Thursday, June 30, 2016

Temecula Constitution Class: Article III, Judicial Branch

Temecula Constitution Class, Article III, Judicial Branch. Last week we introduced the branch. Now we begin working through the text. . .

Remember, the text of these handouts come from my book, The Basic Constitution.

Temecula Constitution Class
Thursdays, 6:30 pm
Faith Armory
41669 Winchester Road
Temecula, CA  92590

Constitution Class Handout
Instructor: Douglas V. Gibbs

Lesson 08

Judicial Branch

Establish Justice

The United States Constitution was written to establish a federal government for the United States of America. Article III establishes the federal court system. Article I, Section 8 gives the Congress the power to "constitute tribunals inferior to the supreme Court." Given the power to establish these courts, Congress also has the authority to do away with any of these inferior courts. This power of Congress is repeated in Article III, Section 1 during the first sentence.

When reading Article III, one must keep in mind the fact that the article was specifically written to affect the federal court system, not the state courts. The authorities contained within this article, and the restrictions thereof, are to be applied to the federal courts, not the state courts. One must also bear in mind, as one reads this article, the additional limits placed on the federal courts by the 11th Amendment. No case against a state by citizens of another state, or by the citizens or subjects of a foreign state, shall be heard by a federal court.

In other words if citizens of a State sues a State, or foreign government sues a State, the case can't go to the federal courts. The highest that case can go is the State Supreme Court. These limitations placed upon the court system by the 11th Amendment were proposed by the people (House of Representatives) and the States (Senate), and finally ratified by the States, in order to better control a federal court system that was attempting to compromise State Sovereignty. Judges, the lesson of the 11th Amendment shows us, are not the wielders of the rule of law. They are not the powerful men of honor when it comes to the law. The guardians of the rule of law are the people, and the States. The courts had proven that they can become an enemy of the law, proclaiming that their rulings are the rule of law, but as the 11th Amendment reminds us, the judges are merely men, and their system is the rule of man attempting to manipulate the law through their rulings. For their bad behavior, the people and the States judged them, and further limited them with a new constitutional amendment.

Good Behavior

The conventional understanding of the terms of federal judges is that they receive lifetime appointments because no time restriction is placed upon them in the Constitution. The only limitation on term placed upon the judges can be found in Article III, Section 1 where the Constitution states that judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, "shall hold their offices during good behavior." Conventional wisdom dictates that bad behavior is defined as unlawful activities.

The definition of bad behavior is not limited to only illegal activities. Judges take an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the United States Constitution, which is the Law of the Land. Bad behavior, then, from the point of view of the Founding Fathers, may also include unconstitutional actions, or failure to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution.

Impeachment by Congress may be used if a judge acts in bad behavior. If a judge refuses to attend the hearing at the behest of the United States Senate, the federal marshall may be used to retrieve the judge, and compel them to stand before Congress to answer for their bad behavior. Congress is the check and balance against the courts, not the other way around.


The powers of the federal courts "shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority."

The federal courts, in other words, may hear all cases that fall within their authority. These cases are regarding those in which the federal government has authority, be it by laws passed within the authorities granted to the federal government by the Constitution, or regarding issues related to treaties made that have been signed by the President and ratified by the U.S. Senate. The courts may not hear cases that are regarding issues not within the authorities of the federal government.

A recent example would be the flurry of federal court rulings against State laws defining marriage as between a man and a woman. In California, the State's attempt to protect the government definition of marriage was with Proposition 8. The proposition changed the State Constitution to read that marriage is between a man and a woman. Marriage is not an issue that falls under the authorities of the federal government as expressly granted by the Constitution, nor is the issue of marriage prohibited to the States. Therefore, as per the authorities granted, and not granted, in line with the 10th Amendment, the government authority over marriage is reserved to the States. Since the issue of marriage is a State issue, the case should not have gone beyond the State Supreme Court. The federal courts hearing the case regarding Proposition 8, or any of the State laws regarding marriage, are acting unconstitutionally. The governors of these States, whose marriage laws were overturned by an activist federal court system, have the right to disregard all rulings by the federal courts on this issue. The action of ignoring the rulings is a type of nullification, and States have the right to nullify unconstitutional laws or actions by the federal government..

Other limitations have been placed upon the federal courts as well. The 11th Amendment changed the intent of Article III. As limited as the courts were supposed to be, the Founding Fathers realized the courts weren't limited enough, and as a result, the 11th Amendment wound up being ratified in 1795. The 11th Amendment was encouraged by a federal case called Chisolm v. Georgia (1793).

Chisolm v. Georgia (1793)

An increasing problem with federal intrusion on the States via the federal court system culminated in the case of Chisholm v. Georgia in 1793, which eventually led to the proposal, and ratification, of the 11th Amendment. A citizen of South Carolina sued the State of Georgia for the value of clothing supplied by a merchant during the Revolutionary War. After Georgia refused to appear, claiming immunity as a sovereign state, as per the Constitution (Article III, Section 2) the federal courts took the case. The judges in the court system tended to embrace a nationalist view of the federal government, and their nationalist point of view encouraged the judges to deem that in the Chisolm v. Georgia case, Georgia was not a sovereign state, therefore the Supreme Court entered a default judgment against Georgia. What ensued was a conflict between federal jurisdiction and state sovereignty that reminded the anti-federalists of their fears of a centralized federal government consolidating the states, and destroying their right to individual sovereignty.

Realizing that the clause in Article III gave the federal courts too much power over state sovereignty, Congress immediately proposed the 11th Amendment in order to take away federal court jurisdiction in suits commenced against a State by citizens of another State or of a foreign state. This is the first instance in which a Supreme Court decision was superseded by a constitutional amendment, and evidence that the founders saw the legislative branch, and the States, as being a more powerful part of government over the federal judiciary.

The 10th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America states that the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, or prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. The federal courts are included in that, as being a part of the United States federal government. As a result of the nature of how federal authorities are granted, the federal court system can only hear cases that fall within the constitutional authorities for the federal government.

When one understands the importance of protecting state sovereignty, and that the courts are supposed to be very limited in their scope and power, Article III becomes much simpler to understand.

As stated earlier in this section, the first sentence of Article III, Section 2, reads: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States (which are only supposed to be passed if they are within the authorities granted by the Constitution), and Treaties made . . .

Notice the phrase, "arising under this Constitution." If the case is not involving the federal government as one of the parties, or is not regarding an issue that falls under the authorities of the U.S. Constitution, the federal courts can simply not take the case. The State Supreme Court, in those cases, is the highest court the case can go to.

Judicial Review

Federal judges maintain that the federal courts have the power of judicial review, or the power to determine the constitutionality of laws. In response to the judicial urgings for the powers to judge the extent of the federal government's powers, in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison warned us that giving the federal government through its courts the power of judicial review would be a power that would continue to grow, regardless of elections, putting at risk the all important concept of the separation of powers, and other much-touted limits on power. The final arbiters of the Constitution are not the courts, argued the Founding Fathers who supported the foundation of limiting principles of the U.S. Constitution. The power of the federal government must be checked by State governments, and the people. The States and the People are the enforcers and protectors of the U.S. Constitution.

In today's society it is commonly accepted that one of the roles of the federal court system is to interpret the Constitution, and issue rulings determining the constitutionality of laws. The Constitution does not grant this authority. The power of Judicial Review was given to the courts by themselves.

The first attempt to establish "Judicial Review" as an authority to the federal court system was through the Judiciary act of 1789, but the authority allowing the United States federal courts to hear a civil case because the plaintiff has alleged a violation of the United States Constitution, federal law, or a treaty to which the United States is a party, was limited to only the United States Supreme Court. The lower federal courts, at this point, were not allowed hear cases questioning the federal government's "federal question jurisdiction." Anti-federalists, and Jefferson Republicans immediately railed against the legislation, arguing that legislation cannot determine authorities granted.

The Federalists, in an attempt to allow the lower courts to wield the power of judicial review, briefly created such jurisdiction in the Judiciary Act of 1801, but it was repealed the following year. Unable to establish the federal court system as the final arbiters of the United States Constitution through legislative means, the Federalists turned to the courts themselves to drive into place the controversial authority.

During John Adams' final moments in the presidency, he appointed a whole host of "midnight judges" (appointing 16 Federalist circuit judges and 42 Federalist justices of the peace to offices created by the Judiciary Act of 1801) in the hopes of retaining federalist control of the courts as Jefferson's Democratic-Republicans gained control of the Congress, and Jefferson himself accepted the presidency.

Thomas Jefferson's Democratic-Republicans were appalled by the appointment of the Midnight Judges, recognizing the stacking of the courts as a desperate attempt by the Federalists to try and continue Federalist influence despite their election loss. In Jefferson's view, the Federalists "retired into the judiciary as a stronghold . . . and from that battery all the works of Republicanism are to be beaten down and destroyed."

While Adams was still in office, most of the commissions for these newly appointed judges were delivered. However, unable to deliver all of them before Adams' term expired, some of them were left to be delivered by the incoming Secretary of State, James Madison. Jefferson ordered them not to be delivered, and without the commissions delivered, the remaining new appointees were unable to assume the offices and duties to which they had been appointed to by Adams. In Jefferson's opinion, the undelivered commissions were void.

One of those appointed judges was a man named William Marbury. He sued, and the case worked its way up to the Supreme Court. After all of the dust settled, on February 24, 1803, the Court rendered a unanimous (4-0) decision that Marbury had the right to his commission, but the court did not have the power to force Madison to deliver the commission. Chief Justice Marshall wrote the opinion of the court, and in that opinion he wrote that the federal court system has the power of judicial review. Rather than simply applying the law to the cases, Marshall decided, based on case law and precedent, that the courts have the authority to determine the validity of the law as well. This opinion, however, went against all of the limitations placed on the courts by the Constitution.

One of the most obvious fundamental principles of the Constitution is the limitations it places on the federal government. The Constitution is designed not to tell the federal government what it can't do, but to offer enumerated powers to which the authorities of the federal government are limited to. The powers are granted by the States, and any additional authorities must also be approved by the States through the ratification of any proposed amendments. It takes 3/4 of the States to ratify an amendment. The congressional proposal of an amendment, with the ratification of that amendment, in the simplest terms, is the federal government asking the States for permission to a particular authority.

The power of Judicial Review, or the authority to determine if laws are constitutional, was not granted to the courts by the States in the Constitution. The courts took that power upon themselves through Justice Marshall's opinion of Marbury v. Madison.

The federal courts are a part of the federal government. The Constitution was designed to limit the authorities of the federal government by granting only a limited number of powers. Judicial Review enables the federal government, through the courts, to determine if the laws that the federal government made are constitutional. In other words, the federal government, through Judicial Review, can determine for itself what its own authorities are.

The idea that the federal court system has the authority to interpret the Constitution, and can decide if a law is constitutional or not, is unconstitutional, and is simply an attempt by those that believe in big government to gain power, and work towards a more centralized big federal governmental system.

Original Jurisdiction

In Article III, Section 2, Clause 2 the Constitution reads: "In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction."

What this means is that in all of those above listed cases, the federal appellate courts cannot take the case. Such cases must bypass the federal appellate system, and go straight to the Supreme Court. Since one of those stipulations is in regards to cases "in which a State shall be a Party," that means that the case "U.S. v. Arizona" where the federal government sued Arizona to block the State's immigration law, was unconstitutional. It was unconstitutional for the inferior federal courts to hear the case. The Supreme Court had original jurisdiction. Therefore, when the district court ruled in July of 2010 on the case, and struck down parts of the Arizona immigration law, not only did that court not have jurisdiction to hear the case in the first place, but the very act of striking down portions of the law was unconstitutional. After all, Article I, Section 1 grants the legislative branch all legislative powers, and those powers would include the ability to strike down law. The courts were not vested with any legislative powers, and therefore cannot strike down laws, or portions of laws.

Trial by Jury

Article III, Section II, Clause 3 sets up the right to a trial by jury, except in the cases of impeachment.

This clause also requires that a trial must be held in the state where the crime was committed. If the crime was not committed in any particular state, then the trial is held in such a place as set forth by the Congress.


Article III, Section 3 defines treason, as well as the granting of the power by the Congress to declare the punishment. When the Constitution says that "no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attained," it means that the punishment cannot be inherited or passed down (corruption of blood), nor shall the person be denied due process (attainder).

Corruption of blood also means that all inheritable qualities are destroyed, and the Founding Fathers did not believe this English practice should be an American one.

No forfeiture meant that despite treason, the properties of the person could not be forfeited to the government. The property would remain as property of the individual, or remain with family. Even when it came to the despicable act of treason, the founders believed that the individual should be able to retain certain rights.


Corruption of Blood: Punishment inherited or passed down, all inheritable qualities are destroyed.

Judicial Review: The unconstitutional authority of the federal courts to review law, interpret the Constitution regarding laws, and then determine the constitutionality of laws.

Original Jurisdiction: In the Constitution the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction on some cases, which means the case must proceed directly to the Supreme Court, and the high court must make a determination on whether or not to accept the case.

Treason:Levying war against the States, or adhering to the enemies of the States, giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

Questions for Discussion:

1. How would life in the United States be different if there was no federal court system?

2. Why did the Founding Fathers limit the authorities of the federal courts?

3. How has Judicial Review changed our system of government?

4. Why do you think the Supreme Court has Original Jurisdiction over some cases?

5. In what ways is the presence of a Judicial Branch important?


Draft of the Kentucky Resolutions (Jefferson's Draft), Avalon Project, Yale University:

Madison's Notes Constitutional Convention, Avalon Project, Yale University:

Virginia Resolution - Alien and Sedition Acts, Avalon Project, Yale University:

Copyright: Douglas V. Gibbs, 2015

When a Movement Became a Worldwide Revolution

By Douglas V. Gibbs
AuthorSpeakerInstructorRadio Host

I joked the other day about how my services as a constitutionalist are in high demand.  "Obama has been good for business."  Every time Obama opens his mouth, people want to buy guns, kick the establishment in the groin, and learn more about the U.S. Constitution.

The leftward march of American politics, via the presidency of Barack Obama, the arrogance of people like Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, and the elitism of the Clintons as Hillary embarked upon her own run for the White House, has gotten Americans pretty fed up.  What has angered them even further is that to combat the frightening escapades of liberal left socialism in America the voters gave the Republican Party the House of Representatives in a decisive vote in 2010, and the Senate in 2014. . . yet the GOP has done less to defeat the statists of the Democrat Party than expected.  We also got rid of John Boehner, but in response, as I write this, The House of Representatives is working on a vote on a gun control package with Speaker Paul D. Ryan giving in once again on provisions we just can't give to the federal government.  Sometimes it seems like the Republicans are working with the Democrats in their quest to destroy the American System, and prepare America to join the union of internationalists in a deeper globalist orgy of power than we are already witnessing.

In the 2016 Presidential Campaign the anti-establishment sentiment launched the campaigns of Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump into a trajectory not expected by political experts.  The unlikely rise of Trump has gone so far that he is now the presumptive Republican nomination as we approach the GOP Convention in Cleveland.  His followers say that Trump's run is more than a campaign.  It's a movement.

The movement by people who are fed up with the control by an elite ruling class that believes they are above the law, and above the people, is spreading. . . all the way across the pond.

Brexit (British Exit) from the European Union is just another sign that the movement is spreading.  The leftists of the EU have been rejected.  The statism of globalism is being rejected.  Sovereignty is being embraced.  Worldwide, the movement is becoming a revolution.  Europe's response?  Time to create a more powerful superstate - after all, they don't trust NATO's ability to protect them, anymore.  Germany is taking a leadership role in the new European Union, though being careful not to remind people of its Nazi past. Leftist puppet-master and globalist George Soros is calling for a thorough reconstruction of the European Union in order to save it.  Meanwhile, Mexico's leaders are calling for a North American integrated superstate.

Thomas Massie, a Republican Congressman out of Kentucky is leading a charge to try and get the United States out of the United Nations.  The anti-establishment wave slammed into Iceland where a political novice won their presidency with only 39% of the vote.  Trump, being the anti-establishment candidate in the U.S. Election and the guy who threw his support behind Brexit may very well see benefits in his race from the Brexit vote.  Trump's arguments, and the arguments by Brexit supporters, are definitely similar.  For one thing, from the globalist point of view, the movement is definitely turning the world upside down, as well as a show of how stable Britain may be as compared to the European Union.  One writer calls what is going on "Cold Anger" - an anger that perceives deception, and takes action without lashing out violently.  Still, the powerful force of cold anger can be comparable to that of a raging hurricane.

We just don't believe their lies, anymore (not that I ever did).  The hypocrisy of the liberal left Democrats, and their leftists colleagues around the world, is becoming more and more apparent thanks to the internet (part of the reason they are trying to gain control of it) and the new alternative media that goes with it.  The presumptive Democrat Party candidate for President of the United States is Hillary Clinton, a woman known for her elitism and "I'm above the law" attitude, a known liar, and a woman being investigated by the FBI for treasonous activity that stems from Benghazi to her private email server.  Even more telling is that the Democrats are doing all they can to protect their golden girl, Hillary Clinton.  The State Department has refused to release Clinton Foundation emails during an investigation against Hillary Clinton involving her emails.  The Benghazi report also shows how the Democrats have done all they can to not cooperate, and protect Obama and Clinton.

Anti-Gun United States Senator Jamilah Nasheed has just been arrested with a loaded gun and extra clips while drunk in Ferguson.  This echoes nicely the hypocrisy of the Democrat's call for gun control when last year California State Senator Leland Yee was busted on arms trafficking and corruption charges in an FBI sweep.  Yee had a long legislative record of fighting for stronger gun control laws. Twenty-six of the Democrats who participated in the recent House of Representatives sit-in to support gun control are gun owners.

In New York, pro-abortion activists screamed and yelled their opposition to an organization being given funds by a city to enable a free car seat program for needy babies.

In New Jersey police were called to an elementary school because a third grader had made a comment about the brownies being served to the class during their end of the school year party that another student exclaimed was "racist."  The parent of the child said of the episode, "He said they were talking about brownies. . . . Who exactly did he offend?"  The student stayed home for his last day of third grade, traumatized by the accusation of racism over his innocent comment.

Fox News was attacked by the Democrats on the Federal Election Commission who voted in secret to punish Fox News' sponsorship of a Republican presidential debate.  The punishment was blocked by all three Republicans on the commission, resulting in a 3-3 tie vote and no action.  The accusation was that by hosting a GOP debate, Fox News was guilty of making a contribution to the candidates.  It stemmed from one of the candidates that had been left out of a debate filing a complaint to the FEC, charging that Fox was essentially making a contribution to the 17 candidates by letting them have a voice in the debate.

CNN did the same thing, but there is no indication that they faced a complaint.

Thanks to the policies of the Obama administration, an ideology that has declared war on the United States, Islam, has had the freedom to conduct their invasion not only without any obstruction, but actually with assistance by the United States Government. One of the most dangerous bombmakers and recruiters in the terrorist world is out of prison and now living in an southeastern European country that is a hub of Islamic terrorism. But he didn't escape. He was freed from U.S. custody on the orders of Barack Obama. President Barack Obama is planning to increase the number of refugees admitted to his nation, and is calling on countries like Australia to follow suit, despite fears that terrorists will use refugee flows to infiltrate Western nations. Thanks to Obama's policies, Hamtramck, Michigan has been given the nickname “Shariatown” now that the four out of the six City Council positions have been filled by members of the Islamic faith, and policies that mimic Sharia Law are being implemented throughout the city. New York Judge Carolyn Walker-Diallo, a Black Muslim woman took oath as a civil court judge in New York while swearing to abide by the U.S. Constitution placing her hand on the Holy Quran, and while wearing a hijab.

Professors in U.S. universities found to have conservative viewpoints are being investigated for their dissenting opinion. Professors in U.S. universities who make anti-republican statements to their students in class are still teaching, and in fact are being given pay raises. The University of Arizona hopes to kick off the fall 2017 semester by offering a master’s degree in transgender studies. California Democrats are pushing Senate Bill 1146, which would force Christian colleges and universities to no longer be allowed to require students attend chapel services or require them to profess a relationship with Jesus Christ, saying that doing so is discrimination against students based on their gender identity, gender expression or sexual orientation.  For merely being a conservative, or Trump supporter, republicans face attacks by protesters at events, and even ridicule by employees of a restaurant where they choose to have a meal.  There has also been a very real push by Democrats to put into place punishment for those who refuse to believe in man-made climate change.  The message?  Don't you dare even breath a word of dissent against the Left or you will be attacked, jailed or fined. . . but attacks against anyone right-of-center is fair game.

We have a generation of people who have bought into the propaganda of the liberal left so much that they crumble if they think the've been offended, and a majority of Democrats that believe Obama has done a fine job and that he should serve an unconstitutional third term as President of the United States.  The Obama administration knows they have fooled a majority of people considered to be "minorities" and so they are doing what they can to spread that demographic around the United States, using a kind of modern busing to integrate neighborhoods, and turn "white conservative" neighborhoods into a Democrat Party supporting region.

If you dare breath a word against, you will be labeled a racist, and likely be considered such a hateful person that you may wind up on a watch list.

Meanwhile, Seventh Circuit Judge Richard Posner sees “absolutely no value” in studying the U.S. Constitution because “eighteenth-century guys” couldn’t have possibly foreseen the culture and technology of today.  In a recent op-ed for Slate, Judge Posner, a senior lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School, argued that the original Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the post–Civil War amendments “do not speak to today.”

“I see absolutely no value to a judge of spending decades, years, months, weeks, day, hours, minutes, or seconds studying the Constitution, the history of its enactment, its amendments, and its implementation (across the centuries — well, just a little more than two centuries, and of course less for many of the amendments),” he wrote.


We need to learn how to fight the war the way patriots would fight the war, not the way tyrants fight it. Their tactics work well for the liberal left because statism is a collectivist game, and it comes naturally to them. We are not collectivists, so their strategies and tactics are not fully compatible with what we stand for. Some facets of their attack may be something we can integrate into our battle plan, but overall, their ideology is completely foreign to the concepts of liberty, and constitutionalism, therefore their blueprint for war is not for us - so for those of you saying we need to learn from the left to know how to fight them. . . not necessarily.

Our plan of attack will seem, sometimes, to implement elements of the opposition’s game plan, but ours must follow more closely what we have been provided through the rule of law by the Founding Fathers and divine Providence.  Ours must take into account how we got here. Education is a key aspect of a successful military operation, and if you don’t know your enemy, your efforts are destined for defeat.

James Madison told us that “A well-instructed people alone can be permanently a free people.” Education must be the bedrock of our efforts. Understanding how our system is supposed to properly function, and understanding how the statists brought us to this moment in history, is paramount. Fighting the good fight is a noble thing, but if you don’t understand the enemy, nor understand the weapons you have available to you, the fight will become nothing more than an exercise in futility.

Beyond two centuries the United States has been the land of liberty. Forces exist that are determined to fundamentally change our system of freedom into a system of bondage. Every culture harbors those who believe themselves to be a ruling elite, smarter than the average person, and entitled to control through the hell-bound concept of government mandated good intentions and the common good. Thomas Jefferson called a system under the control of the ruling elite "a tyranny." Many of the framers of the Constitution called it "utopianism." Today, we call this kind of tyranny statism, socialism, communism, totalitarianism, oligarchy, and fascism. Jean Jacques Rousseau called it the "General Will."

The philosophies of Rousseau were among the catalysts that brought about the French Revolution that emerged shortly after the Americans fought their own Revolutionary War. As a supporter of big government, Rousseau championed the concept of The General Will, an idea designed by statism to "ensure the public good." Nationalists of the time believed that the lowly, uninformed people were unable to properly maintain society. As instructed by the writings of Plato, the liberal left believes central government power is absolutely required. According to their belief system a ruling elite is needed to ensure society operates smoothly, and operated in the best interest of the people in the way they define it.

Big Government statists believe in the existence of the public interest in terms of collectivism, placing the "good of the community" over the rights of the individual. These policies tend to benefit small, but powerful, special interests at the expense of the rest of the society, but are put into place by the ruling elite because in their opinion the public doesn't understand any better, and must be forced to understand, and comply.

One may argue that all of those mandates were indeed for our own good. The good mayor banning large sodas, or the governor banning trans-fats were only looking out for the interests of the people. He wanted to protect people’s “freedom from” the consequences of their actions. But, at what point does government making law to protect you from yourself become tyranny? At what point does “freedom from” interfere with a person’s “freedom to?”

Leftists are collectivists, and collectivists hate individualism; be it the individualism of people, or of the States  These people wish to dissolve the American people (and ultimately the people of the world) into a homogeneous mass, and eliminate their voluntary choices for the perceived good of the community.

Any system is generally defined as a group of independent, but interrelated elements, that make up the whole. By definition, if the components of a system are divided, or working against one another, they are really not a part of a functioning system, after all. The order of things consist of meaning and purpose, and all of us have profound connections to the systems we are a part of. When you have order the harmony of the related systems is a beautiful thing. When systems have order we live happily, with the Blessings of Liberty. Statists, however, do not believe that such order is achievable by individual participation, but that participation must be carefully measured and controlled by a ruling elite. Without that elite in control, inserting its definitions of what a good society is, they believe that such a system can only whittle away into chaos.

Benjamin Franklin recognized that systems must achieve order, but rejected the rule of man through concepts like collectivism. Order must be something achieved not because a people are forced to be, but because they desire to be as a result of their morality. He said, "Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom."

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

Among the ingredients the Founding Fathers recognized as being necessary for an ordered society to be successful, without a ruling elite dictating to the people how to live their lives, resides a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence. A moral society is a system established under the rule of law, and because of the society being virtuous, it is capable of remaining under the rule of law. Historically, the rule of law attained the most success when it has been based on biblical principles. The law of the land was written in the form of a constitution, and the maintenance of the system was achieved through a government strong enough to protect, preserve and promote liberty, while limited through a system of checks and balances, and a representative government.

Those who support the idea of a ruling elite consider such systems of liberty to be dangerous, and view the concept of individualism as a danger to the proper functioning of any system. In the opinion of the statist, the American System has achieved success as a society despite "psychotic individualism."  True "equity" and "fairness," it is believed by these people, cannot be achieved unless the ruling elite is given full control of the entire functioning of the system.

To achieve that kind of control, however, the statists must destroy the existing system, and erase the memory of liberty from the minds of the inhabitants. They must convince the citizenry that liberty is slavery, and turn them against the system created by the Founding Fathers so that the people will embrace bondage, and gladly raise the red flag of statism themselves.

In short, we must achieve a foundation of being a virtuous people, individuals, enjoy a free market, and be well informed.  Without those ingredients in place, our system is doomed to fail, be it at the hands of tyrants, or the destructive power of disorder.

This is why the forces of tyranny target morality, and individualism. The leaders of the new tyranny are the old vanguards of revolutionary change. They seek a destruction of god, and individualism of all kinds.  They push for pure democracy, where the rule of law is no longer a concern, because the rule of man is in charge. 

The revolution has begun, but we did not start it. The coup has already taken place in Washington, and the enemy has gained control of the heart of the republic. They have manipulated and gained full control of the networking lines of communication and halls of education. They have erected an iron curtain, and they have disguised it as the common good. They are darker than the shadows, and crueler than the dungeon keepers. It is these dark followers of people like Saul Alinsky that we battle against, and it is the same purveyors of false utopia that brought down Greece and Rome, and the same enemy that the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution to protect us against. They recognized the enemy, and warned us that if we did not remain informed and vigilant, that it would take a bloody revolution to restore the republic.

We face an enemy as old as humanity, and as dark as Lucifer himself. Now is no time to be timid. Now is the time for action, so that we may send a message to our grandchildren's grandchildren that when their future was on the line, we took action, we were willing to fight the good fight, and we were willing to preserve liberty with our lives, fortunes, and sacred honor on the line.

It all begins with education, and constitutional actions required to keep the republic.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Fast and Furious Guns In Paris

By Douglas V. Gibbs
AuthorSpeakerInstructorRadio Host

ISIS is not only using guns given to them by the Obama administration through the Syrian Rebels gun-running operation (which is also tied to Benghazi), but now we are finding out that guns used in the Paris, France attack by persons claiming to be attached to ISIS were possibly guns the Obama administration gave to Mexican Drug Cartels in the Fast and Furious guns scandal.  The report comes from information garnered from a report filed by a case agent regarding the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco Firearms and Explosives (ATF) where the path of a gun used in the Paris attacks was traced back to a Phoenix gun owner who sold it illegally, “off book.”  

In other words, Obama has been arming the enemy time and time again, through various routes.

The Phoenix gun owner that the weapon was traced back to has allegedly violated two federal regulations, selling one weapon illegally and possessing an unregistered automatic.  But, because likely it was a part of the Fast and Furious gun-walker program, or because the Fast and Furious program was going on in the area and the federal government didn't want to bring attention to it, no enforcement or prosecutorial action was taken against the individual. The federal government kept a distant eye on the situation, and purposely kept the gun owner’s identity quiet.

Judicial Watch asked an ATF spokesman, Corey Ray, at the agency’s Washington D.C. headquarters, about the possible connection, and he told Judicial Watch that “no firearms used in the Paris attacks have been traced” by the agency. When asked about a Report of Investigation (ROI) filed by a case agent in the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco Firearms and Explosives (ATF) where the ROI report links the weapon used in Paris to Phoenix, Ray said “I’m not familiar with the report you’re referencing.” Judicial Watch also tried contacting the Phoenix ATF office, but multiple calls were not returned.

How disturbing does the treasonous activities of the Obama administration have to be before Americans, all Americans, finally scream "ENOUGH!"  The liberal left ideology is going beyond merely attempting to destroy the American System as it was forged by the Founding Fathers.  Now, what we are seeing is a continuous arming of our enemies that is costing the lives of Americans, and innocents abroad.  

This administration, and the democrats fighting to take Obama's place in the White House, believe they are above the law.  The Constitution and the rule of law means nothing to these people.  Your right to life and liberty is the last thing they care about.  This lawless administration has been committing treason under our noses, and for some reason the uninformed public is accepting their lies and fraud as nothing to worry about.

All the while, this administration is doing all it can to unconstitutionally expand gun control, which is intended to eventually result in the confiscation of every firearm owned by law-abiding citizens.  This means that he and his cronies are handing illegal firearms to terrorists who want you dead, as they try to disarm you so that you may not be able to defend yourself against terrorism, or a domestic enemy like a tyrannical federal government.

And, through the TPP, the Obama administration is attempting to enable the leftists who are pushing for a global system of governance to be able to supersede U.S. law.  The global courts and laws would override any decision we make in our own country.  This is something even worse for America than the overregulated European Union that Britain just narrowly escaped from.

The enemy is not at the gates.  The enemy has both hands on the helm, and is steering America towards disaster!

There are solutions, and they have been given to us by the U.S. Constitution.  The military leaders see the collision course we are on, conservatives see the diabolical disaster being planned for our country.  Do you see it?

Obama is waging warfare against Americans.  They are using political correctness, insane social issues, and psychological warfare designed to desensitize us, dehumanize us, and demoralize us.  It is coming from all directions for a reason.  They are poking us in the chest, and hoping for a reaction so that they can claim we are the aggressors, and we should be detained.

The tyrants are killing liberty, and they are seeking a global superstate that the United States is defenseless against - and a party to.  We see it.  We feel it.  But do we know what to do about it?

While the Obama administration is trying to purge this nation of those defending the U.S. Constitution from an originalist perspective, we continue to stand firm.  Veterans, Christians, Tea Party members, Constitutionalists, and other patriotic Americans are being watched closely by this administration.  We are considered potential domestic terrorists, while the real terrorists get a pass after shooting and killing people in places like San Bernardino and Orlando.

Rallies, demonstrations and protests help, but we also need to be using the other tools available to us for keeping the republic. . . but if we don't know the Constitution, we can't stop this.  Without the United States Constitution, and being a godly nation, we are not capable of even understanding what liberty is.

The movement is becoming a revolution, but we must be willing to fight it.  Knowledge will enable us to be better warriors.

The liberal left believes they have turned the corner.  There's no stopping them, they believe.  They are gong for broke with their lawlessness and brazen acts of treason.

The only way to stop them is with a united front populated by a knowledgeable public.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Final Chance for Tickets: Constitution Association Anniversary Dinner

July 9's Constitution Association Anniversary Dinner  being held in Wildomar, CA (southwest Riverside County between Murrieta and Lake Elsinore) is almost upon us. . . 

Trevor Loudon of "The Enemies Within" and G.R. Mobley of the "We the People" series of books and the coiner of "Republic Review" headline an incredible list of speakers (John L. Hancock, Alan Myers, and Janette Chun of Birth Choice of Temecula), Father Josiah Trenham will give the invocation, the food is being catered by a very popular local steakhouse, RJ's Sizzlin' Steer (Tri-Tip or Chicken Breast, rice pilaf, bar-b-que baked beans, dinner roll, salad and tea from them - Lemonade, coffee, soda and dessert from us), and the chance to buy a ticket has almost expired.  This weekend will be your last chance to buy tickets online at $35, Tuesday July 5 is the last day we are selling tickets directly for $25, and only a limited number will be available at the door on the day of the event for $40.  Don't wait, this is your final opportunity to make sure you are a part of this historic event.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Wednesday, June 29, 2016

Hillary's Huma Abedin Spilling the Beans?

Posted by Douglas V. Gibbs

Headlines from Drudge Report Opens Up a Can of Worms. . .

By the way, remember that Huma Abedin is married to Anthony Weiner.  Put their names together, and it says "Weiner A bed in".

Just an observation.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary


The old Hitler / Stalin conflict revisited as Gramsci / Leninist and Neo-Nazi rumble in Sacramento.

Opinion by Allan McNew

It should be clear to everyone that the riot had two sides which clashed with weapons such as clubs and knives, and that while one was permitted for a rally the other side showed up to physically rout the first from the location.

Everyone has some idea of what white supremacists are because every time one (or someone alleged to be one) sticks his head up the media extensively covers some activist group loudly deploring it, but who was behind the Sacramento riot, and even more so the activists behind the anti-Trump vigilantes instigating near-riots at Trump rallies, was unclear.

Before I heard anything else from the media, there was something about the Mexica Movement being involved, which probably has some truth to it due to a couple of guys at the event wearing T-shirts emblazoned “MEXICAN. NOT LATINO NOT HISPANIC” which is a primary component of Mexica Movement racial blather. Their slant is that “Latino”, “Hispanic” and “mestizo” is a social construction of “European invaders who raped and murdered” their ancestors. They claim to be “indigenous” (denying that the vast majority of their Spanish/Indian mixed blood ancestors migrated to the US post 1849, and not in any great numbers until after 1910). However, other raza ideology branches have a similar statement, with the emphasis that “Latino” and “Hispanic” denote “vendidos”, sellouts against the brown ethnic nationalist cause.

Then I heard the narrative by Yvette Felarca, activist middle school teacher and apparent spokesman for the group “By any means necessary”, or BAMN. That perked my ears, because the phrase “by any means necessary” is a pervasive part of Brown Beret raza rhetoric, and this BAMN group appears to be a primary organizer of opposition to the TWP and GS Skinhead rally.

However, on further investigation it turns out that BAMN is an academic activist organization around since 1995 or so dedicated to – get this – organizing K-12 and college students for ideological activism. The same people who participated in organizing a large group to aggressively confront and physically mix it up like a street gang against a permitted free speech event, vile as the free speech may be, are primarily public school teachers. The rational is probably “hate speech violence” is the same as physically applied violence, so objectionable speech must be countered with a wielded club. And, BAMN probably borrowed what eventually became their name from the Brown Berets. The multitudinous Raza groups swim in the same swamp, and quite a few of the swimmers are accredited educators.

BAMN spokesman, middle school teacher Yvette Falarca: “They need to go, and we succeeded in driving them out.” Bamn website headline: “NO “FREE SPEECH” FOR FASCISTS! Mass, militant demonstration shuts down Sacramento Neo-Nazi rally!”

Another group which organized with BAMN for the Sacramento riot is Antifa, short for Anti Fascist Front. At this time, I don't have much info on that group. Here's a link for them organizing the counter protest:

In no particular order, some links concerning the issue:

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary


Muslim Brotherhood “Massive” Government Infiltration While Stigmatizing Government Employee With "Islamophobia"

By Capt Joseph R. John, June 29, 2016

Many law abiding Muslim America citizens have assimilated in the United States and fought as members of the US Armed Forces, against Sadam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait, and also against “Radical Islamic Terrorism” over the last 50 years.  They are opposed to ISIS’ murderous attacks against gays, Christians, and Jews, and are frightened of the “Radical Islamic Terrorist” threat.   More Muslims worldwide than Americans have been murdered by “Radical Islamic Terrorists”.

The Muslim Brotherhood (the progenitor of Jihadism), and its front groups, the Council of American Islamic Relations (CAIR), and the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), do not have members who are law abiding Muslim Americans, like many Muslim Americans who are good citizens and have assimilated in the United States.  Members of the Muslim Brotherhood, CAIR, and MPAC have sinister goals that are not in support of the US Constitution or The Bill of Rights.  They have become a very dangerous “Fifth Column” in the United States, appointed by Obama to very high and sensitive positions in the US Government Agencies.

For nearly 8 years Obama has been filling the Washington Bureaucracy including DHS, the CIA, DOD, the National Security Council, the White House, the State Department, every US Intelligence Agency, and the US Armed Forces with thousands of members of the CAIR, MPAC, the Muslim Brotherhood, and other Muslim Brotherhood front groups. 

Phil Haney (former Custom & Border Protection DHS Law Enforcement Officer) and Richard Higgins (former DOD Manager of the Combating Terrorism & Technical Support Office & Irregular Warfare Section)  made explosive charges on national radio. They stated that the Obama administration is a "tool" for the Jihadi movement in the US.  That the driving force behind America's domestic counter-terrorism strategies and its foreign policy is a massive Muslim Brotherhood (MB) movement in the United States, that the MB controls how the issue of terrorism is handled at the National Security Agency level; UTT 6/20/16-SA John Guandolo ’89, FBI (Ret).

Mr. Higgins stated, "What (leaders in the Obama administration) are actually scrubbing is any references to the Islamic doctrine that would allow us to define who is or who is not actually one of our enemies."  Mr Higgins went on to say, "When you look at the deliberate decision-making process of the Obama administration, as it relates to “Radical Islam”, that deliberate decision-making process is controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood.  And the way they control it is by prohibiting US National Security Agency personnel from ever developing an understanding to the level where Phil Haney had it."(UTT 6/20/16)

An excellent example of how the Muslim Brotherhood controls security decisions concerning “Radical Islam” at the highest levels of the Obama administration, More precisely Mr. Higgins said, "The Muslim Brotherhood was killed en masse by Saddam Hussein – the US removed him. Qaddafi killed the Muslim Brotherhood – the US removed him.  Egypt’s Mubarak defeated the Muslim Brotherhood--he had to go.  Mr Higgins alleges the US has become the MB instrument because the MB control our deliberate decision-making process."(UTT 6/20/16)

Another example of the Muslim Brotherhood controlling security decisions at the highest levels of the Obama administration, was how Obama, Hillary, and Susan Rice lied on national TV, to the families of the 4 dead Americans killed in Benghazi, to the United Nations 3 weeks after the Battle of Benghazi, and still today, insisting the attack on the Mission in Benghazi was because of an anti-Islam U-tube video that no one ever saw.  They all repeatedly lied instead of telling the truth, that the attack was preplanned and executed by “Radical Islamic Terrorists”.  Over a 9 month period leading to the attack, the US Ambassador to Libya, desperately begged Hillary directly, 12 times, for critically needed security; he was turned down 12 times, then he was murdered along with 3 other Americans.

The Muslim Brotherhood has been banned from Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Jordan, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirate because the Muslim Brotherhood & CAIR have been identified as International Terrorist organizations, that have tried to undermine and overthrow friendly Muslim Middle East governments.  Despite the fact that the Muslim Brotherhood, and CAIR, have been designated Terrorist organizations, the Obama administration continues to support their anti-US Constitutional philosophy, and Obama has become an apologist for members of the Muslim Brotherhood, and CAIR’s terrorist ties. 

In 2007, CAIR was listed as an unindicted co-conspirator by the FBI in the Holy Land Foundation trial; it was the largest terror-financing case in the Republic’s 240 year history. The FBI specifically identified CAIR as an entity of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood’s Palestine Committee, a secret body set up to advance the Hamas agenda.” The UAE designated CAIR as a terrorist organization in 2014.  Yet over the next two years, Obama kept appointing CAIR members to federal government highly sensitive security positions.  The Muslim Brotherhood very dangerous “Fifth Column” has been well established within US Government Agencies.
“Muslim Victimhood” has helped masquerade the Muslim Brotherhood, CAIR, and MPAC members trying to position themselves alongside legitimate civil rights organizations, despite their very dangerous “Radical Islamic Terror” links.  They have a history of obstructing Federal Law Enforcement Agencies from indoctrinating new graduates of the Federal Law Enforcement and the FBI Academies about the dangers that ties members of the Muslim Brotherhood, CAIR, and MPAC have to “Radical Islamic Terrorism.”  They also try to impede investigations, by calling attention to Obama administration new policies, intimidating witnesses, using “Muslim Victimization” as a defense, and by using other attempts to halt investigations into activities of accused Jihadists.

The Muslim Brotherhood, CAIR, and the MPAC appointees in the Obama administration have scrubbed a great deal of information about the 28,000 worldwide racist murderous attacks against gays, Christians, and Jews by “Radical Islamic Terrorists”, from all training manuals and historic reference material. To date, the 380 “Radical Islamic Terrorists” who have been convicted in US Federal Courts for terrorism acts and threats against the US government, were not Americans, they were foreigners who supported the Muslim Brotherhood, CAIR, and MPAC Jihadist doctrine. 

Historic information and reference books about “Radical Islamic Terrorism”, that was provided to the FBI, CIA, DHS, the Border Patrol, Custom Law Enforcement, the US Armed Forces, and other Law Enforcement Agencies nationally, in order to acquaint them with the ties that CAIR, the Muslim Brotherhood, and MPAC had to Jihad, have been scrubbed by Muslim Brotherhood appointees in the Obama administration. 

Philip Haney's publicly stated he was ordered by DHS supervisors to remove the names of suspected terrorists and terrorist organizations that had strong ties to the Muslim Brotherhood from the DHS databases, he inputted many of the 850 names through the course of investigations he was conducting.  That was a violation of US Federal Law. That critical information had been painstakingly accumulated over 8 years, of intensive investigation, by US Intelligent Agencies during the Bush administration.(UTT 6/20/16)

Members of the Muslim Brotherhood, CAIR, and MPAC in key positions of leadership throughout the Obama administration, have used the hammer of  “Political Correctness” and every other means possible, to threaten Government employees.   Anyone in the US Government Agencies who uses terms that the members of the Muslim Brotherhood, CAIR, and MPAC disapprove of, such as Muslim, Islamic, Hamas, Jihadist, Sharia, Wahhabism, Genocide, Radical Islamic Terrorism, Army of Islam, etc. have felt the very negative results of their using those terms vocally, on their computers, or in any drafted documents.   

The Muslim Brotherhood, CAIR, and  MPAC have created paranoia by employees in federal bureaucracies, that if they use the above listed terms, which are not “Politically Correct”,  there will be repercussions.   Using those term will stigmatize the federal employee, he will be viewed as bigoted and a racist; they have coined a word to slander the federal employee, that word is “Islamophobia.”

Just the opposite is true, “Radical Islamic Terrorist” are racist and bigoted, and have been murdering gays, Christians, and Jews in 28,000 attacks worldwide for many years.  Obama’s Muslim Brotherhood, CAIR, and MPAC appointees in the US Government are using “Islamophobia” to stifle anyone, who would expose Jihadists perpetrated as “Radical Islamic Terrorists” and who identified the dangerous threat Sharia poses to the US Constitution and to the rule of law in the United States. 

Mr. Haney stated: "The gravitational force of the Global Islamic Movement is not radicalization, the gravitational force of the Global Islamic Movement is the implementation of Sharia Law." The primary goal of the Global Islamic Movement is “the destruction of Western values” and “the destruction of Christianity.”  Both Mr. Higgins and Mr. Haney made it clear the “Jihadist” threat to America must be addressed immediately or we will suffer significant consequences for our inaction and for allowing our leaders to surrender their duties to our enemies. (UTT 6/20/16)

ISIS “Radical Islamic Terrorists” have been spreading their genocide of gays, Christians and Jews beyond the Middle East, worldwide employing bombs, box cutters, shoe bombs, suicide vests, throwing people off high buildings, in stoning people to death, using underwear bombs, employing crucifixions, using commercial airliners as missiles, burning people alive, setting destructive fires promoted by ISIS, using swords for beheading, drowning people in cages, setting off roadside IEDs, burying children alive, using acid baths to immerse people in, using machetes to hack people to death, honor killings of girls, exploding pressure cooker bombs, and knifing people to death.  “Radical Islamic Terrorism” racist attacks cannot be prevented by passing new restrictive gun laws.

There have been 86 racists attacks in the US against gays, Christians, and Jews by “Radical Islamic Terrorists.”  Many of the 86 racist attacks in the US were conducted without guns at all.  Those terrorist attacks were planned and conducted where Americans were prevented from carrying guns such as in Fort Hood, the Little Rock Recruiting Office, the Chattanooga Naval Reserve Center, the San Bernardino State Office Building, and the Orlando gay night club. 

Obama, and his Democratic allies in Congress covered up the Jihadist motivated racist attacks against Americans in the US, by calling for stricter guns laws, that violate the 2nd Amendment, and would result in preventing law abiding Americans from defending themselves.  Mr. Higgins warned, "Every time one of these attacks happens in the United States, you see the Left in unison with the Muslim Brotherhood immediately responding with direct attacks on the First and Second Amendments. That is not by accident, and we are going to continue to see that."(UTT 6/20/16)

“Freedom of Speech” guaranteed in the US Constitution, permits employees in US Government Agencies to freely express facts.  However employees of US Government Agencies are no longer allowed to identify the “Radical Islamic Terrorist” threat facing the Republic and using the previously listed descriptive terms of Islam: they are threatened with being labeled as bigots, racists, and being stigmatized with “Islamophobia”, and that using such terms may result in the loss of promotions, the loss of merit pay raises, failure to be removed from employment probation, and may ultimately result in the loss of their jobs.  
What most Americans do not know, is that after CAIR’s appealed its Racketeering, Influence, and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) conviction in a lower court, but the appeal was turned down by the US Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia.  The case involved CAIR’s racketeering, its massive criminal fraud schemes, and its attempt to cover up crimes against hundreds of American who were victimized.  Despite the RICO case, the fact that CAIR opposes the US Constitution, and CAIR’s ultimate goal is to install Sharia Law, Obama continued to appointment CAIR’s members to senior positions in the Obama administration.

That new Obama administration policies, developed by the Muslim Brotherhood, on how suspected Muslim Terrorists can be interrogated by federal Law Enforcement Officers, contributed greatly to the slaughter of 49 innocent gay Americans and the wounding of 53 others.  Omar Saddiqui Mateen, the son of refugees who was unable to assimilate, was given three passes by the FBI, because of the Muslim Brotherhood’s new hands off policies, instituted by the Obama administration. 

Possibly Mateen was treated differently, because he was previously issued a firearm license so he could work for DHS, he alleged “Muslim Victimization” three times when questioned by the FBI, and possibly because his father, Seddique Mateen, had been received by the Obama administration at the White House and the State Department.  The Obama administration has been covering up the fact that Mateen’s father, who had very strong ties with the Taliban Islamic Terrorists, had been received at the White House and the State Department (we have photos of Seddique Mateen in the White House and at the State Department.)  

Recently, Attorney General Lynch, made a public statement about the Orlando Massacre; her ignorant “talking points” were most probably drafted by the CAIR and MPAC appointees in the Obama White House.  Lynch did identify the “Radical Islamic Terrorist” who perpetrated the Orlando racist massacre of 49 innocent gay Americans, and wounded 53 others, a Jihadists who believed all gays should be put to death.  Like defendants with a losing case, being forced to cough up bits of discovery, it took the Lynch’s Justice Department a week to release the factual, formally redacted transcript of the Orlando shooter’s 911 call “pledging allegiance to ISIS.” 

Instead Lynch stated, as if Americans are stupid, “we may never know what motivated Omar Saddiqui Mateen to commit those murders—she further stated “what would be effective as a resolution in combating terrorism in the US is compassion, unity, and love as part of a larger pattern to wipe out Islamic Terrorism”, making such asinine comments is like telling children to go play in traffic.  Lynch, in the wake of the San Bernardino shootings, took “Islamophobia” to a higher level, by threatening to prosecute anti-Muslim hate speech---probably talking points given her by Obama’s Muslim Brotherhood appointees in the White House.

Please click on the below listed link, where Bill Whittle exposes Obama’s view of the “Radical Islamic Terrorist” attack in Orlando, and Obama’s continued profession that “Radical Islamic Terrorism” doesn’t exist in the US—it’s supposed to just be “home grown extremism”, and Bill Whittle exposes how Obama has been impeding Federal Law Enforcement from identifying and effectively fighting “Radical Islamic Terrorists” within the US: 

In an article in Townhall in May 2015, Sebastian Gorka warned against Obama’s greatest concern, which is not to offend Muslims, rather than informing the American people openly and honestly describing Radical Islamic Terrorists “as an enemy that seeks to spread its Sharia-based totalitarian rule over the world (including in the United States). In so doing, Obama ignores Sun Tzu’s dictum about knowing your enemy if you wish to win — he does so at our nation’s peril.”
What the American people should be asking is why Obama has brought in nearly 1 million Muslim Refugees from the Middle East and Africa and resettled them in 180 cities throughout the US, while excluding Christian refugees from entering, and refusing to permit the FBI to vet those refugees to determine if they had terrorist ties.  When Obama knew ISIS seeks to spread Sharia-based totalitarian rule in the US; there have been 86 “Radical Islamic Terrorist” attacks by either those refuges or the children of those refugees.
What Obama has been hiding from the American people, is that since he called ISIS the JV team and refused to eradicate the Caliphate, ISIS has recruited thousands Jihadists, and now, after all their battle deaths, ISIS still has 80,000 trained “Radical Islamic Terrorist” spreading their Jihad worldwide, and many have made their way into the United States through the wide open southern border. ISIS now holds territory populated by more than 6 million people, and it has affiliates in at least seven nations, including West Africa. 
The enemy is already here, in a “Fifth Column” in the Federal Government, and in “Radical Islamic Terrorist” cells in all 50 states.  Over the last 2 years, the FBI has arrested over 103 ISIS terrorists, and they are currently prosecuting 1000+ RADICAL Islamic Terrorist cases in all 50 states.  Obama has failed miserably in protecting the American people from 86 racist “Radical Islamic Terrorist” attacks in the US (60 occurred in the last 2 years).
If the United States ever hopes to defeat ISIS and the 80,000 murderous “Radical Islamic Terrorists”, the next President must move away from the failed Obama’s alliance with the largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world, Shite Iran, and realign the nation back with America’s traditional Arabic Sunni allies, that the nation worked with so well for the last 70 years (Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Morocco, and Bahrein); the NATO nations need their cooperation and support if it hopes to destroy ISIS. 
Copyright 2016, Capt. Joseph R. John. All Rights Reserved. This material can only be posted on another Web site or distributed on the Internet by giving full credit to the author.  It may not be published, broadcast, or rewritten without permission from the author 
Joseph R. John, USNA ‘62
Capt       USN(Ret)/Former FBI
Chairman, Combat Veterans For Congress PAC
2307 Fenton Parkway, Suite 107-184
San Diego, CA 92108

Then I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, “Whom shall I send, and who will go for Us?” Then I said, “Here am I. Send me!”
-Isaiah 6:8
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary