Friday, January 31, 2014

Hard Starboard Radio: Barack Obama Nude!

Socialism sucks everywhere, not just in Obamerika; King Hussein loves inequality - and he's NAKED too!; Eric The Red declares war on the GOP; Meanwhile, Democrats are fleeing their "messiah" - and for good reason; Wendy Davis's falsies are the new symbol of Obamunist anti-Christian persecution; and my Super Bowl XLVIII prediction.

Who's got your back?  I've got your back at 6PM Eastern/3PM Pacific.  Now pass me those Seahawk Skittles.

Black Conservative Leaders: The NRA Was Created To Protect Freed Slaves

by JASmius

Black conservative leaders discuss the reason the NRA was founded and how gun control is an effort to control people.

The Center for Urban Renewal and Education (CURE) hosted a group of prominent figures from the African American community at 9:45A.M. on Friday, February 22nd at the National Press Club to speak out against gun control legislation currently being considered on Capitol Hill.

CURE is the largest black conservative think tank in the nation and is headquartered in Washington, D.C.

CURE organized the news conference in response to concerns shared by black conservatives that the Senate proposed laws will restrict their ability to defend themselves, their property and their families. They are also concerned that the proposed gun control legislation puts too much power in the hands of politicians.

"I believe that it is our duty to stand together and challenge the proposals currently on the table in the Senate, which invoke painful memories of Jim Crow laws and black codes," said CURE president and founder, Star Parker. "Black history is rife with government demands for background checks in order to qualify for constitutional rights. All Americans should be concerned."

Star Parker, a nationally syndicated columnist and other noted thought leaders, authors and speakers will make the case against the type of gun control measures President Obama and his liberal allies are proposing. While the group believes that Sandy Hook was a national tragedy, they oppose its use as an opportunity to advance government control and strip any American citizens of their constitutional rights. In the middle of Black History Month, CURE is calling for a serious national dialogue about the impact of gun control on the black community.

A Preview Of Super Sunday

by JASmius

Who's got your back?  I got your back....

Thursday, January 30, 2014

Temecula Constitution Class Lesson 03 Founding Documents part 2

Tonight we wrap up Lesson 03.


Constitution Class Handout
January 30, 2014 (6:30 pm)
Instructor: Douglas V. Gibbs

Faith Armory
41669 Winchester Rd.
Temecula, CA

Lesson 03

·   Founding Documents, and Other Influential Documents

The Four Founding Documents are the Articles of Association, The Declaration of Independence, The Articles of Confederation, and The United States Constitution.  Many other documents were also a great influence on the Constitution.

·   Holy Bible, Old Testament, Torah
·   The Laws of the Twelve Tables of the Roman Republic (About 450 B.C.)
·   Magna Carta (1215)
·   English Bill of Rights (1689)
·   Connecticut Fundamental Orders (1689)
·   Articles of Association (1774)
·   Declaration of Independence (1776)
·   Articles of Confederation (1781)
·   Northwest Ordinance (1787)
·   United States Constitution (1787)

Don't worry, we didn't forget the Mayflower Compact. . . That important document will launch the next lesson: The Path to the Constitution.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Hard Starboard Radio: Space Monkeys

Politicians steer the economy like chimps fly rockets; Preexisting conditions, guaranteed renewability — HIPAA already covered those issues; Today’s expansive notion of government is alien to the ideas behind the Constitution; Apparently, "income inequality" didn't focus group well; And will history be enough to deliver the Senate into Republican hands?

Prepare for lift-off at 6PM Eastern/3PM Pacific.  And please don't press the big yellow button.

the Stoner Bowl

By Douglas V. Gibbs

The big game. The championship of American football.  The game during which I will  be eating a super bowl of salsa.

Reports are saying that the ticket sales for the game between Seattle and Denver are not doing so well.   There are fears this game will be one of the least watched in history.

Has anybody considered that the states these teams are from recently legalized marijuana?

The fans didn't hear "super bowl".  They heard "smoke a bowl."  They are too stoned to care, or show up.

That said, it should also be the only big game to end with the fans of both teams sporting a silly grin.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Senator Lee Questions Eric Holder On Executive Orders

by JASmius

Senator Lee questions Eric "The Red" on NSA meta data collection and unilateral executive orders of questionable constitutionality.

I can save Senator Lee some time on the question of the purpose of the NSA meta-date mining.  In fact, I can distill it down to a single word: blackmail.  If you've got some deep, dark secret - or secrets - that you would never want to get out, guess what?  Barack Obama knows about it, and can roll it out in a public statement, or a sudden knock on your door in the middle of the night, or perhaps just send you a friendly letter telling you that "you might want to change your views on current events, because it would be a shame if people found out about this".  Just ask Dinesh D'Souza.

For all you TPers out there who get so frustrated with the GOP "establishment," you might want to consider this for a spell.  It may be that some of them do not retain, shall we say, "freedom of action".

Boiling Frogs

by JASmius

If you boil frogs, they tend to notice and hop out of the hot water; but if you gradually turn up the heat, they don't notice and get boiled anyway. Join Bill Whittle, as he examines how our society has become the boiling water, and how we stayed in the water because it was so incremental. Our freedoms, everything we hold dear, seems in jeopardy now--how will we be judged by the countless soldiers, and arguers for liberty, from our country's history?

I wonder if any of this crossed Cory Remsburg's mind as he sat there in the, um, "first lady's box" as O's designated propaganda human shield.

Obama's SOTU Address Gets Record-Low Ratings

by JASmius

Evidently, it was a re-run.

It's actually a shame more Americans weren't watching this bilious tripe, as this fifty-nine second passage might - I know, it probably wouldn't have, but at this point I'll take any de-scaled eyes we can get - have grabbed some LIVs' attention:

"I'm going to rule this country as a dictator and render all of you irrelevant."


Kind of like Chancellor Palpatine announcing to the Galactic Senate that he was reorganizing the Republic into the First Galactic Empire.  What was it Senator Amidala said?  "So this is how liberty dies - with thunderous applause."

How could that have not garnered better ratings?  By burying it in a mountain of banalities, of course.

If I'd been in the House chamber Tuesday night, I'd have gotten up and walked out after that quip.  A crying shame the Republicans in attendance didn't.

Dershowitz, Law Enforcement Experts Slam Outrageous D'Souza Targeting

by JASmius

Thus putting themselves in legal jeopardy with the Regime.  At least they're doing it with their eyes wide open:

Even if allegations made against conservative filmmaker Dinesh D'Souza in a federal indictment on campaign finance violations prove to be true, legal experts and former federal regulatory authorities tell Newsmax that the government's handling of the case has been unusual.

"This is clearly a case of selective prosecution for one of the most common things done during elections, which is to get people to raise money for you," famed law professor Alan Dershowitz told Newsmax.

"If they went after everyone who did this, there would be no room in jails for murderers."

You know how lefties (and National Review, I suppose) call drug possession and use a "victimless" crime that "needlessly clogs up" our correctional system?  I've always disagreed with that view.  When something is wrong, it's wrong, and continuing to combat it (the "war on drugs") isn't a function of logistics or resources, but of collective public will.

The Regime clearly lacks the will to continue the war on drugs - or, rather, they want the entire populace even more pickled and stuporous than it is already so as to extinguish whatever vestiges of voter vigilance there might still be left.  And we all know their stupendous capacity for political corruption and election related "irregularities".  Yet here comes, out of the blue itself, a sudden "zero tolerance" policy for a victimless crime that, in campaign finance terms, hovers around the severity level of mumbledypeg, and it just so happens, by pure coincidence, that the target of this "zero tolerance" policy is the man who belatedly vetted Barack Obama's radical, extremist, Ameriphobic, anti-constitutionalist, Marxist-Alinskyist background during the 2012 campaign.

Selective doesn't begin to describe it.  And evidently, people are taking notice:

The Justice Department's tactics remind Dershowitz of the words of Stalin's secret police chief, Lavrentiy Beria, who said, "Show me the man and I’ll find you the crime."

"This is an outrageous prosecution and is certainly a misuse of resources," charged Dershowitz. "It raises the question of why he is being selected for prosecution among the many, many people who commit similar crimes.
A question to which the answer is nakedly obvious:

"This sounds to me like it is coming from higher places. It is hard for me to believe this did not come out of Washington or at least get the approval of those in Washington."

Others share Dershowitz's suspicions. Joseph diGenova, a former U.S. Attorney and partner at the law firm diGenova & Toensing, says it is not surprising that criminal charges were brought because the Justice Department has been actively prosecuting campaign finance violations.

"But what strikes me as unusual is that it involves a single donation made by an individual with no criminal record. It seems to me that a misdemeanor makes much more sense than a felony charge," diGenova told Newsmax.
Why swat a fly with a flyswatter when you can do so with an Abrams battle tank?  Clearly D'Souza is being made an example of as a chilling message to anybody else who would cross the Regime.  I fully expect his to be a show trial, with live coverage on MSNBCCCP

Meanwhile, the evidence for this "overreaction" continues to pour in:

"What struck me first was that it is unusual in cases like these for the FBI to go out and actually arrest someone, simply because it is not necessary," David Mason, a former commissioner of the Federal Election Commission, told Newsmax.

"And even less so in this case because [D'Souza] has enough prominence that it is fairly obvious that he is not a flight risk. White collar indictments are made lots of times without an arrest being made," Mason said.

Law enforcement experts tell Newsmax that if the FBI or another federal agency received a tip about a fraudulent act involving just $20,000, the government would likely show little interest in investigating. Mason notes that a violation of $20,000 in contributions is trivial compared to most cases.

"The violation involves a pretty small amount for this type of case," said Mason, who was  an FEC commissioner from 1998 to 2008. When small amounts of campaign financing regularities are uncovered the matter is usually resolved at a low level.
In short, this was not some blockbuster heist, some spectacular iniquity, but rather an....opportunity.  And like crises, this Regime never fails to exploit opportunities to the fullest.  And if you think they're going to leave anything to chance, guess again:

Mason believes the case against D'Souza will succeed or fail depending upon whether prosecutors can prove he was "knowing and willful" in making the improper contributions. "There are a lot of sophisticated people who are not aware of the nuances of campaign finance law," he pointed out.
I beg to differ with Mr. Mason.  The prosecutors will not have to prove anything.  This is going to be a "drumhead" trial in which the verdict - guilty - will be the starting point, with the rest of this exercise in "Cardassian justice" backfilled from there.  The Regime wants that image of a prominent dissident dragged away in chains, and they're going to get it, whatever it takes.

Take a good, long look my Tea Party friends, and count the cost of what it's going to take to turn this country around.  I'm afraid the price of domestic patriotism has gotten a lot more expensive than just showing up at Constitution classes on Thursday evenings.

Wednesday, January 29, 2014

Hard Starboard Radio: The Domination Proclamation

The fragile state of the union; Was O boring, banal, pedestrian, or openly frightening?  One thing's for sure: nothing is going to change policy-wise, other than it continuing to get worse; Does O have the unconstitutional power he's grabbing?  Yes he does!  Don't believe me?  Ask Ted Cruz; And O's unpopularity will cost Dems control of the Senate - but with O ruling by decree, what difference will it make?

It's time to worship and bow down at 6PM Eastern/3PM Pacific.  Anybody who wants to join me in walking out, the conga line forms here.

Barack Obama Regarding Health Care Law to Republicans: If you have ideas. . .

By Douglas V. Gibbs

President Barack Obama during his 2014 State of the Union Speech: "Now, I have heard rumors that a few of you still have concerns about our new health care law. (Laughter.) So let me be the first to say that anything can be improved. If you have ideas about how to improve this law by making care better or more affordable, I am eager to work with you."

The Republicans are scrambling to come up with an alternative plan to Obamacare.  They are convinced they must come up with a more conservative version of the federal health care law, as if any federal program can be "conservative."  They have been dared to do so.  Obama dared them to last night in his State of the Union speech.

Despite what Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, or the liberal leftist judges, proclaim, there is no authority in the Constitution for the federal government to have any involvement with the nation's health care system.  It is none of their business.  But Obama does not understand that, and the GOP Establishment has trouble understanding that, as well.  Theirs is a foreign interpretation of what a central government should be.

Obama's message is always that he's a problem solver, and the solution to the problem, whatever it is, is more government.  The government is the embodiment, in the eyes of these people, of the American collective.  Individuals can't be trusted.  Individual corporations, individual people, and individual States, can't be trusted.  Only the federal government can save you.  So, he dared Congress last night, if you have a better idea, let me know.  Let me know your idea on how the federal government can solve the problems of society.

Government intrusion is not the solution.  It is the whole cause of the problem.

I don't want the Republicans, or any other politician, to figure out a better federal health care plan.  I want them to realize that federal intrusion is the problem, and work to repeal Obamacare.  Don't fall for his dare, and don't fall for his flawed premise.

The problem with the health care system is not the private sector, but the fact that there is a third party paying for our health care in the first place.  And that third party, right now, is the insurance industry.  The leftist solution is to replace that third party with them as a third party, which is hardly a solution.  The goal needs to be to deemphasize the role of a third party, and work to gradually return us to a patient-provider relationship.  That was when doctors made house calls. They were competing for the business of the consumer.  They provided more quality, and did what they could to keep prices as low as possible.

I get it.  With insurance everybody's money is pooled together to help with the cost of health care, but to use health insurance for every little scrape and bump is ridiculous.  I don't expect my automobile insurance to pay for oil changes, so why is health insurance paying for me to have my temperature taken?

In the end, the reality is that the leftists could care less about health care.  Your health is not the reason they are doing this.  It is all about control, and expanding the role of the federal government in your life.  Health care is the ultimate control.  If they are paying for your care, it gives them the allowance to dictate to you what you are allowed to do in regards to your health.  They can determine if you can smoke, what you should eat, and what activities you can participate in.  It is the ultimate opportunity for government control over your life.

Even if it hurts them politically, it is worth it to them (Carney said so), because it increases the size of government, and ultimately opens up the opportunity for the elite to increase their control, and for you to become more of an automaton operating at the pleasure of the elitists in control.  Besides, they fully expect that once everything is in place, the people will become dependent upon it, and it will force the opposition to stop their fight against it, and learn to accept that their opposition to government controlled health care is going nowhere.

We must keep that from happening.  The goal is defeat.  Defeat Obamacare, defeat the Democrats, and defeat statism.  On this, there can be no compromise.  Otherwise, yet another step will be complete in the destruction of America as it was founded.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Carney: Obamacare worth it, no matter political consequences - Yahoo News

State of the Union: Full Obama Speech Text - CBS News

Same Old Obama, Same Old State of the Union

By Douglas V. Gibbs

If anything, Barack Obama is predictable.  All leftists are.  Theirs is not about the improvement of the nation, theirs is all about the progression of their agenda.  Listening to them can be confusing, at times, until you realize their perception is very different than yours and mine.  Their premise is foreign.  Something alien to America, and the United States Constitution.

As with each speech, Barack Obama demanded federal actions that are not authorized to the federal government by the Constitution, and when Congress fails to give him what he wants, he promises to, unconstitutionally, do it anyways, with or without Congress.  Federal control over these issues that a national government has no authority over is only the beginning, mind you.  Leftists plan and program, and then when their agenda doesn't happen, they force it into place.  They tell you it is for your own good, and unfortunately, we buy into the propaganda.

I can't count how many times Obama called the United States a democracy, in last night's bull crap session.  We are not a democracy, we are a republic, and for good reason.  Local issues are supposed to be handled by local governments, and Congress is the only branch with legislative powers, but Obama and the democrats don't care about such things.  They have an agenda of big government, big control, and forcing you into the square pegs they believe leads to utopia.

The conspiracy is larger than anyone realizes, understand.  There are no black helicopters, and secret meetings.  They don't have to.  The true believers in the liberal left progressive communist statist agenda don't need conspiracies, because they know exactly what to do.  That is why Obama surrounded himself with the people he has surrounded himself with.  Because they know what to do.  He, and his puppet masters, don't have to say a thing.

In the end, however, they are only men.  They are only flesh and blood, and they can be defeated.  The Constitution is the solution, if only we are willing to stand up for it.  The founders saw this coming, but they could only do so much by writing it out.  We must be active, we must participate, and as the Founding Fathers did, we must be willing to put on the line our lives, fortunes, and sacred honor.  Otherwise, the proponents of elitism will succeed in ushering in their era of transition, where all of humanity will be subject to their sick agenda.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Tuesday, January 28, 2014

Tea Party Response To State Of The Union Address

by JASmius

Apparently not.

Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) will deliver the official tea party response to President Barack Obama's State of the Union tonight, Tuesday, January 28th. Lee follows Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain, and Rand Paul, who delivered the tea party response in previous years.

So....what was this?  The Tea Party response to the GOP response to the State Of The One address?  Why does the Tea Party feel compelled to give a separate response?  And anybody wonders where the "GOP civil war" narrative comes from?  Or is it just that this will be the Tea Party's last hurrah this cycle before being eradicated by the Obamastapo (i.e. I.R.S.)?

For TPers' sake, I hope Senator Lee's comments have a ten-month shelf life.

GOP Response To State of the Union Address

by JASmius

.....delivered by Senator Rand Paul (R-KY).  So Tea Partiers should be satisfied, right?  I mean, the "establishment" selected Rand for this function.  That should count for something, yes?

Remember when Mark Levin suggested that Republicans boycott the State of The One address?  I would have amended it a bit: show up for the speech, and when O made his "Dictatorship Proclamation," walk out en masse, and in so doing draw attention to that monarchical declaration and spur some LIV reflection (if they're capable of it).

Going forward I would also teach Red Barry the true meaning of obstruction.  Since he's going to rule by decree anyway, to borrow a Hillaryism, "What difference does it make?"  The farther out on that limb he's going to crawl, the easier it'll be to saw it off eventually.

It's the Constitution, Stupid

by JASmius

Surviving Obama's "action." Senate Democrats turn on Hillary. And: "Abortion Barbie" hits the skids. All this -- plus -- "T-Bone" gets an "F."

Hard Starboard Radio: State Of The One

Say no to Executive overreach - but how?; The portion of FDR's legacy that Barack Obama will never emulate; "[A] hideous, dispiriting, ugly, monotonous, un-American, un-republican, anti-democratic, dreary, backward, monarchical, retch-inducing, depressing, shameful, crypto-imperial display of official self-aggrandizement and piteous toadying, a black Mass during which every unholy order of teacup totalitarian and cringing courtier gathers under the towering dome of a faux-Roman temple to listen to a speech with no content given by a man with no content, to rise and to be seated as is called for by the order of worship — it is a wonder they have not started genuflecting — with one wretched representative of their number squirreled away in some well-upholstered Washington hidey-hole in order to preserve the illusion that those gathered constitute a special class of humanity without whom we could not live"; Pulling in lieu of the SOTU; And could it be that O is only as bad as Nixon?

Shooting putty at King Hussein's moon at 6PM Eastern/3PM Pacific.  Unlike the Republicans that shouldn't be there tonight, I'll have a little something to show for it.

Constitutional Response to Obama's 2014 State of the Union Speech: Words of Cicero

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Tonight's State of the Union Speech is going to be a continuation of Barack Obama's recent crying that the TEA Party, Rush Limbaugh, FOX News, and conservatism in general are keeping him from putting into place the last pieces of his imperial agenda.

He has stated that if Congress stands in his way, he is going to go around them (unconstitutionally, of course - you know, the Separation of Powers thing, and where Article I, Section 1 of the Constitution grants all legislative power to the Congress, and only to the Congress.

Obama wants to use the federal government for programs and policies it was never authorized to do, and daring to stand in opposition to him makes you whatever names they want to throw at you, and then add -phobia to the end.

The thing is, this kind of failed politicking is nothing new.  These policies have brought down great civilizations time and time again.  The Roman Republic, for example, collapsed because of these policies, and it was Cicero, at that time, that was sounding the battle cry against the statist madness.

The Words of Cicero

About 75 years before the birth of Christ, the Roman Republic had reached its zenith. Rome was the lone superpower in the world. What began as a republic, equipped with a system of representation, was becoming something the founders of Rome did not intend. The leadership were wealthy beyond imagination, and had attained incredible political power. The rulers had become suspicious of everyone, intolerant of opposition, indifferent to the demands of the middle class, and considered the Constitution which was designed to curb their ambitions an impediment to their aims.

Marcus Tullius Cicero was but a young man, a student of law under old Scaevola, the eminent lawyer of his day. Cicero, whose writings many centuries later would be studied by men like Thomas Jefferson, was disillusioned. Caesar, in complete disregard for the rule of law, had by force of arms, guile and trickery, used his military to dominate the world.

Society, like the leaders, were tossing aside standards set by the early Romans. The citizens were no longer worried about defending their rights, and had instead learned to live on the gifts from the treasury the politicians had offered them for their votes. They were fat, immoral, careless, and happy to live on the government's offerings, which had been taken by bureaucratic chicanery from the substantial men of business.

One such man, wealthy, but wronged by politicians that coveted his wealth, came to Cicero for representation. Cicero built his case, and presented it, but the judges were not responding in the way Cicero had expected. The law was being set aside, believed Cicero, so he consulted with his great friend and mentor, Scaevola.

Cicero explained how he had built his case, and the course he had followed for presentation, and asked why he had failed. Scaevola was disgusted - he slammed his fist on the table and, leaning toward Cicero, shouted, "Imbecile! Of what use are records presented to tribunes, consuls, or senators if the government is determined to rob and destroy a man who had displeased them, or who possesses what they want? Have I truly wasted all these years on such an idiot as this Marcus Tullius Cicero!"

Cicero continued to plead his client's defense against confiscatory taxation, saying "we are taxed in our bread and our wine, in our incomes and our investments, on our land and on our property, not only for base creatures who do not deserve the name of man, but for foreign nations, for complacent nations who will bow to us and accept our largesse and promise us to assist in the keeping of the peace - these mendicant nations who will destroy us when we show a moment of weakness or our treasury is bare. We are taxed to maintain legions on their soil, in the name of law and order and the Pax Romana, a document which will fall into dust when it pleases our allies and our vassals. We keep them in precarious balance only with our gold. Is the heart-blood of our nation worth these? Shall one Italian be sacrificed for Britain, for Gaul, for Egypt, for India, even for Greece, and a score of other nations? Were they bound to us with ties of love, they would not ask our gold. They would ask only our laws. They take our very flesh, and they hate and despise us. And who shall say we are worthy of more?"

Cicero did not save his client. But he did live to argue the cause of honest government and to talk with Sulla, the Dictator (Senate appointed leader), about integrity and fair dealing. Sulla had little faith in the people. He believed them too deeply interested in their own welfare to concern themselves, too timid to stand up for their rights. He told Cicero the middle class, the lawyers, the physicians, the bankers, and the merchants would make no sacrifices. He said none of your lawyers will challenge the lawmakers and cry to them, "This is unconstitutional, an affront to a free people, and it must not pass!" He asked "Will one of these, your own, lift his eyes from his ledgers long enough to scan the Twelve Tables of Roman Law, and then expose those who violate them and help to remove them from power, even if it costs their lives? These fat men. Will six of them in this city, disregarding personal safety, rise up from their offices and stand in the Forum, and tell the people the inevitable fate of Rome unless they return to virtue and thrift and drive from the Senate the evil men who have corrupted them for the power they have to bestow?"

Rome continued to decay. The liberties of the people were being trampled upon in the name of emergencies (crisis), or they were relinquished voluntarily so as to be awarded government benefits.

Cicero, in his Second Oration before the Senate, had this to say: "Too long have we said to ourselves 'intolerance of another's politics is barbarous and not to be countenanced in a civilized country. Are we not free? Shall a man be denied his right to speak under the law which established that right?' I tell you that freedom does not mean the freedom to exploit law in order to destroy it! It is not freedom which permits the Trojan Horse to be wheeled within the gates. . . He who is not for Rome and Roman Law and Roman liberty is against Rome. He who espouses tyranny and oppression and the old dead despotisms is against Rome. He who plots against established authority and incites the populace to violence is against Rome. He cannot ride two horses at the same time. We cannot be for lawful ordinances and for an alien conspiracy at one and the same moment. Though liberty is established by law, we must be vigilant, for liberty to enslave us is always present under that very liberty. Our Constitution speaks of the 'general welfare of the people.' Under that phrase all sorts of excesses can be employed by lusting tyrants to make us bondsmen."

Years later Cicero appeared before the Senate again.

He said "The Senate, in truth, has no right to censure me for anything, for I did but my duty and exposed traitors and treason against the State. If that is a crime, then I am indeed a criminal."

Crassus, Caesar and Pompey were in the hall listening to Cicero, but turned away to reject his words. He said to them, "You have succeeded against me. Be it as you will. I will depart."

He then told the Senate: "For this day's work, lords, you have encouraged treason and opened the prison doors to free the traitors. A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and he carries his banners openly against the city. But the traitor moves among those within the gates freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears no traitor; he speaks in the accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their garments, and he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation; he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of a city; he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to be feared. The traitor is the carrier of the plague. You have unbarred the gates of Rome to him."

Cicero was exiled from Rome for his words. From outside of Rome he continued to plead the cause of honest government. The people were not concerned. They were satisfied living a mediocre life on the public dole. His friends were also satisfied, and did not wish to make waves. They were lawyers, doctors, and businessmen, and they told him, "We do not meddle in politics. Rome is prosperous and at peace. We have our villas in Caprae, our racing vessels, our houses, our servants, our pretty mistresses, and our comfort and treasures. We implore you, Cicero, do not disturb us with your lamentations of disaster. Rome is on the march to the mighty society, for all Romans."

Cicero was in despair. He began to write his book De Legibus, but Atticus, his publisher, asked, "But who will read it? Romans care nothing for law any longer, their bellies are too full."

Cicero, however, was not completely unheard. Brutus, the long-time sycophant of the ambitious Caesar, went to Cicero with his plea that something be done to save the nation. He confessed his error, he said he had believed in Caesar. Brutus believed that Caesar would restore the republic. Caesar had betrayed his trust.

Cicero replied, "Do not blame Caesar, blame the people of Rome who have so enthusiastically acclaimed and adored him and rejoiced in their loss of freedom and danced in his path and gave him triumphal processions and laughed delightedly at his licentiousness and thought it very superior of him to acquire vast amounts of gold illicitly. Blame the people who hail him when he speaks in the Forum of the 'new, wonderful good society' which shall now be Rome's, interpreted to mean 'more money, more ease, more security, more living fatly at the expense of the industrious.' Julius was always an ambitious villain, but he is only one man."

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Two-Face The Nation Edits Interview With Ted Cruz

by JASmius

Easier to leave it on the cutting room floor than to allow such a direct challenge to the Obama tyranny to go out unchallenged, to say nothing of Schiefer trying to counter it.

OTOH, Schiefer may have saved Ted Cruz's life....

Monday, January 27, 2014

Grammys: Orgy of Disgust

By Douglas V. Gibbs

When I was a young man, and I heard the preacher talk about the out of control societies of Sodom and Gamorrah, or how the Israelites gave in to their desires while Moses was retrieving the Ten Commandments, or the sinful culture of Babylon, I found it hard to imagine how immoral a society could become.

When I was in the Navy, I saw a film called "Caligula," and scenes from that movie, and "Eyes Wide Shut" came close to what I imagined the days of Noah, or Sodom and Gamorrah, must've been like.

The Pagans used rituals that integrated demonic imagery into their worship.

Mankind, when value and morals become an afterthought, give in to debauchery, and it is then that civilizations collapse.

Greece and Rome also experienced death from within, because of the corruption and immoral cultures that emerged.

I could never describe what a lost society or culture may truly look like, though, until after last night.  The Grammy Awards were a perfect example of what falling cultures look like.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Hard Starboard Radio: On The Road Again

I'm away from the gold-pressed latinum HSR microphone today in a high-level meeting with the Admiralty about possible podcast schedule re-formatting.  In the mean time, enjoy the "1B' edition to the "1A" that re-aired on yesterday's Hard Starboard Radio Weekend.

I'll keep you informed, no matter what it takes, at 6PM Eastern/3PM Pacific.

Muslims Gang Rape Elderly American Woman In Colorado

by JASmius

Five Iraqi men have been arrested in Colorado Springs in connection with a rape so disturbing, that
Lieutenant Howard Black, who heads the Police Department's special victim's unit, said, "We don't see these types of assaults typically in Colorado Springs."

The victim was an elderly woman who was invited by the Iraqis for what she believed to be lemonade, and what occurred afterwards, the woman cannot even remember.

My goodness, but Lieutenant Black is a flaming Islamophobe, isn't he?

Either that, or "religion of peace" also means, "Lie back and enjoy it, Granny."

"I Never Feared My Government Until Now"

by JASmius

You know how the "thug" label was put on Seattle Seahawks All-Pro cornerback Richard Sherman last week after his Fox/Erin Andrews post-NFC Championship Game interview?  Doesn't it seem much better and more accurately applied to Barack Obama?

That's the growing consensus on the Right:

Conservatives are decrying what they describe as the heavy hand of the Obama administration using the power of the government to silence and intimidate people and groups on the right.

"It sure looks like a message is being sent," says John Fund, national affairs columnist for National Review Online. "If you're trying to intimidate political opponents and encourage them not to get involved in politics, this is a very effective set of practices."

In recent days, the federal government has gone after several high-profile conservatives. In Virginia, former Gov. Bob McDonnell was indicted along with his wife over gifts and loans he allegedly received from a political donor in exchange for influence.

In New York, filmmaker and author Dinesh D'Souza, whose work has criticized Obama, faces indictment for alleged election fraud in a case over his political contributions to a friend and U.S. Senate candidate.
The Regime attacks on McDonnell and Chris Christie were pre-emptive strikes against the threats they posed against continued Democrat control of the White House.  The attack on D'Souza was retribution for his attempt to vet O's radical communist background in the 2012 election cycle as it was manifestly embargoed four years earlier.

But "make no mistake" - this is a general anti-conservative crackdown:

The IRS, which was already under fire for targeting tea party groups seeking tax-exempt status, recently came looking into the nonprofit activities of a group of elite Hollywood conservatives, Friends of Abe....

In the Friends case, for example, the New York Times reported Wednesday that the federal tax officials sought "a 10-point request for detailed information" from the group, specifically its meetings with GOP leaders like Herman Cain, former Rep. Thaddeus McCotter of Michigan, and Rep. Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin. The group, whose membership is kept secret in left-leaning Hollywood, is seeking tax-exempt status.

While some conservative observers are being - understandably - cautious in the extent of their accusations, others are letting fly with the self-evident truth:

The timing for such engagement by the administration seems suspect, Fund told Newsmax.

"The tea parties were very active in 2010 but much less in 2012 because many of them had roadblocks put up in front of them… They had their non-profit statuses delayed. Now, as we are heading into 2014 elections, we see the same thing happening all over again, with slightly different tactics and highly visible people put under the microscope," Fund said.

While Fund said, "I'm not accusing anyone of anything," he also speculated the administration's motive.

"One would certainly have to be suspicious of the timing of this just about the same time as people are deciding on becoming active in politics in an election year. If you were to send a signal, you'd want to send them several months before the election. If this were political, you'd want to dissuade people from getting involved in politics this year," Fund said....

"It's obvious the left is targeting the right very hard, while ignoring the bigger, more nefarious criminal on their side," says Republican political analyst Cheri Jacobus.

"The heavy hand of so-called 'justice' seems to only come down on conservatives, while ignoring the left's — and chiefly President Obama's — role in the IRS scandal, Fast and Furious, the big Obamacare lies and the deadly Benghazi actions," Jacobus told Newsmax.

Web pundit Matt Drudge was more blunt: "Holder unleashing the dogs," Drudge wrote on his Twitter account Thursday, noting in another tweet that Attorney General Eric Holder along with the FBI is now seeking to investigate News Corp. and its outspoken head Rupert Murdoch, in addition to others who have criticized the administration.

And, as you might imagine and as the Regime doubtless intended, the crackdown is having its desired effect:

Cleta Mitchell, a Washington, D.C., attorney who has represented tea party groups and conservative organizations targeted by the IRS for investigation, said Friday that many people are now afraid to speak up against government pressure.

It represents a new climate in government — unlike any she has seen in her decades working in Washington.

"I think it's like living in the former Soviet Union with these people doing everything they possibly can to try to silence people who disagree with them and to try to make it impossible to citizen groups to try to hold elected officials accountable," Mitchell told Newsmax. "It's quite dreadful. I've never seen anything like this." [emphasis added]
Remember the worst Watergate caricatures of President Nixon?  His "enemies list" and his using federal agencies like the IRS to target and silence opponents?  Remember how the media was "transformed" by that ultimate partisan gift into the loud, boisterous, shameless arm of the Democrat/Left apparatus?  Now they have their own Nixon, and of course they say and do nothing about it because, of course, The One is their Nixon, they agree with him ideologically, and their moral supremacism justifies any tactic used against what they perceive as their blood enemies: conservatives.  And absent an independent free press alerting the American people to the full extent of Red Barry's tyranny, there can and will be no mass public uprising against it.

This, my friends, is why I've been saying since November 6th, 2012, that the Old Republic is dead, and that the only future America as we knew it has is to survive the Obama dictatorship, somehow overthrow it, and resurrect constitutional government from the ashes.  It will be the work of years or decades, it will entail sacrifices that most of us cannot fathom, and most likely few of us will be around to see this one-time free country liberated.

My friend and the proprietor of this blog is an incorrigible optimist and believes that America can be saved.  I hope and pray he is right.  But then I read quotes like this one:

Gerald Molen, the producer of Dinesh D'Souza's documentary film "2016: Obama's America," says he never feared his government before he learned that D'Souza is under federal investigation for election fraud. ...

Asked by Malzberg if he ever felt threatened or had any feelings they should not have been making the film, Molen answered, "No. This is America. I've never had that feeling," adding, "I've never had the occasion to think that I had to fear my government. I never had the thought that I had reason to think I had to look over my shoulder until now."
The undiscovered country, from whose bourn
No traveller returns, puzzles the will,
And makes us rather bear those ills we have
Than fly to others that we know not of?

The undiscovered country, from whose bourn
No traveller returns, puzzles the will,
And makes us rather bear those ills we have
Than fly to others that we know not of?

The undiscovered country, from whose bourn
No traveller returns, puzzles the will,
And makes us rather bear those ills we have
Than fly to others that we know not of?

The undiscovered country, from whose bourn
No traveller returns, puzzles the will,
And makes us rather bear those ills we have
Than fly to others that we know not of?

The undiscovered country, from whose bourn
No traveller returns, puzzles the will,
And makes us rather bear those ills we have
Than fly to others that we know not of?

"The undiscovered country, from whose bourne no traveler returns, puzzles the will and makes us rather bear those ills we have then fly to others that we know not of."

That was Shakespeare's version of, "We are so screwed".

Sunday, January 26, 2014

Environmentalist Irony

By Douglas V. Gibbs

The liberal left democrats are an entertaining bunch, sometimes.  It amazes me how they are unable to recognize the hypocrisy, or downright comical idiocy, of what they believe.  Environmentalism is the funniest, because the facts are all around us.  Their attempts to belong through environmental foolishness has conservatives laughing out loud at them, and the funniest part is they don't understand why we are laughing at them.

The owner of KCAA, the radio station my Constitution Radio with Douglas V. Gibbs program airs on every Saturday, is a liberal, and supports environmentalist causes.  Yet, his attempts to erect a third transmitter, and improve the range of the station is being hindered by the Riverside Conservation Authority over some bird, or insect, that has to be protected.  It angers him all to hell, and yet he cannot see the irony.

A video has circulated where Penn and Teller had a person with a petition at an environmentalist rally to get signatures to ban Dihydrogen Monoxide. . . also known as water.  The environmentalists eagerly signed the petition designed, they thought, to enable government to ban yet another dangerous chemical by probably some mean, greedy corporation who cares more about making a buck, than saving our poor, little, defenseless planet.  Many were not sure how to react when they were informed they had signed a petition calling for the ban of regular ol' water.

When I worked in Hemet, the Stephens' Kangaroo Rat was the big issue, to the point that if you even accidentally ran one over with your car, you could be fined.  My response has always been, "It's a rat, and at my house there is only one way we deal with rats."  The liberals were in full support of protecting the Stephens' Kangaroo Rat, until the Domenigoni Reservoir Project came along.  The larger cause, with the hopes of creating a situation where water could be stored in case of a drought, enabled them to toss the rat aside. . . in that part of the valley, anyway.

In Oregon the big one was the Northern Spotted Owl.  My father, when he built his house, put it next to a large tree so that it could provide shade for the deck. . . plus it was a great place to urinate.  Years later, when the insurance company came to re-inspect, they told him he had to remove the tree.  It was too close to the house.  He smiled, and said, "I think I saw a spotted owl nest in that tree, so I left it alone."  A couple decades later the tree remains in place, right next to the corner of the house, and the front deck.

In Britain a rare bird thought to be extinct was suddenly spotted.  The last recorded sighting was a couple decades ago, and the last thriving population goes all the way back to 1846.  It was a white throated, needle tail something or other. The environmentalist whackos were excited, and followed the bird, hoping to see if it had a mate, or if there were others of its kind.  The environmentalists watched in horror as the bird cleared a hill and flew into the wind turbine of an environmentally friendly windmill that was producing environmentally safe electricity.

Then finally there is the story, of which the claims of if the story is true or not seems to be in question (but this could have easily have happened because nature, after all, can be brutal) about the baby sea otters nursed back to health by a wonderful group of nature loving environmentalists.  They brought the young sea otters back to health after some sort of alleged man-made calamity, and finally the day came to release them back into the wild.  The whole town showed up, with a marching band, and school children, to witness the blessed event.  The sea otters were released, and swam into the water.  The people cried, and waved, and cheered the happy occasion, and watched until the sea otters were far enough out they could hardly see them.  Then, they watched in horror, emitting screams of terror, as a killer whale emerged from the water, and ate their cute little sea otters.

Like I said, it is totally believable because nature can be brutal. . . and real.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Penn and Teller Get Hippies To Sign Water Banning Petition - You Tube

Stephens' Kangaroo Rat - Santa Ana Watershed Association

Spotted Owl Surviving 20 Years After Controversial Decision - OPB

Rare Bird, white-throated needletail, killed by wind turbine in front of crowd of twitchers - U.K. Mail Online

Constitution Study Radio: Lesson 02, Historical Influences

(This is the episode where I will talk about the Anglo-Saxons, and Cicero.  (When I get to the Cicero part you will be shocked at the similarities of the Roman Republic's woes, and ours)

Lesson 02, Part 1: Historical Influences on the United States Constitution · Anglo-Saxons · Ancient Israel · City States of Greece · The Roman Republic · Montesquieu · Slovenia... more

Saturday, January 25, 2014

Constitution Class Available Online, Upcoming Schedule of Events

Don't forget, even if you aren't in the Temecula Area, my class is available online.

Read it at our Temecula Constitution Class website.

Hear it at Constitution Study Radio.

If you are in the area, here is a quick rundown of upcoming events:

Sunday, January 26, 2014 at 9:00 AM: Constitution Study Radio.

Thursday, January 30, 2014 at 6:30 PM at Faith Armory in Temecula: Constitution Class (Wrap up of Lesson 03, Founding Documents)

Saturday, February 1, 2014 at 9:00 AM at Marie Callendars in Corona (Main Street and Rincon): I will be the guest speaker at the Corona/Norco/Eastvale Tea Party Patriots meeting.  $15 at the door to help with breakfast costs.

Saturday, February 1, 2014 at 12:00 PM on BlogTalkRadio: American Daily Review.

Saturday, February 1, 2014 at 2:00 PM at KCAA 1050AM and Constitution Radio with Douglas V. Gibbs, Guest is Colonel Harry Riley.

Saturday, February 1, 2014 at 5:00 PM at Boston Billies in Menifee: Constitution Association monthly meeting.  Guest Speaker: Louis Reyes, Riverside County Chapter Leader of Oath Keepers.

Monday, February 3, 2014 at 6:30 PM, Unite I.E. monthly meeting.  I will be hosting this month's meeting, and I am the speaker.  We will be meeting at Boston Billies in Menifee.  Understand, this is a leadership meeting, but because our group is hosting it, you are welcome to attend, to hear my presentation, and meet the leaders of other patriot groups in the Inland Empire.

Thursday, February 6, 2014 at 6:30 PM at Faith Armory in Temecula: Constitution Class - Lesson 04, The Path to the Constitution.

Friday, February 7, 2014 at 6:00 PM at Temecula City Call Conference Room: Murrieta/Temecula Republican Assembly monthly meeting.

I should have my book, 25 Myths of the Constitution, with me at each of these events, and I will be signing copies.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

25 Myths of the United States Constitution is now on sale at CreatSpace Website

Available immediately on CreateSpace, and my book should be available on Amazon, and other booksites, by next weekend.  Buy Now for $14.99.

The New Tea Party?

by JASmius

So says this guy:

It's time for the full power of the Tea Party to be unleashed by joining every chapter in a national Tea Party alliance under the leadership of retired General Paul Vallely.

A few thoughts:

1) Anything the label of which is prefixed by the word "New" almost always winds up sucking ass.  "New Coke," the "New Foundation," the "New Blackjacks".  It just doesn't work.  In a phrase: New = Failure.

2) The whole point of the Tea Party has always been that it is a grassroots movement with no national leadership.  It was genuinely "of the people, by the people, and for the people".  Now you say that the Tea Party needs to unify under a national leader, but don't worry, it'll still be diverse and individualistic.  But you can't have it both ways.  So which is it, Bill?  Methinks your double-talk is endangering your folksy credibility.

3) I'm sure General Vallely was a find military commander, but that doesn't necessarily, and in fact rarely does, translate to effective political leadership.  And from what I've seen of his political strategies so far, I think he and we would be better off with him staying safely in retirement.

4) But if this is the schitzo direction in which TPers want to go, I have a first-up question for the general: How are you going to keep the Obama IRS from squashing the movement again in the 2014 election cycle?  I hope he has an actual practical counter-strategy as opposed to touting virtue as its own reward.

What is the Law of the Land, Mr. Limbaugh?

By Douglas V. Gibbs

"Law of the Land" is a term Rush Limbaugh uses often on his radio program.  I appreciate Rush Limbaugh.  He has done wonders for informing the public on the issues, and articulating the principles of conservatism.  He provides a great service, and though I am not a die-hard fan, I am a fan.  That said, as a constitutionalist, he drives me nuts because daily I pick up on his lack of knowledge of originalism.  He does not have a detailed understanding of the Constitution as he should, yet he puts himself out there like he does.

Hillsdale College is a huge advertiser on Rush Limbaugh's show, and he respects the institution a lot.  I respect them too.  I have not watched their Constitution series lessons, so I have not garnered my opinions about the college based on that.  I have, however, spent time talking to Dr. Larry Arnn, the President of Hillsdale College, and I do base my opinion largely on those conversations.

Two Septembers ago I had Dr. Larry Arnn on my radio program, Constitution Radio with Douglas V. Gibbs on KCAA 1050AM, as a guest, and once we wrapped up the pleasantries, we spent the entire hour arguing over three constitutional issues where he and I disagreed greatly - and it is from these disagreements I learned what kind of constitutionalist Dr. Arnn is, and it has helped me understand why Rush struggles with the Constitution.

The three issues Dr. Arnn and I argued over was Judicial Review, Nullification, and Implied Powers.

Larry Arnn, like may academics and political hacks, puts a lot of faith in the courts, and accepts the idea that judicial rulings, which makes up the web of Case Law, are the final determination of what is, and is not, constitutional.  The federal courts, however, do not have that authority.  Nothing in the Constitution grants to the courts that power.  In fact, it was the courts, themselves, that gave themselves that power (John Marshall in his opinion of the Marbury v. Madison case in 1803).

To his credit, I heard Rush once make that observation, and for just a moment, he questioned the validity of Judicial Review.  However, that was a brief moment in time I have not seen him revisit.

Dr. Arnn paused when I presented my case.  I told him two things.  First, in today's world, we see a lot of 5-4 Supreme Court decisions, with Justice Kennedy more often than not being the deciding vote.  What that means is the Constitution has been hanging in the balance because of the vote of one man.  Did the founders really want one person to have that much power?

The other thing I said to him, and Dr. Arnn did not have an answer for this, is that the Constitution was written to create the federal government, but limit the new central government's powers as much as possible.  Judicial Review says that it is up to the federal courts, if a law is challenged, to determine if it is constitutional.  But the federal courts are a part of the federal government, and for them to determine if something is constitutional is to decide if the federal government has the authorities in regards to the law in question.  In other words, through the courts, the federal government is deciding its own powers for itself.

When I questioned Dr. Arnn regarding where in the Constitution the power of Judicial Review lies, he replied, "It is implied."

Round 2.

When one studies the United States Constitution, and also studies the various opinions regarding the U.S. Constitution, two schools of thought exist regarding the authorities of the federal government. One contends that all federal powers are expressly given, or enumerated, by the U.S. Constitution (primarily in Article I, Clause 8, and all subsequent Amendments). The second school of thought recognizes two different types of powers in the Constitution: Expressed powers and implied powers.

Expressed powers include the power to tax, maintain a military, coin money, establish post roads and post offices, and to establish uniform rules of naturalization.

Those that do not agree with the strict constructionist view of the U.S. Constitution will argue that there are more powers granted to Congress that you can find within the body of the Constitution and its amendments. These are implied powers, which means that there are powers beyond those enumerated that are given to Congress so that they can write laws to make sure what needs to happen happens. In other words, those that believe in the existence of implied powers argue that such powers add to Congress's expressed powers.

Implied powers, according to those that support this concept, relate specifically to the Legislative Branch, but actually all branches have some form of implied powers.

Any laws passed by the federal government must be in line with their authorities from the Constitution itself, which means they cannot possess any implied powers that do not find their foundations in the express powers granted.

Thomas J. DiLorenzo, in his book "Hamilton's Curse," explains that implied powers were an invention of Alexander Hamilton, a federalist that believed in a more centralized governmental system. DiLorenzo wrote:

Hamilton also invented the myth that the Constitution somehow grants the federal government "implied powers." "Implied powers" are powers that are not actually in the Constitution but the statists like Hamilton wish were there. As Rossiter pointed out, "One finds elaborations of this doctrine throughout his writings as Secretary of the Treasury." The most notable articulation of this idea can be found in Hamilton's Opinion on the Constitutionality of the Bank of the United States. He wrote this report in 1791, while serving as treasury secretary. President Washington had asked both Hamilton and Jefferson for their opinions on the subject. In his opinion, Hamilton wrote that "there are implied, as well as express powers [in the Constitution], and that the former are as effectually delegated as the latter" . . . He added, "Implied powers are to be considered as delegated [to the federal government] equally with express ones." A nationalized bank, he went on to argue, was one of those implied powers.

Jefferson vehemently disagreed, arguing that the express powers delegated to the federal government in Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution (providing for the national defense, coining of money, etc.) were expressly stated because they were the only powers delegated to the federal government by the sovereign states that ratified the Constitution. Any new powers, Jefferson believed, could be delegated only by a constitutional amendment. He realized that such a doctrine as "implied powers" would essentially render the Constitution useless as a tool for limiting government if the limits of government were simply left up to the imaginations of ambitious politicians like Hamilton. . . the shock troops of the Federalist Party - federally appointed judges - would use Hamilton's arguments to essentially rewrite history and the Constitution. Thus was "liberal judicial activism" born.

. . . George Washington had condemned the notion of a "living constitution" in his Farewell Address (which, oddly enough, is said to have been at least partly ghostwritten by Hamilton). In that address President Washington said, "If in the opinion of the People, the distribution of modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation . . . the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed." Hamilton's theory of implied powers ignored this warning, laying the template for generations of lawyers who would use the courts, rather than the formal amendment process, to essentially render the constitutional constraints on government null and void.

Not only were there supposedly "implied" powers in the Constitution that only the wise and lawyerly like Hamilton recognized (but that were foreign to James Madison, who like Jefferson was a strict constructionist) . . . unconstitutional powers would magically become constitutional, in Hamilton's opinion. Taken to logical ends, this argument implies that any action of the government would be de facto "constitutional" by virtue of the fact that the action occurred. This is how Hamilton viewed the Constitution - as a potential blank check for unlimited powers of government.
 (Thomas J. DiLorenzo, Hamilton's Curse, New York: Three Rivers Press, 2008, pages 26-29.)

Finally, we discussed nullification, which ties into our first argument, Judicial Review.

Round 3.

If, as I discussed earlier in this article, the courts are not the final arbiters of the Constitution, then who is?  After all, in Jefferson's draft of the Kentucky Resolution he articulates that all unconstitutional federal laws are null and void.  If that is the case, that would mean that the States, whose delegates framed the Constitution, as the final arbiters of the Constitution, can nullify unconstitutional laws.  In other words, when faced with illegal federal laws that exist outside of the authorities granted to the federal government, the States have a right to refuse to implement them.  Dr. Arnn quoted to me a section of one of Madison's Federalist Paper essays to prove his point, but what he said did not discount nullification in my opinion.  We have to remember, the federal government was designed to serve the States, not rule over them.

Which brings us back to Rush Limbaugh.  His constitutional opinions, I believe, are largely influenced by those of Dr. Larry Arnn.  Dr. Arnn is a learned man, and I am in no way trying to belittle him.  All I know is that on those three issues, his findings are in error, which influences a number of overall opinions regarding the United States Constitution.  His opinions gives the federal government more power and authorities than was originally intended, and those beliefs existing in the minds of the folks in the general population is a large part of the reason progressivism has risen in the way it has.

So, when Rush Limbaugh calls laws by the federal government the Law of the Land, it makes me cringe.

In a nutshell (a pistachio nutshell, at that), the Law of the Land is a term from Article VI. of the Constitution, which reserves that title to the Constitution, laws made in pursuance of the Constitution, and treaties made and ratified.  So, Mr. Limbaugh, I ask, how can laws like Obamacare be the law of the land, as you keep referring?  By calling them the Law of the Land, it validates them, in a sense.  Unconstitutional laws are illegal laws, and therefore should not be called the Law of the Land.

Until Rush Limbaugh, and others, understand this, we will be stuck in battle mode, and will be unable to make advances against modern American liberalism.

We have to understand "what" our system should be in order to make advances toward "where" it should be.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

The "Law of the Land," Mr. Speaker? - Rush Limbaugh

Jefferson's Draft of the Kentucky Resolutions, October 1798 - Avalon Project

Constitution Radio: San Bernardino Sheriff Candidate Paul Schrader. . .

Constitution Radio with Douglas V. Gibbs


          Saturday, January 25, 2014 beginning at 2:00 pm Pacific

Call in to join the conversation at 888-909-1050

Today's Guest: San Bernardino County Sheriff Candidate Paul Schrader

     - Member of Sheriff Mack's Constitutional Sheriff's Posse
     - Advocate of the 2nd Amendment
     - Seeks Fiscal Responsibility

Book of the Week: 25 Myths of the United States Constitution by Douglas V. Gibbs (Goes on sale next week!!!)

Constitution Quest Question of the Week: The Executive Branch, The U.S. Senate, and Treaties

5 Big Stories of the Week:

5 Big Stories of the Week, January 25, 2014

Honorable Mention: Missouri Seeks Nullification of Federal Gun Laws

Honorable Mention: Liberal Wendy Davis lied about life history. . .

Honorable Mention: New York Governor Cuomo to Conservatives, “Get Out!”

5.  People in Red States not signing up for Obamacare

And they are not signing up in blue states by the numbers being touted. . .

4.  Pulitzer Prize winning photographer banned by AP after altering photograph by digitally removing an item from the image

3.  IRS is not the only ones targeting Conservatives

As for the NSA’s role, even democrats are starting to think it has gone to far. . . Against citizens, not republicans:

2.  Scott Walker’s State of the State of Wisconsin

Highlights of Conservative Policies in Action:

- Role of the Unions Deemphasized

- Unemployment Rate Rapidly Falling to the lowest since 2008

-  Initial unemployment insurance claims are at a 12-year low; more than 100,000 jobs have been created over the past three years.

- Creation of 13,000 new businesses - “When I spoke about our jobs goal more than four years ago, I also made a pledge to help the people of Wisconsin create 10,000 new businesses by 2015.  Tonight, I am proud to announce we exceeded that goal with nearly 13,000 new businesses created so far.”

- According to the latest national report, personal income grew 4.4% over the year; faster than the U.S.  In fact, Wisconsin ranked as the 4th best state in the country for personal income growth from the second quarter to the third quarter in 2013.

- Home sales are up by nearly 11% and housing permits are up 12.9%

- The tourism industry has grown by $2 billion to $16.8 billion.

- Milk production went up at double the national rate over the past year.  And agricultural exports grew by 6% through the first three quarters of 2013, while dairy exports grew by 34%.

- Wisconsin’s budget now has a $912 million surplus

- Governor Scott Walker is going to rebate the money in the form of a billion dollar tax cut to the people who he said own the money. He's going to cut income taxes and property taxes, and he made the point that it's not just a gimmick of budgeting or accounting. It's the result of serious, significant policy changes.  “What do you do with a surplus?  Give it back to the people who earned it.  It’s your money.”

- Much of the surplus was achieved by cutting taxes.  “In the budget, we dropped the number of tax brackets and cut tax rates for everyone who pays income taxes in our state.  On top of that, we passed $100 million worth of property tax relief this past fall.  For the third year in a row, property taxes actually went down on a median-valued home in Wisconsin.  In fact, with the tax controls we already put in place, property taxes on a typical home in December of 2014 will actually be lower than they were in December of 2010.” and “It seems like a long time ago, but taxes went up $1.7 billion in Governor Doyle’s last budget in 2009.  Four years later, our budget lowered the tax burden by nearly $1 billion.”

- Wisconsin has also introduced programs to educate people, and help workers receive the training necessary to increase their skills.  This was done by providing funding to increase the number of courses available, and to provide a roadmap to people how to obtain these opportunities.  Programs to assist the disabled in the job market have also been initiated.  These programs are not entitlements, or charity offerings, but programs that provide incentive for both companies, and potential employees.  “We are also doing more to get skilled tradesmen and women into the workforce.  Through November, the number of apprentices is up 34% from the previous year.”

- Improvements in education have been achieved.  “A recent report by the Wisconsin Taxpayers Alliance showed the reforms we put into place in 2011 gave schools the tools to more than make up for the budget adjustments.  Plus, schools can hire and fire based on merit, they can pay based on performance, which means we can put the best and brightest in our classrooms and pay to keep them there.

Every child, regardless of where they live or what their parents do for a living deserves a chance to have a great education at the public school, charter school, choice school, virtual school, or home school environment right for them.  With this in mind, we increased funding for our traditional public schools by $387 million and expanded the choice program for other families across the state.

We are proud of our positive reforms in education.  ACT scores continue to be higher than the national average, graduation rates are better than when I took office, and also, third grade reading scores are up.

We are also working to make college more affordable for students and their families.  As the father of two sons who are in college, I can relate.  After years of 5.5% average tuition increases, we now have a two-year tuition freeze, for the first time in the history of the UW System.”

- Wisconsin is reducing government dependence: “Most importantly, we are helping people transition from government dependence to true independence.  We are helping people live the American Dream, which comes, not from the heavy hand of the government, but from the dignity that comes from work.  Our reforms offer people more freedom, more opportunity, and, ultimately, more prosperity.

Our reforms are based on common sense.  We ask those receiving unemployment checks to seek work four or more times a week instead of two.  We ask adults without children seeking food stamps to enroll in employment training.  We’re not making it harder to get government assistance; we’re making it easier to get a job.

We are putting in place similar reforms for Medicaid, too.  Years ago, under Governor Doyle, eligibility for BadgerCare Plus went up, but not enough funds were budgeted, so many people living in poverty were put on a waiting list.  This year, for the first time in Wisconsin history, everyone living in poverty will be able to access health care under Medicaid.

For those living above poverty, we transition them into the marketplace.  I believe Medicaid is for those living in poverty, and our goal should be to help lift more and more people out of the depths of economic despair.

Our Wisconsin Plan is unique as we are able to cover everyone living in poverty, reduce the number of uninsured, and still not expose Wisconsin taxpayers to the uncertain potential cost of the federal Medicaid expansion.

Helping more people transition from government dependence to true independence is not only good for the taxpayers, it is good for employers, too, as more and more jobs are created in our growing economy and employers need more skilled workers to fill those positions.  Most importantly, it is good for the people, who can now control their own lives and their own destinies.”

- Oh, and notice the mainstream media is silent about this; oh, and also remember, Wisconsin is a hardcore blue state with a strong history of unions, and yet one conservative sticking to his guns, doing what he said, and applying conservative principles, has turned the State of Wisconsin around.

1.  Experts Say Best Way to fight Global Warming is Communism

But. . .


American Daily Review. . . or "Let's Hear JASmius gloat about his Seattle Seahawks"



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
today at 12:00 pm Pacific

Rush Limbaugh's Failure to Understand the Constitution

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Just a quick note. . .

I listen to Rush Limbaugh as often as I am able.  He is entertaining.  He gets it when it comes to conservatism.  However, the radio powerhouse does not understand the Constitution like he thinks he does.  Last year I caught him wrong on the Constitution five times.  This week alone, twice.

This weekend I will be writing articles right here on Political Pistachio addressing those two errors.

His first?  What is the Law of the Land?  What does the Law of the Land mean?  Article VI. of the Constitution contains the answer.

His second occurred when he was hammering on Chuck Schumer. when he said, "Schools, roads and schools is a legitimate [federal] government function."  James Madison's 1817 veto of a public works bill contains the answer.

I love ya, Rush, but if you are going to talk about the Constitution, get it right.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Friday, January 24, 2014

Hard Starboard Radio: Three Boob Friday

Wendy Davis: Heroine or Prevaricator, and which is the left one and which is the right one?  Doesn't matter to the Obamedia, because their love for her is mindlessly unconditional; And is Barack Obama playing his race card again out of compulsion, boredom, or as a desperate cry for attention?  Plus this week's G-File.

Behold a political Triexian rack at 6PM Eastern/3PM Pacific.

Charles Barkley: 'Thug' Is The New 'N' Word

by JASmius

Former NBA star Charles Barkley explains why he agrees with Richard Sherman on the meaning behind the word "thug."

I am, of course, not an impartial observer in this case, so I won't venture an opinion on the "what does 'thug' mean" question.  I'll just reassert that Sherm isn't one.