Wednesday, May 31, 2017
Key CORE Meeting
 |
| Here I am with Niger Innis last December |
Author, Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host
Today, I am in Las Vegas, Nevada in a very important meeting with personnel from the Congress of Racial Equality. The key components that will make our effort move forward will be discussed today. In short, it is a logistics meeting.
A year ago CORE came to me with the idea of reestablishing themselves as a significant civil rights organization. After eight years of racial division, identity politics, and a black president that did nothing for blacks, but overly catered to Hispanics and the gay agenda for the purpose of gaining Democrat votes, and after more than fifty years of Democrat control over the cities which are crumbling with no improvement at any level, one must ask why blacks continue to vote for the party of slavery, the party of Jim Crow Laws, and the party of the KKK? The Democrat Party, after all, has been historically against the black community, and only began to cater to blacks after dragging them back into a Democrat run plantation (but this time it is in the name of government dependency).
Why would any black vote Democrat for any reason?
The Democrats have always been the party of racism, and then they try to project that upon the GOP.
Anyway, CORE desires to add chapters, open offices, and they wish for me to insert constitution studies programs into the locations. I am writing a new textbook for exactly that purpose. Today, Niger Innis (CORE Spokesman, and son of recently deceased CORE National Chairman Roy Innis) will be among the group in today's meeting.
We hope to launch the chapters and "civics and constitution studies" programs in June, but funding and the logistics still need to be in place.
Quick question. With the rise of a common sense organization like CORE, wouldn't it be nice to have out there a conservative alternative to the NAACP?
We are working on it.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
U.S. Anti-Missile Missile a Success
Author, Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host
In a successful test to see if we could shoot down a North Korean intercontinental ballistic missile, the Pentagon's Missile Defense Agency said the test was very successful.
Test? Or message to Kim Jong Un that sending a missile our way is futile?
The test involved an unarmed rocket launched from the Marshall Islands in the Pacific Ocean. A ground-based interceptor was launched from Vandenberg Air Force Base in Southern California as the coming missile traveled outside Earth's atmosphere. The latter wound up destroying the former.
The successful test was the first of its kind in nearly three years.
The successful test was the first of its kind in nearly three years.
North Korea tested a SCUD-type ballistic missile that landed in Japan's maritime economic zone in the Sea of Japan a couple days ago.
According to sources, the $244 million test will not confirm that the U.S. is capable of defending itself against an intercontinental-range missile fired by North Korea, as the communist country moves closer to the capability of putting a nuclear warhead on such a missile.
"Initial indications are that the test met its primary objective, but program officials will continue to evaluate system performance based upon telemetry and other data obtained during the test," a statement provided said.
Thirty-six interceptors stand guard in California and Alaska, currently. By the end of the year, the Trump administration plans to have forty-four.
What this tells me is that this administration is taking North Korea's threats very seriously.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
According to sources, the $244 million test will not confirm that the U.S. is capable of defending itself against an intercontinental-range missile fired by North Korea, as the communist country moves closer to the capability of putting a nuclear warhead on such a missile.
"Initial indications are that the test met its primary objective, but program officials will continue to evaluate system performance based upon telemetry and other data obtained during the test," a statement provided said.
Thirty-six interceptors stand guard in California and Alaska, currently. By the end of the year, the Trump administration plans to have forty-four.
What this tells me is that this administration is taking North Korea's threats very seriously.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Tuesday, May 30, 2017
Huntington Beach to Stand Against Leftist Districting
Author, Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host
After cities 23 through 26 folded (Oceanside, Carlsbad, Murrieta, and Temecula), Huntington Beach decided it is time to take a stand.
It is about time.
The assault against cities is being perpetrated by Kevin Shenkman, a Malibu-area lawyer who found a way to suck dollars out of cities, while also forwarding the leftist agenda to silence anyone who dares to oppose the liberal left progressive Democrat Marxists.
Shenkman sends a letter to his target city alleging that the city’s at-large mode of voting for members of their city council violates the California Voting Rights Act (CVRA) of 2001.
City after city in the more conservative corners of California, and a few liberal ones, have received Shenkman's letter, and have given in. And after the districting, where the voters vote only for a candidate to represent their district, and not for all of the city council members who will represent them, calamity sets in because it becomes easier for corruption to creep in, and for the insertion of leftist politics the majority of citizens had been refusing to vote into office before. It's a way to divide California's cities into buroughs. Identity politics. Group the minorities into a district so that they will vote a leftist onto the city council - because the Democrats know they have fooled minorities into believing their bullcrap, and the tools will vote for leftists every time.
What Shenkman is doing is he is creating racial division where it does not exist, and he's making a ton of money in the process.
Shenkman claims that at large systems prevent minority groups from winning elections. If not moved to a district system, in his letters he threatens to sue the cities who refuse to comply.
Shenkman has admitted that what he is doing is “extorting” local governments, in an interview with Voice of OC. “That’s all true … taking advantage of easy targets — yeah. There are a lot of easy targets, but they should change. If they change their election system, I wouldn’t need or have the opportunity to sue them.”
Shenkman has overturned at large election systems throughout Southern California, most of which had been in place for many decades, without complaint.
Huntington Beach refuses to play ball, and the courts are in their favor. The Supreme Court tossed part of the federal Voting Rights Act in 2013, in Shelby County v. Holder. In doing so, the Court emphasized the importance of evidence in determining whether there is racial discrimination in any particular jurisdiction that Shenkman is just not capable of presenting. California's Voting Rights Act could very well be tossed out by the courts for its vagueness, since its evidentiary standards are so low that it allows virtually any candidate to challenge an election loss as being a case of racism.
“We are prepared to vigorously defend any lawsuit,” Huntington Beach's City Attorney Michael Gates wrote in a May 18 response to the letter’s claim the city’s elections were “racially polarizing, resulting in minority vote dilution.”
In 2015, the city of Palmdale paid the Shenkman firm $4.5 million in fees and interest to settle a suit before agreeing to district elections. But, with the Shelby County v. Holder case giving precedent at the federal level, Shenkman can be beaten.
“We’re going to push back. And we’re going to push back hard.”
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Corona Constitution Class: Amendments 11 and 12
Tuesday Night, 6:00 pm
AllStar Collision
522 Railroad St.
Corona, CA 92882
|
 |
Constitution Class Handout
Instructor: Douglas V. Gibbs
Lesson 17
Amendments 11 and 12
Further Limiting the Courts, Amendment 11
The Judicial Branch was added almost as an afterthought. The judiciary was originally designed to be the weakest of the three branches of government. The Anti-Federalists feared the judicial branch becoming a judicial oligarchy, and therefore the judicial branch was constructed to only apply the law to cases they hear. All opinions the judges may have of the law after reviewing the law was considered to be only opinion. Any changes to law, regardless of what the courts felt about the law, could only be made legislatively. However, soon after the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, fears of a tyrannical court arose, and so additional limits were 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.
The 11th Amendment changes 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.
Federal judges maintained that the federal courts should 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 separation of powers, and other much-touted limits on power. The final arbiters of the Constitution are not supposed to be the courts, argued these Founding Fathers who were believers in the 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.
As you may recall, John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, resigned his position in 1795, disappointed in how few powers the federal courts had. When approached later by President John Adams to return to the United States Supreme Court as the high court's Chief Justice, Jay turned Adams down. He said the Court lacked "the energy, weight, and dignity which are essential to its affording due support to the national government." He also did not wish to serve under Thomas Jefferson, the victor in the 1800 Presidential Election, who was an advocate of limited government, and a judicial branch that existed as the weakest of the three branches of government.
While John Jay was Chief Justice, among the influences of his decision that the court was too weak to promote a strong, centralized national government, was 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 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 nationalist view by the justices deemed that in this 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 more powerful parts of government than the judiciary.
Terms:
Constitutional Amendment - Changes made to an existing constitution.
Judicial Branch - The branch of the United States Government responsible for the administration of justice; a central judiciary that is limited to federal authorities, and separated from the will of the central leadership.
Judicial Review - The unconstitutional authority of the federal courts to review law, interpret the Constitution regarding laws, and then determine the constitutionality of laws.
National Government - Any political organization that is put in place to maintain control of a nation; a strong central government that does not recognize the individualism or local authorities of the smaller parts, such as states, of the nation.
Separation of Powers - A division of governmental authority into three branches: legislative, executive, and judicial; division of powers between the States and federal government.
Questions for Discussion:
1. Why did the Founding Fathers design our governmental system with the Judicial Branch being the weakest of the three branches of government?
2. Why is judicial review only supposed to be an opinion?
3. How did Chisholm v. Georgia change the authorities granted to the federal judiciary?
4. How does the 11th Amendment protect State Sovereignty?
Resources
Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall. 419 (1793), Cornell College - Politics:
http://cornellcollege.edu/politics/courses/allin/365-366/documents/chisholm_v_georgia.html
Jefferson's Draft of the Kentucky Resolutions - October 1798, Avalon
Project, Yale University: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/jeffken.asp
Joseph Andrews, A Guide for Learning and Teaching The Declaration of
Independence and The U.S. Constitution - Learning from the Original Texts Using Classical Learning Methods of the Founders; San Marcos: The Center for Teaching the Constitution (2010).
Philip B. Kurland and Ralph Lerner, The Founder's Constitution -
Volume Five - Amendments I-XII; Indianapolis: Liberty Fund (1987).
Virginia Resolution of 1798, Constitution.org:
http://www.constitution.org/cons/virg1798.htm
Electoral Procedures for Electing President Changed, Amendment 12
"Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and all persons voted for as Vice-President and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted. The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President. The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."
The 12th Amendment changes the procedure for electing the President and Vice President originally provided for in Article II, Section 1, Clause 3. The procedure has remained the same since its ratification, save for the States changing their procedures from appointing the electors by the choice of the State legislatures, thus following the instructions of the State legislatures, to the citizens voting for who the electors are expected to vote for. Though the electors are free to vote for anyone eligible to be President, in practice they usually vote for the candidates chosen by the voters in their State. 1824 is the last election in which electors were primarily appointed by their State legislature. In that election, six states followed that procedure. South Carolina was the final State to follow the practice, ceasing the appointment of their electors by the State legislature upon the approach of the American Civil War.
Each State is constitutionally allowed to choose how to appoint or elect their electors, and the methods vary from State to State. Generally, electors are nominated by their State political parties in the months prior to Election Day. In some States, the electors are nominated in primaries, the same way that other candidates are nominated. Other States nominate their electors in party conventions.
The need for the 12th Amendment became apparent after the problems that arose in the elections of 1796 and 1800. The Twelfth Amendment was proposed by the Congress on December 9, 1803, and was ratified by the requisite number of state legislatures on June 15, 1804.
Before the 12th Amendment, electors could vote for two candidates, though at least one had to be from a State different from that of the elector (as a protection against a larger State dominating the federal government). A majority of the vote needed to be received in order to win the presidency. If no candidate received a majority vote, then the House of Representatives chose the President.
In 1800, after a tie in the Electoral College, the House tied 36 times. That particular election was marked by a battle between the Federalists, and Jefferson's Democratic-Republicans. Even though Burr was Jefferson's running mate, Aaron Burr wound up Jefferson's adversary when the vote went to the House. The lame-duck House controlled by the Federalists threw their support behind Burr, because they did not trust Jefferson's philosophy of a limited government.
The term Electoral College did not appear until the early 1800s, and did not appear in legislation until 1845. The concept was designed to act in a manner similar to Congress, where a portion of the election was connected to the population-based premise that was also used by the House of Representatives, and another portion of the Electoral College would be based on the State appointment premise used by the U.S. Senate.
In Federalist No. 39, James Madison explained that the Constitution was designed to be a mixture of State-based and population-based government.
In Federalist No. 10, James Madison argued against "an interested and overbearing majority" and the "mischiefs of faction" in an electoral system. His definition of "faction" in relation to elections was "a number of citizens whether amounting to a majority or minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community." In a republic it was necessary, according to Madison, to vary the distribution of powers, including those powers held by the members of the populace. Only a thorough division of power throughout the American System would protect the United States from the excesses of democracy, and countervail against factions. Madison further explained that the greater the population and expanse of the Republic, the more difficulty factions would face in organizing due to such issues as sectionalism.
Prior to the 12th Amendment, the choice of the Vice President went to the second place winner of the presidential election. The Vice President, unlike the President, did not require the votes of a majority of electors. If a tie arose, the Vice President was chosen by the Senate, with each Senator casting one vote. Though it was not specified in the Constitution whether the sitting Vice President could cast a tie-breaking vote for Vice President, because the sitting Vice President is President of the Senate and casts the tie-breaking vote, it is assumed that if that situation had arisen, the sitting Vice President would indeed be the deciding vote for his successor. Because the second place winner became Vice President, it was very possible for the President and the Vice President to be from different parties. In fact, that is what happened in the 1796 election. John Adams won that election as the Federalist Party candidate, and Jefferson became the Vice President as a Democratic-Republican candidate. The fear was that by the two men being of different parties, the Vice President may do what he could to impede the ability of the President, or could even launch an effort to remove the President from office so that the Vice President could succeed to the office of the President.
The 12th Amendment eliminated the possibility of problems arising between the President and Vice President due to them being from different parties by having the President and Vice President elected as a ticket, thus lessening the Vice President's motivation for staging a coup.
The 12th Amendment also eliminated the "two votes for presidential candidates" method, changing it instead to the electors casting distinct votes for President and Vice President.
The 12th Amendment indicates that no elector may vote for both candidates of a presidential ticket if both candidates inhabit the same State as that elector, a provision consistent with the Framer's original language against collusion.
The 12th Amendment also clarified language to not allow those constitutionally ineligible to be President from being Vice President.
A majority of Electoral Votes is still required for one to be elected President or Vice President. As in the case before the 12th Amendment, when nobody has a majority, the House of Representatives, voting by States and with the same quorum requirements as under the original procedure, chooses a President. The 12th Amendment requires the House of Representatives to choose from the three highest receivers of Electoral Votes, rather than the top five as was the process under Article II, Section 1, Clause 3.
The Senate chooses the Vice President if no candidate receives a majority of Electoral Votes. The 12th Amendment requires a quorum of two-thirds for balloting.
Terms:
Collusion - Conspire together.
Electoral College - A body of electors chosen by the voters in each State to elect the President and Vice President of the United States.
Limited Government - A government that acts within the limitations granted to it; a governmental system that is restrained by an enumerated list of authorities; a limited government is the essence of liberty.
Quorum - Minimum number of members of an assembly necessary to conduct the business of that group.
Sectionalism - Loyalty to the interests of one's own region or section of the country, rather than to the country as a whole; loyalty to a political agenda or ideology rather than to the country as a whole.
Questions for Discussion:
1. Why did the States originally appoint electors, rather than the electors being elected directly by the popular vote by the public?
2. What lessons did the Election of 1800 provide?
3. Now that the presidential election is determined by party tickets, which ensures
Resources
David McCollough, John Adams; New York: Simon and Schuster.
(2002)
Edward J. Larson, A Magnificent Catastrophe: The Tumultuous Election
of 1800; New York: Free Press (2007)
Joseph Andrews, A Guide for Learning and Teaching The Declaration of
Independence and The U.S. Constitution - Learning from the Original Texts Using Classical Learning Methods of the Founders; San Marcos: The Center for Teaching the Constitution (2010).
Philip B. Kurland and Ralph Lerner, The Founder's Constitution -
Volume Five - Amendments I-XII; Indianapolis: Liberty Fund (1987).
Copyright 2015 Douglas V. Gibbs
|
Liberal Left Tools, Don't Forget Martin Niemoller
Martin Niemöller (1892–1984) was a prominent Protestant pastor who emerged as an outspoken public foe of Adolf Hitler and spent the last seven years of Nazi rule in concentration camps.
Niemöller is best remembered for the quotation:
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
Leftists. While you try to silence conservatives for your Democrat Party overlords, using violence and rioting to get your way, never forget that if you give the leftists the power they desire, when they are done with us, you will be next.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Tree Goats of Morocco
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Author, Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host
Tree goats. If I was a goat in a Muslim country, considering what Muslim men like to do to goats, I'd climb a tree too.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Author, Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host
Tree goats. If I was a goat in a Muslim country, considering what Muslim men like to do to goats, I'd climb a tree too.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Lunch with Alfonzo Rachel
Author, Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host
Among my favorite YouTube video folks is Alfonzo "Zo" Rachel. He's a fantastic musician, too. And, well, to those of you who are on YouTube a lot, you know that he is a Christian Conservative patriot who makes great videos. I've been following him for ten years. . . and, he's been following me. I have to admit, early on he remembered "Political Pistachio" better than my name. . . but that tends to be the case with most folks. Name? Doug? It's not Mr. Pistachio, Mr. Political Pistachio, or Mister Constitution (or "that constitution guy"?)
We first met online as fellow bloggers with different media styles (his through video, me through blogging), and I even had him on my radio show early on. Way back then it was internet radio. I didn't get on AM radio until 2011 (and KMET is my second station, after a few year stint on another station).
After years of talking about it, yesterday we finally got together for lunch - after we discussed finally making it happen two Sundays ago at the AFA Heroes of Conscience Awards dinner (where I also spent time talking to David Horowitz, Bill Whittle, Sabo the Street Artist, Evan Sayet, and Jim Simpson -- all of which, except for Sabo, I have met before. . .and in the case of Evan Sayet I am good friends with).
For those who know me, it will be no surprise to you that when Zo and I had lunch, yesterday, I did most of the talking.
And, we talked about my work with Congress of Racial Equality, of which I am having a big meeting in Las Vegas concerning on Wednesday.
I want Zo to be our media and promotions guy, and one of our spokespersons.
I will let you know how that goes, as it progresses.
We got together at a very good Las Casueles Mexican Restaurant in Palm Springs, in 104 degree weather.
Whew, it was hot outside. We parked in a multi-level garage a couple blocks away.
He's used to it, laughed at my "it's hot" remark.
My wife joined us, and Mrs. Pistachio was impressed by Zo (and that's hard to do when it comes to my wife who has very discriminating expectations).
I also invited him to the July 15 event in Wildomar to see Niger Innis and Tim Donnelly speak. He said he'll check his calendar.
I believe Zo and I are prepared to join forces. He's definitely on board regarding what I've been doing. He saw me give a Constitution presentation at the Banning-Beaumont-Cherry Valley Tea Party a few months back, and was very approving.
Here's a video in case you're not sure who I am talking about. . .
I will let you go as the growing opportunities between Zo and I develops.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
The Politics of Religious Warfare
Author, Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host
Politics affects everything in our lives. If you are not involved in politics, one can be assured that politics will eventually be involved in you.
"Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God." -- Thomas Jefferson
As Christians, we constantly hear the leftist call for your faith to not influence your politics. "Separation of Church and State," they say. "Your religion has no business in politics."
Except, my Christianity is everything I am. How can I remove such an integral part of my being from my political beliefs?
Besides, it is our duty to be involved in politics, because as Christians our natural rights are self-evident. Our job is not to worship between four walls, but to carry the good news of Christ to all who will listen, and do so taking advantage of our God-given rights. We are supposed to participate in society as a whole. If we don't, society will take away our natural rights systematically.
As Christians (and a few who respected Christian values, but may not have been born-again), the Framers of the United States Constitution, and the revolutionaries who abolished the tyranny they lived under while British subjects, saw their endeavor as being (as Jefferson put it) "obedience to God." They recognized the connection between faith in Christ, and fighting for liberty.
Politics are driven by our culture, and our culture can be driven by politics. When a country is not virtuous, neither will be the political system. If we are not willing to follow the self-evident standards that define moral compass, then the likelihood of tyranny advancing in our society to a position of great power increases dramatically.
Our Faith affects, and can be affected by, everything in our world. Culture, philosophical viewpoints, art, entertainment, science, history, education, and yes, politics.
The most successful countries, both economically, and culturally, tend to be Christian-majority countries. The Christian worldview has led to innovations in technology, the recognition for rights regarding racial equality and women, and the largest economies in the world are either Christian-majority countries or countries who have taken advantage of the free-market limited-government system of the English-Speaking peoples that began its worldwide journey as a result of colonization by Christian England, and the incredible success of the very Christian United States.
While many churches have fallen for the call to solely focus on evangelism, a narrative injected into the church in the 1930s when Marxists infiltrated the church with the express intention of derailing Christian involvement in the political realm, he reality is the Gospel requires Christians to carry God's good news to the world, which includes engaging in politics.
Biblical text recognizes the failings of human nature, and that there exists the desire for power and pleasure, and that the lust for power and pleasure is among the sources in human society for suffering and conflict. The answer to the resulting suffering and conflict is to steer society back to a virtuous path, for only a virtuous people are capable of freedom and prosperity. It is the sin of the world and disobedience to God's Word that leads humanity into misery.
“For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed the evil thoughts, fornications, thefts, murders, adulteries, deeds of coveting and wickedness, as well as deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride and foolishness. All these evil things proceed from within and defile the man” (Mark 7:21–23).
“What is the source of quarrels and conflicts among you? Is not the source your pleasures that wage war in your members? You lust and do not have; so you commit murder. You are envious and cannot obtain; so you fight and quarrel” (James 4:1–2).
“When Jesus spoke again to the people, he said, “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.” (John 8:12)
Rebelliousness against God often serves as the foundation of tyranny, and that means politics can ultimately dictate whether or not we are allowed by government to share the gospel. In Muslim-majority countries and communist countries, Christians can be fined, jailed or killed for sharing their Faith - testimony of the importance for Christians to be politically active.
While it is for us to obey the laws of our government, it is also our duty to ensure those laws are just and biblical. The cornerstone of our American liberty is the concept of the "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." Natural Rights are given to us by God, and the greatest threat to our possession of rights is government. Statist systems seek to eliminate individualism and possessions, and that includes the possession of rights. If government can convince a people that it is government that is the giver of rights, then it is believed the people will release their belief in God, and accept the change the government seeks to impose. And from our Natural Rights stems our religious liberties, our right to enjoy and protect the sanctity of life (including the unborn and human trafficking), the traditional family unit that serves as a healthy culture's foundation (which includes traditional marriage, traditional family values, and traditional family roles), and our right to speak out both religiously and politically. Without that foundation, said Benjamin Franklin, we will see a rise in political corruption.
"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters." -- Benjamin Franklin
When the church becomes complacent, he persecution of Christians becomes an epidemic, and society will become biased against believers. Depravity rises in the media and entertainment industry. Financial responsibility descends as irresponsibility becomes a runaway problem. Government ceases to protect its citizens from invaders, and decriminalizes immoral activities which then leads to a rise in crime and drug usage. And then the shining beacon on the hill begins to dim, opening the opportunity for Marxists and utopianists to finish the job, and extinguish the light of the Christian faith in the public square so as to replace God with the power of tyrants.
Nothing short of a great Civil War of Values rages today throughout North America. Two sides with vastly differing and incompatible worldviews are locked in a bitter conflict that permeates every level of society… the struggle now is for the hearts and minds of the people. It is a war over ideas.
— Dr. James Dobson, psychologist and best selling author
War. A war to eliminate religion in public life. They began with the use of the misconstrued concept of “separation of church and state,” and have instead inserted their own religion of secularism and pluralism.
God was never intended to be removed from our country. When Alexis de Tocqueville visited the United States in the 1830s, he noticed that the politicians prayed, and the pastors preached politics. Freedom of Speech and of the Press includes both political and religious speech, because the two are intertwined, and directly influence each other. He wrote:
"Upon my arrival in the United States the religious aspect of the country was the first thing that struck my attention; and the longer I stayed there, the more I perceived the great political consequences resulting from this new state of things. In France I had almost always seen the spirit of religion and the spirit of freedom marching in opposite directions. But in America I found they were intimately united and that they reigned in common over the same country. Religion in America . . . must be regarded as the foremost of the political institutions of that country; for if it does not impart a taste for freedom, it facilitates the use of it.
"I do not know whether all Americans have a sincere faith in their religion — for who can know the human heart?-but I am certain that they hold it to be indispensable for the maintenance of republican institutions . . . {America} is the place where the Christian religion has kept the greatest power over men’s souls; and nothing better demonstrates how useful and natural it is to man, since the country where it now has the widest sway is both the most enlightened and the freest."de Tocqueville had this to say of those who attack faith in God in the name of pluralism:
"When such men as these attack religious beliefs, they obey the dictates of their passions, not their interests. Despotism may be able to do without faith, but freedom cannot. Religion is much more needed in the republic . . . and in democratic republics most of all. How could society escape destruction if, when political ties are relaxed, moral ties are not tightened?"
"It is impossible to rightly govern . . . without God and the Bible. Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. . . . Virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government." — Washington’s Farewell Address after his second term in office
"I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth — that God Governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings, that “except the Lord build the House, they labor in vain that build it.” I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the Builders of Babel . . . I therefore beg leave to move — that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessing on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business . . ." -- Benjamin Franklin (June 38, 1787, addressing George Washington and the delegates of the Constitutional Convention)
"God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that their liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated by with His wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever. (1781) [Religion is d]eemed in other countries incompatible with good government and yet proved by our experience to be its best support." -- Thomas Jefferson
"Religion [is] the basis and Foundation of Government. (1785) Before any man can be considered as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governor of the Universe. (1785) We have staked the whole future of the American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future . . . upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God." -- James Madison
"[O]ur ancestors established their system of government on morality and religious sentiment. Moral habits, they believed, cannot safely be trusted on any other foundation than religious principle, nor any government be secure which is not supported by moral habits." -- Daniel Webster (1782–1853), U.S. Congressman, U.S. Senator, and Secretary of State three times under three different presidents.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Rex Tillerson Ramadan Denier
Author, Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host
U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has declined a request to host an event to mark Islam's holy month of Ramadan, two U.S. officials said, apparently breaking with a bipartisan tradition in place with few exceptions for nearly 20 years.
Question: Should the United States Government have hosted a celebration of Nazi, Italian Fascist or Japanese holidays during World War II?
Tillerson turned down a request from the State Department's Office of Religion and Global Affairs to host an Eid al-Fitr reception as part of Ramadan celebrations, said two U.S. officials who declined to be identified because they were not authorized to speak publicly.
An appropriate move. Now, let's ignore the federal court's illegal and unconstitutional blocking of Trump's travel bans, and realize we are at war with an enemy who wants us destroyed.
Tillerson turned down a request from the State Department's Office of Religion and Global Affairs to host an Eid al-Fitr reception as part of Ramadan celebrations, said two U.S. officials who declined to be identified because they were not authorized to speak publicly.
An appropriate move. Now, let's ignore the federal court's illegal and unconstitutional blocking of Trump's travel bans, and realize we are at war with an enemy who wants us destroyed.
Muslim activists have accused President Donald Trump's administration of having an unfriendly attitude towards Islam.
Islam has had an unfriendly attitude towards The West. Or, did you not notice the terror attacks, and the chants of "Death to America"?
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Consequences of Capitalism: Adjust to Changing Economic Environment
Author, Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host
It's a dog-eat-dog world, they say. Competition includes changing with the changing economic environment.
Payless Shoes has announced it will be filing for bankruptcy, blaming the inability to compete with online sales. Shouldn't they have adjusted, and created a better online presence?
Taxis are complaining and demanding help from government lawmakers because they've been losing business to Lyft and Uber. Why should government help? It's none of the government's business. Adjust, compete, or die. That's what the innovation of a free market is all about.
Three Mile Island's remaining reactor is headed for shutdown because Natural Gas is proving to be the better deal for the moment. This is what happens when government stands aside. Did you hear that Democrats, and defunct Solyndra? The market decides. Not government. Eventually, the baton will change hands again. That is the reality of a constantly evolving market.
Nestea is saying bye bye to Democrat controlled California because government policies have made it too hostile of an environment to do business. That is one of the consequences of too much government intrusion into the private free market.
When will the leftists learn? Never. Their religion of socialism has them blinded from understanding or realizing the truth.
"It is easier to fool someone than to convince them they've been fooled." -- Attributed to Mark Twain.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Monday, May 29, 2017
TAPS for Memorial Day
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Author, Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Author, Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Thomas Jefferson: The Blood of Patriots
Author, Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host
",,,can history produce an instance of a rebellion so honourably conducted? I say nothing of it's motives. They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion. The people can not be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13 states independant 11 years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century and a half for each state. What country ever existed a century and a half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it's natural manure. Our Convention has been too much impressed by the insurrection of Massachusets: and in the spur of the moment they are setting up a kite to keep the hen yard in order. I hope in god this article will be rectified before the new constitution is accepted." - Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, Paris, 13 Nov. 1787
So that we may live free.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
The Crowded Cemetery
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Author, Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host
When I entered the crowded cemetery my eyes filled in tears. Countless flags were waving, each one placed on the edge of the plaque of the grave of each fallen hero. The resting place of my grandfather who fought in World War II is at the Riverside National Cemetery in Southern California, a location of many graves of brave men and women who gave voluntarily for liberty, and the American Way. Line after line of simple grave makers mark the final resting places of the brave, among their brothers and sisters in arms.
Standing over his grave marker, it brought back the memories of my visit to the Arlington National Cemetery in Virginia near Washington DC, my visit to the tomb of the unknown soldier, and the rows and rows of crosses and grave markers I observed there.
My memories also harkened back to the first time I stepped into the USS Arizona Memorial at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. Sacred ground. I read the names in silence, tears welling up in my eyes. The dead called to me, asking me not to weep, for they gave their lives willingly, so that others might live, and live with the promise of freedom.
Some ask how we can repay this debt, and show our gratitude for the ultimate sacrifice.
Pause on Memorial Day to remember their sacrifice, and to thank them with our prayers for paying the cost of our freedoms. After all, our liberty has been bought and paid for with the blood of these brave heroes.
1.2 Million Americans have given their lives for our freedoms across more than two centuries and in more than a dozen wars and armed conflicts.
At the cemetery a small American flag is planted in the ground next to each grave's plaque. May they stand tall, and wave reverently.
Never forget. Keep the faith. Remember those fallen in service to the country, and to preserve the liberty of our great country, so as to keep the light burning on that shining city on the hill.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Memorial Day: From Sea to Shining Sea
Author, Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host
Soldiers, Sailors, Marines and Airmen who sacrificed all they had for the welfare of freedom.
A simple prayer and a thank you. That is all they ask. Freedom, after all, is not free, and lives have been paid to ensure America continues along its path of liberty, and exceptionalism.
The following video, and images, say more than I could possibly muster on my own.
From Sea to Shining Sea. . .
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)