of the biased media?  Or should they grow a pair and do what needs to be done and let the government shutdown?

A Government Shutdown is not the ultimate desire, but a necessity to defund the defundable parts of the Affordable Care Act.  The democrats have already begun their attacks, claiming it is the republicans that want to shutdown the government over a silly little thing like "keeping healthcare away from Americans."

The GOP needs to turn that argument around.  They need to explain it is the opposite.  Obama and the democrats are willing to defund the entire government rather than sign a bill that does not contain funding for their precious government intrusion into the health insurance industry - despite the opposition of a majority of Americans.

Fascinatingly, Obama has been working to defund his own law, losing revenue by delaying the employer mandate, effectively losing revenue that would have materialized from the penalties.

Reducing the burden on employers, or at least that was their excuse, and the delay of the consumer cost cap until 2015, were not done for the reasons stated, but to delay the catastrophe of rising costs and rising premiums that would result when those provisions go into effect.  The law is designed to destroy the private health insurance industry so that the people will begin begging for "single payer" to save them from the mean ol' insurance companies.

A loss of revenue, and the rising cost of funding the law, poses a threat that could greatly increase the amount of funding.  That alone should make us realize the danger this law poses to our economy.  For the sake of slowing down our rapidly rising national debt, we must defund the whole failed monstrosity.  The drain on the treasury, the insidious nature of the law that combines the destruction of a private industry while allowing government to gain control of our lives through medical dictates, and the unconstitutional nature of the law from its establishment to the constant delay and modification of provisions by President Obama, is reason enough to do what can be done to defund it.

The republicans, however, in order for that to happen, have to be willing to stand behind their resolve, even if it means allowing a government shutdown. . .  because the democrats refuse to sign a budget without funding for Obamacare being in it.

By refusing to accept a budget with Obamacare defunded, Obama and his minions are willing to defund the entire government, shutting everything down, and if the GOP would just recognize it that way, and articulate that reality to the American people, they will win the battle of words over the impending budget battle.

As for the concern that a government shutdown will ruin the next election for the republicans, we must remember that despite conventional wisdom, the GOP did not lose last time this happened as we are being told.

Representative Mike Lee is one of the republicans that seems to have grown a pair.  He says we have to defund Obamacare.  This is the last gasp.  This is the last chance.  We must do it, even if it means allowing the government to shutdown because the democrats refuse to sign a bill without funding for Obamacare in it.

The delays the democrats keep putting into place is evidence that Obamacare damages the economy.  That is why they keep delaying everything until after the 2014 election.  They need the House, and if Obamacare is not revealed for the failure it is before the election, they think they can take the House of Representatives.

The Republicans are gun-shy because they have been convinced that they lost the 1995 budget battle, and the media is already saying the republicans will lose the House in 2014 if they let the government shutdown now.  Allowing the government to shutdown has the republicans scared out of their minds.  The 1995 budget battles, as far as the GOP establishment is concerned, resulted in a series of disasters.  They believe that because that is how the media portrayed it.  But after that battle, the republicans won seats in the Senate, and they held the House.  Not exactly evidence that it was a failure.

On paper, the budget battle in 1995 was not a disaster, but a big success.  The GOP was just too afraid to correct the media when they painted it otherwise.

The economy was not a disaster after the government shutdown in 1995, either.  It resulted in a slowdown of the growth of government.  Children didn't starve, the elderly did not eat cat food out of cans, and entitlement checks did not cease to be written.  Reductions in spending occurred, and the economy benefited as a result.

And remember, part of the problem was the republicans did not have any allies in the media, but now they have the new media.  Now the conservative blogs will go to bat for them.  The results should be even more favorable, because voters just want the GOP to act like the opposition party they claim to be.  Voters wish for them to stand up to the democrats, and actually have enough intestinal fortitude to follow through with whatever it takes to stop the liberal leftist madness that Obama and his minions have been inflicting on this nation's economy.

There is an entire conservative media that will battle the propaganda put out by the leftist media.  The fears of the Republican leadership is not totally unfounded, but those fears are not completely realistic, either.  Their fears are based on silly notions put out there by the democrats and their compliant press. The republicans must defund Obamacare, even if it means a government shutdown.  It is time for the republicans to finally stand up to the democrats and say, "Enough is enough.  We are going to fight this fight, and quit being afraid."

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Winning the Government-Shutdown Fight - Daniel J. Mitchell - National Review Online

Sen. Mike Lee Threatens Government Shutdown Over Obamacare - Real Clear Politics

How ObamaCare could cost Republicans the House in 2014 - Yahoo! News

Is ObamaCare a stepping stone to government-controlled health care? - Fox News

Follow-Up: 14th Amendment Incorporation of Bill of Rights Debate

As indicated in a previous post, a debate over whether or not the Bill of Rights is to be applied to the States and if the federal government is allowed to force the States to comply continued.  The emailer, who is a conservative, continued to defend the conventional wisdom and progressive view.  This is my response.

What you are suggesting is the federal government has the authority to "force" the States to follow what they say they must do regarding rights (which allows the federal government to determine what rights and definitions can be) and you are suggesting that the responsibility is not in the hands of the people at the State level. This concept is something the progressives love ever since the Civil War. According to the Left the States stopped being autonomous at the time following the Civil War. The thinking was they misbehaved, so the federal government must control them and make sure they don't dare misbehave again. This allowed progressivism a foot in the door. You have bought into propaganda, and your response used the courts as a support for your argument. The courts are a large part of the problem, and the catalyst behind pushing the agenda to allow the federal government to eliminate State sovereignty. As I said in the last email, regardless of Bingham's and the courts' opinions, the overall concensus was that, as the founders originally intended, the Bill of Rights must not be applied to the States for it opened the door for the federal government to "control" the States. That does not mean those rights are no longer rights, it means that the federal government could not "force" the States to follow their definitions of rights, and that the people must stand up, through their involvement and their State constitutions, for their rights. The rights belong to the people, not the federal government, so it is up to the people to defend them.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Incorporation of the Bill of Rights to the States as per the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the 14th Amendment - Political Pistachio

Incorporation of the Bill of Rights to the States as per the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the 14th Amendment

In a recent email a debate between two of the class members of my Constitution Class over whether or not the 2nd Amendment applies to the States overflowed to me.  One of the debaters claimed the Privileges and Immunities Clause incorporates the Bill of Rights to the States, forcing the States to abide by the Second Amendment.  This is my response:

I do not believe the Fourteenth Amendment applies the Bill of Rights to the States. We have talked about this before.  If the 2nd Amendment applied to the States, that would include the phrase "shall not be infringed," which would make all State gun laws unconstitutional, as well as all federal gun laws.  Should all gun laws at both the federal level and the State level be null and void?

If you read the Congressional Globe, Ohio Congressman John Bingham, the writer of the clause, desired that it apply the Bill of Rights to the States, forcing the States to protect the immortal Bill of Rights.  Opponents against Bingham's point of view argued that Bingham's desire that the Bill of Rights must be applied to the States went against the original intent of the founders, and used Chief Justice John Marshall’s Supreme Court ruling in Barron v. Baltimore, that held that federal courts could not enforce the Bill of Rights against the states, as a part of their evidence.

In the end, it was recognized that our rights belong to us, and the States were expected to abide by the wishes of the citizens in regards to not stomping on our rights, but it was not the federal government's authority to force the States to do so.  The responsibility fell on the States.  Therefore, though Bingham's desire was the incorporation of the Bill of Rights to the States, the overall vote decided against that.  Those that supported Bingham's position were not satisfied with that, and over the following decades, and even well into the next century, embarked on a campaign that would bring about Bingham's wishes by incorporating the Bill of Rights to the States through a series of court rulings.

