Sunday, December 31, 2017

New Years: A Californian in Wyoming Snow

By Douglas V. Gibbs
Author, Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host
My wife and I have been married for more than three decades.  We've celebrated New Years somewhere other than at our house twice.  Once was a horrid event, and the other was at the local country western honky tonk (yes, we have a few of those in Southern California).  In Germany they are setting up safe zones to protect the women from being raped by Muslim migrants.  Here, we are not quite worried about that kind of craziness - yet.  But, it is hard to find new and unique things to do without breaking the bank.

So, my wife and I decided this was going to be the year we did something completely out of the ordinary.  Something different.  Go somewhere we've never been before.  So, we set out yesterday for Jackson, Wyoming.

Right now it is somewhere between ten and fifteen degrees outside.  It's supposed to get to two degrees later tonight.  I was born and raised in Southern California.  To be honest, this is my first time around so much snow. . . and it is absolutely breathtakingly beautiful - and really, really, really cold.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Saturday, December 30, 2017

Constitution Radio with Douglas V. Gibbs: New Year's Adam

Constitution Radio
Produced and Hosted by
Douglas V. Gibbs
AuthorSpeakerInstructorRadio Host


Alex Ferguson: Conservative Cannonade
Dennis Jackson: Executive Producer of 
Enemies Within MOVIE

Saturday, 1:00 pm - 3:00 pm Pacific

KMET 1490-AM
Listen Online at:

Call into the program live at 

Podcast available later at:

CarStar/AllStar Collision Big Stories of the Week:

Conservative Voice Radio: 2017 Review

Conservative Voice Radio's final episode of 2017 ...

Hosted by Douglas V. Gibbs, and members of the Banning-Beaumont-Cherry Valley Tea Party Glenn, and Jan (Diane could not be with us this week).

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

Listen live at or listen later at the podcast page.

Today's topics:

- Tax Reform

- 2017 Year in Review: Trump's Accomplishments

- Beaumontgate: Fraud and Embezzlement

- U.N. Defunding. . . as Chicago Requests Blue Helmets in the Streets

- DACA is not what the Democrats Argue

- What to Look for in 2018

    Friday, December 29, 2017

    Why DACA Must Go

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

    The Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security released a report on incarceration of foreign-born population, and the findings of the report are that more than 1 in 5 of all federal inmates in the U.S. Bureau of Prisons are foreign-born.  94% of those people who were not born in the United States and in federal incarceration were also in the country illegally.

    The report also found that about two-thirds of all immigrants in the custody of U.S. Marshals Service were in the United States illegally.

    “This shows undeniably the need to secure the southern border with a wall to prevent many of the crimes from occurring,” a senior administration official said.

    A senior administration official cited U.S. Sentencing Commission data from fiscal year 2016 that found almost one-third of drug trafficking crimes and more than two-thirds of drug-use crimes came from foreign-born offenders, both legal and illegal.

    American citizens take this issue seriously, which is one of the reasons that Donald J. Trump was elected as President of the United States in 2016.  The issue that launched him to the top of the ticket was immigration, and his desire to secure the border.

    A significant move that will help us in getting illegal immigration under control in this country would be the elimination of the Obama administration's unconstitutionally instituted Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, which shields younger illegal aliens from deportation, claiming they are here by no fault of their own and that having grown up in the United States, it would be inhuman to deport them back to the country from which they came because they know nothing about that country, nor speak the language.

    Aware of Trump's plan to tackle the illegal alien issue with both barrels firing, the Democrats have been relentless in their propaganda campaign, and using the court system to place obstacles in the way of the Trump administration's efforts to enforce constitutional immigration laws that are on the books.

    On Dec. 20, in an unsigned, four-page opinion, the Supreme Court struck down a lower court order that severely burdened efforts by the Trump administration to end the Obama administration’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program.

    This is good news, a helpful sign that the Supreme Court will not give unelected judges carte blanche to hamstring the federal government’s legitimate efforts to enforce immigration law restrictions, consistent with the current statutory law.

    The Democrats will parrot the concept that we are a nation of laws, but when the rule of law does not fit with their agenda, they are willing to spit in the eye of the rule of law, using the opinions of activist judges legislating from the bench to do so.

    Article I, Section 8 and Article I, Section 9 gives the federal government legislative authority over naturalization, and prohibiting certain persons from entering the United States.

