Tuesday, October 31, 2017

Climate Change and the Hoover Dam Epiphany

By Douglas V. Gibbs
Author, Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host

Rather than build more water storage reservoirs and dams, California Governor Jerry Brown is planning on pursuing building two giant water tunnels. This is after throwing away California taxpayer monies on a bullet train that nobody wants to ride, and the costs that go along with the unconstitutional, Supremacy Clause violating, Sanctuary State status the State of California has decided to pursue.  Then, after essentially flipping the Trump administration the bird through rogue leftist legislation and cries of defiance by the State of California through claims that the State will do whatever it wants, regardless of the rule of law, Brown has now asked the federal government for help in paying for his water tunnel project.

The Trump administration said no.

The reasoning behind building water tunnels rather than dams is because the environmentalists in the Democrat Party hate dams because they "spoil the natural landscape" of our "stolen" land.  Tunnels are underground, and would not disturb the animal life.  Never mind that it is much more expensive, and still does not address the water storage problem.

While the dam-hating environmentalists of the liberal left ideological persuasion screams, "destroy the dams," what they don't stop to realize is that dams are good for more than water storage, water distribution, and the generation of electricity.  It turns out they also protect the land, and make it hospitable for both humans, and animals.

Man-made climate change hysteria claims the latest drought in California is due to man-made climate change, and the resulting heavy rainy season of last year was also the fault of man-made climate change.  It turns out, once again, that the liberal left logic is wrong.

I visited the Hoover Dam on October 30, and here's what I learned. . .

Prior to the building of the Hoover Dam in the 1930s, and before the mass exodus of Americans to the American Southwest, engineers realized that if Southern California and the surrounding areas were to be ever settled, they would have to tame the Colorado River.  The river went through cycles of a dwindling flow and flooding as a result of the drought and heavy rain cycles experienced by the American Southwest.  The Salton Sink periodically would fill up with water from the Colorado River during cycles of heavy precipitation in the American Southwest.  After the turn of the twentieth century, not fully respecting the natural cycles of weather, engineers tried to divert more Colorado River water into the Imperial Valley in Southern California for crops, but heavy rains sent waters flooding into the area, leaving it the victim of the Colorado River's waters through two new rivers for two years.  In short, it was realized that as a result of natural drought and flood cycles, unless a mighty dam was built to tame the Colorado River, Southern California, and perhaps much of the American Southwest would be uninhabitable.

During the Great Depression of the 1930s, the great dam was built.  It became one of the seven wonders of the world, and along with taming the Colorado River, it used the electricity generated by the dam to help pay for the effort to build it.  In the long run, all money spent was paid back to the government from the sell of electricity from the site.

Here's what we have learned from this short history lesson.

1)  California's drought is not the result of man-made climate change.  It is a natural cyclical occurrence that has come and gone many times throughout history.

2)  California's (and the American Southwest's) big rainy season last year was also not the result of man-made climate change.  As with the drought cycle, the muddy season also is naturally occurring.

3)  Dams do more than help with water storage and the distribution of water.  Without the Hoover Dam, much of the American Southwest would not be inhabitable, as a result of flooding.  Also, much of the area is also inhabitable because of what the Hoover Dam provides, in terms of the distribution of water and the electricity provided by the modern marvel.

The truth is out there, if only we are willing to look at true history.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

It's All About Destroying Trump

By Douglas V. Gibbs
Author, Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host

Paul Manafort is looking at 80 years in prison for doing things that had nothing to do with Trump's campaign, and something Donald J. Trump knew nothing about.  That's the best the Democrats could pull out of their jackass after well over a year of investigating their claim of collusion between the Trump campaign team and Vladimir Putin's Russia. . . who suddenly became the enemy in 2016 after a century of coddling by the Democrats for the previous century.  Special Counsel Robert Mueller is a part of the Clinton mafia, and was a part of the Obama presidency list of crazies, and he's the one doing the investigating.  Then, in an attempt to cover up any possible headlines that show wonderful things coming out of the Trump Presidency, such as an economy exceeding all expectations, or that the ISIS caliphate is crumbling, Mueller leaked to CNN over the weekend that on Monday, the day preceding Halloween 2017, there would be an indictment.  The Democrats and their uninformed communist supporting minions hung on the edge of their seats with baited breath.  "Who would it be?"

From the Democrat's point of view, everyone is guilty.  They just know it, because a bunch of leftist politicians known for lying said so.  Trump is the enemy, they are foaming at the mouth, and he must be destroyed.  He is an enemy of the state.  Why?  Because he dared to run as a republican and beat their beloved favorite Marxist, Hillary Clinton - the inevitable heir to the White House throne if it hadn't been for the meddling of those darn billionaire Trump people.

The moment it looked like Trump had a chance to make a dent in the Democrat Party's aristocracy, they mobilized their troops.  A couple years ago, as the Trump faithful were chanting "lock her up," the leftist media was doing all they could to cover-up information regarding Uranium One and the treason against America by the Clintons and the Obamas (and the rest of the Democrat Party, for that matter), hiring a firm of researchers called Fusion GPS to dig as deep as possible into the history of the personal and professional life of Donald J. Trump.  It was time to take him out for good.

The best they could do is find a quick snippet of Trump in a guy-moment saying something about grabbing a woman's body part that's below the belt and above the thighs.  The supporters of Hillary Clinton, who's married to a rapist and pedophile and was impeached as President of the United States for lying about it, and whose closest aid has a husband going around with his phone showing people what an Anthony Weiner really looks like, screamed, "See?  Trump is a woman hating misogynist!"

The Never Trump movement rose up, riots emerged, violence in the streets erupted, all because the lemmings heard the liars of the Democrat Party scream about Trump, and they believed them.

No evidence of collusion ever surfaced, but the Democrats hate Trump for daring to call himself a republican, so, therefore, the mobs in the streets must hate him, as well.

The people that weren't prone to easy manipulation and running into the streets to burn things, however, were fully aware of what was going on.  The Americans who weren't foolish enough to fall for the lies of known liars rushed to the polls, and elected Donald J. Trump, despite the attacks, and despite the media telling everyone on every media outlet that Hillary Clinton was the heir apparent and it was inevitable she would win the presidency.

Nonetheless, the cash continued to flow from the DNC, Obama's minions, and the Clinton Campaign to try and stop Trump.  Fusion GPS got rich, the Democrats engaged their law firm of Perkins Coie into the game, who brought into the madness a British spy, Christopher Steele, to do more digging. . . and they still could not find any semblance of any connections between Trump and Russia.

So they began making stuff up.  If any of the made-up crap could be proven, it would destroy Trump.  That's how it works in America, right?  Government makes a bunch of crap up about you, because they are sure some of it must be true because nobody is blameless, and then they go out to prove that their lies resemble the truth in one way or another. . . even if it doesn't.

So they dragged out accusations of prostitutes at a Moscow hotel, that the Kremlin was blackmailing him, anything to make it look like Trump was the treasonous bastard they said he was.  None of it stuck, none of it was true, but hopefully enough voters would believe the lies and pull the level for Hillary Clinton.

A 35-page dossier was produced, full of unproven garbage, but the Democrats swore it was full of allegations that could bring down The Donald.  Who cares if it was full of “unsubstantiated and salacious allegations,” all that mattered was that enough voters would believe it and either vote for Hillary, or refuse to vote for Trump.

Then, acting as if the dossier was true, the Democrats went into action.  The Obama administration used the information from the dossier to justify unmasking the names of Trump officials who had been picked up on legitimate electronic intercepts.  Then, when asked about the connection to hiring a British spy to do the dirty work, the Democrats lied about it.  Before a Senate Intelligence Committee, Clinton campaign chair John Podesta and DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz claimed they did not know that the Democrat Party's law firm, Perkins Coie, had enlisted Fusion GPA or the British spy to dig up dirt on Trump, and then like Hillary Clinton, they began deleting emails and hiding their servers.

The whole world, it seemed, was in play, working against Trump, and the Democrats were sure nobody was the wiser.  The liberal media was pounding the "Trump is a traitor engaged in Russian collusion" drum, the Hillary Clinton campaign was massaging the message, the Democrat Party leadership was slamming Trump with the same message, a British spy was snooping up each of Trump's pants legs, members of Russian intelligence was feeding them lies they believed, and the FBI was using their deep state operatives to lie and prod and needle.  They all worked in secret, receiving a boatload of secret money, working with the scum of the political world, all to destroy Trump because he dared to appeal to the people and speak out against the corruption of the political establishment deeply embedded in the corridors of our once constitutional republic.

All to protect their aristocracy and destruction of the U.S. Constitution.   All of this to stop a candidate outside the system, a person who refuses to be bought and be manipulated by the political establishment.  He said he was going to drain the swamp, and the swamp fought back, and lost the election.  Now, with Manafort's indictment, they think they finally have done it.  After over a year of unfolding their plan, they think they have Trump.  But as they try to make their lies sound like the truth, the FBI has been releasing the real truth about the Democrat Party's lies - and the jackasses are denying all of it.

All it comes down to now is if the Republicans have enough intestinal fortitude to pull the trigger.  Is the GOP with We the People and the Constitution, or is the Republican Party leadership with continuing to feed the establishment machine with lies, ill-gotten money, and a wave of cultural Marxism that calls itself progressivism?  Will we finally make America great again?  Will Hillary Clinton finally be explaining what happened from behind bars?  Or, will the Democrat Party's lies remove Trump, and place us back on an Orwellian path of their making?

Stay tuned.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Monday, October 30, 2017

Kevin Spacey Homosexuality and Pedophilia Typical of Hollywood

Douglas V. Gibbs
Author, Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host

While the media should be horrified by Spacey's apology for screwing a 14-year-old boy, the reality is the homosexual and pedophile nature of Spacey's story is a typical story of Hollywood.  I spent time in the acting industry in the mid-nineties and I was stunned regarding what I realized.

Seth McFarland and Corey Feldman has been warning us, but until Weinstein's exposure, and now Kevin Spacey's, nobody has ever wanted to talk about it, or expose it.

Instead, now the left is trying to spin the whole thing.

Mark Dice nails it in his latest video...

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Manafort Indictment Has Nothing to do with Trump and Russia

By Douglas V. Gibbs
Author, Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host

The Democrats instructed Justice Department special prosecutor Robert Mueller to come up with something, ANYTHING, during his probe into the possibility that the Trump Campaign was colluding with Russia during the 2016 Presidential Election.  Mueller came up with something, but it has nothing to do with Russia, or Trump. . . because there's nothing there between Russia and Trump.

The collateral damage of the Democrat Party's witch hunt is Paul Manafort, the former chairman of President Donald Trump's campaign.  Long before Manafort had anything to do with Trump, and unknown to the Trump team, Manafort was doing things that essentially boils down to money laundering - a practice the Democrat Party participates in daily with the unions.

This morning's indictment by Mueller led to Manafort surrendering to authorities in the early hours of this day, in a situation where Manafort is being treated by the FBI, Democrats and media like he's Al Capone, despite the fact that he is nothing more than a tiny little blip on the overall radar where the real political mafia is being led by the Clintons and Obamas.

The Manafort arrest comes after the Democrats illegally raided his home, and comes regarding charges that have absolutely nothing to do with his relationship to Trump, and has absolutely no connection to any alleged Russian meddling in the 2016 elections.

Along with Manafort his former business associate Rick Gates has also been indicted for conspiracy to launder money, serving as an unregistered agent of a foreign official, and several counts of false statements and failure to file appropriate bank reports.

CNN is also reporting that Manafort has been charged with "conspiracy against the United States," which is a message the Democrats are trying to send because even though the charges against Manafort have absolutely nothing to do with the false allegations of a relationship between the Trump campaign and Russia, they want their viewers to think it has everything to do with it.  As far as the liberal left media is concerned, give the people a taste of what you've trained them to think, and then let their programmed imaginations come to the conclusions the little lemmings are exptected to believe.

In truth, Manafort screwed up in his pre-Trump life, and now his relationship and lobbying on behalf of Ukraine's government and his alleged failure to adequately report the relationship and account for the money he received has got him in trouble based on the evidence found during an investigation that had nothing to do with what they found.  

The full indictment is pretty much clear on what Manafort is in trouble for, and mentions nothing about Trump's alleged Russian collusion, but the media won't let the reality of the facts get in the way of their hatred for Trump, and desire to destroy his presidency.  Instead of reporting the truth, their reporting is suggesting that the Manafort indictment is connected to Trump, and it's the beginning of the end for the presidency of Donald J. Trump.

Manafort is now a lost cause for Trump.  There's no saving Manafort because he made his own bed, and now Mueller has his fangs dug deep into Manafort's neck.  Meanwhile, Trump has been accurately tweeting that Manafort's transgressions have nothing to do with Trump's campaign, don't expect the billionaire's teams to do anything to try to save Manafort.  Manafort made his bed, and unexpectedly got caught.

End of story.

The real story is actually the Democrat Party's collusion with Russia, and communists. . . which goes back longer than Trump's consideration to get into politics decades ago.  When will the media and establishment finally decide to go after the real criminals?

Don't hold your breath on that one.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

School Daze a Political Ploy

By Douglas V. Gibbs
Author, Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host
While lying in bed this morning, my wife and I got to talking about learning disabilities.  Mrs. Pistachio threw out the alphabet soup of ADD, ADHD, and whatever the rest of the learning disabilities are, and explained how difficult existing in the current learning environment are for these children.  I responded that I am not a fan of telling our kids they have learning disabilities because they learn differently.

My brother was slapped with one of those labels.  Back then they weren't drugging our kids yet, but the ADD and ADHD thing was beginning to make its rounds.  Doctors suggested giving my brother coffee to calm him down, while another said to give him more play time so he could literally wear himself out.   Mom took an even more drastic measure.  She pulled him out of public school, and taught him at home.  Homeschooling my brother, it turns out, saved his life.  While the academics were saying he was not salvageable, and that he was unteachable, my mom not only taught him, but by the time she put him back in school for his final year so that he could enjoy the opportunity to graduate with his friends, he was so far ahead that the public school was nothing more than refresher courses for him.

When cases like my brother appear in the school system, the child is automatically considered to be damaged.  The teachers complain that they already have a loaded classroom of children, and that trying to teach a child with a "learning disability" makes doing their job too hard.  The parents are too busy trying to make a living to get involved, and the school system's political indoctrination of our children has become such, they don't want the parents in the classroom, anyway.

When I was younger I spent time as a cross-age tutor.  As a kid I enjoyed it because it gave me a chance to break up my school day by spending an hour each day working with kids much younger than me, and the teacher appreciated it because it gave her a chance to have help in the classroom.  Parents, back then, also used to volunteer a lot in the classroom.  In some places that may still happen, but in my neck of the woods the dynamic between teachers, parents, and other students has changed drastically.  Parents are too busy, and the school has actually limited the amount of time a parent is allowed to be in the classroom during the school day.

In discussions with today's teachers in the public school system here in California the frustration is that there are too many students, and not enough manpower - and they blame not enough money as being the culprit behind the difficult classroom dynamic they are currently faced with.  Meanwhile, California spends the most money on students in the country, but is dead last in education.  Therefore, the problem is obviously not that there is not enough money.

The United States of America became a superpower in about a century and a half educating our children in little red schoolhouses with community hired teachers and a basic curriculum.  We excelled in education, until the federal government began to get involved through Dewey's progressive ideas beginning in 1899.  With the advent of the creation of the Department of Education during the Jimmy Carter administration in the 1970s, education's downward spiral quickened.  To try to save the system, the government began pumping money into the system hand over fist, and yet it continued to spiral out of control.

The Founding Fathers of the United States during the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787 wisely did not give the federal government any authority over education in the U.S. Constitution.  The issue is a local issue that was expected to be administered by local authorities and the community.  Parents were also heavily involved in the education of their children, as was the church.  Noah Webster pushed that the first reader for children should be the Holy Bible, and his spellers became a large part of the basis of the academic system.  From that foundation, the education of our children was given a high priority, and it was done with minimal funding.

Now, education has become big business.  The text book contracts go out to the companies who make the right bid and have the right influence, and then they make a lot of money shoving into the pages of those learners their own political narrative and agenda.  Teachers, through the unions, have lifetime pensions and can't be fired once they reach tenure (so firing bad teachers is pretty much impossible).  Cultural Marxism has crept into the system, infiltrating the halls of our schools, and to hide the reality of what is going on, the parents are being separated more and more from their children during the school day.  Parents, however, in the current economic system, don't have the luxury of a single-parent wage earner.  Nobody can afford to have only one parent earning, and the feminist movement frowns upon it, anyway, slamming anything that might look like it creates roles for the sexes.

And the children suffer.

There are alternatives we can chase to better educate our children.  Private schools and homeschooling have done wonders for our children, producing better academic achievements, and bringing the parents more into the classroom.  The problem is, only a few families can afford to do such a thing, and States like California are doing all they can through the legislative process to make it harder to school our children in such a way.

In a free market economy, when one wishes to begin one's own business, rather than reinvent the wheel, a new business owner will often study his or her industry, and learn from those who have been successful.  Why doesn't the public school system do the same?  If the private schools are producing more successful students, shouldn't the public school system simply learn and duplicate what works?

Money and power disallows the public school systems from seeking a reasonable answer.  The teachers unions demand money and power that hamstrings the school districts, and the laws in place make it very difficult for a school or group of teachers to do anything other than what the Orwellian masters of the education industry demands.  The textbooks are garbage, the curriculum (Common Core is the latest of the failed ideas which is simply a push for a nationalized curriculum) is devastating, and the schools are often literally crumbling from within.  The teachers are tired and overworked, and the parents are simply not involved.

Can't we go back to local control over education, and parents volunteering in the classrooms?

The solution is slapping us in the face, but the power structure refuses to recognize that anything other than their system of power and money can possibly exist.  It's collectivism versus individualism, and if your child is too much of an individual to fit into their collective, then according to the school system your child has a learning disability, or must be drugged, or both.

I am surprised our children aren't coming out of their school experiencing chanting "all hail the collective".

Then again. . .

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Sunday, October 29, 2017

Is the Democrat Party Doomed?

By Douglas V. Gibbs
Author, Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host

With the emergence of the reality that the Russian collusion was not between Trump and the Russians, but the Democrats and the Russians, and that the Clintons, Obamas, and the rest of the donkey-people are criminally denying it, we may be witnessing a moment in history where the Democrat Party may be in some really big trouble - that is, if the GOP has the intestinal fortitude to follow through with the exposure of who the Democrats really are. While the news pundits are saying that technically there is no law against collusion (from their point of view it was treason when they believed the GOP was guilty of collusion with the Russians, but now it's just a mild thing when it comes to the Democrats), the real problem is the lies.  In short, the real criminality lies within the cover-up.

Voters are watching, or at least some of them are, and while the latest revelations regarding Democrat Party wrong-doing based on FBI information is definitely a big nail in the coffin of the Dems, their policies and associations alone have been enough to turn off American Voters. . . hence, the win by Donald J. Trump, and the win in States and cities across America by the Republican Party.

What it is turning out to be is when it comes to the Russians (and pretty much everything else the Democrats are guilty of . . . racism, intolerance, violent nature, criminal activity), the Democrats are like the kid in the schoolyard who knows he's getting ready to be fingered for something, so to draw off suspicion, he points at a different kid and says, "He did it."

In short, the Democrats are masters at projection, but now their chickens are coming home to roost.

The false claim of police brutality and oppression hasn't helped them, either, and is honestly among their most ridiculous.  Where are these alleged cases of police brutality happening?  In the cities.  And who's been in control of the cities for the last century?  Democrats.  Never mind the police brutality, of which the FBI not only says does not exist, but that police lives are actually at risk because of black nationalists and other extremists targeting cops, but how about the poverty, crime, and sub-standard schools in the cities which have emerged in such a way as a result of decades and decades of liberal left Democrat Party control and policies?  Then, there is the distrust for the liberal media, and yet the leftists are doubling down on getting only their version of fake news out there.

How about the violent nature of the liberal left.  We never saw violence against leftists or Barack Obama during his presidency, yet the liberals are rioting, attacking conservative speakers on college campuses, and are literally getting in President Trump's face in a violent manner on White House grounds!

The rise of antifa followed Black Lives Matter, and it turns out that just like BLM and La Raza, antifa is backed, funded, and supported by communists.  Why? Because it's the Democrats who have had communist ties with Russia, China, Communist Party USA, the Democratic Socialists of America, and so on and so forth, all along.  In fact, according to Trevor Loudon's Enemies Within movie, a hundred Democrat members of the House of Representatives and twenty Senators couldn't even pass a background check to be janitor at the capitol because of their ties with enemies.

The Democrats don't blame their woes on their anti-American policies, however.  Instead, they try to blame procedures and influences they technically can't do anything about.  For example, Hillary Clinton blames her loss of the presidency a year ago on numerous factors, including the Electoral College . . . DNC Chair Tom Perez even goes so far as to claim the Electoral College is not in the U.S. Constitution in the first place.

While the term "Electoral College" is not in the Constitution, the language establishing it is, Article I, Section 2 and Article II, Section 1: "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress."

Right now, faced with the reality of the criminality of their actions, the Democrats have suddenly gone silent.  Even spin hasn't been working.  Besides, that's what their allies in the liberal mainstream media are for, right?

The latest bout of silence after being faced by an inquisitive Republican Congress has come from Obama's Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, who is refusing to testify regarding her notorious tarmac meeting with Bill Clinton.

Silence, in the face of their guilt being unleashed.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Anti-Trump Russian Collusion Narrative Collapsing

By Douglas V. Gibbs
AuthorSpeakerInstructorRadio Host

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Saturday, October 28, 2017

Constitution Radio: College Student Suicide

Constitution Radio with Douglas V. Gibbs 
(AuthorSpeakerInstructorRadio Host) airs Saturday, 1:00 pm to 3:00 pm on KMET 1490 AM ... 

Call in 951-922-3532

Dennis Jackson and Alex Ferguson co-host.

Don Corsaro will be our guest.  He says that the liberal indoctrination of victimhood is so bad on the college campuses that it is killing out kids. . .

Related: http://dailysignal.com/2017/10/17/2-ohio-lawmakers-kill-colleges-censorship

Listen Live online at www.kmet1490am.com.  KMET also has a phone app, and the podcast will be available if you miss the show live.

Call in live during the program at 951-922-3532.

Miss the program? Podcast will be Here.


CarStar/AllStar Collision Big Stories of the Week, October 28, 2017:

⬝ DNC Head Tom Perez: Electoral College Not In Constitution


⬝ Clinton and Obama Uranium One End of Democratic Party?



Friday, October 27, 2017

Conservative Voice Radio: Consequences of Liberalism

Hosted by Douglas V. Gibbs, AuthorSpeakerInstructorRadio Host and members of the Banning-Beaumont-Cherry Valley Tea Party www.bbcvteaparty.net Glenn, Jan and Diane.

Saturdays, 8:00 am, Conservative Voice Radio, KMET 1490-AM

Listen live at www.kmet1490am.com or listen later at the podcast page.

Today's Topics:
  • FBI: Obama and Clintons Guilty of Russian Collusion.
  • Democrat Liberal Left Challenge Freedom of the Press
  • Consequences of Illegal Immigration
    • Napa Firestarter
    • Canadian Terrorist
    • SB54 Unhinged
    • San Diego Hepatitis A
  • Government Healthcare Consequences as Repeal Evades Republicans
  • Bush 43 Opens Mouth, Shuts Support
  • Paris Climate Change Agreement Falling Apart

Democrat Roosters Home to Roost

By Douglas V. Gibbs
AuthorSpeakerInstructorRadio Host

The wheels may be coming off of the Democrat Party, and the mafia-style politics of the Clintons and Obamas.  Your sin will always find you out.

The Department of Justice announced late Thursday night it has lifted a gag order on an FBI informant with first hand knowledge of the Uranium One deal that personally benefited Bill and Hillary Clinton.

The informant, whose identity will not be revealed, will be allowed to speak to the Senate Judiciary Committee and others on Capitol Hill investigating the situation.

“As of tonight, the Department of Justice has authorized the informant to disclose to the Chairmen and Ranking Members of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, as well as one member of each of their staffs, any information or documents he has concerning alleged corruption or bribery involving transactions in the uranium market, including but not limited to anything related to Vadim Mikerin, Rosatom, Tenex, Uranium One, or the Clinton Foundation,” DOJ official Ian Prior released in a statement.

The lifting of the gag order comes after an explosive investigative report from The Hill showed the Clintons were made richer by Russian nuclear officials after Hillary Clinton helped to approve a deal giving the Kremlin 20 percent of U.S. uranium supply.

A former FBI informant who blew the whistle on a high-profile bribery case involving a Russian energy company was intimidated by Obama administration lawyers into dropping a civil suit against the government last year, his attorney says.

Victoria Toensing, the lawyer for the informant, told The Daily Caller’s Vince Coglianese that Obama Justice Department lawyers told her client that “his reputation and liberty [was] in jeopardy” if he did not drop a lawsuit against the government.

All of this is important because it turns out, according to the FBI, The Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign helped pay for opposition research that resulted in the salacious intelligence dossier that contained allegations about Donald Trump’s connections to Russia.

Sarah Huckabee Sanders, the current White House press secretary said it best, indicating that "the real collusion" with Russia was between the Clintons and the Democratic National Committee.

"I think that this further proves if there was anyone that was colluding with the Russians to influence the election look no further than the Clintons and the DNC. Hypocrisy at the highest level and a new low in politics. Everything the Clinton campaign and DNC were falsely accusing the president of doing the past year they were doing it themselves," Sanders said Thursday.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Thursday, October 26, 2017

Temecula Constitution Class: Article V., Amendments

Join us Thursday Night at 6:30 pm, Faith Armory, 41669 Winchester Road, Temecula, CA

Constitution Class Handout
Instructor: Douglas V. Gibbs
Lesson 10
Amendments and Conventions
Article V is the section in the Constitution that provides the people and the States the opportunity to change the law of the land if needed by establishing the amendment process.  Originally, only the States were going to be able to propose amendments.  On the second to the last day of the Constitutional Convention, the Founding Fathers added as an afterthought to allow the Congress to propose amendments as well.  The amendment process is the only process through which the Constitution may be altered.
Amendments, according to Article V, may be proposed by either two-thirds of both Houses of the United States Congress, or by a national convention of States.  Amendments must then be ratified by approval of three-fourths of the States either through their legislatures, or through ratifying conventions.
Amendments proposed by a national convention is a process known as an Article V. Convention.
Current opinion regarding an Article V. Convention varies.  Some people and groups have warned against such a convention, fearing a runaway convention that could be used to re-write the Constitution.  The Constitution does not allow for a runaway convention.  In an Article V. Convention, only amendments may be proposed.
The call for an Article V. Convention is nothing new.  Forty-Nine States have called for it, many of those calls beginning longer than over a 100 years ago.  Over 700 applications have been made.  The convention has never taken place because the Congress will not set a time and place (the only federal duty in an Article V. Convention), for fear of the people proposing amendments, and the States ratifying them, that would limit the powers of the federal government.  Centralized systems do not like it when the individual mind gets involved, and demands change.
There are three kinds of conventions.  A con-con, which is a Constitutional Convention, and there was only one, held back in 1787, and there should only be one in our history.  In addition to the con-con, and the Article V. Convention, is a kind of convention called Republic Review.  A Republic Review may be used to audit the federal government, determine what is unconstitutional, and then form a plan of action to alter the federal government so that it falls in line with the principles of the United States Constitution.  An Article V. Convention, or the States working together through nullification, could be the result of a Republic Review.  The strategy to convene a Republic Review convention lies primarily with We the People.
Amendments, no matter how they are proposed, require three-quarters approval from the States.  This approval process is called "ratification."  Ratification is the failsafe, according to Alexander Hamilton in his Federalist 85, against conventions that may be used to rewrite the Constitution.  Any change to the Constitution is possible, as prescribed by Article V, as long as the amendment is capable of receiving three-quarters of the States' ratification votes.
The only exception to any amendment being possible is addressed at the end of Article V.  According to the Constitution, no amendment, without the consent of the State in question, may deprive a State of equal suffrage in the Senate.  This testifies to the importance, in the minds of the framers, to the need for the United States Senate to remain unchanged, with the Senators being appointed by the State legislatures.
Since the Constitution is a document that contains express powers for the federal government, granted by the States, the only way to change or add authorities is through the amendment process, with State approval.  When it is understood that the original authorities granted to the federal government were granted to the central government by the States, it is appropriate that it takes three-quarters of the States to ratify an amendment.  When Congress proposes an amendment, it is literally a case of the federal government asking for permission of the States to have a new authority, and approval by the States requires three-quarters agreement.
Article V. Convention - A convention for the proposal of constitutional amendments applied for by the States and called by Congress.
Express Powers - Powers granted to the federal government by enumerated authorities expressly granted in the United States Constitution.
Republic Review - A convention of delegates representing the several States in order to audit the laws, actions, and composure of the United States federal government; a review of unconstitutional characteristics of the federal government based on the amendment ratification concept that if it takes three-quarters of the States to ratify an amendment, a quarter (plus one) of the States determining a law, action or department of the federal government to be unconstitutional allows the States to nullify the item.
Questions for Discussion:
1.  What two sources may propose amendments?
2.  Why does it require the States to ratify proposed amendments?
3.  How is an Article V. Convention an important part of restraining the federal government?
Friends of the Article V. Convention: http://foavc.com/
G. R. Mobley, We the People: Whose Constitution is it Anyway?;
Hobart, Washington: Mobius Strip Press (2013)
G. R. Mobley, We the People: The Strategy to Convene a Convention for
Republic Review; Hobart, Washington: Mobius Strip Press
Joseph Andrews, A Guide for Learning and Teaching The Declaration of
Independence and The U.S. Constitution - Learning from the Original Texts Using Classical Learning Methods of the Founders; San Marcos: The Center for Teaching the Constitution (2010).
Madison's Notes Constitutional Convention, Avalon Project, Yale
University: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/debcont.asp
Mark R. Levin, The Liberty Amendments: Restoring the American
Republic; New York: Threshold Editions, a division of Simon & Schuster (2013)
Philip B. Kurland and Ralph Lerner, The Founder's Constitution -
Volume Four - Article I I, Section 8, Clause 5 to Article VII; Indianapolis: Liberty Fund (1987)
Copyright: Douglas V. Gibbs, 2015

Federal Government Unshackled!

By Douglas V. Gibbs
Author, Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host

Since the 1787 Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, the Federal Government has lost its way.

By unanimous order of the convention, on September 17, 1787, the United States Constitution was deemed completed, and ready for submission to the States for ratification. The delegates were satisfied that the new government would stand the test of time, and deny the rise of a tyranny if the Constitution was followed as originally intended, and if the people remained informed and active in their duty of keeping the republic.

I ran for city council in 2010. After a debate in front of an audience in a neighborhood known for two things, being over the age of 55, and consisting of a large percentage of high-propensity voters, a gentleman walked up to me and asked, “You said you believe in limited government. What do you plan to take away? The senior center? A park?”

His definition of a limited government was not the same as mine. Today’s voters have been programmed to believe that salvation comes through government. They have been taught to believe that if government doesn’t grab the reins of something, it won’t get done, or it won’t exist.

The gentleman’s definition of limited government was that it was a sinister idea that included the removal of needed services and government programs that he felt were a necessary part of his world. Without a government with full ability to do as it desires, from the point of view of some people, there will be no emergency services, no libraries, no safety net, and so forth.

I recognized that we did not see eye to eye regarding the definition of limited government, so I asked him about it. He said, “Limited government means smaller government, with things taken away until government is gone, and what remains is nothing but anarchy and chaos.”

His response was as I suspected it would be. I said, “Sir, I appreciate your concern, but to be honest, that is not what I meant. My definition of a limited government is one that operates within the authorities granted to it.”

Pictured: Independence Hall West,
Buena Park, California
When the delegates of the Philadelphia Convention assembled at Independence Hall in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania in 1787, their aim was to create a new central government that was stronger than the one that existed under the Articles of Confederation (written and signed during the American Revolution in 1777), yet a government restrained in such a way that it did not interfere with State Sovereignty, nor the concept of localism (the concept that local issues should only be administered by local government and local communities).

The way I like to put it is that what we had under the Articles of Confederation was a lamb. What we needed was a lion. The problem with lions, however, is that they eat you. So, how do you create a lion powerful enough to provide for the common defense, but restrained in such a way that it is not unleashed as a threat to the people of the United States?

The key is to place shackles on the ankles of the lion, and place it in a cage.

Those shackles, and the cage, which are designed to restrain the lion we call the federal government, is the United States Constitution. However, the original intent of the Constitution is not being followed, which has resulted in the federal government becoming unshackled, and therefore a threat to the citizens of the United States.

In today’s political environment, the States and We the People have come to fear the federal government. We fear standing against it. How is it that a federal government designed to serve the States and serve the people has expanded to the point that we now believe it is us who are supposed to serve it?

Unfortunately, returning to originally intended constitutional principles and philosophies is not as simple as flipping a switch. The process ahead of us is long and arduous, and it begins with education.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Wednesday, October 25, 2017

FBI Report Exposing Obama and Clinton Treason, Collusion with Russia

By Douglas V. Gibbs
AuthorSpeakerInstructorRadio Host

The headlines are exploding.

From Zero Hedge:  
As the mainstream media continues to obsess over $100,000 worth Facebook ads allegedly purchased by Russian spies in 2016 seeking to throw the presidential election, we're almost certain they'll ignore the much larger Russian bombshell dropped today in the form ofnewly released FBI documents that reveal for the very first time that the Obama administration was well aware of illegal bribery, extortion and money laundering schemes being conducted by the Russians to get a foothold in the atomic energy business in the U.S. before approving a deal that handed them 20% of America's uranium reserves...and resulted in a windfall of donations to the Clinton Foundation. 
As we pointed out last summer when Peter Schweizer first released his feature documentary Clinton Cash, the Uranium One deal, as approved by the Obama Administration, netted the Clintons and their Clinton Foundation millions of dollars in donations and 'speaking fees' from Uranium One shareholders and other Russian entities.
There was never any collusion between the Trump team and Russia.  The Russian connection has always been through the Democrats.  Going all the way back to the launch of the Cold War, it was the Democrats who were trying sell out America to the enemy.  Teddy Kennedy tried it with the KGB back during Reagan, and they were still doing it during the Obama administration.  Then, to thwart off any accusations, like a kid in the schoolyard, the Democrats said, "It wasn't me, it was them".

The FBI has unleashed what should be the biggest scandal in U.S. History, but it won't be, because the Democrats and their allies in the media will squash it and ignore it. . . until they can't.  It began with a fake dossier claiming to be full of intelligence pinning Trump with the Russians, except that it was fiction.  A well-crafted piece of fiction to cover-up the truth.  Comey, the former FBI chief stooge and Clinton buddy who has had his pockets lined to protect the Clintons, presented the dossier to Trump, and then ensured the media picked up on it.  The Democrats have learned, even if a story is so obviously false that any informed individual will pick up on its falsehood, their uninformed base will still fall for it.  All they needed was a headline, and then the leftist voting block's imagination would take over from there.

Fusion GPS and a guy named Christopher Steele put it all together, presented it as a piece of intelligence, the liberal left voters bought into it, the media packaged it nicely to ensure everyone bought into it, but the dossier was a complete lie from the start.

Now, on top of all that, the FBI is telling us that the dossier was not only not reliable intelligence, it wasn't even simply opposition research bought and paid for by the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democrat National Committee.  Obama's government was in on it, too.

The whole Russian/Trump connection investigation is based on this thing, too.  It's all crap, paid for by political party money, and government money, to falsely take down an opposition candidate who the Democrats deemed was too dangerous to allow into any kind of limelight.

The dossier was easily refuted, but the media never let that part out.  Why?  The FBI says because the media, the Democrats, the Clintons, and the Obama administration were all working together to put this crap out there.  Never mind that they were already colluding with the Russians, as well (Uranium One is a starting point on that discussion).

As for the hacking, Rush Limbaugh put it nicely:
You remember the DNC would not let the FBI forensically examine the server. Instead, they hired CrowdStrike to do the forensic examination. It turns out that CrowdStrike was also hired by the law firm that hired Steele, that hired Fusion GPS to make up this dossier. All of this is Democrat Party, Hillary Clinton, and Obama administration opposition research! All of this is lies. All of this is patently made up. Oh, there may be a sentence or two in the dossier that’s got some connection to something that happened to give it some sense of credibility if deeply examined.
It doesn't matter if the investigation is a fake witch hunt looking for something, ANYTHING, they can pin on Trump - from the left's point of view, all that matters is that there IS an investigation going on.  It's all about perception.  Make Trump look like he's always in a scandal, keep Trump backpedaling, and convince the people he's so full of scandal he must be impeached. . . even though all of the sins they are accusing him of are Democrat Party sins!

And now, they have added more fake investigations.  There's one regarding Jared Kushner and Russia.  Paul Manafort and Russia.  Trump is a traitor, they want you to believe, and if they dig enough with the fake investigations, surely they will find SOMETHING.

What is worse is that the U.S. Government, under Barack Obama as president, was a part of this, too!  The lies and attacks were bought and paid for, in large part, by your tax dollars, as well! 

Your tax dollars have gone into the phony congressional Senate and House investigations over the lies, as well. . . all in the name of the Democrat Party forcing Trump out of office because they are sore losers. . . or perhaps they fear he may stumble upon their mafia-style way of running things!

Donald Trump never colluded with Vladimir Putin to steal and tamper with U.S. elections, but the Democrats have been happy to steal and tamper with your tax dollars to chase after fake investigations. . . while trying to stop Trump from investigating THE DEMOCRAT PARTY's election fraud.

And their voting base has fallen for all of the ridiculous accusations that the FBI is realizing was crap.  Russian collusion, calling him a fascist, racist, and so forth.  It's all lies to either get him out of office, or cover-up their true criminal activities. . . or both.

And to be honest, I think this is just the beginning.

We may have to get a few orange jumpsuits prepared for some of these people from the Democrat Party, after all...

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Wisdom of Charlie Kirk (Including Debate with Hasan Piker at Politicon)

Douglas V. Gibbs
AuthorSpeakerInstructorRadio Host


-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Tuesday, October 24, 2017

Corona Constitution Class: Legislative Enumerated Powers

6:00 PM
Tuesday Night
AllStar Collision
522 Railroad St.
Corona, CA

Constitution Class Handout
Instructor: Douglas V. Gibbs

Lesson 03
Legislative Authorities
Making Law, and Enumerated Powers
Making Law
As covered when we studied Article I, Section 1, all legislative powers belong to the Legislative Branch.  According to Article I, Section 7, Clause 2, all bills must be approved by both the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate before they can be presented to the President for signature.  Article I, Section 7, Clause 1 indicates that all bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives.
The structure for making law was established by the Founding Fathers in the way that it was in order to ensure that all parts of the system had a voice in the approval, or disapproval, of the law.  The people through their representatives in the House of Representatives voted their approval or disapproval of the bill, the States did the same through their voice in the United States Senate, and the federal government's voice through the executive was the final approval.  If the executive did not like the proposed law, he could veto it.  However, all did not stop there.  If Congress felt strongly enough about the bill, and had enough votes, they could override the veto with two-thirds vote in each House and make the bill a law without the signature of approval from the President.
In 1913, the 17th Amendment changed the process in which United States Senators are chosen. Originally, the State Legislatures appointed the U.S. Senators, making the U.S. Senate quite literally the voice of the States.  The Senators at that time voted with the interests of the States, and more specifically with the intent of protecting their State's sovereignty, in mind.  With the House of Representatives acting as the voice of the people, and the Senate acting as the voice of the States, the dynamics of making law was quite different from what it is today.
The process of making a law as originally intended ensured that the people, the States, and the federal government, all each had the opportunity to approve or disapprove the piece of legislation.  If either the people or the States did not like the bill, its journey to become a law stopped.  If the federal government, via the President, felt the bill was unconstitutional, or that its passage is not in the best interest of the nation, he could veto the bill.  The veto by the President in turn could be overturned with a two thirds vote from each house of Congress.  The reason for this system was for the purpose of checks and balances, and to keep the States involved in monitoring the federal government through advise and consent authorities.  This gave the people through the House of Representatives, and the States through the U.S. Senate, the ability to check each other, and the ability of them together to check the federal government.   The people and the States together, if in agreement, served as a united check against the federal government, or more specifically in the case of making law, the executive branch.
We The People hold original authority in the process of making law.  The members of the United States House of Representatives and U.S. Senate are voted into office by direct election of the people.  All of the officials involved with appointing or electing members of the branches of the federal government (as well as the U.S. Senate prior to 1913) were also originally voted into office by the general population.  Our original authority also reaches even farther back than the descriptions above, because it was the people, as the sovereign states of the union, who originally held all of the authorities prior to the writing and ratification of the U.S. Constitution.  Under British rule, original authority belonged to the monarchy, as per Royal Prerogative; but in the United States, original authority belonged to the people. 
By Article I, Section 7, Clause 1 establishing that all bills for raising revenue originate in the House of Representatives, the Constitution grants to the voice of the people the power to fund, or defund, any function of government affected by legislative action.  The power of the purse-strings gives the House of Representatives the ultimate check against the other parts of government, and ultimately gives the House of Representatives a significant amount of power. Should the House of Representatives, for example, disapprove of a military action being carried out by the Commander in Chief, the action can be stopped by the House of Representatives simply defunding the military operation by not including funding for that action in a budget proposal.  Refusal to accept the proposal by the Senate, or the Executive, places at risk the funding for other parts of government as well.  The Senate, though unable to originate bills raising revenue, may propose amendments to be added to such a bill that originated in the House of Representatives, but no bill raising revenue may originate in the Senate.  Upon approval by the Senate, if the Senate made changes, the bill would still need to go back to the House of Representatives for approval.  The approval by both houses of Congress must be for an identical bill.
If the President approves the bill, and signs it after it has been approved with a majority vote in each of the two houses of Congress, the bill becomes law.  If the President does not approve of the bill, he may refuse to sign it, or veto the bill, and return it with a written explanation of his disapproval.
Should the Houses of the United States Congress determine with a two-thirds vote in each house to reconsider the bill, the bill will still become law despite the executive objection.
All votes in the two houses of Congress shall be determined by yeas and nays, which will be entered into the respective house's journal.  The journal entry will include the names and votes of the members voting for, or against, the bill.
If the President refuses to sign the bill presented to him, but does not return the bill with his written objection within ten days (excluding Sundays) the bill becomes law as if the President signed it.  The exception to this clause is if Congress does anything to prevent the bill's return, such as through their adjournment.  In that case, the bill remains to be only a bill, and only becomes law should any of the afore mentioned processes be met.
Original Authority: Principal agent holding legal authority; initial power to make or enforce laws; the root authority in government.
Veto: The power of a chief executive to reject a bill passed by the legislature and thus prevent or delay its enactment into law.
Questions for Discussion:
1.  Why did the Founding Fathers decide to give the power of the purse to the House of Representatives?
2.  How did the Senators being appointed by the State Legislatures enable State involvement in the federal government?
3.  If the people have original authority, how does that affect the relationship between the people through their States, and the Federal Government?
Joseph Andrews, A Guide for Learning and Teaching The Declaration of Independence and The U.S. Constitution - Learning from the Original Texts Using Classical Learning Methods of the Founders; San Marcos: The Center for Teaching the Constitution (2010).
Madison's Notes Constitutional Convention, Avalon Project, Yale University: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/debcont.asp
Enumerated Powers
The powers granted to the federal government in relation to legislative powers are listed in Article I, Section 8.  These authorities are also known as "Express Powers."
Implied Powers is a concept invented by Alexander Hamilton while he served as treasury secretary in 1791.  He wrote in a report titled, "Opinion on the Constitutionality of the Bank of the United States" that "there are implied, as well as express powers, in the Constitution, and that the former are as effectually delegated as the latter.  Implied powers are to be considered as delegated to the federal government equally with the express ones."
Hamilton, in his report, went on to argue that a nationalized bank was one of these implied powers.  Hamilton's argument stated that his power to create a nationalized bank was implied as "necessary and proper" for the federal government to carry out its enumerated powers, such as borrowing money, regulating currency, and providing for the general welfare of the country.
Thomas Jefferson disagreed, arguing that the express powers delegated to the federal government by Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution were expressly stated because they were the only powers granted to the federal government by the sovereign States when they ratified the Constitution.  New authorities could only be granted by the amendment process, which includes the requirement of ratification by three-quarters of the States.
The Concept of Implied Powers remained, and the statists of history have used Implied Powers to rewrite the Constitution through regulatory actions, and liberal judicial activism.
From the emergence of Implied Powers came the theory that the Constitution is a living document that can be modified at will through interpretation and the use of Implied Law.  Hamilton's concept of Implied Powers laid the groundwork for generations of lawyers and judges using the courts, rather than the amendment process, to alter the Constitution, and render the limiting principals powerless.  The concept of Implied Powers is one of the concepts that have fed the false idea that the courts "interpret" the Constitution.
Alexander Hamilton also argued that there were "resulting powers" as well, which are powers that exist as a result of any action the government takes.  These "resulting powers" are de facto constitutional by virtue of the fact that the action by the federal government occurred in the first place.
With the use of the concepts of Implied Powers and resulting powers, Hamilton believed the central government had unlimited powers to act as any member of the federal government deemed necessary.
General Welfare Clause
"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions." --James Madison
The General Welfare Clause is one of the most misunderstood clauses in the U.S. Constitution - and it was not even supposed to be a clause.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 includes "General Welfare" not as an authority to the federal government, but as a description of the Republic should the laws of the land be made in accordance with the authorities granted by the Constitution.
If we go back to the Preamble, we read that one of the reasons the Founding Fathers created this new government with the writing of the Constitution was to "insure domestic Tranquility."  One must ask, "Why was there a need for domestic tranquility?"
The States were much like siblings.  The States fought over just about everything.  They argued over commerce, borders, legal jurisdictions, currency, weights and measures, communication, religion, and a number of other issues.  Yet, despite their disagreements, when it came to the American Revolution, they united against a common enemy.  After the war, the quarrels resumed.  The fighting between the States became such a problem that many worried it would tear apart the union.  One of the many reasons for the need of a new government, as provided by the U.S. Constitution, was so that the central government would have enough authorities to act as a mediator between the States.
Acting as a referee in matters that caused disputes between the States would help the federal government provide for the General Welfare of the republic.
Another reason for the writing of the new constitution was to give the federal government enough power to defend the union from invasion and domestic insurrection.  Under the Articles of Confederation, the central government was unable to provide for the common defense because the government did not have the authority, nor the financial means, to field a military.  With the ability to field a fighting force, the federal government would be able to protect the States from foreign invasion, while also keeping internal conflict at bay as well.
By providing for the common defense, the federal government would also be ensuring the General Welfare of the Republic.
In other words, if the federal government was doing what it was supposed to do, as a mediator between the States, and as a protector of the States by providing for the common defense, the States would enjoy a general welfare of the republic.  The Founding Fathers wanted to make sure that squabbles, internal conflict, or foreign intrusion did not place the welfare of the union in jeopardy.
General Welfare is an adjective, not an authority.
The General Welfare of the republic was the goal, which would be achieved if the federal government abided by the limiting principles of the U.S. Constitution.
Taxes and Debt
Article I, Section 8 grants Congress the power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts, and Excises.
The authority to tax was for the express purpose of protecting, preserving, and promoting the union.  The federal government could tax the States only if the taxes were uniform throughout the United States.  The federal government could not originally tax the individual citizens directly.
The stated purposes for giving the Congress the power to tax are to "provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States."
The need for the central government to be able to defend the union militarily was one of the initial reasons the Founding Fathers planned the Constitutional Convention at the Annapolis Convention in 1786.  Shays' Rebellion proved to the founders that the government under the Articles of Confederation was too weak to defend the union.
Some of the members of the Constitutional Convention were concerned that a military may be used by the federal government against the States, but the reality of the world they lived in was that the union would not survive without the ability to defend itself. It was argued that the independent militias needed to be joined under a single federal army, and for the protection of the trade routes a United States Navy also needed to be established.  In order to have a military, however, the federal government would need the power to tax in order to pay for the military it would be afforded.
The second clause of Article I, Section 8 grants the authority to the U.S. Congress to borrow money on the credit of the United States.  If the federal government ever found the necessity to enter into military operations on the battlefield, to help pay for the expensive endeavor of warfare, the federal government would need to be able to borrow money for the war effort. Therefore, the States through the new Constitution granted to the federal government the authority to create a national debt.  The founders did not recognize any reason other than for war that the United States would need to borrow money.  Alexander Hamilton, however, suggested that a continuous national debt was necessary to hold together the union, for if the States all felt they were responsible for the repayment of the deficit, they would be less likely to break away from the union.
Commerce Clause
Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 grants to the Congress the authority to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.
Remember, the States did not get along too well.  Like siblings, they argued over just about everything.  The individual States bickered over the borders between the states, turf, and interstate trade. As sovereign entities, the States continually tried to gain the upper hand on the other States in regard to commerce across State lines. Recognizing that the squabbles between the States were actually hindering commerce across State lines, the federal government in this clause was given the authority to do what was necessary to enable the flow of commerce to be more regular.
When you turn on a faucet full blast you are regulating the flow, just as you are regulating the flow when you restrict it by turning the faucet off.  Likewise, the federal government was expected to act as a mechanism that ensured that the flow of commerce between the States was more regular.
The 1828 Webster Dictionary defines regulate in its second definition: "To put in good order."  Some historians state that regulate in the 18th Century meant "To make regular."  The word "restrict" was not used in the 1828 definition until the third and final definition of the word.  In today's dictionary "restrict" appears in the first definition of regulate.
Today, the Commerce Clause has been interpreted to mean the opposite of its original intent.  The Commerce Clause in today's political atmosphere is used as a means to restrict and heavily control commerce between the States. If one was to adopt the progressive definition of the Commerce Clause, one could then surmise that the Founders wrote this clause because commerce was flowing too easily, and needed to be controlled by the federal government. Such a notion is not only untrue, but outside the normal tendencies of the Founding Fathers. The Founders believed in limiting the powers of the Federal Government, so why would they allow the Federal Government the kind of unlimited powers over interstate commerce as suggested by today's progressive?
The federal government's role according to the Commerce Clause was to act as a referee, or mediator, whenever the flow of commerce was hindered by disagreements between the States, while with foreign nations and the Indian Tribes the federal government was expected to take a more active role.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 gives the Congress the authority to establish a uniform rule of Naturalization.  What this means is that all naturalization rules must be identical in all States.  One State cannot decide to have rules for naturalization that are different than what the federal government has established. This is an example of an "exclusive jurisdiction."  However, realize that immigration is not mentioned here.  Immigration is a concurrent issue, with authorities held by both federal government and the States.
In Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 the federal government is also given the authority to establish uniform rules on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States. 
Prior to the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, each State had its own rules on bankruptcy.  Citizens would simply cross state lines to start over financially.  The clause bringing bankruptcy under federal jurisdiction was for the purpose to stop the abuses, and to establish uniform rules nationwide.
Money, Weights, and Measures
Article I, Section 8, Clause 5 establishes that the duty of coining money belonged to Congress.  Note that the Constitution called for coining money, rather than printing federal reserve notes (bills of credit).  The coins produced by Congress were expected to be made of metals that reflected the worth of the coins. In other words, the gold in a coin, if taken to a goldsmith, would be worth the same as the value of the coin. Later, the banks realized they could loan on the gold in their vaults backing the currency, leaving less gold as a reserve.  They did this by issuing receipts, or bills of credit.  When this happened, if there was a bank run, where everyone brought their receipts in to cash it in for gold all at once, the bank would be left in a situation where they did not have enough gold to cover all of the notes.
If one goes back to the Articles of Confederation, it is important to note that under the confederation, there had been no power given to the central government to regulate the value of foreign coin, an omission, which in a great measure would destroy any uniformity in the value of the current coin, since the respective states might, by different regulations, create a different value in each. As a result, the States were prohibited in Article I, Section 10 from coining their own money, thus taking away their ability to manipulate the value of currency as a means of effecting the economies of the other states.
The authority to coin money was given specifically to Congress so that no outside interest could manipulate the value of American money.  This included private banks.  Nonetheless, we have seen three nationalized banks run by private bankers in the United States issuing the currency.  The third is the currently existing Federal Reserve Bank.
Thomas Jefferson was against national banks.  Alexander Hamilton created the "Bank of the United States" in 1791 for the purpose of acting as a depository of government funds, issuing paper currency backed by gold and silver, and creating a system of mercantilism in America.  The bank's charter lapsed in 1811.  The Second Bank of the United States was formed in 1817, and lasted until President Andrew Jackson vetoed the renewal of its charter in 1836.  The bank existed for 5 more years as an ordinary bank before going bankrupt in 1841.  In a letter to John Taylor in 1816, Thomas Jefferson wrote, "I sincerely believe, with you, that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies; and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale."
Article I, Section 8, Clause 5 also establishes that Congress shall have the power to fix the Standard of Weights and Measures.  Fixing a standard of weights and measures was important for the reason of uniformity, and the ease of commerce. This clause suggests that before the Constitutional Convention the States were able to independently fix their own weights and measures, which not only added confusion to commerce, but enabled the States of use unsavory trading tactics against each other.
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 6 establishes that the U.S. Congress will provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States.  This power would naturally flow, as an incident, from the antecedent powers to borrow money, and regulate the coinage.  Indeed, without the ability to provide for the punishment of counterfeiting, the powers of coining money or creating securities would be without any adequate sanction. The word "securities," in this clause, means: a contract that can be assigned a value so that it may be traded, like a "bond."
Post Offices and Roadways
In Article I, Section 8, Clause 7 the Congress is granted the authority to establish post offices and post roads.
As with the other clauses in Article I, Section 8, this clause is designed to promote the Union. In this case, it ensures that communication remains intact.  The clause gives the federal government the authority to establish post offices, but nowhere in the Constitution does the federal government have the authority to partially privatize the post office as we have seen in the modern era.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 7 gives the federal government the authority to "establish" post roads, but not create or maintain them. The Constitution does not give the federal government any other authority over roadways. In fact, this is the only reference to roadways to the federal government in the entire Constitution.  This clause makes the federal highway and Interstate highway system, as well as the other workings of the federal transportation department, unconstitutional. It was up to the States to create and maintain their roadways. If the States desired to remain connected, and receive their mail, they would keep up their roads.
In 1817, Congress proposed a bill that would provide federal funding for boatways and roadways, claiming it was for the "general welfare" of the nation. President James Madison vetoed the bill, claiming it to be unconstitutional, because the federal government was not given the authority to fund transportation routes.
Patents and Copyrights
Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 authorizes Congress to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.
This clause is the basis for the creation of the U.S. Patent Office, and Copyright Office. Patent and copyright protections already existed in the British Empire, and for the protection of American inventions and writings, the Founding Fathers saw the need to establish such a power under the federal government as well, expecting that by being under federal authority, the rules would be uniform.
Federal Inferior Courts
Article I, Section 8, Clause 9 authorizes Congress to constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court.  This means that the legislative branch was tasked with the duty to establish the lower federal courts.  However, by enabling Congress to establish new courts whenever necessary, this has given some administrations an opportunity to abuse this power in the hopes of stacking the courts.  John Adams was the first example of this abuse, when he appointed many midnight judges in order to help retain federalist power in the courts as Jefferson's Republicans gained the White House, and the majority in Congress.  Some may argue that Adams' decision to expand the court was not as sinister as Thomas Jefferson made it out to be, for John Adams had been requesting an expansion of the judiciary for years.
President Franklin D. Roosevelt also sought to "pack" the court with justices favorable to his social policies.  His animosity toward the Supreme Court emerged when his New Deal of social and economic reform via government intrusion was struck down as unconstitutional by justices that had been largely appointed by his rival Republicans.
The high court invalidated the Railroad Retirement Act of 1934, a law that had established pensions for railway workers, and the National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933.  Roosevelt's anger against the justices for their rulings led him to hold contempt for the conservative-minded court of "Nine Old Men."  In January 1936, the court ruled the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933 unconstitutional, as well.
In 1937, Roosevelt disclosed to his aides a bill he was going to propose that was designed to reorganize the federal judiciary. The measure called for all federal judges to retire by age 70. If they failed to do so, the president could appoint another judge to serve in tandem with each one older than 70.  If the bill passed, it would enable Roosevelt to appoint six more Supreme Court justices immediately, increasing the size of the court to 15 members.  The Democrat dominated Congress, he believed, would undoubtedly approve the appointment of judges friendly to Roosevelt and his New Deal agenda.
The proposal never got off the ground, as Roosevelt's explanation regarding why the proposal was necessary fell flat.
Both the federal government, and the States, have court systems.  The shared power by both the federal government and the State governments to establish a judiciary is a concurrent power.
With the ability to establish the inferior courts also comes the authority to eliminate them. Congress, in addition to the authority to establish federal inferior courts, can also shut them down.  When in the 2012 Republican Campaign Newt Gingrich stated that Congress should use the federal marshall to bring unconstitutional judges to face members of Congress and answer for their actions, he was accurate that Congress can do that.
Trade Routes and Offenses Against The Law of Nations
Article I Section 8, Clause 10 authorizes Congress to define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the Law of Nations.
One of the factors in having this included was the problem with piracy in the Caribbean, as well as difficulties the new nation was having with the Barbary Pirates (Muslims). Though the United States was careful to create a system of justice that included due process for the citizens of the nation, the Constitution gave the federal government the power to punish offenses by foreign forces on the high seas without having to worry about habeas corpus, while still providing a courtroom setting for the offenders. In Federalist 42, Madison carefully explains that this provision "extends no further than to the establishment of courts for the trial of these offenses," such as military courts, or international courts for international war crimes.
This clause is the only place where the Law of Nations is mentioned.  Some historians claim that the capitalization of the "Law of Nations" suggests that the founders were specifically referring to Vatell's volumes of which the founders often used for definitions and the clarification of concepts like Natural Born Citizen.
War, Army, and Navy
Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 gives Congress the power to declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water.
During the debates, according to Madison's Notes on the Constitutional Convention, the delegates debated over whether or not to give the legislative branch the power to make war.  After intense debate, it was decided to grant the Commander in Chief, the President of the United States, the authority to "wage" war, and Congress the power to declare war. A declaration of war is a formal declaration that warns those not involved to stay out of the conflict. If those entities become involved, they become open targets.  The president, as per the debates, may wage war without prior approval by Congress, or without a declaration of war being issued.
The ability to wage war, however, is checked by the fact that the House of Representatives are able to refuse to fund any military conflict. This keeps the president from abusing his position as Commander in Chief by giving Congress a way to limit executive wartime authorities.  If the President continues to act upon his war powers in a manner not approved of by Congress, and the President does so despite the lack of funding for the military operations, Congress also has the authority to impeach the President in order to stop the executive's objectionable actions.
A Letter of Marque and Reprisal was a government license authorizing a private vessel to attack and capture enemy vessels, and bring them before admiralty courts for condemnation and sale. Cruising for prizes with a Letter of Marque was considered an honorable calling combining patriotism and profit, in contrast to unlicensed piracy which was universally reviled.  These mercenaries was also known as "privateers."
Congress was also given the power to make rules regarding captures on land and water.  This is the clause used when the Bush administration, with the blessings of Congress, decided to hold prisoners captured during the war on terrorism at Guantanamo Bay, and to use military tribunals as the vessel of their trials.
Article I, Section 8, Clauses 12-16 authorizes Congress:
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
Remember that one of the primary reasons for deciding to hold the Constitutional Convention in the first place was to defend the union with a uniformed military.  Note that the fear of an army being used by a centralized government, and a potentially tyrannical government for that matter, as had been in the case with the British Empire, influenced the writings of this document, and encouraged the founders to limit the existence and funding of an army to two years at a time. A navy, however, was deemed as much more important, particularly because of the need to protect trade routes, and America's immediate waterways and inlets. Therefore, the authority to provide and maintain a navy was granted in perpetuity.  The United States Marine Corps, from the beginning, falls under the umbrella of the United States Navy.
The rules for the governance of the armed forces do not fall under the purview of the Constitution. It is up to Congress to provide the governing rules.  Any claim that rules regarding the military are unconstitutional is a bad argument.  According to Article I, Section 8, Clause 14, it is up to Congress to set the rules, regardless of the Constitution.  Military training in order for the armed forces to be well disciplined may not benefit from same social rules of the civilian world.  Therefore, the basis of governance over the armed forces is not the Constitution, but instead the Uniform Code of Military Justice. However, it is the military's duty to protect and preserve the U.S. Constitution, and in a manner of tradition, Constitutional Principles have an unofficial influence on military politics.
Congress also has the authority to call forth the Militia to execute the laws of the Union (Constitutional federal laws), suppress insurrections (inserted in response to Shays' Rebellion), and repel invasions (one may consider the illegal entry into the United States an invasion, therefore this clause gives the federal government the authority to use the militia to guard the national borders).  Currently, in this country, we have an organized militia (National Guard, State Militias), and an unorganized militia (you and I). U.S. Code Title 10 still defines these militias as such.
Federal Properties
Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 calls for the Congress to exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings.
This clause was for the creation of Washington DC, giving the United States Congress exclusive legislative powers over the District of Columbia and other federal properties, and to allow the federal government to erect military bases, and other necessary federal facilities by consent of the Legislatures of the States in which those properties are obtained, and for the federal government to purchase those properties. This makes land seized for conservation, and National Parks, unconstitutional, for those were not approved by the States, nor purchased by the federal government, and finally it is not being utilized for the purpose of the erection of "needful buildings."
Necessary and Proper Clause
Article I, Section 8, Clause 18 is also known as the "necessary and proper" clause. It reads:
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Today's government officials misuse this clause greatly. Notice the emphasis on carrying into execution the "foregoing powers" (authorities herein granted).  What that means is that the Congress may make laws that fall within the authorities granted by the U.S. Constitution that the Congress recognizes to be "necessary and proper."  Today's federal government has taken this clause to mean they can make "any" law they feel to be necessary and proper.
"The plain import of the clause is, that congress shall have all the incidental and instrumental powers, necessary and proper to carry into execution all the express powers. It neither enlarges any power specifically granted; nor is it a grant of any new power to congress. But it is merely a declaration for the removal of all uncertainty, that the means of carrying into execution those, otherwise granted, are included in the grant." --Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution, 1833
In order to carry out some express powers of the Constitution sometimes certain actions by the government are necessary and proper.  For example, when establishing a post office, as expressly authorized by this article and section, the federal government will have to grade the land, hire construction crews, purchase the equipment for carrying out the services of the post office, and so forth.  All of these things are necessary and proper in order to carry out the "foregoing power" of establishing a post office.
This clause is also sometimes referred to as the "Elastic Clause."
Concurrent Powers: Powers that are shared by the state and the federal government.  The power to enforce immigration is also a concurrent power.
Duties: A tax levied by a government on the import or export of goods.
Excise: Tax on the manufacture, sale, or consumption of goods, or upon licenses to pursue certain occupations, or upon corporate privileges.
Exclusive Powers: Sole authority over a particular power, be it for the States within their own territorial boundaries, or sole federal powers.  Also known as Reserved Powers.
Express Powers: Authorities explicitly authorized to the federal government by the U.S. Constitution.
Implied Powers: Legal or governmental authority not expressly stated by the U.S. Constitution, but considered to be logical extensions or implications of the other powers delegated in the Constitution.  The concept of Implied Powers is often defended by the Necessary and Proper Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 18).  Implied Powers is an unconstitutional concept.
Imposts: A tax, especially an import duty; Import Duty is a tariff paid at a border or port of entry to the relevant government to allow a good to pass into that government's territory.
Questions for Discussion:
1.  True power of government is the ability to make law.  Is listing the authorities in Article I the founders way of telling us that?
2.  How has the unconstitutional concept of Implied Powers been used in today's political atmosphere?
3.  How has the war powers been misused in recent years?
4.  Name examples of how the Commerce Clause has been misused?
5.  If post roads are the only mention of roadways in the Constitution, then what does that say about recent attempts by the federal government to fund public works projects?
6.  The Necessary and Proper Clause depends upon the laws being within Constitutional Authority.  Are there other clauses requiring this as well?
Andrew M. Allison, Mr. Richard Maxfield, K. Delynn Cook, and W. Cleon Skousen, The Real Thomas Jefferson; New York: National Center for Constitutional Studies (2009).
Articles of Confederation, March 1, 1781; http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/artconf.asp
David McCullough, John Adams; New York: Simon and Schuster (2001).
Donald Porter Geddes, Franklin Delano Roosevelt - A Memorial; New York: Pitman Publishing Corporation (1945).
Ethan Pope, America's Financial Demise; Dallas: Intersect Press (2010).
James Madison, Federalist No. 41: General View of the Powers Conferred by The Constitution (addresses General Welfare Clause as well), http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa41.htm
James Madison, Federalist No. 42: The Powers Conferred by the Constitution, http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed42.asp
James Madison, Veto of Federal Public Works Bill 1817; Constitution dot org: http://www.constitution.org/jm/18170303_veto.htm
Jay A. Parry, Andrew M. Allison, and W. Cleon Skousen, The Real George Washington; New York: National Center for Constitutional Studies (2010).
K. Daniel Glover, FDR's Court-Packing Fiasco; Enter Stage Right: http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0799fdrcourt.htm (1999).
Larry Schweikart and Michael Allen, A Patriot's History of the United States; New York: Sentinel (2004).
Madison's Notes on the Constitutional Convention, Avalon Project, Yale University: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/debcont.asp
Robert Brown, Gold and Silver Coin or Paper Money?; The John Birch Society: http://www.jbs.org/blog/gold-and-silver-coin-or-paper-money.html (2010)
Thomas J. DiLorenzo, Hamilton's Curse; New York: Three Rivers Press (2008).
U.S. Code, Title 10, Subtitle A, Part 1, Chapter 13, § 311: Militia: composition and classes; http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode10/usc_sec_10_00000311----000-.html
Copyright: Douglas V. Gibbs, 2014