So, Mr. MXXXX's assessment of the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the 14th Amendment does not jive with the original intent of those that voted for it in Congress, but instead agrees with the progressive push regarding that clause.  Remember, progressives believe that the Constitution was written to "United and Control the States," as iterated by Joe Klein in his Obama's Fairness Doctrine article in Time Magazine (final paragraph) a couple years ago.  In reality, it is none of the federal government's business what the States do - but it is "our" business.  The States should not infringe on gun rights because the right to keep and bear arms is a natural right, or a fundamental right - not to be forced by the federal government, but to be responsibly defended and protected by the people whose rights could be in jeopardy if they don't fight for them.

Here are a few links to help you with your research should you wish to look into my position.  You will notice in your research that those that support incorporation uses case law as their argument.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/36527058/Congressional-Debates-of-the-14th-Amendment

http://georgetownlawjournal.org/files/2013/07/Lash.pdf

http://constitutionmythbuster.com/2011/07/28/did-the-14th-amendment-really-incorporate-the-bill-of-rights/

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2105453,00.html

I hope this helps.

Blessings, 

Douglas V. Gibbs

www.politicalpistachio.com

Obama Federal Government to Tinker With College Costs. . . again

By Douglas V. Gibbs

The United States Constitution gives the federal government no authority to be involved with education.  Academia, however, is a very important tool in use for the progressive leftist liberal democrats.  The education system, from a person's first day of school until their graduation from college, is the perfect indoctrination system, and the Obama administration cannot allow the government's grip on those students to weaken whatsoever.  The cost must remain affordable.  The unconstitutional influence by government must increase.  After all, Obama and the democrats are working to eliminate all opposition, and what better way than to educate with their own ideology an army of youth for the future?

Sweeping reforms to federal aid regarding college education is in full swing, but Obama's plans create a scorecard system.  The better the school does, the more money it gets.  The poorer it does, the less money it gets.

In other words, teach the agenda to our approval, or a part of your funding goes bye-bye.

With scorecards what is important to the politicians, specifically the hard leftist politicians, will become the standard.  Of course, giving money to the democrat party will elevate some schools over others.  And the existing scorecards hosted by private organizations will go the way of the private health care industry (once Obamacare is done with it), and the government will have a monopoly on determining what is taught.

Then, they will turn on private institutions, and homeschoolers.

This is bad news, my friends.  Bad News Indeed.

Education Choice succeeds.  When government controls education. . . well, let's just say that was what Communist China, the Soviet Union, and Hitler's Germany did.

"When an opponent declares,
'I will not come over to your side.'
I calmly say, 'Your child belongs to us already…
What are you? You will pass on.
Your descendants, however,
now stand in the new camp.
In a short time they will know nothing
else but this new community.'" - Adolf Hitler
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

What does Obama want to do with College Costs? - ABC News

4 Problems with Federal College Scorecards - Heritage Foundation

Death of The Little Guy

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Twelve years ago my wife and I purchased a pair of geckos. We named them based on their sizes: Big Guy and The Little Guy after our son moved out and relinquished their care over to us.

Over the last couple weeks The Little Guy began looking shriveled,  lost his tail without growing it back, and a couple days ago wound up upside down and Virginia had to flip him back over.   Finally, yesterday,  The Little Guy left us.

Big Guy's companion is on a new adventure.

We were told they live about ten years, so The Little Guy going 12 years is an accomplishment.  I am sure Big Guy will follow suit soon.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

King's Dream March on Washington Misses Dr. King's Point

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. understood the dream of the Founding Fathers.  "All Men Are Created Equal."  It was a condition in America the founders dreamed would come to pass.  They saw a future where the sin of slavery would be defeated, but they expected the States to individually rid our nation of the practice.  Instead, we fought a war - a war where over 600,000 young men perished.

States' Rights may have been the fuse, but slavery was the black powder.

We persevered through the Democrat Party's Jim Crow Laws and the party of the donkey's creation of the KKK, we corrected Democrat President Woodrow Wilson's decision to segregate the military, we overcame the Democrat Party's attempt to filibuster the Civil Rights Act after the Republicans overwhelmingly supported the measure, and we have prospered despite the Democrat Party's attempt to enslave Americans with their entitlement programs.  We prospered as a society where the hard work of individuals, the dreams of Americans, did not see race or humble beginnings.  Anyone could succeed.  Anyone could reach the American Dream.  Allen West did it.  Herman Cain did it.  Thomas Sowell did it.  Clarence Thomas did it.  Barack Obama did it.

The liberal left Democrats were not satisfied with prosperity, because socialism cannot be hammered into place when capitalism, and a mighty free market, dominates a nation's economy.  Unity through the American Spirit cannot be deconstructed when there is prosperity, and when it is the kind of prosperity that sees no color or ethnicity.

For the socialist plans of the Democrats to be realized, division was necessary, and Obama has achieved that division.

The election of Barack Obama slapped Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. in the face, not because of the historic election of the first black president, but because many of the voters put him into office because of the color of his skin, not the content of his character.  Then, Obama spit in Dr. King's face, inserting race and division into every issue he could.  All the while, the politicians, the entertainment industry, and the biased media doubled down, elevating Obama to some kind of level of godhood.  He became a savior, a messiah, a leader worthy of is own logo, and having his face placed upon the nation's Flag - an action in history that was normally reserved only for despots, and tyrants.

The marchers on Washington say that King's dream of equity has not been achieved.  They say that inequality remains in place because we don't have equity in results.  The rich get richer, and the poor get poorer, they say.  The new normal in America, according to the marchers, is the loss of the American Dream.  They believe government must redistribute the wealth, stealing from the producers, and raining down the spoils upon those that have-not in the form of government gifts from the treasury.  They expect everyone to achieve a mediocre living standard, regardless of the effort put into it.  Rather than elevate those that yearn for better, they believe those that have achieved must be knocked down to the level of the "less fortunate."

Equality is not equity in results, but equity in opportunity.  We are equal in the eyes of God and under the law, but our individual and unique characteristics make us different, and those differences will make it easier or harder for us to achieve our goals in life.  It is up to us to make our lives fair, to battle through the storms, and make a life that government could never give us, no matter how many entitlement programs they create.

The marchers on Washington fail to understand the slavery that government has placed many of their supporters under.  The government provides, and then the government can dictate.  That is no freedom at all.  It is bondage.

Martin Luther King Jr. envisioned a day when race-baiters and racists like Obama, and his Marxist minions, stepped aside, and Americans achieved their dreams through hard work, without the division caused by fascist socialists like the President.  King dreamed of a day when white on black, and black on white crimes would not be called actions of racism, or the result of inanimate objects like guns causing the violence, but the unacceptable maneuvers by evil people doing despicable things.  He dreamed that together, without a care about any cultural or ethnic differences, without any care other than that we are all Americans seeking the American Dream, that we would make this a better place by achieving, by succeeding, and by expanding the pie with our wealth and hard work - without the government standing in the way with programs, regulations, and race-baiting.

The marchers tell us that we have a lot of work to do. That the dream is not yet fulfilled.  They are right. The dream is not fulfilled, not because of the presence of racism as they view it, but because the Leftists have kept division alive, dragging race into everything they can, igniting differences and calling them the seeds of division.

Our differences are not division.  They are how we compliment each other.  We are Americans.  We are individuals, with unique talents, whose weaknesses are the strengths of others, and vice versa.  We are not a nation divided when race-baiters like Obama, and the democrats, are not in power and fomenting the seeds of division.  We are united. . . as Americans.

I am not color blind, as some say they wish people to be.  When I see a person of a different ethnicity walking towards me, I recognize the differences.  I know we are unique individuals.  Unlike the Leftists, I just don't care about it.  I don't point out the differences in ethnicity or culture.  We are Americans that happen to have differences, and that is all - and those unique differences is what makes us who we are, and gives us the ability to become who we want to be.  The leftists, however, care about division and pointing out those differences as if they are a bad thing.  They do this because they endeavor to use those differences to create division, to create chaos, to create crisis.  It is only when the nation is divided can the democrats conquer America with big government.  That is what Hitler did.  He pitted Germans against the Jews.  Obama is doing the same, pitting whites against all minorities.  He sows the seeds of hatred, and calls his opposition the haters.

We are currently divided.  The marchers are correct on that count, but for the wrong reason.  We are divided because the democrats, assisted by a complicit mainstream media, have ushered us in that direction.

I pray that the marchers come to recognize reality, and join America in stopping this madness, instead of continuing to buy into the lies and propaganda that divides this nation.  Unfortunately, they have scales over their eyes, and the leftists in government are pushing, dividing, and demanding that violence erupts so that they may do what tyrants do.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

King's Dream Not Yet Realized, Says March on Washington Speaker - NBC

Obama's Sons Busy Doing What They Do - Blasted Fools

Who Believes in Gun Control? Historically, Tyrants Do.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

We The People - And Local Activism: The Main Topics on Constitution Radio with Douglas V. Gibbs

Welcome to your WEEKEND DOSE OF TRUTH!

Who are "We The People," and what did the founders mean by using those words?  Are we a democracy?  Are we just about the will of the people?  Or as a "republic," is there more to it than meets the eye?

Today's Constitution Radio with Douglas V. Gibbs will dive into that topic as we will begin a series of working through the Constitution word-by-word during my monologues. Then, my guest, Alex Ferguson, will tell us how he makes a difference, and how you, too, can be involved in local activism.

Constitution Radio with Douglas V. Gibbs, KCAA AM1050, KCAAradio.com, listen at 832-999-1050, or catch the archived podcast later.  Call in to join the conversation at 888-909-1050.  The radio program will begin live at 2:07 pm Pacific.

Today:

"HEADLINES!"

Obama’s Justice Department To Sue Texas Over its Voter ID Law, Governor Perry Stands Firm

http://politicalpistachio.blogspot.com/2013/08/obamas-justice-department-seeks-lawsuit.html

----- Then stay with us for the Book of the Week, and the Constitution Quest Question of the Week.

During the final half hour I will be joined by my friend, JASmius, to discuss the. . .

5 Big Stories of the Week, August 24, 2013

5: Filthy Filner Resigns, San Diego Tax Payers to Pay for his Legal Costs

http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2013/aug/23/filner-resigns/

4: Murder - Black Teens Kill Australian Baseball Player

http://politicalpistachio.blogspot.com/2013/08/black-on-white-killing-rocks-nation.html

http://dailycaller.com/2013/08/21/black-teen-who-murdered-australian-jogger-posted-racist-tweets/

http://ideas.time.com/2013/08/22/viewpoint-dont-ignore-race-in-christopher-lanes-murder/

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/08/22/colorado-lawmaker-racist-remarks-blacks-diabetes-bbq/2684303/

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2013/08/22/rush_injects_race_into_oklahoma_murder

3: Egypt - 25 Police Executed in Sinai

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20130819/DA88SGFG1.html

2. Syria Kills With Nerve Gas, Horrific Pictures of Dead Children

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2398691/Syrias-darkest-hour-Hundreds-childrens-bodies-piled-high-nerve-gas-attack-near-Damascus-leaves-1-300-dead.html

http://politicalpistachio.blogspot.com/2013/08/syria-government-kills-children-in.html

Warships Move Towards Syria:

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_UNITED_STATES_SYRIA?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-08-24-07-37-32

1. Fort Hood Massacre: Shooter Guilty, Faces Death Penalty

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/jury-fort-hood-rampage-resume-deliberations

http://www.wtop.com/209/3430214/Soldier-guilty-of-murder-for-Fort-Hood-shootings


Seeks Martyrdom: http://www.nhregister.com/general-news/20130823/fort-hood-suspect-convicted-of-murder-eligible-for-death-penalty

American Daily Review Radio with JASmius and Douglas V. Gibbs Brightens your Saturday!

Upcoming Broadcasts

02:00

American Daily Review

Welcome to the pre-game show for Constitution Radio on the Political Pistachio Radio Network [(KCAA-1050AM (Los Angeles), KCXL-1140AM (Kansas City), and WHTH-790AM (Youngstown, Ohio)]! Hang on every word of Blog Talk... more

by ADR Radio

in Politics Conservative

Noontime Pacific on Saturday!

Obama's Justice Department Seeks Lawsuit Against Texas Regarding Voter ID Law

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Article I, Section 4, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution: The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

This means that it is up to the States' legislatures to prescribe the manner of how elections in States shall be held.  Other clauses in the Constitution make it clear the States have this power regarding electors in the Presidential Election, as well.  Of course State and local elections will also fall under this authority.  The clause also gives the federal government legislative authority to alter, as necessary regarding elections for federal seats.  Of course, we must remember that does not mean the Congress can just pass any law, willy-nilly to control how States run their elections.  Those laws must fall within the authorities granted by the Constitution.  Article 6 states that in order for laws of the United States to be valid they must be in pursuant of the Constitution.

Obama, and his minions in the Executive Branch, believe they are royalty, they are above the law of the land, and can do as they please.  They pass law through regulatory agencies, they modify laws by executive order or regulatory fiat, and they sue any State that does act in a manner King Obama expects.  It happened with Arizona over immigration, and it is happening here over voter ID.

As the executive, it is Obama's job to protect, preserve and promote not only the union of States, but State sovereignty, as well.  Instead, these people are content with going after the States, trying to punish them for daring to act outside Obama's will.  They think it is the federal government's job to control the States, and that is just not true.

Voter ID laws are incredibly important.  They are designed to ensure that only those eligible to vote can vote.  They will help curb voter fraud.

Why would the federal government go after States daring to pass voter ID laws unless they desire those not eligible to vote to be able to cast ballots?  Why would they sue States like Texas unless they want voter fraud to continue?

To his credit, Texas Governor Perry is standing up to the Obama Regime.

The argument I have been given by leftist democrats is that voter ID laws are racist, because many people in poor minority neighborhoods are so poor, they can't even bring themselves to a position where they can go down to DMV and get some kind of identification.

My question is, then how do they cash their welfare checks?

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Justice Department to sue Texas over voter ID law - Fox News

Obama Deputy Press Secretary Jokes about Muslim Attacks on Christians in Egypt

The White House’s deputy press secretary today downplayed Muslim attacks on Christians in Egypt, joking about the savagery that has left at least six Christians dead.

Press secretary Josh Earnest was asked by Fox News’ correspondent, Ed Henry, if President Barack Obama has a “red line” beyond which he would act against Muslim attacks on Egyptian Christians.

“Well, I didn’t bring my red pen out with me today,” Earnest joked.

Go to Clash Daily for the video

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Temecula Constitution Class: Wrap up of Amendments 3 and 4, Begin Discussions on Amendments 5-8

Tonight at 6:30 pm we meet at Faith Armory for a study of the United States Constitution.  Faith Armory is located in Temecula, California at 41669 Winchester Road, Suite 101.  The topics for tonight are the final discussion on the 3rd and 4th Amendments, and an introduction to Amendments 5-8.

Join us for the conversation.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Black on White Killing Rocks Nation... Liberal Media Unconcerned

MURDER SHOCKS HEARTLAND...

COPS: 'Bored' Black Teens Kill White Baseball Player 'For Fun'...

'I Pulled The Trigger!'

Killers should 'rot in hell'...

Racist Tweets...

Australian tourists urged to boycott USA...

White House spokesman 'not familiar with' murder...

I guarantee you this would be big news by the Left if the killers were white and the victim was black. . .

The democrats are wanting a race war, because it would be a great crisis that would not go to waste.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary