HOME_____BLOG _____BOOKS_____RADIO_____CLASSES_____VIDEO_____PUBLIC SPEAKER

Saturday, October 31, 2020

Halloween Trick-or-Treaters Avoid Houses of Trump Supporters


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

We expected the number of kids in the neighborhood going trick-or-treating to be lower than usual, but we never expected what happened on Halloween, 2020.

Our son, and his three kids, waited until it was dark before heading out to visit houses in our community.  Our grandson was dressed up as the Tall Man from the Phantasm movies.  The girls were Beetlejuice, and Coraline.

Each Halloween we usually have already had a couple dozen visitors during the twilight, but none had shown up.  Our first ghouls and goblins showed up about a half hour after it got dark.

I had my front door open, lights on, candy at easy access, and I was tapping on my laptop while I watched the Arkansas Razorbacks battle Texas A&M.

Over the next hour, or so, a bunch of trick-or-treaters walked along the sidewalk, paused at the bottom of my driveway, then continued on up the street.  Shortly after the expiration of that hour my son and his kids came in the house for a break (a lot more walking was needed since few houses had their porch lights on), and I asked Christopher about the phenomena I was experiencing.

"It's because you have Trump stickers on your truck," he said.  "We've been watching most of the parents steering their kids away from houses with Trump flags, signs, and stickers.  I've overheard a few talking about how they won't let their kids visit a Trump supporter's house."

Shortly after, my son took his kids out again to hit another part of the neighborhood.

Armed with this new knowledge, I paid closer attention.  The ratio was about 60-40, meaning that a little more than half of the families in my Southern California community avoided my house.  At one point teenage trick-or-treaters stopped at the bottom of my driveway, and I listened as carefully as I could.

One of them said, "Here's another racist house.  Let's go to the next one."

After the evening was over, and we turned off our porch light and the grandkids inspected their loot, my son said, "Yeah, it sucks, this is supposed to be for the kids."

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Constitution Radio: Pre-Election

 I was unable to be in attendance of the program with Halloween being my wife's birthday and all, so Alan and Dennis has the reins.

 Constitution Radio

with 

Douglas V. Gibbs, 



Saturdays, 1-3 pm Pacific

Call in Number: 951-922-3532.

Thursday, October 29, 2020

Biden Depravity Continues to be Revealed

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

☹ Biden Crime Family Whistleblower Tony Bobulinski Says He Was Questioned by FBI Agents For 5 Hours as a “Material Witness”
☹ Biden Center Received $22 MILLION in Donations From Unidentified Chinese Donor
☹ Report: Hunter Biden Has a PornHub Account Where He Uploaded His Personal Porn – Including with Family Member
☹ UPS Finds Mysteriously Lost Tucker Docs, Confirms Story After Twitter Blue Checks Mock Fox Host
☹ Newly Revealed Hunter Biden File Details Lurid, Abusive 2-Year Fling w/ Beau’s Widow
☹ Democrat Biden Supporters Burn Philadelphia Vietnamese Baptist Church to the Ground: ‘Total Loss’
☹ Liberal Legal Scholar Jonathan Turley: Hunter Biden Engaged in ‘Raw Influence-Peddling’ on Grand, Global Scale
☹ James Rosen: FBI ‘Money Laundering’ Investigation Into Hunter Biden Active
☹ JOE BIDEN’S BROTHER SENT BANK ‘WIRING INSTRUCTIONS’ TO ‘SPY CHIEF OF CHINA’ 
☹ Biden Promises He’ll Once Again End Due Process On Campus For Men
☹ Joe Biden’s Foundation Promoted Transgenderism For Children as Young as 18 Months
☹ Tucker Carlson’s Bombshell Interview With Whistleblower Tony Bobulinski About the Biden Crime Family
☹ Biden Warns Us About His Authoritarianism

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Wednesday, October 28, 2020

Explaining the Insurrection Act

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

The Insurrection Act, put in play in 1807 while the Founding Fathers were largely still around, during the Jefferson presidency was passed to replace the Calling Forth Act of 1792, and the Militia Act of 1795.  The Founders realized that the President had no constitutional authority to put forces on American soil into play on his own, so Congress made law to allow such.  Two years after the Calling Forth Act, the Whiskey Rebellion provided a situation, and example, showing the need for such an executive power to exist.  The Insurrection Act, along with the other two pieces of legislation, adds to Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution and Article I, Section 8.  In the former constitutional authority, with a request by the State, the federal government may deploy federal resources to quell insurrection within a State.  In the latter it takes Congress to call the state militia into the actual service of the U.S. Government.  Once called into the actual service of the United States, according to Article II. of the U.S. Constitution, the President then becomes Commander in Chief over the said militia.  The Insurrection Act allows the President in worst case scenarios to call forth forces himself, and place them in locations within a State without necessarily having the permission of the governor or state legislature, thanks to an amendment to the law in 1861, if the reason is "insurrection against the United States".  Historians call the Insurrection Act an exception to posse comitatus of 1878 which limits the federal government on its use of federal law enforcement agencies on domestic soil.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Tuesday, October 27, 2020

Monday, October 26, 2020

Amy Coney Barrett proves Trump's third appointment a charm

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

Today, by a 52-48 vote, the United States Senate confirmed Amy Coney Barrett as the latest justice to the U.S. Supreme Court, the third by President Donald J. Trump.

Studying her history, and her testimony during the confirmation process, Barrett is a constitutional originalist who not only tips the court-majority over to the side of the rule of law, but likely will keep us from spilling over the edge into socialism if the courts have anything to say about the liberal left's assault on American Liberty.

“Justice Barrett made clear she will issue rulings based solely upon a faithful reading of the law and the Constitution as written not legislate from the bench,” Trump said during a swearing in ceremony at the White House. "“The American people put their trust in you and their faith in you as you take up the task of defending our laws, our Constitution and this country we all love."

The process to replace Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg took less than 40 days, during which the Democrats did their usual screaming and yelling, adding to their complaints the quickness of the confirmation, and the very fact that it happened before the election.

Justice Clarence Thomas administered the Constitutional Oath to Barrett, and Chief Justice John Roberts will administer the Judicial Oath to her in a private ceremony at the Court on Tuesday.

The vote in favor of Amy Coney Barrett included all Republicans except Senator Susan Collins of the State of Maine.  All of the Democrats, along with two liberal left independents who normally caucus with them, voted against Barrett's confirmation.

While Schumer blasted the process as "a decades-long effort to tilt the courts towards the right," the Democrats have been silent about their desire to pack the court so that it leans left if they were to somehow pull off the presidential election and win back a majority in the U.S. Senate.  In truth, Barrett does not represent a move to the right as much as her confirmation represents a move to the middle, where the U.S. Constitution technically resides.  As for the talk about the court leaning left, or right, the truth is the court is supposed to be apolitical.  Ideological leanings are not supposed to matter since the job of the justices is not to support and defend a particular political party as much as it is to support and defend the U.S. Constitution.  Their job is to apply the law, and the Constitution, as it is written, and as it was originally defined, without political leanings playing a part.

The fear of the Democrats is that Barrett seeks to erase all of their liberal left advances, be it Obamacare, abortion, or any other unconstitutional federal intrusion.  But, as Barrett indicated, the courts can't just decide to take up an issue on its own.  A case must be presented, and if one is, then she has stated she will rule based on an originalist application of the law of the land, regardless of party preference.

The rule of law, after all, is what we are supposed to be about, right?

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Sunday, October 25, 2020

Saturday, October 24, 2020

Joe Biden's Favors for Riches

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

The Clinton Crime Family gave away our military secrets to China, long before the Benghazi gun running garbage, and long before the personal email servers in Hillary's bathroom were hidden, destroyed, or all of the above.  In other words, corruption is nothing new.  The Clintons have been playing that game a long time.  I have a friend who worked for the Clintons when Bill was governor of Arkansas, and he told me of a number of harrowing tales of corruption and voter fraud (I won't say much, yet, I don't want to spoil the release of his book about the whole thing), so corruption is something they have been up to for darn near as long as I have been alive.

The Obamas have a list of dirty laundry as long as that of the Clintons, as does Pelosi, Schumer, Schiff, and the list goes on, and on, and on.

And, guess what?  The Bidens are there, too.  Except, Joe Biden is the current candidate for President of the United States of the Democrat Party, so his dirty laundry is becoming an important topic of the nightly news ... well, the news that isn't a part of the fake media, anyway.

Due to recent revelations, we now know that Biden lied about not discussing business with his son, Hunter.  Ex-Biden associated Tony Bobulinski in a news conference proclaimed he knew, first hand, that Joe is lying.  Now, the FBI is talking to Bobulinski.  Joe Biden's involvement was to be kept hushed, and in the deal that was cooked up, Joe Biden got kickbacks.  Did Hunter's deals work, including money laundering as per his laptop, and happen because Joe was Vice President?  Were there favors by the elder Biden to be given in exchange?  So far, all signs point to "yes."

What about the photograph that includes Joe Biden with his son Hunter and the now jailed Burisma partner of said younger Biden?  Did that not happen, either, Joe?

How about text messages from Joe's brother, Jim, from the criminals thanking Joe for his time, and then making sure Joe's name is left out of it?  That's not even considering text messages from Joe to his son, Hunter, leaving out any hesitation about helping his son receive a million bucks from a Chinese Communist-Linked Business Partner.

The reality is that Joe Biden as Senator and Vice President was for sale, and our enemies beyond our shores were buying influence.

Meanwhile, The “Biden Center” at the University of Pennsylvania has accepted around $70 million in Chinese gifts since 2017 and failed to disclose these funds to the federal government.

When it is brought up, as Trump did so in the last debate, it is denied.  That's what the liberal left Democrats do.  Deny, deny, deny.  Well, that, and they like to claim "Russia did it."

With the Russia stuff, it has gotten to the point that they actually believe their own B.S.

Trump said it best in the debate.  "Every time you raise money, deals are made."

The Democrats have created a rigged system that protects corrupt politicians, but in the case of Joe Biden, they may not be able to protect him.  I think this corrupt politician is going to leave the free world in handcuffs.

The question is, will that be just the beginning?  An issuance of orange jumpsuits for other corrupt lefties would be a beautiful thing.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Constitution Radio: Eligibility

 Constitution Radio

with 

Douglas V. Gibbs, 



Saturdays, 1-3 pm Pacific

Call in Number: 951-922-3532.

Today's Topics:

Friday, October 23, 2020

Electors are not obligated to follow democratic vote

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

Originally, the electors were appointed by the State legislatures.  They began, for the most part, following the democratic vote of the people after 1828 under the urging of President Andrew Jackson, father of the Democratic Party, who believed that we should be a pure democracy (or at least a representative democracy).  Prior to that, the Electors voted independently, without any obligation to follow the vote of the people.  The job of the population was to lobby the electors for their candidates.  Since the change to the Electoral College was never done by amendment, technically, if the electors wanted to, they could still vote independently.  So, while the current thinking is that if the 2020 election is not resolved by the vote of the people (such as in a case of a 269-269 tie), the courts after a number of lawsuits are filed, or if there was massive voter fraud and it is believed the election is null and void because of it, which would then send the choice of President to the House of Representatives (1 vote per State), the reality is that if the electors wanted they could say the hell with the courts, and the voters, and in December when they meet they could vote as they wish, and that would technically be the election ... regardless of the vote by the people, regardless of the fraud, and regardless of any court ruling.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Friday, October 16, 2020

Who's Worried About the Coronavirus scamdemic?

By Douglas V. Gibbs

click on image to enlarge



-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Coronavirus Dystopia

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

From Jeckyll Island, Mises Institute truth and common sense about the scamdemic.

"It's almost like they take a perverse delight in this."




-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Wednesday, October 14, 2020

Temecula Constitution Class: Wrap up Prohibitions to the States

Wednesday Night's Temecula Constitution Class will be held at 5:30 pm at 28120 Jefferson Ave, center with Rosa's Cantina and Tortilla Factory, in back of center next to tattoo shop.

Constitution Class Handout
Instructor: Douglas V. Gibbs
 
 
 
Lesson 04
 
Legislative Prohibitions
 
Prohibitions to the Federal Government, and the States
 
 
- Prohibitions to the Federal Government
 
The Slave Trade and Immigration
 
The common misconception is that Article I, Section 9, Clause 1 is obsolete. The abolition of slavery in the United States made the clause obsolete, we are told. In reality, only a part of the clause is not longer in force. The clause addressed the Atlantic slave trade, and the migration of people into the United States. Slavery was abolished by Amendment 13 so the part of Article I, Section 9, Clause 1 that addresses slavery is obsolete. But is the part about migration still in force?
 
One could say that the "migration" portion of the clause is still in force because the 13th Amendment only addresses slavery. The standard belief among historians is that the entire clause is no longer in force.
 
The ramifications of this clause may indeed reach into today's issue regarding illegal immigration.
 
Why would the Founding Fathers include a mention of migration in a clause that is essentially geared toward the abolition of the importation of slaves?
 
The word "importation" in this clause applies wholly to slaves.
 
The word, migration, then, would seem to apply wholly to non-slaves.
 
The intention was that since the Constitution, as the contract that created our federal government, is a document that grants powers to the federal government, and that all authorities not expressly delegated, are reserved to the States, it was expected that immigration would remain as an issue that would be addressed by the States.
 
Other national governments prohibited migration as they saw fit, so the Founding Fathers determined that the new United States Government must have that same authority.
 
According to the clause, however, from the year 1808 Congress would possess the power to stop the importation of slaves, as well as the migration of people the Congress felt must be prohibited from entering this country as immigrants, through the Congress' power of legislation.
 
The Constitution was written specifically in regards to the federal government. All powers originally belonged to the States. Some of those authorities were granted to the federal government for the purpose of protecting and preserving the union. Therefore, all authorities regarding immigration originally belonged to the States, and before 1808 the States had sole authority regarding all immigration issues.
 
In Article I, Section 9, the federal government was given the opportunity to regulate immigration, but not until 1808. The reason for delaying the power to prevent migration were, to be simply put, to give the States twenty years to attract as many people as possible without Congressional regulatory consideration. After all, at this time in history we had immense and almost immeasurable territory, peopled by not more than two and a half million inhabitants. Therefore, migration was encouraged, especially of the kind of people that would bring a benefit to the new nation. The immigration of able, skilful, and industrious Europeans was encouraged.
 
Note that this clause gives the federal government the authority to prohibit certain persons from migrating into the United States, but it does not give the federal government the authority to dictate to the States which persons the States must admit inside their borders.
 
Habeas Corpus
 
Article I, Section 9, Clause 2 states that "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."
 
Habeas corpus is a legal term that means quite literally in Latin: "you may have the body." In legal terms, Habeas corpus is a writ that releases a prisoner from unlawful detention. Habeas corpus comes from British common law, and has historically served as an important legal instrument safeguarding individual freedom against arbitrary state action that includes detention without the due process of law.
 
A writ of habeas corpus is a summons with the force of a court order that demands a prisoner be taken before the court, and that the custodian present proof of authority, allowing the court to determine if the custodian has lawful authority to detain the person. If the custodian does not have authority to detain the prisoner, then the prisoner must be released from custody.
 
Habeas corpus is designed to protect citizens against any detention that is forbidden by law. The U.S. Constitution specifically includes the habeas procedure, and instructs the Congress not to suspend such unless the detainment is the result of a "Rebellion or Invasion," adding that "the public Safety may require it."
 
Normally, habeas corpus proceedings accompany questions of jurisdiction and authorities of the court that sentenced a defendant. The suspension of habeas corpus has recently become an issue regarding the detainment of terrorists, but one must ask if the public safety requires the suspension of habeas corpus in the case of terrorists, as prescribed in the Constitution. Secondly, one must consider that the Constitution applies to American citizens, so the question on whether or not Article I, Section 9, Clause 2 applies to captured combatants seems to be a moot point since it is obvious that the detained are not American Citizens, and therefore are not protected by Constitutional protections. Also, remember that Congress has the sole authority to make rules regarding captures on land and water as per Article I, Section 8, Clause 11.
 
Bills of Attainder
 
A Bill of Attainder is when the legislature declares the guilt of a person or group of persons, and punishes them without due process (the benefit of a trial).
 
In Britain, bills of attainder were used as a convenient way for the King to convict subjects of crimes and confiscate their property without the bother of a trial, and without the need for a conviction or indeed any evidence at all. Such actions were seen as tyrannical because often this power was used against political enemies, and the Founding Fathers did not wish to give the new federal government those same kinds of powers. Some states, prior to the Constitution, did use attainders against British loyalists, but the practice all but disappeared after the Constitution so specifically forbid the use of attainders by the U.S. Congress, and the States.
 
Prohibiting the use of bills of attainder serves a number of purposes. One purpose is that by disallowing the bills of attainder the separation of powers is reinforced. By disallowing bills of attainder, it literally forbids the legislature from performing a judicial function. Another purpose is in regard to the protection of the concept of due process, which was later reinforced by the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.
 
The true danger of a bill of attainder is that such a legislative act inflicts punishment without a judicial trial, and takes away the life, liberty or property of the target.
 
Ex Post Facto law
 
Ex post facto Law is literally retroactive law, or a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences (or status) of actions committed or relationships that existed prior to the enactment of the law. Ex post facto law could criminalize actions that were legal when committed, or in the case of amnesty laws, decriminalize certain acts or alleviate possible punishments. Generally speaking, ex post facto laws are seen as a violation of the rule of law as it applies in a free and democratic society. Ex post facto laws are expressly forbidden by the United States Constitution.
 
Direct Taxation
 
The U.S. Constitution originally forbade direct taxation upon the people by the federal government. Taxation of the people by the federal government could only be laid in relation to population. When the idea for the income tax came to fruition, an amendment (16th) had to be passed to allow for the direct taxation of the people without dependence upon the enumeration of the population.
 
Article I, Section 9, Clause 4 states that in addition to direct taxation, the federal government was forbidden from using Capitation. Capitation is a head tax. A Poll Tax is a kind of head tax. In the context of the period, any tax that singles out groups both directly and indirectly regardless of possession of lands or personal property is Capitation. Since Article I, Section 9 is a prohibitory section, the specific call by the Founding Fathers in that clause was that there shall be No Capitation, which included No Poll Tax.
 
In early New England, in keeping with traditions from the homeland, capitation (caput, meaning head), or poll taxes, were common. These taxes were levied as a way to manipulate the people for the "good of the government."
 
Alexander Hamilton, though condemning capitation taxes in his Federalist Papers writings, was in favor of "head taxes" for emergency revenue reasons. He felt that since sources for revenue were so few, if the government needed to expand for any reason, the ability to lay head taxes, or direct taxation, needed to be an option. However, most of the Founding Fathers disagreed, not only because of their belief that taxation must be indirect and small, but also because of their opinion that the federal government must remain limited to the few authorities granted to it by the U.S. Constitution.
 
Article I, Section 9, Clause 4 forbids Congress to lay a tax upon individuals except uniformly, and in proportion to the census provided for in Article I, Section 2, Clause 3, where this subject is first brought up. In other words, direct taxation was forbidden. What the federal government did was tax the States, based on proportion to the census, or enumeration. The States then taxed the people in order to pay the tax to the federal government. The method of taxation by the States was left up to each individual State. The federal government, in this way, used indirect taxation to tax the people.
 
As we have learned, the U.S. Constitution is not designed to necessarily tell the federal government what it can't do as much as it is designed to tell the federal government what few authorities it has. But the Founders felt this to be so important that in addition to not giving direct taxation to the Federal Government as an authority, they felt they must also spell it out that the Federal Government cannot tax in this manner in any form. This clause restricts the Congress a lot more because it is prohibitive. Article 1, Section 8 provides a list of "enumerated powers," but knowing that politicians would bend and twist meanings to gain more power, Article 1, Section 9 was designed to spell out some very specific things the Congress is prohibited from doing (such as direct taxation and capitation taxes).
 
Preference in Commerce
 
Article I, Section 9, Clause 6 states that "No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another."
 
This proposal was placed before the Constitutional Convention by the delegates from Maryland, their fear being that congressional legislation might prefer Chesapeake Bay ports of Virginia to those of their State. Under the Articles of Confederation, each State was free to impose duties and make regulations to the disadvantage of others, and it was desired that equality in commerce be maintained in the future. This also gives us a clue to the intentions of the Commerce Clause in Article I, Section 8. The Founding Fathers did not wish to give the Federal Government control over commerce, only the ability to ensure that commerce was maintained in an equitable manner in regards to the several States.
 
U.S. Treasury
 
Article I, Section 9, Clause 7 reads: "No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time."
 
This clause was inspired by the lessons learned in regards to merry old England. The Founding Fathers did not believe it should be in the power of the Executive alone, or of the legislature alone, to raise or spend the money at will. Article I, Section 7, Clause 1 requires that all bills for raising money must originate in the House of Representatives; but they must then pass the Senate and be signed by the President. In 1842 Congress began to make appropriations by joint resolution; but as that also must be approved by both Houses, and signed by the President, there is no real difference. Also, in the interest of transparency to the people, the records of all monetary transactions both of receipts and expenditures must be made available for public scrutiny.
 
Divided Allegiance
 
Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 reads: "No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State."
 
The Founding Fathers did not believe there should be any foreign influences in the affairs of our government.
 
This provision was taken from a provision in the first section of Article VI of the Articles of Confederation. It permitted persons holding office under a State to accept, with the consent of Congress, the objectionable gifts or distinctions; but the constitutions of at least two of the States at that time forbade them altogether. This republic, being a nation born as a result of the tyranny of a monarchy, should not grant titles of nobility, that much was easily understood. Nobility betrayed the trust and honor of the people through the use of prestige and favoritism. This was the kind of government that did not protect the liberties of the people.
 
Jefferson, as President, accepted from Alexander I of Russia a bust of that Emperor, which he said would be "one of the most valued ornaments of the retreat I am preparing for myself at my native home." He said that he had laid it down as a law of his official conduct not to accept anything but books, pamphlets, or other things of minor value; but his "particular esteem" from the Emperor "places his image in my mind above the scope of the law." However, without the consent of Congress, who was the final determining factor, he could not have accepted that gift.
 
In 1810 Congress proposed an amendment, the original Thirteenth amendment (some would call it the lost 13th Amendment because some records showed it was ratified, then suddenly disappeared - as explained below), to add a heavy penalty to this clause by this wording:
 
"If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive or retain any title of nobility or honor, or shall, without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding office of trust or profit under them, or either of them."
 
The people were told that the proposed amendment lacked the necessary ratifying votes. Ongoing research has shown that the proposed amendment was indeed properly ratified, the State Department WAS notified, and the amendment was on the books and records of the various States until at least 1876. From 1810 to 1812, twelve states ratified this amendment. The War of 1812 destroyed the library of Congress and these documents were thought destroyed, but in 1994 it was discovered they still exist after a chance discovery in Maine in 1983 made historians aware of the existence of the original 13th Amendment.
 
Terms:
 
Indirect Taxation: An indirect tax is contrasted with a direct tax which is collected directly by government from the people. An indirect tax, for example, may increase the price of a good so that consumers are actually paying the tax by paying more for the products. Another example of indirect taxation is for one entity to tax another entity, and then the second entity taxing the people to recoup the taxes it paid.
 
Joint Resolution: A joint resolution is a legislative measure requiring approval by the Senate and the House and then is presented to the President for approval or disapproval. There is generally no legal difference between a joint resolution and a bill. Laws enacted by virtue of a joint resolution are not distinguished from laws enacted by a bill. Constitutional amendments are passed by joint resolutions, which are instead presented to the States for ratification. Resolutions are often temporary in nature.
 
Questions for Discussion:
 
1. How was immigration regarded by the Founding Fathers?
 
2. Why is Habeas Corpus so important?
 
3. If the Founding Fathers disagreed with divided allegiance, what would they think of dual citizenship?
 
Resources:
 
Articles of Confederation, March 1, 1781; http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/artconf.asp
 
Larry Schweikart and Michael Allen, A Patriot's History of the United States; New York: Sentinel (2004).
 
Madison's Notes on the Constitutional Convention, Avalon Project, Yale University: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/debcont.asp
 
The Original 13th Article of Amendment; American Patriot Friend's Network:
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/13th.htm Thomas J. DiLorenzo, Hamilton's Curse; New York: Three Rivers Press (2008).
 
- Prohibitions to the States
 
The articles in the U.S. Constitution all apply to the federal government unless otherwise noted. Article I, Section 10, notes otherwise. Each clause begins with the words "No State shall," making Article I, Section 10 prohibitive to the States.
 
Article I, Section 10, Clause 1 begins by disallowing the States to enter into any treaty, alliance, or Confederation. The goal was to keep the union intact, have all dealings with foreign governments go through the federal government, and to ensure there was no divided loyalties among the States. Treaties and alliances are external issues.
 
The disallowance of the States entering into a confederation was the argument used against the Confederacy during the American Civil War. President Lincoln considered the southern states seceding and joining into a confederation to be unlawful, partly due to this clause in the Constitution. However, by seceding, the States no longer fell under the jurisdiction of the Constitution, making the Confederacy a legal arrangement.
 
No State could grant letters of Marque and Reprisal, or coin money. These authorities were granted to the federal government in Article I, Section 8. States were not allowed to coin money so that they would not use currency as a means to gain an unfair advantage over each other in relation to interstate commerce.
 
Article I, Section 10 prohibits the States from emitting bills of credit. Bills of credit take two forms. Bills of credit are receipts for currency, such as a treasury note, and bills of credit can be items of credit such as bonds. What this means is that the States could not issue paper money, nor could States issue instruments of debt. In other words, the States were not allowed to borrow money. Today, all but two States of the union are in debt. The State deficits are in violation of the U.S. Constitution.
 
The States were also disallowed from passing bills of attainder, ex post facto law, or passing any law that would impair the obligation of contracts. The States, as the federal government, could not issue any title of Nobility. Ex post facto law has become a large concern in recent politics. Ex post facto law is retroactive law. By disallowing the passage of ex post facto law, the States (just like the federal government) cannot constitutionally pass laws retroactively. A gun legal at the time of purchase cannot be made retroactively illegal. Immigrants who entered the State illegally cannot be made retroactively legal. A tax cannot be retroactively imposed, creating a sudden large balance of tax due.
 
States are allowed to tax imports or exports, but only with the consent of Congress. Because States are tasked with having their own inspection laws, any costs necessary for executing those inspection laws may be recouped through imposts or Duties without the consent of Congress.
 
"The net produce of all duties and imposts, laid by any State on imports or exports, shall be for the use of the Treasury of the United States." In other words, the States cannot over tax imports and exports. They are only to charge taxes necessary to cover their costs, such as "executing inspection laws." Any net produce, or what would be considered "profit" in the private sector, goes to the U.S. Treasury. All of the States inspection laws, or other laws regarding imports and exports, are also subject to revision and control by the Congress.
 
Having a military is also forbidden to the States in time of peace, except with the consent of Congress. However, if a State is invaded, or the State feels they are in imminent danger, they are allowed to form a military. Currently, 23 States have State Defense Forces, or "State Militias." In recent years, State Defense Forces have proven vital to homeland security and emergency response efforts.
 
 
 
Questions for Discussion:
 
1. What does the various prohibitions to the States have in common?
 
2. How do the prohibitions to the States relate to concepts like the Tenth Amendment?
 
Resources:
 
21st-Century Militia: State Defense Forces and Homeland Security, Heritage Foundation: http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/10/The-21st-Century-Militia-State-Defense-Forces-and-Homeland-Security
 
Madison's Notes on the Constitutional Convention, Avalon Project, Yale University: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/debcont.asp
 
UNITED STATES v. COMSTOCK (No. 08-1224), Clarence Thomas Dissenting Opinion (State Sovereignty): http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-1224.ZD.html (2010)
 
 
Copyright: Douglas V. Gibbs, 2015

Biden Criminal Revelations


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

● Joe Biden Calls a Lid and Hides in His Basement After Explosive Revelations From Hunter Biden’s Recovered Hard Drive
● Ukrainian Gas Company Burisma Was Under Investigation for Corruption While Hunter Biden Was Leveraging Relationship With His Father
● BOMBSHELL AUDIO: Biden, Obama Reportedly ‘Didn’t Really Want To Get’ Osama Bin Laden, ‘He [Was] Being Protected’
● Voters Have Right to Know What Joe Biden Did for Son Hunter
● President Trump: Biden Son-In-Law ‘Cashing In’ On Coronavirus: ‘Just Like Hunter; Where’s Hunter?’
● Federal Prosecutors Allege that Netflix Star Who Campaigned for Biden Assaulted 15-Year Old Boy in Public Restroom
● Glenn Beck: Joe Biden Is a Descendant of Slave Owners
● How Mentally Ill is Joe Biden? [Videos]
● Clinton-Tied Jeffrey Epstein Pedophile Pimp Ghislaine Maxwell Fights to Keep Court Papers of Her Perverted Sex Life Secret
● Democrat Party Executive From Colorado Calls for Violent Street War, Armed Communist 
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Tuesday, October 13, 2020

CDC and WHO admit Masks and Lockdown bad policy

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

 CDC: Masks Don't Work

WHO: Lockdowns Don't Work

Even the so-called experts are admitting the two main liberty-killing policies that the left has been using are worthless strategies against the novel coronavirus that is allegedly behind the scamdemic.

Here's some quotes from the horse's mouths themselves:

First, the CDC:

A Centers for Disease Control report released in September shows that masks and face coverings are not effective in preventing the spread of COVID-19, even for those people who consistently wear them.

A study conducted in the United States in July found that when they compared 154 “case-patients,” who tested positive for COVID-19, to a control group of 160 participants from the same health care facility who were symptomatic but tested negative, over 70 percent of the case-patients were contaminated with the virus and fell ill despite “always” wearing a mask.

“In the 14 days before illness onset, 71% of case-patients and 74% of control participants reported always using cloth face coverings or other mask types when in public,” the report stated.

There's more. 

"The study also demonstrates that under 4 percent of the case-patients became sick with the virus even though they 'never' wore a mask or face covering," The Federalist reported.

Under 4 percent.

Now for the World Health Organization:

Even the WHO is starting to warn about the dangers of a forced shutdown.
 
“We in the World Health Organization do not advocate lockdowns as the primary means of control of this virus,” WHO’s Special Envoy on COVID-19, David Nabarro, told The Spectator.
Nabarro points to economic fallout around the world as proof the measures do plenty of harm themselves.
 
With a patchwork of differing lockdown restrictions across the world, international travel has taken a major hit. Developing economies that depend on an influx of tourist cash are seemingly some of the worst off, with local businesses now facing a virtually nonexistent travel season.
American small businesses were not spared by lockdown orders either, and now a worrying number appear to be permanently closed.

 This economic devastation trickles down, harming not only those out of work but also the families who depend on them.

“Look what’s happening to poverty levels,” Nabarro said. “It seems that we may well have a doubling of world poverty by next year. We may well have at least a doubling of child malnutrition.”

In other words, I've been right all along.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary


Monday, October 12, 2020

Democrats ignore Constitution, Natural Law, and their own rules, in Barrett Hearing


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

In 2017 Democrat Senator Dianne Feinstein attacked Amy Coney Barrett's faith, saying, "the dogma speaks loudly within you," and then voiced her concern for Barrett's strong faith in Christ. Now, the Democrats are again violating the U.S. Constitution's Article VI. clause by applying a religious test to Barrett's nomination for a seat on the United States Supreme Court. Her religious views on homosexuality, abortion, and other issues, places the Democrats in a panic. Godliness stands against their vile and evil platform.

Another thing that frightens the Democrats is that Judge Barrett is a constitutional originalist. She stated in her opening statement she believes judges are supposed to rule based on the law as it is written. Since healthcare is not listed as an authority vested in the federal government in the U.S. Constitution, that means she would likely, in addition to ruling against gay agenda demands and pro-abortion items, rule against federal intrusion into the private health insurance industry as we have seen with the Affordable Care Act.

Not only, by taking these routes, are the Democrats violating the U.S. Constitution, but they are also going after Barrett based on how they think she will rule in the future, a move that goes against a rule established by the Senate, and is known as "The Ginsburg Rule." In fact, Ruth Bader Ginsburg was very strict about her position on her future rulings, refusing to discuss anything about how she may rule in the future, and explaining that nobody, including the press or other politicians, had any business demanding from a justice how they might rule in the future.

Democrat Presidential Candidate Joe Biden was also a defender of the position of not going after judges regarding how they might rule in the future. In 1993, as Confirmation Chairman regarding Ginsburg's confirmation hearing, "he established certain rules for questioning nominees -- rules that some of his fellow Democrats seem to have conveniently forgotten...The Biden rules stipulated that she had no obligation to answer questions about her personal views or on issues that might come before the Court. Despite her silence, the Senate confirmed Ginsburg, 93-3...last week, three Democratic senators -- Patrick Leahy, Richard Durbin and Chuck Schumer -- were already promising to violate the "Ginsburg Rule," not to mention the Model Code of Judicial Conduct...Canon 5 of the Model Code, among others, forbids judges or judicial candidates from indicating how they will rule on issues likely to come before the courts or making any statement that would create the appearance they are not impartial. This rule is critical to an independent judiciary. Justices must remain open-minded when an actual case comes before them. They must not even hint how they would rule...Senator Biden [in 1993] began the hearing by noting that nominees almost never testified during their confirmation hearings prior to 1955. In 1949, one nominee was called to testify but refused and was still confirmed. Biden warned senators not to ask questions about "how [Ginsburg] will decide any specific case that may come before her." Ginsburg, then serving on the same court as Judge Roberts does today, followed Biden's roadmap...Near the end of her hearing, Ginsburg explained, "my own views and what I would do if I were sitting in the legislature are not relevant to the job for which you are considering me, which is the job of a judge."...Senators Leahy, Durbin and Schumer already have announced they won't honor the Ginsburg Rule for Republican nominees. They are certain to ask inappropriate and wrongful questions."

In fact, so far the Democrats have asked or said nothing regarding Barrett's record as a judge, or the fact that the American Bar Association has given her their highest rating. Their focus has been on how she is a threat in the future based on how they believe she will rule in the future. In his opening statement, Senator Lindsey Graham called them on all of it.

The Republicans have also recognized the liberal left's religious bigotry, a hatred for Christianity that has been emerging quite a bit, lately.

As Democrats like Senators Booker and Blumenthal during the first day of the confirmation hearing said, they believe there is nothing normal about this hearing, and that common sense is under threat.  In truth, they were actually simply revealing how little they know about the Constitution (or how easily they were willing to violate it). They are afraid Judge Barrett will join the other constitutionally minded justices on the High Court in stopping the Democrats from violating your right to keep and bear arms, the right of the unborn not to be murdered in the womb, and the radical attacks on our culture by extreme groups, agendas and ideologies that the Democrats not only support, but encourage. 

The fact that Barrett clerked for Justice Scalia and holds what his views were regarding the Constitution scares them. The Constitution scares them. It is an obstacle for their hard left plans to change America into something the Founding Fathers never intended. As was Scalia's reasoning, so is hers. As she explained in her opening statement when talking about her judicial philosophy, as well as Scalia's, "A judge must apply the law as written, not as the judge wishes it were. Sometimes that approach meant reaching results that he did not like. But as he put it in one of his best known opinions, that is what it means to say we have a government of laws, not of men."

Such is the difference between the rule of law and the rule of men. As I like to explain, if you abandon the rule of law, and embrace the rule of men as the Democrats are calling for, it won't be long before we start dancing around a golden calf.

Finally, both Kamala Harris and Joe Biden have avoided the court packing question. The Democrats have on numerous occasions said that if they can't get their way politically, they will pack the Supreme Court with their own judges to force a Democrat majority. When exposed, they did what they usually do, and pointed fingers back at the Republicans.  According to the Democrats, it is actually the Republicans packing the court, calling the confirmation hearing of Barrett an example of the GOP packing the court. How stupid do they think we are? Packing the court with additional justices is not the same thing as President Trump constitutionally nominating a candidate, and the Senate constitutionally working on confirming that candidate. And to be honest, they are lucky there is at least a confirmation hearing going on, because the hearing is not constitutionally required. Only the confirmation vote is.

In the end, however, this is all a good thing. As usual, the Democrats are revealing to the rest of America what we've known they are all along. Anti-American, anti-Constitution, and Anti-Christian. And yet, somehow, they think letting us know those things about them will help them regain power ... which, by the way, is what it is all about when it comes to the Democrats. Power.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary