Wednesday, January 29, 2020

Oregon Trying to Follow Virginia to the Dark Side

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

California is in shambles.  The politically dark blue legislature has done more damage to California's state of freedom and economic health than the lefties were able to accomplish in Detroit.  California is on the way to becoming a U.S. version of Venezuela; a failed, dreary socialist dystopia drowning in its own filth and unsustainable promises.

The State of Virginia, recently, thanks to democracy (certain components of being a republic have been taken away, which has enabled this madness ... I'll explain later in the article what I mean by that) went full on Democrat Majority, and among the most egregious laws the commies of the party of the donkey have put into place have been nasty gun control laws that are ready to move into full on gun confiscation mode.

The people of the largely rural and conservative State (save for Norfolk, Richmond, Arlington, and a few other populated areas) responded by telling the Governor and his Democrat Party henchmen that they refuse to comply with the totalitarian gun laws.  The Democrats have responded by promising to slam their laws down everyone's throats with an iron fist, largely through the governor's mishandling of the National Guard.

The State of Oregon, largely thanks to the hard-left voters in the Portland area, has offered a number of draconian gun laws as well, but so far the largely rural State has not chased the worst of them.  However, many of the other laws that echo the madness of California's dark-side have worked their way through the hoops and hurdles of the legislative process to become law.

Based on the man-made climate change hoax, for example, Oregon has essentially outlawed plastic straws, and gone from the flimsy plastic grocery bags to the thicker reusable ones that nobody reuses.

Once you study what is going on, however, the foundation of the problem is not so much with the liberal left as much as it is with the unconstitutional idea of our States operating as pure democracies, which makes both sides guilty of causing our problem.

The Framers of the U.S. Constitution, with 20/20 hindsight into history, determined that while some democratic processes in our American system of government were necessary, and even a good thing, our system must not be a pure democracy.  When it came to the will of the people, just like other parts of government, a system of checks and balances needed to be in place.  Our republic was formed to ensure that there was a proper distribution of power between We the People, the States, and the savvy political class.  No group was to have full power.  The power was intended to be shared, with each group serving as a check against too much ambition by any of the other groups.

Article IV., Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution states that "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government."

What does that mean?

Obviously, they did not mean in that sentence a government run by "Republicans", in the political party sense.  What they meant was that the States must be republics, not democracies, oligarchies, theocracies, or any other non-republican form of government.

When I tell you that we are not supposed to be a democracy, that does not mean you are not supposed to have the privilege to vote, or that We the People are supposed to be silenced in the American experiment.  It means that certain parts of the government should be voted in by the people, and others should be appointed by certain other parts of the system that serve as a constituency no different than We the People do.

In our system of government, at both the federal and State levels, we have dual constituencies, with We the People existing as only one part of the overall whole.  At the Constitutional Convention, for example, it was not just We the People that the delegates in that convention represented, but they were also representatives of the States, and the overall interests of the States.  This is why originally the only part of the federal government that was democratically voted into office were the members of the House of Representatives.  The President was elected by Electors who were appointed by the State legislatures, and guided by the lobbying efforts of We the People; and the Senators were appointed by the State legislatures.  The House was the voice of the people in the federal legislative process, and the U.S. Senate was the voice of the States.  Since the representatives of each House of Congress received their seats through a different process by a different constituency, it made the two houses of the bicameral congress different from each other, viewing each issue from a different angle; a healthy way to operate in a republic.  While democracy was used to elect the members of the House of Representatives, the whole body (including the U.S. Senate), was created through a republican method, rather than pure democracy.

Like the Senators at the federal level, the Senators at the State level were also appointed by a different part of the constituency than We the People.  However, at the State level, the second half of the dual constituency was the counties.

The State Senate districts were the county lines, with one Senator per county, regardless of population (as with the U.S. Senate where it is two Senators per State, regardless of population).  However, that was semi-permanently changed by the federal courts (an unconstitutional action in itself) in 1964 when the Warren Court ruled in Reynolds v. Sims that Alabama, and therefore all of the other States, could no longer have the counties appoint State Senators because, in the opinion of the court, the method established by the Founding Fathers is undemocratic.

The court violated Article IV., Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution.  It does not say that the United States shall guarantee to each State a democratic form of government.  It calls for the federal government to guarantee a republican form of government, which must include the counties appointing the State Senators, rather than them being voted in democratically by gerrymandered districts that have rural senate districts consisting of multiple counties, and Los Angeles County being the home of more than a dozen state senatorial districts.

The Founding Fathers understood that tyranny always rises out of population centers, so they did all they could to ensure the rural voice had a little help against the totalitarian march of mob-rule, a.k.a. democracy.  Thomas Jefferson even suggested that the United States should do what it could to be a largely agrarian society, so that large cities did not overpopulate the landscape, and threaten to steal liberty with their communitarian ideas.

Which brings us back to California, Oregon and Virginia.  Because of democracy these largely rural and conservative States are being manhandled by the hard-left socialist oligarchs and uniformed voters of their large cities.  Because of pure democracy these States have become leftist dystopias where the socialists of the population centers dictate to the rest of the State what they can or can't do, with those policies largely standing against the interests of the rural areas, and completely slamming liberty for all in the face with a socialist iron fist.

If we wish to take back our country, and get it back on track with the U.S. Constitution, then, our primary fight must be to return our system back to a republican form of government, and stamp out pure democracy.  That means repealing the 17th Amendment (which would return appointment of the U.S. Senators to the legislative bodies of the States), and overturning Reynolds v. Sims, which would return the method of seating the State Senators back to appointment by the counties.

Instantly, democracy would be on the run, and socialism would be defeated.

Otherwise, the disease that has spread to Oregon and Virginia from hard-left California will continue, and America will continue its slow, goose-step march towards socialism, oligarchy, and ultimately the demise of liberty.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Saturday, January 25, 2020

The State of Virginia's Guns

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

The Democrats desperately want you to believe that gun-owning, gun-toting conservatives are dangerous, violent, and only want their gun rights protected because they are racists who wish to kill anyone who doesn’t agree with them.  In 2009 a smattering of lefty commentators and politicians portrayed the Tea Party rallies as gatherings of violent protestors driven by racist rage against President Barack Obama.

It didn’t work.

Now, the same tactics are in play in Virginia.  The mainstream media’s coverage of pro-Second Amendment protests that took place in Richmond, Virginia reminded me of their coverage of the Tea Party protests and rallies.

The Virginia rally was a response to the gun control policies of Governor Ralph Northam and Virginia’s lately bright blue legislature.  Northam, participating in the hysteria, called for a “state of emergency” in response to the protest, and numerous media outlets predicted it would be marked by “hate” and violence, and overall would be a menacing and sordid affair.

But, no violence took place, and it appears that only one person was arrested for violating an anti-mask prohibition put in place by the governor.  There were no lawbreakers, no white supremacists, and the grounds were cleaned up by the rally-goers, leaving the site cleaner than before they had arrived.

Pretty impressive, given that the crowd reached an estimated size of over 20,000 on a very cold day.

The media spent days calling it a white supremacist rally, since three white supremacists, one of whom is an illegal alien from Canada, threatened to crash the party.  The media predicted violence at the rally because, you know, how could there not be with all of those dangerous guns all over the place.  Yet, the media was quick not to report that the rally was peaceful, and that the white supremacists were nowhere to be seen.

Good going, Virginia, you once again showed the liberal left the class and level of responsibility gun owners are really all about.

On a side note, thanks to the leftist attack on Virginia, I predict in 2020 the State will not only vote for Trump, but will swing their legislature way back over to the Republican column.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Constitution Radio: It is all coming crashing down for the Democrats

Constitution Radio      
with Douglas V. Gibbs 

Get the phone app ... make your smart phone smarter!

1-3 pm Pacific Time on Saturday Afternoon ... or if you miss the show, listen later to the archived podcast at 

Call in at

  • The Democrat Party's 7 Impeachment Managers
    • Schiff was discussing "How to take out Trump" with CIA analyst merely two weeks after Trump took office
    • ABC/WAPO: Trump at highest job approval rating amid Democrat's Impeachment Trial
    • Four Possible Endings to the Senate's Impeachment Trial
  • The radicalization of the Democrat Party
  • How the Virginia Gun Rally REALLY Went
  • California Primary Rigged to be a Disaster

Thursday, January 23, 2020

Wednesday, January 22, 2020

Tuesday, January 21, 2020

Constitution Study TV: War Powers

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

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Doug joins Next News Network to discuss Trump Impeachment

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

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Corona Constitution class, Article 5, amendments and convention

Join us tonight in Corona at Carstar All-Star Collision at 522 Main Street in Corona California. The class begins at 6 p.m. in the upper class room. Our topic tonight is Article 5, amendments and conventions.

Corona Constitution Class
Tuesdays, 6:00 pm
522 Railroad Street
Corona, 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:
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
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

Impeachment Trial 2020: Elements of Due Process

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

The impeachment of Donald J. Trump, when it comes to evidence and due process, reminds me of a scene from the Old West.  "Yes, Sir, there is no evidence that you stole any horses, but we intend to prosecute you for resisting being hung for it."

Our country's founding was based on the idea of judicial fairness, and the self-evident truth that everyone is innocent until proven guilty.

In order to ensure that we have a fair justice system, in the early courts, and the 6th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the concept of due process was instilled.  From the Framers' point of view, the essential elements of due process of law are notice, an opportunity to be heard, the right to defend in an orderly proceed, and an impartial judge.  It is founded upon the basic principle that every man shall have his day in court, and the benefit of the general law which proceeds only upon notice and which hears and considers before judgment is rendered.  In short, due process means fundamental fairness and substantial justice.

As the centuries have passed, through judicial experience, the elements have evolved into five essential elements recognized as the sine qua non of “due process.”

Equality. The system must not discriminate procedurally between parties.  In the 6th Amendment, for example, it states that the accused has a right to have the assistance of counsel for defense.  This means that if one party is entitled to counsel, then all are entitled.  The call for Equality means that there must be a “level playing field" for all who are involved, including the disputants.  Discrimination in appearance or fact is objectionable to the Equality required to satisfy due process.

Economy. The cost of access to justice must not be a barrier, either in use, or operation, within the system.  Having one's day in court must not be difficult to obtain by any of the parties.

Expedition. “Justice delayed is frequently justice denied.”  The obligation of the system is to ensure that the proceedings are expeditious.  This does not mean that shortcuts should be made, impairing the opportunity for an orderly procedure with adequate time to ensure notice, time to prepare, opportunity to identify and gather witnesses, and otherwise develop facts and arguments. It does, however, discourage dilatory tactics, unreasonable extension of time, and protraction of hearings.

Evidence. The system must be designed to elicit evidence, not assumptions; proof, not presumptions. While strict rules of evidence in the judicial sense may not apply to an impeachment hearing, the evidence admitted still needs to be relevant, and there must be an understanding that mere speculation and hearsay designed to prejudice rather than inform should not be acceptable.

Equity. The system must produce decisions that reflect a sense and substance of “rightness” and “reasonableness.”

This whole impeachment has been anything but a shining case of what judicial fairness, and due process, is all about.

During the House of Representatives impeachment inquiry, the Trump team was denied the opportunity to be heard, shut out of each session and meeting, and disallowed to present its own witnesses.  Therefore, there was no orderly proceed, and with liar Adam Schiff at the helm, the proceed did not enjoy the right to an impartial judge.

There has been no equality in the case.  The impeachment has been tilted heavily in the favor of the Democrats so that they may discriminate procedurally against the President, disallowing the President, during the House of Representatives phase of the process, the right to any counsel for defense.  The Democrats have not provided a “level playing field".

In the 6th Amendment it indicates the right to a speedy trial.  “Justice delayed is frequently justice denied.”  The Democrats drew out the procedure in the House, and regarding the transmission of the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate specifically for the purpose of allowing them the time to manipulate and carefully play the system with their dilatory tactics, unreasonable extension of time, and protraction of hearings.

There is no evidence.  Instead, what the Democrats have offered has been presumptions based on a twisting of circumstantial evidence.  The whole impeachment proceeding has been based on speculation and hearsay based on presumptuous conversations in the dark corner of bars and conference rooms, designed to prejudice rather than inform.

In the end, however, with the Republican Senate now at the helm, I do believe we will reach Equity. Constitutionally, the House has no influence regarding the Senatorial proceedings.  They can object all they want, but ultimately, now the rules and procedures are the call of GOP leaders in the Senate, and there's nothing more the Democrats can do to poison the procedures.

The timeline set forth by Senator McConnell is quick, and calls for a vote before the start of the Primary Season.  In short, the whole thing is about to blow up in the face of the Democrats, and they know it, which is why they keep complaining about how the Senate is handling the hearing.

The Democrats still remain smug, however.  The polls, after all, are showing that most Americans favor the impeachment of President Donald J. Trump.  You know, polls by the same pollsters who predicted Hillary Clinton would win in 2016 by a landslide.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Monday, January 20, 2020

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Birthday/Holiday

By Douglas V. Gibbs
AuthorSpeakerInstructorRadio Host

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. did not march so that Black Nationalists (under the misleading name "Black Lives Matter") could demand black power and further divide this country along racial lines.

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. did not march so that blacks in America could vote Barack Obama into office because of the color of his skin, rather than the content of his character.

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. did not march so that blacks in America could lead the country in abortions to the point where more black babies are aborted in New York City than born live, each year.

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. did not march so that the black community could go on welfare and throw dad out of the house for the promise of increased government benefits, leading the black community to suffer in poverty as a result of abandoning the traditional family unit (poverty rate for single mother households in the black community is 37%, for households with both parents 8%, for households where both parents work 5%).

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. did not march so that under liberal policies that are legalizing drugs (i.e. marijuana) blacks could get high.

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. did march for the hope that people would be judged individually; not based on the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.  He marched so that Americans could come together and work together against the leftist forces determined to tear down the American System of liberty and free association.  He marched because he believed, "We have an opportunity to make America a better nation…to make America what it ought to be."  He marched so that all Americans would realize that we all have a God-given right to live our lives free from the oppression of tyranny.

Today is Martin Luther King, Jr.'s birthday.  He fought for the individual liberty of all American citizens because Dr. King believed that all lives matter, and all lives should have the opportunity to enjoy the liberty available in America ... if only one were willing to pursue it.

He understood that without God, we are not capable of freedom, that without God we live under the rule of man rather than the rule of law, and that without God the liberty and prosperity we so desperately seek is but an illusion.

"Only a virtuous society is capable of freedom."  -- Benjamin Franklin

-- Political Pistachio' Conservative News and Commentary

Saturday, January 18, 2020

Constitution Radio: The Failure Shuffle

Constitution Radio      
with Douglas V. Gibbs 

Get the phone app ... make your smart phone smarter!

1-3 pm Pacific Time on Saturday Afternoon ... or if you miss the show, listen later to the archived podcast at 

Last Saturday we had two callers, one from Canyon Lake, California, and one from South Central Los Angeles.  We want to hear from you during this next episode.  Call in at

  • Second Amendment Showdown in Virginia
  • U.K.'s Boris Johnson Wants U.S. Trade Deal Before Negotiating with E.U.
  • Investigations: Rep. Ilhan Omar and James Comey
  • Ninth Circuit Denies "Climate Teens" Who Sued Trump Over Climate Change
  • Trump's popularity rises after delivery of Impeachment Articles
  • Republicans Amash and Romney losing donor money over Anti-Trump Stance
  • Iranian Regime Facing Increasing Internal Protests
  • Unemployment Rate Under Trump Lower than before, some rates at historic lows, as Trump states more tax cuts on the way
  • Pelosi: Trump is impeached forever
  • Warren to Bernie: You called me a liar on National TV

Thursday, January 16, 2020

Why Elizabeth Warren is Calling Bernie Sanders a Sexist

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

I didn't have to watch the final Democrat Party Debate to determine it was going to be a joke.  As expected, the Democrats, desperate for a champion who can beat Trump, are attacking each other.  At one point, during a sort-of off-mic moment, Elizabeth Warren approached Bernie Sanders and accused him of calling her a liar.

Warren: I think you called me a liar on National TV.
Sanders: What?
Warren: I think you called me a liar on National TV.
Sanders: Let's not do it right now.  You want to have that discussion, we'll have that discussion. 
Warren: Anytime.
Sanders: You called me a liar, you told me -- Alright, let's not do it now. 
Where did that come from?

To fully understand, we have to go back a little bit in time.  Earlier, before the debate, Warren, on CNN said that Bernie told her that he did not believe a woman could win.
Bernie denied the charge, saying, "It is ludicrous to believe that at the same meeting where Elizabeth Warren told me she was going to run for president, I would tell her that a woman couldn't win," Sanders said. "It's sad that, three weeks before the Iowa caucus and a year after that private conversation, staff who weren't in the room are lying about what happened. What I did say that night was that Donald Trump is a sexist, a racist and a liar who would weaponize whatever he could. Do I believe a woman can win in 2020? Of course! After all, Hillary Clinton beat Donald Trump by 3 million votes in 2016."
In 2016, Bernie Sanders was the radical, but because he might pose a danger, the chosen one (Hillary Clinton), and the Democrat Party establishment, used a rigged primary to make sure the self-proclaimed socialist could not beat Hillary Clinton for the nod.  This time, Bernie is surrounded by radicals, and so there is nothing political that can be used to separate him from the rest of the pack.  And, as this election season progresses, Bernie may actually have a shot at securing the nomination.  This concerns the establishment, and his opponents ... chiefly, Elizabeth Warren.  So, the knives are out.

A question regarding the sexism allegation then emerged during the debate:
Abby Phillip: CNN reported yesterday that, and Senator Sanders, uh, Senator Warren confirmed in a statement, that in 2018 you told her that you do not believe that a woman could win the election.  Why did you say that?
Bernie Sanders (Grinning): Well, as a matter of fact, I didn't say it.  Uh, and I don't wanna waste a lot of time on this, because this is what Donald Trump, and maybe some of the media, wants.  Anybody who knows me know that it is incomprehensible that I would think that a woman could not be President of the United States...Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by 3 million votes.  How could anybody in a million years not believe a woman could become President of the United States?  
Abby Phillip: So, Senator Sanders, Senator Sanders, I do want to be clear here.  You're saying that you never told Senator Warren that a woman could not win the election.
Bernie Sanders: That is correct.
Abby Phillip: Senator Warren?  What did you think when Senator Sanders told you a woman could not win the election?
Elizabeth Warren: I disagreed.  But, this question about whether or not a woman can become President has been raised, and it is time to attack it head on.  Um, and I think the best way to talk about who can win is by looking at peoples' winning record.  So, can a woman beat Donald Trump?  Look at the men on this stage.  Collectively they have lost ten elections.  The only people on this stage who have won every single election that they've been in are the women.
The crowd roared.

Is this really about if women can win the election, or is it about the fact that Bernie is no longer a stand-out?  The Democrat Party has joined Bernie on the far left socialist fringe, and only Joe Biden remains as a voice of what was once a more moderate mainstream agenda of the Democrat Party (or, at least that's what they wanted you to see, back then).

The Democrat Party now regards Bernie Sanders as a clear and present danger, even though the base of the party has chased him over to the far left fringe.  Like in 2016, the ruling establishment has decided that Bernie must not be the candidate.  Elizabeth Warren agrees, and her campaign is not pulling forward as she'd hoped.  So, to boost her numbers, her knives are out for Bernie, as well.

The base of the Democrat Party wants radical change, so Biden won't do, and Bernie (like Biden) is an old white guy who may have help jump-start the radical direction the Democrat Party is going, but he's a part of the old guard that is seen as being antiquated and not hip enough for the new socialist revolution.

Besides, even if Bernie had said what Warren claims he said, would it have been a sexist statement by a sexist, or was it an honest observation about the reality of the state of elections in America at this point in history?  As Mark Steyn pointed out on Tucker Carlson Tonight, "If I say to some gay guy I don't think Iran's ready to elect a gay president, it doesn't mean I'm homophobic, it's just an assessment of the state of the race, as it were."

So, what, then, is this all really about?  I think it is that the Democrat Party desperately wishes to beat Donald Trump, and they are fast realizing that they may not have that candidate; and if they do, it's not Bernie Sanders.

Following Mark Steyn's comments as a guest on Tucker Carlson's Fox News program, the truth was ferociously illuminated by guest Ian Samuel, a progressive, leftwing, former Supreme Court Clerk who self-proclaims himself as being an American Socialist.
Tucker Carlson: Is this working?  Elizabeth Warren is basically leveling an identity politics attack against her chief rival on the left, Bernie Sanders.  Is it effective?
Ian Samuel: No, it's not.  And, the reason they're doing it is because there's nothing else they can do...This was very predictable.  About a week or two ago you started to see this sort of coordinated release of analysis and articles and things like that saying, 'Hey, has anybody noticed that Bernie Sanders might actually be in an incredible position to win this primary?'  The same sort of pundits on CNN, The New York Times, people like this, who would basically ignore his candidacy for a long time, suddenly realized, 'Wait, this guy's not a joke.  He has the most money.  He's first, or close to first, in all the early States.  He's got real strength in the Super Tuesday States.  Is it possible he might actually win?'  And, there was about a week of that, and they were all feeling like, 'mm-hmm,' now they get it.  Of course the thing that was going to come next was, 'What are we going to do about it?'  And, there's not time to out-organize him, there's not time to out-fundraise him, and there's certainly not time to explain to people why his agenda, which is very popular among voters, is not something to believe in.  So, what do you reach for?  The last refuge of scoundrels.  You lie, and call him a sexist.  And, I have to believe that even the Elizabeth Warren campaign knew that this was going to be tough for people to believe.  Bernie Sanders in 1988, as a surrogate, by the way, for Jesse Jackson, right, in his presidential campaign...said, he thought a woman could be elected President.  It's a tough argument to make.  But, what else are you going to do?"
Tucker Carlson: Well, I don't know.  You could critique his policies, which are radical, and I think deserve a debate.  And, one of the things that enrages me is that the rest of us are bereft to that debate.  We would be enriched by it.  We'd be terrified by it, we might learn something, that's the whole point of this whole stupid process is to inform us, and all we're hearing is sexism, racism.  It's like, childish."
Ian Samuel: Yes, it is, but here's the problem; they tried that.  So, what, err, where did things go wrong for the Elizabeth Warren campaign?  Easy.  They had a good Summer.  Really good Summer.  I was actually a little afraid of they had such a good Summer.  And then, they got into the details of the debate.  Healthcare policy.  Medicare for all.  How are going to pay for it?
 Tucker Carlson: She had not thought it through.
Ian Samuel: She had not thought it through.  And, she thought she could sort of pull a trick.  We are going to be able to do this without raising taxes.  We're going to be able to do this in year three.  And, then we'll have a sort of option at the beginning.  And she tried to pull a fast one.  And, they lost that argument, decisively.  So badly that it tanked their campaign, all the way from the heights that I thought they were going to just roll all the way to the nomination, down to where they are, which is third or fourth place, and they started bleeding everything to Pete Buttigieg, of all people.  Talk about getting humiliated.  You're losing to the boy-mayor from South Bend.  So, they tried a policy argument.  The problem is, their arguments were bad.  And, they couldn't win that argument.  And, so, now they're looking around and thinking, 'Well, Hillary Clinton didn't have good policy arguments, either, but, she had this.  Why don't we try that.'  And, it's just not going to work.
I have always argued that the Democrats fail when they try to argue in the arena of ideas and policy.  You know it's real bad when they fail even when they try to argue against each other.  In the end, what's going on tells us in a very loud and clear voice one thing.  They have nobody capable of beating Donald J. Trump in 2020, and the desperation has them turning on each other.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Tuesday, January 14, 2020

Corona Constitution Class: Article IV, Concerning the States

Corona Constitution Class
Tuesdays, 6:00 pm
522 Railroad Street
Corona, CA

Constitution Class Handout
Instructor: Douglas V. Gibbs
Lesson 09
Concerning the States
            Full Faith and Credit
Article IV, Section 1 begins with The Full Faith and Credit Clause. The clause reads, "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof."
In simple, modern day language, under the Full Faith and Credit Clause judgments rendered in one State are acknowledged in others; when a U.S. citizen resolves an issue within one of the States that resolution must be recognized by all other States.
The Founding Fathers originally intended, with the Full Faith and Credit Clause, to protect the self-government autonomy of the States, while also promoting the union of the sovereign States as well. To do this, the Founding Fathers needed to make sure that judicial rulings in one State would be respected by all States, because otherwise there would be a substantial opportunity for abuse. Doing so affirmed the autonomy of the individual States, while also ensuring that the states remained unified.
Without the Full Faith and Credit Clause, something as simple as a marriage would not be recognized outside the State where the proceeding took place. If the married couple moved to another state, it would be necessary to marry all over again, otherwise they would still be considered unmarried. However, thanks to the Full Faith and Credit Clause, the State that serves as the new home of the transplanted married couple recognizes the marriage contract agreed upon in the State of origin.
The Full Faith and Credit Clause also protects against abusive litigation. If someone in one State sues someone and the court delivers a valid judgment in favor of the defendant, the person who filed the suit cannot file the same suit in another State against the same person. Under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, the outcome of the suit in the first State is recognized and considered to be the final judgment. Likewise, someone who is ruled against in litigation in a State cannot flee to another State to evade punishment, because the ruling in the first State's court is still valid in the new State.
As a result of the Full Faith and Credit Clause, professionals like doctors and lawyers only need to go to school once. As they move to new States, they can apply for reciprocity in certification so that they can practice in their new location. State privileges like drivers licenses also benefit from the Full Faith and Credit Clause, because when people move to different States, they can renew their driving licenses in the new State without having to go through drivers' education a second time, as long as the standards for licensure are similar between the two States.
            Privileges and Immunities
Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 gives the people of each state all the same privileges and immunities uniformly in each state. In other words, if a Texan moved to California, the Texan must be treated by California in no different manner than the State treats Californians. A State could not pass a law keeping Texans out of their state, but letting others in. This violates the Constitution. A State cannot play favoritism in such a manner for any reason. All persons must be treated uniformly in the eyes of the law. This is the clause the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause sought to broaden, in order to ensure that the former slaves would also be afforded the same protection, privileges, and immunities.
Article IV, Section 2, Clause 2 provides that "A person charged in any state with treason, felony, or other crime, who shall flee from justice, and be found in another state, shall on demand of the executive authority of the state from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the state having jurisdiction of the crime."
Fugitives that flee a State from justice to another State will be extradited on the demand of executive authority (governor) of the State from which the person fled from. The Constitution, in this clause, demands the extradition of fugitives who have committed "treason, felony or other crime," which means that it includes all acts prohibited by the laws of a State, including misdemeanors and small, or petty, offenses.
Since the word "shall" is used regarding the extradition order by the governor of the State, that means the extradition order will not be questioned. That also means the accused cannot defend himself against the charges in the extraditing State. The fugitive may only defend himself against the charges in the State receiving him.
The courts have determined that the accused may prevent extradition by offering clear evidence that he was not in the State he allegedly fled from at the time of the crime in the case, Hyatt v. People ex rel. Corkran (1903).
            Fugitive Slaves
Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3 is obsolete because of the abolition of slavery, as per the 13th Amendment. During the era the Constitution was written, slavery remained in place, and slaves were seen as property by the States in which slavery was legal. The Constitution, as a compromise to assure that southern States ratified the document, included Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3, as a compromise, which demanded that escaped slaves be returned to their owners in the south, even if that slave was in a northern State.
The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 supported this clause of the Constitution, hoping to ensure under penalty of law that the slaves were in fact returned should they turn up in the north. Northern States were refusing to return escaped slaves, and the federal government refused to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act and the Constitution, creating, in the minds of the Southern States, a constitutional crisis.
Nullification is often blamed for its part in the onset of the American Civil War. Those that argue that nullification was a part of bringing about the War Between the States will argue that the Southern States were guilty of nullifying perfectly reasonable federal laws. In reality, the Southern States did not nullify any federal law. It was the northern States that actively nullified federal law. They nullified The Fugitive Slave Act by ignoring the legislation, and refusing to abide by it. However, since The Fugitive Slave Act was constitutional, the nullification of the law by the northern States was unlawful, and unconstitutional. Threatened by the fact that the northern States were ignoring constitutional law, the federal government was refusing to enforce the law, and anti-slave candidate Abraham Lincoln had won the presidential election without even being on the ballot in the South, eleven southern States withdrew from the union in 1860.
            New States
Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1 gives Congress the authority to admit new States. If a new State is formed within the borders of an existing State, from a portion of an existing State, or by combining two States, then the State legislatures of all States affected must also get involved. This provision came into play is when West Virginia was formed from part of Virginia during the Civil War. The Virginia State legislature had to approve the formation of the new State of West Virginia before the new State could claim it was a separate sovereign State.
In California, there has been a number of recommendations for breaking up the large State, from a 2014 suggestion of forming six States from the former Golden State, to thirteen counties that threatened to secede in 2010 as suggested by a local politician. If any of these plans for new States out of the existing State of California had an opportunity to follow through with their threat, the approval process would still need to go through the existing California State Legislature. The loss of taxation, and representation in Congress, would probably convince the legislature to deny losing any portion of their State to the formation of a new State.
            Territories and Federal Property
Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 gives the Federal Government "power over the territory and property of the United States." Territories like Puerto Rico fall under this clause, treating the territories not as individual sovereign states, but as territories under the control of the U.S. Government. Territories still enjoy a certain amount of autonomy, but ultimately, their governance falls under the authorities granted to Congress. Washington DC also falls under this clause, which means that Congress has authority over the functions of the city. In reality, Washington DC was supposed to only be the seat of government, and was not supposed to contain any residencies. Many of the framers envisioned Washington DC as being a thriving commercial center.
            Border Security and Insurrection
Article IV, Section 4 reads, "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government," meaning that each State may have its own constitution, as well as a representative government based on the rule of law.
The second part of Article IV, Section 4 provides that the United States "shall protect each of them [the States] against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence."
The Federal Government, according to the final clause of Article IV, must protect each State from invasion, which, in line with the Necessary and Proper clause of Article I, Section 8, is a firm directive to the federal government to keep the national borders secure so as to protect the States from foreign invasion. If executive agencies fail to take the actions necessary to secure the border in order to protect the States from invasion, the militia can be called into service by either the Congress, or the governor of the State being invaded, in order to repel the invasion.
The Federal Government, in this clause, is also tasked with quelling domestic violence. This part of the clause refers to insurrection, and it is likely the writing of this clause was directly influenced by the occurrence of Shays' Rebellion in 1786.
Extradite: The surrender of a person charged with a crime by one state or country to another state or country.
Full Faith and Credit: In the context of the U.S. Constitution, Article IV, the phrase is defined as requiring all States in the U.S. to recognize and give effect to the legislation, public records, and judicial decisions of other States in the United States. Full Faith and Credit also means: An unconditional commitment to pay interest and principal in debt, usually issued or guaranteed by the U.S. Treasury or another government entity.
Nullification: State power to ignore unconstitutional federal law.
Questions for Discussion:
1. What kind of issues does the Full Faith and Credit Clause affect in today's American society?
2. How does the Full Faith and Credit Clause protect the autonomy of the State, while protecting their unity?
3. For what kind of crimes may a person be extradited for?
4. The northern States believed the Fugitive Slave Act to be a bad law, even though it was Constitutional, and believed that they had a right to nullify it because they perceived it to be immoral. The Federal Government failed to enforce it, possibly for the same reasons. How did this make the Southern States feel, and how did this action contribute to the secession of the Southern States?
5. The federal government is tasked with the duty of protecting the States against invasion. How does this affect the issue of illegal immigration?
Doris Kearns Goodwin, Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of
Abraham Lincoln; New York: Simon & Schuster Paperbacks (2005)
Hyatt v. People ex rel. Corkran, 188 U.S. 691 (1903) ("We are of opinion
that, as the relator showed...he was not within the state of Tennessee at the times stated in the indictments found in the Tennessee court, nor at any time when the acts were, if ever, committed, he was not a fugitive from justice within the meaning of the Federal statute upon that subject...")
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
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)
Thomas J. DiLorenzo, The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham
Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War; Roseville, California: Prima Publishing, a division of Random House (2002)
Copyright: Douglas V. Gibbs, 2015

Demand for Trump's Tax Returns

By Douglas V. Gibbs
AuthorSpeakerInstructorRadio Host

A letter to the editor said it best:

"America doesn't need to see the tax returns of a billionaire who became a public servant.  America needs to see the tax returns of public servants who became millionaires while being public servants." 

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Saturday, January 11, 2020

Constitution Radio: Trump's Constitutional Duties

Constitution Radio      
with Douglas V. Gibbs 

Get the phone app ... make your smart phone smarter!

1-3 pm Pacific Time on Saturday Afternoon ... or if you miss the show, listen later to the archived podcast at 

Last Saturday we had two callers, one from Canyon Lake, California, and one from South Central Los Angeles.  We want to hear from you during this next episode.  Call in at

  • Trump: "America Was Built By God-Worshiping, Freedom-Loving Patriots..."
  • New California Law: Massive Fines For Anyone Who Uses Too Much Water.
  • California A.B. 5: Dream-Killer Law Chokes State Economy.
    • After Church Shooting, Warren Proves She's No Friend Of Law-Abiding Gun Owners...
    • Bloomberg: "We Can't Just Let Average" Americans Have Guns...
  • Impeachment Next Week: Pelosi agrees to transmit impeachment articles to Senate, which is nothing more than a political witch hunt.  Aim?  To hurt President Trump politically.  They were screaming impeachment even before Trump's inauguration.  Trump's response?  Democrats are pushing impeachment because they know they can't win the next election.  Interestingly, while screaming impeaching Trump is necessary because he is a "clear and present danger", Pelosi then delayed transmission for over a month. However, she is now claiming she has the constitutional authority to negotiate with the Senate on how the hearing is held.
    • Does obstruction of Congress even exist in a system that possesses a Separation of Powers?  Does executive privilege exist?  Does not the President have the obligation to say "no" when Congress demands to intrude upon the executive branch in violation of a separation of powers?
    • Due process is supposed to be an integral part of this process (a la Amendments 5 and 6).
  • Iran Standoff: Chris Mathews compares Death of Iranian General Qassim Soleimani to Elvis and Princes Di, claiming the Iranian public loved him, and mourned his loss with demonstrations in the streets.
    • Washington Post: President Trump sought to blame Barack Obama for funding Iran's missile attach on two U.S. bases in Iraq, calling Trump's claim "misleading and far-fetched."
    • President is intent on going after the Iranian Republican Guard.  Could this lead to the end of a fifty year Islamic terrorist regime?  A Persian friend of mine thinks so.
  • House of Representatives' War Powers Resolution challenges President's role as Commander in Chief: House Democrats claim President cannot wage war without congressional approval.
    • Separation of powers.  For military matters it is not Congress that the President needs to consult, it is his National Security Team (Article II, Section 2).
    • If the President must beg for approval from Congress, or some kind of congressional committee, every time he needs to make a military decision, then why does the Constitution grant to the President the powers which accompany the title, "Commander in Chief"?
    • President Trump, while acting with strength against a dictatorship, has said he doesn't plan to put boots on the ground.  Isn't that what he ran on as a candidate?  Being tough, but not participating in endless wars?
    • Democrats blame downing of Ukrainian jet with Russian missiles by Iran on Trump's actions.