    From a common sense point of view, immigration laws are in place because there are people who do not have the best interests of the United States in their hearts who are crossing into this country.  While we don't know how large or small the percentage of people are (in the overall population of illegal migrants) who we wish to do harm to Americans in our country, the reality is that those people exist.  Mixed into the illegal alien population, whether the Democrats are willing to admit it, or not, are the sick (TB, Scabies, Small Pox, Hand Foot and Mouth Disease, etc.), gang members, drug dealers, rapists, murderers, terrorists, and so forth.

    As the common argument goes, "Why do you lock your door of your home?" It's not because you hate everyone walking around outside.  In fact, most of us believe that most of the people who are outside of our homes are fairly decent people.  But, among those walking the sidewalk in our neighborhoods, and often we are not sure who they are because the obvious signs are not always there, are those who would be willing to enter our homes and harm our families.  The least we can do is at least lock the door.  Having a loaded gun ready for self-defense would be an additional precaution.

    The emotional nature of the Democrat's screams is that we have to take care of these people illegal coming into our country, because our boat of liberty can take them away from the island of misery they are trying to escape, and take them to a better place.  Problem is, the boat is only so big, and legal immigration is tough enough.  With all of the illegals piling on, the boat is sinking.

    DACA was established in 2012 by a Department of Homeland Security memorandum. It applied to a large number of young illegal aliens who met certain conditions: they illegally entered the U.S. before the age of 16; were under the age of 31; had “continuously” resided in the U.S. since June 15, 2007; and were in school, graduated, or honorably discharged from the military.

    DACA provided a period of deferred action (a promise that the alien would not be deported) as well as access to certain government benefits (including work authorizations, Medicare, Social Security, and the earned income tax credit). The period of deferred action was initially for two years, but that period was extended to three years by a second DHS memorandum on Nov. 14, 2014.

    Since President Obama could not get the Republicans in Congress to work with him, he decided to do it himself, and illegally put DACA into play without Congress through an executive order.

    When President Trump approached this issue, instead of simply eliminating the program with an executive order (of which he could do, since it was established by executive order), his administration gave Congress the opportunity to look at the issue and make a decision. It is, after all, supposed to be a legislative issue.

    On September 5, then-acting DHS Secretary Elaine Duke issued a memorandum terminating the DACA program and all benefits provided under it effective March 18, 2018, unless President Donald Trump provides another extension of the program or Congress passes a bill addressing the issue.

    The acting secretary stated that her determination was based in part on the attorney general’s conclusion that DACA was initiated unlawfully and likely would be enjoined in potentially imminent litigation.

    The liberal left Democrats went into action, immediately, filing five lawsuits against the September 5th memo.  The cases were filed in a federal district lower court in California (because the Democrats know that is where the federal court system is most swarming with leftist judges).  The suits argued that the determination violated the Administrative Procedure Act (which governs the way in which federal administrative agencies may propose and establish regulations), and denied affected aliens due process and equal protection under the law.

    The Administrative Procedure Act can be changed by the Republicans with ease, and personally, I don't believe their argument that the move violated the act was valid, anyway.

    As for the due process and equal protection arguments, the "due process and equal protection under the law" clauses of the 14th Amendment addresses the States, and reads as follows:  "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

    Article IV., Section 2 reads: "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States."

    There is a purposeful separation between citizens, and non-citizens.  "Immunities" is a key word, here.  In the 1828 Webster's Dictionary, "Immunity" is defined as:
    immunity: IMMU'NITY, n. [L. immuinitas, from immunis, free, exempt; in and munus, charge, office, duty.]
    1. Freedom or exemption from obligation. To be exempted from observing the rites or duties of the church, is an immunity.
    2. Exemption from any charge, duty, office, tax or imposition; a particular privilege; as the immunities of the free cities of Germany; the immunities of the clergy.
    3. Freedom; as an immunity from error.
    In reference to Article IV., the Founding Fathers feared that the federal government would illegally infringe upon the individual rights of citizens. The federal government was established to handle external issues.  Any laws regarding our rights were only to be allowed by local governments, such as State legislatures, or county and city councils.  The words "privileges and immunities" in Article IV. were specifically addressing the need to protect individual rights of citizens from government infringement.

    Federalist 45 by James Madison explains: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce[.] ... The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State."

    After the conclusion of the War Between the States, while the federal government recognized the newly emancipated slaves as citizens, and that their rights were theirs just as much as any other citizen's rights, the former confederate States were not so inclined.  So, the 14th Amendment was written to ensure it was understood that the newly emancipated slaves were both citizens of the country, and their States, and that the States could not use legislation to treat these citizens in any manner different than other citizens.

    Persons who have illegally entered the country, and have not committed to "full jurisdiction" of the United States (meaning "full allegiance") are not covered under the promise of receiving all privileges and immunities of the several States.  In short, the argument against DACA being repealed has no constitutional leg to stand on based on the black letter of the law.  However, the Democrats don't care what the Constitution says.  They will use implied law and the interpretation of the Constitution by activist judges to build their case.

    The reality is, we need to come up with specific rules regarding the Dreamers and other migrants who have entered the country, and follow them.  There needs to be a fundamental path to legal status, and perhaps naturalization, but Congress should not give preferential treatment to the children of illegal aliens over those who followed immigration rules.  The president, as we saw with Obama, cannot simply wave the rules and let anybody in, either.  We have people coming in who got here just because they knew the right words to say.  Just because a migrant states they are a victim of political persecution, it doesn't mean that they are.  How do we distinguish between those who are truly wanting to be an American, and those who are dangerous to our society, if we don't enforce immigration law, we don't have a physical barrier at the border to assist in slowing the flow of illegals, and if we aren't willing to vet each and every potential immigrant?  We live in an age of technology, and yet we haven't used technology to secure the border, to deal with the backlog of people trying to legally enter, or to figure out if someone is a legitimate refugee.  DACA is not a solution, it is a way to fight the issue from a political standpoint - a tool to pick a fight, in other words.  I get it, among the Dreamers are young people who know nothing but the United States, but why should they get preference over people who followed the rules?

    According to the Daily Signal, in the legal fight, last October:
    ... a district court issued an order imposing burdens on the government as obstacle to the elimination of DACA.  The court ordered a release of all “emails, letters, memoranda, notes, media items, opinions and other materials” that fell into several broad categories.  The Justice Department unsuccessfully challenged this ruling before the largely liberal 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, and then appealed to the Supreme Court. 
    In its short unsigned opinion, the Supreme Court held that, before imposing its heavy-handed documentary request, the district court first should have ruled on the government’s two “serious” threshold arguments—that the decision to terminate DACA was unreviewable under the Administrative Procedure Act because it was “committed to agency discretion,” and that the Immigration and Nationality Act deprived the lower court of jurisdiction. 
    As the court explained, “[e]ither of those arguments, if accepted, likely would eliminate the need for the [d]istrict [c]ourt to examine a complete administrative record.” 
    Accordingly, the Supreme Court ordered the district court to rule on the government’s threshold arguments and certify its ruling for immediate appeal “if appropriate.” Thereafter, if the case was not dismissed, the district court and the 9th Circuit “may consider whether narrower amendments to the record are appropriate.” The Supreme Court concluded by stating that its order “does not suggest any view on the merits of” the case. 
    In sum, although the Supreme Court has removed (for now) one unnecessary burden to elimination of DACA, the final judicial word has not been said. Let us hope that, in considering this case, the federal courts remember that it is their job to construe the law and say what it is—not to impose their subjective immigration policy preferences on the American people.
    So, legally, according to the Supreme Court, removing DACA is now possible.  Nonetheless, the Democrats are continuing to do what they can to act as a road block.  If they can't win this fight judicially, or legislatively, they are threatening a government shutdown by refusing to accept any bill or resolution funding the government unless Congress provides amnesty to so-called Dreamers in the budget.

    It would be the mess caused by the 1986 amnesty, all over again.  Reagan was willing to sign it because the Democrats said they would secure the border, in turn.  The Democrats reneged on their part of the bargain.

    Now, the Democrats aren't even willing to shroud their deception with compromise.  Now, they are demanding they get their way by budgetary gunpoint.

    Democrats portray the DACA program as only benefiting those who were a few years old when they came to the U.S. illegally.  The problem is, it opens the door for so many more problems.  Many of the teenagers slipping in under the program have criminal records, are members of violent gangs or drug cartels, or are of middle eastern descent and are a terrorist threat.  Illegal aliens eligible, after all, can enter the U.S. as under the program as long as they came to the U.S. before their 16th birthday and were under the age of 31 as of June 15, 2012.

    DACA claims to require beneficiaries to be enrolled in school, graduate from high school, obtain a GED certificate, or receive an honorable discharge from the military; have no conviction for a felony, significant misdemeanor, or three or more other misdemeanors; and not pose a threat to national security or public safety, under Obama the Democrats routinely waived the education (or its equivalent) requirement as long as the illegal alien was enrolled in some kind of program. Only 49 percent of DACA beneficiaries have a high school education—despite the fact that a majority of them are adults.  Besides, we know the vetting process they claim to be using for DACA is not very effective.

    In February 2017, after the arrest of a DACA beneficiary for gang membership, the Department of Homeland Security admitted that at least 1,500 DACA beneficiaries had their eligibility terminated “due to a criminal conviction, gang affiliation, or a criminal conviction related to gang affiliation.”

    By August 2017, that number had surged to 2,139.

    Based on the rules the Democrats have been following, even if a Homeland Security background investigation—which apparently was almost never done—produced substantial evidence that an illegal alien might have committed multiple crimes, the alien would still be eligible for DACA unless Homeland Security referred the violation to state or federal prosecutors and the alien was convicted.

    DACA has no requirement of English fluency, either.  The Center for Immigration Studies estimates that “perhaps 24 percent of the DACA-eligible population fall into the functionally illiterate category and another 46 percent have only ‘basic’ English ability.”  That means that only one in four are fully natively fluent in English.

    Yet, we are being told DACA is protecting children who don't speak the language of their parent's homeland, and can't be sent back for that reason?

    What DACA is really about is providing amnesty to low-skilled, low-educated aliens with marginal English language ability, and then opening up the opportunity for them to sponsor a chain of relatives with similar educational and language deficits (an allowance for extended families of these illegal aliens to profit from illegal conduct) - which imposes a large fiscal challenge on already overly taxed American taxpayers resulting from increased government payouts and benefits.  And, once again, such amnesty is a slap in the fact to legal immigrants who obeyed the law to come here.

    In short, what is important here is national security.  Democrats are seeking votes.  They don't care how, or from who, and they are willing to place the safety of the receiving population at risk for their own political power.  One thing is for sure.  If illegal aliens were mostly conservatives, and registered as Republicans once they finally achieved legal status, the Democrats would not only be in favor of building a wall, their strict adherence to immigration law would be even more stolid that what is being proposed by Republicans.

    -- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

    Thursday, December 28, 2017

    Roy Moore May Have Not Won, but he needs to continue his crusade about voter fraud

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

    We know that the Democrats lie, cheat, and do everything they can to hang on to their power.  A Democrat women’s rights lawyer offered money from donors to pay women to come forward with sexual misconduct allegations against Donald Trump during the 2016 election. California lawyer Lisa Bloom offered to sell their stories to the media while taking a nice commission for herself. She even offered to pay off an accuser's mortgage, and to pay another woman $750,000 to come forward.

    Congressman Matt Gaetz has alleged that the FBI had extreme bias in favor of Hillary Clinton in 2016, which not only kept her out of prison, but nearly won the election for her - in short, not only was the Democrats lying about her corruption ... so was the FBI.

    Rosie O'Donnell offered a bribe of two million dollars each to two Republican senators if they voted no on the GOP tax bill.  Bribery charges are unlikely, though I am willing to guess criminal charges would be on the table if the celebrity in question was conservative.

    Senator Al Franken won his seat in 2008 narrowly after illegal votes by over a thousand felons and votes found in a poll worker's car trunk were counted and added to Franken's final tally.

    In California, the State has been sued by the Election Integrity Project and Judicial Watch.  The latter has reported that at least 3.5 million more people are on U.S. election rolls than are eligible to vote

    California’s San Diego County has 138% registration over the number of eligible voters in the county.  Los Angeles County’s 144% reveals that California may not truly be as blue as the fraud has convinced everyone of.  There are 1,736,556 voters on the rolls above the number of those eligible to vote, in the State that now embraces illegal aliens and calls itself a Sanctuary State.

    Ghost voters (those who are registered, but not eligible to vote) are a significant segment of the list of voters: Colorado: 159,373 Florida: 100,782 Iowa: 31,077 Michigan: 225,235 New Hampshire: 8,211 North Carolina: 189,721 Virginia: 89,979 (For a deeper dive into these data, please download my spreadsheet here.) President Donald J. Trump’s supporters might be intrigued to learn that Hillary Clinton’s margins of victory in Colorado (136,386) and New Hampshire (2,736) were lower than the numbers of ghost voters in those states. Clinton’s fans should know that Trump won Michigan (10,704) and North Carolina (173,315) by fewer ballots than ghost voters in those states.

    So, is it possible that Roy Moore lost the special election in Alabama to Doug Jones due to voter fraud?  It's very possible.

    Fraud evidence has been examined. Numerous reports are showing discrepancies and “coincidences” that compromise the integrity of the vote.  Activists took to “Reddit” to ask African-Americans in Georgia, Mississippi, and Tennessee to travel to Alabama to vote.

    A video emerged of one voter admitting to the fraud:

    Democrats are known to use dishonest and corrupt means to get votes.  Project Veritas has video of Democrat officials admitting that they bus people around from location to location to ensure multiple votes or at least voters from out of state are counted in elections.

    In Alabama there have been multiple claims of buses unloading voters to the polls.  Statistics also provide circumstantial evidence of fraud, showing a turn-out for Democrats in the race with a 92% turn-out. Only around 50% of Republicans showed up to vote.

    There has been a bounty of evidence showing that Obama won his elections using fraudulent means as well, but the establishment, and the media, won't talk about it.  Donna Brazile's book was all about how the Democrats rigged the Democrat Primary Election for Hillary Clinton, but that too is being pushed aside as a non-issue by the Democrats, and the media.

    With all of the evidence, and considering how close the race in Alabama was, Roy Moore refused to concede, and filed a lawsuit against the State to root out the election fraud.  Moore's election complaint alleging potential voter fraud in Alabama's special election urged a delay in certifying the results.

    An Alabama Circuit Judge Johnny Hardwick denied Moore's attempt to halt the certification of the results from the special election held on December 12 for the vacant Senate seat in Alabama.  Judge Hardwick is a registered Democrat.  From a constitutional point of view, according to Article I of the U.S. Constitution, the decision is not the court's.  "The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof."

    While I agree with Moore, and I am as sure as he is that Democrat Doug Jones' win in such a dark red State could only have happened with voter fraud (and the right injection of bogus sexual harassment charges) this is a fight he will probably not be able to win.

    Roy S. Moore, if this does indeed lead to Jones being sworn in on January 3, 2018, is the first Republican to lose a U.S. Senate race in Alabama in 25 years.  Mr. Moore lost to Doug Jones by fewer than 22,000 votes.

    -- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

    Wednesday, December 27, 2017

    Can Trump Do Anything About Rogue State Governors?

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

    A reader of Political Pistachio, and listener of Constitution Radio, sent an email about his frustrations regarding State officials who are acting unconstitutionally - specifically California, and the State's Sanctuary State Status policy.

    -----Original Message-----

    Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2017 9:15am
    To: "douglasvgibbs"
    Subject: What can the federal government do here?

    When it comes to law, the constitution and what the federal government can do when it comes to "rogue" governors, what can the president do when it comes to Governor Jerry Brown defying the federal government by pardoning felony convicted illegals to keep them from being deported?  Is there anything?

    Thanks for the answer on this in advance.

     Blessings to you and yours


    -----------End of Message-----------

    Robert's frustration is that the State of California, as a Sanctuary State, is acting in defiance of the Supremacy Clause (In Article VI. of the U.S. Constitution), which disallows States from having laws contrary to constitutional U.S. laws.

    First of all, we have to deal with the courts.  Congress, using the exceptions clause in Article III, may use legislation to make null and void all of the court's unconstitutional rulings and opinions.  I would love to see the federal marshal haul judges and State officials who violate the Constitution before Congress to explain their actions, but legally the States, or their elected officials, cannot be compelled by the federal government to carry out federal regulations or laws.  However, if someone wishes to sue States, or State officials, for acting unconstitutionally, they can.  I wouldn't hold my breath on that one, though.  Remember, the federal government is not the ruler over the States, the States are the parents of the federal government.  In other words, it is not for us and the States to serve the federal government, it is for the federal government to serve us.  That said, the action of withholding federal funding to States is a reasonable action taken by the Trump administration.  Constitutionally, those funds should not be transferred in the manner that they are, anyway.  The whole direct taxation, and federal funding to States thing is outside the original intent, anyway.


    Douglas V. Gibbs
    Fellow, American Freedom Alliance
    President, Constitution Association
    Secretary, Birth Choice Centers, Inc.
    Sentinel, Heritage Foundation
    Senate District 28 Director, California Republican Assembly
    Radio Host, KMET 1490-AM
    Author, "25 Myths of the United States Constitution," "The Basic Constitution," "Concepts of the United States Constitution, and "Silenced Screams: Abortion in a Virtuous Society"

    U.S. Funding Cut to U.N. First Step

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

    The United Nations was a part of the post-World War II peace process, and created by communists. It was a chance for internationalists to kick into motion a move towards a system of global governance. The United Nations was a less offensive successor of the League of Nations, the failed attempt at world government after the first World War. The United Nations was conceived by Communists and has always been run by Communists for Communist purposes.

    The birth of the United Nations occurred in San Francisco in 1945.  The San Francisco Conference was being held as the Second World War was meeting its conclusion.  The Secretary-General at the conference was Alger Hiss, an American who helped draft the U.N. Charter.  The conference was held with major measures to keep outside eyes from peering in.

    Hiss appointed the members of the U.S. delegation to the U.N., and at the infamous Yalta Conference in the Soviet Union, in February, 1945, stood silently as central Europe was sliced and diced and placed upon the plate of the Soviet Union.

    At the London Conference in 1946, the communists of the Soviet Union were given the reins of the U.N.'s military activities, as the U.S. received the U.N.'s financial activities.  In essence, the Soviet Union was given the power to control the U.N.'s boots-on-the-ground activities, and the United States was given the authority to pay for it.

    Later in history, Alger Hiss was exposed as a Soviet spy.  He was convicted of perjury and imprisoned for lying under oath about his Communist activities.  

    At that moment, realizing the communist foundation of the United Nations, and how it was actually a tool for the communists to edge towards global dominance, the U.S. should have pulled out of the organization, taking its military might and money with her.

    The communists knew that the United States was their primary obstacle, so the infiltration continued.  After Hiss we experienced the rise of John Foster Dulles, the Marxist revolutionary who was Eisenhower's Secretary of State.  At the United Nations he proclaimed that the goal was global lawmaking, a global judicial system, and a global police force.

    The intent of the communists through the harmless-looking shadow of international cooperation was clear, but we remained a part of the diabolical organization.

    In September of 1961 the State Department released Publication 7277, "Freedom From War," which established a U.S. policy under the Kennedy Administration that practically hands our System of Liberty over to the communists.  "The disbanding of all national armed forces and the prohibition of their reestablishment in any form whatsoever other than those required to preserve internal order. . ."

    Once disarmed, invasion will be easier.

    Conservatives, libertarians, and other informed Americans have been fearfully expecting the blue helmets of the United Nations to invade our streets, and force America into the globalist world government community.  The Democrats have actually asked for such a thing.  Under Obama, the census became a preparation for such a thing when they began hitting doorways with GPS markers.  Recently, a Chicago Democrat has called for the United Nations to march on Chicago to help with the fact that the city is a war zone, after generations under Democrat Party control.

    The goal is to leave the United States completely defenseless, with no military, and no ability to stop the onward march of communism.  Then, the goal is to dictate the communist will over American Society as the final remnants of our society under the United States Constitution rises into the air as a burning ash, to be forgotten, and replaced by a collective society guided by elite political rulers.

    As in all communist takeovers, all dissidents will be eliminated.  Defenders of the United States Constitution would be hunted down and imprisoned, or exterminated.  The United Nations would become the only super power, invincible, as the shining light on the hill is extinguished.

    The United Nations was conceived by Communists, founded by Communists and run by Communists for Communist purposes - with the intent of complete Communist subjugation of the United States.

    A report in 2012 by the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights established to review forced disappearances in Communist Cuba proclaimed “The rights to life, liberty and security of person have always been mainstays of the Cuban Revolution, its authorities and society at large, even though Cuba has had to face over 50 years of aggression, terrorism and a harsh economic, commercial and financial embargo imposed by the Government of the United States of America. There have been no cases of enforced disappearance in Cuba since the revolutionary triumph of 1959.”

    The report went on to state, “the concept of holding a detainee or prisoner incommunicado is alien to criminal and procedural practice in Cuba.”

    Do you believe those statements to be true?

    Of course the United Nations gave Cuba a favorable stamp of approval.  Alger Hiss is not the only communist to run the U.N.  Beginning with Hiss, according to Constitution dot com, here's a list of who's been in charge of the United Nations:

    ▪ Alger Hiss – American Communist served as acting Secretary-General in 1945
    ▪ Trygve Lie (1946-1952) – Leader of Norway’s Social Democratic Labor Party, a known offshoot of the Communist International
    ▪ Dag Hammarskjold (1953-1961) – Swede who claimed that Communist China mass murderer Chou En-lai was his hero
    ▪ U Thant (1961-1971) – This leader from Burma expressed admiration for Vladimir Lenin and approved of his goals because they were “in line with the aims of the UN Charter.”
    ▪ Kurt Waldheim (1972-1981) – This Austrian served as an officer in the Nazi army during World War II. He also engineered the campaign to oust the Republic of China on Taiwan from the UN in favor of Communist China.
    ▪ Javier Perez de Cuellar (1982-1991) – The Marxist from Peru set as his major goal the redistribution of wealth.
    ▪ Boutros Boutros-Ghali (1991-1996) – This Egyptian served just one five-year term, but was best known for his open call to end the “absolute and exclusive sovereignty” of individual nations.
    ▪ Kofi Annan (1997-2006) – The man from Ghana turned out to be very slick but an even more aggressive enemy of national sovereignty.
    ▪ Ban Ki-moon (2007-2016) – This South Korean pushed for measures ties to the highly fraudulent climate change claims, including advancing many of the goals listed in Agenda 21 and Agenda 2030.
    ▪ On January 1, 2017, the United Nations appointed Portugal’s Antonio Guterres as the new Secretary-General. he served as president of the Socialist International (SI), which named Karl Marx their organization’s Honorary Secretary in 1864, from 1999 until 2005. “The ultimate objective of the parties of the Socialist International is nothing less than world government.”  After leaving SI in 2005, Guterres became the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. According to Alex Newman, Guterres, along with his staff, brought a “tidal wave of Islamic immigration into the West.”  Seeing that the UN is an anti-American and anti-Christian organization, we can count on Mr. Guterres to continue his advancement of Islamic immigration into the West to diminish the influence of Christianity and destroy Western culture and society, thus making it ripe for the tyranny the UN wishes to impose.

    The United States has been the largest funding source of the United Nations, paying for programs that don't work and don't account to anything other than the intended defeat of the American System.  Ambassador Nicki Haley, the current U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations under the Trump administration has announced a $285 million cut to U.N. funding by the United States.  The move comes after more than 120 nations criticized the United States for its decision to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.

    “The inefficiency and overspending of the United Nations are well known. We will no longer let the generosity of the American people be taken advantage of or remain unchecked,” Haley said. “This historic reduction in spending—in addition to many other moves toward a more efficient and accountable U.N.—is a big step in the right direction.”

    Haley said there might be further budget cuts in the future. President Trump's proposed 2018 spending budget would end funding for U.N. climate change programs and would cut funding to the United Nations Children’s Fund, also known as UNICEF, by 16 percent.  

    In reference to the man-made climate change hoax, recently the Trump administration chose to reverse course from Obama's policies, eliminating climate change from a list of national security threats

    “Climate policies will continue to shape the global energy system,” a draft of the National Security Strategy said. “U.S. leadership is indispensable to countering an anti-growth, energy agenda that is detrimental to U.S. economic and energy security interests. Given future global energy demand, much of the developing world will require fossil fuels, as well as other forms of energy, to power their economies and lift their people out of poverty.”

    President Obama made climate change, and the burdensome regulations that accompany its focus, a primary focus of his administration, including it in his National Security Strategy released in 2015. “[W]e are working toward an ambitious new global climate change agreement to shape standards for prevention, preparedness, and response over the next decade,” that report said.

    Obama likened the man-made climate change to terrorism in a speech at climate talks in Paris in 2015.  During a weekly address, Obama later said “Today, there is no greater threat to our planet than climate change.”

    In September 2016, President Obama released a memorandum requiring federal agencies to consider the effects of climate change in the development of national security-related doctrine, policies, and plans.

    President Trump has decided to reverse direction.  In reference to the United Nations' body disapproving of his decision to strip funding from the United Nations, he Tweeted: "Let them vote against us, we'll save a lot."
    1:38 PM - Dec 20, 2017

    Trump discussed cutting U.S. contributions to the U.N. during his presidential campaign, along with recognizing Jerusalem as Israel's capital, so none of this is a surprise.  Unlike his predecessors, Trump is constantly working to live up to his campaign promises.

    All 193 members of the United Nations are required to make payments as a part of their membership, but the amount each country must pay differs and is calculated by a formula that factors in population and gross national income. The U.S. currently funds about 22 percent of the U.N.’s $5.4 billion annual budget.

    Members may also make voluntary contributions, and programs like UNICEF and the World Food Programme are funded entirely by this discretionary funding.

    “The United States will remember this day in which it was singled out in this assembly for the very act of exercising our right as a sovereign nation,” said Haley ahead of the vote. “We will remember it when, once again, we are called up to make the world’s largest contribution to the U.N., and we will remember it when many countries come calling on us to pay even more and to use our influence for their benefit.”

    Think about this for a moment.  A majority of the countries in the U.N. say they disagree with us, have been working to undermine us, and collude with or are fully a part of communism . . . but they have no problem demanding that we pay for what they do.

    Communism and globalism is a parasite, and like a friend of mine said recently, parasites keep up what they do until they kill the host ... and then, they don't even know the host is dead until it is gone.

    Or, as Margaret Thatcher said, "The trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money."

    The next step needs to be full U.S. withdrawal from the United Nations.

    -- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

    Tuesday, December 26, 2017

    Divide and Conquer

    By Douglas V. Gibbs
    Author, Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host
    The evidence constantly reveals that liberal left policies are failed policies.  States with the strictest gun laws also have the highest murder rates, and violent crime rates.  Anyone who has any knowledge about economics could not possibly continue to be a liberal leftist. . . unless they have something diabolical up their sleeve. California has been under the control of the Democrat Party for decades, and currently has a super-majority in Sacramento.  They continue to claim theirs is the right path, even though the result of their control has been to leave California as the second worst State in the United States in the terms of economic freedom.  Governor Jerry Brown was even willing to admit that a drastic raise of the minimum wage in California is bad economics, but he signed it because it's fair (in his Marxist everyone-must-be-equal-no-matter-what mind).  The exodus of companies from California has been at an incredible rate because it is becoming more and more difficult to do business in the Golden State, and the middle class is beginning to follow suit in a big way (as the cost of living also becomes unbearable).

    Failure follows the Democrats everywhere they grab control, and when things go good for Americans, it makes it difficult for them to get back in control.  So, they double down on their normal divide and conquer tactics.  Division is what they use to get what they want.  Anything that is good for American Society cannot be tolerated, so anything that is beneficial is shot down, rejected, and fought against.

    The family unit is a primary contributor to a successful civilization.  A man who is married and has a family to take care of is more productive, and stable.  In the black community, for example, two-parent black families are rarely poor. Only 8% of black married-couple families live in poverty. Among black families in which both the husband and wife work full time, the poverty rate is under 5%. Poverty in black families headed by single women is 37%.

    Nonetheless, the Democrats have waged war against the traditional family unit, and marriage.  Feminism has done all it can to destroy what they consider to be a male-dominated patriarchy. . . yet after all of these years of feminism and the gay agenda chipping away at the family unit and traditional marriage, Americans still recognize that it is better for both women and men, and ultimately better for society, when women marry men and create a traditional family unit with children and traditional roles.

    That's no good for the Democrats.  They need division, they need women hating men, men hating women, and homosexuals doing all they can to sabotage the traditional institution of marriage.

    Interestingly enough, marriage also hurts the Democrats at the voting booth, since married women and men tend to vote Republican, and unmarried people lopsidedly vote Democrat.  It's amazing how a good dose of responsibility and personal lessons in economics straightens out a voter.

    Divide and conquer by the Democrats is especially noticeable when it comes to race relations.  Like any good Marxists, they have done all they can to convince Americans that liberty creates racial division.  As a result, non-white voters have largely bought into the propaganda of the liberal left, and vote Democrat.  The Democrats know that the more they can convince any voter that America is a racist society, the better chance they have that the person will vote Democrat.  Why?  Ever since the Democrats realized that supporting slavery and racism was not in their favor, they have done all they can to label the GOP as the party of rich white people.

    To push their narrative, they are even willing to blow on the embers of violence, and encourage riots in the name of alleged police brutality (which statistically does not exist in the manner it is being presented).

    In short, non-whites are being convinced to think negatively about the United States in the sense of its founding, and culture of liberty.  The narrative helps stoke the fires of racism, alleged racial division tied to slavery (of which the Democrats were actually the supporters of, and it took the Republicans to end it), and convince any Latinos who enter the United States that he or she should not assimilate into American society, or vote Republican.

    Interestingly enough, in my corner of the world, every Latino I know who went through the immigration process legally, and has assimilated into American Society as a productive member of the community, votes Republican. 

    The division created by Democrats is nurtured by calling the GOP racists, xenophobes, and anything else they can muster up.  Meanwhile, Democrats claim multiculturalism, of which has been proven to be a failure and devastating to Europe.

    In the world of the Democrats, the groups targeted as protected are "victims."  Everything is unfair, racist, misogynistic, and only the Democrats can make it better for the victims ... creating a situation where anyone who sees themselves as victims tend to vote Democrat because they believe the propaganda.

    In short, when Americans embrace family and community, they vote Republican.  When Americans are divided and hate or fear or are offended by anyone who they think disagrees with them then they lurch towards the Democrats, and the liberal left's policies of forced equity and homogeneous community through government mandate ... as well as the elimination of anyone who dares disagree.

    Divide and conquer.  Be a forced member of the collective, and deny your individualism ... even if it kills liberty and society as we know it.  That is the Democrat Party way.

    -- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary